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

[Blackers13]

Gaggers. You have to watch this. Outgoing Two Blues Coach Glen Christini sums up what's wrong with Australian rugby in 45 seconds. Spot on.http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=htt...9-b31hLZtKAFyM3UY1clPg8ch7pMLp48wYWLiKOmH&s=1

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Gaggers. You have to watch this. Outgoing Two Blues Coach Glen Christini sums up what's wrong with Australian rugby in 45 seconds. Spot on.http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK3DK7jC15I&feature=youtu.be&h=9AQF55RVu&enc=AZN6rMy09GKzFiTSypdyYZDcmC2-q5Lo7enpUO8prCEFdXXEI61KxoJYnXCNXTbLJh0ftXbRpn7RsHs9ghTCHR4laBtH3O_c58uSoLk7WH6enud9-b31hLZtKAFyM3UY1clPg8ch7pMLp48wYWLiKOmH&s=1

Couldn't agree more. They either need to get more schools from outside the traditional systems to take the game seriously or they better ensure club initiatives like the JGC identify and develop players with not only skill but real grit.

I've said thought this for a while. Schoolboy Rugby while being a great outlet for kids involved is just too clean and structured. There really isn't that physical confrontation that you experience in Club Rugby where at times you have to go to war with your opposite. Unfortunately to be seen you to be playing in certain schools competitions. Hopefully, something like the JGC can deliver the best from the clubs that really gritty competition you need.

 

[Dave Beat]

Shute 2012 the top 6 / bottom 6 structure - well the top 6 had some very high quality rugby played.

 

[Crashy]

Coming from a subbies background, my personal view is to keep the Shute Shield sacrosanct and any national comp would be a rep team. I actually only think Sydney needs 2 teams - call one Sydney Fleet and the other must be West Sydney Rams and fed from Penrith, Parra, West Harbour and Eastwood. 2 from Brisbane - North of the River and South and one each from Perth, ACT and Melbourne. A final team could be a NSW country ( logistics would be a nightmare) or a Wildfires team in their new rugby ground in Necastle. Surely there'd be some TV demand and being a rep team there'd be existing interest.
Regardless, we must keep the Shute Shield as the pinnacle and somehow sort out this points system.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Coming from a subbies background, my personal view is to keep the Shute Shield sacrosanct and any national comp would be a rep team. I actually only think Sydney needs 2 teams - call one Sydney Fleet and the other must be West Sydney Rams and fed from Penrith, Parra, West Harbour and Eastwood. 2 from Brisbane - North of the River and South and one each from Perth, ACT and Melbourne. A final team could be a NSW country ( logistics would be a nightmare) or a Wildfires team in their new rugby ground in Necastle. Surely there'd be some TV demand and being a rep team there'd be existing interest.
Regardless, we must keep the Shute Shield as the pinnacle and somehow sort out this points system.

In terms of competitiveness the Newcastle/Hunter would be the most suitable at the very least within NSW if not nationally. It also occupies a catchment of over 500,000+ directly with the central coast just down the road.

 

[Crashy]

Agree WCW. The rugby scene up there has a long history, is well supported in the press and via the Hawthorne Club. The new stadium at Hamilton has the mungos all upset as well and would be a great base for an ARC team imo.
As an aside, what subbies team are you playing for these days?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Agree WCW. The rugby scene up there has a long history, is well supported in the press and via the Hawthorne Club. The new stadium at Hamilton has the mungos all upset as well and would be a great base for an ARC team imo.
As an aside, what subbies team are you playing for these days?

None.

 

[Quick Hands]

Coming from a subbies background, my personal view is to keep the Shute Shield sacrosanct and any national comp would be a rep team. I actually only think Sydney needs 2 teams - call one Sydney Fleet and the other must be West Sydney Rams and fed from Penrith, Parra, West Harbour and Eastwood. 2 from Brisbane - North of the River and South and one each from Perth, ACT and Melbourne. A final team could be a NSW country ( logistics would be a nightmare) or a Wildfires team in their new rugby ground in Necastle. Surely there'd be some TV demand and being a rep team there'd be existing interest.
Regardless, we must keep the Shute Shield as the pinnacle and somehow sort out this points system.

