Bob Dwyer, coach of the 1991 Rugby World Cup champion Wallabies, Randwick doyen and all-round rugby guru, has put the boot into the ARU chief executive Bill Pulver over his un-benign neglect of Sydney club rugby. Right on!
At issue is the ARU’s 2016-2020 Strategic Plan.
Among the brainwaves of the plan is this: the ARU will no longer directly provide financial assistance to the clubs, large and small, that make up the foundation blocks of rugby in Australia.
In Tom Decent’s recent article in The Sydney Morning Herald, Dwyer claims Pulver told the NSWRU board some weeks ago: ‘I’m not making any money available for the Sydney clubs to piss it up against the wall.’
This was all in the context of some very robust debate.
Pulver’s argument was that the Sydney clubs had a tendency to spend their ARU grants on paying players handsomely for playing in the Shute Shield, despite the fact it was an “amateur level” club tournament.
The Strategic Plan calls for more money to be invested in “infiltrating” the public schools and the western suburbs of Sydney to increase male and female participation levels substantially.
More Rugby:
» Australia’s Super Rugby window is definitely open
» Western Force lease IP rights to ARU
» Super Rugby preview: Brumbies
Instead of giving money to the clubs, Pulver insists that it will go to the state unions who will “allocate the funds” as they want to.
Pulver admits, though, that the NSWRU specifically asked that the traditional and successful model of funding the clubs directly be maintained.
The Strategic Plan also calls for the end of one of the Sydney National Rugby Championship teams as part of a reform of the NRC project, an enhancement of VIVA7s, a rugby version of touch rugby (to break into the NRL’s alliance with Touch Football Australia) and the “explosive growth” in Sevens Rugby – both the male and female versions of the game.
The history behind the Strategic Plan needs some explaining.
In past decades, including the 1990s when the Wallabies won two World Cups, the ARU gave grants to clubs that sometimes were in excess of $100,000.
But two years ago, with the ARU virtually broke, Pulver asked the clubs throughout Australia to give up their grants (supposedly for a short time) and to reduce their season from 22 games to 18.
Some of the saved grant money was to be directed into the introduction of the NRC.
The rest went to the ARU to prop up its shaky balance sheet until the enhanced new five-year broadcast deal was signed and sealed, which it has been.
Pulver undertook to return to the former practice of giving ARU grants directly to the clubs when the broadcast largesse came in. His promise was to “fund the game properly” when the broadcast money came in.
He has reneged on this promise.
Now come in Bob Dwyer, from your long run!
“It is gross stupidity in all ways. By ignoring those people who not only do the job week in and week out, year in and year out, decade after decade, but come to his assistance, for their own detriment, I don’t know what a person is behind such an attitude.
“I don’t know whether this conclusion has been arrived at out of arrogance or ignorance, but sure as eggs, one or both these factors apply.”
And here is the killer conclusion: “I said to Bill: ‘We are not asking you to give us a grant. We’re asking you to give us a proportion of the money that we’ve helped you earn. It is not your money: some of it is our money’.
“We are the heart of Australian rugby. Without Sydney premier rugby, the game in Australia would not exist, full stop.”
There is a very powerful truth here. Sydney club rugby is the heartland of Australian rugby.
This means that whatever Pulver’s motives are, they are founded on a lack of understanding about the dynamics of Australian rugby.
The simple fact is that any ‘strategic vision’ for Australian rugby has to recognise that the future sustainability of the code lies in the success, on and off the field, of the Wallabies and the Super Rugby teams and competition.
Test rugby and Super Rugby make virtually all the money for the ARU. You would think that Pulver and the ARU would know this. Apparently they don’t. Or they don’t care and have other agendas outside the practice of rugby.
The NRC, sevens and women’s rugby will help with the participation rates but they are costly and create little if any revenue for the ARU.
The institutions that provide the foundations of all rugby in Australia – the Wallabies, Super Rugby, sevens and women’s rugby – are the clubs all over the country and the rugby-playing schools.
How the chief executive of the ARU does not understand this basic truth about Australian rugby baffles me.
Moreover, Pulver’s un-benign neglect of the clubs has been matched with a similar neglect of the Super Rugby clubs in Australia, one of the sources (in the past) of revenue for Australian rugby.
Pulver and Michael Hawker (former chairman of the ARU) were both ARU representatives with SANZAAR. They are, therefore, partners in the tournament’s crazy format for 2016.
Was there any consideration of three conferences of six teams?
