3rd tier is back in 2014 [Discontinued]

[Train Without a Station]

You are right QH.

But that does nothing to avoid the problems SS Clubs being pillaged and local players not getting a run. In fact it detrimentally affects SS Clubs further because they lose players who are chasing an opportunity that doesn't necessarily exist because they may think they have a greater chance in Melbourne/Perth.

I know for a fact that has already happened in Melbourne. In 3T environment with likely slightly more opportunity it could potentially only get worse.

Anyway, like I said, the amateur era thinking needs to be left behind. Professionals go were the work is, it's that simple. Pillaging from Bris and Syd will be limited due to the fact that only fringe 3T players who aren't Super Rugby contracted would consider leaving. It's a close to national competition. Not state of origin or state or residency. The only limitations should be the financial limitations from a club point of view (What they can afford to pay) and a player point of view (what they can afford to play for, and what they can afford to temporarily relocate for).

 

[Highlander35]

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

(I think) it's already happened.

http://www.espnscrum.com/super-rugby-2014/rugby/story/210475.html

 

[Bruce Ross]

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.

Where did this dangerously radical idea spring from, QH? One of the main reasons for striving to get to the top not just in Australian rugby administration but also in public companies is that you are never held accountable for stuff-ups. Surely the most important thing is to ensure that you appoint the right sort of chap who can get on well with other chaps. Whether he's prone to making the odd mistake is surely a second-order consideration.
.

 

[Quick Hands]

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.

How does moving Sydney or Brisbane club players who aren't good enough to make the multiple teams there to Melbourne and Perth grow rugby in non-traditional rugby markets? How would the Melbourne or Perth rugby community feel? They would probably feel that the 3T entity has nothing to do with them, it's just a transplanted Sydney/Brisbane team using their name. Rugby has to have more than a transient fly-in/fly-out presence in places like Melbourne and Perth if we are going to grow the game.

Melbourne and Perth won't be "filling their teams" with local club players because at the moment the Rebels and Force don't have many Wallabies, so they'll actually have more super players and extended squad players than the Sydney and Brisbane teams. There is no incentive for the Perth and Melbourne rugby communities to develop a strong competition if they are allowed to take the easy way out and recruit from Sydney and Brisbane. It defeats the purpose of the whole competition.

Placing restrictions on who can play where is not unique in sport. It's the same principle whereby overseas based Australian players aren't selected for the Wallabies. They may or may not be the best available, but the greater good demands that potential Wallabies play super rugby.

 

[Quick Hands]

(I think) it's already happened.

http://www.espnscrum.com/super-rugby-2014/rugby/story/210475.html

This lad could teach on few on this thread a thing or two. It's so obvious and logical, I'm actually surprised it's so controversial.

 

[Train Without a Station]

QH,

We aren't talking about a local amateur district club.

I don't know exactly how many players at the Collingwood FC are from the region of Collingwood, or even their traditional draft catchment area. They manage to do alright for support despite this.

Same could be said for almost any successful professional sporting franchise.

This notion that people need to identify with the players as local boys is completely outdated. I'm not saying the 3T will be a commercial success, but based on modern professional sporting history, that will not help it. People just want success, they really don't give a fuck where the player comes from, as long as he comes across as loyal to the side he is playing for, or good enough for people to ignore that.

 

[Quick Hands]

You are right QH.

But that does nothing to avoid the problems SS Clubs being pillaged and local players not getting a run. In fact it detrimentally affects SS Clubs further because they lose players who are chasing an opportunity that doesn't necessarily exist because they may think they have a greater chance in Melbourne/Perth.

I know for a fact that has already happened in Melbourne. In 3T environment with likely slightly more opportunity it could potentially only get worse.

Anyway, like I said, the amateur era thinking needs to be left behind. Professionals go were the work is, it's that simple. Pillaging from Bris and Syd will be limited due to the fact that only fringe 3T players who aren't Super Rugby contracted would consider leaving. It's a close to national competition. Not state of origin or state or residency. The only limitations should be the financial limitations from a club point of view (What they can afford to pay) and a player point of view (what they can afford to play for, and what they can afford to temporarily relocate for).

Wanting to put in place an orderly system for where and for who players go isn't amateur era thinking. It's actually common to most professional football leagues: NFL, AFL, NRL, EPL, Super Rugby.

 

[Quick Hands]

QH,

We aren't talking about a local amateur district club.

I don't know exactly how many players at the Collingwood FC are from the region of Collingwood, or even their traditional draft catchment area. They manage to do alright for support despite this.

Same could be said for almost any successful professional sporting franchise.

This notion that people need to identify with the players as local boys is completely outdated. I'm not saying the 3T will be a commercial success, but based on modern professional sporting history, that will not help it. People just want success, they really don't give a fuck where the player comes from, as long as he comes across as loyal to the side he is playing for, or good enough for people to ignore that.

No they don't necessarily care where they come from, but they expect more that a transient presence from someone they've never heard of who turns up for 8 weeks and disappears into the night.

EDIT: Professional sport quite often dictates where players play, usually for the greater good. It's nothing to do with the amateur era, it's actually a feature of professional sport.

 

[Train Without a Station]

You can't compare a draft system, which generally is driven to even out the competition with saying the players from NSW can only player for a NSW team, players from QLD can only play for a QLD team, etc.

It's the exact opposite of that in fact. drafts are supposed to evenly spread talent. This would only serve to concentrate it where it comes from.

I do not know of any instance in successful modern professional sport where the origin of a player, restricts where they can play within a single competition.

In the previous suburban era, AFL clubs did this and NSWRL clubs did too. But with the advent of professionalism this has been discarded. It's hard to compare practices used on current large national competitions back when they were suburban competitions based in one city, to what is attempting to become a national competition.

