PARTICIPANT MEMBERSHIP FOR COMMUNITY GAME

[del capo]

Yes.

Why do you think that comparison websites are so popular ?

The game should be marketing itself against similar sports  in terms of price and offers.

And within ARL itself the clubs themselves are in competition  with each other for members.

 I believe that those in charge of the game at all levels have a duty in times of and areas of deprivation especially a duty to make sure our game is as affordable to all as possible. Could it be for instance that we are costing out teenagers  from the game with the sort of fees flying around ?

Having a proper financial picture for me would be an essential  prerequisite to addressing some serious issues...

[Impartial Observer]

2 hours ago, del capo said:

 

Wigan St Patricks ARLFC seniors £150  juniors between £180 - £225. Girls / women £20.

 

Where does this money go to at the clubs, I am generally interested as I am by now means poor but couldn't justify paying £180 for my kids to play sport. My son is 11 and plays golf at £35 per year and cricket for the same amount.

If we take a conservative look at the playing numbers and income at St Pats, and I am not picking on them just using their figures 

50 oa players brings in £7500, 150 kids @ £180 is £27000, let us say they pay £2500 in insurance, after match meals, kit washing and now they are left with £25k, I assume kit sponsors covers the cost of kit. Do the players get leisureware or is that an added expense.

[Death to the Rah Rah's]

6 minutes ago, del capo said:

Yes.

Why do you think that comparison websites are so popular ?

The game should be marketing itself against similar sports  in terms of price and offers.

And within ARL itself the clubs themselves are in competition  with each other for members.

 I believe that those in charge of the game at all levels have a duty in times of and areas of deprivation especially a duty to make sure our game is as affordable to all as possible. Could it be for instance that we are costing out teenagers  from the game with the sort of fees flying around ?

Having a proper financial picture for me would be an essential  prerequisite to addressing some serious issues...

We will have to agree to disagree Del Capo.

When have the RFL ever shown compassion or support for community clubs in deprived areas, or are they paying lip service to tick another Sport England box?

It is, and always will be the community clubs who provide this service. They are the best placed to know what members can or can't afford. I can't speak for all clubs, but most in my area would never force any parent or junior to 'pay to play'  if they can't afford it.

My point is, what amateur clubs charge is based on their own circumstances, some have clubhouses with good training facilities which require money to keep them in good order, other clubs have no permanent base and use council ran pitches for games and training, others use a combination of their own pitch for games and local council or school facilities for training.

Their membership/subs/participation or whatever else you want to call it are based on their own projected operating costs.

What the RFL have proposed is a membership fee per participant, which is totally unworkable, to pay for a service which were previously provided for a nominal fee by BARLA.

To date the RFL have offered nothing in the way of explanation into how these proposed membership fee figures were arrived at, nor have they been forthcoming with their proposals into developing and expanding participation numbers in the sport, or what additional services would be offered as part of the membership scheme.

I'm also concerned that despite requests from regional leagues, to date no breakdown of costs has been received to justify these membership 'levies' 

If the RFL have nothing to hide, then publish all these requests for information from the various leagues and lets have an open and honest conversation about it. Let's find out how much Sport England have ploughed into the Community Game and what the benefits have been to the member clubs?

The regionals will either embrace the RFL's proposals, or they may (as has happened previously) just decide they can do a better job going it alone. BARLA is still there in name, has cash in the bank, so apart from some restructuring at board level, most of the regional league who have their own volunteer administrators would barely notice any difference

[Marauder]

2 hours ago, Impartial Observer said:

Where does this money go to at the clubs, I am generally interested as I am by now means poor but couldn't justify paying £180 for my kids to play sport. My son is 11 and plays golf at £35 per year and cricket for the same amount.

If we take a conservative look at the playing numbers and income at St Pats, and I am not picking on them just using their figures 

50 oa players brings in £7500, 150 kids @ £180 is £27000, let us say they pay £2500 in insurance, after match meals, kit washing and now they are left with £25k, I assume kit sponsors covers the cost of kit. Do the players get leisureware or is that an added expense.

Away coaches for the 1st team could eat up £7,500.00 without breaking sweat, up keep of clubhouses 

[Marauder]

2 hours ago, Death to the Rah Rah's said:

We will have to agree to disagree Del Capo.

When have the RFL ever shown compassion or support for community clubs in deprived areas, or are they paying lip service to tick another Sport England box?

