Declining participation and ARU plans for the future

[Jagman]

I feel like the club rugby teams would do themselves a world of long term good if they banned player payments, committed to being wholly amateur and then went to the ARU and said they were committed to being part of the grassroots to develop the game in their areas and in turn the ARU could be more confident that money diverted directly to them or via state unions would actually be well spent.

That's it. The ARU want the clubs to commit to their plan for the future of rugby, to grow sevens, Viva7s and women's rugby. If they commit to that they'll get their money. But they don't want that, they want the professional infrastructure of the game in Australia to be dismantled and replaced by the Shute Shield. Which ironically would then lose its "grass roots, amateur" qualities that Pfitzsimmons, Papworth and Dwyer keep raving on about.

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk

 

[Gnostic]

I feel like the club rugby teams would do themselves a world of long term good if they banned player payments, committed to being wholly amateur and then went to the ARU and said they were committed to being part of the grassroots to develop the game in their areas and in turn the ARU could be more confident that money diverted directly to them or via state unions would actually be well spent.

I would like that too. But as for the ARU doing anything for them or anybody away from their "elite" niches is just not going to happen. Maybe 13 years ago they could have done it, with a different structure and economic philosophy. Now it is a moot point as they simply do not have the cash even if they had the philosophy/will.

Whilst I do blame the ARU and those who have infested its halls since professionalism, I also understand how they came to be where they are. It is much the same as how our country has ended up where we are (and much of the Western World). Australian Rugby is a microcosm of Neoliberal economic policy which still believes against all evidence that trickle down economics works and a system can be grown from the top down. Not surprising given the business backgrounds of the previous CEOs.

 

[I like to watch]

I feel like the club rugby teams would do themselves a world of long term good if they banned player payments, committed to being wholly amateur and then went to the ARU and said they were committed to being part of the grassroots to develop the game in their areas and in turn the ARU could be more confident that money diverted directly to them or via state unions would actually be well spent.

Why the angst over player payments?
Papworth's article is not about getting funding to pay club players, presently the ARU gives no money to premier clubs.
It's about recognising that the current structure is broken, and that all the people with a say,are earning a living from the game,and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Why the angst over player payments?
Papworth's article is not about getting funding to pay club players, presently the ARU gives no money to premier clubs.
It's about recognising that the current structure is broken, and that all the people with a say,are earning a living from the game,and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

The ARU aren't giving the clubs any money directly. They are allocating $300,000 a season to ensure the broadcast of the Shute Shield. That's not nothing.

 

[half]

You can't hold a volunteer office holder of an amateur club responsible for investing in the growth of junior clubs,especially when the ruling body levies these players.
If everywhere was growing juniors & his area was performing poorly against the trend,then you might have a point.
But blaming Papworth for Pulver's neglect of the grassroots is just wrong.

I haven't blamed Pap for Pulvers neglect nay decades of neglect.

What I have tried to explain in his role as the president of the biggest rugby and best known rugby club in the Northern Districts that receives heaps of positive media then his role in part should be growing the game.

Not everything is the fault of those at the top.

The two best Australian examples we have are basketball and soccer at times beyond poorly run, but at park, rep, and state level all those involved have helped to continue to grow the game.

As I have repeatedly said I have throught "She who must be obeyed" experienced what other codes do.

Let me assure you because I have been at meeting, the Gladsville Hornsby Soccer Association who have 15 k odd juniors and have a state team. When they used to met when the NSL and SA were beyond hopeless, corrupt, inept, bankrupt of ideas, internally divided, these guys looked at things like parent engagement, junior numbers, player enjoyment.

They took the view, growing the game was equally if not more important than other issues. It was this attitude of lets develop the base, lets get as many people as possible involved. It spread to the local park sides and it was Australia wide.

I agree its not Paps job to grow rugby, I question if Eastwood Rugby [who are my team] is not required to grow rugby in a greater sense of allowing the club house to be used on presentation days and having some former test player give awards.

OK I understand all the issues about money the player are not paid anything.

There are some things about our game that make me wanta cry at times, and management of the non school Saturday [sorry Sunday now competition] is one. To suggest this issue can be largely ignored by Eastwood Rugby I find terribly sad TBH.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Shit Pilver may be open to reducing our franchises by 1.

