Aussie Pro Rugby
-
@antipodean Really says everything that does Wow
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
@Winger said in Aussie Rugby:
Did the staff number increase under Castle. Not a smart move for a business that was struggling. But 150 staff and paying the boss 800,000. It justs eesm excessive to me
Pulver got $775,000 and a $500,000 bonus in his last year.
This also seems excessive. Even if they were rolling in money
And why 150 staff. Maybe Jones has a point. Some leaders love to increase staff numbers as it makes them feel more important. But Id like to know what the equivalent staff number were 5 , 10 ,15 and 20 years back. And if RA was starting from starch how many staff would they need to do this work. RA really need a very senior ruthless cost cutter to be part of this new structure. With a top man or woman who is on board with cutting costs
-
But just citing staff numbers isn't enough. What were the staff doing? Were they back office suits, or were they development officers working with juniors and coaches?
This is a crucial difference. And citing the past is no guide here, because for years the ARU was the biggest drain on the game, a pack of empty blazers who had their snouts permanently in the trough.
But of course these were the good old days we are trying to emulate, so what would I know?
-
@barbarian a victim of their own success? That period leading up to the 2001 Lions series and 03 RWC where The coffers were flushed, players were getting big money and ARU got over excited by throwing large sums at league players trying to exert itself more on the domestic landscape.
Administrators were not going to be left behind as well with large salaries going their way.
Fast forward to 2020 (and it started a few years ago now) and many who knew d day would come are now just shaking their heads with [insert frustration / disgust / disappointment / disillusionment ]
-
@ACT-Crusader Welcome back.
-
I read somewhere that NZR's staff numbers had increased a lot in the last 5 years too. The devil is in the details.
Edit: According to the 2018 Annual Report, NZR employed 149 people as of 31 Dec, 2018 (111 people in 2015). So comparable to RA in total numbers.
-
@Bovidae and presuambly higher numbers where there is a central system?
I wonder if that increase under Castle was related to the investment in grassroots etc? could also be a bunch of folks on fixed and/or short term contracts.
lol ahem - I see @barbarian is already on point and asking about context! Good man
-
@Winger said in Aussie Rugby:
Maybe Jones has a point.
No. He fucking doesn't. He never does. He's just a massive fucking hypocrite who rests on the laurels of "coaching" a great team and appealing to the male, pale and stale old boys who think Sydney and Brisbane club rugby is the answer to the current state of our shitty national team.
If you want to have any credibility with the majority of Australian rugby fans, just fucking ignore the stupid old queen.
-
Does the staff numbers include the players? I had a look at NZR's annual report/website earlier in the year, and it was organised in 4 divisions, with playing being one of them.
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby:
But just citing staff numbers isn't enough. What were the staff doing? Were they back office suits, or were they development officers working with juniors and coaches?
This is a crucial difference. And citing the past is no guide here, because for years the ARU was the biggest drain on the game, a pack of empty blazers who had their snouts permanently in the trough.
Exactly - having a Board makes sense because usually sports organisations are incorporated societies, so need a committee of some sort for governance, but I often wonder why, if these people love the game so much, they need to be paid so much to be involved? Likewise the CEO and other non-playing/coaching staff - sure, get paid enough of a salary that life doesn't suck, but again, if the love is that prevalent, why are these national bodies paying hundreds of thousands each for their CEOs and senior managers?
-
Further: Sydney Club Rugby might be enjoying a resurgence in spectator numbers, and even quality of play, but it is still a fucking basket case.
I've played on about half the grounds of Premier Clubs at various points, and while you'd let your dog shit on some of the ovals, you wouldn't keep it in the change rooms at Easts, Sydney Uni, Two Blues, West Harbour, Penrith*, or Eastwood.
*who I guess don't count any more
-
@Godder said in Aussie Rugby:
why, if these people love the game so much, they need to be paid so much to be involved? Likewise the CEO and other non-playing/coaching staff - sure, get paid enough of a salary that life doesn't suck, but again, if the love is that prevalent, why are these national bodies paying hundreds of thousands each for their CEOs and senior managers?
Bingo.
It is the same bullshit argument about politicians "Oh but otherwise they'd just go to the private sector!"
OK, let them go elsewhere. I want someone there to FIX the fucking problems, not just make bank regardless. Especially now.
A smaller base salary with a large incentive plan should be adequate for both the ExCo and the playing squads, IMHO.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby:
Further: Sydney Club Rugby might be enjoying a resurgence in spectator numbers, and even quality of play, but it is still a fucking basket case.
And at the expense of Super Rugby crowds.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby:
@Godder said in Aussie Rugby:
why, if these people love the game so much, they need to be paid so much to be involved? Likewise the CEO and other non-playing/coaching staff - sure, get paid enough of a salary that life doesn't suck, but again, if the love is that prevalent, why are these national bodies paying hundreds of thousands each for their CEOs and senior managers?
Bingo.
It is the same bullshit argument about politicians "Oh but otherwise they'd just go to the private sector!"
OK, let them go elsewhere. I want someone there to FIX the fucking problems, not just make bank regardless. Especially now.
A smaller base salary with a large incentive plan should be adequate for both the ExCo and the playing squads, IMHO.
Do incentive plans even work in a zero sum sport? Everyone has one, and yet everyone can't win world cups etc.
-
Not really interested in your opinion of Jones.
what i am interested in is did the number of staff increase in recent years (and also the wage and salary bill). If so by how many. And was there a good reason for the increase or not.
These are key issues that need to be addressed. Is Aust getting value for money from their spending. Or has past leaders employed staff to boast their ego's etc. And in general spent poorly or carelessly
-
Ahh yes staffing, the simple solution to the complex problem. The 'bloated back office' full of self-important suits who spend their days telling others how to suck eggs.
