Australian Rugby / RA

[p.Tah]

I enjoy Shute Shield rugby, but I believe they (specially Papworth) over estimate the general rugby community's support and interest in this level of club rugby.
There is still a lot of hostility towards the clubs after they brought the ARC down, but they regained a lot of ground after supporting the NRC, except for Papworth's Eastwood.
Right now most rugby supporters are relatively happy with the noises coming out of the ARU: junior rep teams, U20s, NRC, the Wallaby turnaround, the Giteau clause, the Media rights, the Sydney 7s, the commitment to recruit more development officers to grow the game in non-rugby regions.
Now the clubs (one in particular) are starting a PR campaign to destabilise the ARU similar to the one that undid the ARC.
Through the Rugby News website and Growden On ESPN they're trying to paint the ARU as fat cats living a high life on rugby's money whilst denying The Shute clubs money. It appears some of their anecdotes of the ARU squandering money aren't in fact true.
Most of us see rugby as being vastly broader than Shute Shield. It's nowhere near perfect but we like what the ARU is trying to do broadly, but if the Shute Shield clubs undermine that and stuff it up out of their own self interest, I will be extremely pissed with them.
I don't want us to lose these Premier clubs, but they can't cling onto an outdated model. They need to evolve and find a better way to be relevant to rugby in the future. That way the Eastwoods and Randwicks can continue and celebrate their bicentenary and beyond.

 

[Braveheart81]

Peter Fitzsimons has written a piece jumping on the Bret Papworth bandwagon.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/the-fit...strengthen-the-wallabies-20160302-gn8rwe.html

The biggest issues that Papworth and Fitzsimons fail to recognise is that in terms of players, the ARU competes in a global market where they have to be competitive salary wise and their revenue is hugely dependent on the success of the Wallabies. The AFL doesn't have this issue.

On the other side of that, the ARU needs good staff to stage test matches, manage the Wallabies, make TV deals and everything else the ARU does. They compete with the other sports for staff with experience in sport and the general job market in terms of what they need to pay people with the sort of experience they need.

 

[dru]

Peter Fitzsimons has written a piece jumping on the Bret Papworth bandwagon.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/the-fit...strengthen-the-wallabies-20160302-gn8rwe.html

The biggest issues that Papworth and Fitzsimons fail to recognise is that in terms of players, the ARU competes in a global market where they have to be competitive salary wise and their revenue is hugely dependent on the success of the Wallabies. The AFL doesn't have this issue.

On the other side of that, the ARU needs good staff to stage test matches, manage the Wallabies, make TV deals and everything else the ARU does. They compete with the other sports for staff with experience in sport and the general job market in terms of what they need to pay people with the sort of experience they need.

What a murky world NSW rugby politics is.

 

[Train Without a Station]

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.
.

Baa baa I've looked at the number across all this.

With regards to player development, I looked at every signed player in January last year. There were about 163 of them and I think 45 were product of the club system meaning they played more than a year or club rugby between any junior rep programs and being signed/debuting in super rugby.

At this time no players had come through the JGC ranks yet either meaning this number will likely decline.

As for playing numbers. There reportedly 770 clubs in Australia. Rugby link had 2,500 players registered to Ss clubs in 2015 and subbies reportedly has 7,500 senior players, so they account for 25% of the playing numbers in their region.

Due to the increase in rep programs the clubs play less of a role In developing the players and in about half of the cases the players they do develop have come through the rep structures but either need time to physically mature or develop further.

I think 5 or 6 of the RWC squad were players who I had considered to have developed in the club system.

This includes players like Phipps and Foley who had been in rep structures too, as well as Carter, Fardy and Palu.

If anything this is overstated as older information on Aus schoolboys, 19s, 21s and state WTS and academies is difficult to come by.

 

[Dave Beat]

Reference is made with regards to Premier Clubs providing about 27% of the 163 signed players - that is just under 1/3rd a larger enough % that should not be ignored. If we take away the signed non Australians the % prossibly pushes up over 1/3rd

There is possibly a few more that were retained in the code because of the age group club rugby - the ones that couldn't afford the private schools.

Which leads me onto the next point, who is responsible for growing numbers and how.

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.

.

Baa Baa said ARU and yes i also think it is their responsibility, but how. As what has been in place is not working.

