3rd tier is back in 2014 [Discontinued]

[WorkingClassRugger]

Reducing scrums would only further hinder tight five development though.

I'm not necessarily against playing under different laws or to put it better interpretations in a purely domestic championship but I agree, any attempt to radically reduce the nature of scrums will be to our further detriment.

I do understand Beasties perspective, be it right or wrong. One of the main issues with the game in Australia is the perception that it's too slow and complicated. I don't agree with either sentiment. Rugby when played at pace is a marvelously exciting and enthralling spectacle well ahead of RL.

When its played at this pace the supposedly complicated nature to its laws are often an afterthought as the game itself is just that good. If any such competition regardless of which format is preferred does eventuate and if it is geared toward attracting an audience, then yes, perhaps we should look at introducing a few tweaks to up the pace.

 

[Dave Beat]

Let's face it numbers are dropping for tier 1 and 2 so why would they want to see 3rd in line.

I've had league supporters, union supports, soccor, supporters, AFL supporters all say they get more enjoyment going to a Shute Shield game than a test match. It is not just the dad that says this - mum and the kids return as well.

We need rules that appeal to spectators, reduce serums and stoppages. We have at times in our history had different rules to the IRB and we have had periods of innovation which captured people's imagination e.g. up the jumper tries.

Yes but we can't loose what rugby has, I love contested scrums, hate the new engagement rule, hate the ref calls the feed, like the hookers need to contest.
Ref calling the feed may cause injury - the ball should be fed when the front rows are ready. A player forced to hook when not ready with that sort of pressure is not sensible.

In terms of quality, Super B would be the better option with some tweaking to differentiate it from Super Rugby. First of all, run it in its own window to provide Super Rugby players with the necessary competition to develop further and give prospects a run against Super Rugby quality talent.

In my eyes - creating Super B would only put a bigger gap between Shute Shield and the next step, and this gap limits growth and development. If the gap can't be crossed interest maybe lost. Plus I don't think supporters will follow. I think we should be building on what we have (more economical than creating new).

In league how many players out of Jersey Flegg, Harold Matts, Toyota Cup etc. go onto the NRL? By not having that gap, and building up to Super Rugby from within some of these players may see more opportunities in rugby. I know 3 x 2011 Toyota Cup players that aren't playing at all now because they didn't get picked up at 21 years of age.

 

[Rugby Central]

I've gone the shute shield and premier rugby option.

I think that things that organically grow from something that already exists tend to be more successful and at least have a ready made emotional investment from (some) fans.

I'm with you on this one. Develop what exists rather than throw money away. Remove the sacred cow status of SS and watch Clubs like St Pats and Balmain put pressure on SS Clubs to perform.

Also get rid of the lower grades from the competition. This will be blasphemy to most Club fans but it's time to grow up and accept the commercial realities that affect a professional game. If the game is going to be "professional" then you can't have the social players sucking up resources. If Clubs really want to maintain their social players then enter the team(s) into Subbies. Randwick and Easts, that I know of, have done it in the past. If Clubs honestly believe they will lose players becasue their not playing on the same day or venue as the 1st Grade team then they should question their culture, not competition structure. Look at Colleagues, they play accross Subbies Division 1, 5 and Halligan Cup. 9 Grades and a Colts side. Can't stand them myself, but they must be doing something right. Have to respect that.

Lets be honest, when was the last time you saw the Sydney Roosters 4th, 3rd, Reserve, then 1st grade teams running around the SFS together on the same day. You didn't. The big, successful Clubs will enter teams accross the competitions, smaller Clubs will play at the level they can achieve. And here's a big plus, how many players are going to be willing to be warehoused on the off chance they will get a game or play in a lower competition when they can go to another Club and compete at the highest Club level. How many of those Australian Schoolboys will sit out a season in the hope they can play in the top grades at 1 Club.

With fewer teams to run, administration is easier/cheaper and you can then have the flexibility to play games at different times. What is often ignored is rugby players are the rugby fans. With everyone running around on a Saturday for their own Club, nobody can go to a SS match

For those who say, but what about injuries. Again using Mungos as the example, set up a decent administration so that players can play for more than 1 club if they are in different competitions. Why is it so difficult for the rugby union to do what everyone else has been doing for years.

