Coaches shocked at ARC dumping

[GIGS20]

Maybe the fat lady will stop singing if enough NSWelshmen complain!

John McKee Spews

John Boe isn't happy either!

[GIGS20]

It appears that Arvid Petersen is happy though, so that balances the fact that RugbyWA, The MARC Coaches,the RUPA and every rugby loving fan of the game hate this decision

http://www.waratahs.com.au/MediaExtr...pDecision.aspx

[GIGS20]

Is a legal challenge in the pipeline?

http://foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659...rom=public_rss

[fulvio sammut]

It appears that Arvid Petersen is happy though, so that balances the fact that RugbyWA, The MARC Coaches,the RUPA and every rugby loving fan of the game hate this decision

http://www.waratahs.com.au/MediaExtr...pDecision.aspx

I don't.

[GIGS20]

This just in from Fox Sports
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,...-23217,00.html

Clubs crucial to fresh start

By David Beniuk
December 21, 2007
RUGBY'S traditional clubs in Sydney and Brisbane are set to play a pivotal role in any replacement competition for the axed Australian Rugby Championship.
A group of establishment clubs fought tooth and nail to avoid the amalgamated teams of the ARC, which was cut last week after a seven-figure loss in its only season.

But Australian Rugby Union acting chief executive Matt Carroll said the clubs would form the foundations of a third tier tournament loosely proposed for 2009.

"It comes down to what your core building blocks might be and that's where we need to sit down with the clubs," Carroll said.

"You need people to have skin in the game. There's a whole lot of infrastructure out there in club land which (the) ARC didn't make use of which might have saved money.

"There's already coaches employed by the top clubs in Sydney and Brisbane. Why not use those?

"In terms of marketing, there are already existing brands. Why not utilise existing brands?

"It doesn't have to be those actual clubs. It doesn't have to be Sydney University but, for heaven's sake, we've got a fair bit of infrastructure there that could be utilised."

The ARU have flagged a comprehensive review of the game's structures in Australia aimed at heading off the inroads made by AFL and football and reaching out to rugby's grassroots.

The clubs may see the ARC's demise as a victory but Carroll hinted funding for them could be tied to their contribution to a revamped competition when financial arrangements with the ARU are renewed at the end of next year.

"We've put everyone on notice - don't count on it for `09," he said.

"I don't know that there's any accountability at all any more so any sort of funding into any competition will be heavily accountable."

The ARC will be temporarily replaced by an "interim" competition in 2008, which could resemble the previous Australian Provincial Championship featuring Australia's four Super 14 franchises playing each other without their Wallaby stars.

The ARU has asked state unions to put aside a window in October for such a tournament.

Meanwhile, Carroll said the ARC's axing had been sealed when powerhouse states NSW and Queensland refused to shoulder future losses expected from the five sides they provided to the eight-team competition.

He said suggestions such as moving games to smaller venues, using coaching staff already employed in each state and abolishing players' sign-on fees did not sway the states.

"To be fair to them, they went away and looked but said, ‘we couldn't afford to do it' and I can understand that," Carroll said.

"Gates would have had to triple to have any effect."

Carroll said the ARU's $4.7 million loss was made up of its own operating loss of $2.5 million plus the bigger than expected revenue shortfalls of the states.

More than $1 million in sponsorship was collected but, with no broadcast revenue, it actually cost the ARU $350,000 to have matches broadcast by the ABC.

Carroll rejected Rugby Union Players Association boss Tony Dempsey's claim that rationalising programs like Australia's sevens team and the Australia A side could have made significant inroads into losses.
AAP






A large part of me is concerned that we're just going to see a shif in power towards the big sydney clubs, they'll get more money, more professional contracts more power, more voting rights and we won't see a third tier at all, just a stronger NSW lobby!



Sorry Fulv, I can see that this answers many of the points you have already brought up in this thread. I'm just cynical that this will be all centred around Sydney and WA will see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!

[fulvio sammut]

GGST, the clubs in WA get nothing from ARU, not now not ever before, nor likely ever in the future . Nothing, zip, nada, niente, rien.

Why should WA clubs, as individual units who's sole aim is to pay for and maintain their position in their own little dung hill of a competition give a rat's arse for what may or may not be good for the ARU, the ARC or the Western Force for that matter. What's in it for them?

On the contrary, what do the ARU, the ARC and the WF do that harms club rugby?

Rhetorical question.

Let me tell you.

