PARTICIPANT MEMBERSHIP FOR COMMUNITY GAME

[Northern Eel]

10 hours ago, JMB said:

That's not the point but is it, its either another volunteer to be found, or a club volunteer taking on another roll. 

I was responding directly to a post suggesting they had a financial cost associated to them. That’s all. 

[del capo]

13 hours ago, JMB said:

At the end of the day the rfl don't understand how community clubs are ran, and how hard it is to keep them going, the extra paper work, the extra volunteer's required along with the online work is about the same as a professional club, and they have paid employees to undertake that work. Over the years i have learned how sneaky they are and how they manipulate the community board. 

But I really believe they are trying to learn and their key employees are certainly steeped in an amateur background  ( Kelly ex Barla , Mark L from Siddal  , John Mc from St Judes  ,  Ant Atherton from St Pats and so it goes on. )

One of the RFL  thrusts has been to minimize the weight on the volunteers. A typical NCL club for instance is really a small business turning over 100's of thousands of £ per year. And with capital assets / property well in excess of most Champ / League 1  clubs. Taking out as much paperwork from them as possible is  an RFL priority.

The recent debate on Academies recognised the importance of the Community game but seems to have been rolled back by the dinosaurs. Following the SL schism ( now partially cured ) the RFL have recognised  the  penny dropping  - they are nothing without the grassroots.

As for the Community Board ( which was set up to be the new active arm of Barla ) there are more than a couple on there  well capable of not being manipulated.....

[Marauder]

15 hours ago, JMB said:

At the end of the day the rfl don't understand how community clubs are ran, and how hard it is to keep them going, the extra paper work, the extra volunteer's required along with the online work is about the same as a professional club, and they have paid employees to undertake that work. Over the years i have learned how sneaky they are and how they manipulate the community board. 

We have actually had a meeting this morning (Sunday 10.30am) to discuss the match day duties and how we can spread the load more efficiently, in the last few weeks we've had committee members who by the time they've finished at our ground and drove the half a mile to the club we play from the opposition have nearly all gone, this is depriving people of the social side of the game.

[JMB]

6 hours ago, del capo said:

But I really believe they are trying to learn and their key employees are certainly steeped in an amateur background  ( Kelly ex Barla , Mark L from Siddal  , John Mc from St Judes  ,  Ant Atherton from St Pats and so it goes on. )

One of the RFL  thrusts has been to minimize the weight on the volunteers. A typical NCL club for instance is really a small business turning over 100's of thousands of £ per year. And with capital assets / property well in excess of most Champ / League 1  clubs. Taking out as much paperwork from them as possible is  an RFL priority.

The recent debate on Academies recognised the importance of the Community game but seems to have been rolled back by the dinosaurs. Following the SL schism ( now partially cured ) the RFL have recognised  the  penny dropping  - they are nothing without the grassroots.

As for the Community Board ( which was set up to be the new active arm of Barla ) there are more than a couple on there  well capable of not being manipulated.....

Sorry totally disagree, Kelly is a paid employee who has to go with what she is told, not sure why you mentioned Ant as he is not involved in community board but a rfl employee, and a  great lad, and the rfl have done nothing but thrust extra work loads on all the volunteer's, and can you enlighten me on how the rfl have tried to minimize the weight from the NCL clubs. 

[del capo]

3 hours ago, JMB said:

Sorry totally disagree, Kelly is a paid employee who has to go with what she is told, not sure why you mentioned Ant as he is not involved in community board but a rfl employee, and a  great lad, and the rfl have done nothing but thrust extra work loads on all the volunteer's, and can you enlighten me on how the rfl have tried to minimize the weight from the NCL clubs. 

Would love to hear from you as to how you would run your club ( I assume you are a committee person ) legally in any competition outside of the RFL's  protective umbrella...

And being paid to do the job you love  I have always treated as a bonus....

[JMB]

17 hours ago, del capo said:

Would love to hear from you as to how you would run your club ( I assume you are a committee person ) legally in any competition outside of the RFL's  protective umbrella...

And being paid to do the job you love  I have always treated as a bonus....

 

17 hours ago, del capo said:

Would love to hear from you as to how you would run your club ( I assume you are a committee person ) legally in any competition outside of the RFL's  protective umbrella...

And being paid to do the job you love  I have always treated as a bonus....