The suggestion here is that the six South African teams are one conference, there would be an Australian conference with the five local sides plus the Sunwolves from Japan, and a New Zealand conference of the five local sides plus the Jaquares from Argentina.
Other Super Rugby questions come to mind.
Why did Pulver and Hawker allow a Super Rugby format that is so clearly against the playing interests of the Australian teams?
Remember, Super Rugby is one of only two major revenue sources for the ARU.
What are the details and terms of the ARU’s bail-out of the Western Force? There are suggestions in rugby circles that the bail-out terms would astonish rugby followers.
The more I think about these matters, though, the more it seems that we have to look beyond Pulver. The composition of the ARU board provides clues, perhaps, for the general cluelessness about club and Super Rugby from the ARU and its chief executive.
To begin with, there is no one on the ARU board who has an intimate knowledge of NSW club rugby. This is an astonishing ommission.
The ARU chairman is Cameron Clyne, a former group chief executive officer of NAB. Clyne played rugby in Victoria at a representive level.
There is board member Geoff Stooke, a businessman from Perth who was for 25 years the president of RugbyWA.
Three former Wallabies, John Eales, Dr Brett Robinson (a medical doctor and Oxford Ph.D) and Paul McLean have a Queensland background. McLean and Eales played (splendidly) for the Reds and Robinson captained the Brumbies.
In early February, Microsoft’s Australian managing director Pip Marlow was appointed to the ARU board. Born in New Zealand, Marlow has “a lifelong passion” for rugby.
Marlow joined Liz Broderick, Australia’s sex discrimination commissioner for eight years, and Ann Sherry, a former Westpac and Carnival Australia CEO, as a female troika on the board of the ARU.
According to Liz Broderick, “the men’s game [in Australia] is very strong and needs to continue to be strong but what we have now is the opportunity to be a game for all to really build the women’s game … [rugby] is a sport that has the power to create change in the nation.”
Broderick made her comments after the highly successful Sydney Sevens where the Australian Women’s Sevens played three entertaining matches against the Ireland Sevens.
Marlow, who watched the tournament with Broderick and Sherry, also made the point that: “role modelling is an important part of creating culture and creating change. That’s why it’s amazing to have three women on a national sports board setting a new tone for this code.”
I think it is great to have three successful and articulate business women, a stalwart of rugby in Western Australia and three former Wallabies with a Queensland background on the board of the ARU.
Next time when a ARU board appointment is made, though, why not enhance this diversity?
Why not appoint someone from NSW who has a deep knowledge of the history, politics and practice of Australian rugby, someone like Dwyer, Simon Poidevin, Brett Papworth or, best of all, Rod Macqueen?
The point here is that playing to your strengths is always the best winning policy, in rugby and in rugby administration.
Michael gardiner
Guest
You pompous arrogant pigs die heart supporters of rugby are complaining about rugby being in trouble because of lack of funds and that the countries greatest nurseries private schools are staved of funds. Well let's face the fact that it's because rugby must change because the game is boring , people will continue to follow much more fast moving open play such as AFL and NRL. No matter how much winging and arrogance is displayed on how great a game rugby is , the fact is the public see it as slow and boring. If you want people to follow rugby then scrap the line out, stop the endless penalties, and get rid of the scrums and the one yard barge and fall in a heap predictable play.
rebel
Guest
David, I know I'm way late but just saw this. Souths do similar things for their district however when I mentioned this I just got an obtuse statement that it did not occur as it was not published in a publicly released document. I agree that these things will continue without the ARU funding, but like you I just wanted to counter a lot of the mistruths being falsely purported here. Keep up the good work at Manly and good luck throughout the year, just not against the Rebels.
