3rd tier is back in 2014 [Discontinued]

[Eyes and Ears]

Precisely, and I know I've posted this multiple times but here it is again....

The only sensible way for this to work is for all the Super Rugby contracted players to be playing for NRC teams within the states their respective Super Rugby franchises represent.

And with that, NRC teams should only be able to draw on non-Super Rugby players playing in clubs within their region.

So, while the Super Rugby talent will be thinned out in NSW and Qld amongst the multiple teams, they will also have the benefit of drawing from a higher quality pool of players from within the Shute Shield and Qld Premier Rugby.

I have to say that I disagree with this. I believe that we need the best players available to be playing in this competition and IMO club players from Perth and Melbourne will in most cases not be the best players available.

I also think that if there are 3 half backs or hookers at a Super franchise in Canberra, Melbourne or Perth and all are available for the NRC, both the players and franchise should want at least one of them to move for the NRC so that they can get maximum playing minutes for all 3 players.

I hope it works like the Big Bash where most players for the teams are from that state but there are a few players who have moved around for money and/or opportunity. Most players won't move as there won't be a significant financial incentive and it will be easier to stay put from an accomodation perspective.

IMO how players are sourced is an element that can be fine-tuned over time. What is most important is making sure this competition is financially sound and that no irreversible errors are made. If they can get the finances to work, a lot of the other elements will work themselves out.

 

[Slim 293]

Yes it is correct to have the best players exposed to the 3T - I have never disputed that. But it should be noted that NSW & QLD are looking to field multiple teams via JV's which don't play a game until it starts, whereas VIC & WA will possibly be fielding their Super teams that have been playing since Feb (less a couple of Wallabies).

It is certainly an advantage the ACT, Vic and WA teams will have.

Particularly, Vic and WA as they have so few Wallaby reps.

And that is why they shouldn't be allowed to draw on non Super Rugby contracted players from NSW and Qld clubs for the NRC.

The Rebels have now followed the Brumbies lead, and their players will be exclusively playing for Victorian clubs in 2014 if they're not in the Rebels match day 22......... and the Force should follow suit.

I think it's a winner for all involved.........

 

[Slim 293]

I have to say that I disagree with this. I believe that we need the best players available to be playing in this competition and IMO club players from Perth and Melbourne will in most cases not be the best players available.

The best players available will be playing as it will be NSW and Qld benefiting most from the non-Super Rugby players having exclusive access to the two premier club competitions in the country.........

At the moment the Rebels and the Force have very few Wallabies so to start with you won't see very many local players from Vic and WA, but over time as the opportunities arise it will certainly strengthen their local competitions.........

It's just silly to be having players playing anywhere, or having a mixture of rules governing where players can or cannot play.........

The simplest option is the best........

One of the conditions of the NRC clubs is that they're supposed to be representative of specific regions, so it makes sense that the players playing in those teams are tied to it either through the Super Rugby franchises and/or the respective clubs in that area (in the case of the NSW/Qld options).........

 

[Eyes and Ears]

The simplest option is the best....

I just don't believe that having these restrictions is the simplest option. My view is no restrictions is simpler. I am also not sure how teams such as Balmain or Adelaide would be able to source players in that model if they had the financial resources and infrastructure to join and add to the NRC. This would also limit the potential to expand the NRC if successful.

I think it could also have the detrimental effect for Canberra club players who find out that there are only 5 - 10 spots left for non-contracted players for the Canberra team and there are more than 50 perhaps even 100 spots available in Sydney if they have 4 teams. I would be moving to Sydney to play Shute Shield if I had Super aspirations.

 

[Slim 293]

If Balmain had a team they would obviously draw players from the Tahs and geographically relevant Shute Shield clubs..........

There's no chance of Adelaide fielding a team in the near future, but obviously there would have to be a dispensation for such a case but we shouldn't have players from one Super Rugby team playing in the state of rival teams......... Particularly when they play their Super Rugby and club rugby in the same state or city, and we're supposed to have teams that represent certain cities/regions............

If there are Canberra players who feel like they're not getting the opportunities in Canberra then they're always free to move interstate.........

 

[Knuckles]

Uh oh, some very strong rumours coming from usually reliable snouts that ARU have told Sydney Uni they want them playing in Western Sydney. Either as stand alone or as part of a Western Sydney JV.