Can you explain this protective umbrella that the rfl have for clubs.

 

[Death to the Rah Rah's]

On 06/06/2021 at 11:07, del capo said:

As for the Community Board ( which was set up to be the new active arm of Barla ) there are more than a couple on there  well capable of not being manipulated.....

What's the general consensus in regards to the Community Board ?

I've always felt it feels detached and totally out of touch with the amateur game and I have never really felt there's been any appetite by the RFL to truly engage with the amateurs.

The amateur clubs which are by far the largest membership don't seem to have much of a voice or influence over decisions which directly affect them. I'm not for one minute saying that the amateur/community or whatever you want to call them should rule the roost, but the needs of community clubs in regional leagues are different to those in development areas who play a few games a season at their local RU club. Likewise the forces and university teams who don't have to worry about paying to train and play games, or run clubhouses. 

20 years ago the development leagues were booming with RL being played all over the UK in little mini-league competitions over summer, regionals were bursting at the seams with open age sides so where did it all go wrong !!

BARLA had plenty of faults and towards the end of their tenureship they became fairly innocuous, but they only had the amateur game to worry about, unlike the RFL who seem to be constantly fighting fires trying to stop professional clubs from going bankrupt.

 

[del capo]

On 08/06/2021 at 15:40, Death to the Rah Rah's said:

What's the general consensus in regards to the Community Board ?

I've always felt it feels detached and totally out of touch with the amateur game and I have never really felt there's been any appetite by the RFL to truly engage with the amateurs.

The amateur clubs which are by far the largest membership don't seem to have much of a voice or influence over decisions which directly affect them. I'm not for one minute saying that the amateur/community or whatever you want to call them should rule the roost, but the needs of community clubs in regional leagues are different to those in development areas who play a few games a season at their local RU club. Likewise the forces and university teams who don't have to worry about paying to train and play games, or run clubhouses. 

20 years ago the development leagues were booming with RL being played all over the UK in little mini-league competitions over summer, regionals were bursting at the seams with open age sides so where did it all go wrong !!

BARLA had plenty of faults and towards the end of their tenureship they became fairly innocuous, but they only had the amateur game to worry about, unlike the RFL who seem to be constantly fighting fires trying to stop professional clubs from going bankrupt.

 

Whilst you feel that the Community Board is out of touch with the amateur game that is definitely not the case.

Check out it's membership.  - largely died in the wool grassroots people . The likes of Trevor Hunt and Stuart Prior are not push overs. The real problem has always been the same - getting the RFL to take notice of their views and acting upon them.

[Marauder]

3 hours ago, del capo said:

Whilst you feel that the Community Board is out of touch with the amateur game that is definitely not the case.

Check out it's membership.  - largely died in the wool grassroots people . The likes of Trevor Hunt and Stuart Prior are not push overs. The real problem has always been the same - getting the RFL to take notice of their views and acting upon them.

Lets pull no punches, if it wasn't for the financial rewards the RFL can and do access with the amateurs under their wing, we'd be dropped like a ton of bricks.

[del capo]

1 hour ago, Marauder said:

Lets pull no punches, if it wasn't for the financial rewards the RFL can and do access with the amateurs under their wing, we'd be dropped like a ton of bricks.

And on the flipside  the Wigan  amateur clubs alone have received grant aid well in excess of £1 million in recent years  for their various projects that  would  not have been available to them without direct  RFL input

[Death to the Rah Rah's]

1 hour ago, del capo said:

And on the flipside  the Wigan  amateur clubs alone have received grant aid well in excess of £1 million in recent years  for their various projects that  would  not have been available to them without direct  RFL input

the amateurs managed to access funding perfectly well when members of BARLA through Sport England

[del capo]

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

the amateurs managed to access funding perfectly well when members of BARLA through Sport England

Not true. The funding that was accessed in BARLA's heyday went to  help run that organisation. 

Little if any came down to the grassroot clubs, and certainly nothing to sort out pitches , build clubhouses etc.

Sport England by the way eventually forced BARLA into re- unification in part by threatening  to tighten and even cut  the purse strings. They had had enough and were no longer prepared to support  one part of a divided game.

We are in a totally different world these days. 

I did my time at my local club spreading concrete when BARLA was at it's prime and can assure you that no financial ( or any other ) assistance came our way either  from or via the BARLA Huddersfield Headquarters.