I think that only having 2 teams in the biggest city in the country would be a mistake. You'd basically be constricting your own market before you've even started. Greater Sydney has a population of about 5 million people and Greater Brisbane around 2 million. We would be denying ourselves potential sponsors, fans/merchandise buyers and media coverage by doing so.

In the French Top 14, most of the teams come from the south west part of France because that's where most of the rugby players come from.

 

[Quick Hands]

Assuming that the purposes of the 3rd tier are something like:

1. Providing a level of rugby between club and super 15
2. Expanding the game
3. Establishing a meaningful national competion at this level
4. Consolidating our presence strong rugby areas
5. Enhance the exposure of rugby in the mass media
6. Providing rugby supporters with teams to follow at a national level (you can't run a competition without engaging your supporter base).

I'd propose something like:

Sydney - teams based in

North (a rugby stronghold and can't be neglected) - possibly playing at Brookvale Oval

South/East/Central - possibly playing out of David Phillips Field at Daceyville or Jubilee Oval at Kogarah (or somewhere else I don't know about)

North/West - probably playing at Parramatta Stadium (encompassing rugby people in Eastwood/Parrr/Wests areas)

South/West - this is where the expansion comes in. Base this team at Cambelltown, you've got a good stadium there which Wests Tigers League use 4 times a year. It's an area neglected by most sports in favour of Penrith when talking of "the west". We have St Gregs getting more and more into rugby and there's at least some rugby presence in Cambelltown, Camden and on into the southern highlands. This is the team that would really need extra support at first anyway.

Brisbane:

2 teams and I'd leave it to the locals to work out how to divide that up, although I wouldn't neglect the Gold Coast in some way.

Then 1 in Canberra and another in Newcastle to take in Central Coast and all points north

That makes 8 teams and then add your Melbourne and Perth to make 10. What does need to be realised is that adding Perth in particular exponentially increases the cost. I'm not saying don't bring them in, I think that Perth and Melbourne are necessary, I'm just saying it increases the cost and that money has to be found.

 

[Dave Beat]

I think that only having 2 teams in the biggest city in the country would be a mistake.

You think.
I know.
I think the top 6 split in the SS last year although had it's weakness - it highlighted some very quality rugby.

 

[TOCC]

Assuming that the purposes of the 3rd tier are something like:

1. Providing a level of rugby between club and super 15
2. Expanding the game
3. Establishing a meaningful national competion at this level
4. Consolidating our presence strong rugby areas
5. Enhance the exposure of rugby in the mass media
6. Providing rugby supporters with teams to follow at a national level (you can't run a competition without engaging your supporter base).

I'd propose something like:

Sydney - teams based in

North (a rugby stronghold and can't be neglected) - possibly playing at Brookvale Oval

South/East/Central - possibly playing out of David Phillips Field at Daceyville or Jubilee Oval at Kogarah (or somewhere else I don't know about)

North/West - probably playing at Parramatta Stadium (encompassing rugby people in Eastwood/Parrr/Wests areas)

South/West - this is where the expansion comes in. Base this team at Cambelltown, you've got a good stadium there which Wests Tigers League use 4 times a year. It's an area neglected by most sports in favour of Penrith when talking of "the west". We have St Gregs getting more and more into rugby and there's at least some rugby presence in Cambelltown, Camden and on into the southern highlands. This is the team that would really need extra support at first anyway.

Brisbane:

2 teams and I'd leave it to the locals to work out how to divide that up, although I wouldn't neglect the Gold Coast in some way.

Then 1 in Canberra and another in Newcastle to take in Central Coast and all points north

That makes 8 teams and then add your Melbourne and Perth to make 10. What does need to be realised is that adding Perth in particular exponentially increases the cost. I'm not saying don't bring them in, I think that Perth and Melbourne are necessary, I'm just saying it increases the cost and that money has to be found.

