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

[Bowside]

Maybe a workable solution would be to restrict the Sydney Uni shute shield team to fee paying students only, whilst the sydney uni 3rd tier team could operate under a different set of rules.

 

[Forcefield]

I's also assumed that UQ would be one. Having universities provide the umbrella in Canberra and possibly Melbourne and Perth might well be a masterstroke, but I don't know enough about club rugby in Melbourne or Perth to say whether or not it's a goer in those places.

I'm pretty sure UWA has the money to back a team. There are 10 teams in the Perth Premier Grade comp and half of them are a stones throw away from UWA. It would work well if UWA were keen and I imagine they would be.

The downside for Melbourne and Perth is that we don't contribute a lot of Wallabies, so other than the replacements for injured players and the 3 odd players that do make the Wallabies, it will effectively be the Super Rugby team. Although I suppose players may be released before the comp starts and it could be a chance to weigh up recruitment options for the following year.

 

[TOCC]

So, as a key component of "the shake up that Australian rugby needs" you suggest reducing Sydney Uni from a seven-team club to a one-team club, Bowside. The club that for the last eight or so years has been producing more professional rugby players than any club in the world by assisting players to learn their craft by gradual progression through the grades is no longer needed to fulfill that role.

And the same would apply to those other clubs which have positioned themselves to participate in a national club competition as a result of their success in developing players.

Yeah, that will strengthen Australian rugby.
.

I think he was suggesting the the actual shute shield team be removed rather then all the grades...

In either case I disagree with the concept of removing the team/teams

 

[Inside Shoulder]

They do not have to make money from it. Ideally they could break even, but even at a loss it would be wonderful to see more local rugby on Fox Sports - and perhaps on the ABC as well.


Plus it would provide a pathway, much as the ITM Cup does.

Who doesn't have to make money?
If you mean the ARU: N F-J said their broke and Pulver told the club presidents they would be insolvent within 2 years at the current rate.
Make no mistake: the plan is to find a 3rd tier that cost the ARU nothing.
Foxtel are not interest and the ABC are not interested is what I am told Pulver told the clubs.

 

[wamberal]

Who doesn't have to make money?
If you mean the ARU: N F-J said their broke and Pulver told the club presidents they would be insolvent within 2 years at the current rate.
Make no mistake: the plan is to find a 3rd tier that cost the ARU nothing.
Foxtel are not interest and the ABC are not interested is what I am told Pulver told the clubs.

A 3rd tier that breaks even is a lot better than no 3rd tier at all, that is the point I was making. And, even if it operated at a slight loss, it might still be worth it, given the exposure that it might generate, not to mention the pathway for less experienced players which will benefit the first and second tiers.

However, if Fox Sports are definitely not interested, then it probably would not be viable.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

A 3rd tier that breaks even is a lot better than no 3rd tier at all, that is the point I was making. And, even if it operated at a slight loss, it might still be worth it, given the exposure that it might generate, not to mention the pathway for less experienced players which will benefit the first and second tiers.

However, if Fox Sports are definitely not interested, then it probably would not be viable.

It would be worth it in the medium to long run even if it made a big loss.
My point is that there is, apparently, no room for even a slight loss.

 

[Quick Hands]

Who doesn't have to make money?
If you mean the ARU: N F-J said their broke and Pulver told the club presidents they would be insolvent within 2 years at the current rate.
Make no mistake: the plan is to find a 3rd tier that cost the ARU nothing.
Foxtel are not interest and the ABC are not interested is what I am told Pulver told the clubs.

I'm interested to hear from the Pulveriser, how this is going to be funded given the information that we already know.

1. Australian rugby is either broke or at the very least doesn't have enough to resource its current programmes properly

2. No TV interest in paying to televise the 3rd tier

3. Having 30 contracted players in each of 10 teams (presumably being paid something)

4. Flying teams and support staff around the country (flying a team in and out of Perth on it's own would cost a fortune)

How can these 4 facts make this thing viable?

On the issue of crowds UQ and SU have a solid supporter base who would get behind this and maybe they could pull 2-3,000 or more at home games, but I struggle to see how the other Unis will do likewise. And if the teams are known as university teams, I strongly doubt you'd be getting supporters from district clubs in Sydney or Brisbane aligning themselves with universities just because the ARU thinks its a good idea.

