3rd tier is back in 2014 [Discontinued]

[Jets]

I think the QLD Country idea isn't great. Sounds like it will be in name only but still it takes away from the identity of the team. If every player in the team lives in Brisbane why call it Country?

I think the Brisbane North v Brisbane South is the only way to go. If they want to attract country viewers then each team can play a game in a regional venue. North on the Sunny Coast and South on the GC.

The Aces didn't work in the ARC because they were based on the GC and no one went and watched them. They had no real identity and that was part of the problem.

The north/south divide would also help with allocation of players. They would have a logical pathway into a team. With this Brisbane team you could have guys who play Club rugby together playing against each other. This would make it hard for the Club's supporters to know which is their team.

 

[Dave Beat]

I think the QLD Country idea isn't great. Sounds like it will be in name only but still it takes away from the identity of the team. If every player in the team lives in Brisbane why call it Country?

I think the Brisbane North v Brisbane South is the only way to go. If they want to attract country viewers then each team can play a game in a regional venue. North on the Sunny Coast and South on the GC.

The Aces didn't work in the ARC because they were based on the GC and no one went and watched them. They had no real identity and that was part of the problem.

The north/south divide would also help with allocation of players. They would have a logical pathway into a team. With this Brisbane team you could have guys who play Club rugby together playing against each other. This would make it hard for the Club's supporters to know which is their team.

I cant comment because I don't know the structure. Nth / Sth sounds sensible though.

Only because of the commentary on these threads, could it be because QLD hasn't really shown allot of interest??

 

[Lee Grant]

The latest news about the NRC has some interesting points especially about who will play where.

Some people are for what has been reported to date and some have been against—but one thing we can agree about is that what the Commission has mentioned so far, and will finalise soon, will not be perfect.

This competition, and they way they are doing it, and should be doing it (where the teams pay team costs) will not have the ideal structure from Year 1, and for many different reasons that weren't thought of beforehand.

It will need time to evolve.

But the Commission can't make swift changes as the ARU could have for 2008, had the ARC survived.

To make NRC evolution easier the Commission should have a condition in the licence agreements whereby they are entitled to make substantial changes for Year 2 in such and such areas.

Thereby they will not be locked into multi-year agreements that have conditions that constrain them from making the adroit competition changes necessary.
.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Probably creates too many issues. Perhaps the best option would be for the ARU/NRC to say Perth/Melbourne. Pick your top 23 contracted players. All others will be available to other teams.

I have heard that this is how it will work except the number is 18.

 

[suckerforred]

I have been away from this thread for a while & thought I would catch up..............

I read a couple of pages then skipped the 10 or so to the end so forgive me if this has been said before.

You are all starting to shit me off. I had the same thing to say to my club committee the other day when we were asked to financially support a regional rep team tour and some objected.

We all need to get our head out of our little individual club bubble and make some decisions for the good of the game as a whole. If Rugby improves in Australia then ALL clubs, not matter where they are will benefit.

The NRC in whatever form it takes in this year and following years will (hopefully) be an improvement and certainly WILL be if we all get behind it and do what we can to support it.

Will it mean that some clubs will face some pain and others will not? Yes.
Will it mean the there will be confusion this year and maybe next? You betcha ya.
Will it mean that standards of rugby miraculously improve this year? No but we are doing something. Look long term.
Will every club be included and made feel warm and fuzzy? No.
Will that mean that your club might get left out in the cold or have to compromise? Yes.

Guess what fellas? My club won't be there either but I am going to support this thing to the hilt, including constructive critism, because the good 18YO that we have a the moment just might get his chance next year or the year after and that is good for the game.

So suck it up Princesses.........

Rant over.

 

[Crashy]

Well said. I agree.

 

[GaffaCHinO]

I have been away from this thread for a while & thought I would catch up......

I read a couple of pages then skipped the 10 or so to the end so forgive me if this has been said before.

You are all starting to shit me off. I had the same thing to say to my club committee the other day when we were asked to financially support a regional rep team tour and some objected.

We all need to get our head out of our little individual club bubble and make some decisions for the good of the game as a whole. If Rugby improves in Australia then ALL clubs, not matter where they are will benefit.

The NRC in whatever form it takes in this year and following years will (hopefully) be an improvement and certainly WILL be if we all get behind it and do what we can to support it.

