Australian Rugby / RA

[KOB1987]

I don't think mixing in age grade teams works at all for a comp like this.

If you're doing it to offer more pro contracts to young players then doing it this way creates a massive imbalance for young talent with QLD and NSW capable of offering so many more places and potential game time in the early years. Eventually that opportunity dries up as players age out and plenty have to head elsewhere. Yes there will be some oppurtunity at the Force and Brumbies for them, but they've missed time developing in system in Perth or Canberra and are much more likely to take the money overseas then they otherwise would have been.

If you're doing it for interest in the comp (financial return effectively), I can't see it being worth the cost. Adding a few more teams might help to add a bit of interest overall, but the age grade sides are always going to be more poorly supported than they're state equivalents. Over time that's likely to get worse as the players move through them at a much faster rate.

If there is money for 2 extra sides it would be much better spent on something like a city/country approach for QLD and NSW, with both teams being full sides in their own right. It's going to drive more interest than age grade sides, hopefully with more money coming in as a result and teams that can be built around long term. From a development persepective it's much better aligned with the top sides and doesn't force QLD and NSW into a position where they are incentivised to (and need to) swallow up all the age grade talent.

The alternative if you want a focus on age grade is to run an under 21s comp alongside this. Start contracting the best 18-21 year olds in much greater numbers on base contracts and play them all as double headers with this Super AU comp. That offers better flow through the pathways and gives the age grade players more top level game time. Balancing it with the under 19s might be a bit tricky, but there are options there, the biggest challenge is going to be cost, which with a lot more players contracted will be significant.

All that said I don't think they should be looking to stretch anything in the first few years of this Super AU if it gets up. Run lean and efficient and build a base that can then be built on as needed, probably not until the world cup. Then with that influx of cash and interest RA can build more on what they've already established.

I'd argue that the Country teams would be an even bigger imbalance, and there is the issue of where to base them as the travelling band concept during NRC didn't really work, not for the Eagles anyway. For NSW you'd likely be looking at Newcastle, and for Qld I assume either the Goldy or Toowoomba, but it's going to be hard to get people to relocate to any of those on a low level contract.

I do agree that ideally you want an age group comp run alongside the senior one, but that would probably be a phase II development, and what I am proposing could be a pre-cursor to getting that off the ground. An alternative to mine, and possibly an even better one, would be to target the exact same players (i.e. the U21's-ish) and split the Tahs and Reds squads into North and South (harbour in Sydney, river in Brisbane) teams.

I agree that the age group sides would have a lower overall interest, but they would have a younger supporter base (their peers) with the objective that they also transition to the senior teams when the players do. I don't really have an issue with NSW/Qld being incentivised to swallow up the taklent as that is where the talent is coming from, but I also think they should carry part of the cost - it's only a short term solution to keeep the players both in the game and in their comfort zone geographically until the better ones get on a full pro contract and can justify relocating.

 

[Wilson]

I'd argue that the Country teams would be an even bigger imbalance, and there is the issue of where to base them as the travelling band concept during NRC didn't really work, not for the Eagles anyway. For NSW you'd likely be looking at Newcastle, and for Qld I assume either the Goldy or Toowoomba, but it's going to be hard to get people to relocate to any of those on a low level contract.

I do agree that ideally you want and age group comp run alongside the senior one, but that would probably be a phase II development, and what I am proposing could be a pre-cursor to getting that off the ground. An alternative to mine, and possibly an even better one, would be to target the exact same players (i.e. the U21's-ish) and split the Tahs and Reds squads into North and South (harbour in Sydney, river in Brisbane) teams.

I agree that the age group sides would have a lower overll interest, but they would have a younger supporter base (their peers) with the objective that they also transition to the senior teams when the players do. I don't really have an issue with NSW/Qld being incentivised to swallow up the taklent as that is where the talent is coming from, but I also think they should carry part of the cost - it's only a short term solution to keeep the players both in the game and in their comfort zone geographically until the better ones get on a full pro contract and can justify relocating.

As far as 'Country' goes I meant specifically the version that the Reds ran in the NRC - very much just a half split of the top squad. It doesn't even need to be country specifically, it could be East/West, North/South or whatever other split can be worked for those sides. I certainly wouldn't be looking at relocation any significant distance from the super rugby base.

