ARU moves to kill off club player payments: A 3rd tier, club rugby and the $60k persuader

[I like to watch]

What nonsense, this won't destroy the shute shield, players will still need to compete for positions, prove their worth and justify earning selection in the new competition.yes it will push the shute shield down the pecking order but clubs will still compete.

It's not just which clubs the better players play for,it's about who the aspiring players play for.
For kids coming out of School their choice will be for a 3rd tier club,not their local if they have any ambitions.
The weaker clubs can not afford to lose the best 3 or 4 juniors every year,they are struggling to compete now,if you remove their most talented on an annual basis you are ensuring they will fail.

 

[It is what it is]

I think some of the links in the chain simply aren't there.
In broader Sydney, how many U17 and U18 teams are there playing club rugby on a regular basis?
Here I wouldn't count 'one-off' teams that are pulled together for State Championships purposes.

 

[Quick Hands]

I think some of the links in the chain simply aren't there.
In broader Sydney, how many U17 and U18 teams are there playing club rugby on a regular basis?
Here I wouldn't count 'one-off' teams that are pulled together for State Championships purposes.

They're playing (the ones that we have are anyway), just that most have been siphoned off to the private schools by that stage.

In fairness though, most sports struggle to field many teams in 17/18 year age groups. The issue for rugby is that it hits us harder because the base of the pyramid is so small, sometimes there isn't the critical mass of players there to run a competition.

It's why I would have like to have seen the 4 Sydney 3rd tier teams to be stand alone, rather than using existing clubs: 1 based in Sydney' north at Brookvale Oval, 1 in central Sydney/south east, 1 at Parramatta for the north west and 1 at Cambelltown for the south west. The article mentions 30 contracted players at each club, so there's 30 guys who are available to assist village clubs and give a rugby presence to areas. From a financial point of view, it doesn't matter where the contracted players are based - costs the same at Coogee, Camperdown or Cambelltown, but it might give you more opportunities for revenue.

 

[It is what it is]

Our biggest competition for the young player is rugby league.
They have SG Ball and Flegg competitions that attract plenty of 'pathways' attention from recruiters.
Sadly, but understandably many of the rising private schoolboy rugby stars see playing in these competitions as their meal ticket to a professional contract.
Where else can they display their talents apart from their school comp and a short lived schoolboy carnival?
Here I'm relating to the kid too young/immature to play Colts with 20 year olds.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

How can you have 4 paid teams intended to be development teams for s15 and allowed to pay their players play against 8 amateur teams who do not provide a pathway to s15 and think you will get a competition worthy of the name out of that?
There will actually be a greater disparity between the haves and have nots and fewer tough games.

 

[p.Tah]

There are four Sydney team who bid for a licence, is that correct? It doesn't specify that it must be four current clubs? If Penrith, Parramatta and West Harbour decide to bid for a collective licence and play as the Western Sydney Rugby Club isn't that ok? Sure Sydney Uni may go it alone, but club such as Manly, Warringah and possibly Gordon and Norths may join and form a team. Yes it does resemble the ARC but this time there is a major difference ...... The clubs have a choice. Go it alone or pool resources, they're not being forced into into a random team.

If everyone gets on board no one needs to miss out or be disadvantaged. Clubs survive, keep their players and the juniors know the pathway. I think it's a good solution.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

There are four Sydney team who bid for a licence, is that correct? It doesn't specify that it must be four current clubs? If Penrith, Parramatta and West Harbour decide to bid for a collective licence and play as the Western Sydney Rugby Club isn't that ok? Sure Sydney Uni may go it alone, but club such as Manly, Warringah and possibly Gordon and Norths may join and form a team. Yes it does resemble the ARC but this time there is a major difference .. The clubs have a choice. Go it alone or pool resources, they're not being forced into into a random team.

If everyone gets on board no one needs to miss out or be disadvantaged. Clubs survive, keep their players and the juniors know the pathway. I think it's a good solution.

My concerns arise from this post this morning:

The Daily Telegraph reports this morning that the ARU is set to announce a 3rd tier competion. 4 teams from Sydney, 3 from Brisbane, 1 each from Canberra, Melbourne and Perth. Teams to include established clubs and some clubs aligned to universities. Established clubs to have access to players from non-competing clubs.

That does not sound like the same model you mention.
But even in the model you mention there is a distinct potential for a club to not be able to "provide" or "show" a pathway to the 3rd tier to player playing for that club - surely all the clubs have to be covered or the ones not able to offer a pathway will be disadvantaged.
That starts to look a lot like the ARC - but of course Uni must be allowed to stand alone this time.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

There are four Sydney team who bid for a licence, is that correct? It doesn't specify that it must be four current clubs? If Penrith, Parramatta and West Harbour decide to bid for a collective licence and play as the Western Sydney Rugby Club isn't that ok? Sure Sydney Uni may go it alone, but club such as Manly, Warringah and possibly Gordon and Norths may join and form a team. Yes it does resemble the ARC but this time there is a major difference .. The clubs have a choice. Go it alone or pool resources, they're not being forced into into a random team.