It is, and always will be the community clubs who provide this service. They are the best placed to know what members can or can't afford. I can't speak for all clubs, but most in my area would never force any parent or junior to 'pay to play'  if they can't afford it.

My point is, what amateur clubs charge is based on their own circumstances, some have clubhouses with good training facilities which require money to keep them in good order, other clubs have no permanent base and use council ran pitches for games and training, others use a combination of their own pitch for games and local council or school facilities for training.

Their membership/subs/participation or whatever else you want to call it are based on their own projected operating costs.

What the RFL have proposed is a membership fee per participant, which is totally unworkable, to pay for a service which were previously provided for a nominal fee by BARLA.

To date the RFL have offered nothing in the way of explanation into how these proposed membership fee figures were arrived at, nor have they been forthcoming with their proposals into developing and expanding participation numbers in the sport, or what additional services would be offered as part of the membership scheme.

I'm also concerned that despite requests from regional leagues, to date no breakdown of costs has been received to justify these membership 'levies' 

If the RFL have nothing to hide, then publish all these requests for information from the various leagues and lets have an open and honest conversation about it. Let's find out how much Sport England have ploughed into the Community Game and what the benefits have been to the member clubs?

The regionals will either embrace the RFL's proposals, or they may (as has happened previously) just decide they can do a better job going it alone. BARLA is still there in name, has cash in the bank, so apart from some restructuring at board level, most of the regional league who have their own volunteer administrators would barely notice any difference

I would, lot less paperwork 

[del capo]

1 hour ago, Death to the Rah Rah's said:

We will have to agree to disagree Del Capo.

When have the RFL ever shown compassion or support for community clubs in deprived areas, or are they paying lip service to tick another Sport England box?

It is, and always will be the community clubs who provide this service. They are the best placed to know what members can or can't afford. I can't speak for all clubs, but most in my area would never force any parent or junior to 'pay to play'  if they can't afford it.

My point is, what amateur clubs charge is based on their own circumstances, some have clubhouses with good training facilities which require money to keep them in good order, other clubs have no permanent base and use council ran pitches for games and training, others use a combination of their own pitch for games and local council or school facilities for training.

Their membership/subs/participation or whatever else you want to call it are based on their own projected operating costs.

What the RFL have proposed is a membership fee per participant, which is totally unworkable, to pay for a service which were previously provided for a nominal fee by BARLA.

To date the RFL have offered nothing in the way of explanation into how these proposed membership fee figures were arrived at, nor have they been forthcoming with their proposals into developing and expanding participation numbers in the sport, or what additional services would be offered as part of the membership scheme.

I'm also concerned that despite requests from regional leagues, to date no breakdown of costs has been received to justify these membership 'levies' 

If the RFL have nothing to hide, then publish all these requests for information from the various leagues and lets have an open and honest conversation about it. Let's find out how much Sport England have ploughed into the Community Game and what the benefits have been to the member clubs?

The regionals will either embrace the RFL's proposals, or they may (as has happened previously) just decide they can do a better job going it alone. BARLA is still there in name, has cash in the bank, so apart from some restructuring at board level, most of the regional league who have their own volunteer administrators would barely notice any difference

I am not sure which part of my post  actually meets with your disagreement  Rah Rah. 

I share much of your views and am hopeful  the RFL will as this rolls out address your concerns.  I think that not to do so could put them in difficult territory.

The bulk of this levy will fall on the juniors.  Those juniors are effectively administered by Affiliate rather than member leagues., some of whose leaders have in the past been labelled , to put it neutrally, as '  independent ' in thought. And have in the recent past run the day to day aspects of their organisations  ( fixtures discipline registrations insurance referees etc ) on their own. I think that as matters stand the RFL have to persuade those juniors not to ask their individual managements not to go it alone. 

 The NCL clubs who are also affiliates  will not feel kindly to  any undue pressure being placed on on their own juniors.

Barla used to get approx £650k from the Sports Council  prior to re amalgamation , but that paid for  a CEO,  Director of Coaching and National Development officer as well as support staff .The Sports Council will no longer fund splinter groups to fund core RL activity as opposed to  any innovative projects that meet their narrative. No source of funding there for any potential breakaway then

And that's before you examine the current Barla structure  ( Marauder's Japanese knotweed ? )  and having to ask such a Body to replicate  the RFL's 21st century  activity .  Barla is not equipped to deliver that today and would probably have to raise  significant subscriptions anyway to start to meet the logistics involved

Even SL realised their mistake after 2 years  of trying to do their own thing.