Graeme Hearl
Guest
As a former President of Gordon Rugby Football Club ("GRFC"), I have to say I am staggered at the level of ignorance about and apparent hatred of the Shute Shield and the clubs which are part of it by people who clearly know nothing of its history or its importance to Australian rugby. The people who have commented on this topic and whose opinions are most worthy of regard are Matt McGoldrick, Michael Bell and David Begg and their supporters; not to mention Spiro Zavos and Bob Dwyer. Sadly, a lot of the other comment is passionate, but ill-informed and some of it is simply delusional. The reality is that very few Shute Shield clubs operate on $800,000 plus budgets. Most operate well below that level and most have modest player payments. Most outgoings are found under admin, coaching, kit, ground hire and strapping (ask your local club if you doubt that last one). In those clubs which do pay players, generally the only players who get paid are regular First Graders, and then only modest amounts and often on a win only basis. Some clubs have claimed to have stopped paying players altogether in recent years. By repute, some Sub-District clubs in Sydney have been paying more than many Shute Shield clubs, forcing a recent crackdown by the Sub-District administration. Underpinning all Shute Shield district clubs is a network of junior or village clubs. These provide the representative players for age group State Championships held each year in New South Wales. They play as junior representatives of the Shute Shield clubs and compete against each other as well as New South Wales regional representative sides from country and non-Sydney urban regions. The junior clubs have varying degrees of affiliation with the Shute Shield clubs, with some districts having a vertical structure and others having a clear distinction between the junior clubs and their collective administrations and the Shute Shield clubs. Most, if not all of them, get support in various forms from the Shute Shield clubs. As David Begg points out, the Shute Shield clubs, for the most part, do a huge amount of work with their junior clubs. The GRFC juniors, fortunately, have a very well established and strong administration and a sound financial base of their own, as do the affiliated village clubs. As such they are fairly independent on many matters, but GRFC still enjoys a good relationship with them. For instance, in recent years at GRFC some of our junior rep sides have trained with our First Grade squad in the lead up to the State Championships and a number of our Grade players are actively involved in coaching junior sides. Like most other clubs, GRFC also is active in assisting local schools with coaching support when requested. Many of the people involved with our junior clubs, especially in coaching roles, and with our junior rep sides are ex- or current GRFC players. I'm sure the same is true for most Shute Shield clubs and their junior affiliates. When the NRC was in prospect, Bill Pulver came to the Sydney Rugby Union and basically told the Shute Shield clubs the ARU was broke and that unless there were serious cost cutting at the ARU and a massive injection of cash from the new SANZAR deal the ARU would be road kill. Bill has certainly pruned a lot of admin costs at the ARU. For their part, and totally against their own self interests, the clubs agreed to forgo the ARU grants (on the understanding some support would continue and that the grants would be revisited when times improved), to reduce the length of the Shute Shield season and to move it forward by several weeks to allow for the NRC to fit in a window which Fox Sport had latter in the year. This was not a self interested decision but one intended to help out the ARU in its time of need. This agreement caused huge problems for most of the clubs as it meant loss of gate takings from a reduced season and the need to relocate early season matches as most share fields with cricket clubs and the new season start overlapped with the cricket season. It also meant the loss of the traditional home and away structure, which also impacted revenue. Not sure how anyone can see any of this as self interested action, but no doubt there are a few bush lawyers out there who might think otherwise. I can't speak for other clubs and their engagement with the NRC, but Manly, Warringah, Northern Suburbs and GRFC took responsibility for the North Harbour Rays and injected serious coin into the venture along with Macquarie Uni. This was money we could all have used in our own programs, but made a decision based on what we believed was in the best interests of Australian rugby. In the above context, Bill's reference to Shute Shield club's pissing money up against a wall (assuming he said it) was at best unfortunate and at worst a disgraceful insult to clubs and people who had taken some serious damage for the sake of the ARU. I wasn't at the meeting, but understand it was pretty heated, so it may be many things were said by all concerned which they might now regret. As for the NRC, the ARU showed, in my view, questionable leadership by allowing four NRC sides out of New South Wales. This meant they were never going to be a strong as the interstate sides and would never attract the level of support from the Waratahs which all interstate franchises received from their Super 15 affiliates. Indeed, most of the interstate franchises in the NRC were effectively academy sides run by the Super 15 sides. The ARU also refused to force the interstate Super 15 clubs to release Shute Shield players aligned with those interstate Super 15 clubs back to their Shute Shield club's NRC franchise, even if they weren't required in the NRC. This led to the ludicrous situation of a promising young prop sitting out virtually the whole of the 2014 NRC because he wasn't released back to the North Harbour Rays, notwithstanding they had a desperate need for a quality prop. So, please don't offer up half baked attacks on the quality of the New South Wales based NRC sides in this discussion. In fact, if you are paranoid, you could be forgiven for thinking the ARU never intended a New South Wales (read Sydney, if you will) franchise to win the NRC and structured the competition accordingly. The suggestion that the Shute Shield can disappear and Sub District rugby will step up is bizarre. The notion that Australian rugby will not suffer if the Shute Shield disappeared is simply delusional. Anyone who thinks otherwise or that there is any resemblance between the top of Sub District and the Shute Shield should seek help immediately. The ARU may well have concerns about how Shute Shield clubs spend their money. They should appreciate, however, the Shute Shield clubs and their supporters have serious concerns about how much the ARU has pumped into and continues to pump into the Force and the Rebels, for instance. Given most of the ARU money from test fixtures and broadcasting rights is generated from rugby people on the eastern seaboard, you might get an inkling of why being told by the ARU they have concerns about corporate governance and expenditure tends to get people dealing with the reality of club rugby a bit hot under the collar. The talk of numbers of players and there being 770 clubs or whatever in Australia is totally misleading. The reality is that aside from the Shute Shield clubs in Sydney, the Brisbane Premiership clubs and the leading clubs in the ACT, not one of those other 700 plus clubs is likely to produce more than a smattering of representative footballers, if any, within the next 10 years, if at all. The bulk of the players in Super Rugby in Australia come out of New South Wales, Queensland and the ACT and virtually all of those out of New South Wales have an affiliation with a Shute Shield club, either as a junior or as a player in Grade or Colts. As Spiro says, the Shute Shield is the bedrock of Australian rugby. The ARU ignores it or demeans it at its peril. Whatever might have occurred in the past, as I understand things at present, the Shute Shield clubs would use any ARU funding primarily to employ admin staff, development officers and for coaching development. If they were to pay players with it, they do so at their own risk as it will be a case of short term gain for a long term pain.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Mick, make that the Wallabies. Sydney clubs do not make most of the money.