Since then the money sourced by or through the RFL ( as the Governing Body their endorsement alone opens so many doors ) in  just the  Wigan District League itself has been massive.

Ask Shevington Sharks , Orrell St James',  Hindley, Wigan  St Cuthberts'  or  Ashton Bears just for starters where they would be without that central help. And that's before you even get to the NCL giants..........

[Death to the Rah Rah's]

1 hour ago, del capo said:

Not true. The funding that was accessed in BARLA's heyday went to  help run that organisation. 

Little if any came down to the grassroot clubs, and certainly nothing to sort out pitches , build clubhouses etc.

Sport England by the way eventually forced BARLA into re- unification in part by threatening  to tighten and even cut  the purse strings. They had had enough and were no longer prepared to support  one part of a divided game.

We are in a totally different world these days. 

I did my time at my local club spreading concrete when BARLA was at it's prime and can assure you that no financial ( or any other ) assistance came our way either  from or via the BARLA Huddersfield Headquarters.

Since then the money sourced by or through the RFL ( as the Governing Body their endorsement alone opens so many doors ) in  just the  Wigan District League itself has been massive.

Ask Shevington Sharks , Orrell St James',  Hindley, Wigan  St Cuthberts'  or  Ashton Bears just for starters where they would be without that central help. And that's before you even get to the NCL giants..........

Whose mentioned BARLA funding clubs?

if you read my post again you’ll see that I said CLUBS managed to access funding from Sport England while members of BARLA 

[del capo]

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

Whose mentioned BARLA funding clubs?

if you read my post again you’ll see that I said CLUBS managed to access funding from Sport England while members of BARLA 

You said  'the amateurs  managed to access funding  perfectly well  when members of BARLA from Sport England.'.

Are you actually able to put figures to the capital investment by Sport England to any amateur club pre RFL takeover ?

This year alone  ( and again I limit my comment to the Wigan area and not everywhere else ) Shevington Sharks have had 200k towards their 1.3 million complex and St James' have had 140k towards their clubhouse upgrade. A 230k windfall again this year also collected by 6 Wigan amateur clubs via the  RFL.

In the past clubs scraped around with frugal budgets and little direction.

As  I have  previously posted  - 'We are in a totally different world these days '

More than a few seemingly need to get used to that concept

[Death to the Rah Rah's]

16 hours ago, del capo said:

Are you actually able to put figures to the capital investment by Sport England to any amateur club pre RFL takeover ?

No, do you?

I do know lots of clubs in Cumbria benefitted from sports grants pre-RFL days, some arguably have better facilities than some of the so-called professionals, all applied for without help from the RFL.

I’m sure the Wigan clubs mentioned above would all have been been just as successful with their grant applications regardless of their affiliation with the RFL.

[del capo]

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

No, do you?

I do know lots of clubs in Cumbria benefitted from sports grants pre-RFL days, some arguably have better facilities than some of the so-called professionals, all applied for without help from the RFL.

I’m sure the Wigan clubs mentioned above would all have been been just as successful with their grant applications regardless of their affiliation with the RFL.

You raised the point not me.

Please share your declared  knowledge with us of the ' lots of clubs ' grant aided pre RFL days. Figures  and named outfits if  you actually can

I've just googled arguably the best club in Cumbria - Wath Brow Hornets  . Got 100k last May towards their indoor training Barn.......

[Death to the Rah Rah's]

37 minutes ago, del capo said:

You raised the point not me.

Please share your declared  knowledge with us of the ' lots of clubs ' grant aided pre RFL days. Figures  and named outfits if  you actually can

I've just googled arguably the best club in Cumbria - Wath Brow Hornets  . Got 100k last May towards their indoor training Barn.......

Wath brow, maryport, Lowca, Ellenborough, seaton, Egremont, Glasson to name but a few.

can’t remember exact figures but Lowca got something like 250-300k to build their clubhouse and changing rooms, maryport about the same, Ellenborough got 175-200k ish 

seaton was about 200k to build their changing rooms …..do you need any more or is that enough for you?

all the above received the funding before 2000

[del capo]

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

Wath brow, maryport, Lowca, Ellenborough, seaton, Egremont, Glasson to name but a few.

can’t remember exact figures but Lowca got something like 250-300k to build their clubhouse and changing rooms, maryport about the same, Ellenborough got 175-200k ish 

seaton was about 200k to build their changing rooms …..do you need any more or is that enough for you?

all the above received the funding before 2000

 Sorry but I have no way to validate your figures or the sources of those funding streams.

