Australian Rugby / RA

[kiap]

Papworth has gone as far as putting his neck on the line with big allegations (more data) and we get "how dare he!", while the ARU say nothing!

Is it data or just more BS?

The 20-million dollar man has been spraying BS.

Does he retract what he misspoke before doubling down with more?

Let's say his allegation of fraudulent dealings over the 15th franchise back in JON's time at the ARU before 2010 has some basis, rather than being just another toys-out-of-the-cot whinge.

Let him provide this genuine information, rather than hearsay, onto the police—Brumbies-style with names and dates.

Then we can get back to the pertinent question of whether the ARU should be distributing money to Eastwood and the other handful of clubs.

But I suspect we'll hear no more of it, like the Louis Vuitton.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Would 4 times as many people watch Waratahs v Highlanders next Friday night if the competition contained only Australian and New Zealand teams to make it a viable product for FTA in Australia?

Whilst that might be a better competition for Australian viewers, I don't see how it would lead to a big increase in the overall revenue the competition could generate.

Advertised properly I think you would receive a lot more viewers. Not only in Aust and NZ but across the world. Advertisers will pay for direct telecasts such as this game in a reasonable time zone.
They pay fuckall for a game in South Africa at 1 am. Who the hell gets up at that time to watch a game of rugby (unless you are anal about rugby)

Advertising the Code is the key

Most of us think that if there is a good game scheduled then the viewers will watch. Probably correct. We want and NEED new viewers....

 

[Highlander35]

I don't think there's any doubt that the majority of Australian Viewers, and officials, broadcasters and potentially much of the NZ fanbase would prefer a 10 team double round robin with a top 4 finals series. That's not in doubt, and includes myself.

The issue is the deadly double of European money, and a big desire to include South African sides for practicing travelling, playing against very high quality players, playing against a different style, etc. etc.

Unless the change came with the ability to retain the majority of high quality players for both sides of the ditch, I don't see it unless the South Africans royally fuck up when the next phase of expansion/contraction/renegotiation occurs.

 

[barbarian]

You think his first article would have gone viral if it was written as above?

You personally didn't like the tone - perhaps because you didn't like the content - but it's undeniably achieved.

I think both were well written and engaging from a content perspective and actually made many of the points you listed above.

Has it achieved his aims? I think going ‘viral’ was only step one.

I think his aims have to be threefold:

1. To raise awareness of the funding issue
2. To get the rugby public on his side
3. Overall, get the ARU to resume funding club rugby

He has certainly achieved #1, no question.

As for number #2, I think he got some level of support. I don’t think he’s as well supported as he may think (outside of the Shute itself there doesn’t seem to be a huge support base from my observations, generally judged by public and private comments on my and Matt’s piece on the front page). Even Peter Fitz, who should be right in his corner, acknowledged he went too far in his arguments.

As for #3, we obviously can’t know what’s going on behind the scenes. But looking at what Papworth posted last night, it can’t be good, can it?

How does accusing a previous ARU regime of fraud help with the main game? It’s all well and good to go viral, but if you don’t get the cash at the end of the day what have you really achieved?

Once he got the public’s attention, it was time to really drive home the point to achieve step 3. Here is OUR plan. Here is what we need. We want to work with the ARU. The ball is in your court Bill, pick up the phone!! Position the ARU as non-responsive, unwilling to listen while the clubs are there, brimming with good, positive ideas to help the game.

They rightly criticise Pulver for the ‘pissing up the wall’ comment and not treating them with respect, but then make serious criminal allegations about members of the ARU board……. go figure.

I don’t think such allegations help with #2, and it could sink #3 completely.


And FWIW I will recant this completely if the ARU comes out tomorrow and reinstates the club’s funding. They may well. But I can’t see how last night’s post will make that more likely.
.

 

[Dave Beat]

Australian Rugby at it's best, and guaranteed to be a wait list.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Happy to give say 150

I don't think there's any doubt that the majority of Australian Viewers, and officials, broadcasters and potentially much of the NZ fanbase would prefer a 10 team double round robin with a top 4 finals series. That's not in doubt, and includes myself.

The issue is the deadly double of European money, and a big desire to include South African sides for practicing travelling, playing against very high quality players, playing against a different style, etc. etc.

Unless the change came with the ability to retain the majority of high quality players for both sides of the ditch, I don't see it unless the South Africans royally fuck up when the next phase of expansion/contraction/renegotiation occurs.

Happy to give special consideration to about 150 South African rugby players to enter the country on a Sports Visa

 

[boyo]

Cut Western Force and give Sydney a second Super Rugby team says outgoing Waratahs CEO Greg Harris

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/waratahs/cut-western-force-and-give-sydney-a-second-super-rugby-team-says-outgoing-waratahs-ceo-greg-harris-20160311-gngtuu.html#ixzz42b96WIMy
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

That would piss off some people.

 

[kiap]

That would piss off some people.

You're not wrong there.

I'm sure he'd get a warm, maybe hot, welcome back in Perth. And doubly so if he brought along Mr Papworth.

Funnily enough, I half agree with Harris. Not the bit about cutting the Force, but perhaps keeping the soup kitchen door open for Western Sydney.

Maybe Papworth's Super Rams bid could live again (under new management).

There'd be a lot of ifs and buts, and I doubt Western Sydney is ready now. If Australia did have another franchise in future, though, it might be in that location.

