Perception and reality needed for Rugby Australia

Several issues. 1) Your point about 1% and 33% isn't correct for the reasons I outlined in my response to Andrew's misleading post. The ARU spends more on development than the 3% targeted for Community Rugby because much of the distributions to the States go to development in those states. 2) The 'sexy' flowchart does not necessarily denote that amount of money being "given" to those entities, but rather in what proportion those categories were benefited by money spent on community rugby in general. This is why the figures don't match with the breakdown on p59. 3) Indeed the ARU have taken over half of community rugby in NSW this year (the development side, not the competition support side). This will mean the ARU's grant to NSWRU will be reduced, and ARU's overall spend on Community Rugby will increase. 4) I feel your pain on player payments. But, as you probably know, RUPA has a deal that determines - to the cent - the pool of money out of which the players will get paid. So community rugby can never touch player payments, and (despite the many, many public misconceptions to the contrary) the ARU can NOT spend money it could use elsewhere, in order to pay players. 5) You say "the ARU are heavily dependent on the Wallabies competing and bringing home the bacon". I think you meant to say "solely dependent"!

Sorry - I meant specifically juniors in the inner-west. As Harry says - I suppose Drummoyne is there, but they are considered Northern Zone because of the comp they play in. Really, they should be a junior club aligned to West Harbour. Which would make westy happier no doubt!

Yikes, Balmain subbies has gone from not existing several years ago, after an absence of decades, to fielding 4 grades in Division 3!!! Briars also seems to do pretty well for numbers. While these are senior (subbies), rather than juniors, there are plenty of rugby heads in the inner west, and it is hardly a desert. If West Harbour are flat out running a Shute Shield club, and NSWRU flat out running the Tahs, who waters the "desert"? (enter stage left Rugby Australia)

Yikes, Of the $4.9m income in 2008 NSWRU got, $1.4 was via the Tahs, $3.2m from ARU, and $274K "other". $2.2m went to Premiership, $1.3 went to Country, $1m to "Youth" and $370K to Suburban. That's according to the annual report sexy flowchart on page 52. I have no idea how that was then split up (not enough detail to my mind), but I imagine the money going to clubs was helping pay the admin costs and prop up the clubs. In a different breakdown (financial statement revenue & income itemisation on page 59), $1.7m wne to Premiership, and $2.7m to Community Rugby. $0.5m to media ops and $3.7m to finance & admin. So I think the cost centres are broken down differently to the sexy flowchart. However, the 2008 NSWRU Annual report also said (page 54) ARU would be taking back over a lot of the community rugby the NSWRU were doing, so it will be interesting to see what the changes were. Point is, it is staggering to see so much spent on the ARU HPU. While the ARU (and states) are heavily dependent on the Wallabies competing and bringing home the bacon, that's a lot of money!!! To put it in perspective, if you could reduce all other ARU costs by enough to increase developments spending by 1% overall, it would add 33% to what is currently being spent!!! Would I rather have that $11K per player spent on the Wallabies or juniors? Here's an idea, when the Wallabies don't win, they get 50% fee, and the win bonus goes into juniors. Every time they play poorly, it pays to develop their replacements!!!!

Yikes, just to let you know the Parra U14's will be back next year and hopefully as good if not better than this year. They might loose their full back to Newington and maybe the No. 8 to league but there are a couple of others on standby to take over the rolls. With regard to West Harbour there are clubs in the area, Hunters Hill, or Drummoyne spring to mind although both play in the Northern Zone as they prefer to play Sunday rugby.

Cheese - the article is brilliant and I believe a lot more constructiveness can add value to rugby. The question begging to be asked is: Do we always succeed based on changing the rules? I don't think so - I can't suggest to the school teacher that the rules be changed to accommodate my own deficiencies. Because it will affect others - just like changing rules will impact internationally.

Westy, boring it may be, but no less important. I agree these things are rotten. I hope it doesn't happen to your U14s. The Parramatta 14s were dynamite at the State Championships this year. I'm sure most of the kids play league, or will. My issue is that starting a junior club is incredibly hard. The Unions have tried to encourage it in the west (you may not know the details, but trust me) and the problem is to start a new club you need an incredibly passionate and dedicated core nucleus of 3-4 rugby people willing to get the club through its first 2 years. These people are as rare as hen's teeth. Let alone 3-4 of them. Especially, I'm afraid, out west. I do not know why West Harbour do not have a couple of feeder clubs within the inner-west. It seems to be a rugby desert. But I also know that if you asked anyone at West Harbour they'd tell you they're flat out running a Premiership Club and getting 4 grades and 3 colts, and it's not their job to be out starting new junior clubs in the area.

TommyM - of course. Although I still think the S14 states are doing OK considering the two organisations are structured differently - obviously the AFL doesn't spend a cent on national teams playing international matches all over the globe (Wallabies, Sevens, Women, U20s etc). And most of the best S14 players are paid much of their money by the ARU, not the States. I do not believe the AFL centrally contracts players before giving distributions to clubs, right?

'The situation is as it is because in 2008, AFL’s revenue was 302 million. ARU’s was 79 million! Looking at those numbers, the Waratahs did quite well to get what they did, no? Half the money of the AFL clubs from a quarter of the revenue.' Uh, yes except there are 16 teams in the AFL (4 Aussie teams in S14)

Yikes my stuff is rather boring. We lost our rep prop to newington. i think he got a "music" scholarship. whilst i have no problem with a lad from rooty hill pursuing a wonderful educational opportunity I have aproblem that he is now to turn out for Uni rep team after attending this school. Our No 10 is also now being courted and three of our better players will now turn out in Northern Zone. this now starts as early as 14. I want a simple answer how do you have a Premier rugby club with one junior club and that is basically its rep team and it is not uni. We have had genuinely good players who are told by officially appointed state coaches that their is no rep future at penrith or parramatta.