Wait... 5 teams in NSW and only 2 in QLD? So you are happy to base an expansion team in South West Sydney where rugby union interest is minimal but a significant portion of either Brisbane or the Gold Coast will miss out...


Save expansion for when the competition is financially viable, to start with you want stability and to minimise the losses.. A team in a region with little rugby interest will not achieve this.

 

[Dave Beat]

Wait. 5 teams in NSW and only 2 in QLD? So you are happy to base an expansion team in South West Sydney where rugby union interest is minimal but a significant portion of either Brisbane or the Gold Coast will miss out.


Save expansion for when the competition is financially viable, to start with you want stability and to minimise the losses.. A team in a region with little rugby interest will not achieve this.

I don't think Quick Hands referenced timing I think he simply referenced his ideal structure both geographic and dize

 

[Quick Hands]

Wait. 5 teams in NSW and only 2 in QLD? So you are happy to base an expansion team in South West Sydney where rugby union interest is minimal but a significant portion of either Brisbane or the Gold Coast will miss out.


Save expansion for when the competition is financially viable, to start with you want stability and to minimise the losses.. A team in a region with little rugby interest will not achieve this.

No, did you actually read what I wrote???

I said SOMETHING LIKE not it has to be like this, because I don't claim to have all the answers.

I also said 2 TEAMS IN BRISBANE BUT LEAVE IT TO THE LOCALS, ALTHOUGH I WOULDN'T NEGLECT THE GOLD COAST.

Based on population, you'd expect NSW to have more teams that QLD wouldn't you??? I would of thought that 4 in Sydney and 2 in Brisbane actually gives Brisbane a more than equal representation based on population.

Part of the reason for covering all of Sydney is financial - it's your biggest market and if you want decent sponsorship and decent mass media coverage, you need to be relevent to all of Sydney not just the rugby playing parts. Rugby needs to grow the base of the pyramid, this seems to me to be a very good way to do it. Putting a team in SW Sydney is far less expensive that putting one in Perth and if cost is your criteria.

But it takes me back to what I said at the start - we need to work out what we want the competition to do. At the moment there isn't even clear thinking about that, let alone how the competition should be configured.

Whatever model is eventually chosen, it will fail unless it has access to as many people as possible for maximum sponsorship value, exposure in the mass media to give sponsors value and engages with supporters who will go to games and buy merchandise etc.

Newcastle is a city about the same size or bigger than Canberra and a decent rugby community.

To me Cambelltown is a no brainer, the players will come from other parts of Sydney as do all professional players - so from their perspective it doesn't really matter whether they are playing at Cambelltown, Penrith or Concord and it won't cost anyone a cent more in wages to have the team playing and training there. So from a cost point of view, having teams at Brookvale, Parramatta, Cambelltown and the South Eastern suburbs is no more or less expensive than having 4 teams at Manly, Eastwood, Camperdown and Woollahra, but you would have far more opportunities for sponsorship, media coverage and access to 5 million Sydneysiders rather than those who reside in the small areas where rugby is dominant.

 

[TOCC]

No, did you actually read what I wrote???

I said SOMETHING LIKE not it has to be like this, because I don't claim to have all the answers.

I also said 2 TEAMS IN BRISBANE BUT LEAVE IT TO THE LOCALS, ALTHOUGH I WOULDN'T NEGLECT THE GOLD COAST.

Based on population, you'd expect NSW to have more teams that QLD wouldn't you??? I would of thought that 4 in Sydney and 2 in Brisbane actually gives Brisbane a more than equal representation based on population.

Part of the reason for covering all of Sydney is financial - it's your biggest market and if you want decent sponsorship and decent mass media coverage, you need to be relevent to all of Sydney not just the rugby playing parts. Rugby needs to grow the base of the pyramid, this seems to me to be a very good way to do it. Putting a team in SW Sydney is far less expensive that putting one in Perth and if cost is your criteria.

