3rd tier is back in 2014 [Discontinued]

[Quick Hands]

My understanding is that the QRU is trying to do the same thing controlling the 2 teams allocated for Qld.

I hope the clubs up there go around them straight to the ARU with EOIs.

 

[gel]

I hope the clubs up there go around them straight to the ARU with EOIs.

Really? Why do you want that?

 

[I like to watch]

I don't think you will get the "buy in" from the various clubs if it is centrally administered.
Unless each club gets behind the new entities,it will not garner sufficient support from the grass roots supporters.
...That's my theory anyway....

 

[Rugrat]

Apparently the QRU threatened that if any clubs went in the new comp they would be thrown out of Premier and would also have no access to reds contracted players. Would like to have this confirmed and also leads to the question what rights will the super franchisors (employers) have over which clubs players can go to? EG Sydney Uni would they be guaranteed access to contracted players?

 

[I like to watch]

I am assuming the Rebels will insist their players stay in Melb.
I also assume,the Tahs will allow the players to play for their T3 team of choice.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Apparently the QRU threatened that if any clubs went in the new comp they would be thrown out of Premier and would also have no access to reds contracted players. Would like to have this confirmed and also leads to the question what rights will the super franchisors (employers) have over which clubs players can go to? EG Sydney Uni would they be guaranteed access to contracted players?

I assume that this was in order to force them into joint ventures?
Not just the super franchisors - as I said many pages ago - where does RUPA stand on all of this? While arguably less confrontational since Dempsey left they have a clear duty to protect the wellbeing of the s15 contracted players and there is clear scope for exceeding the maximum number of games in this model.

 

[Quick Hands]

Really? Why do you want that?

One organisation wholly owning 2 teams in the one competition makes no sense. It's not likely to see any innovation or encourage either team to improve administration if they don't have to attract players - the players are allocated to them by the central authority. It was a model that failed in the ARC and it's not a model used in any elite competition that I know of.

 

[Quick Hands]

I am assuming the Rebels will insist their players stay in Melb.
I also assume,the Tahs will allow the players to play for their T3 team of choice.

It would make sense that Rebels, Force and Brumbies players stay in Melbourne, Perth and Canberra for 3T.

If, as it appears, there will be more that one team in NSW and Qld there will have to be a process for super players playing 3T. The 3T entities need to be driving this. The best run will attract the best players, as it should be.

Does anyone know if there is a salary cap mooted for 3T?

 

[gel]

Thanks for the response, @QuickHands

Depends on the level of ownership though.

The premiership clubs already are under the QRU. It doesn't have to change from that - they can still be competitive (and compete against each other) but fall under a QRU banner with the QRU ensuring that the super rugby players are looked after.

The third tier is supposed to bridge the gap between the club rugby and super rugby and aid development as far as I can tell. Should those state unions not have some say in what goes on in developing the bridge between their own competitions and their own super rugby franchises?

Judging by the stuff talked about here, the previous QRU treatment of the ARC was less than ideal - maybe they have changed their tune now and see the benefit?

I would hope that they can work together amicably for mutual benefit this time around.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

One organisation wholly owning 2 teams in the one competition makes no sense. It's not likely to see any innovation or encourage either team to improve administration if they don't have to attract players - the players are allocated to them by the central authority. It was a model that failed in the ARC and it's not a model used in any elite competition that I know of.

NZ central contracting answers this description I think

 

[gel]

I should clarify - I am in no way suggesting two new manufactured entities for Brisbane (or QLD) - I would still prefer existing clubs or mergers to be the model used.

I would just imagine it would be run better if it was done with the blessing of the QRU - using the QRU resources and management team to handle some of the marketing, assisting with budgets, releasing coaches to those teams etc etc etc.

It would instantly provide a level of professional assistance to those clubs from which they could really benefit.

They don't have to be QLD Red and QLD White or whatever at all.

 

[Quick Hands]

NZ central contracting answers this description I think

I'm talking more about team ownership and administration rather than player contracting.

How do the clubs sign/obtain players over there? Are the centrally allocated by NZRU or is there some sort of process where clubs chase the players they want and players pick the team based on playing and admin strength.

 

[Quick Hands]

I assume that this was in order to force them into joint ventures?
Not just the super franchisors - as I said many pages ago - where does RUPA stand on all of this? While arguably less confrontational since Dempsey left they have a clear duty to protect the wellbeing of the s15 contracted players and there is clear scope for exceeding the maximum number of games in this model.

I seem to recall the Pulveriser appearing on Fox a couple of months back and saying that players couldn't expect the same pay and conditions that they had negotiated in the good times or words to that effect. He seemed to also say that the RUPA was on board - I can be corrected on this, but it's my recollection.

 

[Quick Hands]

Thanks for the response, @QuickHands

Depends on the level of ownership though.

The premiership clubs already are under the QRU. It doesn't have to change from that - they can still be competitive (and compete against each other) but fall under a QRU banner with the QRU ensuring that the super rugby players are looked after.

The third tier is supposed to bridge the gap between the club rugby and super rugby and aid development as far as I can tell. Should those state unions not have some say in what goes on in developing the bridge between their own competitions and their own super rugby franchises?

Judging by the stuff talked about here, the previous QRU treatment of the ARC was less than ideal - maybe they have changed their tune now and see the benefit?

I would hope that they can work together amicably for mutual benefit this time around.

Is there any move up there for clubs to group themselves into larger joint ventures as in Sydney?

As you say, the QRU definitely has a role in this and I'm sure a bit of healthy rivalry between any 3T franchises is better for all concerned.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'm talking more about team ownership and administration rather than player contracting.