Fuck - I feel sorry for the Tahs Supporters. Feel free to come and support the Reds.

 

[The torpedo]

Shit Pilver may be open to reducing our franchises by 1.

Fuck - I feel sorry for the Tahs Supporters. Feel free to come and support the Reds.

But who are we going to hate?

 

[wamberal]

I keep coming back to the sad truth, which is that rugby has a long history in this country, but ever since Dally Messenger jumped ship we have only had limited periods of widespread popularity as a sport.


The game could well have died out after WW2, we were saved by two phenomenally popular inbound Fijian tours. Another effort to save us was the introduction of the "Australian dispensation" under which we were allowed to play our domestic competitions under a slightly modified rule book (kicking out on the full was only allowed from within the 25, as it was then).

I remember going to watch a Test match against France at the SCG in the early sixties, there were 7,000 spectators.


Soccer, AFL, and what is now NRL were all more popular in terms of participation, and usually much more popular in terms of support.


We live in an age of increasing competition amongst entertainment sources of all
kinds and a diminishing level of interest in the complex or challenging. Speed and simpicity seem to be the order of the day. Instant gratification. Short attention spans.


On top of all that, if you support an AFL team, you can watch all your games in friendly viewing hours. Not only that, Australian teams win the competition, guaranteed. The NRL is similar.

Soccer is a different ball of wax, but their strength is that the game his extremely simple to understand, that is a strength of both the AFL and NRL.


I am buggered if I know what I would do if I had to formulate a winning strategy for the game as a whole, other than to build some sort of coalition with other sympathetic unions who are either struggling (all the Pacific Islands) or who have a vested interest in our survival as a viable competitor (New Zealand).


At heart I do honestly believe that, in the long run, there will either be some form of hybridisation with loig, or we will sink to being a minor amateur sport.

 

[Strewthcobber]

At heart I do honestly believe that, in the long run, there will either be some form of hybridisation with loig, or we will sink to being a minor amateur sport.

I reckon feeder teams/reserve grades for an Anglo-French super comp

 

[Quick Hands]

I feel like the club rugby teams would do themselves a world of long term good if they banned player payments, committed to being wholly amateur and then went to the ARU and said they were committed to being part of the grassroots to develop the game in their areas and in turn the ARU could be more confident that money diverted directly to them or via state unions would actually be well spent.

Enforcing amateurism is an impossible ideal. It's never worked anywhere in any sport. Someone will always find a way around it no matter what they say. Even certain subbies clubs have been known to provide inducements to recruit players.

If you want to provide funding and ensure that it is spent on development then you either provide the money only after proof of spending or you provide the funds "in kind".

For example, club A hires two DOs and runs a number of recriuting activities in schools and coaching days open to all comers. Invoices to ARU and funding provided.

Or, club A says it needs two DOs and wants to run recruting and coaching activities. ARU provides the DOs and runs the activities. Money deducted from the club's ARU development budget.

 

[dru]

I honestly had enough of this thread. But bit on the endless repetition cross thread. So for sanity's sake lets cut QH's back where it should have started.

You seem to be the one having the rant. I was merely attempting to have a rational conversation with you.

And I am involved in grass roots rugby in NSW - for the same junior club for over 40 years in fact. We're part of a SS club which takes junior development very seriously and actively supports it's junior clubs and rugby more generally. We work with the Manly District club and the NSWRU to try to do our bit to fix the Wallabies.

I don't know exactly what the $730,000 goes towards and neither to you - you're relying on one line in a financial statement which could mean many, many things.

How do I feel? More than a little annoyed that some people will take any opportunity to slag off at SS clubs. And by the way, "SS clubs" are not a monolithic organisation - they are 12 different clubs, each run independently, some do things better than others, some do things differently, some have embraced the NRC differently to others - so again, to use the term "SS clubs" as a catch all descriptor is disengenuous to say the least.

Yes Quick, it was a rant. A very due rant, I think. Let's bring it back here.

I see nothing in your response that materially requires change in what I have said. Just an annoyance to be termed SS. Strangely enough the NSWRU and their auditors chose to lump together the relevant spending as "Premier Rugby". And yes, I chose to call this both SRU and SS. While you were claiming no spending by the rugby world on NSW Premier Rugby.

Wrong.

I am so uninclined to enter this "discussion". But if it stops the cross threading to have a target, well let's do it here.