But it takes me back to what I said at the start - we need to work out what we want the competition to do. At the moment there isn't even clear thinking about that, let alone how the competition should be configured.

Whatever model is eventually chosen, it will fail unless it has access to as many people as possible for maximum sponsorship value, exposure in the mass media to give sponsors value and engages with supporters who will go to games and buy merchandise etc.

Newcastle is a city about the same size or bigger than Canberra and a decent rugby community.

To me Cambelltown is a no brainer, the players will come from other parts of Sydney as do all professional players - so from their perspective it doesn't really matter whether they are playing at Cambelltown, Penrith or Concord and it won't cost anyone a cent more in wages to have the team playing and training there. So from a cost point of view, having teams at Brookvale, Parramatta, Cambelltown and the South Eastern suburbs is no more or less expensive than having 4 teams at Manly, Eastwood, Camperdown and Woollahra, but you would have far more opportunities for sponsorship, media coverage and access to 5 million Sydneysiders rather than those who reside in the small areas where rugby is dominant.

Mate, you said you don't have all the answers but get upset when i point out possible issues with your proposal?

As for the Brisbane/Gold Coast teams, you are suggesting Brisbane has two teams but the Gold Coast also needs to be factored for, so that means 1 team for Brisbane and 1 for the Gold Coast, you can't share a team between Brisbane and the Gold Coast, they are demographically separate cities, its like suggesting a team from Manly should also be representative of Newcastle. Its a throw away line to say "leave it to the locals", how can you allocate 2 teams if you haven't done any research or have no understanding of the rugby environment up in SEQ.

As for population, once again thats a throw away line or we would be given 5 teams to Melbourne as well... Population is a statistic but it has no relevance to how many actual rugby union supporters are in that state, if we look at rugby union participation numbers the QRU had almost equal the number as the NSWRU in 2012, heck the Reds have more members and larger crowds.. Statistics are an indicator but need to be examined further.

Cambletown is far from a "no brainer", there is a reason that professional teams don't base themselves purely in this region, socioeconomic reasons will dictate that their is insufficient corporate support to ensure the financial security of a professional sporting team. Rugby Union in Australia needs a financially stable competition to start with, basing a team in Cambletown which has less player numbers then that of Perth can remain a long term objective of the competition, however in the short term it makes absolutely no financial sense.

I agree that Sydney deserves to have more teams as it does have a larger economy and more rugby union players, however the Cambeltown team is a waste of money..I do like the other three teams you proposed for Sydney.. However I also think in the short term a Newcastle/Central Coast team should be overlooked, it doesn't even participate in the Shute Shield yet all of a sudden we want to promote it to the newly established third tier. Once again, Newcastle can sit in the longer term objective basket..

By having fewer teams the financial liabilty will be reduced, the already limited player pool in Australia will be consolidated which will in turn leader to higher quality of play. Keep the new competition simple and practical...

 

[Dave Beat]

TOCC - you guys both post quality well thought out stuff.
Quick Hands did say leave it to the locals in QLD - shit if the locals come back and say 3 teams would be appropriate, it gets tweaked a little.

A KISS model - given the quality of games in the second half of last year - top 6, maybe it's simply the top 5 QLD / top 5 NSW. But that is also difficult how does that work for a whole club (grade & colts).

So why doesn't the Shute and Premier be the true third tier, super players come back to their respective clubs and let the game itself promote the game.

Guess what we have no rugby this weekend and AFL, and NRL are basking in the sunshine and that sucks.

 

[Quick Hands]

As for the Brisbane/Gold Coast teams, you are suggesting Brisbane has two teams but the Gold Coast also needs to be factored for, so that means 1 team for Brisbane and 1 for the Gold Coast, you can't share a team between Brisbane and the Gold Coast, they are demographically separate cities, its like suggesting a team from Manly should also be representative of Newcastle. Its a throw away line to say "leave it to the locals", how can you allocate 2 teams if you haven't done any research or have no understanding of the rugby environment up in SEQ.