Mick Harrold
Roar Rookie
Sydney clubs and the Wallabies make most of the money for rugby in Australia. Never a truer word was spoken. It will continue to be the case while money is throw at them. Rugby is in a poor state in Australia for just that reason. Give the money to the other clubs and watch the game grow. I know the old boys will hate it while their teams fade and others shine. But we might actually grow the game. So sick of the old boys running the game in Australia. Have you even been to a season launch for the Waratahs. QC's, Business leaders, Financial controllers and so on. Field day for a sales guys from all industries and that is why they all go. Not because they love rugby, but because the old teams have the most rich and powerful people supporting them and they can make some sales there. Give rugby a chance. Support the outer Sydney teams. Support the teams from interstate. Support the country teams. Build the game for the good of all of us. Then we can actually beat those bloody Kiwis and Saffas. And we can be the unbeatables instead of the ABs. Who cares if one of those toffy Sydney clubs win. Everytime they win, I despair at the state of rugby in Aus. I am from Vic and I have seen the teams get massively better since the Rebels got here. No-one is paid (much) at the top, but at least the comp has gotten better. Outside the top 5 teams down here though, it is still poor pickings. Good players snatched up by the power clubs. Poor coaches because there is no support. Good players going to waste because of poor coaching. If the ARU wants to do something, investing in coaching. There are heaps of really good players that go to waste because they don't even understand the game until they are too old to make use of it. [Mods. Snip. No swearing pls] I wish I got good coaching when I was young. In 25 years of playing, I only ever had one really good coach and I only had him for 2 years. I look at the game now and I realise I only know what some people in the power clubs in Sydney knew when they were 16. Are they better than me. Probably, but who knows.
Seeujim
Guest
To say that the Shute Sheild is not grass roots is in my opinion drawing a long bow. Not that I am a fan infact the opposite, Go Souths, but Sydney Uni were the first rugby team in Australia. Often in the past watching a Shute Sheild game on a Saturday arvo was a lot more entertaining than NSW under previous coaches. Long live the Shute Sheild.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Why doesn't the Shute Shield do it? Perhaps if you lot got off your a-- 30 years ago you'd be like the AFL and NRL. Instead you've just whinged for handouts.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
You do realize the numbers are in subbies, not Shute Shield? I'd say providing a result that engages the subbies clubs better will lead to more fans. More people = more fans.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
What? So we can learn how Papworth is stuck in the past? It's based on a time when codes weren't financially competing for the best 18 year old talent and 18 year olds were happy to slog away for a few years in grade rugby to crack it. Now we have codes and countries fighting over kids. You cannot force them to play grade rugby. You can only force the ones that pass up the money and choose to work then chase their dream in their own time. Would you pass up a paid job to slog away for 3 or 4 years to get another job that will pay pretty much the same? All these club rugby tragics are removed from reality and think it's still 1992, just ignoring that the world has moved on around them.
concerned supporter
Guest
Another article by Brett Papworth. http://www.rugbynews.net.au/brett-papworth-what-we-love-about-club-rugby/
concerned supporter
Guest
http://www.rugbynews.net.au/brett-papworth-the-lessons-learnt-from-club-rugby/ Perhaps heretics should read Brett Papworth's artivle.