Can you ?  I am not seeking to fall out with you and I will otherwise simply  have to take your word for it.

 What I can say though is that The Brow have had 100k for their barn , that Egremont had a vast investment when the NCL went to summer  ( 2006 ?) to sort out the cricket field issues  and the refurbishment of their clubhouse. That Glasson ARLFC were saved from closure following intervention  by  the RFL who paid approx £ 25 K to replace the collapsing  roof on their clubhouse , that Cockermouth  Titans have just got 145k towards their project of joining the ' bricks and mortar ' brigade. - one day we might even get into the Lake District proper as expansionists...

Smaller grants have been thrown out throughout Cumbria  to the clubs you mention for pitch remediation , fencing  ,shower upgrades , ' tarting up  '  a clubs  facilities for its offer to its community on a virtual  ' ask and you shall receive ' basis.

 Do you need me to move to the south of your county? I could start with Roose  Pioneers...

 Some posters on here will know that I was once at the very heart  and head of Barla. I can assure you that certainly from say 1996 onwards  that organisation became incapable of looking after the processing of grant applications from and for  its members.

Clubs  were on their own.

Simple question  - do you want  our clubs  to have to fend for themselves when seeking investment from a miriad of sources or should they be entitled to ask for help from a Governing Body ?

Of one thing I am certain. Trying to turn back the clock seldom works. And we are  probably far beyond that today.

 

[Death to the Rah Rah's]

all the clubs you have quoted above were awarded grants by sport England  not the RFL who merely work alongside sport England in accessing eligibility.
 

the RFL World Cup legacy fund is sport England money, not the RFLs. As I understand it the RFL distributed grants up to the value of 15k, anything over (large grants were still overseen by Sport England.

I’m not quite sure where you are wanting to take this ‘discussion’, my point was that clubs accessed funding pre-RFL days either using a knowledgeable person within the club or used an outside source to complete the application on their behalf, either way it worked and the clubs I mentioned all have amazing facilities.

The point of this thread is participation fees for players which I still say will have a detrimental affect on player numbers.

The club I support has about 42 players currently signed on for this season.

out of that 42, of which there will be additions as the season progresses, they’ll be a hardcore squad of 25 players who will make themselves available to play in 80% of the matches, out of the remaining 17, some those lads might play less than 5 games a season, others no games at all, but there will be a few times in the season, especially at second team rugby when the services of those players will be called upon, so do you think they are going to pay a membership fee to the RFL to play?

[del capo]

9 minutes ago, Death to the Rah Rah's said:

all the clubs you have quoted above were awarded grants by sport England  not the RFL who merely work alongside sport England in accessing eligibility.
 

the RFL World Cup legacy fund is sport England money, not the RFLs. As I understand it the RFL distributed grants up to the value of 15k, anything over (large grants were still overseen by Sport England.

I’m not quite sure where you are wanting to take this ‘discussion’, my point was that clubs accessed funding pre-RFL days either using a knowledgeable person within the club or used an outside source to complete the application on their behalf, either way it worked and the clubs I mentioned all have amazing facilities.

The point of this thread is participation fees for players which I still say will have a detrimental affect on player numbers.

The club I support has about 42 players currently signed on for this season.

out of that 42, of which there will be additions as the season progresses, they’ll be a hardcore squad of 25 players who will make themselves available to play in 80% of the matches, out of the remaining 17, some those lads might play less than 5 games a season, others no games at all, but there will be a few times in the season, especially at second team rugby when the services of those players will be called upon, so do you think they are going to pay a membership fee to the RFL to play?

You can't access  funds from most agencies without Governing Body support and endorsement.

I take your point about fringe players. Your numbers should however  give you 2 sides most weeks.

And unfortunately the way the RFL have presented their case makes it  a straightforward  but brutal choice. You will not be registered and therefor entitled to play without paying a membership fee.

Meanwhile I'm waiting to see what Whitehaven Workington and Barrow amongst others get by way of a handout following the latest TV deal.....

[Death to the Rah Rah's]

The community board does not represent the interests of its largest membership ie: community clubs, you’ve even said that yourself in your earlier posts saying the RFL doesn’t listen to the likes of Prior, Hunt etc.