All that said it is still very much up to the RFL to win the hearts and minds of the grassroots.

 

 

[Impartial Observer]

35 minutes ago, Marauder said:

Away coaches for the 1st team could eat up £7,500.00 without breaking sweat, up keep of clubhouses 

Not sure if I was paying a junior membership I would be pleased that some of it would be going to running costs of the OA

[Northern Eel]

7 hours ago, Marauder said:

Please tell me what actually does come back into the game from the RFL, lets not forget the amateur game was wrestled away from BARLA for one reason only IMO & that was to get full control of available funding into the sport, as for administration BARLA managed far more leagues on a lot less.

The point I am making (as I did earlier in this thread) is that this is only justifiable from the RFL of any surpluses is invested back into the game. 

[Northern Eel]

2 hours ago, Impartial Observer said:

Not sure if I was paying a junior membership I would be pleased that some of it would be going to running costs of the OA

Spot on. And whilst I may be wrong, that is basically what I suspect these ‘signing on fees’ are actually used for, really. 

[Death to the Rah Rah's]

Im Sure the junior sides require coach or minibus travel as well as they progress up the age groups 

[Northern Eel]

10 hours ago, Death to the Rah Rah's said:

Im Sure the junior sides require coach or minibus travel as well as they progress up the age groups 

Our parents tend to do that, although we do use a minibus when we travel for a couple of hours or more. The minibus costs very little to run.
 

We charge £75 a year including the loan of a kit. 

[johnmatrix]

16 hours ago, Impartial Observer said:

Not sure if I was paying a junior membership I would be pleased that some of it would be going to running costs of the OA

In my Club thats not the case, there is alot of overheads for a big community club especially if they own all the facilities.

Our clubs subscriptions don't cover the cost of the rugby for the teams, its heavily subsidised by the bar takings. 

[Marauder]

48 minutes ago, johnmatrix said:

In my Club thats not the case, there is alot of overheads for a big community club especially if they own all the facilities.

Our clubs subscriptions don't cover the cost of the rugby for the teams, its heavily subsidised by the bar takings. 

What the RFL don't seem to understand is the economics of an amateur club and how and where they raise their finances, in simple terms if it takes a full cake to keep and maintain an amateur club and the RFL come and take yet another slice (I say another because we now have to pay for a lot of box ticking courses) then that means someone somewhere in the game is going to go without, whilst somewhere someone is going to benefit from doing very little and for those baking the cake, they'll have to work harder and longer to replace that slice of cake even though they are VOLUNTEERS, now will these VOLUNTEERS just put their noses to the grind stone and soldier on or will they just call it a day? 

[Impartial Observer]

11 minutes ago, Marauder said:

What the RFL don't seem to understand is the economics of an amateur club and how and where they raise their finances, in simple terms if it takes a full cake to keep and maintain an amateur club and the RFL come and take yet another slice (I say another because we now have to pay for a lot of box ticking courses) 

Mark Lovering who is head of development at rfl was chairman at siddal for a number of years I believe so he would have a good idea what is required. 

What are the box ticking courses that you need to pay for?

 

[Marauder]

5 minutes ago, Impartial Observer said:

Mark Lovering who is head of development at rfl was chairman at siddal for a number of years I believe so he would have a good idea what is required. 

What are the box ticking courses that you need to pay for?

 

Being as you know Mark, I'm sure your well aware of all the qualifications that it now takes to run an amateur side, gone are the days of turning up with one guy, a team and getting on with a game then back to the pub - While your obviously defending this new proposed tax on the amateur game, maybe you can enlighten all us concerned whingers of the benefits this will bring amateur clubs from the top of the NCL premier to the bottom of YML division 5 South?

 

[Impartial Observer]

13 minutes ago, Marauder said:

Being as you know Mark, I'm sure your well aware of all the qualifications that it now takes to run an amateur side, gone are the days of turning up with one guy, a team and getting on with a game then back to the pub - While your obviously defending this new proposed tax on the amateur game, maybe you can enlighten all us concerned whingers of the benefits this will bring amateur clubs from the top of the NCL premier to the bottom of YML division 5 South?

 

I don't think I am defending the tax, like everyone I do not know enough about it to form an opinion as yet and as you say need to be more aware of where the money is going to

[Marauder]

40 minutes ago, Impartial Observer said:

I don't think I am defending the tax, like everyone I do not know enough about it to form an opinion as yet and as you say need to be more aware of where the money is going to

They need to get back to basics and stop trying to roll it in glitter to keep up with the Jones's.