As for population, once again thats a throw away line or we would be given 5 teams to Melbourne as well. Population is a statistic but it has no relevance to how many actual rugby union supporters are in that state,

I thought that the 2 teams from Brisbane was the least controversial thing that I said. As yet I haven't heard anyone say that they should have less or more than that, so, not being in a position to criticise it, I accept it as being logical. I wasn't suggesting having a team on the Gold Coast, just that I wouldn't neglect the area.

You are correct in that population on its own isn't the determiner, but the rugby populations of Sydney and Brisbane are broadly the same as the population in general, so again I can't see anything particularly controversial with that either. Melbourne has a similar population to Sydney, but nothing like the rugby following which is why I didn't suggest they have the same number of teams as Sydney.

4 teams in Sydney, 2 in Brisbane = 6. Once the players are contracted to the teams, it doesn't actually matter from a cost point of view where in each city the teams area based. You'd be paying the same players, coaches etc the same money - you just take a strategic decision on where you want the team based for training and games.

You could have 2 teams in Canberra to make 8 or 1 in Canberra and the other in Newcastle. Again, from a cost point of view - it doesn't cost any more money either way, it's just a decision on where to train and play.

If cost and simplicity were the prime concerns, you wouldn't go any further than that 8. You would keep your transport and travel costs down, but I suspect that there will be pressure to include Melbourne and Perth. Both are justified from a development perspective and I agree with having them, but their inclusion significantly blows out the costs.

I just hope that the people who make the decisions take the long term view and try as far as possible to maximise the return to rugby. One thing for certain is that there are almost as many different versions as there are rugby supporters.

Apologies for the overly aggressive tone in my original response.

 

[Quick Hands]

TOCC - you guys both post quality well thought out stuff.
Quick Hands did say leave it to the locals in QLD - shit if the locals come back and say 3 teams would be appropriate, it gets tweaked a little.

A KISS model - given the quality of games in the second half of last year - top 6, maybe it's simply the top 5 QLD / top 5 NSW. But that is also difficult how does that work for a whole club (grade & colts).

So why doesn't the Shute and Premier be the true third tier, super players come back to their respective clubs and let the game itself promote the game.

Guess what we have no rugby this weekend and AFL, and NRL are basking in the sunshine and that sucks.

I've suggested somewhere previously that as a interim measure a club championship style play-off series between the top 4 Sydney teams and the top 2 each from Brisbane and Canberra would provide about 7-8 weeks of semi-final level of rugby. Play each other once and top 2 play off for the title. Not a true 3rd tier, but still top class rugby and would probably work as a temporary model. (1st grade only)

 

[Train Without a Station]

Personally I think the less teams the better. Max 8, but even 6. If you have too many teams it ends up basically being Shute Shield with a few more Super Rugby players. The higher concentrate of talent, the better quality and the more challenging it is for each player.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Personally I think the less teams the better. Max 8, but even 6. If you have too many teams it ends up basically being Shute Shield with a few more Super Rugby players. The higher concentrate of talent, the better quality and the more challenging it is for each player.

Why not limit it to 5 teams?

This way it ends up basically the Super Rugby competition with no Shute Shield players. Play it from February to July, and to add a bit of spice, have the teams occasionally play games in Safferland and New Zullind.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Personally I consider the best and most financially viable alternative to start just with the Super Franchises. Perhaps even start with playing only during derbies during the Super season concurrently, allowing more players the chance at that level, and then have another home and away fixture against each post Super Rugby. Gives extra high level rugby for all Super Rugby players, the Wallabies gives best of club players a chance and any non playing squad members get a run.

The fact is the more teams, the more the quality is diluted and therefore the less development benefit there is. This way affects club rugby much less also.

I addition you are merely tapping into existing franchises which already contract at least 50% of the players they would play in total, the coaches and have the existing infrastructure. I consider it's the best place to start.

From there any clubs or merged entities could join in by proving their capability both on and off the field.