Maybe the answer is for the RFL to set up a new panel to sorely look after the community game, ie: a modern version of BARLA under the RFLs umbrella but with the RFL having reduced influence (a reversal of the current Community board).

The problem with the RFL is the professional game, they require constant handouts to stay solvent, they take the money out of the system that should pay for the running of the community game.

I agree the professionals get the TV revenue and national exposure, but without the player conveyor from the community game, how would they survive long term with a shrinking player pool? 

That is exactly what will happen if membership fees are introduced !

They take the best junior players for their academies, most of those are rejected and rarely play the game at the community level again.

the whole system is broken, and needs a complete reset.

I do support academies but not in their current form. They should go back to Inter town representative games linked to the local pro clubs, so these younger players still play junior rugby.

You and I both know this will never happen as the RFL will have no meaningful engagement with their members, the so called active membership survey was a bloody insult !

Until dialogue is improved and barriers broken down nothing will change as the ‘them and us’ attitude will always prevail.

in regards to your other comment about TV cash for the professional clubs, to be totally honest with you, I’m not really bothered, there’s teams throughout the three pro leagues who are professional in name only and without central funding they are unviable, maybe it’s time to separate the wheat from the chaff and have less clubs but ones who are solvent

 

 

[Impartial Observer]

29 minutes ago, Death to the Rah Rah's said:

 

They take the best junior players for their academies, most of those are rejected and rarely play the game at the community level again.

 

 

 

People continually say there is a high drop out rate from the game but what are figures please?

[Marauder]

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

The community board does not represent the interests of its largest membership ie: community clubs, you’ve even said that yourself in your earlier posts saying the RFL doesn’t listen to the likes of Prior, Hunt etc.

Maybe the answer is for the RFL to set up a new panel to sorely look after the community game, ie: a modern version of BARLA under the RFLs umbrella but with the RFL having reduced influence (a reversal of the current Community board).

The problem with the RFL is the professional game, they require constant handouts to stay solvent, they take the money out of the system that should pay for the running of the community game.

I agree the professionals get the TV revenue and national exposure, but without the player conveyor from the community game, how would they survive long term with a shrinking player pool? 

That is exactly what will happen if membership fees are introduced !

They take the best junior players for their academies, most of those are rejected and rarely play the game at the community level again.

the whole system is broken, and needs a complete reset.

I do support academies but not in their current form. They should go back to Inter town representative games linked to the local pro clubs, so these younger players still play junior rugby.

You and I both know this will never happen as the RFL will have no meaningful engagement with their members, the so called active membership survey was a bloody insult !

Until dialogue is improved and barriers broken down nothing will change as the ‘them and us’ attitude will always prevail.

in regards to your other comment about TV cash for the professional clubs, to be totally honest with you, I’m not really bothered, there’s teams throughout the three pro leagues who are professional in name only and without central funding they are unviable, maybe it’s time to separate the wheat from the chaff and have less clubs but ones who are solvent

 

 

I do support academies but not in their current form. They should go back to Inter town representative games linked to the local pro clubs, so these younger players still play junior rugby. - Spot on, this will allow the lesser teams who are functioning with a small squad to continue in business.

[johnmatrix]

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

in regards to your other comment about TV cash for the professional clubs, to be totally honest with you, I’m not really bothered, there’s teams throughout the three pro leagues who are professional in name only and without central funding they are unviable, maybe it’s time to separate the wheat from the chaff and have less clubs but ones who are solvent

 

 

I think a big reset of the semi pro game is coming players over paid etc.

Our local semi pro teams do absolutely nothing to engage with local amateur clubs. They've taken all the TV money and done nothing with it. They've small fan bases which are dwindling and most of our jnrs do not go and watch etc.  They've been around for over 100yrs and done nothing to help the increase the rl family. 

[Marauder]

4 minutes ago, johnmatrix said:

I think a big reset of the semi pro game is coming players over paid etc.

Our local semi pro teams do absolutely nothing to engage with local amateur clubs. They've taken all the TV money and done nothing with it. They've small fan bases which are dwindling and most of our jnrs do not go and watch etc.  They've been around for over 100yrs and done nothing to help the increase the rl family. 

Doncaster are very active in local primary schools at the moment working with Bentley, Toll Bar, Moorends and Dearne Valley