• 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.

Australian Rugby / RA

Wilson

Phil Kearns (64)
I wouldn't mind seeing something like a U23s team formed and included.
As a separate team in the comp? No thanks, I hate it. Either have this comp as entirely age grade or not, pulling up and coming players from their respective state setups will massively stunt their development.
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
I'd take it a step further and make them U23 teams, so that it is purely a development pathway. Journeymen and those past it from a PONI perspective can ply their trade in clubland.

Nah, need the players not involved with the Wallabies playing a higher tier of rugby…

There’s already enough junior development competitions underneath that.
 

LeCheese

Greg Davis (50)
I'd take it a step further and make them U23 teams, so that it is purely a development pathway. Journeymen and those past it from a PONI perspective can ply their trade in clubland.
Strongly disagree. For it to work and reap maximum rewards, the tier 2 comp should be as strong as possible.

If a Wallabies squad member goes down, do you want to be calling up a - for argument's sake, let's say James O'Connor - who has been toiling away for Brothers or the Reds A side.
 

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
Fair points. It's no doubt more important to get the third tier right first. However, the big gap in the pathways is after the U19's, there's literally nothing that pays unless you are Super standard, which is where I was coming from as we need to keep players in a system on our shores.
 

LeCheese

Greg Davis (50)
Not sure about you guys but ive rather watch a national club comp, rather than super rugby a teams, from a fans perspective. however from a financial and pure game development pov, a super rugby au is definitely better.
I absolutely wouldn't.

In saying that, if this idea progresses, they'll need to be pretty careful how they frame the teams. Given them the 'A' label probably hurts engagement, but so would giving the teams a separate name altogether, and carrying on with just the Super names probably dilutes things a touch and could create confusion. A bit of a quandary.
 

LeCheese

Greg Davis (50)
Fair points. It's no doubt more important to get the third tier right first. However, the big gap in the pathways is after the U19's, there's literally nothing that pays unless you are Super standard, which is where I was coming from as we need to keep players in a system on our shores.
I'd assume, perhaps erroneously, a competition such as this would also be cause to increase squad sizes and capture some of those in-betweeners
 

D-Box

Cyril Towers (30)
I absolutely wouldn't.

In saying that, if this idea progresses, they'll need to be pretty careful how they frame the teams. Given them the 'A' label probably hurts engagement, but so would giving the teams a separate name altogether, and carrying on with just the Super names probably dilutes things a touch and could create confusion. A bit of a quandary.
That sounds a hell of a lot like a comp called the NRC.

You could rather than an A comp run an 8 team comp with each super club responsible for two

Force - Perth/Melb
ACT - Canberra/country NSW
NSW - 2 X Sydney
QLD - city/country

7 rounds + 2 weeks finals
 

LeCheese

Greg Davis (50)
That sounds a hell of a lot like a comp called the NRC.

You could rather than an A comp run an 8 team comp with each super club responsible for two

Force - Perth/Melb
ACT - Canberra/country NSW
NSW - 2 X Sydney
QLD - city/country

7 rounds + 2 weeks finals
Stop, you're making too much sense. As @Strewthcobber points out though, the proposed is a more frugal alternative
 

hoggy

Nev Cottrell (35)
I absolutely wouldn't.

In saying that, if this idea progresses, they'll need to be pretty careful how they frame the teams. Given them the 'A' label probably hurts engagement, but so would giving the teams a separate name altogether, and carrying on with just the Super names probably dilutes things a touch and could create confusion. A bit of a quandary.
It doesn't matter how you frame it. It is a recipe for going broke more quicker than we currently are. Who is going to watch this and who is going to pay for it, the rusted on fans who are already paid up.
"Not watching Super Rugby" then give our development competition a go, NZ is struggling supporting the NPC and that is there national code.
 

WorkingClassRugger

Michael Lynagh (62)
Guys, RA has no money. This will be same teams, same contracts, same players as those on the books already

This won't happen until some time next year. After the Lions series. They'll also have more of an idea of what the situation with the Nations Championship in terms of financials. Could be doable. Just not at the moment.
 

WorkingClassRugger

Michael Lynagh (62)
That sounds a hell of a lot like a comp called the NRC.

You could rather than an A comp run an 8 team comp with each super club responsible for two

Force - Perth/Melb
ACT - Canberra/country NSW
NSW - 2 X Sydney
QLD - city/country

7 rounds + 2 weeks finals

Could do it as the 4 SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) franchises and allow for the Sydney and Brisbane clubs to enter a rep squad each.
 

D-Box

Cyril Towers (30)
Could do it as the 4 SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific) franchises and allow for the Sydney and Brisbane clubs to enter a rep squad each.
After the Super Rugby squads take the cream who is left? Who's going to fund those teams S&C, analytics, physio as well as coaches etc.

Using Super Rugby clubs as the base the infistructure and personnel are there and you are just adding players
 

WorkingClassRugger

Michael Lynagh (62)
After the Super Rugby squads take the cream who is left? Who's going to fund those teams S&C, analytics, physio as well as coaches etc.

Using Super Rugby clubs as the base the infistructure and personnel are there and you are just adding players

That's the point. Who else is left? Let's see if anyone puts their hands up. As for funding. Rep squads are about opportunity. So contracting won't be needed. It's an existing player pool so they are local so no need to import players. Coaching would also be sourced from the clubs. The clubs have physios so they can take them from there. Won't take much to access game film as most clubs do now. We used to watch game tape back in Colts in 2005.
 

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
I'd assume, perhaps erroneously, a completion such as this would also be cause to increase squad sizes and capture some of those in-betweeners
Yes, it certainly probably would fill that void, so I'll retract my suggestion. Maybe an emphasis on the up-and-comers rather than going out and out on them. I agree with the issue around fringe Wallabies, but if it's a choice between the U19s star and a 34 year old in the departure lounge looking for a superannuation contribution, then take the former.
 

LeCheese

Greg Davis (50)
Yes, it certainly probably would fill that void, so I'll retract my suggestion. Maybe an emphasis on the up-and-comers rather than going out and out on them. I agree with the issue around fringe Wallabies, but if it's a choice between the U19s star and a 34 year old in the departure lounge looking for a superannuation contribution, then take the former.
I think the squads being picked for the Super teams' overseas tours align with that thinking, and I'd imagine that would permeate into a competition such as this should it get off the ground.
 

KentwellCup>ShuteShield

Ted Thorn (20)
For this concept of a third-tier you guys are proposing, is the purpose just for development of players? Or is it to drive fan interest? because if we have stale "Waratahs A" sides no one going to be watching that. No one barely even watches the 1st team.

If run with premier grade clubs (yes i know it is a large logistical & financial challenge), I would bet money on it driving more fan interest and engagement.
 
Top