Australian Rugby / RA

[WorkingClassRugger]

You tweak all plans whether they are one year, two year, five year or 20 year. If tweaking is only done every five years, then the plan is lost before it's even begun.

Five year plans are often glosssy box-ticking exercises more at home in Stalin's Russia or Mao's China rather than the 21st century.

Sorry, I probably should of been a little more clear. The 5 year plan would be the overall goals, objectives and implementations set out initially. At the end of each year elements are assessed and effectiveness determined. Any changes thaat are needed on that basis are made. The 5 year is more of a strategic plan.

 

[Dave Beat]

Still, I think what is needed is structured competition over just 4 or 5 visits a year. This is merely ancedotal but from experience the retention rates with these sort of programs tends to be neglible. Rugby is a game you have to play. I've found once most play it and get it they tend to stick with it.

Was at a rugby lunch on Friday, sat next to a pom who got brought up on Soccer but now loves rugby have never played the game.

He said he was never introduced to rugby when he was young.

Work on introduction way way back at the start - as WCR says - once most play it, and get it they tend to stick.

 

[p.Tah]

Based on the fact the Shute Shield clubs (or more precisely Brett Papworth's PR campaign) claim they're the hotbed for player development in Australia, are they going to put their hand up and take the blame for the lack of decent front row players we have?
Being beaten by a 7 man QLD scrum is humiliating.

 

[Dave Beat]

Based on the fact the Shute Shield clubs (or more precisely Brett Papworth's PR campaign) claim they're the hotbed for player development in Australia, are they going to put their hand up and take the blame for the lack of decent front row players we have?
Being beaten by a 7 man QLD scrum is humiliating.

Interesting though - lets have a look at Shute Shield players playing elsewhere to see the real importance.

Ala'alatoa (x 2), Sio, Talaki, Neville, Petersen, Jones, Reid, Fardy, Pyle, Cowan, Weeks i good list plus possibly a few more - possibly shows the importance / reliance of that pathway and ensuring quantity lifts quality.

A real shame that of our 5 franchises, Australia has only 3 starting halves - we need to grow the numbers playing, and support the pathways that are in place.

 

[p.Tah]

it was a sarcastic post. I don't want to bore everyone by going over these arguments again.
I must say I'm looking forward to seeing Neville, Jones, Reid, Fardy and Pyle packing down in the front row

 

[TOCC]

Interesting though - lets have a look at Shute Shield players playing elsewhere to see the real importance.

Ala'alatoa (x 2), Sio, Talaki, Neville, Petersen, Jones, Reid, Fardy, Pyle, Cowan, Weeks i good list plus possibly a few more - possibly shows the importance / reliance of that pathway and ensuring quantity lifts quality.

Luke Jones and Greg Peterson had Super Rugby contracts before they ever played in the Shute Shield.

 

[Dave Beat]

Luke Jones and Greg Peterson had Super Rugby contracts before they ever played in the Shute Shield.

That would be true, my point though is / was ensuring we are growing our playing numbers.

I have said all premier clubs should be looking to grow grass roots with the support of the ARU (but do nothing get nothing applies).

Thus my example with the halfbacks 3 outa 5.

I think it is the u5s -> u18s that need the focus, yeah players well before premier rugby - but the future of our game.

 

[wamberal]

Based on the fact the Shute Shield clubs (or more precisely Brett Papworth's PR campaign) claim they're the hotbed for player development in Australia, are they going to put their hand up and take the blame for the lack of decent front row players we have?
Being beaten by a 7 man QLD scrum is humiliating.

There are good front rowers. Like Jed Gillespie.

 

[Dave Beat]

JGC would be much more competitive if we had the players with the most talent not the most money! Pappy's blog shows where the money grab is going!!


http://www.rugbynews.net.au/a-grassroots-perspective-on-the-arus-strategic-plan/

I started this thread because i was concerned that the ARU was so far out of touch with Australian Rugby they didn't seem to know what it was.

Read the above blog last night - and just in case it didn't copy and past;


http://www.rugbynews.net.au/a-grassroots-perspective-on-the-arus-strategic-plan/

And as Brett says, a number of rugby clubs have boards with greater acumen than the ARU, plus knowledge of our game - and are working hard for the good of our game.

 

[dru]

I read it last night too Dave and decided to leave it alone.

It did need to be added into this conversation but does not in my mind add to the conversation. Perhaps a rallying cry to the faithful.

The position taken throughout these discussions is to misrepresent with doses of "the good we do" thrown in. They then misdirect questions regarding the misrepresentation with answers on "the good we do".

Shute Shield is not the grass roots. It was an attempt at elite/high level/ quasi professional (pick your time in history) to develop representational players. I would imagine that at the time of initiation the clubs were centered more-or-less over the demographic areas of rugby playing numbers.

It is no longer the case. The average experience of a reasonable rugby player in Sydney (not someone born on the east strip and schooled in the Ivy league) is NOT a traditional club building social and community strength and providing opportunity. These goals exist but to continue the "traditional" pathway they must move to the Shute Shield.