But it would require a lot of work for a lot of years to make it possible. And, of course, new money.

 

[kiap]

Problem solved:

Spoiler

 

[Train Without a Station]

I've had a look at a few of the "good points" Papworth has made. Feel free to point out if I have said anything that is factually correct.

Now I know it's easy to just sit back and pick the shit out of what somebody writes. But Brett isn't sitting back saying there's some points for and against. He's trying to portray it as a black and white case that his side is right. If that was the case you wouldn't be able to pick the shit out of it.

“A GRASSROOTS PERSPECTIVE ON THE ARU’S STRATEGIC PLAN

Let me tell you a story.
Back in about 2012, the ARU decided to conduct an audit of the premier clubs in Sydney and Brisbane. I can’t tell you why, but I suspect it was a way for them to justify the reduction in the grants previously given to our clubs. But of course they didn’t tell us that. They just sent the highly paid wise men to tell us what we didn’t have or didn’t do. To justify why we didn’t deserve their financial support any longer, and to be able to tick that box.
Collectively, the three men would have been taking the best part of $700k in salaries out of the game, at a time when we at Eastwood were spending $500k in a whole season.”

Brett seems to just try and use a bit of class warfare here. Why is their salary relevant? Does he make any comment on their capability in their field? Does he make any comment on whether this is done at the expense of their core roles or in addition?
He just seems to only want to take a dig that the collective salaries of senior management is greater than their annual budget. Is this different to any other codes anyway? If he’s going to mention their salaries why not add some point behind them? Are these even correct numbers?
What’s Papworths total earnings in his roles at Papworth Management Group and 2SM?

“So they sat in our crappy little board room, pulled out their spreadsheets, and proceeded to tell us what we didn’t have, or do.

Full time coach? No, part time.
Full time general manager? Ah, no, Part time.
Colts programme? Head coach? Yeah, sort of.
Strength and conditioning? Yeah, we’ve got a bloke who does some things. Full time? No, but he keeps in touch with the boys.
Financial? Medical? Facilities? Equipment? On it went, until they were completely satisfied that we were rubbish. Or maybe that was just how I felt. “

That sounds like them asking what they had and Eastwood doing the telling. But anyway…

“Except that we weren’t rubbish! We were the defending premiers, and had been minor premiers four years in a row. “

But the ARU haven’t taken aim at Eastwood Rugby club. They have taken aim at the Shute Shield as a whole. Where Eastwood sits in any ranking in this system as a whole which they are concerned with the level of isn’t relevant. Somebody has to be at the top of any system really.
How does the system and facilities compare to VFL clubs and NSWRL clubs? That’s whats relevant in determining the quality of this next level below professionalism.

“But they never thought for one second that they might learn something, so it never occurred to them to stop and ask; how do you blokes do this? Intelligent men on big money, paid by the game, never thought they might learn anything from us.

But what they would have learned was that we had the best coach, who could manage it part time, and who, because of his quality, had a business that occupied a bit of his time and therefore couldn’t be full time. The best people make it work.
Our general manager, a retired (early) chief executive, was top shelf, and could do most of what was needed before 10am.
Our volunteers; managers, coaches, strappers, trainers, physios, doctors, etc, were all high quality people, who were doing it for the right reasons. I.e. it wasn’t about them. It was about the lads being in a position to give their best on Saturday. Nothing else.
They would also have learned, had they been interested, that we spent our money very wisely, and never on anything that wasn’t about winning rugby games. “

A couple of points here. How has the Eastwood Rugby Club grown in the period leading up to this? How were they showing improvement in their development of players? Because if these people were merely able to just maintain that same level part time, that’s the point. The level was not where it needed to be here.
Volunteers. Yep great. Even professional clubs have these. Sport is successful because of these passionate people.
Did Brett ever think that maybe he could learn something from the ARU? Hard to criticize them for not thinking they could learn something from the clubs who have declined over the past 25 years when they are unwilling to accept they could learn anything from people who do this full time.
The last point here, yes, they never spent on anything that wasn’t about winning rugby games. Does that mean they weren’t interested in growing the game and bringing in new fans? Because Brett right here has stated the only thing they are interested in is running rugby games.

“And they would have learned about culture, about blokes wanting to play because it was their club, and their mates. Not for the money, not for the scholarships, to play in a club where first graders respect third graders.

Good blokes, all three, but to this day I don’t think they have given it a thought.”

Not exactly unique. This occurs at every level of the game across many sports and even in professional levels.

“It was after this meeting I realised the problem in our game. My light bulb moment! My club, and many others, are run by a bunch of really high quality volunteers. Our board is made up of a CEO, a HR director, a senior partner at a major law firm (and former Wallaby), a former school principal, a successful businessman or two, and then me. Are any of them women? Yes, but that shouldn’t be relevant, but it is to the ARU. We are all there because we have a real connection to the place and we care about the success of our club. In Bill Pulver’s opinion, if he gave us money, we would “piss it up against the wall”! He actually said that at a NSWRU board meeting in January. “

He had this light bulb moment in 2012 and it’s based on comments Pulver made in January 2016?

“The ARU board is made up of big end of town corporate high flyers, who are on the board for the benefit of their own CV’s, and who in my opinion couldn’t give a hoot about how many kids play the game in 2035. Western Australia, through Geoff Stooke, gets as much focus and funding as NSW or Queensland, which is simply crazy when you consider that the latter two make up a good proportion of the game at all levels, and are what you might call rugby heartlands. “

Does Brett see how more successful codes are run? Does he compare how the AFL spends in heartlands compared to growth areas? Does he not consider that money spent in some regions will likely gain more benefit, and it’s the areas with the most growth potential that will get the most benefit.
Brett seems more intent to plan based on the past, rather than the future.

