Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Membership Fees


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#41 Nev V Dawn

Nev V Dawn
  • Coach
  • 294 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 07:40 AM

That's what I was trying to refer to before. I don't think it's clear from those minutes if its an actual shortfall ( in which case I think a demand would have already gone out ) or the collective costs of administering the amateur game now, which is already met from subscription fees.

The minutes refer to over reliance on Sport England money so it may refer to some development work of rfl employees?

 

In 2004 when the game unified following the Genisis report, the services introduced to the game by BARLA which were formally known as BARLA Services, overnight became Rugby League Services which have since evolved to Community Game Services. In short, the RFL were vested with the responsibility of the care and support of the amateur game. 

 

One of the reasons put forward by the RFL for unification was to ensure that Sport England grant money, which I believe was around £140,000 at the time, was continued to be paid to the game. This money was ringfenced and was to be directed to BARLA Services for the continuity of the support such as; coach education, safeguarding etc: to the amateur game.

 

Since 2004 the RFL, after assuming the responsibility for delivering these services and continuing to receive the "ringfenced" amount of which bankrolled the support to the amateur game which, correct me if I'm wrong, was part of Sport England four yearly grants of first; £18.5 million, then in 2008 a whopping £29.4 million which has since been reduced recently to £17.5 million to cover the period 2013 - 2017.

 

So after receiving almost £6 million a year since 2004, with another £17.5 promised for the next four years, the RFL now see it fit to demand a fee from the very hand (participation) that feeds the the Sport England monies to them. 


Edited by Nev V Dawn, 11 August 2013 - 08:52 AM.


#42 Gar

Gar
  • Coach
  • 118 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 09:16 AM

I may well have misunderstood but it seems to me based on what you are saying the Sport England grant monies ringfenced for supporting the community games forms a relatively small part of the overall Sport England funding.

What I'm not clear on is whether the community game through its members is being asked to plug the gap in funding across the whole game or just the shortfall in monies which would be used for the benefit of the community game.

I would have thought in the interests of fairness the most appropriate way to make up any shortfall would be to mirror the way the funding has been divided up previously. Eg if the community game received 15% of previous grant monies then it should make up 15% of any shortfall now.

#43 Nev V Dawn

Nev V Dawn
  • Coach
  • 294 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 10:02 AM

I may well have misunderstood but it seems to me based on what you are saying the Sport England grant monies ringfenced for supporting the community games forms a relatively small part of the overall Sport England funding.

What I'm not clear on is whether the community game through its members is being asked to plug the gap in funding across the whole game or just the shortfall in monies which would be used for the benefit of the community game.

I would have thought in the interests of fairness the most appropriate way to make up any shortfall would be to mirror the way the funding has been divided up previously. Eg if the community game received 15% of previous grant monies then it should make up 15% of any shortfall now.

 

If we're speaking in percentages Gar then the shortfall amount being bandied around of £640,000, equates to around 450% of the original £140,000 (which was the whole of the Sport Englan grant = %100) which was dedicated to the support of the amateur game. Well I may be wrong but I for one haven't noticed a 450% increase in the level of services and support offered to the amateur game in the last 9 years or so.

 

I may have to bow to your superior intellect if I'm wrong Gar, however I would have thought that with around £6 million of tax payers money - which was won on the back of participation figures, or the promise of - even allowing for nine year's worth of inflation, that there would have been sufficient in the RFL kitty to support the amateur game.


Edited by Nev V Dawn, 11 August 2013 - 10:03 AM.


#44 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,800 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 10:21 AM

If we're speaking in percentages Gar then the shortfall amount being bandied around of £640,000, equates to around 450% of the original £140,000 (which was the whole of the Sport Englan grant = %100) which was dedicated to the support of the amateur game. Well I may be wrong but I for one haven't noticed a 450% increase in the level of services and support offered to the amateur game in the last 9 years or so.

 

I may have to bow to your superior intellect if I'm wrong Gar, however I would have thought that with around £6 million of tax payers money - which was won on the back of participation figures, or the promise of - even allowing for nine year's worth of inflation, that there would have been sufficient in the RFL kitty to support the amateur game.

When you say £140,000 ring fenced to the amateur game, was that £140,000 towards BARLA or to the RFL to do has they please within the amateur game?


Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

#45 Nev V Dawn

Nev V Dawn
  • Coach
  • 294 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 10:38 AM

When you say £140,000 ring fenced to the amateur game, was that £140,000 towards BARLA or to the RFL to do has they please within the amateur game?

 

I'll try to answer your question with a "post unification quote" from Richard Lewis which as I remember it was, "All grant monies will now be directed to the RFL who are the governing body of the game." 



#46 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,800 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 10:48 AM

I'll try to answer your question with a "post unification quote" from Richard Lewis which as I remember it was, "All grant monies will now be directed to the RFL who are the governing body of the game." 

So what your saying is the money (£140,000) was ring fenced for BARLA to control but got re-directed from BARLA to within the game by the RFL & Richard  Lewis (Not seen any trailers yet with tennis players on))


Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

#47 Nev V Dawn

Nev V Dawn
  • Coach
  • 294 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 10:53 AM

So what your saying is the money (£140,000) was ring fenced for BARLA to control but got re-directed from BARLA to within the game by the RFL & Richard  Lewis (Not seen any trailers yet with tennis players on))

 

No Marauder what I'm trying to say is that with unification, BARLA trusted the RFL with the support of the amateur game and any funding directed to the game went in the RFL coffers, which coincidently started to show a profit from 2004.



#48 The 4 of Us

The 4 of Us
  • Coach
  • 1,666 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 10:56 AM

I'll try to answer your question with a "post unification quote" from Richard Lewis which as I remember it was, "All grant monies will now be directed to the RFL who are the governing body of the game."


I think we're in danger of mixing up different issues here and drifting away from the main discussion. Following unification one of the consequences was the RFL being responsible for the grants.

There is a difference between covering costs for core functions and grant awards to cover the costs of specific projects such as development officers etc.

If £140,000 was put aside this may well be for core Barla office functions. The £640,000 may or may not include a portion of that £140,000 but I would assume would also include costs of administering the individual leagues that clubs subscriptions currently pay for. Costs do of course also increase.

Clearly if this is money over and above what is collected from clubs already there is going to be some arguments coming up, because clubs will want to know what extra, if anything, they're going to get from it.

But it just might be they discussions are being to had to say this is how much it costs to run the amateur game and we need a unified way to ensure we cam continue to pay for it?

#49 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,800 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 11:07 AM

No Marauder what I'm trying to say is that with unification, BARLA trusted the RFL with the support of the amateur game and any funding directed to the game went in the RFL coffers, which coincidently started to show a profit from 2004.

Got you


Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

#50 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,800 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 11:14 AM

I think we're in danger of mixing up different issues here and drifting away from the main discussion. Following unification one of the consequences was the RFL being responsible for the grants.

There is a difference between covering costs for core functions and grant awards to cover the costs of specific projects such as development officers etc.

If £140,000 was put aside this may well be for core Barla office functions. The £640,000 may or may not include a portion of that £140,000 but I would assume would also include costs of administering the individual leagues that clubs subscriptions currently pay for. Costs do of course also increase.

Clearly if this is money over and above what is collected from clubs already there is going to be some arguments coming up, because clubs will want to know what extra, if anything, they're going to get from it.

But it just might be they discussions are being to had to say this is how much it costs to run the amateur game and we need a unified way to ensure we cam continue to pay for it?

You seem to be able to put your finger on all the relevant information on all subjects concerning the amateur game, can you break down the RFL payments to all factions of the community game since 2004  (BARLA, RLC, English Schools, Armed Forces & Universities)


Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

#51 Nev V Dawn

Nev V Dawn
  • Coach
  • 294 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 11:38 AM

I think we're in danger of mixing up different issues here and drifting away from the main discussion. Following unification one of the consequences was the RFL being responsible for the grants.

There is a difference between covering costs for core functions and grant awards to cover the costs of specific projects such as development officers etc.

If £140,000 was put aside this may well be for core Barla office functions. The £640,000 may or may not include a portion of that £140,000 but I would assume would also include costs of administering the individual leagues that clubs subscriptions currently pay for. Costs do of course also increase.

Clearly if this is money over and above what is collected from clubs already there is going to be some arguments coming up, because clubs will want to know what extra, if anything, they're going to get from it.

But it just might be they discussions are being to had to say this is how much it costs to run the amateur game and we need a unified way to ensure we cam continue to pay for it?

 

Yes you're right T4oU in saying that following unification the RFL were the recipients of Sport England grant monies from which in 2004 £140,000 was ringfenced for the support of the amateur game and this was an overbearing factor in the decision to unify.

