3rd tier is back in 2014 [Discontinued]

[Done that]

If one more standalone/random entity comes in - I can see it being a 10 team comp. I'd hate to see 3 Sydney teams with one standalone team being accepted. Not because it is Uni, but because one area will have to miss out or won't be represented fully.

If there are 3 Sydney teams, one of which is Uni, then either the North, South or West of Sydney will miss out.

If South, North or West then end up in a JV to make up the 2nd and 3rd teams there will be to too many Shute Shield teams feeding into that those two clubs and less players will be exposed to the NRC level of competition.

So if Uni is accepted, and their is an expression of interest from North, West and Southern Sydney - then I think they will need another entry from another source (ie country/regional etc) to make it a ten team comp.
My two cents - I'm probably wrong.

Uni will be part of a composit team I believe, & will not stand alone,thus resulting in 3 composit teams from the SS.

 

[Train Without a Station]

QH, I only raised Adelaide as an example of potential new market. In order to do that the competition would need to be up and running and a financial success.

What I'm getting at is that a team can service more than a few suburbs. Do people say since they live more than 5km from Moore Park they don't follow rugby as they don't have a team?

These are going to be teams in a national comp after all. 1 Team will sufficiently service Melbourne. 1 does for Brisbane in the NRL.

In the need for creating playing spots and content we will need multiple teams in Brisbane and Sydney but I believe 2 in Brisbane and 3 in Sydney is absolutely stretching it.

 

[I like to watch]

If we are going to have a similar competition as Currie Cup and ITM/NPC, should we not have 14 teams in two tiers of 7 with promotion and relegation?

14 teams dilutes the talent pool too much IMO.

 

[GunnerDownUnder]

I think 5 teams in the long run from NSW is about right - as long as it expands the capture areas.
Northshore and central coast
Eastwood and western Sydney
Southern and Illawara
Newcastle and Country NSW
City
The thing is a lot of people on here are from NSW and follow SS - we dont want to loose our teams and many dont want to follow Uni!
That means we want/need more sides than may be practical in this comp.
As long as there is rugby for a few more weeks of the year I dont really care and will go every saturday.
My main concern will be what garish colour schemes they come up with!

 

[sidelinesid]

No one has mentioned the Northern Territory.
Some of the facilities up there are very good and there have been some good coaches engaged.Bet you would get a decent crowd too.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Q&A on the NRC with Ben Whitaker

http://www.rugby.com.au/News/NewsArticle/ArticleID/10676.aspx

 

[Snort]

Of course the ARC didn't identify players out of nothing. They were already on the path to bigger things but the ARC provided an opportunity to get more exposure and play both with and against a higher average standard of players..

Absolutely wrong. It gave them a chance to play against a lower average standard of players than they were with in their Super Rugby squads. It did nothing to advance their development. I mean, truly, what impact do you think a couple of hours of ARC Rugby had on Higginbotham?

"I'm not sure what else you're expecting or why you have a problem with this."

The reasons I have a problem with it are that (a) it's unsustainable, (b) it's unnecessary and (c) it will cause damage to the club tier of the game, which ultimately will damage the flow of players into professional Rugby.

In case it escaped your attention, Australian Rugby is broke, and the Australian franchises do not dominate Super Rugby. The answer to those problems is not to create a quasi-professional extra level of the game. The best players are already being identified and absorbed into the professional ranks. So it makes no sense at all to invent a competition for players who are never going to be Wallabies.

But, as I say, it's happening, so we may as well watch the debacle unfold.

 

[Slim 293]

Absolutely wrong. It gave them a chance to play against a lower average standard of players than they were with in their Super Rugby squads.

No, it gave them a chance to play against a better average standard of players than they were in club rugby.........

Fact.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Of concern:

A tender process will follow the current Expression of Interest stage from which teams will be selected against detailed criteria. Tender information will be ready for distribution to interested genuine groups in early January 2014 and we expect to announce the successful teams by the end of next February.

Late February is late.

We are working on the NRC player payment policy with key stakeholders at the moment and how these relate and work within our current Super Rugby and club rugby payment systems.

So the successful tenderers (surely "key stakeholders") will have no say in this? The players, because they don't know who they are, will have no say in this - or if they do RUPA is going to have issues with the number of games expected of a rookie, for instance, gain selection for the first time into the NRC and will arguably have a conflict of interest or no mandate to represent players vying for spots who are not yet members.

The National Rugby Championship will be self-funded

Don't all those directors out there forget their solvency obligations in the rush to jump on this bandwagon.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Uni will be part of a composit team I believe, & will not stand alone,thus resulting in 3 composit teams from the SS.

is that based on inside info - only because its contrary to what i have heard indirectly from the inside and is completely at odds with their vociferous position in relation to the ARC.
I am also told that Randwick are a stand alone proposition.