PS: Quick, you are probably not the appropriate initiator of my rant. It's just the point where I wasnt avoiding it any longer as the (imo) anti Aus rugby stuff was so determinedly cross threading.

PPS: How many people from within the various SS clubs are speaking up against Papworth? Strangely enough, he has taken on the presumed role of being your spokesman. So speak up, or be tarred. That's not me being a problem, simple reality.

 

[Quick Hands]

I honestly had enough of this thread. But bit on the endless repetition cross thread. So for sanity's sake lets cut QH's back where it should have started.



Yes Quick, it was a rant. A very due rant, I think. Let's bring it back here.

I see nothing in your response that materially requires change in what I have said. Just an annoyance to be termed SS. Strangely enough the NSWRU and their auditors chose to lump together the relevant spending as "Premier Rugby". And yes, I chose to call this both SRU and SS. While you were claiming no spending by the rugby world on NSW Premier Rugby.

Wrong.

I am so uninclined to enter this "discussion". But if it stops the cross threading to have a target, well let's do it here.

PS: Quick, you are probably not the appropriate initiator of my rant. It's just the point where I wasnt avoiding it any longer as the (imo) anti Aus rugby stuff was so determinedly cross threading.

PPS: How many people from within the various SS clubs are speaking up against Papworth? Strangely enough, he has taken on the presumed role of being your spokesman. So speak up, or be tarred. That's not me being a problem, simple reality.

Brett Papworth speaks for Brett Papworth and as President of Eastwood, I guess he also speaks for them. As far as I know he doesn't speak for anyone else. He certainly doesn't speak for Manly. In fact the only time I hear of his comments is when someone posts them on G&GR, he attracts no publicity in this area at all. I'd be surprised if more than 1% of rugby people on the peninsula even knew what his views were.

I think I made quite clear in a subsequent post that when I used the term "money from above" I was referrring to grants or payments made directly to clubs - the ARU stopped these payments when the NRC started. AFAIK the NSWRU haven't reinstituted them.

I also made quite clear that I don't know what the money described in one line of the NSWRU annual report was spent on. My knowledge of book keeping extends to Year 9 Commerce in about 1978.

The four northern clubs in Sydney (Manly, Warringah, Norths and Gordon) have actively supported the NRC since it's inception and each have a 25% stake in the Rays. The Rays received good coverage here in the local press and are identified as being linked to the 4 clubs . This is how is should work - I understand that Eastwood don't have a similar arrangement with the Rams. I think that is shortsighted on the part of Eastwood, but it's their call.

But let's be clear, the rugby community in this part of Sydney are behind the NRC and actively support it at both club and individual level.

You seem hell bent on getting into an argument - to what end I don't know.

Other than not liking Brett Papworth in particular or SS clubs in general, I'm not really sure what you point is. I'm not sure why you've adopted such an aggressive tone towards me, I've been nothing other than respectful towards you.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I've been thinking about this quite a bit in the last few weeks, especially light of the Wallabies struggles at the moment. I've also been taking the journey alongside my young bloke, who not only has played rugby at school this year for the first time, but has continued to play Aussie Rules with his club on the weekends. They are in finals mode right now and won a hugely contested and extremely tight game against an arch rival to get through to the grand final. I can also recall my own time playing club rugby, as well as supporting the mighty University from the sidelines again after returning to OZ to live.

What's struck me today in particular and on Friday night at the trophy presentations is how much club sport is part of who we are as a nation and how we come together as people. The joy we felt for those boys today was at least as good as any Wallaby victory I've watched. All this is a slightly pompous way of saying that if the ARU do nothing else over the next couple of years, they should foster that love of club footy as much as possible and drive the pathways through it. The elite level will to an extent take care of itself, because the talent will make itself known through the grades, into the NRC teams and onto pro rugby from there.

It's how two of our most successful sports (cricket and hockey) work in this country. Very rarely does a bloke get to play for Australia without playing underage club cricket, then grade against gnarly old vets and then state cricket. There are the odd exceptions, but in the main you pay your dues at the lower levels first. We can still have that in OZ rugby and to a large degree still do and the NRC provides a means to bridge that gap. That is why I fully support it.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I've been thinking about this quite a bit in the last few weeks, especially light of the Wallabies struggles at the moment. I've also been taking the journey alongside my young bloke, who not only has played rugby at school this year for the first time, but has continued to play Aussie Rules with his club on the weekends. They are in finals mode right now and won a hugely contested and extremely tight game against an arch rival to get through to the grand final. I can also recall my own time playing club rugby, as well as supporting the mighty University from the sidelines again after returning to OZ to live.

