Tier 3.5 - An Alternative NRC

[Train Without a Station]

And further truth comes out.

It's about money directly to the clubs.

Papworth doesn't agree with using schools and Viva 7s programs are the way to bring players in. He thinks funding clubs directly is better.

It's all about money and control.

As we all knew from the beginning.

 

[Gnostic]

And further truth comes out.



It's about money directly to the clubs.



Papworth doesn't agree with using schools and Viva 7s programs are the way to bring players in. He thinks funding clubs directly is better.



It's all about money and control.



As we all knew from the beginning.

Reference/source?

 

[p.Tah]

This thing has fallen apart before they have even begun, it seems.

Well that was fun.
Shall we all reconvene back in this thread in say about 4 maybe 5 years to do it all again?

 

[HJ Nelson]

And what about sponsors ?
It would put Buildcorp in an awkward position if the Shute Shield team they sponsored (SUFC), was one of the driving forces behind a direct competitor to the 'Buildcorp NRC'

 

[kiap]

I think I believe Papworth about the ARU books actually. Simply because I expect the figures cited by Papworth to be the straight up out of the report figures while Billy's number will be padded out politician/lawyer like with half truths and semantics.

Great! This is exactly what I'm getting at. So when Papworth stated:

“ ​

the ARU has a salary bill at headquarters that stretches to $20 million plus per annum

”​

… then you'd expect no less than twenny big ones going on ARU salaries.​

But what if he'd (inadvertently … or perhaps "conveniently") taken the wrong column and forgot to take out the three or four mills (from memory) included in that amount that was actually going to the Melbourne Rebels entities' salaries.

Gives a nice, bigger round figure. Plus anyone could make that honest mistake, right?

Or it's just plain dumbfuck financial illiteracy.

 

[Gnostic]

Great! This is exactly what I'm getting at. So when Papworth stated:

“ ​

the ARU has a salary bill at headquarters that stretches to $20 million plus per annum

”​

… then you'd expect no less than twenny big ones going on ARU salaries.​

But what if he'd (inadvertently … or perhaps "conveniently") taken the wrong column and forgot to take out the three or four mills (from memory) included in that amount that was actually going to the Melbourne Rebels entities' salaries.



Gives a nice, bigger round figure. Plus anyone could make that honest mistake, right?



Or it's just plain dumbfuck financial illiteracy.

so they are paying $16-$17M in salaries in Head Office. In a business with a turnover of $85M. AND they are paying the salaries of people at a supposedly privately funded franchise at another $3M or $4M.

So make two lines of it and wages bill is still approx. $20M for corridor walkers from a total budget of $85M for a grand total 23%. Is that good? Does it make a material difference if it is two or one lines?

If we take the $4M from the total its still 18%.

 

[Micheal]

Great! This is exactly what I'm getting at. So when Papworth stated:

“
the ARU has a salary bill at headquarters that stretches to $20 million plus per annum

”
… then you'd expect no less than twenny big ones going on ARU salaries.

But what if he'd (inadvertently … or perhaps "conveniently") taken the wrong column and forgot to take out the three or four mills (from memory) included in that amount that was actually going to the Melbourne Rebels entities' salaries.

Gives a nice, bigger round figure. Plus anyone could make that honest mistake, right?

Or it's just plain dumbfuck financial illiteracy.

The guy is an idiot. Since Pulvers arrival on the scene theres been mass redundancies (twice I believe) and huge company wide pay cuts (including negotiations with RUPA for a reduction in player payments).

You imagine telling 30+ people that they don't have a job anymore, asking for those remaining to work for less and negotiating with the playing body to do the same (with France knocking at the door, suitcase of cash in arm) only for some muppet to give you a spray in the public arena about the salary bill of a company with over one hundred employees. It'd be emotionally shattering even without the criticism and what does Papworth expect? Does he expect the Australian Rugby Union to be run by volunteers because he manages to get the canteen staffed for free at Shute Shield games on Saturday afternoons?

Pulver, at least in terms of getting the business structure under control and efficient, has been top-draw since he came into the office. He's now trying to produce these efficiencies at Super Rugby franchises and elsewhere, and hats off to him. Its the uncontrollables and uncertainties of his governance that are causing the real headaches (I daresay the Shute Shield's prima donna's are one of them).

 

[kiap]

so they are paying $16-$17M in salaries in Head Office. In a business with a turnover of $85M. AND they are paying the salaries of people at a supposedly privately funded franchise at another $3M or $4M.

Nah, the bloke was so dumb, he extrapolated from the previous report using the present tense—

but it was after the Rebels had already been divested.

 

[TOCC]

As expected, Papworth just blowing his own trumpet.

QLD Premier Rugby have sort to distance themselves from Papworth and withdrawn from the proposed 'club rugby forum meeting' that was scheduled to be held.

"If we went it alone without the ARU's consent there is no way we could afford it," UQ Rugby club president Michael Zaicek said, adding that the mood among Brisbane clubs was overwhelmingly to work with the QRU and ARU to grow the game at junior and club level.