• Do they simply delegate to the state Unions and with that delegation provide funding - then finger pointing as the State Unions don't get results?
• Do they not get results because they are under resourced, how many staff (and time) would it take to get into the schools, then once in run camps, and programs - then who would fund these staff on a casual basis?
• Then have the structures and systems to do this repeatedly over a couple of years. Things have to be done repeatedly well to work, doing once does not work, as it is forgotten.

My recent experiences I see that the NSWRU puts in all sorts off effort but are under resourced - there availability, and access has been great, but.....
So given this I shared an idea; outsourcing it to the Premier Clubs with the ARU in full control, the Clubs get paid on results. ARU have regional managers (State Unions) who are employed to ensure it works.
An example running programs in our local public schools - 150 kids some have played, some haven't, it is all about engagement and trying to grow numbers.

• We need accredited coaches,
• With required certificates to work with kids,
• Programs, and processes so the schools want it repeated,

If State Union can be involved and help (Premier Club) execute that, so there is interaction between school, and club, and village club numbers grow - that is great. Do it repeatedly well once enough students are playing club rugby, a school team can be developed. Some of these player may;
- just have fun playing rugby
- just have fun playing rugby, bring a mate who otherwise wouldnt have played and become the next Michael Hooper.
- may end up going to a Private School by way of parents or scholarship.
- maybe one of those 27% that graduate from club land.
It is about making use of our resources.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Reference is made with regards to Premier Clubs providing about 27% of the 163 signed players - that is just under 1/3rd a larger enough % that should not be ignored.

There is possibly a few more that were retained in the code because of the age group club rugby - the ones that couldn't afford the private schools.

It provides similar to NRL and other countries combined.

It's now a minority though. The majority is the rep systems.

Most importantly, it's more than it was 10 years ago before there were EPS contracts, and more than it was 10 years before that before there were full time wider training squads which paid. The trend is that it's declining, meaning in 10 years, it will very likely be significantly less again.

I'd estimate that the development of the Junior Gold Cup will only serve to accelerate this further. By which time the players that are left will be your Caydern Neville's (Yes Dave. He's a Manly boy. I know) that weren't left behind, they just weren't there to be picked up.

You have to look at it from a business point of view. Are we going out and investing in Video Rental stores?

 

[Braveheart81]

The pretty clear reality is that there is never likely to be any substantial flow of funding to the Shute Shield clubs again and they have to come up with a way to change that makes them more viable going forward.

If money does come, it is not likely to be substantial nor consistent. The long and the short is that it can't be relied upon as part of their operations.

The clear option to me is that clubs need to merge and the competition strengthened through less teams. The other option is to just reduce the number of teams by clubs dropping down to subbies.

It's not a pretty resolution but there doesn't seem like much other option. Something along these lines should have happened years ago and then the clubs could have been part of the pathway and long term solution for the ARU, but nothing has changed in 20 years.

 

[Gnostic]

Looking at Baa Baa's statement regarding Points 1 and 2, and those arguments are clearly the rationale for the ARU funding. Supplying/developing players for the Wallabies is of increasingly lesser importance and has been supplanted by the academies and EPS systems and now by the NRC.

So point two is the only valid argument for ARU funding. Since that is the case what do the Clubs get from the continued association with the ARU as a parent body?

The model has become top down in terms of revenue and expenditure and I've never seen a stable pyramid which rests on its apex. Short term one can say that the area which generates the revenue is justified in taking the vast majority of that revenue. Long term just like infrastructure there needs to be continued significant investment in non-revenue (direct that is) producing areas to support the apex of the pyramid. The model has become the Rugby version of trickle down economics and the ARU has a recent history of operating like a large bank, plenty for the directors and management in pay, perks and bonuses regardless of actual performance.

Perhaps the clubs, nationwide, need to revert to a purely amateur format and maintain only a cursory "alliance" with the ARU via the state Unions, but basically run their own competitions and structures in terms of funding, insurance etc.

 

[dru]

Braveheart81 "The pretty clear reality is that there is never likely to be any substantial flow of funding to the Shute Shield clubs again and they have to come up with a way to change that makes them more viable going forward."

I think that is the inevitable consequence when Shute Shield public leadership is Dwyer/Papworth/Fitzimmons on their current mission. But it doesn't have to be that way. They complain about youngsters contracted early and having an entitlement attitude. Doctor heal thyself.

And as far as a different way forward goes:

Dave Beat: "My recent experiences I see that the NSWRU puts in all sorts off effort but are under resourced - there availability, and access has been great, but...
So given this I shared an idea; outsourcing it to the Premier Clubs with the ARU in full control, the Clubs get paid on results."