 

[Quick Hands]

So, as a key component of "the shake up that Australian rugby needs" you suggest reducing Sydney Uni from a seven-team club to a one-team club, Bowside. The club that for the last eight or so years has been producing more professional rugby players than any club in the world by assisting players to learn their craft by gradual progression through the grades is no longer needed to fulfill that role.

And the same would apply to those other clubs which have positioned themselves to participate in a national club competition as a result of their success in developing players.

Yeah, that will strengthen Australian rugby.
.

As I understand it, these are the very clubs that the ARU wants to obtain the 3T licences. At the current time in Sydney, they would be SU, Eastwood, Manly and SD and I assume from what we know that those clubs would run 8 teams as 3T will start before grade competitions finish.

The last thing that should be done is to penalise those clubs which have taken it upon themselves to step up. I know that Manly were in the semis in all grades of colts and grade and I'm fairly certain that Eastwood were as well as of course were SU. Manly have made a concerted effort over the past 10 years to match SU and are now reaping the dividends.

 

[Dave Beat]

As I understand it, these are the very clubs that the ARU wants to obtain the 3T licences. At the current time in Sydney, they would be SU, Eastwood, Manly and SD and I assume from what we know that those clubs would run 8 teams as 3T will start before grade competitions finish.

The last thing that should be done is to penalise those clubs which have taken it upon themselves to step up. I know that Manly were in the semis in all grades of colts and grade and I'm fairly certain that Eastwood were as well as of course were SU. Manly have made a concerted effort over the past 10 years to match SU and are now reaping the dividends.

Spot on, and sort of covers what I logged on to post / query.
With the ARU supposedly going backwards financially, what clubs are turning a profit, showing good depth on the field, generating good interest and support, and most importantly are focusing on grass roots?

Whilst SU lacks on the later, for the sake of rugby they do make up for it an other areas.

If the 3T licences are granted to clubs that bring the above to the table it may make the evolution of the 3T possible.

 

[BeastieBoy]

A Call to Arms! Easts & Randwick the vested interests have come out of the closet. Guess what! They are not interested in rugby in our districts. They have adopted the might is right principle and don't want to connect with our juniors. We have 2 northern & a non district team and none from the east. Well boys lets get our thinking caps on and find out what is in our interest. Some radical steps are needed. They have taken us for granted.

 

[Dave Beat]

A Call to Arms! Easts & Randwick the vested interests have come out of the closet. Guess what! They are not interested in rugby in our districts. They have adopted the might is right principle and don't want to connect with our juniors. We have 2 northern & a non district team and none from the east. Well boys lets get our thinking caps on and find out what is in our interest. Some radical steps are needed. They have taken us for granted.

???????? Have I missed something????.

 

[Quick Hands]

A Call to Arms! Easts & Randwick the vested interests have come out of the closet. Guess what! They are not interested in rugby in our districts. They have adopted the might is right principle and don't want to connect with our juniors. We have 2 northern & a non district team and none from the east. Well boys lets get our thinking caps on and find out what is in our interest. Some radical steps are needed. They have taken us for granted.

It's Manly's job to promote junior rugby in Randwick and Eastern Suburbs?

Who said nothing for the south/eastern suburbs? Go back and read my posts, I've consistently said that a team should be based there.

You're right about one thing, the impetus for rugby development in your area is in your own hands. No one from Eastwood or Sydney Uni or anywhere else came and helped Manly get our act together, it's all come from rugby people in the area working their guts out.

 

[Dave Beat]

Ditto,
What @Beastieboy post demonstrates is willing ness to step up, work hard, and take the required steps to make the 3T.

As I said above, who is doing good things on and off the paddock, who is financial, and who s doing good things with grass root.

The answer should be the founding teams in the 3rd tier.

 

[Bowside]

I'm interested to hear from the Pulveriser, how this is going to be funded given the information that we already know.

1. Australian rugby is either broke or at the very least doesn't have enough to resource its current programmes properly

2. No TV interest in paying to televise the 3rd tier

3. Having 30 contracted players in each of 10 teams (presumably being paid something)

4. Flying teams and support staff around the country (flying a team in and out of Perth on it's own would cost a fortune)

How can these 4 facts make this thing viable?

On the issue of crowds UQ and SU have a solid supporter base who would get behind this and maybe they could pull 2-3,000 or more at home games, but I struggle to see how the other Unis will do likewise. And if the teams are known as university teams, I strongly doubt you'd be getting supporters from district clubs in Sydney or Brisbane aligning themselves with universities just because the ARU thinks its a good idea.