"There is no quick fix to this, we are all in an uber-competitive environment and it's important that we're all aligned, that clubs fall in behind the state unions and the state unions fall in behind the national union," Zaicek said. "We need the opportunity for dialogue before we man the battle stations."

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...as-rebels-duck-for-cover-20161021-gs7s9s.html

 

[TOCC]

And what about sponsors ?
It would put Buildcorp in an awkward position if the Shute Shield team they sponsored (SUFC), was one of the driving forces behind a direct competitor to the 'Buildcorp NRC'

yep, and what about the players?

Waratahs, Wallabies, Sydney University and NSW Country Eagles prop Paddy Ryan, who will captain his team in the NRC grand final in Tamworth on Saturday, said: "I was a bit disappointed to see that [issue] brought up this week, it's the week we should be worrying about the Bledisloe, in particular the [Wallaroos], and the NRC final"

Thats what pisses me off most about all this, this week is a grand final for the NRC, a big match for the Wallaroos and the Bledisloe Cup, why did he need to detract from all that this week, couldn't he have waited one or two more weeks and let all those players have their moment in the limelight?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

yep, and what about the players?



Thats what pisses me off most about all this, this week is a grand final for the NRC, a big match for the Wallaroos and the Bledisloe Cup, why did he need to detract from all that this week, couldn't he have waited one or two more weeks and let all those players have their moment in the limelight?

Shows an utter lack of respect for anyone but himself and his merry band. I have a growing disdain for Papworth and Co. and been less than impressed with how they've gone about their mission. But there is an upside. Each and every time they leak and whine to the media they lose more and credibility among the wider Rugby public.

Now we've seen the Brisbane clubs move to decisively distance themselves from his group. So he's standing has taken another huge hit.

 

[Quick Hands]

The breakaway competition idea was always an overreach.

I think what it shows is that while there may or may not be some valid points of criticism, there was no real coherent plan behind it.

While the effect has been to divert media coverage from the NRC final, Wallaroos and AB test, I don't really believe that was deliberate. I suspect that the timing has more to do with the 1986 Wallabies reunion than an attempt to harm the other events.

Unfortunately the press always prefer public infighting to good news - which is why these things are best dealt with in private.

 

[Dave Beat]

Pages and Pages and all different things and ideas.............
You thought i was talking about this thread.

Todays Tele in a rugby state.
Nothing on Nrc
Nothing on the test match.
Only rugby was a story about the ABs .
Stories help sell our game

 

[barbarian]

Stories help sell our game

Come on Dave, 'rugby in crisis' stories don't help sell our game at all, they actively damage it.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Come on Dave, 'rugby in crisis' stories don't help sell our game at all, they actively damage it.

'There's no such thing as bad publicity' is often associated with Phineas T. Barnum, the 19th century American showman and circus owner. Barnum was a self-publicist of the first order and never missed an opportunity to present his wares to the public.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/there-is-no-such-thing-as-bad-publicity.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[I like to watch]

I agree with more grassroots funding, absolutely. If Mr Pulver is correct and the real figure is $9.2 million not $2.4 million that their report shows then that is fantastic. I will alwasys advocate for anything that progresses the national interest of our game.
What i will not agree with is the implications put forward by this myopic proposal put forward by those interested in only pushing their own cause.
How can the claim that the volunteers of Sydney and Brisbane clubs are more important than the volunteers of clubs in Perth, Melbourne, Adelaide, Darwin and Hobart?
Why is it more important to fund the match payments of guys running round in Sydney and Brisbane 2nd and 3rd grade than it is to fund junior rugby in Perth, Melbourne, Adelaide, Darwin and Tasmania?.....

Mr Pulvers annual report showed $2M ish.
The explanatory notes said it's actually $5M ish.
Now he says its $9M ish?
I personally think the figure must be eleventy something
The point has been made before, that Pulver has made a rod for his own back regarding grass roots funding.
There has been widespread criticism of the lack of funding for grassroots.
Most CEO's would highlight their efforts in this regard.
All we have got from BP is confusion about the ongoing plan & what the current spend actually is.

As an aside, in what alternative universe would 3rd graders get match payments???

 

[half]

Pages and Pages and all different things and ideas.....
You thought i was talking about this thread.

Todays Tele in a rugby state.
Nothing on Nrc
Nothing on the test match.
Only rugby was a story about the ABs .
Stories help sell our game

On the News site today under the sports tab.

In Order

AFL
NRL
Cricket
Tennis
Sports general
Football... included a long podcast and a FFA Cup article
American Sport
Motor Sport
Rugby ... no podcast and no NRC article
Horse Racing.

 

[Quick Hands]

And further truth comes out.

It's about money directly to the clubs.

Papworth doesn't agree with using schools and Viva 7s programs are the way to bring players in. He thinks funding clubs directly is better.

It's all about money and control.

As we all knew from the beginning.