How do the clubs sign/obtain players over there? Are the centrally allocated by NZRU or is there some sort of process where clubs chase the players they want and players pick the team based on playing and admin strength.

My understanding was that it relates only to s15 franchises and seems to apply only to the less well known players. @Lindommer or someone explained it all many moons ago.
It would be important for QLD and NSW that none of the 3T franchises warehoused players - there needs to be some control so that no one finishes up with 5 half backs or 3 "known" loose heads leading to (a) players not getting a full opportunity and (b) the code losing the chance to find the next s15 level player in a particular position.

 

[Highlander35]

My understanding was that it relates only to s15 franchises and seems to apply only to the less well known players. @Lindommer or someone explained it all many moons ago.
It would be important for QLD and NSW that none of the 3T franchises warehoused players - there needs to be some control so that no one finishes up with 5 half backs or 3 "known" loose heads leading to (a) players not getting a full opportunity and (b) the code losing the chance to find the next s15 level player in a particular position.

While I'd love to have all the Rebels playing for a Melbourne team, not having McMahon, Ah-Nau, Jeffries, Debreczeni, Reid and the like play regularly would be a mistake. To give both the Rebel's players and the local players the best chance, it would be best to install limits on the number of Super players each team can have, at least for the first few years.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

While I'd love to have all the Rebels playing for a Melbourne team, not having McMahon, Ah-Nau, Jeffries, Debreczeni, Reid and the like play regularly would be a mistake. To give both the Rebel's players and the local players the best chance, it would be best to install limits on the number of Super players each team can have, at least for the first few years.

Its a balancing exercise.
There have to be sufficient s15 players to test the non s15 players and lift the overall demands on the undiscovered players so we see what they are made of.

 

[Hawko]

A couple of questions and comments based on the last five pages or so:

1. Why is everyone saying (arguing) about whether it has to be eight or ten teams? A nine team comp is perfectly valid with one bye week for each team. It just uses the ten team schedule. Nine teams fits the Sydney (4), Brisbane (2), Canberra, Melbourne and Perth that seems to be the preferred model here and allows room for expansion to ten next year without any major disruption. My only concern is that four teams in Sydney will dilute the talent, but someone has to come last in any comp.
2. If Fox televise one match per week (Thursdays) why do all matches have to be on Thursday? I would see the other three games being played on the best time for crowds (probably Saturday avo or maybe some on Saturday night). That means five day turn-arounds occasionally but that's not too tough. If some teams are going really well Fox may even want to add a weekend televised game to the schedule.
3. I don't understand why Fox want to televise the game as a forerunner to the Rugby club. That will be at least three straight hours of rugby, which is heavy going for even the hardy fan.
4. I am concerned that the QRU appears to want control of the process. It is essential that the two teams are autonomous rivals with their own governance, rather than both being beholden to HQ. The QRU recently have been very well managed so I do hope they are not looking to slip back into their previous political control.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Foxtel would choose Thursday night for couple of reason

* no competing sports that night, NRL on Friday, Saturday and Monday night. AFL also on Friday and Saturday
* getting your hands on the outside broadcast equipment and crew on a Thursday night would be substantially cheaper

I imagine that the value of the outside broadcasts and in kind advertising makes up a reasonable portion of Foxtels sponsorship. The value of any dollars actually flowing into the ARU's bank account would be interesting.

I do value and appreciate what Foxtel are doing but for it to be judged a success in 3 years time there has to be more than one live game a week.

About the QRU situation the one thing you can't have is another body acting as a sub franchiser which the QRU are trying to possibly do. The ARU has to be able to deal directly with its teams (franchisees).

In business the golden rule of franchising is you never allow anyone to get between you and your franchisees or own too many stores as they will try to use their power to rewrite the rules.

 

[Quick Hands]

A couple of questions and comments based on the last five pages or so:

1. Why is everyone saying (arguing) about whether it has to be eight or ten teams? A nine team comp is perfectly valid with one bye week for each team. It just uses the ten team schedule. Nine teams fits the Sydney (4), Brisbane (2), Canberra, Melbourne and Perth that seems to be the preferred model here and allows room for expansion to ten next year without any major disruption. My only concern is that four teams in Sydney will dilute the talent, but someone has to come last in any comp.
2. If Fox televise one match per week (Thursdays) why do all matches have to be on Thursday? I would see the other three games being played on the best time for crowds (probably Saturday avo or maybe some on Saturday night). That means five day turn-arounds occasionally but that's not too tough. If some teams are going really well Fox may even want to add a weekend televised game to the schedule.
3. I don't understand why Fox want to televise the game as a forerunner to the Rugby club. That will be at least three straight hours of rugby, which is heavy going for even the hardy fan.
4. I am concerned that the QRU appears to want control of the process. It is essential that the two teams are autonomous rivals with their own governance, rather than both being beholden to HQ. The QRU recently have been very well managed so I do hope they are not looking to slip back into their previous political control.

1. You're 100% right, nothing wrong with 9 teams.

2. In regards Thursday nights, I think Fox will want the best game to televise. If all games are programmed for Thursday nights, then they take their pick and televise the game they want. If games are allocated to different nights/days before the season starts, they could end up with an unappealing game (to them) being televised. The alterative is to allocate the match schedule 1 week in advance, which would play havoc with logistics for teams. League have the same issue with Fox and Channel 9 and the NRL are in a lot stronger position than rugby.

3. It's the model they use for other sports. Monday night rugby league consists of a panel preview from 6.30pm-7, match from 7-8.30pm and panel show from 8.30pm-9.30pm.

4. 100% agree with this.