Couldn't agree more Andrew on what makes for interesting reading and what doesn't. My comment though was directed towards speculation on the methodology members of Rugby Australia might employ to guage their success or otherwise in achieving goals and objectives.

Andrew, In some way the ARU reminds of that email doing the rounds (several times) years ago about the Japanese rowing eight. I can't recall exactly how it went, but basically management wasn't satisfied with the team's performance & replaced 2 rowers with mid-managers. When the results got even worse, they hired a consultancy firm to investigate. It recommended having only one rower & 7 managers. When this inevitably failed the lone rower was found to be at fault for the poor performances & sacked. Meanwhile all the managers got a pay rise while the consultancy firm made a killing in consultancy fees! Maybe this is the grand plan of the ARU? Keep offloading players at all levels of the game & keep replacing them with more & more HPU operatives. When the last rugby union player walks out, all the HPU operatives can expect a very generous redundancy package!!!

Andrew, I think we're all on the same side ultimately, but Joe's point could be adapted to suggest that there are lies, damned lies and statistics! On your two statistics - the first is very misleading because the ARU in 2008 were not responsible for community rugby services in all States, rather the State Unions were. Some of the distributions from the ARU to the States would have been used for community rugby purposes, which would change your number. On your second - I'm not sure of your point. The situation is as it is because in 2008, AFL's revenue was 302 million. ARU's was 79 million! Looking at those numbers, the Waratahs did quite well to get what they did, no? Half the money of the AFL clubs from a quarter of the revenue. Certainly there's nothing that Rugby Australia could do about that, alas. Overall, the idea of an army of volunteers under one banner helping develop the game is something any Union would welcome. So long as everyone has the right expectations as to what can be achieved.

Joe - re your comment "Anecdotal evidence may make for relaxed and friendly conversation among intimates, but it is no substitute for compelling evidence of achievement for the driven and committed"....it also makes for readable articles, rather than dull reams of statistics. However, here's a couple of stats for you. To give you a sense of the size of the battle: - The ARU in 2008 spent 30% of its revenue on the High Performance Unit and player payments. It spent 3% on community rugby. One tenth the amount. - The distribution from the ARU to NSW Rugby in 2008 was approximately $3.2M. By contrast, the AFL gave every single one of its clubs between $7M and $10M. The club which received the least (Brisbane Lions) still received a distribution of over twice the amount received by the Waratahs from the ARU. Want more? I got a million of 'em....but after about a dozen, they get pretty boring.

Fire in the belly...essential.

Here, Here. Though I will say one thing. If RA gets off the ground and captures the imagination of a sizable contingent of the Australian Rugby public even though I agree the first and most important goal of the organisation will be to grow the game, it may unwillingly become a political force in Rugby. Which isn't that bad really. It would provide accountability for who run our code. Though I would stipulate that if this occurs that there would be a mechanism in place to prevent anyone using the organisation to stage a takeover of the game.

go to the link for a little food for thought on Aus rugby http://www.youtube.com/user/mangwanani#play/uploads/20/brp-0gEtKbs

I am one of the frustrated many who Andrew spoke of in his article discussing Rugby Australia. But I'm not frustrated with the current Wallabies or laws of the game. I am optimistic our run at the next RWC will be positive (young developing team, proven coach) and the laws can be debated forever, as long as we all play by the same ones, it shouldn't matter. What frustrates me is the lack of player's depth we have in this country. Our code is one in four - competition for numbers is fierce. To not have a functional organisation focussed on bringing Rugby Union to the kids is suicidal in the mid-long term. We, as supporters, have waited for the ARU to see only a top down approach. Andrew uses emotion to introduce his case, because 'what else is there?' We love our game. But if you read on he states the objective priorities he sees as fundamental to this movement; none of which will detract from the ARU - it is geared to support and feed it. Cool heads are definitely required Joe, but don't ignore the fire in the belly.

All - in no way do I underestimate the size of the task at hand, nor do I underestimate the amount of work being put in by the unions at state and national level right now. Neither do I level the claim that the unions are in some way holding back resources. I do feel that their spend is perhaps not very efficient, and I also feel that they are not doing everything they could to listen to the wishes of the stakeholders at the foundation of the game. I will say that anecdotal and experiential evidence suggests that more needs to be done to keep rugby on a path of growth, and that if there are people out there willing to get involved, they should be given a platform to do so. Similarly, if they feel that their voices are not being heard, they should be given a forum in which to put their thoughts forward. If Rugby Australia was to become a reality, there would be no point in diverting its resources and time into playing politics within the established structure, or trying to compete with the unions. In my view at least, RA is simply another vehicle for growing rugby in Australia, and surely the more of these we have, the better for the game overall? RA is not about competing, lobbying, politicking or taking over anything that anyone else is doing. It is simply about growing rugby. I don't see how anyone with the true interests of rugby at heart could argue with that.

I still think the odd change in the rules will add spice to the recipe. There could be different points scored for a try that is put down under the posts. All conversions would be taken in front of the sticks, but a try scored under the posts would be worth 10 points. A try in the corner would only be worth 7. You could say that 3 or 4 kickers must take it in turns to kick penalties. Perhaps the rule could be that one of your kickers has to be a front rower. A sort of Sean Fitzpatrick or somebody like that. I still reckon that a 'Power Play' of "forward passing" should be considered.