 

[Braveheart81]

Rugby will grow in the non-traditional rugby states by having more competitive teams that more people want to watch (both on TV and live at the ground) and by encouraging more of these fans to start playing rugby or getting their kids playing rugby.

If you put restrictions on the NRC sides to only select players from certain teams/competitions then that might dictate that a few non Super Rugby players relocate permanently from Sydney or Brisbane to Melbourne or Perth to play club rugby there and hope to get a place in the NRC team but it will make these teams less competitive and will also mean those players are playing in a weaker competition for the rest of the season. It might also mean that more local players get to play but that would likely be at the detriment of their team's overall strength.

Supporters want to follow successful teams and from an Australian rugby perspective, there should be a strong desire to ensure that the NRC is as strong as it possibly can be by making sure that all the best non Super Rugby players are involved.

 

[Quick Hands]

You can't compare a draft system, which generally is driven to even out the competition with saying the players from NSW can only player for a NSW team, players from QLD can only play for a QLD team, etc.

It's the exact opposite of that in fact. drafts are supposed to evenly spread talent. This would only serve to concentrate it where it comes from.

I do not know of any instance in successful modern professional sport where the origin of a player, restricts where they can play within a single competition.

In the previous suburban era, AFL clubs did this and NSWRL clubs did too. But with the advent of professionalism this has been discarded. It's hard to compare practices used on current large national competitions back when they were suburban competitions based in one city, to what is attempting to become a national competition.

It's got nothing to do with origin, it's got to do with where they are currently playing. There is a significant difference. I couldn't care less if a player left his club in Sydney in search of better opportunities elsewhere. If he wants to earn a spot in Melbourne 3T, play Melbourne club rugby, I'm sure he'd stand out if he was that good.

I take it that you are familiar with the restrictions on where players can play in Super Rugby? The ARU restricts the composition of Australian teams to those who can play for the Wallabies.

The NSWRL haven't had residential qualifications for 60 years, so I'm not sure why your bringing that up.

This is about having an orderly process for deciding where players play. Just as Force, Rebels and Brumbies super players should stay in those cities and not return to Sydney or Brisbane. I repeat, it has nothing to do with origin, it has everything to do with where they are currently playing.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Having an "orderly process for deciding where players play" is probably the smallest issue with this competition.

Players will aim to play where they currently reside, due to the additional cost associated with short term contracts in a different location.

There will be a few stragglers who don't make the team in their location, and may look at short term relocations if their is the opportunity for them. But this will be the minority, and how is it even an issue.

To compare this to the ARU's policy of only selecting from Australia which has only been put in place to ensure the franchises can compete with lucrative overseas deals is drawing a pretty long bow.

 

[Quick Hands]

Having an "orderly process for deciding where players play" is probably the smallest issue with this competition.

Players will aim to play where they currently reside, due to the additional cost associated with short term contracts in a different location.

There will be a few stragglers who don't make the team in their location, and may look at short term relocations if their is the opportunity for them. But this will be the minority, and how is it even an issue.

To compare this to the ARU's policy of only selecting from Australia which has only been put in place to ensure the franchises can compete with lucrative overseas deals is drawing a pretty long bow.

We clearly hold opposing views on this, time to acknowledge that and move on.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Yes. Indeed.

Let's just agree to disagree and move on to the next item that we have all previously argued about in this thread haha.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think it is important that this is completely separate to all club competitions so that players don't relocate to other clubs because it gives them a better chance of playing in the NRC.

This is only going to form a small part of the rugby season. It should be the cherry on top for the best club players and a chance for all non Wallaby Super Rugby players to continue their seasons at a level as close to Super Rugby as possible.

If you artificially restrict where players can be drawn on for each NRC side then you risk having a detrimental affect on the Sydney and Brisbane club competitions as well.

What is wrong with letting the teams recruit the players they want and the players from choosing the teams they want to play for?

 

[suckerforred]

(I think) it's already happened.

http://www.espnscrum.com/super-rugby-2014/rugby/story/210475.html

Where is he originally from?

 

[lily]

Manly. Went to Balgowlah Boys then Kings.

 

[Quick Hands]

I
What is wrong with letting the teams recruit the players they want and the players from choosing the teams they want to play for?

A Darwinan, survival of the fittest tends to strengthen the already strong and keep the weak at the bottom. (See Shute Shield)

 

[wamberal]

QH,

We aren't talking about a local amateur district club.

I don't know exactly how many players at the Collingwood FC are from the region of Collingwood, or even their traditional draft catchment area. They manage to do alright for support despite this.

That is because they built a supporter base from the ground up, it took a hundred years, and it started locally, with local supporters and local players.

Same could be said for almost any successful professional sporting franchise.




This notion that people need to identify with the players as local boys is completely outdated.

Disagree. I am certain that local support for franchises will be stronger if some local players are in the teams. Particularly for the newer areas.


Do you accept that supporters do need to have some genuine identification with the team that they support? If so, surely having some locally based players would strengthen that identification? Particularly in a totally new competition, with totally new teams (probably).

 

[Quick Hands]

Where did this dangerously radical idea spring from, QH? One of the main reasons for striving to get to the top not just in Australian rugby administration but also in public companies is that you are never held accountable for stuff-ups. Surely the most important thing is to ensure that you appoint the right sort of chap who can get on well with other chaps. Whether he's prone to making the odd mistake is surely a second-order consideration.
.

Just a quaint old-fashioned notion. I always liked the sign Harry S. Truman had on his desk "The buck stops here". I do realise that this notion is more honoured in the breach than in the observance nowadays, but I always live in hope.