“On top of that, the ARU has a salary bill at headquarters that stretches to $20 million plus per annum. I kid you not. They basically manage one team, the Wallabies. Granted, they do have a men’s and women’s sevens team, and an under 20s team every year (that generally finishes 7th! But I’ll get to that later), and they have to control the contracts of the professional game and dole out the cash to the Super Rugby franchises, but does that really require nine general managers? Let’s talk about pissing money up against the wall shall we?

Let me start with the Louis Vuitton overnight bags for the partners of Wallabies staff, post World Cup. Yes, really.
This is the same organisation who told anyone who would listen for three years “we are broke”. The same crowd who came to the Sydney clubs and asked for our help to put together the NRC, and run it with our people. For whose benefit exactly??
The same people who implemented a levy for ALL players, from every club, to help bail them out.”

The salary bill does not extend to that in fact. The ARU were broke. That’s what it means when you post repeated losses and your cash reserves are also depleted. The ARU cut back dramatically on their own expenditure from Pulver’s tenure. Their own people earn less per head than AFL management did in 2004. It’s hardly throwing cash around.
As for the NRC, were the Sydney Clubs happy to sit aside and let it be run by others? Because it’s only Sydney that’s fought heavily against it and it’s only them that are directly involved in the competition. Funnily enough it’s the region where the teams present the biggest dogs breakfast in break up and have the poorest attendance per game.
Then there is the fact that not a great deal of it is funded by the Clubs. It appears the Rays are, the clubs in the Rams have about a 5% stake each, Randwick and Easts only supply players to Country (hardly an irreplaceable link, I’m sure the players could have found their way there on their own) and Warren Livingstone was the backer of the Stars.
As for the levy. Was the ARU receiving more from fees than it spent the other way? Because if it wasn’t it’s not really bailing them out, it’s them reducing their subsidisation in line with their balance sheet. Looking at their annual reports, they still spent more on community rugby than they took in.

“These same people, in 2014, when they were telling the world how broke they were, spent $16.5 million on “match day expenses”, which no doubt includes ground hire, but which will also include the fireworks and balloony things which are supposed to make the day more special. They also bought 25,000 gold berets for the French test series to hand out to fans. Or maybe they sold them? So, clearly not as broke as we thought.

The same people who were paying the Rebels staff costs because they were broke, and the same people who bought back the Force’s licence recently, as a way to prop them up with the best part of a million bucks. “

As for the Match Day expenses, Brett seems happen to feign a complete understanding of marketing, and measures implemented to try and increase revenue, which ironically would leave more money for the lower levels.
Does Brett just expect them to sit by and watch as crowds and viewers dwindle further? I guess he’d then have the chance to complain about their mismanagement.
As for the Force and Rebels? These are growth areas. Considering that over $10M have been spent on Shute Shield since 2003 for $0 return, I don’t think he’s in any position to make complaints about spending on revenue making arms which assist in growing the footprint of the game, which ironically would lead to more money.
The new TV deal now basically funds these entities completely as they assist in providing players for the wallabies, which does make money.

“At the same time, the game at grass roots level was handed $4 million, nationally, out of total ARU expenditure of $106 million. No weighting towards NSW or Queensland, who essentially receive the same as Victoria and W.A. yet do most of the development work by definition of their size. “

How does the more successful AFL offer grants? Does it weight to the areas that are the strongest, or those that are the weakest? Brett seems to enjoy being from a stronger region and resent equal funding that may assist the weaker areas in catching up.

The same people who now have an extra $30 million per annum via a new TV deal. Guess where it’s going?

To the juniors? No. To the schools? No. To the senior clubs? No.

Did Brett not read the ARU strategic plan? Seems to be mention of clubs and schools in Western Sydney there specifically.

“So the problem is this:

The more people there are who take from the game in high paying roles, the more they think they have to know everything. They can never be seen to take advice from someone unpaid, as it will make their role irrelevant, so they don’t. So you get a bunch of inward looking people who are understandably very keen to protect their very special job, and who only listen to each other.
The pathways business is a classic case in point, and it is instructive that we regularly can’t beat too many at U20s World Cups.
We now have Junior Gold programmes, and an under 20s competition that takes the best youngsters out of the club system, and creates an elitist group who are told by the endless list of paid development coaches how special they are. Because they believe no one can develop a young player quite like they can. It is just rubbish, and creates a culture of elite teens, who frankly couldn’t make first grade, and often think they don’t need to. We are spending huge money on the wrong things!
Where do the best AFL players play before they are drafted? The TAC Cup. And Under 18 competition. Many could play VFL or equivalent and do, but they are looked at strongly in the TAC Cup and underage tournaments because these concentrate the best talent.
For example, the norm these days is that if you want to win an under 16s game of rugby, you simply pick the biggest blokes. Simplistic, I know, but that is what happens. A coach gets a job, gets ambitious, needs to win (for his benefit, not the kids), so he selects the biggest boppers he can find, because 90% of the time they will win. The smaller lad who may develop in his twenties misses out, and once you have missed out, it requires an admission of error by the paid development coach for you to ever get back in, and those admissions are very rare.
What makes it worse is that we know with some certainty that our best players are more mature players, often approaching 30. The best in the world in both rugby codes are over 30, yet we spend millions on empires trying to find the genius 18-year old. Not because it has any benefit, but because it’s someone’s job to perpetuate this myth. “

Is this different to how the more successful NZ does things?