I doubt the peer group interest would be anywhere near enough to justify the age group sides, particularly given the best of these guys would already be playing in any other setup bringing some of that support in. The reality of QLD and NSW bearing any extra cost for running age group sides would largely be from RA grants - in the case of NSW it would have to be, given they currently run at a loss. The players already move for opportunity and running this sides would start to reverse that in the early phase of their careers - guys like Fin Prass and Boston Fakafanua wouldn't make it to the Force until they were 22, hampering their development into the top side, but also putting them in a position where the overseas options are much more real and tempting. If there is any validity to Ben Darwin's cohesion argument than one of the main takeaways should be that any player movement that needs to happen should happen as early as possible in the players career, ideally before/as they go pro. The later you move a player the less efficient those development pathways are going to be for them and those around them.

 

[KOB1987]

As far as 'Country' goes I meant specifically the version that the Reds ran in the NRC - very much just a half split of the top squad. It doesn't even need to be country specifically, it could be East/West, North/South or whatever other split can be worked for those sides. I certainly wouldn't be looking at relocation any significant distance from the super rugby base.

I doubt the peer group interest would be anywhere near enough to justify the age group sides, particularly given the best of these guys would already be playing in any other setup bringing some of that support in. The reality of QLD and NSW bearing any extra cost for running age group sides would largely be from RA grants - in the case of NSW it would have to be, given they currently run at a loss. The players already move for opportunity and running this sides would start to reverse that in the early phase of their careers - guys like Fin Prass and Boston Fakafanua wouldn't make it to the Force until they were 22, hampering their development into the top side, but also putting them in a position where the overseas options are much more real and tempting. If there is any validity to Ben Darwin's cohesion argument than one of the main takeaways should be that any player movement that needs to happen should happen as early as possible in the players career, ideally before/as they go pro. The later you move a player the less efficient those development pathways are going to be for them and those around them.

No I'm not suggesting it's mandatory for all NSW and Qld players to stay in their home state until they are 22, it's a way of providing an opportunity for more of them as that seems to be where we are letting ourselves down as there aren't enough opportunities. AT the end of the day it's probably only an additional 40-50 players australia wide that would be 'snapped up' as part of a program like this but that could make a huge difference to the Wallabies over a 5 year timeframe.

 

[Wilson]

No I'm not suggesting it's mandatory for all NSW and Qld players to stay in their home state until they are 22, it's a way of providing an opportunity for more of them as that seems to be where we are letting ourselves down as there aren't enough opportunities. AT the end of the day it's probably only an additional 40-50 players australia wide that would be 'snapped up' as part of a program like this but that could make a huge difference to the Wallabies over a 5 year timeframe.

It's not about being mandatory, it's about them having so much more opportunity to offer these young players the result will be much the same. It would likely lead to the other sides needing to significantly outbid QLD/NSW to get a player to move when those players know they can stay at home, pick up a contract and likely play more top flight rugby. You'll even potentially see players heading the other way, draining the limited home produced talent from WA/ACT on the back of opportunity that they can get in QLD/NSW.

I'm all for the age grade comp as a whole, but I don't see a couple of under 21s teams in this comp out of QLD and NSW as a stepping stone to it, I think the effects it would have on player movement would actually make it harder to get that super under 21s going.

 

[LevitatingSocks]

i Like the idea KOB but I am wondering if this would overlap the club's games where these young players would normally be competing. Isn't it another effort at a 3rd tier of rugby but for youngsters and would it get support or money?
It would be better if the Universities built such a competition as they have the funds to pay for it. I think there are intra Uni rugby comps in the UK but not sure about that as it gets no coverage unlike the USA.

The thing with building a competition around universities is that involving them might be more of a headache than it's worth.

Many may not want a rugby team in the way that an American University has a D1 FBS football team. Most universities are currently aggressively shedding costs on the academic side of the house and barely support their existing elite athletes.

The proposed international student caps are only going to hammer them further on revenue and make them more reluctant to spend money.

USyd might be the only university able and willing to accommodate a team in the American mold, as even UQ keeps UQ Rugby at an arms length.