One, they suck out club sposorship dollars. I can tell you about the RugbyWA committeeman who blatantly stood in our club rooms pen in hand writing down all the names on our sponsorship board. Some of those sponsors were subsequently approached to give their dollars elsewhere.

Two, they structure their games and competitions without any consideration at all
for the good of the local comp. They treat it like it doesn't exist at all. Example, this season just gone, when part way through they announce the ARC and bring it on in the middle of club finals.

Three, they treat club players like their own property and decide who can play club rugby and when, and when they are to be "rested" for "possible" use in their poxy comps.

Four, they spend dollars through advertising and promotions to attract the clubs' already meagre support base to the alternative comps, futher starving the clubs of revenue.

Fifth, they develop and promote a payment culture, unrealistically building up expectations of financial reward in third rate players and demoralising volunteers to the point that they refuse to get involved.

Sixth, they put impediments in the way of clubs trying to recruit class overseas players by refusing to cooperate with immigration Department requirements and setting the eligibility bar impossibly high.

Do I need to go on?

If WA clubs got a tenth of the money poured into the Sydney/Brisbane comps, then ARU etc. may have some grounds for calling on the clubs' cooperation and support. But as things stand, ARU et al have no right to ask for anything, and no club committee with the testicles of a castrated gnat would put up with their crap.

Unfortunately, castrated gnats appear to be infinitely beter endowed that local club administrators, and in WA at least they will continue to be put upon and ridden roughshod by RugbyWA, ARU and every other Johnny Come Lately with no idea whatsoever about rugby grass roots who worms his way into the governing bodies' administration.

I said it ten years ago when what is happening today was being mooted, and I say it again today-we are going down the same path as the WARL in the days of the Western Reds. The tail is wagging the dog and the dog will lose its ability to bark, let alone bite.

Finally, let me make it clear- Palmyra is the club I support and have always supported, but while I am well known as being associated with that club I am not, nor have I been for several years, precisely because their views are not my own, an official or spokesman of that club.

[GIGS20]

Fulv, I suspected as much ...... well wasn't really up to speed about all the player/sponsorship stuff, but from what I see at a distance in Rocko they don't get a bloody cent from anyone, so surely a rationalisation of the ARU's funding of club rugby would have to work in WA Clubs' favour, even if we receive not a brass razoo!

I guess, I'd be a bit of a fence sitter with much of the other stuff you bring up (well most of it, approaching your sponsors is just LOW!) I guess there'd have to be some give and take between club rugby and elite rugby (spent some time looking for better names, not trying to imply that club rugby is not elite) but surely the relationship is symbiotic? A healthy club scene with strong competition, and many opportunities for players to develop and train feeds more highly developed players into the entry programs of he Force and the Wallabies, a strong team at the top attracts fresh-faced young boys to the club scene to be trained as future Wallabies....the cycle continues.

I guess there will be demands between the two (since we don't seem to be able to play rugby all year) and there should be consultation and concession from both parties. I guess the problem as I see it from a distance is that a) Consultation b) Concession and c) Cooperation have been in pretty short supply in rugby.

What is the cause? I guess this stuff usually flows from the top down, ARU/NSW QLD junta/RugbyWA/IRB/Media interests. The question is....what is the answer, do we kick up a fuss? Has that got us anywhere before? Do we sabotage the elite program? isn't that shooting ourselves in the foot?

Frankly, I'm pretty stuck, and are too new to rugby politics to know the answer if it bit me on the ass, I just get pissed when guys who (AFAIK) are loyal servants of club rugby have such an aversion to a comp like the ARC (at it's base, the ARC was MEANT to be a stepping stone from club rugby to S14) If this is more widespread than just Fulv, then the ARC missed THAT mark gloriously!

[fulvio sammut]

You have nailed it, GGST, cooperation, negotiation and compromise is the key to harmony and success between the different levels of rugby. Of course there is a need and a place for everything.

But consultation does not consist of RugbyWA deciding what is good for rugby with one eye on the Force and the other eye on the dollar and then telling the clubs what they have to do.

Consultation does not mean the ARU setting up competitions directly impacting on club rugby without any compensation or consideration.

I can tell you that RugbyWA decided we would take part in the ARC competition without any discussion or request for imput from the clubs and locked the local competition into it without any such dialogue.

I can also tell you that the ARU also told RugbyWA what the West was going to do without giving them any options either. They did this to the Sydney/Brisbane clubs too, (note that the ARU IS the NSW/Qld unions) but dynamic clubs like Randwick and Sydney Uni had the strength of character and resources to stand up to them to a degee.