“Most senior clubs have coaches who would run rings around these paid servants of the game, and who develop not only the playing abilities of 150 young men, but also a culture whereby these young blokes don’t get ahead of themselves. Most of the paid development empire couldn’t survive in the club world, because you actually have to win something, and be accountable. Much easier to fill in a spreadsheet showing the training habits of 17-year olds, and arrange meaningless matches where the result doesn’t matter.

The fact is that our best players ultimately find their way to the top, regardless of how much money is wasted on the “pathway” system. Why? Because they have a different mindset to those who almost get there. They know they are talented, but they work harder, and do the things required without being told to. They don’t need a paid development coach to tell them to get to the gym or the track, they are already there! It is the way the world works. “

Seems like they’d get there without the Shute Shield system by Brett’s own words then.

“So the ARU’s strategic plan is essentially to expand all these aspects of their empire, and have more elite groups, doing more elite things, so the Wallabies can keep winning and the cheques can keep rolling in. All of which is entirely flawed. It is a paid employee driven culture, designed to keep more people in good jobs, rather than a player driven culture, like New Zealand, where players know to never get ahead of themselves.”

Yeah. Seems to follow methods in other codes and other countries like NZ.

“There is no mention of club rugby in the ARU’s strategic plan. They have simply bypassed it in their thinking. There is no mention in the strategic plan that NSW and Queensland are critical to the success of the game in Australia, and no extra funding to those states who have always been, and will continue to be, the heartland of the rugby codes, and will always provide the bulk of the players.”

Yes because strategic plans are about looking forward. Not backwards.

“It appears that the ARU board is locked into a national strategy, and seems determined to treat everyone equally. That is because they have a board made up of people who simply don’t understand that NSW/ACT and Queensland will always provide a much bigger bang for the buck than Victoria and W.A. For the simple reason that the elite talented 15 year old in NSW/QLQ is a much greater chance of choosing rugby as his/her sport than the elite kid in Victoria/WA, who is much more likely to choose AFL. It is just a fact. “

If Brett got his way that would certainly stay that way. Brett seems unaware about the hundreds and thousands of PI and NZ heritage people in the greater Melbourne region who would be completely ignored if he got his way. Looking forward, not backwards Brett.

“As the ARU spends nothing on development at a grass roots level in NSW, they are managing to even the playing field. In western Sydney, population 2 million plus, rugby is not even in the contest. The board of the ARU believes their cash is better spent in Victoria and W.A, even as they tell us they are broke. They are living in fairy land. “

Lucky they are allocating funds, specifically to Western Sydney then. Also grassroots is not immediately critical to maintaining TV Revenue. The Rebels and Force are. Brett’s pretty happy to ignore this. Without them you’d cut off about $8M in revenue per year last year and $16M per year going forward.
And of course you have the fact that the ARU pays the salary bill for these players. If the teams folded, would they be absolved of this responsibility, or would they be stuck dolling out $4M per team in player salaries anyway, just without the income they are associated with?

“AFL posts are up at GPS schools in Sydney, and where some traditional rugby schools had ten open age rugby teams, they now have five. The ARU’s response is to spend less.

The ARU’s strategy is Viva 7s. A one day primary school rugby day, where the boys and girls get to spend some time running around with a rugby ball, and hopefully learning about the game. A really nice thought, except that if and when a child decides they really love it, there are no junior clubs left for them to go to!”

Kind of like how the AFL starts juniors? No?

“Be careful when you next see Bill Pulver espousing the growth in the game, and an increase in player numbers. His numbers will include every child who had a one day kick around in all the primary schools that were exposed to Viva 7s. And it will be a big number. “

Yes but Brett, he’s not trying to fool you. When will rugby people get this? These numbers align with what all other sports are doing and are based on competing for government grants, sponsorship, etc. Do you want them to not try and get more income now?

“So whilst there may be a view out there that Intrust Super Shute Shield clubs are only interested in getting a few dollars, and full of self interest, I can assure you that many of us are only interested in the big picture, and the survival and growth of our great game. Clubs are run by enthusiastic volunteers, many of whom are successful, intelligent people, and because they are not paid have no vested interest.”

Earlier you said you do not spend a cent on anything that’s not about winning games? Now you are only interest in the big picture?

“Would we like a few dollars to make our lives easier? Sure. But what we would like more is for the guardian of our game, the ARU, to wake up and think about where our 2035 Wallabies might be coming from. When the salary bill at head office is 500% of the total investment in the game’s grass roots, it is time for them to hand the game back to people who have a clue.”

People like Brett who happily misquotes numbers and ignores the fact that the ARU have already planned to spend around 60% of their annual salary bill on community rugby for 2016?

“And please turn off the light and close the door on your way out.”

“A GRASSROOTS PERSPECTIVE TO THE ARU’S STRATEGIC PLAN: PART 2

The response to my Rugby News article the other day has been quite staggering. It has been overwhelmingly supportive and I have sent many of the responses through to the Chairman of the ARU, Cameron Clyne, and to Bill Pulver.
Respected school headmasters, current and former Wallabies, a former national coaching director, rugby people from right around the country, from Perth, Queensland and even abroad. And of course many local rugby volunteers who found themselves nodding in agreement. Even the cricket community has jumped on board.”