Involving a university also limits flexibility in terms of facilities, field sharing, and "academia friendly" sponsors (no Raytheon or Gazprom jersey sponsors). Scholarships are nice but many Prem and Colts 1 players already have their hands full with both rugby and a trade.

It might be better to leave the universities out of it so this comp can be a bit more nimble from a business perspective.

 

[Rhino_rugby]

The thing with building a competition around universities is that involving them might be more of a headache than it's worth.

Many may not want a rugby team in the way that an American University has a D1 FBS football team. Most universities are currently aggressively shedding costs on the academic side of the house and barely support their existing elite athletes.

The proposed international student caps are only going to hammer them further on revenue and make them more reluctant to spend money.

USyd might be the only university able and willing to accommodate a team in the American mold, as even UQ keeps UQ Rugby at an arms length.

Involving a university also limits flexibility in terms of facilities, field sharing, and "academia friendly" sponsors (no Raytheon or Gazprom jersey sponsors). Scholarships are nice but many Prem and Colts 1 players already have their hands full with both rugby and a trade.

It might be better to leave the universities out of it so this comp can be a bit more nimble from a business perspective.

I see your point about the challenges of involving universities in a rugby competition. Their financial pressures make it unlikely they'd commit to a team like U.S. colleges do. Keeping the focus away from universities could allow for more flexibility and better sponsorship opportunities, which might ultimately benefit the competition.

 

[Wilson]

Bit more detail on the roar:

https://www.theroar.com.au/2024/10/29/exclusive-rugby-australia-plot-new-third-tier-competition-involving-super-teams/

So a single round, 4-5 week comp, running in the October window after the club seasons have finished.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Feel like iv'e been shouting this for years now.

Don't create new sides that cost money we will never recover and have zero fan interest. We have the infrastructure and administration now. Get them working more.

It maintains the Club system and provides a goal for the best 5-10 from Clubland to get a trial. Wallabies can get back to fitness or step back to stay fit and the others continue to develop their games and build cohesion for the following season.

Doesn't get in the way of any international trips or fixtures sides may arrange as well.

ITM Cup sides might be the guys that get a little shitty about it although I think they have plenty to fill the spots.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Interesting to see what constraints they appear to be working under.

Financial (obviously), so no new teams and no new contracts, can't piss off the clubs, have to give players an off season (how many weeks in latest CBA?)

And then all the comments at the Roar suggest alternatives that don't meet those constraints

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Is it 6? This may be one thing that bothers the Clubs as some guys may sit out the back end of those seasons to get the down time.

Honestly, so be it. This comp would supersede that and Clubs should be use to playing without and not rely on an influx anyway.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Is it 6? This may be one thing that bothers the Clubs as some guys may sit out the back end of those seasons to get the down time.

Honestly, so be it. This comp would supersede that and Clubs should be use to playing without and not rely on an influx anyway.

A quick google suggests it's 4 weeks + 10 days over Christmas, which would work out to be 6 weeks-ish if taken in one block

All players under the CBA will have a mandated four-week leave period under the new agreement, with an extra 10 days over Christmas. Where in the past Super Rugby players were often given their leave in chunks of two or three days, these will now be scheduled to take place after the Super Rugby season and after the NRC season. All players will also have one day a week of compulsory stand down, giving them time away from rugby. After a year in which player welfare became a hot button issue, work-life balance is certainly a key concern for plenty of people in the game.

With Super Rugby trials starting 3 Feb, you'd imagine the Super Rugby teams would want the players training all through January

 

[Ignoto]

Bit more detail on the roar:

https://www.theroar.com.au/2024/10/29/exclusive-rugby-australia-plot-new-third-tier-competition-involving-super-teams/

.

While Eastwood were happy for Edmed to try something new, Shute Shield clubs are fearful that Edmed’s success could see more players look to play in the NPC. If that occurs, it will be local competitions across the country who miss out on the top-tier talent that helps drive interest and performance.

Why the hell do we care what the Shute Shield Mafia think about professional players trying to play more rugby at a higher level.

4-5 weeks stills seems pretty short. Hopefully we can still see more games against international teams in conjunction with this to boost the games played closer to 7-10 in total.