In my view Grass roots rugby is only as strong as it is because of clubs like Randwick, like them or loath them. Without them the money men of ARU etc would have consigned it to the scrap heap long ago.

In ARU's global plan the clubs should exist only to produce juniors for identification and intoduction into the ARU's elite programs, and the rest of the rugby public can pay to watch these elites as and when the ARU decrees. What a way to stuff up a sport!

Or so it seems to me. But I'm just a fool, ask RugbyWA.

[Burgs]

So here's your chance Fulv, what is the "Fulvio Sammut Proposal" for an all encompassing system that supports grass roots, develops future Super 14 players and ensures success at Provincial and International level in a truly sustainable manner?

[fulvio sammut]

You don't have to be a chef to know the fish is off, Burgs. And I'm not earning a living out of rugby administration.

But as a start: what is the aim? Four or five tiers? Lets start with four, National, Super 14, Provincial and club.

Work out an overall needs formula, using the most successful organisations at each level as a bench mark.

Calculate a minimum budget for each level to achieve the required standard.

Allocate a percentage of the budget amount to each organization at each level, with the organization itself to raise the balance.

Rationalize the number of Senior clubs at the fourth level. Merge clubs to create a more manageable 8 team competition at A grade level in the capital city of each State. create District clubs which represent regional areas, not adjacent suburbs. This will form the Professional base of the fourth level. Beneath that, in the more populous rugby States there can be sub competitions to cater for social players. In WA social players can be accomodated in the (then) existing club framework.

Enforce salary caps appropriate to each level.

Plan competition schedules at each level to accomodate the needs of levels above and below.

Develope an Australia wide selection policy for all levels to ensure that any disadvantage is properly recognized and compensated, financially or othewise. For example a club which loses a prop to ARC could be paid an amount calculated by formula to obtain a short term replacement elsewhere, and that player would receive temporary dispensation to play within the competition in the period of unavailability of the original player.

Obviously the great bulk of income to fund such a program would come out of money generated by tiers one and two. There should be strict control and auditing of the funds generated and disbursed at this level. Tight controls would have to be implemented to prevent waste, junkets, made up jobs for useless mates, and unnecessary expenditure on over administration.

OK, these are outlines written on the back of an envelope on a Saturday afternoon when my wife is calling for me to finish the cooking I started and when am I going to get back into the garden project. But the point is that this is the type of strategic thinking that has to be progressed on a consultative basis with all levels.

Otherwise the existing law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, mess we currently have will kill the roots of the rugby plant, and without viable roots the flower will soon wither also.

[Burgs]

Firstly, with the greatest of respect for your far greater knowledge of the local Club Scene fulv, but wouldn't that choke player development even more?
You either have 44 less Premier Grade players playing per week, no incentive for "Rugby Immigration" and a glass ceiling for Colts etc or each remaining Club attempts to manage yet another team at the bottom of the pecking order (ie a 6ths or 7ths)
Secondly, who would determine which Clubs would fold or amalgamate?
Would RWA be weighed with the further burden of dissolving some of the states oldest sporting institutions or will those Clubs willingly volunteer?
Pretty convenient that there is a big lump of water in the way or, as neighboring suburbs, Pally may have to face amalgamating with Neddies
From every practical way that I have tried to look at it, for WA to consolidate at this point will lead to us dropping behind the East Coast again, having made significant inroads in the last three years.
If the purpose of Rugby in WA is for community participation and recreation then great, we should consolidate on what we have, expect no further input from the ARU and enjoy the EWF while they last.
If part of the agenda of a Rugby presence in WA is to see the development of players towards professional careers, then it is surely time to get proactive, expand our scope and actively expand the code in this state from within and without?
The best 1st XV in the RWA Comp wouldn't even scratch the top six from NSWRU or QRU and would have a huge battle against the top two in the ACTRU.
The standard is good, but it is a long way from being of any great significance on the national scene.
I do agree with some of your points regarding accountability however, it takes two to tango and the major hurdle for all the parties is to somehow overcome this age old ingrained "them-n-us" mentality.

[fulvio sammut]

Burgs, great, we have dialogue going and different perspectives are being aired about what's good for club rugby and rugby in general. We are both taking a holistic view of the issue.

Please don't think I believe I am completely right or that I believe everything I suggest is entirely possible or completely beneficial. I take on board all you suggest and see merit and judgment in your position.

