Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

LordCharles

Membership Fees

55 posts in this topic

Now then Gar warm weather training is not going to prepare you for a competition in winter lets be sensible mate ?

It's a bloody jollie boys outing nothing more nothing less .

If Mc Namara picks the right team we might just get past the staged managed semi final but IMO that's as far as we will go , but we will have to pick several NRL based players to get us there .

But I'm confused in one post you say clubs can't afford it then say its ok if we win the World Cup mixed messages , the World Cup should be self financing and if the comp makes a profit do you think the RFL will drop the membership notion ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your quite right but would the RFL not benefit given that Nigel Wood as said the success of the World Cup is crucial for the British game ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes i am sure some profit would come back to the rfl and also the game would get a higher profile and hopefully get some sponsors.

The warm weather training will have be paid for by sport england money that is only allowed to be used for the elite performance programme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When numbers are bandied about they tend to be large numbers but when you break down this large number it becomes less daunting.

 

 £200 per team of say 20 players is £10 each, 20 games is 50p/ game.  Not a lot is it, a raffle would cover it?

 

 However I would vote against it and suggest any shortfall should come from TV money or World Cup profit.

So your now saying it's OK to put a further burden on these amateurs so that the professional's can carry on building their elite pyramid.IMO players and officials at amateur clubs already give up enough in their pursuit of their hobby and past time, some of these RFL officials need to remember many of these young men may hardly be bringing home £200 a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your now saying it's OK to put a further burden on these amateurs so that the professional's can carry on building their elite pyramid.IMO players and officials at amateur clubs already give up enough in their pursuit of their hobby and past time, some of these RFL officials need to remember many of these young men may hardly be bringing home £200 a week.

I'm not sure it's additional or not M. If you look at the passage it seems to be referring costs to be met. If the £640K is reference to admin all round for the community game, these are the costs paid by teams already when they pay their registration fee for the year. I'm not sure how much teams currently pay to their regional leagues for this?

I'm not sure what the costs per player refer to but the figure quoted is a bit less than subs that our lads pay now. I don't think one way or another an extra £10-£20 per year is going to be a deal breaker, even if it is in addition although any increase isn't gong to be welcomed with open arms these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your now saying it's OK to put a further burden on these amateurs so that the professional's can carry on building their elite pyramid.IMO players and officials at amateur clubs already give up enough in their pursuit of their hobby and past time, some of these RFL officials need to remember many of these young men may hardly be bringing home £200 a week.

 

You have just proved that you don't actually read the posts.  The bit you missed was this, "However I would vote against it and suggest any shortfall should come from TV money or World Cup profit."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now then Gar warm weather training is not going to prepare you for a competition in winter lets be sensible mate ?

It's a bloody jollie boys outing nothing more nothing less .

If Mc Namara picks the right team we might just get past the staged managed semi final but IMO that's as far as we will go , but we will have to pick several NRL based players to get us there .

But I'm confused in one post you say clubs can't afford it then say its ok if we win the World Cup mixed messages , the World Cup should be self financing and if the comp makes a profit do you think the RFL will drop the membership notion ?

Although I've used the term warm weather building I think it was as much about high altitude training and team building ahead of the Autumn Series. The majority of Super League clubs utilise warm weather camps so it's not unreasonable for the national set up. The national squad gets limited time together and they need to maximise the time available to them. From what I can recall the feedback after the trip seemed very positive. As for it being a jollie boys outing I'm sure it was a very professionally run trip with a lot of planning going in to the amount of training sessions and amount of time given to team building sessions. I tend to associate rugby league jollies more with BARLA tours than anything to do with the RFL. How much money does BARLA have in its bank account at a time when it's member clubs are struggling?

It all seems to boil down to two different approaches. The first, a negative one. Winter won't work so let's not even bother trying. At best we'll sit back do nothing and wait to say 'I told you so' or worse we we'll deliberately try and undermine those that are trying to make it work. Same with the World Cup, 'we're not going to win it so what's the point in investing any money in preparing the team. Contrast that with a second more positive approach. Whilst we may have some reservations about summer rugby it's here to stay so we'll do what we need to do to make it work? When the inevitable glitches and flaws emerge we'll try and find away around it. We may not start as favorites for the world cup but if we prepare in the right way, play as well as we can and with a bit of luck and home advantage who knows? Each to their own but I favour the second approach.

If we all went back to our clubs with the mentality of refusing to invest in our teams unless they were guaranteed winners we wouldn't have much of a game left. Players at elite levels of the amateur and professional game need and have earned the right to have different criteria applied to them than to others playing the game at lesser standards. Otherwise we might as well just play and train to the lowest common denominator and just be a nation of pub rugby league players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure it's additional or not M. If you look at the passage it seems to be referring costs to be met. If the £640K is reference to admin all round for the community game, these are the costs paid by teams already when they pay their registration fee for the year. I'm not sure how much teams currently pay to their regional leagues for this?

I'm not sure what the costs per player refer to but the figure quoted is a bit less than subs that our lads pay now. I don't think one way or another an extra £10-£20 per year is going to be a deal breaker, even if it is in addition although any increase isn't gong to be welcomed with open arms these days.

You've been around the amateur game for a long time I assume ? 