I love the social game. I play lower grades on Saturday's and Golden Oldies on Sundays - when the body allows. I would pay a premium for me and my family to watch SS. But there's no point, I'm too busy with my love of rugby for it's own sake.

 

[Braveheart81]

Whatever ends up being the favoured model, player development at a sustainable cost needs to be the guiding principle by which every decision is made.

This will not be some great money spinner that will attract large crowds and TV deals. It will lose the ARU money at least for the first few years and the ARU doesn't have a lot of it so this needs to be run on the smell of an oily rag.

The actual competition is probably not that important. What is important is distilling the top players from Shute Shield, Premier Rugby, John I Dent Cup etc. into fewer teams and combining that with the non-Wallaby Super Rugby players to make a competition where the standard is as close to Super Rugby as possible. Players will be playing for their own development with the hopes of either increasing their Wallaby aspirations or trying to secure a Super Rugby contract.

If the competition can hang around for a few years and gain some traction then you can start looking at ways to make it more commercially appealing and potentially involve more travel and player payments.

 

[Joe King]

If it's for player development, an 8 team comp after Super Rugby and SS end, with the non-test Super players mixing it up with the best from club rugby would be my preference. However, it would need to be financially viable, and so couldn't be exactly the same as the old ARC model. It would need to cost basically nothing for the ARU.

That leaves the last 3 options to choose from - traditional clubs, uni-club, merges, etc.

However, with an eye to the future, I would prefer not to have select SS or H Cup clubs. I think THAT would be more divisive and exclusive of the rugby community than having greenfield rep teams - although something would be better than nothing.

But while greenfield teams don't immediately carry the tradition, they do need to start somewhere, and some would be able to capture the imagination better than others (e.g. brand names and geographical areas like Sydney, NSW country, north harbour, south harbour, etc).

So my vote would be for an 8 team comp in the same time slot as the ITM Cup and CC, but with clubs taking it upon themselves to merge and bid for a place.

But if both are financially viable, would also have a 5/8 Super B because I think that would be great for some extra (though limited) development, and also u20s preparation for JWC.

 

[Bowside]

If it's for player development, an 8 team comp after Super Rugby and SS end, with the non-test Super players mixing it up with the best from club rugby would be my preference. However, it would need to be financially viable, and so couldn't be exactly the same as the old ARC model. It would need to cost basically nothing for the ARU.

That leaves the last 3 options to choose from - traditional clubs, uni-club, merges, etc.

However, with an eye to the future, I would prefer not to have select SS or H Cup clubs. I think THAT would be more divisive and exclusive of the rugby community than having greenfield rep teams - although something would be better than nothing.

But while greenfield teams don't immediately carry the tradition, they do need to start somewhere, and some would be able to capture the imagination better than others (e.g. brand names and geographical areas like Sydney, NSW country, north harbour, south harbour, etc).

So my vote would be for an 8 team comp in the same time slot as the ITM Cup and CC, but with clubs taking it upon themselves to merge and bid for a place.

But if both are financially viable, would also have a 5/8 Super B because I think that would be great for some extra (though limited) development, and also u20s preparation for JWC.

I think in an ideal world you'd have both the super b and then another comp after the super rugby.

That is what the south africans do. The comp during the super rugby helps players returning from injury and also keeps the second string player match fit.

 

[Hawko]

If it's for player development, an 8 team comp after Super Rugby and SS end, with the non-test Super players mixing it up with the best from club rugby would be my preference. However, it would need to be financially viable, and so couldn't be exactly the same as the old ARC model. It would need to cost basically nothing for the ARU.

As I posted in the other thread, the costs will be at least $1M per annum. That can't come from the clubs and sponsors won't front that sort of money for third tier. So its either a sugar daddy or the ARU. That $1M sounds like a lot of money, but they managed to pay that to JON for his services and look what that got us. In the overall scheme of things $1-1.5M to get the third tier off and running would be a whole lot more important than a lot of the current outgoings.