My work has brought me in contact with RA staff on a number of occasions, and a few other sports as well. The reality is sports HQs are mainly filled with young people who are underpaid but passionate about the game they work for. They pay below market rate.
I'd wager there wouldn't be many of that 150 who are paid above 120k.
But also, critics of RA can't have it both ways here. They want more support for the 'grassroots' but that means staff - coaches, development officers, admin assistants. How do you think the AFL does it? They have an army of young staff who work in outposts all over the country.
But the critics also want a world-class high performance program. We need to win trophies! Well would you believe that means staff too - strength and conditioning, analysts, kicking coaches, medicos, sports psychs.
And then of course you need the things that modern companies all have to have - IT, legal, government relations, sponsorships and sales, etc etc etc.
It annoys me because people see the line on the balance sheet and go "that's way too high - think of what we could do with that money!" and then propose a series of things that require additional back office spend.
The reality is nobody here truly knows if every cent of that money is well spent, but I'll make the point that it doesn't happen for no reason. It wasn't like we had a cash windfall and went "let's hire some mates and get on the beeeeers baby".
-
@Winger said in Aussie Rugby:
Not really interested in your opinion of Jones.
Just thought I'd give you an honest appraisal of the dick you're preparing to suck. I'm trying to help you.
Anyone who quotes him saying "the foolish and personal spiteful attack on Israel Folau" probably needs to rethink their values.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby:
Further: Sydney Club Rugby might be enjoying a resurgence in spectator numbers, and even quality of play, but it is still a fucking basket case.
And at the expense of Super Rugby crowds.
I always wonder how much of that is a factor?
The big attendance clubs recently have been Manly and Warringah - and their fans are known for not travelling away from the Insular Peninsula. The final between the Rats and Uni in Parramatta was not a raging success despite the Rats having a decent shot (until the Uni Super Bench came on).
The northern beaches derby looks like a fucking hoot, but I don't think many of them had been to a Super Rugby match in the last decade unless it was at Brookie.
No doubt the Saturday afternoon support contributes to less Saturday evening attendance at a Tahs game, but I think a bigger factor is that the tahs are just shit. You could use that for the Reds as well, though it is a shame we didn't get to see them go through a whole season to bring the people back.
What is the cause for the Brumbies tho? They're winning games - and in attractive fashion, mostly - but can't pull the numbers they did.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby:
The reality is nobody here truly knows if every cent of that money is well spent, but I'll make the point that it doesn't happen for no reason. It wasn't like we had a cash windfall and went "let's hire some mates and get on the beeeeers baby".
Well, we sorta did in 2003 and went "Let's hire some leaguies and get on the blow!" (didn't we, Wendell
)Back to your points - which are all valid and I think you could nudge that $120K figure down a little.
As you say, RA is a corporation, and therefore runs at 2 speeds as far as remuneration goes: the top of the tree is very well looked after because there is a drive to secure the best strategic direction. The long drop to the worker bees is pretty stark. Typical I guess but it doesn't help the balance sheet when contracts have to be paid out.
The other big issue is competition and development structure: RA don't have the funds to help amateur rugby like it does pro rugby. They need the Wallabies to win, so they need to develop players from age grades up, and that takes more cash per body than blokes like me kicking around in park footy.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby:
The other big issue is competition and development structure: RA don't have the funds to help amateur rugby like it does pro rugby. They need the Wallabies to win, so they need to develop players from age grades up, and that takes more cash per body than blokes like me kicking around in park footy.
I have heard at least six years worth of 'we're neglecting the grassroots' arguments, and still don't quite know what people want RA to do.
We can list off motherhood statements about the importance of grassroots rugby until the cows come home (and lord knows the 11 skippers gave it a red hot go), but coming up with tangible ideas that haven't been tried is almost impossible.
More cash seems to be the answer, but sadly we don't have that much to spend. A guy like you Nick would have far more ideas than your average ex-Wallaby skipper, but I'll be nobody is knocking on your door. You do live a long way from the Eastern Suburbs, to be fair.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby:
Further: Sydney Club Rugby might be enjoying a resurgence in spectator numbers, and even quality of play, but it is still a fucking basket case.
And at the expense of Super Rugby crowds.
I always wonder how much of that is a factor?
The big attendance clubs recently have been Manly and Warringah - and their fans are known for not travelling away from the Insular Peninsula. The final between the Rats and Uni in Parramatta was not a raging success despite the Rats having a decent shot (until the Uni Super Bench came on).
The northern beaches derby looks like a fucking hoot, but I don't think many of them had been to a Super Rugby match in the last decade unless it was at Brookie.
No doubt the Saturday afternoon support contributes to less Saturday evening attendance at a Tahs game, but I think a bigger factor is that the tahs are just shit. You could use that for the Reds as well, though it is a shame we didn't get to see them go through a whole season to bring the people back.
What is the cause for the Brumbies tho? They're winning games - and in attractive fashion, mostly - but can't pull the numbers they did.
I can probably vouch for this. I get to a bunch of Manly home games, for no other reason than they are convenient and fun. I hold no real allegiance, but walking to a field to drink $6 cans and watch some footie with the lads while the kids run riot is pretty easy fare. Getting me on the ferry then a cab, into the stadium, through 90mins of Tahs torture, then a long haul home, is a totally different ask.
Manly home crowds would be at most 50% "proper" supporters. The remainder, like me, are just there because it's fun and its easy.
And for the record, I was present and stoked when the Canes beat the Tahs at Brookie last year. I was also sitting next to my mates wife (he was the Tahs forwards coach), who was not impressed at my celebrations.
