I
HAVE been aware for some time that, once S**** 6 is done and dusted,
attention will turn to Agenda 3, which will be such a shitstorm it
will make the upsets at the top end look like a minor local
difficulty.
Having
been somewhat distracted by the battle at Premiership level, I have
not, until this week, been paying as much attention to Agenda 3 as I
perhaps should. Well, today, I logged onto the SRU website and had a
look at what will be expected of clubs, at all levels, going forward.
A whole new ball game for the clubs
Under
Agenda 3, the Club Participation Agreement (CPA), to which all the
clubs signed-up at the start of this season is being phased-out, to
be replaced by the new Club Sustainability Award (CSA). This comes in
two parts, the Club Minimum Standards (MOS) and CSA, replacing the
participation and sustainability elements previously contained in the
Club Participation Agreement.
The
other funding elements continuing such as travel, player insurance,
club development officer and referee expenses are continuing.
This
change has been made to help clubs develop in sustainable ways by:
- Introducing needs based funding. If your club is doing more to develop rugby opportunities in your local community, you need more support.
- Setting clear defined levels - through bronze, silver and gold criteria - for clubs to achieve and providing incentives to reach these.
- Separating the non-negotiables (MOS) and the negotiables (CSA).
If your club meets
the demands of MOS, it will continue to receive financial support
from Murrayfield, however, how much a club receives from CSA, is
dependant on how much work they put in.
The Union has
produced guidance notes on CSA, which says:
“Scottish
Rugby recognises the hard work clubs undertake to develop rugby in
their local communities and will support clubs to develop and
achieve the following:
- Strong playing opportunities for men and women from social to 1st XV rugby.
- Provide quality, safe and fun environments for children and young people to develop in the game.
- Support local primary and secondary schools to develop rugby.
- Develop and support coaches and match officials.
- Good governance with strategic direction for the future of the club.
- Quality facilities.
- Community clubs that are an integral part of their local communities.”
All
well and good, except, if you read through the notes, clubs will be
expected to jump through a lot of hoops – for what we see as, not a
lot in guaranteed
returns.
Provided
a club meets the Minimum Operating Standard (MOS), they will receive
£1500 for season 2018-19, £1250 in season 2019-20 and £1000 in
2020-21.
The
discretionary Club Sustainability Award (CSA) has to be applied-for
by June, 2018, and lasts three years. Provided a club's application
is approved, that club can look forward to receiving each year:
Gold
Standard £10,000
Silver
Standard £ 5,000
Bronze
Standard £ 3,500
The
clubs meeting the criteria will receive their award in two tranches,
in October, with the balance in May, when they have achieved the
standard they sought.
The
three CSA levels have been created based on five important on-field
areas –
coaching,
male adult teams, women and girls, youth development and match
officials
-
and one strategic area to form the six strands. To achieve a bronze,
silver or gold award
level,
clubs will have to meet all the six strands for that level.
The
levels have been set for the next three years starting in season
2018-19 with the
criteria
and rewards for the following three-year cycle levels to be
circulated at the end of the second year (2019-20) to give clubs
adequate notice.
The
guidance notes includes an interesting grid of what is expected of
each club to gain the requisite award at each level. It is well worth
a look, and laudable though the aims of Agenda 3 are, I can see
problems ahead at every level.
Will the new demands catch fire, or set fire to the "beacon" clubs?
For
a start, since the eventual S**** 6 (remember, I said I wouldn't
mention this again), we have to assume, and I believe it is a fair
assumption, clubs seeking this new status should be “Gold Standard”
clubs. After all, the Ayatollah himself is seeking that these special
six clubs set the standards and “be a beacon” for
those below them.
Well,
I do not think many, if any, of the bidding clubs meets Gold criteria
right now. Let's just look at the number of teams they will be
required to have:
- Three adult male teams
- One women's team
- Two girls teams
- Thirteen youth teams across the rugby community – split six mini and seven secondary.
- One or more Level 1 qualified referees per club team
- Minimum of two female referees
- Two or more active Society referees
- A referees' secretary
- A strategic planBe Financially sustainable
That
of course is the Gold Standard, Silver and Bronze requirements are
naturally fewer and less arduous. Bad enough to be trying to get your
sums to add up for S**** 6, without, at the same time, having to
bring a club up to Gold Standard.
The
coaching requirements for the Gold Standard are interesting too:
- A Club Coach Co-ordinator
- 50% of the mini-rugby coaches qualified to Level 1
- 50% if the youth and adult coaches qualified to Level 2
- Level 3 coach at Under-18 and adult
- A qualified Strength & Conditioning Coach
- Two female coaches
You
have to applaud the SRU's determination to try to raise standards and
improve Scottish Rugby, but, the effort from the clubs to make the
Union's vision work will be substantial, some clubs will, I am
certain, fail to meet these demands. Truly, we live in interesting
times in Scottish Rugby.
and in the background, the Union have stated they want to see "fewer, but stronger" Clubs. As you note, they've told us what "stronger" looks like, they just haven't told us how few is fewer.