 

[swingpass]

well they saved ~ $600K on JOC (James O'Connor) salary alone, prune a few other non performers, redo the playing base salary on a "fee for service" model and bingo enough for the 3rd tier

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

As I posted in the other thread, the costs will be at least $1M per annum. That can't come from the clubs and sponsors won't front that sort of money for third tier. So its either a sugar daddy or the ARU. That $1M sounds like a lot of money, but they managed to pay that to JON for his services and look what that got us. In the overall scheme of things $1-1.5M to get the third tier off and running would be a whole lot more important than a lot of the current outgoings.

well they saved ~ $600K on JOC (James O'Connor) salary alone, prune a few other non performers, redo the playing base salary on a "fee for service" model and bingo enough for the 3rd tier

Well, that's 60% of the $1 million needed if Hawko's calculations are correct.

 

[Hawko]

Well, that's 60% of the $1 million needed if Hawko's calculations are correct.

My figures are very back-of-the-envelope and I don't have access to ground hire fees which I have assumed will be cheap urban grounds ($200K for the lot). Expecting minimal gate income too. I'd like to think I'm close, but $1.5M would provide some level of safety margin.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

My figures are very back-of-the-envelope and I don't have access to ground hire fees which I have assumed will be cheap urban grounds ($200K for the lot). Expecting minimal gate income too. I'd like to think I'm close, but $1.5M would provide some level of safety margin.

It would depend on the class of the facilities hired.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Just watched the Pulveriser on Fox. He was quite impressive and refreshingly realistic about rugby. He is obviously a G&GR follower, as he seems to have adopted many of the views expressed by the thinking members of these threads.

I'm almost certain he's a lurker here. After the details of the preferred club championship were released and they closely mimicked a model discussed on here a fortnight or so beforehand.

Not so sure that I agree with your conclusion that the Pulveriser is a lurker here because he preferred a 3rd tier model that had been discussed on G&GR.

Nearly every potential combination of 3rd tier has been discussed on one of the three or so threads that discuss 3rd tier competitions. Whatever model that Pulveriser prefers would have been discussed and supported here somewhere.

That being said one of the interns at ARU probably has to prepare briefing notes for The Pulveriser on what is discussed here, on the Roar, and Rugby Heaven.

Lastly much of what we post on here just makes sense, so little surprise that Rugby Central like our ideas.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Not so sure that I agree with your conclusion that the Pulveriser is a lurker here because he preferred a 3rd tier model that had been discussed on G&GR.

Nearly every potential combination of 3rd tier has been discussed on one of the three or so threads that discuss 3rd tier competitions. Whatever model that Pulveriser prefers would have been discussed and supported here somewhere.

That being said one of the interns at ARU probably has to prepare briefing notes for The Pulveriser on what is discussed here, on the Roar, and Rugby Heaven.

Lastly much of what we post on here just makes sense, so little surprise that Rugby Central like our ideas.

I was just kidding Hugh.

Though, some time ago there was an attempt to get something up and running via some posters in The Roar and it was conveyed to the two main instigators that the ARU were aware of the efforts.

 

[Quick Hands]

Not so sure that I agree with your conclusion that the Pulveriser is a lurker here because he preferred a 3rd tier model that had been discussed on G&GR.

Nearly every potential combination of 3rd tier has been discussed on one of the three or so threads that discuss 3rd tier competitions. Whatever model that Pulveriser prefers would have been discussed and supported here somewhere.

That being said one of the interns at ARU probably has to prepare briefing notes for The Pulveriser on what is discussed here, on the Roar, and Rugby Heaven.

Lastly much of what we post on here just makes sense, so little surprise that Rugby Central like our ideas.

Not just 3T, much of what he said last night could have come straight from these learned threads. It might be one of his cost-cutting initiatives - cut loose the middle managers and go straight to G&GR where advice is free.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I have the nucleus of a front page blog article prepared that I must finalise and submit, based on the "Ideas for Australian Rugby" thread.