What's struck me today in particular and on Friday night at the trophy presentations is how much club sport is part of who we are as a nation and how we come together as people. The joy we felt for those boys today was at least as good as any Wallaby victory I've watched. All this is a slightly pompous way of saying that if the ARU do nothing else over the next couple of years, they should foster that love of club footy as much as possible and drive the pathways through it. The elite level will to an extent take care of itself, because the talent will make itself known through the grades, into the NRC teams and onto pro rugby from there.

It's how two of our most successful sports (cricket and hockey) work in this country. Very rarely does a bloke get to play for Australia without playing underage club cricket, then grade against gnarly old vets and then state cricket. There are the odd exceptions, but in the main you pay your dues at the lower levels first. We can still have that in OZ rugby and to a large degree still do and the NRC provides a means to bridge that gap. That is why I fully support it.

I want to make it clear. I am an avid fab of club rugby. I have been tuning into the Saturday SS game for as long as I can remember. I thoroughly enjoy it. I absolutely understand the club allegiance side of the spectrum. My issues relate more to the narrow view some Papworth, Dwyer and Co. Take on the subject.

I think the current elite clubs can remain central figures in the game and I would support seeing more money provided to them but not if those funds find there way to players pockets or allow clubs to redirect funds from one area in order to do so.

I would support funds being provided for each club to hire a full time development manager who's role would be to engage current junior and senior village club in order to foster strong relationships with them as well as establish new junior clubs and work with existing senior clubs to estavlish junior wings. These funds would need to be goal oriented like over a five year period all major district clubs must have at least 12 junior clubs with X numbers of registered players per club.

 

[Quick Hands]

These funds would need to be goal oriented like over a five year period all major district clubs must have at least 12 junior clubs with X numbers of registered players per club.

There would be no one left in the competition if you applied that rule. Not even the Manly Warringah Junior Rugby League have 12 junior clubs despite being supported by a professional NRL outift.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

There would be no one left in the competition if you applied that rule. Not even the Manly Warringah Junior Rugby League have 12 junior clubs despite being supported by a professional NRL outift.

I'm talking about funds directly distributed for the express purpose of developing these structures. It wouldn't come out of the respective clubs current or future budgets and success and failure won't determine the clubs survival.

Quite frankly I don't care in Many Warringah JRL doesn't have 12 junior clubs. I only care about developing strong participation structures in our game. I'll note when I talk about participation I'm referring to actual regular competition not gala days or one off visits.

Perhaps 12 clubs might be too many. Perhaps a participation number might be more ideal. Say, each district club must have 3,000 registered participants by the end of the five year period. I'd go as far as to offer each district the right to keep the registration fee's from each player in their district (minis insurances etc). With at least half that number being juniors. I make no apologies for the ambitious nature of my posts. We need a little ambition in this game but just being willing to eek out our megre place will not move the game forward at all.

Ultimately, the goal of greatly expanding the playing base below the district level is as much as club building as it is about participation. If the clubs were to recieve this funding and use it for its purpose, work hard on achieving its targets and importantly create the connection between the village clubs and the larger district clubs. Then I believe we'll see a much healthier game all round.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The alternative is to do away with the traditional junior structures and divide Sydney into more regional zones akin to how the country zones work .i.e. Northern Beaches, North Sydney etc. and look to at developing X number of clubs in each zone alongside a corresponding number of players.

 

[Dave Beat]

I'm talking about funds directly distributed for the express purpose of developing these structures. It wouldn't come out of the respective clubs current or future budgets and success and failure won't determine the clubs survival.

Quite frankly I don't care in Many Warringah JRL doesn't have 12 junior clubs. I only care about developing strong participation structures in our game. I'll note when I talk about participation I'm referring to actual regular competition not gala days or one off visits.