I like this idea a lot. More than this though, if the Premier clubs are going to take this sort of leadership role, I'd really like to see much closer ties through the Subbies organisation. It works better in my opinion if those Premier clubs are dispersed physically through the Subbies, but we have what we have.

I am not a fan of promotion/relegation through divisional competition as I think it a) spreads the top talent to thin, and b) in time it defaults to "haves" and "have nots" anyway (just look at English Premier Football) so you end up back where we are now. I'd like a representational system where the Subbies clubs come across to the Premier organisation, the fans are allied to the Premier team, and everyone is talent spotting to promote individuals across the whole of Sydney rugby through to Premier. And beyond.

Mind you, I wouldn't be opposed to a Premier club relegation system based on lack of success in building Subbie relationships and promoting talent to Premier. A clear set of metrics would obviously be required.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Didn't they already look at this last year after the change in the insurance and determine it was not feasible?

If so, what they get through their ARU association is the financial benefit of handing less over to the ARU then they would be out of pocket if they chose to go it alone.

I find it increasingly amusing that the same people who criticize the ARU for their top down view are the biggest proponents of the ARU funding grassroots in the same manner. Do they not recognize the hypocrisy?

 

[Braveheart81]

The model has become top down in terms of revenue and expenditure and I've never seen a stable pyramid which rests on its apex. Short term one can say that the area which generates the revenue is justified in taking the vast majority of that revenue. Long term just like infrastructure there needs to be continued significant investment in non-revenue (direct that is) producing areas to support the apex of the pyramid. The model has become the Rugby version of trickle down economics and the ARU has a recent history of operating like a large bank, plenty for the directors and management in pay, perks and bonuses regardless of actual performance.

What is the alternative though?

There's one area of the game which generates income and to do that it requires the highest quality professional players you can get and there is significant competition for those players from other markets.

The ARU has already significantly trimmed their headcount at head office.

Growing the size of the pie is the only realistic way of increasing the flow of funds to the grassroots. Cutting player salaries is simply not an option and it is pretty apparent that the public interest in rugby in Australia is heavily tied to results on the field.

 

[Dave Beat]

Growing the size of the pie is the only realistic way of increasing the flow of funds to the grassroots. Cutting player salaries is simply not an option and it is pretty apparent that the public interest in rugby in Australia is heavily tied to results on the field.

Sort of the plan I'm trying to sell, for the sake of keeping it basic the "mini & junior pie" levy is made of 2 halves.
ARU half = $2.
Club half = $2.
and the club has 50 players.
ARU makes = $100.
Club makes = $100.

So if a premier club works to grow that pie and there is an increase (?%?).
Lets say 75 players (50% increase).
ARU goes up = $150
Club goes up = $150.

A suitable equation needs to be worked out so premier clubs are inscented to do this, so as i explained above the regional managers (State Unions) can outsource this to best model.

 

[barbarian]

The model has become top down in terms of revenue and expenditure and I've never seen a stable pyramid which rests on its apex. Short term one can say that the area which generates the revenue is justified in taking the vast majority of that revenue. Long term just like infrastructure there needs to be continued significant investment in non-revenue (direct that is) producing areas to support the apex of the pyramid.

Is the pyramid an apt analogy though? In some ways I actually think it’s inaccurate.

If you are defining the pyramid by active players, then yes the Wallabies are the apex and the ‘grassroots’ are at the bottom.

But if you are defining it by interest and importance, then surely the Wallabies should be way more prominently represented. The same is true if you are defining the pyramid by revenue brought into the game.

The success of the Wallabies is paramount to Australian rugby. It’s the key product the game has to offer, and this is where the comparisons to the AFL and NRL are difficult, especially in terms of funding. If the Wallabies are successful, everything becomes easier at all levels. It’s actually a bit of a chicken-and-egg argument- the Wallabies success helps grassroots growth, and vice-versa.


The weird part of this whole argument is the ARU is actually doubling the money they spend on grassroots development in their 5 year plan. So everyone is in agreement that we need to do more. We’re all just debating the best way of achieving the goal of greater playing numbers.
.

 

[Dave Beat]

The weird part of this whole argument is the ARU is actually doubling the money they spend on grassroots development in their 5 year plan. So everyone is in agreement that we need to do more. We’re all just debating the best way of achieving the goal of greater playing numbers.
.

Hope there is a paid intern reading over these pages, grabbing ideas and getting some laughs.