This whole thing has unfolded like a poorly planned coup d'etat in central Africa.
As you know I don't mind criticising the ARU or the NSWRU when I think that they deserve it and I don't mind giving them praise when I think they deserve it either. For example I agree with ILTW in post #236.
For example there's a valid discussion to be had regarding using clubs in rolling out grass roots programmes. But saying that the ARU or NSWRU should just give the clubs a bucketload of cash and let them do it is not the way to go. To help illustrate this, during the July school holidays one of the Manly junior clubs the Roos ran a one day rugby camp. We paid the NSWRU to have their staff come out and do the coaching, charged our own players $10 for the day and non-players $15 - for which they received a sausage and a drink for lunch, plus six hours of coaching. 300 kids came - just over 200 of our own and about 80 or so who came from elsewhere. If you send you kid to a ARU or NSWRU organised camp, it's about $80 for the day. (for the same or maybe less coaching) So it's probably more cost-effective all round to use clubs for this when they are willing and able to do so.
I was surprised that Brett Papworth et al were dissmissive of promoting the invovlement of women and girls - on that alone they show that they are out of touch with 21st century sport. Viva 7s and primary school programmes are also great vehicles for introducing the game - but it is also valid to point out that they should be linked to a local club so that kids can sign up and play.

 

[Micheal]

Women's programs and Viva 7s are GREAT initiatives.

I organised two teams for Viva 7s this season from within my social circles and it's a fantastic way for the ARU to get exposure to traditionally non-rugby demographics.

Within the ~22 players that I play with, I'd say 85% would identify as strong rugby fans, yet only ~20% actually play the code. Why? Time constraints, other commitments, potential injuries and the impact they have on ones life, size problems (my Colts Subbies team had a number of GPS Reps in it and just about the rest was players of high school 1sts / 2nds quality. Poor old Micheal played 5ths in high school and whilst Colts Subbies was a heap of fun, he decided to hang up the boots after his last year of Colts as my wirey frame just won't cut it at blindside flanker with the big boys running around in Grade).

Etc etc.

The other 15% are diehard AFL / Football fans and would have no part in watching the ARUs products of participating in their programs if it wasn't for the social aspect of touch.

Viva 7s is also fucking exhausting and a few play it just for the work out.

What I'm trying to say is that through my own anecdotal experience alone, Viva 7s has brought the ARU ~3k in revenue (just over 100 pp to play) and a fair chunk of that is from people who would otherwise give the ARU nothing.

It's a great product so get out there and sign up for a team. My local comp only has four over 18 sides so we definitely need some more opposition to play against haha

 

[Sauron]

This whole thing has unfolded like a poorly planned coup d'etat in central Africa.
As you know I don't mind criticising the ARU or the NSWRU when I think that they deserve it and I don't mind giving them praise when I think they deserve it either. For example I agree with ILTW in post #236.
For example there's a valid discussion to be had regarding using clubs in rolling out grass roots programmes. But saying that the ARU or NSWRU should just give the clubs a bucketload of cash and let them do it is not the way to go. To help illustrate this, during the July school holidays one of the Manly junior clubs the Roos ran a one day rugby camp. We paid the NSWRU to have their staff come out and do the coaching, charged our own players $10 for the day and non-players $15 - for which they received a sausage and a drink for lunch, plus six hours of coaching. 300 kids came - just over 200 of our own and about 80 or so who came from elsewhere. If you send you kid to a ARU or NSWRU organised camp, it's about $80 for the day. (for the same or maybe less coaching) So it's probably more cost-effective all round to use clubs for this when they are willing and able to do so.
I was surprised that Brett Papworth et al were dissmissive of promoting the invovlement of women and girls - on that alone they show that they are out of touch with 21st century sport. Viva 7s and primary school programmes are also great vehicles for introducing the game - but it is also valid to point out that they should be linked to a local club so that kids can sign up and play.

I don't agree with a lot of stuff that Sydney club-people post, but it's spot on IMO (and Manly are certainly one of the best clubs when it comes to development). The clubs could and should be used to roll-out grassroots participation initiatives, and I think that the ARU strategy should look to mobilise the considerable resources of the clubs in this regard. I don't know how much the ARU spends on Development Officers, but the aim should eventually be to have one DO that is embedded in each Shute club, whose responsibility is the schools/village clubs in the catchment of that side. The primary KPIs of the District clubs should be increased numbers of juniors, and any funding that the ARU provides should be to facilitate the growth of junior numbers. What did Eastwood do to increase numbers while the ARU was funding them?

Papworth & co. seem to think that the Shute teams should be semi-professional, high-performance units. In his comments over the last few days he's basically contradicted himself- saying that they'll be putting out the corner flags at TG regardless of what the ARU does, and then criticising the ARUs efforts to increase participation, implying that there will be no clubs if the ARU doesn't directly fund them. How much does EDRUFC actually do for local village clubs, and increasing participation?

Does he realise that junior clubs actually depend on increasing playing numbers to remain viable (in both a financial and competitive sense), and that these players will eventually flow into the District Clubs? Apparently not, to answer my own question.