People from Perth were nodding in agreement as you discount their importance to Australian rugby?

“Literally hundreds of responses, and that doesn’t include those on social media, to which thankfully I am immune.

The ARU were asked by Rugby News for a response. Instead they chose to respond in The Australian, and in response to questions from Peter Fitzsimons in the Sydney Morning Herald.
I can tell you that Cameron Clyne has made contact and we plan to catch up next week to plot a way forward. Let’s hope so anyway.
Understandably, he wasn’t too happy and we had some spirited dialogue.
I have met with Cameron previously and found him to be a decent man and a good listener, who I think genuinely wants to find a solution and mend a few fences. He doesn’t want this to play out in the media, as you can imagine, but the fact is that for some years now, I and others, have been trying to make progress by doing things privately, respectfully, and desperately hoping they were listening.
Well they weren’t and until they do, this is how we are going to have to play it.
As for yesterday’s comments by the CEO in response, I have a number of comments to make:
It seems the Louis Vuitton bags were a gift from others, not the ARU, so for that I apologise. I wish I hadn’t made that mistake, because if I hadn’t there would have been no response at all. Out of 2500 words, he chose to respond to perhaps the least important point of all. Not a word about the main issues, and no mention or response to the fact that the game’s grassroots are dying, or any defence of the expenditure of the ARU.
Instead, Bill called me “ill-informed and disrespectful.”
In my dealings over recent years, we, as clubs have been lied to, patronised and dismissed as irrelevant. Yet I am the one who is disrespectful? As for ill-informed, the facts stated in my article are from the most recent publicly available ARU annual report, and he offered no comment.
I may have gone a bit far when I said the board members were all there for the benefit of their own CVs. Because that couldn’t possibly be true could it? If, as Bill said yesterday, the board members are “loyal servants of the game” and a “stellar group of people” who are responsible for “arguably the best governance model in sport”, then what I would like to know exactly is this: what have any one of them done, specifically, for the long term health of the game in this country?
Loyal servants of the “professional” game, of that I have no doubt. Loyal servants to political correctness, and loyal servants to media spin, I also have no doubt.
Bill also said he regretted saying the clubs would piss the money up against the wall, instead clarifying that what he meant was that historically our clubs have squandered money on player payments. He has said before, that in his opinion, we are an amateur level of the game.
What he won’t tell you is that he knows differently and here are the facts:
Certain universities have offered scholarships to elite rugby players for some years. They've reduced entrance scores, tuition fees and in some cases college accommodation. Bill knows this better than others. He also knows there are people in rugby administration who are contributors to foundations, that fund clubs to assist them in being a powerhouse.
What this has created is a situation whereby other clubs are forced to find something (anything!) to keep their very own juniors, and often fail to do so. So no, it’s not strictly amateur, but it’s hardly our fault and it is entirely disingenuous on his part to talk about it without giving the full story.”

And when they fail to do so, they just poach other club’s juniors too?

“We don’t actually mind the scholarships, for the academic rugby player. It is what universities should do. You know, the Rhodes Scholarship ideal! We love our best rising to positions of prominence. But within reason, and not for every lad with some rugby talent.

When school leavers are making demands of their local club, because ARU development systems have made far too many of them think they are special, then maybe things have gone too far. “

Or perhaps it’s the fact that the threat of NRL is what sets these expectations? Rugby in isolation can’t walk on the moral high ground here and watch the NRL just plunder their talent because they treat them better and put them in professional systems.

“But this is a discussion for another time.

What we’re here to talk about is grassroots funding. Not Intrust Shute Shield funding, but funding for the 700+ clubs right around Australia.”

Nope. This is just talking about the 12 clubs.

“As a first step, why not hand some of the development responsibility back to the clubs and the local areas. You don’t need to own it, and we have done it well over the years. Vibrant local clubs, at all levels, can have a big impact on the local community, and it might enable us to gain back a bit of ground against the other codes. And it will make a huge difference to the culture and the longer term development of players.”

Is this not what was occurring under rugby’s decline since 2000?

“Bill also mentioned an increase in funding for grassroots to $10 million, but I wonder how much of that is actually on this Viva 7s programme, and how much is on programmes and people which will be controlled by the ARU, as opposed to being handed to grassroots to run with because, just maybe, they know what they are doing?”

What do more successful codes like AFL do?

” And please can we get clarification on the funding split between the states, just for transparency, which is what the ”best governance model in sport” should be right on top of!!

By now, you might be wondering why I am being such a pain in the ass? I have been asking myself the same question. Why is this so important to me?
Well, I’m not completely sure. Maybe because I have spent the best part of my life involved in sport, heavily, summer and winter, and believe that grassroots sport is just about the greatest gift to society there is.
And maybe because, back in 1994, I applied to the ARU and the IRB for reinstatement to the amateur ranks, after my stint on the dark side. My application was rejected and I was forced to take the game to court to be allowed to have ANY involvement.
The case never got to court, and settled on the courthouse steps. At substantial cost, mostly financial.
The game knew they couldn’t keep the gates closed for much longer, and within about a year the game had gone professional.
So I guess I feel I have played my part in the largesse now being enjoyed by those of whom I am critical. It isn’t personal, but just as it was important to fight back then, it is important to fight now.”