 

Yes there has been significant evolvution in the development aspect of rugby league (In my opinion the consultation etc: involved and the actual implementing of the RFL Summer Switch would account for a tidy sum) and significant comings and goings of development officers, Directors of Participation, etc: within the RFL which would also have swallowed up much of the £6 million a year the RFL received from Sport England.

 

But ask around if the £640,000 includes costs of administrating individual leagues as you suggest, the questions that I would ask is how many leagues are being run for that amount and don't the clubs populating those individual leagues cover the administration with their league fees.

 

I don't think that Taxi Egg's little mob - as he affectionally refers to them - are responsible for much of this figure and they are the very start of the player chain.

 

How much do the RFL dedicate to running the regionals in Cumbria, how much do they give to the running of North West Counties ARL, how much is afforded to the administration of the Pennine ARL

 

If you carry out an audit throughout the leagues my friend you may be closer to having an answer.


Edited by Nev V Dawn, 11 August 2013 - 05:20 PM.


#52 TaxiEgg

TaxiEgg
  • Coach
  • 2,759 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 04:29 PM

Nwc juniors funded by the clubs themselves .
We get our playing cards issued through RL services but if needed we could do that ourselves .

#53 LordCharles

LordCharles
  • Coach
  • 737 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 06:21 PM

I think we're in danger of mixing up different issues here and drifting away from the main discussion. Following unification one of the consequences was the RFL being responsible for the grants.

There is a difference between covering costs for core functions and grant awards to cover the costs of specific projects such as development officers etc.

If £140,000 was put aside this may well be for core Barla office functions. The £640,000 may or may not include a portion of that £140,000 but I would assume would also include costs of administering the individual leagues that clubs subscriptions currently pay for. Costs do of course also increase.

Clearly if this is money over and above what is collected from clubs already there is going to be some arguments coming up, because clubs will want to know what extra, if anything, they're going to get from it.

But it just might be they discussions are being to had to say this is how much it costs to run the amateur game and we need a unified way to ensure we cam continue to pay for it?

 

 

The adminstration of any Regional League thats is not a fully fledged RFL initiative such as the NW Mens League, has always been and will always be funded by the clubs through their membership fees etc.

 

The RFL have NEVER covered any costs that have been a necessity in allowing the Leagues to function, in fact when the RFL have been asked to put their hand in their pocket to support or assist the Leagues in delivering whatever was on the agenda at the time they have on most occasions not done so, when they have it has been with reluctance.

 

Make no mistake the Leagues will continue to ask the clubs for the membership fees etc and the RFL will put their Membership on top, only now if the Leagues sign up to the OR's all the clubs will face a "No Pay, No Play" scenario from the RFL as they will be in a position to effect such a directive!!!



#54 The 4 of Us

The 4 of Us
  • Coach
  • 1,666 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 08:57 PM

 
If you carry out an audit throughout the leagues my friend you may be closer to having an answer.


That may well be needed. I think Marauder is crediting me with insight and knowledge I just don't have. I offered an opinion and conjecture based upon information posted by others.

From what I can see from those minutes that LC referred to nobody was saying much other than there was a sum of money to be converted. Again whether that is a sum the RFL says it costs them in respect of the amateur game or the costs incurred by the amateur running itself is anybody's guess. It may be that they were referring to the collective game?

If it is the RFL separate from the individual leagues then it is right that questions are asked what those costs are spent on and by who?

#55 Nev V Dawn

Nev V Dawn
  • Coach
  • 294 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 07:03 AM

That may well be needed. I think Marauder is crediting me with insight and knowledge I just don't have. I offered an opinion and conjecture based upon information posted by others.

From what I can see from those minutes that LC referred to nobody was saying much other than there was a sum of money to be converted. Again whether that is a sum the RFL says it costs them in respect of the amateur game or the costs incurred by the amateur running itself is anybody's guess. It may be that they were referring to the collective game?

If it is the RFL separate from the individual leagues then it is right that questions are asked what those costs are spent on and by who?

 

Well T4oU, we could start with the £15,000 per annum that is reportedly the value of administrating the NCL for a start and then I'm led to believe that Yorkshire Juniors were funded at around the same cost. Chuck in the NW Men's and the floundering Yorkshire equivalent and we account for around 10% of the £640,000.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users