Australian Rugby / RA

[Train Without a Station]

Dru fair.

• So Premier Clubs grow numbers.
• ARU gets a return because of Levies.
• Premier Clubs stay engaged and benefit because of players.
• Supporter numbers grow ARU benefits.

Work out financial structure for this to happen, and there could be multiple wins.

• retaining the do nothing get nothing.

Has funding the SS Clubs resulted in a growth in numbers?

From my understanding, the period of the greatest investment in SS Clubs coincided with a long regression in playing numbers. If I'm correct, why would the ARU continue to fund this level as a priority over other areas.

Certainly if the ARU had the money to fund $500k annually to each Premier Grade Club, this would help the game. But that would be something like $25M. And that would be ideal if funding was already directed to help junior numbers grow and regions like Western Sydney and expansion territories grow (at junior level).

 

[Dave Beat]

Has funding the SS Clubs resulted in a growth in numbers?

From my understanding, the period of the greatest investment in SS Clubs coincided with a long regression in playing numbers. If I'm correct, why would the ARU continue to fund this level as a priority over other areas.

Certainly if the ARU had the money to fund $500k annually to each Premier Grade Club, this would help the game. But that would be something like $25M. And that would be ideal if funding was already directed to help junior numbers grow and regions like Western Sydney and expansion territories grow (at junior level).

Still no ideas TWAS.

My suggestion is to have funding of premier clubs directly related growing numbers of kids playing.

I've shared an example of this in the decline of Junior Rugby thread - last 3 or so pages. I have taken an active rule in this, conducted allot of research, we have a business plan the gets reviewed each term - and have had fantastic support from various entities.

I say again TWAS - we do you always rant on about SS, and dont provide ideas, structures, and actual plans.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I'd throw that in the bin as a business plan.

SWOT, Who / What / How.

It's not exactly rocket surgery. We aren't reinventing the wheel.

Who are our most successful competitors? What have they done to increase growth in new regions?

To me that's AFL. They've funded DO's to go to new schools and basically run competitions and clinics. They've funded the costs of junior level to remove the cost barrier from entry as well as developing low cost options for the youngest children. They've supported the very weakest clubs.

What I haven't seen is a code grow by funding it's state league level semi-elite clubs at the expense of other areas.

For all this discussion about levies, have the SS Clubs not received more in direct funding than they have provided in levies until 2015?

 

[Train Without a Station]

Still no ideas TWAS.

My suggestion is to have funding of premier clubs directly related growing numbers of kids playing.

I've shared an example of this in the decline of Junior Rugby thread - last 3 or so pages. I have taken an active rule in this, conducted allot of research, we have a business plan the gets reviewed each term - and have had fantastic support from various entities.

I say again TWAS - we do you always rant on about SS, and dont provide ideas, structures, and actual plans.

And you just say essentially continue funding to the same people who when they received collectively about $10M in funding over a bit over a decade, coincided with the decline.

 

[Dave Beat]

To me that's AFL. They've funded DO's to go to new schools and basically run competitions and clinics. They've funded the costs of junior level to remove the cost barrier from entry as well as developing low cost options for the youngest children. They've supported the very weakest clubs.

What I haven't seen is a code grow by funding it's state league level semi-elite clubs at the expense of other areas.

For all this discussion about levies, have the SS Clubs not received more in direct funding than they have provided in levies until 2015?

Do we operate with the same bank balance as AFL?
If we do the ARU have definately let us down.
If we don't we make use of the resources we have and reinvest as we grow.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Do we operate with the same bank balance as AFL?
If we do the ARU have definately let us down.
If we don't we make use of the resources we have and reinvest as we grow.

Exactly. By targeting the areas they do to receive the best growth. That leads ultimately to more funds, which will fund growth in the less efficient areas.

Back to your proposed funding based on measurable progress. How do you intend to address the uneven playing field where clubs like yourself, Manly, are in Rugby strongholds and will have a much easier time in achieving growth than areas where there is much more competition like Parramatta and Penrith. Or do the strong just get stronger and weak continue to be left behind?

 

[Dave Beat]

And you just say essentially continue funding to the same people who when they received collectively about $10M in funding over a bit over a decade, coincided with the decline.