Not really relevant to anybody involved in the ARU in 2016.

“And tomorrow, I will be at TG Millner Field, for the first trial of the new season against the mighty Students, with a big crowd of like-minded volunteers, who will ensure the place is set up, the water bottles filled, that we have jerseys and balls, etc. All in the hope that one day one or two of our lads might get to pull on our national jersey. But if not, then at least they know we want them to be their best, and that it’s worth it.

Sometimes you just have to have a crack.​”

“BRETT PAPWORTH: ARU IGNORED FINDINGS OF ‘CLUB RUGBY’ REPORT

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man, if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
Leo Tolstoy, 1897.
These are the very first words in the book “The Big Short”, a true story by Michael Lewis. I strongly encourage you to read it. It is a cracking read and if I could only read the work of one man for the rest of my life, it would be his (sorry Fitz).
You may have seen the movie, but the book will rock you with the details of the biggest credit bubble of all time, and the smart people on Wall Street earning millions who knew, or should have known, what was about to happen, and the even smarter people who took advantage and made billions.
It is a story about people making huge bets with other people’s money, and the serious mismanagement of some of the world’s biggest financial institutions, by people who we all thought knew their stuff, but just didn’t.
I found myself saying out loud, as will you, things like: “holy shit”, “you must be joking”, “I don’t believe this” and best of all, “they bloody well knew!”
But this is not a book review, and why is it even relevant? I think you already know where this is going.
In late 2009, an “expression of interest” document was issued by SANZAR, inviting applications for inclusion in the 2011 Super 15 competition.
I headed the bid for a team called the Western Sydney Rams to be included. We pulled together some quality people and made our pitch to the ARU.
To be based at Blacktown Olympic Sports Park, with matches to be played at Parramatta Stadium, we pitched a community based team to be driven and funded through membership, sponsorship, and the usual channels.
We were, in hindsight, naïve, and to be honest we were just a bunch of rugby blokes doing our best with limited resources. We couldn’t really compete in the age of glossy, Olympic bid style pitches of our competition, and we didn’t get anywhere.
The bid was won by Victoria, and the Rebels were born. Oh what might have been! Think Western Sydney Wanderers or the GWS Giants.
The CEO at the time was very keen on a “private equity” model. We were against such a thing and were committed to a team owned by the game and its stakeholders.
The Victorian bid was going down the private ownership path, and was successful.
Now, in my fairly simple mind (both a blessing and a curse), when something is good you buy it, and when something is bad you sell it.
Why, if the licence for the new team is going to do so well, would you sell it to someone else?
Why? Because they were hedging their bets. If someone else owned it, it was off the balance sheet and any losses would be carried by others. If it went well, the benefits would flow anyway because it was a new market and the TV dollars would flow to the ARU.
The other reason Victoria won the bid was because the Victorian government got involved, and they can be persuasive.
It came to light later, through some connections, that the Victorian Government were in receipt of a letter from the ARU, basically saying they were sorry that we didn’t give you the franchise back in 2004, but that you will be next!!
So, all of us who jumped through hoops to apply for the 15th Super Rugby franchise were basically just for show. So the ARU could say they had been through an exhaustive selection process.
It was already a done deal! They bloody well knew!”

Or perhaps your case just wasn’t compelling enough to change their mind and turn their back on a huge 5th TV Market? I know it’s an emotional issue but you need to look at the commercial factors as these are what drive these decisions. At least in successful codes and competitions. You can’t criticize the ARU for their professional success but then fight and scream every time they make the right commercial decisions for the game without emotion.
Surely government support is a positive, not a negative?

“It wasn’t about what was good for the long term health of the game, it was about politics, and the big end of town.”

Growing the game’s footprint in a region that has strong
corporate support isn’t about the long term health of the game?

“But wait, still more…

I was contacted via email in recent days by a former (very) senior guy at the ARU. He explained to me some facts that are worth sharing here.
He was in fact the author of the “Premier Rugby Task Force Report”, which I told you about last week, and was the reason for the audit of premier clubs in Sydney and Brisbane, which made me feel like rubbish.
In the few years since that report was published, Sydney club funding was reduced from $100,000 to $30,000 and then again to zero.
We obviously believed that the report recommended what has come to pass; that we clubs, at all levels, are not really a relevant part of the rugby ”pathway” any more.
But no, we would be wrong!
While the comprehensive report highlighted many shortcomings the clubs have, along with the need for a new competition, it was overwhelmingly in favour of continued financial and structural support from the ARU.
According to the email from the former senior ARU figure, it also stated:
- The importance of the premier competitions in Sydney and Brisbane to sustaining the professional game.
- That Sydney and Brisbane clubs were the engine room of rugby in Australia.”

Premier Clubs? Or Clubs as a whole? That’s an important distinction.

“- That the ARU’s very clearly articulated position at the time was that the clubs played an important role in the professional player pathway and the essential need for this to continue.

- The report noted that in addition to supporting high performance requirements, clubs at all levels play a role in sustaining and expanding the audience and keeping people interested in rugby. Therefore, deliberate attention to the part clubs can play in this as part of an overall marketing effort is also important. “

Now Brett fails to clarify this seems to refer to clubs at all levels, rather than specifically the premier clubs

“- The Sydney and Queensland premier competitions were responsible at the time for more than 73% of the participant player base and supplied/serviced 133 of the 175 professional players. “

I find this very hard to believe. In senior numbers alone the Sydney Premier Competition accounts for around 25% of senior players. That’s before you consider what players started in sub-districts juniors, subbies and country comps before making their way to premier competitions. By comparison how many players first played for a premier club then went the other way?