Will it mean that some clubs will face some pain and others will not? Yes.
Will it mean the there will be confusion this year and maybe next? You betcha ya.
Will it mean that standards of rugby miraculously improve this year? No but we are doing something. Look long term.
Will every club be included and made feel warm and fuzzy? No.
Will that mean that your club might get left out in the cold or have to compromise? Yes.

Guess what fellas? My club won't be there either but I am going to support this thing to the hilt, including constructive critism, because the good 18YO that we have a the moment just might get his chance next year or the year after and that is good for the game.

So suck it up Princesses...

Rant over.

THIS!

 

[Tomikin]

I suppose I read recently that the big bash did so well because of the random colours names and that it wasnt associated directly to where the players where from. Some one said marketing genius just a side full of the players from everywhere but fans get behind them..

Difference is they have alot more money

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[RugbyReg]

what higher registration fees?

 

[Jets]

While I may come across as negative towards the competition that is not the case. I want this to be a success. It needs to be a success. For that to be the case it need people to get behind it. From a QLD perspective I think the best way for this to happen is to have both teams based out of Brisbane as that is where the fan base is.

The other thing is that we don't know what is happening as it is all hearsay. Once some official word comes out I will pick a team and get behind them.

Also once Super Rugby starts I will have something to take up most of my time so probably wont have to spend so much time to think about this.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I'm with you Jets. All my concerns relate to aspects that may affect it being a commercial success, or being as good a development tool as it could be.

 

[suckerforred]

what higher registration fees?

Are you talking about the $200 per team levy that has been imposed on each club from (depending on who you are talking to) the QRU or the ARU?

 

[Cat_A]

I agree with your ranty post in principle @suckerforred, but every club has to ensure their own survival first and foremost. We're talking about an annual loss of $400K (my calculations are earlier in the thread and on the Premier Rugby thread) for every team - that is ONLY the running costs of those teams. And the ARU are already supporting Vic and WA rugby so while each paying club will be down $400K, the ARU will be realistically down a further $800K.

We aren't talking about sending a rep team somewhere and everyone chipping in a few hundred/thousand. We're talking about 8-10 teams raising enough money EACH to become naming rights sponsors of the Force by themselves - apparently sponsorship isn't easy to come by, even at the Super Rugby level with international exposure! - just to break even.

Do I want to see a Third Tier comp? Yes.
Do I want to see clubs survive? Yes.
Do I think that this whole push for NRC in 2014 is solely so that the ARU can get a bigger slice of the SANZAR broadcasting rights (they miss out on something like $20million because they don't have an NPC or Currie Cup offering to Foxtel and affiliates)? Yes.

We aren't talking about pain here, we're talking about clubs who have very recently been bailed out by the QRU, who has been very recently bailed out by the ARU, who are now levying every single team in every single comp in Australia $200 as a form of a bailout from the active rugby community.

I want to see player development and I think a third tier can be good for the game, but announcing a comp then expecting buy in and financial commitment (for an unclear and/or poorly articulated competition and selection process) from clubs who are honestly not in a position to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in a limited sponsorship market, all within a three month window (of which one month was December - Christmas)? I personally see this incarnation of the NRC as encouraging/requiring the same financial recklessness which got the ARU to this point. And that is not good for the game.

Rant over.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I agree with your ranty post in principle @suckerforred, but every club has to ensure their own survival first and foremost. We're talking about an annual loss of $400K (my calculations are earlier in the thread and on the Premier Rugby thread) for every team - that is ONLY the running costs of those teams. And the ARU are already supporting Vic and WA rugby so while each paying club will be down $400K, the ARU will be realistically down a further $800K.

We aren't talking about sending a rep team somewhere and everyone chipping in a few hundred/thousand. We're talking about 8-10 teams raising enough money EACH to become naming rights sponsors of the Force by themselves - apparently sponsorship isn't easy to come by, even at the Super Rugby level with international exposure! - just to break even.

Do I want to see a Third Tier comp? Yes.
Do I want to see clubs survive? Yes.
Do I think that this whole push for NRC in 2014 is solely so that the ARU can get a bigger slice of the SANZAR broadcasting rights (they miss out on something like $20million because they don't have an NPC or Currie Cup offering to Foxtel and affiliates)? Yes.

We aren't talking about pain here, we're talking about clubs who have very recently been bailed out by the QRU, who has been very recently bailed out by the ARU, who are now levying every single team in every single comp in Australia $200 as a form of a bailout from the active rugby community.

