3rd tier is back in 2014 [Discontinued]
- Thread starter Bowside
- Start date
- Status
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
I must have misread the report, I take very little interest in the local cricket these days.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
That's why its all being played in Sydney across three facilities. It's an attempt to keep costs down as there isn't the interest to maintain it as a seasonal competition. Starts and ends in a month.
I think quite a few teams would be able to find the money to pay $250K for entry into this comp. there must be something to it as the Premier Rugby comp will finish in July next year.
User pays is the way ahead for the ARU. It's what they have done with the junior gold program and it will probably work in this case too. Reduce the risk on the governing body to prop up teams that can't run things properly off the field.
If they get a sponsor and a TV deal, then they could have prize money for the comp winners too.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free
User pays is the way ahead for the ARU. It's what they have done with the junior gold program and it will probably work in this case too. Reduce the risk on the governing body to prop up teams that can't run things properly off the field.
If they get a sponsor and a TV deal, then they could have prize money for the comp winners too.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
Agreed. It's the way it needs to be. I'm not sure many clubs could muster say $250,000 it could cost on their own, well not too many in Sydney at least. But I think it would be doable for some and for any looking to join forces.
If the ARU can secure a TV/Sponsorship deal any money could be used to help offset some of the costs for teams.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
Doesn't the article say, that they could charge a licencing fee not that they absolutely will be chargin a fee. I could be wrong.
If that was the case then, I'd suggest that most should go into facilities hire, and travel/accommodation costs.
I'd prefer it if the ARU set a criteria to be met by participants in order to participate rather than require a licence fee. I'd also like for the ARU to look at sponsorship deals that don't necessarily require a monetary fee but woud help eleviate some of the costs on participates. Something like a hotel chain that every team would be required to have as sleeve or jersey sponsors. I'm sure any agreement that could cut down the cost of competing would be welcomed.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Honestly what is wrong with having a knockout RWC style comp. for the semi finalists from the major club comps, including Canberra, Perth and Melbourne.
I am against further devaluing the Club scene. For the whole history of successful Australian Rugby the club scene produced and supported not only players but fans. National Club champions has a nice sound and it builds on the traditional base of the game, not trying to create something from scratch. It has the advantages of re-inforcing the clubs and the traditions. It has the disadvantages of having to deal with the same old power cliques.
The big problem I see with taking a create it from scratch POV like the Soccer did with the A league, is the waning supporter base for Rugby. Soccer has always had a latent level of support nationally and that was reflected in how easily many "fans" transferred their allegiance to the new clubs. I doubt this cold happen in Rugby now, if the ARC had continued and built on that first year the sides may have generated a following, but with the increased Super season the lack of Super Players would have greatly effected the drawing capacity for those games.
I am against further devaluing the Club scene. For the whole history of successful Australian Rugby the club scene produced and supported not only players but fans. National Club champions has a nice sound and it builds on the traditional base of the game, not trying to create something from scratch. It has the advantages of re-inforcing the clubs and the traditions. It has the disadvantages of having to deal with the same old power cliques.
The big problem I see with taking a create it from scratch POV like the Soccer did with the A league, is the waning supporter base for Rugby. Soccer has always had a latent level of support nationally and that was reflected in how easily many "fans" transferred their allegiance to the new clubs. I doubt this cold happen in Rugby now, if the ARC had continued and built on that first year the sides may have generated a following, but with the increased Super season the lack of Super Players would have greatly effected the drawing capacity for those games.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
What I'm concerned about and don't have an answer;
Using as an example.
I like that though, but when is it played and do 2nd's 3rd's and 4th's run parallel to first grade - after all they are the foundations of the club.
My thoughts around that.
Using as an example.
I like that though, but when is it played and do 2nd's 3rd's and 4th's run parallel to first grade - after all they are the foundations of the club.
My thoughts around that.
- 4 clubs get a licence and play the 3T Sunday, with club games playing Saturday.
- 4 Geographic Zones and they play Saturday at club grounds, and it is shared around so clubs benefit. Sometime after first grade, maybe 5:30, maybe 7:30 - suck and see, it may vary dependant on club house location.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
They will watch their Club semi/finalists do battle with the semi/finalists from the other comps for the National Championship. I was never a Uni fan, but I still watched the Shute for the last few years and when they played the Bris. champions as well. In fact I watched those games on the ABC instead of the Super games on at the same time.