Or the player was selected earlier through "non-traditional" pathways and the point is mute.

Papworth is deliberately arrogating the age groups, subbies and premier comps outside Sydney when he says "grass roots". But it isnt what he is asking for. He wants funding skewed from the the mix to approx 2000 of the approx 9000 rugby players in Sydney (and lets be silent on Qld and attack the other States).

Id support assistance to the Shute Shield to transform. More democratic or even opportunites. The 12 clubs should be 12 regions which equally replicate the demographic rugby playing numbers across Sydney. An elite team drawing from the local subbies who are acually bought into that team. (As opposed to this happening only in the Shute Shield areas), and then the Shute Shield club running the subbies and age groups at their feet and truly developing rugby across Sydney.

No doubt there are others ways to achieve relevance to the Shute Shield. (By the way, the model described replicates roughly my understanding of the Currie Cup and the Provincial Unions in Africa)

But the Shute Shield has no interest in anything that does not protect and prosper their elite position.

Another error is the belief that the "traditional pathways" are replete with professional standard players. The NRC has shown this to be far from the case. There is however certainly an issue around late bloomers. And no doubt the early contract player pathways need care to avoid a privalleged viewpoint as they mature. Matters which do not in themselves justify the Shute Shields elite position

There is also an intention skew the ARU role and funding. The ARU can never replicate the grass roots input and contacts in the community. It would be an error to try. They should see funds where possible and living within their means to the Unions. NSWRU takes a fee from the Waratahs - which would be worthless without ARU guiding the professional game. They also provide funds to the NSWRU.

It is expected that those funds are then invested in the game. Direct funding from the ARU should only occur when there are specific policy objectives.

I completely concur with the real and actual meaning of "The ARU should fund the grass roots". I think the ARU does too. I think Dwyer and Papworth are smoke and mirrors.

 

[Dave Beat]

I read it last night too Dave and decided to leave it alone.

I completely concur with the real and actual meaning of "The ARU should fund the grass roots". I think the ARU does too. I think Dwyer and Papworth are smoke and mirrors.

I believe the the Premier Clubs are far more in touch with Grass Roots than the ARU - they are touching it and are involved in it. Again I say Premier Clubs, not SS - as per the name i gave this thread Australian Rugby / ARU.

• Australian Rugby is grass Roots.
• I believe ARU is sitting on a pedestal at the moment.

 

[I like to watch]

I have had kids have played both village & School Rugby for over a decade.
The clubs & Schools they played with have NEVER seen $1 nor had 1 session with any ARU funded programs.
Last year BP placed a levy on any kid wanting to play the sport.

That's the grassroots, and that's the contribution BP makes...a tax!

 

[Dave Beat]

I have had kids have played both village & School Rugby for over a decade.
The clubs & Schools they played with have NEVER seen $1 nor had 1 session with any ARU funded programs.
Last year BP placed a levy on any kid wanting to play the sport.

That's the grassroots, and that's the contribution BP makes.a tax!

Spot on.

• I haven't seen a business plan, or support that looks to grow the number of kids playing our game.
• At the moment AFL is ruling our junior school system and unfortunately the ARU has sat back and watched it happen.
• People say it is cash that allows the AFL to do that, maybe, what could the BMW Sponsorship have done to start infiltrating the schools.

 

[barbarian]

I can’t take Brett Papworth seriously. He’s speaking purely out of self interest, which is fine, but basically he wants this argument to be black and white - ‘guardians of rugby vs corporate dickheads’. And it just isn’t. He doesn’t want Shute clubs to be painted as ‘only interested in getting a few dollars, and full of self interest’, so instead accuses the ARU of being exactly that.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. The ARU aren’t incompetent, and I’d actually they are as competent now as I have ever seen them (NRC is growing, TV deal was massive, Syd 7s a success, Wallabies going well too). Clubland probably deserves a bit more love, but the days when they are the only game in town as far as player development goes are long gone – and the richer Shute Shield clubs themselves are culpable in part for the death of the game in Western Sydney by systematically pillaging their club talent stocks over the past 10-15 years.

Instead Papworth basically takes the personal argument, and says ‘we know better than you suits because we’re there on a Saturday morning putting out cones’. And I’m not sure that’s the smartest way to go about it, because I’m not sure it’s true. He needs to show why money in their pockets will help the game more than being in the pockets of the ARU or Super development programs.

 

[Braveheart81]

I have had kids have played both village & School Rugby for over a decade.
The clubs & Schools they played with have NEVER seen $1 nor had 1 session with any ARU funded programs.
Last year BP placed a levy on any kid wanting to play the sport.

That's the grassroots, and that's the contribution BP makes.a tax!

Those clubs might not receive direct funding, but there is certainly money that was originally generated by the ARU through the professional game which goes towards that.