“- Narrowing down the participation base to the 40,000 senior players, when split by states with a Super Rugby team the numbers were very stark; NSW: 19,000; Qld: 10,000; ACT: 3,000; Victoria: 2,500; WA: 3,300.”

Hardly surprising. But only a few new clubs in these states with huge populations (like Victoria) would account for large total growth. Surely skewing funding back to NSW and QLD is the best way to ensure this does not change though.

“- As important were the financial numbers, where on average the Sydney and Queensland clubs were annually investing a total of $12.45 million (Sydney: $7.91m; Qld: $4.54m) in their respective clubs and competitions not including the significant commitment by volunteers.

- The report noted that the value of the volunteer base that the clubs bring to the table is not simply in cost savings but in the wealth of knowledge, experience and passion for rugby.
- Professional rugby could not replace this investment, so the report recommended that club rugby needs to be retained, nurtured and supplemented in order to achieve a greater return for the game.
So, what do we make of this? How did this stuff stay hidden?
What I make of it is this. There has been a deliberate ignorance by the people who take from our game, but whose job it is to nurture our game. “

That’s a pretty big claim. Where do you account for the fact that the Sydney Clubs like to wield any power they can to ensure decisions are made the benefit them specifically? Surely any ARU management serious about doing what’s best for the game as a whole wouldn’t want to contribute to the power base of the biggest blocker of anything that doesn’t suit them specifically? Things like the ARC and NRC are the future for Australian Rugby but the Sydney Clubs are the biggest fighters of this.

“They have deliberately ignored the recommendations of their predecessors. Why?

I’ll tell you why.
Because there is no mileage in doing something for which I can’t receive credit, or make a buck. It is the over-riding mindset of those who take advantage of us, and the way the world works at that end of the corporate spectrum. “

Or some things like I just mentioned and more. The fact that the development done by clubs has diminished over the years as Australia aligns itself to other more successful nations and codes. Also as Brett himself mentioned, player’s that make it probably always will because they have that desire inside them, so perhaps the club system isn’t needed the way Brett says because of some of the reasons like Brett says.
The task force merely looks at the performance aspects of premier rugby doesn’t it? It wasn’t a holistic review of it’s total impact on Australian Rugby was it?
Also is this the entire contents of the report? Or is this only what serves his agenda and anything that contradicts his agenda has been ignored. Clearly it was leaked by somebody who has ties to club rugby so without seeing the report it’s hard to clarify how much of it we’ve been given the details of.

“The ARU is not like a big company, or a government, whereby you have shareholders or voters who call you to account. They are effectively accountable to no one, and that is why they are able to get away with it.

And just like Wall Street, these people make big money, and when the game is dead, will be sailing around on their yachts in retirement, having taken advantage of all of us.
And just like Wall Street, they bloody well knew!”

That’s a pretty big claim. Is he talking about people like Pulver who earns less than his predecessor and opted to forgo his bonus last year? Or Michael Hawker how was on $20,000 per year with the ARU? Is that who he is aiming at? I doubt if Pulver was at his last appointment he would have been passing up bonus payments.

 

[TOCC]

Abolish the Giteau Law except for in RWC years.

Highlight a core group of players to build the Wallabies around and encourage these players to take rest/recuperation sabbaticals similar to the NZRU, rather then the current overload trend of 'flexi-contracts'.

ARU have the Flexi-contract concept all wrong, offering it only to the top Wallabies who are already playing a massive number of games each year is only going to do more damage then good in the long term.

If they really want to leverage flexi-cotracts to retain talent then they should be supporting the tier below the Wallabies to do this, players like Luke Jones, Liam Gill, Jono Lance, Kyle Godwin, Samu Kerevi, James Hanson. Players who are fringe wallabies or could one day be destined for higher honours. Players who don't have congested playing schedules and currently get breaks from rugby during the test schedule.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Dear Doctor Train,
Very informative, very detailed and well researched - Think you for your effort.

The piece is worthy of a Thesis

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Dear Doctor Train,
Very informative, very detailed and well researched - Think you for your effort.

The piece is worthy of a Thesis

Belongs on the blog, anyways.

 

[p.Tah]

So it appears the high ranking former ARU official who Papworth says emailed him is Matt Carroll. One of the men responsible for bringing the ARC to an end and then attempting to make club rugby the 3rd tier.

 

[p.Tah]

In light of the recent discussion about funding, it's important to note Sione Tuipulotu debuted for the Rebels tonight.
Born and raised in Frankston, Victoria
Played for the Melbourne Club Southern Districts since u12s.(The Rebels were founded two years after he started playing)
Played Rugby for St Kevin's (a school with a good Rugby tradition)
Australian schoolboys
Australian U20s
Rebel Rising in NRC
And at age 19 he plays for the Rebels. Very important milestone for Sione and Australian rugby in general.

There is no doubt Sydney and Brisbane clubs are important in Australian rugby and play a part in the development of players, however clubs in Victoria, ACT and Perth are run with similar passionate volunteers as those that Papworth talks about at Eastwood. Now we are beginning to see local players play for the Rebels and Force should their local clubs receive funding too? But I'm sure the the Brumbies, Force and Rebels would prefer their 'grassroots' funding to go to junior player development.
If that's what happens in Sydney (and Brisbane) where the clubs are funded to work with the local development officers/ schools/ junior clubs to develop the new players and fans then I absoluetely support that funding.