As I said Wamberal I don;t think in the current climate of declining support make-up sides would be able to develop enough support to carry them through. If the ARC had continued those teams could have developed over the last few years, but that didn't happen and I doubt it could now get traction without the Super Rug by Stars which aren't available at any time during the season with the increased Super and RC seasons. Being from the bush I formed no attachment and supported no ARC side though I did watch the few games that were televised.
There are plenty of arguments, and valid ones, against using the existing clubs, but I just do not see any of the other plans being able to be self supporting, or providing pathways to develop players properly as is the ultimate goal for the whole debate.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
I'm sure there would be a number of other supporters who enjoy watching club rugby over Super Rugby.
I've had die hard league supporters say they get more enjoyment out of watching the ABC, than Super of a Fox.
Who know where it will lead, long wait until April.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
My question is simple. How would this provide an increased level of competition needed to help develop the talent required to provide Super Rugby ready talent?
I get your point of view but this would and should be just as much about providing a high quality, highly competitive competition. I cannot see how maintaing the status quo but going to a national championship would help nor why if the cubs truly wanted it they didn't do this some time ago.
As for the integrity of the competitions. Well, this would be run after the club season will be run and won. I don't see how this would adversely effect the clubs. Part of the plan is to invove them through joint-venture bids not exlude them.
Besides, if the information posted on the SS '14 thread is accurate and I think it may be coming from the source. Then the SS is in for a significant reform in the next year or so with the competition being split into a Premiership and Championship division. One that would allow clubs that may be struggling to focus on one or the other and the possibly of subbies clubs making the jump up. So, the integrity of the competition seemsto be in a state of flux itself.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
Keep things simple.
When Uni Crueled Manly after the bell in the semi's Tim Davidson said this is our Third Tier. I recall he said that game was up there with the best and toughest he'd played in. A lot of posters on here thought the same.
Instead if spilling cash on creating something new, why don't we promote and build on what we have?
Or is that 2 Simple?
Shute is unchanged, so build on that by.
After Shute top 5 NSW, Top 4 QLD (or regional zones, but that costs and requires new infrastructure), Force Academy, Rebels, Academy, Brumbies Academy play in a comp.
Super players return to their Shute, Premier Clubs, and the Force, Reb's, Brumbies use their Foreign players and the best of their club.
When Uni Crueled Manly after the bell in the semi's Tim Davidson said this is our Third Tier. I recall he said that game was up there with the best and toughest he'd played in. A lot of posters on here thought the same.
Instead if spilling cash on creating something new, why don't we promote and build on what we have?
Or is that 2 Simple?
Shute is unchanged, so build on that by.
After Shute top 5 NSW, Top 4 QLD (or regional zones, but that costs and requires new infrastructure), Force Academy, Rebels, Academy, Brumbies Academy play in a comp.
Super players return to their Shute, Premier Clubs, and the Force, Reb's, Brumbies use their Foreign players and the best of their club.
The issue with having the top club teams in a post season comp is that not all the best players will be part of it. I think you'll find all the talent will be attracted to clubs that are a chance of making the finals and the other clubs will just be making up the numbers.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
.
Possibly, and that is why I said regional zones but with that comes cost and infrastructure. If regional 4 NSW / 3 QLD / Force academy / Rebels academy / Brumbies academy = 10. The academies are to allow their club players exposure to higher grade rugby - development.
I think that a few struggling clubs would have a some old boys or benefactors who would be willing to help them out. Randwick are struggling financially at the moment but they could put together a pretty persuasive group to come up with funds for a national comp team one would think.
Joe King
Dave Cowper (27)
I'm no expert here, and I understand only so much is possible due to financial constraints. But surely, what ever changes or developments are made it has to be to better develop players. It has to involve all the non-test Super Rugby players mixing it up with the best from club rugby in some sort of format. I understand that it can't be the same as the old ARC. But IMO, that concept was one of the most innovative and brave developments ever trialled in AUS rugby. It only had one season, and people are still mourning its loss. People say it lacked tribal credibility. But it was its first year! And it started in a RWC year - the worst year to kick it off!