All valid points.

I think the ARU should be trying to get it on ONE HD, ideally they'd tie it in with the rights to show wallabies tests.

The force, brumbies and rebels already fly second string teams around the country for trial matches, the new spending required in travel cost wouldn't be as much as people are making out if current spending is redirected.

In relation to your last point I think the club partnership is the key. Clubs like Sunnybank and Randwick bring history and supporters. The uni partnership is second fiddle to their established culture.

The teams that would really struggle would be Bond-GC and a likely western sydney team. But any sort of rugby in less traditional areas like the GC and western sydney will struggle, regardless of the team or competition model.

The challenges are significant, no doubt, but certainly much less than the original ARC IMO.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

All valid points.
<snip>
The force, brumbies and rebels already fly second string teams around the country for trial matches, the new spending required in travel cost wouldn't be as much as people are making out if current spending is redirected.

In relation to your last point I think the club partnership is the key. Clubs like Sunnybank and Randwick bring history and supporters. The uni partnership is second fiddle to their established culture.

<snip>

Buy a 40 seat bus to travel around on. Overnight travel between major centres saves on accommodation.

Have a couple of annexes you can hang off the side of the bus. If you can't sleep under the grandstand, then pull up at a caravan park on the outskirts of town, establish the annex, set up the sleeping bags and stretchers. Bus Driver off to the camp kitchen to cook a feed for the boys.

That's how you save on accommodation.

Alternatively buy a couple of old railway carriages, and fit them out. Attach them to the back of some overnight Freight Locomotive running between the major centres.

Randwick may have a good history, but like a fair few of the Sydney clubs that can bring "history and supporters", they are flat broke. Perhaps why the ARU likes them. Birds of a feather and all that.

 

[I like to watch]

Some longbows there HJ.
Comparing the SS with a Lions tour,really?
Put the crack pipe down big fella.
As an aside the AAGPS was so successful,it is at risk of not continuing in its current state next year,without significant changes of policy from some member Schools.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Um ... different thread ILTW, but I'll have a go anyway. My point is that the punters have become accustomed to short concentrated competitions, 2 months or so, and then we move on to the next shiny thing.

Mungo and Cross Country Volleyball get away with a 24 round home and away format season with an extended finals series of matches because they exist in an international vacuum. No one else outside Australia cares about AFL and the only international interest in NRL is already engaged in it. There is no outside interests or competitions to have to consider.

 

[Bowside]

Um . different thread ILTW, but I'll have a go anyway. My point is that the punters have become accustomed to short concentrated competitions, 2 months or so, and then we move on to the next shiny thing.

Mungo and Cross Country Volleyball get away with a 24 round home and away format season with an extended finals series of matches because they exist in an international vacuum. No one else outside Australia cares about AFL and the only international interest in NRL is already engaged in it. There is no outside interests or competitions to have to consider.

I agree with the need for a short competition.

I think if we had a 10 team comp, 9 games and then a finals series would be the perfect amount. Just enough rugby to keep people interested, but not too much as to saturate.

If teams were to play once a weekend, it would fit this 3 month window between the end of the super rugby and the start of summer perfectly.

 

[Quick Hands]

.

The challenges are significant, no doubt, but certainly much less than the original ARC IMO.

I agree with that, but the ARC is an example of what will happen if it's not done with some forethought.

I'm not aware of any successful competition, in any sport, in any country in which the governing body sets up teams without wanting fans to get involved. This just has to happen. Even if it's 1,000 people for some teams, rugby has to engage with the grass roots if we want to expand the base of the pyramid. (I'm not saying you're not in favour of any of this - but there are some who would be content for teams to play in front of no-one just so we could have a 3rd tier)

This can't fail again - it has to be done properly, and it can't lose bucket loads of money either - we ain't got none.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'm not aware of any successful competition, in any sport, in any country in which the governing body sets up teams without wanting fans to get involved.

Quite.
What you find in most other countries is that they take an existing competition and massage and manipulate it into something palatable and, god forbid, desirable.
Sorry - why did I say most other countries: that's what has happened at the AFL, the NRL and, even FFA....and who engineered it at the FFA...and what did he do about it when came back to rugby...and the net revenue of how many sausage sizzles did he take with him when he left?