 

[Quick Hands]

Uh oh, some very strong rumours coming from usually reliable snouts that ARU have told Sydney Uni they want them playing in Western Sydney. Either as stand alone or as part of a Western Sydney JV.

Maybe someone in there has been reading my posts. I suggested SU as a stand-alone with responsibility for SW Sydney about 60 pages ago and also on other 3T threads.

That would leave the NW to the 4 established western clubs, who seem to be aligning themselves, the NE to the mooted Manly, Warringah, Norths & Gordon JV and if Randwick could get over their delusion of standing alone then SE Sydney would be made up of Easts, Randwick and SD.

 

[Train Without a Station]

And that is why they shouldn't be allowed to draw on non Super Rugby contracted players from NSW and Qld clubs for the NRC.

Slim, I don't necessarily agree with that. I understand the sentiment, that because the small 3 have all their Super Rugby players as part of their squad, whilst in NSW and QLD these will be split against multiple teams.

But what about the bloke from Eastwood (example) who's 4th string in his position at his 3T team and wants a chance to play and Canberra, Perth or Melbourne want him?

Let's face it, it's not like these teams will be cherry picking the next best talent, because financial impacts will dictate that only those to leave Sydney and Brisbane will be non Super Rugby contracted players who are looking for their shot.

 

[Quick Hands]

Its serious.
But the thread is becoming circular. I shall have one last go and then retire for a while.
Your position is only tenable if you know that the NRC will succeed: if that was a given then the ARU would be prepared to back it (WITH $$$$$$ for the teams), wouldn't it? The ARU thinks there is enough risk of failure that it is not prepared to stake its future on the idea.
The fact that it acknowledges it has no future without "a 3rd tier" is further proof of its lack of real faith in this model.
There were other models that did less damage to what we have but provided scope for evolution to a true third tier. It is a matter of judgment as to whether it was too late in the day to give them a go rather than going all in on red.
The days fly by and nothing more than something between an 8 and 10 team comp of unknown makeup with alternative, self contradictory bids (ACT/Vikings for instance) is known in rugby's heartland.

Your concerns are genuine, which is why I've often prefaced posts with "as long as the ARU get it right". But the ARU and the Pulveriser have staked their reputations on this model and on this model in 2014. If this now falls over before it starts or is implemented in a half-arsed way and fails, then buck stops with BP and he would have to fall on his sword.

I wait to see if the ARU set the thing on solid foundations, which to my way of thinking both includes and energises the grass roots and is financially supported. I think that Kenny Powers reminded us some pages ago that the golden rule of franchising is that there is no-one between the franchisor and the franchisee and he's right. This means that there is no place for state unions sticking their noses in, that just entrenches power to the same hopeless oligarchies. Quite surprisingly the NSWRU have kept away and let the clubs organise themselves, but there are disturbing rumours from interstate about clubs being threatened if they bypass the state union and submit and EOI.

 

[Quick Hands]

Slim, I don't necessarily agree with that. I understand the sentiment, that because the small 3 have all their Super Rugby players as part of their squad, whilst in NSW and QLD these will be split against multiple teams.

But what about the bloke from Eastwood (example) who's 4th string in his position at his 3T team and wants a chance to play and Canberra, Perth or Melbourne want him?

Let's face it, it's not like these teams will be cherry picking the next best talent, because financial impacts will dictate that only those to leave Sydney and Brisbane will be non Super Rugby contracted players who are looking for their shot.

He needs to move to Canberra, Perth or Melbourne.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Exactly right QH. Because of the minimal match payments and season duration, this example player will be a part time athlete. So he's not going to do this unless he can't crack it at home first though, which will obviously ensure Canberra, Perth and Melbourne aren't just pillaging all the fringe talent.

 

[Quick Hands]

Exactly right QH. Because of the minimal match payments and season duration, this example player will be a part time athlete. So he's not going to do this unless he can't crack it at home first though, which will obviously ensure Canberra, Perth and Melbourne aren't just pillaging all the fringe talent.

But we need to guard against that guy playing SS, then going to Perth or Melbourne for 3T then back to Sydney the following year for SS. He would be blocking Perth/Mebourne locals from 3T and blocking Sydney players from SS.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

But we need to guard against that guy playing SS, then going to Perth or Melbourne for 3T then back to Sydney the following year for SS. He would be blocking Perth/Mebourne locals from 3T and blocking Sydney players from SS.

