Sports

Sports

There are lessons to be learnt for the future
By Vimal Perera
The Caltex league rugby tournament is on its third week. What has the game offered so far to its spectator base? That is the players, the fans the sponsors etc; The league tournament seems at least better organized than the fore runners of the 2005 season the Western Province under 24.

However from a spectator point of view there seems to be little excitement created to attract greater numbers of fans. The playing clubs will have to improve the standards of achievement for the spectators to continue to be there.

It was a good idea to have the B division matches played on the day of the A division game. It is a sad reflection that other than the Army, Navy and CR & FC the other clubs have been unable to be on the park.

The CR deserves to be congratulated for their presence on both weekends in the first two weeks. The Longdon place club must take this opportunity to strengthen their player base which will lead to more numbers being available for the first team. The Army and the Navy can continue to develop players at the second level. There is a rumbling that the B division has not been properly organized and criticism is placed on the doorsteps of the WPFRU.

How come a country which boasts of 95625 players (including women) cannot find adequate numbers for clubs to play the B division tournament? We are talking of a minimum of 44 players per club. The country is supposed to have "25 clubs, 45200 pre-teen male players, 44000, teen male players 2625 Senior Male Players giving a total of 91825. 2625, senior players in 25 clubs are an average of 105 per club" (source IRB website). It is strange we cannot find 44 players per club. This after having spent Rs 23.845m from 2001 to 2004 on development. The amount spent on tournaments in the same period a is Rs. 57.504 million.

There are lessons to be learnt for the future. Have we spent these amounts meaningfully? This will require a great degree of courage from the present leaders of rugby. What Key performance indicators have been identified to compare performance against spending? If we have 44,000 teen male players then at least 300 schools should be playing rugby at fewer than 15, 17 and 19 levels taking a generous 150 players per team. Is this a realistic figure? On the other hand if there are 44,000, teen players and only 2625 club players the retention is dismally poor and a big failure on the part of those who have been in charge of development. SLRFU should not be seen as a spending organization but should demonstrate value for money. If the criteria for performance are how much did we spend this year as against last year then may be we have been successful.

There is a need to focus on quality spending and not distribution. How much of the development money has been given to the existing clubs and or players to improve the standards from their present level. There have been no new clubs and the same old club continues to supply the requirement at the national level while the development money seems to be spent on the now rejected socialists theories of distribution to the less privileged. If anything is to be achieved anywhere you have to strengthen the strong. In this context the present council has to rethink their spending strategy and reallocate funds. They have to get the main stakeholders the clubs and schools section involved in the planning process.

An item of request for funding from the IRB is for Coach and referee development. Have these amounts been spent objectively in the past? At least this year the council seems to be on a correct track with a level two coaching course held in May and Referee development expenditure being directed in the correct direction. Reading the accounts one observes the referees have depended on sponsors and the cost of travelling for a referee, who is appointed, has been from their sponsorship money and not an expense to running of a tournament. The question is what happened in the past.

Can we see more funds for player development in 2005 with a possible elite player development plan in place where at least 100 of the exaggerated 44,000 can be retained and recycled to the clubs to help them in development? The question is are the funds available or were they used to pay off debt after the accounts of as at 31 December 2004 and between the new committee taking office in February 2005.

Development rethinking is the need of the hour for the SLRFU as an SGM of the Union is scheduled for the 28th of May. It now seems that the accounts have not been properly accepted. The minutes apparently claim the accounts have been accepted proposed by a Life Member, who disagrees that he proposed, and seconded by a Past President. It is a pathetic situation not only on the part of those who held office but also on the part of delegates who have not understood the constitutional requirement of who is eligible to vote?

Now who must take the blame for the sorry state? The constituent: ' i.e. the clubs for allowing, through their participation, persons to hold office at the various provincial levels who in turn send delegates who seem to be deaf or dumb. Maybe there is a strong need to look at amending the constitution to suit the needs of structured management of consensus than one that promotes inter provincial rivalry when the need is to work together.

Top