 

[Gagger]

Growing the size of the pie is the only realistic way of increasing the flow of funds to the grassroots.

The Clubs' point is that the pie has significantly grown, but there is still ZERO coming to them.

At it's heart, this is about control. The new money into grassroots the ARU want control of, to the point of bypassing the clubs.


And so it comes to the question of who is better placed and set up to work on the ground. Volunteers in a community in it for the long term, or a professional organisation run from the top down.

In my view, the obvious answer would be that then need to work together. The professional organisation would realise that the local communities can do things that the pro organisation could never do, or realistically afford to do.

From what I've heard and read though, when it comes to a relationship the clubs have come to the table and provided - changing seasons, supporting NRC - the ARU refuse to.

Two other observations:

1 - I personally have quite a bit of experience over the years trying to work with the ARU through this site, putting forward ideas for collaboration that would benefit what I thought was our shared mission. In the end it never went anywhere because if the ARU doesn't own it, they're not interested.

In the coming weeks you'll see that now the ARU has some cash, they'll be having their own stab at what we do. There's already a podcast. *Sigh*


2 - A lot of what I read in this thread sounds like "f*ck you Uni/Randwick/Eastwood" my club has never had as much as you, etc.

I get that - it's part of the passion of club rugby. But as Gnostic points out above, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I get that - it's part of the passion of club rugby. But as Gnostic points out above, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Kind of like the Shute Shield club's threat to try and start a competitor to the NRC because the ARU won't give them what they want, despite the fact that Shute Shield is not financially sustainable?

I surely cannot be the only person who cannot blame the ARU for trying to wrestle control off the clubs. They've used any bit of power they can for decades to try and steer Australian Rugby in the direction that suits them first, and the game second. Why would the ARU want to entrust them with attempting to grow the game?

 

[Braveheart81]

The Clubs' point is that the pie has significantly grown, but there is still ZERO coming to them.

At it's heart, this is about control. The new money into grassroots the ARU want control of, to the point of bypassing the clubs.


And so it comes to the question of who is better placed and set up to work on the ground. Volunteers in a community in it for the long term, or a professional organisation run from the top down.

In my view, the obvious answer would be that then need to work together. The professional organisation would realise that the local communities can do things that the pro organisation could never do, or realistically afford to do.

From what I've heard and read though, when it comes to a relationship the clubs have come to the table and provided - changing seasons, supporting NRC - the ARU refuse to.

I agree with all this.

Perhaps the answer is that the state unions and the clubs need to come to the ARU with a plan to be part of the solution.

Most of the problems seem to stem from the past where poor decisions by the ARU and the clubs have resulted in both sides being mistrusting of each other and not keen to work together.

That is unfortunately coming back to bite the clubs as they are not the ones with the power or influence in this situation now.

 

[Gagger]

I agree with all this.

Perhaps the answer is that the state unions and the clubs need to come to the ARU with a plan to be part of the solution.

Most of the problems seem to stem from the past where poor decisions by the ARU and the clubs have resulted in both sides being mistrusting of each other and not keen to work together.

That is unfortunately coming back to bite the clubs as they are not the ones with the power or influence in this situation now.

You want the Clubs to put a strategic plan forward (I would have to check they already haven't) to counteract the strategic plan that the ARU has just finished which (in the low detail we've seen) appears to cut off the clubs?

 

[Braveheart81]

You want the Clubs to put a strategic plan forward (I would have to check they already haven't) to counteract the strategic plan that the ARU has just finished which (in the low detail we've seen) appears to cut off the clubs?

It seems like they are just being frozen out otherwise.

I don't think this is a battle they're going to win if they continue to shitpost (to use internet slang) about the ARU.

Whilst they will have their staunch supporters (and plenty of those), I tend to think most people will ultimately side with the ARU as the Shute Shield clubs will look like they're just trying to wreck things.

 

[Gagger]

It seems like they are just being frozen out otherwise.

I don't think this is a battle they're going to win if they continue to shitpost (to use internet slang) about the ARU.

Whilst they will have their staunch supporters (and plenty of those), I tend to think most people will ultimately side with the ARU as the Shute Shield clubs will look like they're just trying to wreck things.

The assumption here is that the clubs haven't been trying to communicate through the usual channels over a period of time already, and that what we're seeing now isn't actually last straw explosion of frustration.

This is why writing off the arguments they make because of the exasperated tone isn't a logical thing to do