ReplyDeleteMy Club have looked cat this and the amount of effort involved from volunteers to meet those standards is not worth it for only £10k. Of course, we will continue to improve and develop to the best of our ability but it would take far less effort to organise a fundraiser that would raise way in excess of £10K. If they want to incentivise clubs like, they need to offer something more substantial. Perhaps if they weren't looking to prioritise investment in foreign clubs, they could spare a few more pennies.
ReplyDeleteIt's the priorities that are the issue.
DeleteThe Board (with the tacit backing of the Council) have made it clear that pro rugby is their focus, and this requires a great deal of cash - so the less that goes to the club game, the more's available to the pro game.
They are already diverting substantial funding which currently goes to Clubs via the Super 6 project. These funds as well as the minimum £62,500 each of the six franchises must burn each year, will be under the control of the Performance Rugby Department.
In the wider domestic rugby game, we now have the remaining 100 odd Clubs who access participation money having to fulfil criteria the vast majority will struggle with.
We see from the recently published Blues & Scarlets accounts, that Welsh pro rugby is running a substantial deficit; Scottish pro rugby will be no different, it's just that it's hidden in the accounts covering not only pro rugby, but everything from international rugby all the way down to domestic rugby.
Those Clubs who survive this purge, will continue to play and develop rugby in their local communities, I just fear how "few" this will be.
More good points from you two gentlemen. ADCO, you didn't miss the suits and hit the wall with your final comment.
ReplyDeleteThanks AMcS interesting piece.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to Super 6, this is something cooked up in Murrayfield. I await the “the clubs asked for this” which has a grain of truth - just look at some of the clubs at Prem and Nat 1 facilities and teams. But I honestly don’t recall and engagement in these standards or broader consultation in what they could be.
So to previous comments in the rugby dept - what is the gap analysis of where clubs are now to the new standards and what will it take to bridge that? And how much will clubs have to invest to make this happen?
While there is growth in the women’s game it’s no where near all clubs having a women’s side. I did hear back in the day when it was a semi pro premiership concept that those clubs missing a woman’s side, would go looking to take another clubs team.
Interesting how Gemma Fays recent interview was very non hyperbolic on further massive leaps in numbers. And that’s before we get to how clubs will accommodate more a women’s team in their changing facilities.
Interesting article and excellent comments from ADCO and Pegj. Whilst Stupid 6 is supposedly a separate entity let's imagine as suggested the 6 turkeys when successful start to look at agenda 3 to help fund their ailing bank balance. A semi pro team of around 30 players. 3 Adult male teams minimum 22 players per team so let's round that up to 100 per Club plus 22 adult women.
ReplyDeleteCombine that with the almost unachievable number of 7 midi teams 100 players again. 6 mini teams another 60 and two girls teams around 50 again.
1 stupid 6 club has
100 adult males
22 adult women
100 midi boys
60 mini boys
50 girls
Approx 330 players x 6 . Almost 2000 players !!!!
Sorry but I don't think it's either achievable nor sustainable for the vast majority of Clubs. That aside even if we're possible from a playing number point of view I seriously doubt the ability to provide enough qualified coaches,referees,first aiders and Moe importantly volunteers to administer it. But let's say you achieved all of the above even if you had half of the teams away from home each week it would take a fantastic facility to accommodate at least 2 senior male matches 4 midi home matches 2 women's matches and 3 mini matches !!! I seriously doubt, irrespective of which band you applied for that the award would cover the cost.
I agree the Union should be applauded for trying to raise standards ! But call me cynical but Agenda 3 and Stupid 6 are joined at the hip. Add a few more Clubs who will try to hang on to the franchise holders and the number of Clubs surviving the next 5 years may be extremely low.
Looks like the suits have had it all worked out for a while.! Sold down the river I think.!
Very astute comment ADC
DeleteThe SRU were always very keen to talk about the number of registered players - which always seemed to be way in excess of the number of teams which were being put out.
Recently? Not anything that I’ve seen.
How many adult male players do we have and how many of them are turning out regularly?
Given the SRU team sheer system is paper based. Yes really in today’s internet age, clubs must submit a word document with their team list including the players SRU registration number.
Just think what will happen when someone invents a device that could deal with that electronically. We will all be wearing jet packs!
But Clubfan, they're rolling out a shiny new player registration system. The fact that it was supposed to be in place for the start of this season, and then wasn't, and then was coming on another two delivery dates during this season, and then wasn't, but is now scheduled for the end of May, doesn't inspire confidence.
DeleteThe new delivery date is conveniently a couple of days after GDPR comes fully into effect could prove awkward. I await the "lawful basis" the Union have for processing the data they hold. The bit around processing player data should be pretty easy, but all the rest of it will be interesting.
Based on the number of different emails I get from the Union, garnered around the various roles I've filled over the years, I do wonder if Murrayfield know how many different marketing databases they have, never mind what's in them.