 

What is the track record between the amateur game and the professional game and which party has always broke any agreement between the two since before BARLA was formed - As for your lads subs will these stop having to be paid once the RFL impose their elite survival tax on the amateurs, how long before all sponsors have to be recorded with the RFL and then the next step could be to demand their % (Operational rules are open for this to happen)

 

Maybe Super League should go down to 10 teams and the finances saved from the two teams should be poured into the development of juniors within a system that will increase participation at all levels and not just the elite few,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have just proved that you don't actually read the posts.  The bit you missed was this, "However I would vote against it and suggest any shortfall should come from TV money or World Cup profit."

I did read it and giggled because like me it's obviously which side of the fence your on and I'm sure the powers that be would listen to you and change every thing to a happy medium

 

Have you read the operational rules you have/about to sign ?

 

Obviously YOUR not aware of the tactic of getting everyone to sign up to the operational rules before fully implementing their full power and once you've signed where do you go? Because I have a feeling (giggling again) they will not listen to you UNLESS YOUR ONE OF THE CHOSEN FEW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've been around the amateur game for a long time I assume ?

What is the track record between the amateur game and the professional game and which party has always broke any agreement between the two since before BARLA was formed - As for your lads subs will these stop having to be paid once the RFL impose their elite survival tax on the amateurs, how long before all sponsors have to be recorded with the RFL and then the next step could be to demand their % (Operational rules are open for this to happen)

Maybe Super League should go down to 10 teams and the finances saved from the two teams should be poured into the development of juniors within a system that will increase participation at all levels and not just the elite few,

Definitely think more Sky money should find its way to the amateur coffers, but who would be responsible for spending it? Barla?

Not sure that RFL always the one breaking agreements but there seem to be many on both sides that seem more interested in the politics of it all than getting on with the job.

I do think Barla was needed and is still needed to represent the amateur game but I think the time has now come for a whole host of reasons for the RFL to be THE governing body.

I think Australia seem to be going in the right direction with its independent board.

I can assure you that I've had enough direct experience of the RFL to know all in the garden is not rosie and changes need to be made. But there are a lot of hardworking individuals in the right places who have the best interests of the game at heart and I think they should be given a little more credit than they are sometimes.

We have a fantastic game. Nearly 20,000 people at Wigan last night can attest to that. I think the time has come though for a bit more pulling together even if some are not convinced its in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely think more Sky money should find its way to the amateur coffers, but who would be responsible for spending it? Barla?

Not sure that RFL always the one breaking agreements but there seem to be many on both sides that seem more interested in the politics of it all than getting on with the job.

I do think Barla was needed and is still needed to represent the amateur game but I think the time has now come for a whole host of reasons for the RFL to be THE governing body.

I think Australia seem to be going in the right direction with its independent board.

I can assure you that I've had enough direct experience of the RFL to know all in the garden is not rosie and changes need to be made. But there are a lot of hardworking individuals in the right places who have the best interests of the game at heart and I think they should be given a little more credit than they are sometimes.

We have a fantastic game. Nearly 20,000 people at Wigan last night can attest to that. I think the time has come though for a bit more pulling together even if some are not convinced its in the right direction.

I'll agree with most of what you have just said, your lucky to be involved with one of the elite amateur clubs who are definitely going to/have benefitted from the switch to summer and the relaxed transfer system in the junior/youth game (Did these relaxed rules come before or after the service areas)

 

Which clubs have benefitted the most from these relaxed rules, have the relaxed rules created elite amateur clubs and if yes are these elite amateur clubs the ones banging the RFL and summer drum, if the answer to most of these and there are a lot more questions is "yes" then you can see who has been manipulating who.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll agree with most of what you have just said, your lucky to be involved with one of the elite amateur clubs who are definitely going to/have benefitted from the switch to summer and the relaxed transfer system in the junior/youth game (Did these relaxed rules come before or after the service areas)

Not sure what you mean about more relaxed rules? There was another local club last year who were asking for squads of up to 35 players and 6 transfers. Thank goodness it was defeated because that would have seen some clubs/teams decimated. I said on another thread about us losing 4 players to one club in just 2 years. We certainly didn't benefit from our "name".

Which clubs have benefitted the most from these relaxed rules, have the relaxed rules created elite amateur clubs and if yes are these elite amateur clubs the ones banging the RFL and summer drum, if the answer to most of these and there are a lot more questions is "yes" then you can see who has been manipulating who.

I don't think an elite has been formed because of the summer. The NCL has been a flagship for the game but it was for the 25 years or so it's been running. So I don't think the answer is yes. What may be the case is those clubs who have decided to get on with it, rather than trying to fight past battles, are making the most of the opportunity and showing you can make it work if you put your mind to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gar quite a simplistic view and your right , but do you seriously think that people like myself want our national team to fail , wrong mate what I and many others want is a strong national game from bottom to top and to do that investment in the elite starts at six years old when kids come into the game and they need to be the ones we focus on .

We need structures in place that affords those children the best possible start in their rugby life teaching them the correct ethos of the sport and I,m sorry but when more money is invested in warm weather training camps in South Africa than the actual grass roots then I will continue to be critical of the system.

Out of interest what do posters believe the RFL do for the community game to explain the so called 640 K shortfall ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest what do posters believe the RFL do for the community game to explain the so called 640 K shortfall ?

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017