However, having read Papworth's latest article, the real issue is clubs are paying their players, not to keep them out of AFL and League its to stop them being enticed to join Sydney University through a scholarship. This is the elephant in the room and this 'unfair' advantage is what is really at the heart of the matter.

However this is the clubs competition problem to sort out and funding isn't going to resolve this. It just creates an arms race.
I'd prefer the clubs used their extraordinary experience and passion to help uncover more Siones, rather than pay them in the hope it'll bring another premiership.

 

[barbarian]

Uni doesn't pay players that I am aware of. What they do do is provide access to top quality gym, physio, medical, aquatic centres and more. In addition to that they also assist in players' study, in scholarships and on-site accomodation.

I think if I was the Shute Shield clubs I would put a proposal to the ARU to use funding to create 12 Sydney Unis. The first point would be ending player payments, with all money to be spent on coaching, development and the running of the club.

I would ask for 100k a year per club, with 50k to be earmarked for physical conditioning- mainly gym infrastructure and physio access.

The other 50k would be used exclusively for 18-22 year olds to assist them with their work and study. This could be assistance bringing country kids to the city and finding them a place, help with tutoring or textbooks, even direct scholarships.

It won't turn every club into Uni, but would help in development for sure, especially for younger players.
.

 

[kiap]

I think if I was the Shute Shield clubs I would put a proposal to the ARU to use funding to create 12 Sydney Unis.

In ideal world, sure. You'd probably have to throw a few tokens to the other affiliates, though, before putting it to a vote.

Maybe we can drill down to see how this might add up for the ARU.

• 12 Shute clubs, $100k each. Because reasons.
• 9 QPR clubs, $50k each. They don't produce as many Wallabies.
• 7 ACT clubs $25k each. Half as good again.
• 19 or 20-odd Melb/Perth clubs $10k each. Bottom of the barrel.
• elsewhere $0. Bush leagues ...

A tick over $2m.

Nup. The ARU should distribute money to its members, the state unions. Clubs then put their proposals to that body; in the case of the Shute clubs, that's the NSWRU.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

In light of the recent discussion about funding, it's important to note Sione Tuipulotu debuted for the Rebels tonight.
Born and raised in Frankston, Victoria
Played for the Melbourne Club Southern Districts since u12s.(The Rebels were founded two years after he started playing)
Played Rugby for St Kevin's (a school with a good Rugby tradition)
Australian schoolboys
Australian U20s
Rebel Rising in NRC
And at age 19 he plays for the Rebels. Very important milestone for Sione and Australian rugby in general.

There is no doubt Sydney and Brisbane clubs are important in Australian rugby and play a part in the development of players, however clubs in Victoria, ACT and Perth are run with similar passionate volunteers as those that Papworth talks about at Eastwood. Now we are beginning to see local players play for the Rebels and Force should their local clubs receive funding too? But I'm sure the the Brumbies, Force and Rebels would prefer their 'grassroots' funding to go to junior player development.
If that's what happens in Sydney (and Brisbane) where the clubs are funded to work with the local development officers/ schools/ junior clubs to develop the new players and fans then I absoluetely support that funding.

However, having read Papworth's latest article, the real issue is clubs are paying their players, not to keep them out of AFL and League its to stop them being enticed to join Sydney University through a scholarship. This is the elephant in the room and this 'unfair' advantage is what is really at the heart of the matter.

However this is the clubs competition problem to sort out and funding isn't going to resolve this. It just creates an arms race.
I'd prefer the clubs used their extraordinary experience and passion to help uncover more Siones, rather than pay them in the hope it'll bring another premiership.

I'd rather give the Melbourne and Perth clubs $100k a year so they can develop their own structures and numbers in order to create 4-5 prominent club structures that can regularly produce talent.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Uni doesn't pay players that I am aware of. What they do do is provide access to top quality gym, physio, medical, aquatic centres and more. In addition to that they also assist in players' study, in scholarships and on-site accomodation.

I think if I was the Shute Shield clubs I would put a proposal to the ARU to use funding to create 12 Sydney Unis. The first point would be ending player payments, with all money to be spent on coaching, development and the running of the club.

I would ask for 100k a year per club, with 50k to be earmarked for physical conditioning- mainly gym infrastructure and physio access.

The other 50k would be used exclusively for 18-22 year olds to assist them with their work and study. This could be assistance bringing country kids to the city and finding them a place, help with tutoring or textbooks, even direct scholarships.

It won't turn every club into Uni, but would help in development for sure, especially for younger players.
.

Uni takes advantage of a number of natural advantages it recieves by proxy of being part of a University. But I tend to agree that players are drawn to Uni not for the prospect of financial gain but the opportunity to train and develop among high quality coaching a facilities.

I guess that's where an argument for a Universities competition could come into play.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Uni takes advantage of a number of natural advantages it recieves by proxy of being part of a University. But I tend to agree that players are drawn to Uni not for the prospect of financial gain but the opportunity to train and develop among high quality coaching a facilities.

I guess that's where an argument for a Universities competition could come into play.

Other clubs have certainly seen the benefit of offering their own scholarships through other unis to recruit their own players, so I'd say the financial benefit does play at least some part