 

[p.Tah]

Interesting article highlighting Greg Chappell's view on the important of youth development in cricket. I don't agree with everything he says, but it supports the need for a high quality third tier for youth development, however it shouldn't be an u20s comp because the young players need to get play with/against experienced players.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/xxxx/story-e6frf3g3-1226742723076

 

[TOCC]

Interesting article highlighting Greg Chappell's view on the important of youth development in cricket. I don't agree with everything he says, but it supports the need for a high quality third tier for youth development, however it shouldn't be an u20s comp because the young players need to get play with/against experienced players.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/xxxx/story-e6frf3g3-1226742723076

This has been my opinion of rugby union for a long time... Rugby league is a simple game, simple tactics and technically not very complicated... Hence a U20's tournament is perfectly suited to developing league players..

Rugby Union and cricket as identified by Chappel are technically complicated games, experience is a necessity to help pass on skills and knowledge to the younger guys.. U20's isn't a good arena to do this in, I don't think it's a good medium for developing talent in the long term..

 

[Bowside]

I have the nucleus of a front page blog article prepared that I must finalise and submit, based on the "Ideas for Australian Rugby" thread.

Hugh can you please, please, please make mention of junior scrum laws.

My suggestions were:
- No competition points awarded if a team starts the game uncontested, or if they go uncontested during the game without suffering injured players. Aka it's only okay to go uncontested if all your props are injured and off the field due to their injuries.

- Teams able to push more than 1m and play for scrum penalties.

- Second rows able to crouch bind.

It's no surprise Australia is shit at scrumming when we don't allow players to scrum properly until they are 20 years old.

 

[Schnarper]

Rugby in Australia simply has too many brands which don't identify with any community. The proposal to create another tier is a disaster.
We should pull out of the S15 in its current form. I would suggest a new 20 team comp made up of the Sydney and Brisbane clubs which can take on NRL and AFL. The teams should be made to JV with cities around Australia. 2 each in Perth, Melbourne and Adelaide and some regional east coast in Canberra, NSW and QLD. This would create a full length proper season of rugby.
NZ and SA can return to their respective well established domestic comps which have suffered under S15.
S15 would then be replaced with a S12 champions League - a knock out series played by the top 4 ranked sides from each country.
The above format will create a long term identity and marketable product without all the confusing mosh-mash of leagues/comps and 'tiers'. We also use long standing club names and brands. I realise JV's mightn't be too popular but at least the original club gets into a national competition.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Rugby in Australia simply has too many brands which don't identify with any community. The proposal to create another tier is a disaster.
We should pull out of the S15 in its current form. I would suggest a new 20 team comp made up of the Sydney and Brisbane clubs which can take on NRL and AFL. The teams should be made to JV with cities around Australia. 2 each in Perth, Melbourne and Adelaide and some regional east coast in Canberra, NSW and QLD. This would create a full length proper season of rugby.
NZ and SA can return to their respective well established domestic comps which have suffered under S15.
S15 would then be replaced with a S12 champions League - a knock out series played by the top 4 ranked sides from each country.
The above format will create a long term identity and marketable product without all the confusing mosh-mash of leagues/comps and 'tiers'. We also use long standing club names and brands. I realise JV's mightn't be too popular but at least the original club gets into a national competition.

So when Super Rugby franchises are looking to both NZ and SA for talent to fill roster spots in our current 5 squads, you want us to scrap that and go to 20 teams. I think you completely misunderstand the entire point of the proposed structureand the current Super Rugby strucuture. It's about quality. Not dots on the map.

Twenty teams would be far, far too many to produce anything near the level needed to ensure we are competitive on the international stage. One of the issues with spreading the talent over three or foru competitions is that there isn't the necessary concentration of talent to develop players so they can step up to Super Rugby more easily and remove the need to look to outside sources for talent.

Cutting Super Rugby and going down the route you propose will only excebate the issue not improve upon it. Your proposal is by no means superior to a 10 team competition sourcing talent from the remaining Super Rugby talent not required for Test duty and the best from the 5 current club competitions.

As for the brands not identifying with a community. NSW Waratahs, QLD Reds, ACT Brumbies, Melbourne Rebels and Western Force. The only one that doesn't effectively state exactly which community they are based are the Force and even then it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. They identify with set communities. What they don't do is connect with them well enough in some cases or not enough for others.