If everyone gets on board no one needs to miss out or be disadvantaged. Clubs survive, keep their players and the juniors know the pathway. I think it's a good solution.

That would be the only way probably all three would likely to be involved and frankly its not a bad idea or out of the question in terms of participations as the articles only mentions teams and not necessarily existing clubs.

Other clubs will likely need to look at similar arrangements in order to compete.

 

[TOCC]

It's not just which clubs the better players play for,it's about who the aspiring players play for.
For kids coming out of School their choice will be for a 3rd tier club,not their local if they have any ambitions.
The weaker clubs can not afford to lose the best 3 or 4 juniors every year,they are struggling to compete now,if you remove their most talented on an annual basis you are ensuring they will fail.

Otherwise we might have the scenario where it's the same 2 teams competing in the majority of GF's across the grades? Or maybe we will have one team become so dominant they win the Shute Shield 8 times out of the past 9 years?

The new comp changes nothing, you will still have some teams more attractive then others, players will be lured for various reasons and others will stay for opportunity, teams like Syd Uni will be competing purely because their system is so far ahead of the others...

The core of the new teams will be made up of their players returning from super rugby, Shute shield and premier grade players will be filling in the gaps. There will almost certainly be cases of favouritism but that doesn't mean the end of the shute shield.. If anything, removing the super rugby players from the finals system will open up the competitiveness of the competition again.

 

[TOCC]

There are four Sydney team who bid for a licence, is that correct? It doesn't specify that it must be four current clubs? If Penrith, Parramatta and West Harbour decide to bid for a collective licence and play as the Western Sydney Rugby Club isn't that ok? Sure Sydney Uni may go it alone, but club such as Manly, Warringah and possibly Gordon and Norths may join and form a team. Yes it does resemble the ARC but this time there is a major difference .. The clubs have a choice. Go it alone or pool resources, they're not being forced into into a random team.

If everyone gets on board no one needs to miss out or be disadvantaged. Clubs survive, keep their players and the juniors know the pathway. I think it's a good solution.

This is the sort of setup I had hoped for, but some club officials are so blinded they would rather go it themselves and not receive a license rather then partner up and lose some of their 'identity'....

 

[p.Tah]

That does not sound like the same model you mention.

it does sound different unfortunately. I guess we'll have to wait until late October to know the details.

 

[I like to watch]

Otherwise we might have the scenario where it's the same 2 teams competing in the majority of GF's across the grades? Or maybe we will have one team become so dominant they win the Shute Shield 8 times out of the past 9 years?

The new comp changes nothing, you will still have some teams more attractive then others, players will be lured for various reasons and others will stay for opportunity, teams like Syd Uni will be competing purely because their system is so far ahead of the others.

The core of the new teams will be made up of their players returning from super rugby, Shute shield and premier grade players will be filling in the gaps. There will almost certainly be cases of favouritism but that doesn't mean the end of the shute shield.. If anything, removing the super rugby players from the finals system will open up the competitiveness of the competition again.

That all makes sense on a whiteboard.
Go and talk to school leavers with Rugby ambitions,or current 1st graders looking for their big break.
They will all gravitate to the 3rd tier clubs.
Anyway, we are starting to talk at each other, so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Bruce Ross]

A couple of months ago I put forward a Third Tier model in a post titled, "Learning from the enemy - an affordable third tier competition". The model I proposed then included B teams from the Super franchises but fortunately that option has been ruled out. Otherwise the model proposed can be tweaked to offer a means for providing a higher level of competition while at the same time evening up the Shute Shield competition and possibly Brisbane's Premiership competition.

As leaked in the Weird-old-Rupert-will-do-your-thinking-for-you rag this morning, you would have "4 teams from Sydney, 3 from Brisbane, 1 each from Canberra, Melbourne and Perth". But then the starting point for the 3T competition would be immediately after the conclusion of the Super competition. This means that the 3T competition would still be going on when the Shute Shield and Brisbane Premiership finals were being played. Games in Sydney at least would be played on Sunday afternoon in order to avoid clashing with Shute Shield, Subbies and Private Schools matches.

Stand-alone clubs involved in 3T would still have to fulfill their normal Saturday afternoon obligations, meaning that they would have to have sufficient playing strength to field an additional team. The fact that their best players would be involved in 3T would serve to diminish some of the present disparities in playing standard within the Sydney, Brisbane and probably ACT competitions.

Clubs which combined to enter a 3T team would have less drain on their playing stocks than the stand-alones. while those not involved in 3T would have access to all of their players.

Clubs involved in 3T would be free to make their own decisions as to what remuneration, if any, their players would receive. The same situation should continue to apply of course with existing Shute Shield and Brisbane Premiership clubs. I struggle to think of the last good idea to have come from the ARU. Reinventing "shamateurism" certainly doesn't qualify.