Referee courses, coaching courses, IT systems that the clubs use, funding to NSWRU some of which should flow down to helping these competitions to exist.

It is such a furphy when anyone suggests that the ARU charged juniors to help prop up the professional game. It is simply untrue.

Most of the surplus generated by the ARU does flow to the state unions to spend as they see fit to hopefully fund the grassroots game. The ARU conducts some development activities and controls the elite development pathways like JGC/U20 etc.

There is plenty to fault the ARU on but for the first time in a long time they seem to be focused on actually trying to strengthen the framework around the game across the country and develop ways to grow participation.

If part of every players fees is a levy to help the ARU deliver this framework then I don't see that as a bad thing. Many people have compared the costs of kids sports and rugby is not expensive. It would seem that rugby has been living beyond its means at all levels for a long time because people weren't being charged enough and not enough money was spent on modernising the systems in place and helping rugby compete with other sports for participants.

 

[Braveheart81]

Spot on.

• I haven't seen a business plan, or support that looks to grow the number of kids playing our game.
• At the moment AFL is ruling our junior school system and unfortunately the ARU has sat back and watched it happen.
• People say it is cash that allows the AFL to do that, maybe, what could the BMW Sponsorship have done to start infiltrating the schools.

The ARU seems to have a far more coherent plan regarding these things than they have had for a very long time.

It would be pretty easy to argue that when more control rested with NSWRU and the Shute Shield clubs as being the dominant voices in rugby in NSW, less was being done to combat these issues.

 

[I like to watch]

How much does it cost the ARU to conduct a referees course?

When I did mine(early 2000's) it was conducted in a SS club, and run by volunteers?

It's not a furphy to suggest that both AFL & NRL spend significantly more on a percentage basis than the ARU on the development of the game.
Rather than levying the kids they are investing in them.

If you are comparing the cost of kids sport then both League & AFL are considerably cheaper than Rugby.

 

[barbarian]

It's not a furphy to suggest that both AFL & NRL spend significantly more on a percentage basis than the ARU on the development of the game.

Rather than levying the kids they are investing in them.

If you are comparing the cost of kids sport then both League & AFL are considerably cheaper than Rugby.

Are these three statements true, though? Has anyone got the figures?

They are throwaway lines that are bandied around a bit in this debate, with no hard facts to back them up - and I know for certain that soccer charges considerably more for junior registration.

A cursorary google search reveals this article: http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2...-over-the-high-cost-of-childrens-sports-poll/ which shows rugby is about on par with other codes, though it may have risen slightly since due to the participation levy.

They could well be true, but I'd like to see more than just broad statements that 'code X do way more at grassroots than rugby'.
.

 

[dru]

I believe the the Premier Clubs are far more in touch with Grass Roots than the ARU - they are touching it and are involved in it. Again I say Premier Clubs, not SS - as per the name i gave this thread Australian Rugby / ARU.

• Australian Rugby is grass Roots.
• I believe ARU is sitting on a pedestal at the moment.

Of course the Shute Shield is closer to the grass roots than the ARU. Much like the NSWRU has to be closer to the grass roots than NSW Waratahs Limited.

Shute Shield is not close enough to the Subbies though, which is where the vast bulk of the grass roots sits in Sydney.

ILTW I hear you. ARU are not beyond raproach.

The latest Annual Reports published are 2014 which I realise isnt now.

Still, NSWRU recieved just under $0.5M direct from ARU and another just over $1.5M in licence fee from Waratahs Ltd (as mentioned previousl a licence that would be worthless without ARU managing the professional game). These funds are added to other income to disperse services to the Grass Roots.

EDIT: In this year the ARU funded the associate unions to $3.7M, a hell of a funding priority given they had a deficit of $6.3M that same year.

That seems appropriate to me, but if you are looking for ARU logos on those services I suspect you might not find them.

But the NSWRU, being closer to the grass roots, apprpriately lists many grass root services.

At the same time ARU lists some of the following (not an exhaustive list) which sound like grass roots input to me. I'm not close enough though, so would to hear how effective those involved found it:
VIVA 7s
Australian Sports Commission -Sporting Schools Programme
National Rugby Week
NAIDOC cup
Pathways to Gold
Junior Gold Cup
There are others

ARU simply can not run the grass roots. Its role is to support the unions. Direct funding of initiatives needs to be prioritised and balanced with the finances.

Btw the ARU report 2014 talks about the fee introduction a funding model for self sustaining at the grass roots - national registration fee automatically directed to the State to provide services. Did this end up somewhere else? Damn right to be annoyed if that is the case.

Look, I realise for every "like" I get on this topic, if there was a "donkey" button I'd get two. But I sincerely think the ARU is not being properly represented and I do find Dwyer and Papworth shallow and obvious.

Anyway, someone said earlier that its getting boring. Probably.

 

[barbarian]

Has anyone actually seen the 5 year plan??

Would love to have a look and see whether the rhetoric from both sides matches what is actually on paper.
.