[usain bolt]

On 25/05/2021 at 15:41, Impartial Observer said:

Not sure if I was paying a junior membership I would be pleased that some of it would be going to running costs of the OA

One day, these juniors benefit from the open age set up, they're not juniors forever. If they don't leave the sport or turn pro, where do these players end up, openage, and benefit from all the funds that have gone into the community club overall, including coach travel, kit, clubhouse, showers, etc etc

[Marauder]

31 minutes ago, usain bolt said:

One day, these juniors benefit from the open age set up, they're not juniors forever. If they don't leave the sport or turn pro, where do these players end up, openage, and benefit from all the funds that have gone into the community club overall, including coach travel, kit, clubhouse, showers, etc etc

How do the established clubs control their finances regarding junior teams ?

[del capo]

1 hour ago, Marauder said:

How do the established clubs control their finances regarding junior teams ?

There is no standard structure. Most clubs do their own thing,

Some have a  fully central accounts system , others run different accounts ( Bar , rugby , facility  rental income etc )

Others allow different age groups to run their own accounts and charge them a weekly fee .  Some are in reality seperate organisations playing under an ' umbrella '  type club flag.

They all have their own individual business models and it can be  a headache for the club treasurer. Direct debit payments help. It can be even more of a headache if , as has in the past happened, an individual takes off with club monies from a particular level.

I am led to believe that the RFL may look at offering to take over the responsibility of collecting everything along the lines of what is done by the RFU to help out their clubs. Who knows ?

[Marauder]

13 hours ago, del capo said:

There is no standard structure. Most clubs do their own thing,

Some have a  fully central accounts system , others run different accounts ( Bar , rugby , facility  rental income etc )

Others allow different age groups to run their own accounts and charge them a weekly fee .  Some are in reality seperate organisations playing under an ' umbrella '  type club flag.

They all have their own individual business models and it can be  a headache for the club treasurer. Direct debit payments help. It can be even more of a headache if , as has in the past happened, an individual takes off with club monies from a particular level.

I am led to believe that the RFL may look at offering to take over the responsibility of collecting everything along the lines of what is done by the RFU to help out their clubs. Who knows ?

I'm sure the collection of the fee will be the hardest task for any club as each individual only has a certain amount of disposable money (The cake) they can direct towards rugby league, If the RFL take the slice then all that will mean is the disposable money that would have gone towards the running of their amateur club will shrink, so IMO the guys sat on the comfy chairs have redirected their inability to create wealth onto the amateur clubs.

[Northern Eel]

21 hours ago, Marauder said:

I'm sure the collection of the fee will be the hardest task for any club as each individual only has a certain amount of disposable money (The cake) they can direct towards rugby league, If the RFL take the slice then all that will mean is the disposable money that would have gone towards the running of their amateur club will shrink, so IMO the guys sat on the comfy chairs have redirected their inability to create wealth onto the amateur clubs.

One of the things some clubs have asked for is the facility to collect the money themselves to pass on. 

[Northern Eel]

On 26/05/2021 at 09:36, Marauder said:

Being as you know Mark, I'm sure your well aware of all the qualifications that it now takes to run an amateur side, gone are the days of turning up with one guy, a team and getting on with a game then back to the pub - While your obviously defending this new proposed tax on the amateur game, maybe you can enlighten all us concerned whingers of the benefits this will bring amateur clubs from the top of the NCL premier to the bottom of YML division 5 South?

 

Coaching courses (one per team)

Safeguarding (all)

Time to Listen (CWO)

First Aid (one per team)

Any others?

 

 

[Northern Eel]

On 26/05/2021 at 15:55, usain bolt said:

One day, these juniors benefit from the open age set up, they're not juniors forever. If they don't leave the sport or turn pro, where do these players end up, openage, and benefit from all the funds that have gone into the community club overall, including coach travel, kit, clubhouse, showers, etc etc

So a 7 year old has to play for 11+ years to subsidise their own existence as an open age player, yet others can simply turn up to an open age team and reap the subsidised benefits? 
 

 

[Marauder]

7 hours ago, Northern Eel said:

Coaching courses (one per team)

Safeguarding (all)

Time to Listen (CWO)

First Aid (one per team)

Any others?

 

 

Lets not forget the one per team may not be available, so it would be a good practice to have more than one.