Why? Why don't we want the best players in the NRC and why should a guy be blocked from returning to the Shute Shield because he played a few games in the NRC for Melbourne? So he now has to play his club rugby in Melbourne. That makes no sense to me. For me, it's no retrictions which will provide the best chance for the best players to play in the NRC.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I disagree.

Where is the benefit if an inferior player is playing and a superior player isn't?

That actual completely defeats the purpose of the 3T providing a better concentrate of talent to develop players.

The Melbourne and Perth comps need to improve to rise to that level, not bring the 3T back to the current level of Melbourne and Perth.

Also you need to consider that there are 15 positions on the field. What if the Melbourne local comp is extremely weak in the hooker position, yet the SS is quite strong. Do the Melbourne team and the quality hooker players in Sydney all suffer because we only want local people to play for local teams?

This amateur, club orientated thinking needs to stop for rugby to flourish. The best go where the opportunities are. Plain and simple. If a situation like the hypothetical occurred, all that would happen is the player would get frustrated only being in SS, whilst inferior players get their opportunity over him and look at going to League or O/S. Who does that benefit?

 

[the coach]

Interesting points made by Scott Allen:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/01/08/the-viability-of-teams-participating-in-the-nrc/

 

[Done that]

Interesting points made by Scott Allen:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/01/08/the-viability-of-teams-participating-in-the-nrc/

That's an interesting viewpoint,which if remotely accurate re costs,brings me back to my earlier question
above,how are district clubs going to be able to pay their portion for the 3T team in which they're involved ?
The income figures generated at each match which Scott Allen postulates is just pie in the sky.
If the costs to each district club are based on anything like the $300,00 mentioned above ,then the whole thing is not going to happen.

 

[Slim 293]

"Won't somebody please think of the Shute Shield!?"

 

[Quick Hands]

Why? Why don't we want the best players in the NRC and why should a guy be blocked from returning to the Shute Shield because he played a few games in the NRC for Melbourne? So he now has to play his club rugby in Melbourne. That makes no sense to me. For me, it's no retrictions which will provide the best chance for the best players to play in the NRC.

Because that type of carpetbagging does nothing to improve the level of club rugby in Perth and Melbourne and thus broaden the base of talent in Australian rugby. If Shute Shield and Brisbane Premier rugby are going to provide all the non-contracted talent to 3T, why bother with the whole thing? All you're doing is creating a combined Sydney and Brisbane competition and calling the teams by different names.

Yes, if a player wants to play for Melbourne 3T he either plays for the Rebels or he comes from the Melbourne club comp. It's the long term view. Your solution merely mimmicks the status quo at different locations, at a huge cost I might add.

 

[Quick Hands]

I disagree.

Where is the benefit if an inferior player is playing and a superior player isn't?

That actual completely defeats the purpose of the 3T providing a better concentrate of talent to develop players.

The Melbourne and Perth comps need to improve to rise to that level, not bring the 3T back to the current level of Melbourne and Perth.

Also you need to consider that there are 15 positions on the field. What if the Melbourne local comp is extremely weak in the hooker position, yet the SS is quite strong. Do the Melbourne team and the quality hooker players in Sydney all suffer because we only want local people to play for local teams?

This amateur, club orientated thinking needs to stop for rugby to flourish. The best go where the opportunities are. Plain and simple. If a situation like the hypothetical occurred, all that would happen is the player would get frustrated only being in SS, whilst inferior players get their opportunity over him and look at going to League or O/S. Who does that benefit?

No, if he was serious he would move to Melbourne.

 

[Braveheart81]

No, if he was serious he would move to Melbourne.

Then they would be playing a lower level of club rugby to have a chance to play in the 3rd tier competition. I don't think that makes sense.

I think providing flexibility for clubs and players is going to create the best result. If you end up trying to restrict who can play where then you will dilute the overall talent in the competition.

Rugby as a whole in Australia will grow by tapping into the non-traditional rugby markets and growing the game there. Clubs in Sydney and Brisbane will likely feel some pain in the process but it doesn't seem like there are many alternatives. It is unrealistic to expect the teams in non-traditional rugby cities to fill their teams with local players and be competitive at any point in the near future. Organic growth will take a long time to achieve and in the meantime, these teams need to be propped up by players from Sydney and Brisbane.