Now what is needed is for greater rugby intellects than mine to recognise there is a problem, consider the extreme positions espoused by me, amongst many others, and see what can be done to address some of the issues.

My main beef (pardon the expression) is, and has always been the selfish single minded approach taken by the rugby powers that be on the basis that they know what is required without engaging in consultation and consensus decision making with equally important stake holders.

[fulvio sammut]

I take issue on one point with you however. ACT club rugby is crap, and the top half dozen WA teams in any given year would be competitive against the bottom half dozen Eastern States teams in any given season. The gap isn't as wide as they would have you believe.

[GIGS20]

The point I agree with (and I think it is the point EVERYONE is making is the need for that third level that Fulvio called provincial (it could also be called regional) The ARC was one attemt to address this with a national regional tournament (inherently a very good idea, but possibly saddled with issues between itself and the clubs)

This level is crucial and without something to replace the ARC quick smart, rugby loses ground. The only option I see, in the absence of a national regional tournament, is to implement a local regional tournament. Fulvio touched on it, the ARC touched on it, everyone is touching on it, but we still aren't implementing it!

Fulvio's issue (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong) with the ARC was the top-down nature of it's organisation, the ARU bosses basically said 'this is what you're doing, go ahead and do it. but the structure you have proposed doesn't look vastly different to me, Local clubs used as feeder clubs into the regional tournament. I haven't ignored the points you have made about scheduling, player availability or compensation, I simply don't mention because I see them as minor details, issues that should be sorted out in the planning phase of the tournament.

So everyone is actually on the same page, we need a comp which uses club and provincial players, gives them some game time in the international window and has reduced numbers to improve the standard (the only way you get the best standard is by selecting the best x players)

Does it need to be a national comp? ----- no
Does it need to be run by the ARU? ------no
Does it need to be televised? ------------ no
Does it need to be anything at all? ------- not really

Couldn't RugbyWA call a meeting of all clubs in the metro comp to hammer out the details of a proposal to create a regional series for WA club (and fringe S14) players to be played after the HBS grand final, during the International season?

Couldn't part of this scheme be the release of all EWF players to train with their clubs once a week (everybody trains on Thursday doesn't they) with a view to building the players up to compete for entry to a regional team?

Couldn't the third phase be the inclusion of all not-named EWF players (who are free of injury) into the HBS Cup side for each weekend. I don't know about the other clubs, but Rocky has seen very little of the EWF guys who come from our club since the put on the ocean blue. As a matter of fact, we see more of Sharpie than we do of Pat O'Connor.

All of these ideas are intended to strengthen the links between the top tier and the (I hate calling it this but) the bottom tier. Surely the players (yes even the Matt Giteaus and Nathan Sharpes) enjoyed their days in the clubs, and want to be part of a club. Surely they want to put something back into the game, don't they do this by being part of a club? I would think the time that club rugby is well integrated into S14 rugby will be evident by Sharpie rocking up to training at Rocko and NOBODY runs up to him to get their shirt signed. That's when you know he's part of your club, when kids can just come up to him and ask him to come and throw the ball around with them like he's any other player at the club. Isn't that the best part of club life anyway? or have I got it all wrong?

[Burgs]

I think it may well be some long time before John Eales attends a Rocky training GIGS but I think the rest of your points are valid

I think you may have isolated one of the greater problems in that, and I'm not just talking WA Clubs, no one likes being "told" what to do, especially by that "tweed jacket with leather patches" mob.
Unfortunately, the "real people" at Club level are excellent at maintaining their own dunghill but generally lack the scope or leadership to put behind selfish needs for the common good.
And so, in the end it is left to the governing body to run something up the flag pole and see who is brave enough to salute.
Ironically, the Clubland leaders who may have had the ability to facilitate these changes from "the ground up" have generally gone up the ladder to their Provincial or National body or have given up in despair and focused on their private business interests.
Perhaps a fantastic legacy for a "Rod MacQueen" type would be to sit down with all of the Clubs around this wide land and thrash out the state of play in improving and balancing "Clubland" in isolation from the other Tiers of competition. To provide a way forward to developing a competitive standard in each competing Union.
I fear without an "outsider" coming back in, the leaders in Clubland will continue to fight each other, their Home Union and any "forced" change.
On the state of the East Coast standard of play Fulv, one of the few TV joys I have up here is the ability to get east coast ABC and I was basing my observation on a combination of things including regularly watching their matches.
While there may be a slight exaggeration in my observation I would suggest the reality would be somewhere closer to half way between our respective versions.