 

[Rob42]

A quick google suggests it's 4 weeks + 10 days over Christmas, which would work out to be 6 weeks-ish if taken in one block


With Super Rugby trials starting 3 Feb, you'd imagine the Super Rugby teams would want the players training all through January

One comment I've heard from overseas players who've moved to Super Rugby is that the pre-season seems endless (for non-Wallabies) - very long in comparison to N Hemisphere competitions. It shouldn't be unreasonable to play some more games in Sept-Oct.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Why the hell do we care what the Shute Shield Mafia think about professional players trying to play more rugby at a higher level.

4-5 weeks stills seems pretty short. Hopefully we can still see more games against international teams in conjunction with this to boost the games played closer to 7-10 in total.

I agree we shouldn't care, but RA is forced too. The reality is the clubs have a huge say in NSWRU and QRU (and the others), and given the loss of independent Super Rugby votes, their voting influence on RA is getting larger and larger.

 

[JRugby2]

As far as 'Country' goes I meant specifically the version that the Reds ran in the NRC - very much just a half split of the top squad. It doesn't even need to be country specifically, it could be East/West, North/South or whatever other split can be worked for those sides. I certainly wouldn't be looking at relocation any significant distance from the super rugby base.

I doubt the peer group interest would be anywhere near enough to justify the age group sides, particularly given the best of these guys would already be playing in any other setup bringing some of that support in. The reality of QLD and NSW bearing any extra cost for running age group sides would largely be from RA grants - in the case of NSW it would have to be, given they currently run at a loss. The players already move for opportunity and running this sides would start to reverse that in the early phase of their careers - guys like Fin Prass and Boston Fakafanua wouldn't make it to the Force until they were 22, hampering their development into the top side, but also putting them in a position where the overseas options are much more real and tempting. If there is any validity to Ben Darwin's cohesion argument than one of the main takeaways should be that any player movement that needs to happen should happen as early as possible in the players career, ideally before/as they go pro. The later you move a player the less efficient those development pathways are going to be for them and those around them.

For the most part - this was made up of players in their squad with Country roots (grew up and played junior rugby outside of Greater Brisbane)

 

[Highlander35]

The key question here I guess is, particularly given that they've ended up rolling over to basically every club demand, why is it starting in 2025, instead of in 2022.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

NZR backing Brett Robinson for WR (World Rugby) Chair:

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Bit more detail on the roar:

https://www.theroar.com.au/2024/10/29/exclusive-rugby-australia-plot-new-third-tier-competition-involving-super-teams/

So a single round, 4-5 week comp, running in the October window after the club seasons have finished

I understand the short window but I still think that if it's going to be devoid of Wallabies or Aus XV players and no Melbourne based squad then there should also be rep squads from each of the Brisbane and Sydney comps involved. Would be a good way of seeing players on the bubble and how they compare in comparison to the non-Wallaby/Aus XV players in a more competitive environment.

 

[LevitatingSocks]

Why the hell do we care what the Shute Shield Mafia think about professional players trying to play more rugby at a higher level.

4-5 weeks stills seems pretty short. Hopefully we can still see more games against international teams in conjunction with this to boost the games played closer to 7-10 in total.

It's damning that the response to Edmed playing NPC by Shute Shield clubs is to reflexively panic over their place in the rugby pecking order rather than evaluating ways to raise the standard of the Shute Shield comp.

Rugby seems to be filled with this sort of provincialism even down to the private schools that play less than 10 games a year but refuse to allow their players to participate in club comps.

 

[stillmissit]

The thing with building a competition around universities is that involving them might be more of a headache than it's worth.

Many may not want a rugby team in the way that an American University has a D1 FBS football team. Most universities are currently aggressively shedding costs on the academic side of the house and barely support their existing elite athletes.

The proposed international student caps are only going to hammer them further on revenue and make them more reluctant to spend money.

USyd might be the only university able and willing to accommodate a team in the American mold, as even UQ keeps UQ Rugby at an arms length.

Involving a university also limits flexibility in terms of facilities, field sharing, and "academia friendly" sponsors (no Raytheon or Gazprom jersey sponsors). Scholarships are nice but many Prem and Colts 1 players already have their hands full with both rugby and a trade.

It might be better to leave the universities out of it so this comp can be a bit more nimble from a business perspective.

Thanks that's the information I wanted to understand why it wouldn't work.