Perhaps 12 clubs might be too many. Perhaps a participation number might be more ideal. Say, each district club must have 3,000 registered participants by the end of the five year period. I'd go as far as to offer each district the right to keep the registration fee's from each player in their district (minis insurances etc). With at least half that number being juniors. I make no apologies for the ambitious nature of my posts. We need a little ambition in this game but just being willing to eek out our megre place will not move the game forward at all.

Ultimately, the goal of greatly expanding the playing base below the district level is as much as club building as it is about participation. If the clubs were to recieve this funding and use it for its purpose, work hard on achieving its targets and importantly create the connection between the village clubs and the larger district clubs. Then I believe we'll see a much healthier game all round.

Im not sure that QH will disagree with what you have outlined here.
My reading of his posts the grass roots is extremely important to our game and he's put in lots of work over the years.

I'd love to age group teams right up to 18's, an example.
I think there is enough mini's teams to achieve that on the peninsular Manly to Palmy, but there is run off at the 12 / 13 age bracket.
Is it purely private schools, or does the early Sunday morning trip from Manly to the Blue Mountains also play a part?
Grow the mini's further.
Work at systems and process to develop and retain at 12 / 13.
That isn't a quick fix, there will be work, reviews, amendment, and repeating.

 

[dru]

The One problem with Papworth is that there is very little (none?) response from the Shute Shield world or SRU suggesting he pull his head in. The resulting discussion centres on the claimed egregiousness of the ARU, absence of funding (not limited funding), absence of action (not too little too late, or inappropriate action, or better ways). In nearly all cases it is an over-reach.

@ Quick Hands. I do owe you an apology. It just happened to be your post at my snap point. Straws and camels stuff. I respect the guys like yourself at the coal face actually implementing and doing. I also recognise that clubs like the Marlins are proactive drivers for rugby in Aus.

Some thoughts :

• The NSW Premier grade covers something like 2,500 players, focussed on the Eastern strip of Sydney. There are something like another 7,500 players in Sydney. Those 7,500, focussed in western Sydney, need to be addressed but currently are not engaged in or represented by Premier Rugby.
• There is no doubt that experiences and abilities from clubs like the Marlins is important. Surely we must find some way of harnessing that ability for application outside of "traditional rugby" areas.
• This almost inevitably means a change in how Premier Rugby works - given that there is no current mechanism for non-traditional clubs to enter Premier. I am not a fan of promotion/relegation, but perhaps a representational system where non-grade clubs are aligned with the Premier?
• Those premier clubs then to set up systems and help establish growth at the grass roots. Funding would be needed, an approach to the ARU/NSWRU to assist such a transformation might meet more interest than some of the stuff we are seeing from Papworth/Dwyer/Fitsimmons
• All to be worked through where possible using the ARU 5 Year Strategic Plan
• Waratahs Ltd to be more effectively engaged in the process - currently players are associated with the various Premier teams, extend this to see them engaged as the face of Rugby within in of these club "groups".
• Some visibility is required so that the funding from these groups is used to supports those groups.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Im not sure that QH will disagree with what you have outlined here.
My reading of his posts the grass roots is extremely important to our game and he's put in lots of work over the years.

I'd love to age group teams right up to 18's, an example.
I think there is enough mini's teams to achieve that on the peninsular Manly to Palmy, but there is run off at the 12 / 13 age bracket.
Is it purely private schools, or does the early Sunday morning trip from Manly to the Blue Mountains also play a part?
Grow the mini's further.
Work at systems and process to develop and retain at 12 / 13.
That isn't a quick fix, there will be work, reviews, amendment, and repeating.

Absolutely. Part of my thinking on having clubs work on developing player numbers and clubs within their catchment is to largely overcome issues such as travel and player drain. More clubs within an area means less need to travel greater distances for games. More players means the drain is lessened come the 12/13 year old age bracket.

Perhaps having each district achieve 12 clubs is too ambitious in say a 5 year period. Maybe regionalising would work better. Say, forming a Northern Beaches region and having both Manly and Warringah work together to achieve that goal. Look for each club to run at least one full team from ages 8-18 as well as girls (we really need to focus on girls and women) grades. At first they could be bundled. 8-9s, 10-11s etc.

If you look at it that way, if the goal is 12 clubs (that's 6 clubs each) with 10 boy's teams and at least 5 girls even if you only get 20 a team you're looking at somwthing like 3,600 kids.

Repeat that across the city and things start to look a whole lot healthier.