Ideally 3T should be conducted basically as a pre-professional competition rather than being semi-professional.
.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Isnt the problem with this model that the 3T teams playing in SS prior to the end of S15 will have available all the 3T players who are not s15 players - presumably (with 1 exception) these clubs will have many more 3T players than they have s15 players.
And so for 3/4 of the season they should be able to do very well against the lesser clubs.
But come the business end they will lose their best players.
Half the teams likely to make the semis will be starved of the players who got them there. I would have thought that was one sure way to make the SS semis a farce.
I guess I just need to face the fact that the ARU are not looking for a solution they are looking for a cheap fix and a hybrid comp (is there a comparable arrangement anywhere in the world in any sport?) with no ultimate responsibility for them fits that bill very nicely.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

There are four Sydney team who bid for a licence, is that correct? It doesn't specify that it must be four current clubs? If Penrith, Parramatta and West Harbour decide to bid for a collective licence and play as the Mighty Blue Emu Pirates Western Sydney Rugby Club isn't that ok? Sure Sydney Uni may go it alone, but club such as Manly, Warringah and possibly Gordon and Norths may join and form a team. Yes it does resemble the ARC but this time there is a major difference .. The clubs have a choice. Go it alone or pool resources, they're not being forced into into a random team.

If everyone gets on board no one needs to miss out or be disadvantaged. Clubs survive, keep their players and the juniors know the pathway. I think it's a good solution.

Fixed.

 

[Quick Hands]

My concerns arise from this post this morning:

That does not sound like the same model you mention.
But even in the model you mention there is a distinct potential for a club to not be able to "provide" or "show" a pathway to the 3rd tier to player playing for that club - surely all the clubs have to be covered or the ones not able to offer a pathway will be disadvantaged.
That starts to look a lot like the ARC - but of course Uni must be allowed to stand alone this time.

The article definitely talked of "established clubs" rather than new or combined entities.

I assume that SU and UQ would be involved as the clubs involved with universities.

 

[Quick Hands]

I guess I just need to face the fact that the ARU are not looking for a solution they are looking for a cheap fix and a hybrid comp (is there a comparable arrangement anywhere in the world in any sport?) with no ultimate responsibility for them fits that bill very nicely.

A long term solution couldn't possibly be ready for 2014 as there can't possibly be time to get the pathways right to start then. If 3T isn't part of a logical structure, it will just tangle an already labryrinthine pathway.

 

[Quick Hands]

A couple of months ago I put forward a Third Tier model in a post titled, "Learning from the enemy - an affordable third tier competition". The model I proposed then included B teams from the Super franchises but fortunately that option has been ruled out. Otherwise the model proposed can be tweaked to offer a means for providing a higher level of competition while at the same time evening up the Shute Shield competition and possibly Brisbane's Premiership competition.

As leaked in the Weird-old-Rupert-will-do-your-thinking-for-you rag this morning, you would have "4 teams from Sydney, 3 from Brisbane, 1 each from Canberra, Melbourne and Perth". But then the starting point for the 3T competition would be immediately after the conclusion of the Super competition. This means that the 3T competition would still be going on when the Shute Shield and Brisbane Premiership finals were being played. Games in Sydney at least would be played on Sunday afternoon in order to avoid clashing with Shute Shield, Subbies and Private Schools matches.

Stand-alone clubs involved in 3T would still have to fulfill their normal Saturday afternoon obligations, meaning that they would have to have sufficient playing strength to field an additional team. The fact that their best players would be involved in 3T would serve to diminish some of the present disparities in playing standard within the Sydney, Brisbane and probably ACT competitions.

Clubs which combined to enter a 3T team would have less drain on their playing stocks than the stand-alones. while those not involved in 3T would have access to all of their players.

Clubs involved in 3T would be free to make their own decisions as to what remuneration, if any, their players would receive. The same situation should continue to apply of course with existing Shute Shield and Brisbane Premiership clubs. I struggle to think of the last good idea to have come from the ARU. Reinventing "shamateurism" certainly doesn't qualify.

Ideally 3T should be conducted basically as a pre-professional competition rather than being semi-professional.
.

The Hawker/Pulver duumvirate have yet to deliver much and the mooted return to shamateurism suggested by the Pulveriser a few weeks ago doesn't fill me with much confidence either.

It will be interesting to see whether or not the structure reported in the Telegraph is indeed what they are going to do or whether it was a strategic leak designed to test support. (Might be one of their strategic strategies)

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Where does Wokka and the Balmain Rugby Club with all their riches fit in to this model? Will they be able to buy one of the Sydney Licences?

Sounds like this is another of the Pulveriser thought bubble becomes reality strategic plans.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Where does Wokka and the Balmain Rugby Club with all their riches fit in to this model? Will they be able to buy one of the Sydney Licences?

I suspect they've moved on some time ago, Huge. Probably beavering away at the next stunt to promote someone's business interests.
.