 

[Joe King]

My bet is Syd Uni will lodge two EOI's (which Whitaker suggested is possible). Their preference will be to enter as a stand alone club. But I reckon they will also lodge as part of a composite team as a fall-back. My bet is the Wicks will do the same.

 

[the coach]

My bet is Syd Uni will lodge two EOI's (which Whitaker suggested is possible). Their preference will be to enter as a stand alone club. But I reckon they will also lodge as part of a composite team as a fall-back. My bet is the Wicks will do the same.

The EOI application form has 3 tick boxes:
(1) stand alone
(2) combined with other club/s
(3) either of the above

 

[Inside Shoulder]

but we are now into the tender process which would ordinarily mean making an election or otherwise facing 2 acceptances - unlikely in this context I know but is a test of how real a tender process it is

 

[hawktrain]

Would Sydney Uni possibly be up for putting their resources into a team that wasn't called Sydney Uni? For example a team called, say, Sydney City, and played at a ground other than Uni Oval, but could still be supported by Uni's facilities and players and potentially coaching staff.

 

[Joe King]

The EOI application form has 3 tick boxes:
(1) stand alone
(2) combined with other club/s
(3) either of the above

Oh, I see. So they could have just ticked (3) on the one EOI. Cheers for that.

 

[Quick Hands]

is that based on inside info - only because its contrary to what i have heard indirectly from the inside and is completely at odds with their vociferous position in relation to the ARC.
I am also told that Randwick are a stand alone proposition.

I'm not saying that you advocate it, but I was wondering on what basis Randwick are considered a stand alone proposition? Aren't they broke? They haven't been premiership contenders for quite a few years now either. On what basis would anyone conclude that they fit many of the criteria?

 

[Quick Hands]

but we are now into the tender process which would ordinarily mean making an election or otherwise facing 2 acceptances - unlikely in this context I know but is a test of how real a tender process it is

We are talking about something the ARU are running though. The whole process seems deliberately vague, which either means: they don't really know how the competition will look (number of teams, locations, etc.) so they are waiting to see what happens, or they've already made up their minds. I suspect the former, but who knows.

 

[Quick Hands]

QH, I only raised Adelaide as an example of potential new market. In order to do that the competition would need to be up and running and a financial success.

What I'm getting at is that a team can service more than a few suburbs. Do people say since they live more than 5km from Moore Park they don't follow rugby as they don't have a team?

These are going to be teams in a national comp after all. 1 Team will sufficiently service Melbourne. 1 does for Brisbane in the NRL.

In the need for creating playing spots and content we will need multiple teams in Brisbane and Sydney but I believe 2 in Brisbane and 3 in Sydney is absolutely stretching it.

Teams can definitely service more than a few suburbs and it's a balancing act how many suburbs they can service. It depends on the size of the city in terms of population, geographical size and rugby demographic. Even though Sydney and Melbourne are of roughly equal size, Sydney will service more rugby teams than Melbourne. I think that 4 teams is right for Sydney, I can live with 3 as an absolute minimum, but believe doing so would be a missed opportunity. One thing for certain, if it's 3 then Sydney Uni can't stand alone and they will dominate any other clubs that are in any joint venture.

We agree on most things I think, other than the 4/3 issue of Sydney. Even where we don't agree, I can see where you are coming from. A pleasure swapping thoughts with a rational thinker.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Where we differ QH I think is just on emotional attachment to the clubs. Having not come from Bris or Syd I have none. It's a different story for a Sydney sider like yourself, and likely would be had I been one.

My view is that in the best interests of any 3T becoming a strong domestic competition the interests of the clubs must be disregarded. (E.g. your valid point about SU in the case of 3 teams).

I don't necessarily believe that is the right thing to do, or would be the best solution in an ideal world. Just think from the 3T's side, it would be best for them.

But to support your side of the argument, any damage to club rugby would limit the ability to be able to expand the base of the pyramid, in which case you could have the greatest competition in the world, but it would be no success anyway. For strong support junior participation is key I think. Whilst AFL and NRL's senior playing numbers aren't something out of this world different from Rugby (At least in the regions I know. Sydney may be completely dominated by NRL in that regard for all I know, and of course AFL does in Melbourne), where they stand apart is the amount of support they get from people who aren't and never have been senior players. This is because they grew up playing, and therefore watching.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'm not saying that you advocate it, but I was wondering on what basis Randwick are considered a stand alone proposition? Aren't they broke? They haven't been premiership contenders for quite a few years now either. On what basis would anyone conclude that they fit many of the criteria?

I certainly do not advocate it.
I believe that each Sydney NRC team should be based on x number of shute shield clubs banding together. Anything else creates problems.
When told of the Randwick position my reaction was exactly the same as yours. I understand they played a "tradition" "nursery of australian rugby" "look how much we've done for you" card.