• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

3rd tier is back in 2014 [Discontinued]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bruce Ross

Ken Catchpole (46)
This Telegraph article seems to contradict the original ARU announcment which called for EOIs from "existing clubs wanting to compete in their own right" as one of the categories and contained a tick box for "Stand Alone Applicant".

Either the Tele is making it up or the ARU has shifted the goal posts!
Much as it pains me to let a Murdoch publication off the hook - notwithstanding my links to one of Loopy Roopy's journos - but my mail is that there was a shift in the ARU's position after they got feedback from most Sydney clubs of total opposition to a standalone bid by one particular club.
.
 

Morton

Frank Nicholson (4)
Word in the bush is that the country bid has no financial backing and is more about protecting the country name from being used by someone else. Seems dumb to me but..
 

Bowside

Peter Johnson (47)
NRC commission aren't allowing it. No old names are allowed just like no standalone clubs.

North Harbour and Greater Sydney are the two on that list that ARE being used.

also reducing the sides that are in brisbane and canberra to single locations severely restricts their possible catchment (in terms of branding) and the idea of this is to both provide a pathway for young players but also broaden the people who support rugby.

I do agree with the jerseys though which is the actual reason I created that chart.


I think not allowing old names is pretty dumb, but I'm sure if any of the bids made a convincing enough argument they would get through.

In regards to the naming in brisbane and canberra. I think people will support the teams regardless as long as there is a community connect.

Say for arguments sake the team ended up being called the UC-Vikings, that name says to me - this team represents University of Canberra and as an extension the greater Canberra community.

Likewise if the brisbane team was just called Ballymore or something similar. The name Ballymore evokes an image of Queensland rugby and taps into that old school Brisbane rugby culture that has been built up over the last 50 years. Straight up in my mind as a local, there is no confusion whatsoever as to who a team named Ballymore would represent.

I know the successful bids haven't been release yet, but I actually think the QRU may have gone about allocating teams slightly the wrong way. I think following the more localised and fragmented University-Club JV model might have worked out better. We could have had:

UQ
and either:
Sunnybank - Griffith or
GC - Bond

This ties in more with the university element, but also allows for easier future expansion if more teams were to be added.
 

Bowside

Peter Johnson (47)
I think the real reason UQ hasn't entered a bid is because if such a bid was successful, the QRU might have had to force UQ to separate the club from the NRC team and also probably restrict the current rugby club to students and alumni in an attempt to stop every good player flocking to UQ to try and make the NRC team.

UQ rugby have a good thing going, and the University as a whole isn't at all desperate for students, hence no need to advertise via this avenue.
 

RugbyFuture

Lord Logo
sorry I like to watch. I would like to apologise to you and your family who have been so harshly done by my opinion without foundation.

I failed you and I failed the nation.

I forgot that I should be saying how doomed everything will be.
 

RugbyFuture

Lord Logo
Bg6qR-xCYAAd_y1.jpg:large


Sydney population = 4.6 million - looking like 4 clubs
Rugby participation in nsw = slightly less cant find the number, 10,000 Tahs members

brisbane population = 2 million - looking like 1 club
rugby particpation in qld = 259,690, 30,000 reds members so far

gold coast populaton = 600,000 - looking like 1 club

do I need to write a fucking thesis for you your majesty?
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
Don't be a victim.
If you have a point of view,justify it.
Edit:
It would appear you responded to my post with a tantrum,before this post was registered.

If you include figures,there should be a point.
Including random figures,making no reference to your previous conclusions is just asinine.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
For fucks sake is everybody still on this thing of cramming as many teams as fucking possible into this thing? 3 Teams in QLD? The NRL until 2007 only had 2. The AFL still only has 2. All it would possibly do is dilute support. We call it the smart state up there because we like to have less well supported teams (ala the Reds and Broncos), rather than a bunch of teams average a couple of thousand a game (e.g. most NRL teams crammed into Sydney).
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
Can't you read?
Someone has studied it,and published their findings in a one line statement on this very thread!
Just wait,he'll post 3 jumper designs and we we all understand the rationale.
 

Cat_A

Arch Winning (36)
I think the real reason UQ hasn't entered a bid is because if such a bid was successful, the QRU might have had to force UQ to separate the club from the NRC team and also probably restrict the current rugby club to students and alumni in an attempt to stop every good player flocking to UQ to try and make the NRC team.

UQ rugby have a good thing going, and the University as a whole isn't at all desperate for students, hence no need to advertise via this avenue.

1. The UQ Rugby Club didn't enter a bid because there was tremendous trepidation about entering into a commitment to lose 200-500K per year for the next few years when the competition itself was poorly elucidated and the ARU were unable to answer even the most basic of questions about it.

The University of Qld (the institution) didn't get involved because the time between EOI and submission of application was three months (2 if you remove Dec for hols). Like all large institutions there is no way the Uni would've had time to meet, discuss & approve such a large commitment to recurring expenditure within that time; knowing how the machinery of unis works it would take closer to a year and they would need all the information that the ARU were unable to provide, even to simply get it on the meeting agenda.

2. Even if the UQRFC had submitted a team, the players (and if you read the Pulver presser announcing the comp, the coaches too) would be largely determined by the ARU. And anyone serious about winning the comp would pick the best club players available, regardless of where they played club rugby.

3. The QRU has no right to interfere with, or otherwise influence, where amateur players choose to play. Nor do they have the right (legal or otherwise) to restrict the membership of the UQRFC.

For even more reasons than what I've mentioned here, Bowside with all respect, your 'real reason' just doesn't hold any water.
 

Lee Grant

John Eales (66)
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top