You are not reading what i post - i have said repeatedly on this topic.
"Do Nothing Get Nothing"
That means there will be no funding if there are no results.
Funding will only come with results.
It is then called Reinvestment.

 

[Dave Beat]

Back to your proposed funding based on measurable progress. How do you intend to address the uneven playing field where clubs like yourself, Manly, are in Rugby strongholds and will have a much easier time in achieving growth than areas where there is much more competition like Parramatta and Penrith. Or do the strong just get stronger and weak continue to be left behind?

It is called working, and doing things well repeatedly, you then get results.

You referenced Parramata - look at there achievements over the last circa 5 years. It was about 5 years ago they had about 100 points in them in 1st & 2nd grade - since then there numbers have grown, and there over all standing has grown - only a couple of weeks back they were in the Sydney 7's final against Randwick.

I'll say again;

"Do Nothing Get Nothing"​

That means there will be no funding if there are no results.​

Funding will only come with results.​

It is then called Reinvestment.​

Based on population demographic, the areas you referenced have the greatest potential to show growth (do something) and thus return (get something). Throwing cash out west with no plan, or structure will provide no results. ​

It would also mean a strong hold like Sydney Uni may also look at focusing in the right age groups to ensure grass roots growth.

 

[Lindommer]

To reply to the question of growth in SS clubs, in my time of involvement in Sydney club rugby (1997->) the numbers have gone down from five grades and four colts to four grades and three colts. Even then some clubs can't make up teams in all the colts (check Parramatta's, Penrith's and Gordon's team lists the last few years). In the last few years there've been suggestions to shrink the team numbers further and direct the offcuts to subbies.

In my view the old adage "the weakest link defines the strength of the chain" holds true. There's little to be gained by giving money to the likes of Randwick, Eastwood, Sydney Uni or Manly, it'll only be used for their self aggrandisement. Most bang for rugby's buck would be gained by effort and recources spent in Sydney's western, and south-western, suburbs. Starting with Parramatta and Penrith. And Campbelltown subbies. I'd go so far as to suggest cutting one club in Sydney's north or east and promoting Campbelltown to premier level.

 

[Dave Beat]

To reply to the question of growth in SS clubs, in my time of involvement in Sydney club rugby (1997->) the numbers have gone down from five grades and four colts to four grades and three colts. Even then some clubs can't make up teams in all the colts (check Parramatta's, Penrith's and Gordon's team lists the last few years). Even now there's a move to shrink the team numbers further and direct the offcuts to subbies.

In my view the old adage "the weakest link defines the strength of the chain" holds true. There's little to be gained giving money to the likes of Randwick, Eastwood, Sydney Uni or Manly, it'll only be used for their self aggrandisement. Most bang for rugby's buck would be gained by effort and recources spent in Sydney's western, and south-western, suburbs. Starting with Parramatta and Penrith. And Campbelltown subbies. I'd go so far as to suggest cutting one club in Sydney's north or east and promoting Campbelltown to premier level.

Interesting points there, what is odd and i haven't said before because i cant explain - you referenced pre 97, that's starting to get back to the amatuer days when the evil curse of money and professionalism wasn't as rife.
Yeah back in the days -----------.
Drummoyne Dirty Reds had 6 grades.
Three Colts teams.
And whilst they got relegated, another year or two may have seen them strengthen as required - there was Drummoyne players in the 97 GF, and a number filtered off to strong SS Clubs - I think Nths picked up a number.

So is it focus, and taking things for granted that has resulted on our current position - I think it is.


You've used the word giving above, I haven't liked or used that word.
Using Growth = Reward I'll try and explain

North Shore Mini's (U6 / U7) Population 1,000
Mini's playing rugby in 2015 - 250,
Mini's playing rugby in 2016 - 250, 0% - bone lazy and nothing
Mini's playing rugby in 2016 - 300, 20% increase = $?
Mini's playing rugby in 2016 - 350, 40% increase = $? a bit more.

Out west Mini's (U6 / U7) Population 5,000
Mini's playing rugby in 2015 = 250
Mini's playing rugby in 2015 = 250, 0% - bone lazy and nothing.
Mini's playing rugby in 2016 = 500, 100% increase = $alot more.

Results need to be seen, the $return is based on % increase, number of kids playing, retention run off. In my eyes out west has a far greater potential to work hard and get results / return than the areas competing with Private Schools etc.

Interesting times, I think we have the best product, it is how we engage it.

 

[Train Without a Station]

But see, you lump in the greater population of Western Sydney requiring greater numbers, but ignore their greater competition.

With the strength of RL, and the investment AFL have made, I'd wager every new player requires more effort out west than it does on the North Shore or the Eastern Suburbs.

With Rugby's dominance in these areas, essentially targeting nobody new would result in numbers growth due to population increases and other codes not stealing numbers.

Bust your gut out West and you're still a lesser code so the bigger code (RL) is attracting numbers whilst AFL is working hard to steal them too.

 

[Dave Beat]

But see, you lump in the greater population of Western Sydney requiring greater numbers, but ignore their greater competition.

With the strength of RL, and the investment AFL have made, I'd wager every new player requires more effort out west than it does on the North Shore or the Eastern Suburbs.

With Rugby's dominance in these areas, essentially targeting nobody new would result in numbers growth due to population increases and other codes not stealing numbers.

Bust your gut out West and you're still a lesser code so the bigger code (RL) is attracting numbers whilst AFL is working hard to steal them too.

I'd expect the business plans, targets, and returns to be different in each geographic area for the reasons you have stated below. I've only mentioned mini's in that example, I'd have a huge focus on the year 6, 7, 8 retention age group as well - and that is a different measure.

I'd go one step further and say it is the respective clubs to formulate the business plan, negotiate it, amend it, and once agreed formulate it so it can be executed upon. It is the clubs that are seeking funding, so maybe they provide the plan, and do the work - banks don't just hand out cash because you have a hand out, and i have never said the ARU should simply hand out cash either, I have looked to share ideas

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

To reply to the question of growth in SS clubs, in my time of involvement in Sydney club rugby (1997->) the numbers have gone down from five grades and four colts to four grades and three colts. Even then some clubs can't make up teams in all the colts (check Parramatta's, Penrith's and Gordon's team lists the last few years). In the last few years there've been suggestions to shrink the team numbers further and direct the offcuts to subbies.

In my view the old adage "the weakest link defines the strength of the chain" holds true. There's little to be gained giving money to the likes of Randwick, Eastwood, Sydney Uni or Manly, it'll only be used for their self aggrandisement. Most bang for rugby's buck would be gained by effort and recources spent in Sydney's western, and south-western, suburbs. Starting with Parramatta and Penrith. And Campbelltown subbies. I'd go so far as to suggest cutting one club in Sydney's north or east and promoting Campbelltown to premier level.

While I think that would be a great idea it would have to come with a comprehenisve plan to grow the game in the area. Just looking at the Macarthur region at present there is a little over 250,000 people living in the area. That's set to at least double in the next 15 years.That's not including the Wollondilly (given proximity would likely fall in a Campbelltown Grade setups catchment) which will see Wilton add another 50,000 residents in that time.

I know how I'd do it but others may have different thoughts.

 

[Dave Beat]

I know how I'd do it but others may have different thoughts.

Thoughts are the 1%ers - the most successful businesses value the 1%ers

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Thoughts are the 1%ers - the most successful businesses value the 1%ers

Okay. I would go as far as to establish a regional Union. I'm just going to call it the Macarthur/Wollondily RFU. Within the Union we have one representative entity in the Campbelltown Harlequins. They would be run by the Union. The mandate of the Union would be the development and administration of competitions particularly focused at juniors. This would be done intially via schools as they offer the most potential value in terms of reach. The goal will be to use these schools as bases to establish clubs. Another aspect would be to establish hybrid competitions that involve a mix of both clubs and schools were necesary.

 

[Dave Beat]

Okay. I would go as far as to establish a regional Union. I'm just going to call it the Macarthur/Wollondily RFU. Within the Union we have one representative entity in the Campbelltown Harlequins. They would be run by the Union. The mandate of the Union would be the development and administration of competitions particularly focused at juniors. This would be done intially via schools as they offer the most potential value in terms of reach. The goal will be to use these schools as bases to establish clubs. Another aspect would be to establish hybrid competitions that involve a mix of both clubs and schools were necesary.

Sounds good - I thought the prep school barrier would be easier to break through than what it is. In our area PSSA has alot to do with it so it is http://www.sports.det.nsw.edu.au/nswpssa/forms/index.htm
that requires allot of research and what needs to be worked with.
We have eagle tag, and then not allot else so it is a case of selling rugby, getting sign off and then getting school sign off.

 

[Highlander35]

This thread seems to be another shit fight re: Shite Shield and Hospitals Cup funding and whether or not they count as grassroots.

Fundamentally they seem to be trapped between an elite structure (in a closed invitational league rather than part of a pyramid) and the grassroots aspect of village clubs in terms of community engagement, and fielding sides way down to 4ths and 3rd colts.

For mine, that is the one redeeming factor to the English Pyramid. If you want to play with the big boys, you improve your side, you pay your players and coaches, you move up. You want to keep it amateur and community based, that's what you do, you slide up or down the pyramid to the level you want to be. If you want to do both, you can split the club and field sides in both the professional tiers and the ammo tiers.

Scottish did that exact thing. After 4 Seasons of professionalism (3 in the Championship, 1 in the Premiership), they gave up the goose in '99, declared insolvency, and reinserted themselves at the bottom of the pyramid. After 7 promotions in a decade, they split the club into amateurs and professionals, the former of which plays in about the 7th division, and the latter in the Championship, the 2nd division.

A closed shop elite structure (say 8-10 teams running 3 open age sides, with an U23 quota, and 2 Colts sides with an U19 Quota) would be worth funding. As would the top tier of a community pyramid with opportunities for promotion and relegation. Right now they, in particular the Shute Shield, seems to be neither, and hence the sticking point.

 

[Dave Beat]

H35 some good content there, other codes, other countries, always interested in the supporter base they generate and the interest they capture.

 

[barbarian]

Been thinking a bit more about this. A lot of it comes back to what the role of the ARU is. Taking it right back to basics, I'd wager the ARU have two primary responsibilities:

1. To ensure the professional national representative teams are successful, and
2. To grow playing numbers

So the question then has to be asked, where do Shute Shield clubs fit into those two areas? To be as integral to the ARU as they say they are, they have to prove:

1. They can contribute to the success of the Wallabies, and
2. They can increase the number of people playing rugby

I think it's a tough sell on both counts. But not impossible. Certainly they play a valuable role in training 18-21 year olds as they embark on their pro careers. But the ARU obviously sees this function as being increasingly performed by Super sides, hence the U20s comp.

In years gone by, #1 was their strongest argument, but it is becoming tougher every year. Can we honestly point to a Wallaby in the RWC side that was made by the club system? Nick Phipps maybe??

So then we move to #2, and again it's tough. Do SS clubs attract new players to the game? I don't think so.

So you can kind of see why the ARU have left them out in the cold. They have very narrow goals, and the SS clubs don't help them achieve them.

Obviously for junior clubs it's a whole different kettle of fish, because they hit #2 right on the head.
.

 

[Highlander35]

Going from conjecture to controversial opinion, I think that they should heavily restructure and announce an intent to go fully semi pro. Cut or merge sides till there are 8, have each of them run 3 senior sides and 2 colts sides, with U23 and U19 quotas across the matchday squads.

That would halve the number of senior sides (48, 4 at 12 clubs to 24, 3 at 8 clubs) and more than halve colts (36, 3 at 12 clubs to 16, 2 at 8 clubs). There's now a significantly more elite competition, greater suited for the development of talent. The same clubs could also run ammo sides in the Subbies leagues, independent in terms of players and coaching, but having the same strips, the same ground, the same culture, and the same name. This would go a long way to retaining the village club aspect some would be going for. Certainly for a club like Uni, having one side for the elite comp, and ome side for the students, faculty and alumni would be useful I'd imagine.

Of course it could be that this would completely destroy club rugby in Sydney. I've got no idea, I'm too far away, and have very little information outside here, the players in the NRC/Super Sides and the Pundits. All I see is that it's a closed competition, which doesn't suggest grassroots, with 84 teams running out each week, which doesn't necessarily suggest elite competition, almost regardless of how well teams engage with communities or develop players.

The ramblings of a Scot are long and boring. Probably crazy too.