Anyway, we don't need to cover all that ground again. My concern is the Wallabies - which is very relevant to what ever model is settled upon. Whatever model settled upon can't be a bandaid. It has to have it's over-arching goal to benefit the Wallabies. This is why player development has to be the highest concern, along with clearer pathways, and the right structures to allow for potential growth (in appeal and participation) in the future.
AUS rugby will always be handicapped because the best athletes for rugby often don't play rugby, but go to other codes. This is why we need to play really smart, with all tiers, and all structures pulling in the same direction, towards the Wallabies at the point of the pyramid.
The Wallabies have enjoyed a couple of golden ages in recent memory, but let's not be fooled. The history of the Wallabies is mostly inconsistent, and overall, overshadowed by the All Blacks. The dominance of the All Blacks over the Wallabies in 2013 is nothing unusual, historically speaking. Yet, we're always expecting it to change.
Obviously, we can't do exactly what NZ does, because rugby is not the national sport in AUS. But there is a culture and a pathway and a system of competitiveness in NZ rugby, which means the cream always comes to the top. You might beat the All Blacks, but you'll never get a bad All Blacks team. Their players are so thoroughly developed well before they're even considered for the All Blacks.
We need a 3rd tier to forge players and better develop their skills and competitive drive. It won't solve all our problems, but it may help. But if nothing changes, nothing changes.
Anyway, we don't need to cover all that ground again. My concern is the Wallabies - which is very relevant to what ever model is settled upon. Whatever model settled upon can't be a bandaid. It has to have it's over-arching goal to benefit the Wallabies. This is why player development has to be the highest concern, along with clearer pathways, and the right structures to allow for potential growth (in appeal and participation) in the future.
AUS rugby will always be handicapped because the best athletes for rugby often don't play rugby, but go to other codes. This is why we need to play really smart, with all tiers, and all structures pulling in the same direction, towards the Wallabies at the point of the pyramid.
The Wallabies have enjoyed a couple of golden ages in recent memory, but let's not be fooled. The history of the Wallabies is mostly inconsistent, and overall, overshadowed by the All Blacks. The dominance of the All Blacks over the Wallabies in 2013 is nothing unusual, historically speaking. Yet, we're always expecting it to change.
Obviously, we can't do exactly what NZ does, because rugby is not the national sport in AUS. But there is a culture and a pathway and a system of competitiveness in NZ rugby, which means the cream always comes to the top. You might beat the All Blacks, but you'll never get a bad All Blacks team. Their players are so thoroughly developed well before they're even considered for the All Blacks.
We need a 3rd tier to forge players and better develop their skills and competitive drive. It won't solve all our problems, but it may help. But if nothing changes, nothing changes.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
Dave Beat this all seems to centre on the previously mentioned notion of "protecting you're patch of grass". As said it would become augmented as players would draw back to the stronger clubs.
You complain about there being no incentive for clubs to develop players, yet you want Super Rugby franchises to contract their players, and then let them play for their old club against their own academy teams?
People have to accept the notion, that the clubs don't own their players once they take up professional contracts. That's just a fact of life. An increasing number of players are now playing for ITM Cup teams due to the higher standard as this appears to be a better development, and this will continue until we have a comp of that standard here. One that spreads the talent amongst 12 or so teams, then excludes the top talent from certain clubs because only 5 Shute Shield teams would play in it, does not do that. That's part of professionalism. Club rugby simply isn't our third tier. The fact that it is split across 5 cities diluting the quality, and that the strongest comp still has too many teams to have a concentrate of the amount of players almost ready for Super Rugby is why it is not our third tier and cannot be.
Both for commercial and logistical reasons it needs to be somewhat national (covering most of Super Rugby regions) and also to maintain the integrity and quality, there cannot be too great a number of teams for it to truly be effective.
But hey, everybody (Not specifically having a go at you Dave. You're arguments are quite reasonable and I can understand your point of view), keep protecting those patches of grass. But pretty soon none of us will have anything to protect as the game goes down the gurgler.
- Status