Squirrel
Guest
Soon we won't get 20k to a Bledisloe, because the ARU has alienated the converted fan. My dad who has been to every rugby World Cup now refuses to go to a game but will go to every Shute shield game. This is how dire the ARU and your philosophies are killing rugby. NRC is a joke
Spanners
Guest
Rebel
Guest
Every comment? Yeah nah The other poster picked you like a dirty nose. Looking forward to spotting the contradictions that lay ahead.
BeastieBoy
Guest
Why don't we set up an Australian Domestic Rugby union body totally separate from the international ARU. It would be clarity and focus to the domestic clubs. They could bring in their own NRC and see where it takes them.
Who?
Guest
The only area where the NRC isn't strong is... Sydney. Because it's run there by the SS Clubs, who run it for their own gain. Other areas have been much, much smarter in how they developed their NRC teams. The QRU - who've gotten enough wrong lately - were right in maintaining control of the two NRC teams up here. It means that they're above the Premier Rugby teams, without partisan ties to those clubs, and all feed into the Reds. Similarly, Victoria, WA and the ACT have been smart. The NSW Country Eagles are in a decent situation. But the Sydney teams, being more tied to the SS Clubs than the NSWRU... Not ideal. Train and Brett Mackay's comments are wholly on the money. The Shute Shield finally isn't the third tier that it shouldn't have been - couldn't have been - if we wanted a truly national game, and decent opportunities for non-Sydney-based players. The NRL figured that out in the 80's, as did the VFL, with the NSWRL becoming the ARL and the VFL creating the AFL. League has (token) internationals, so they also have provincial teams (origin). Rugby has a major international focus, so they have major provincial focus. The same way that League's focus is Origin, so they have a major NRL focus - the level immediately below. I look forward to seeing the SS Clubs grow to understand that, and relax into that role - that less stressed role, where clubs aren't supposed to spend big money on player recruitment and retention, because they're the fourth tier. But I take issue with one more comment from Spiro. That the clubs don't make money for the ARU. Maybe not in the past... But with every player above U8's contributing money - in many areas (notably not NSW), quite serious money - to the ARU directly, and the ARU attempting to wrest control of all payments directly (the expectation is that, by next year, the ARU will collect ALL club rego's nationwide, and then pay it back to the clubs, less administration costs - something my club and myself strongly oppose), it's very clear that Clubland - real Clubland, not semi-pro comps - DOES now generate revenue for the ARU. And pretty well nothing gets spent on Clubland. I don't know what the ARU does for us, other than provide 'RugbyLink' (which isn't that great). And I say that as someone who assists in running a competition for my local sub-union. So the ARU DOES make money off Clubland. It's just that you can't go back two years and prove it - yet.
sheek
Roar Guru
TWAS, I love your stoicism. You play every intended injury with the same straight bat. I'm impressed. On the point of" "Let's just stick with what we used to do because that's what we used to do." It may come as no surprise to you, since you have been one of those to suggest it of me, that I might prefer to be stuck 'back in my day.' Heck, I loved life back in my day. We had freedoms that today's 20/30-somethings simply would never understand. But not everything was always rosy. My position is this: Is something is obviously better, I will support it 100%. Like the Rugby Championship. Love it, just love it. Wish it was around in the mid-80s. Mark Ella (Wallas), Wayne Smith (ABs), Naas Botha (Boks) & Hugo Porta (Pumas) directing their teams around the pitch would have been something to see. Four high quality no.10s pitching wits against each other. But I'm not going to agree to a change because say, some pony-tailed, blinged-up marketeer thinks it's a great way for a club/organisation to make money (not to mention himself & his agency). I simply refuse to condone change purely for change's sake (that is masked as some kind of progression). My sad observation is that too little is done today with long-term thought about legacy. It's all about short-term money grabs. That is decidedly unhealthy.
colvin
Guest
What happened to the pic of Bill with the intense smoldering gaze directed knowingly towards the camera while having his finger in his ear? Is its absence because we have a newish Ed or is there some other more nefarious reason? I used to love Johnno's comments on that pic. By the way, where is Johnno these days? Johnno had pretty firm views on subjects like Spiro's latest piece.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
You're right. Let's just stick with what we used to do because that's what we used to do. Objectively reviewing the facts and then making decisions and taking positions is lunacy. You must love politics since you've decided your position on the issue based on your side of the fence, not the issues themselves.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Apologies. Only 2 have made their 2015 ones available. I don't know why you are showing me the 2014 one as some revelation? We have already discussed the contents of this specific report in another thread and noted despite their wonderful my position licences premises (I agree, it's a great location), they made $8k in 2014.