I want to see player development and I think a third tier can be good for the game, but announcing a comp then expecting buy in and financial commitment (for an unclear and/or poorly articulated competition and selection process) from clubs who are honestly not in a position to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in a limited sponsorship market, all within a three month window (of which one month was December - Christmas)? I personally see this incarnation of the NRC as encouraging/requiring the same financial recklessness which got the ARU to this point. And that is not good for the game.

Rant over.

"Like" does not do it justice

 

[swingpass]

cat has, as always, elucidated the point clearly. this was what i was inferring above to rugbyreg, i just don't think there are enough sponsorship dollars to run 5 sydney/nsw sides.

assuming the force, rebels, brumbies use existing sponsorhip deals and the reds can work some queensland parochialism they may get enough dollars to cover the costs not born by the aru/foxtel deal.

a sydney uni/balmain consortium presumably has the financing sorted, but all the the other jv's and stand alones are scrabbling for a market that cant even sponsor the back of the tahs jersey !

but we will all just have to wait and see what happens in a few weeks

 

[Dave Beat]

cat has, as always, elucidated the point clearly. this was what i was inferring above to rugbyreg, i just don't think there are enough sponsorship dollars to run 5 sydney/nsw sides.

assuming the force, rebels, brumbies use existing sponsorhip deals and the reds can work some queensland parochialism they may get enough dollars to cover the costs not born by the aru/foxtel deal.

a sydney uni/balmain consortium presumably has the financing sorted, but all the the other jv's and stand alones are scrabbling for a market that cant even sponsor the back of the tahs jersey !

but we will all just have to wait and see what happens in a few weeks

Looking at the last 10 years how can the ARU be thinking about Rand wick standing alone. But just last year (or should we look at the year before?

• They finished outside the top 8 last year in a club comp, how are they going to fair in a 3rd Tier?
• They lost more games than they won
• They leaked more points than they scored.
• Didnt Uni touch up one of their teams by 90+ in the semi's last year.

http://www.rugbynews.net.au/club-drawsresults/drawsresultsladder/

Next the ARU will be telling the Tahs they have to push contacted players to the Wicks.

IMO There appears to be politics over riding what is best for the game.
So I ask the question, how can they possibly stand alone on the paddock without without assistance or players being told to go there?

Why not Easts, Randwick, Southern - that is being sensible.

 

[RugbyFuture]

Theres plenty of money and most of the consortiums have that end of the bargain sorted. Particularly Randwick.

That isn't the issue you guys should be worrying about.

Easts/randwick/southern fell apart because of arrogance and politics/unprofesionalism when negotiating how the joint venture would work

 

[I like to watch]

So Randwick couldn't afford to pay players in 2013,are now so solvent as to be beyond doubt as to affording the more expensive T3 team,in addition to their SS Squads?
What assets do they have to call upon,should revenues be less than forecasted or a sponsorship they budgeted for,falls over?
All things being equal,without politics.
A club with the financial resources of Randwick,combined with their onfield performance as a club in 2013,would be laughed at,as a stand alone option in the T3.

 

[Dave Beat]

I do not have a beef with Randwick, they played some attractive rugby last year - I am looking at what is good for the 3T.

They missed the top 8 last year in the club comp, how possibly could they stand alone in a 3T comp and field a credible team? any answers are welcome?

Arrogance, and Politics should not be tolerated, Randwick should be looking at the good of Australian Rugby - I hope the ARU are.
As per the Rugby News link I posted above it reads that both Southern & Easts finished above them in 2013 - and there complaining about politics??

The 3T teams should be about the next best players out there, not a team that finished outside the top 8.

Something smells.

So I ask the question, how can Randwick possibly stand alone.

 

[RugbyFuture]

The idea of the NRC and NRC franchises rather than shute shield stuff has attracted new investors and sponsors to all the larger bidding franchises, whether they be considered standalone ss clubs or not. It is seen as attracting a significantly larger audience over the seen niche of shute shield, hospital cup and John I dent. This also means past sponsors or investors might see a greater ability to invest.

money is power rather than performance sometimes and if an investor decides to use that money for political weight and ruins their relationship with other investors, its their choice.

That isn't to say anyone supports anything like that, but eventually like in the other codes, commercial rationalisation will occur if they can't sustain themselves for a long period of time.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk