Australian Rugby / RA

[WorkingClassRugger]

I honestly think organising a Womens NRC would be pretty doable.

The Victorian, Western Australian, ACT, Country NSW teams stay the same from Women's state champs (rebadged though). The Sydney and Qld teams split in two in alignment with the NRC. Add in Armed Services and South Australia too, because they've got a place in the Women's game and suddenly you have your 10 teams.

Run it like the old Junior Gold Cup where you fly up to Sydney/Brisbane on Friday afternoon and play Friday night and Sunday morning. Could have the whole comp done in 5-6 weeks. Probably can't see a financial pathway to it being semi-pro though.

Potentially, they'd have to look at 2 pools of 5 to make this logistically/financially possible.

They could also look to have a NSW V Qld game at the end of it, selected from the 2-3 local sides.

The women's nationals were held quite recently. There's no need to try and re-invent the wheel. A womens NRC could very easily be formed using those squads. They could easily play before the NRC games.

 

[dru]

Understanding it's comedy, but the whole bit on Game On is incorrect.

I don't think he did the research, just googled the initiative and read the values document.

I wouldn't suggest that it's particularly accurate at any stage. There is however what I might call an "attitudinal position" that is interesting. I suspect that the ARU taking note of how they are perceived can only be a good thing. In this case a perception that is not Australian.

But no, it's not serious or accurate work and it doesn't surprise me if the Game On segment is wrong.

 

[Braveheart81]

The women's nationals were held quite recently. There's no need to try and re-invent the wheel. A womens NRC could very easily be formed using those squads. They could easily play before the NRC games.

They generally had to fund their own way to get to the nationals. I contributed to help get one of the Victorian players there.

I think the problem very much comes down to funding and possibly also the fact that a lot of players are probably involved in the Uni 7s Series.

I think there is huge merit in a Women's XVs series but it's probably too hard to start in the same year that another women's competition is beginning.

I also wonder whether it's better value for money having a few carnival weekends rather than a handful of one of matches.

 

[kiap]

Not overly disappointed that Lion are "changing direction". The Hahn 3.5 they've been pushing as the "official beer of the Wallabies" is in imo a diabolically bad beer so just about anything else will be an improvement.

Yeah. Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out, Lion. Thanks for the money but your product stinks.

There's a job to to do here. We've got to push on with ruining rugby.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

They generally had to fund their own way to get to the nationals. I contributed to help get one of the Victorian players there.

I think the problem very much comes down to funding and possibly also the fact that a lot of players are probably involved in the Uni 7s Series.

I think there is huge merit in a Women's XVs series but it's probably too hard to start in the same year that another women's competition is beginning.

I also wonder whether it's better value for money having a few carnival weekends rather than a handful of one of matches.

What would be the costs of running such a competition alongside the NRC? Travel,accommodation and meals? It would need to be purely amateur to begin with. More about opportunity. I actually don't think it would be all that prohibitively expensive. Could even set it up as fly in/fly in for most games. Tough but not impossible for players.

 

[half]

And so it is finally done. I have tried so hard to avoid a statement along the lines of "OK ARU, I'm out". I can no longer hold that view. You know about camel backs and straws?

I don't honestly know what this means, certainly I see SS in my future. I have committed to one final GGR blog which will be done as an ARU and annoyance free zone.

An open statement to the ARU board - from me it's a complete vote of absence of confidence. Completely. Again I find myself unable to voice my displeasure without invective. I'll just leave it there.

On a bright note, I'm liking Buildcorp and Josephine.

Feel the pain.

Same here, I left for a few weeks and came back hoping against hope that we could maintain where we were . If they drop a side I am gone for good and forever.

I posted a while back, the damage being done to Rugby with media partners, sponsors, the general public and their perception of rugby. We are taking a beating.

Since I made they call to walk away from the professional side of the game and go down and look at my local team I have felt better and I am sure your SS team will do the same for you.

If its not obvious now let me again SCREAM having a competition run and controlled by the suits of a US media corporation will destroy professional rugby over time, have been saying this for close to 18 years now. [PS please no one tell me again the US media corporation don't run the game and we have 3 boards]


As I have also said I do need my professional sports fix and as the wife is into soccer thats were I have gone, the Mariners in particular.

What I can say after looking at similar soccer forums like 442 and the Roar tab is they bitch and moan and carry on as well. The mega difference is about the speed they expand.

Everyone is on the same page, i.e. expand and bring in promotion and regulation, the difference they argue about is the how they do it and the speed it can be achieved.

This is actually refreshing everyone has confidence in the game and where its heading, some want it faster. Gallop is seen as slowing the expansion down.

I have a client who owns a small media company on the CC, his business is to look for key data on the net and advise among others the 3 commercial networks and he runs some special software and he daily talks to technical folk at all TV networks. He tells me the technical folk at the networks say they hear Rugby has become the brunt of jokes now, and that is very sad.

Another six to twelve months of this and the professional side of rugby may have fallen so far, that what replaces Super Rugby will have difficulty getting media and sponsors.

 

[RugbyReg]

What would be the costs of running such a competition alongside the NRC? Travel,accommodation and meals? It would need to be purely amateur to begin with. More about opportunity. I actually don't think it would be all that prohibitively expensive. Could even set it up as fly in/fly in for most games. Tough but not impossible for players.

Perhaps, but should it be? I think the expectation from Buildcorp is gender equality. So players would be paid.

And because much of the NRC player base is covered by pre-existing Super Rugy contracts, the cost of the women's NRC would be substantially more expensive as there would need to be payments for every single participating player and coach.

I'd love if we could achieve it, but it would need a major injection of external funds to achieve it. More than what Buildcorp would be willing to put up I'd imagine.

If you paid every player $500 per week for the tournament, plus a few coaches, you're looking at about $140,000 per team. With 8 teams (perhaps 7...) that's over $1 Million just on player salaries.

And that's not including accom and flights etc

 

[half]

Just on the NRC.

I among others have called it out from day one as rushed and would end in tears. Looks like its heading that way.

I gain no pleasure in saying the "" Nobody Really Cares""" competition structure was wrong and I still think this.

Maybe its time we took a leaf out of Frank Lowy's management book. Lets appoint a top AFL guy to run rugby so the person can establish a model for a national domestic competition.

 

[Braveheart81]

Just on the NRC.

I among others have called it out from day one as rushed and would end in tears. Looks like its heading that way.

I gain no pleasure in saying the "" Nobody Really Cares""" competition structure was wrong and I still think this.

Maybe its time we took a leaf out of Frank Lowy's management book. Lets appoint a top AFL guy to run rugby so the person can establish a model for a national domestic competition.

What would the slower version look like?

What should the structure be?

Who pays for the top AFL guy?

 

[kiap]

Perhaps, but should it be? I think the expectation from Buildcorp is gender equality. So players would be paid.

And because much of the NRC player base is covered by pre-existing Super Rugy contracts, the cost of the women's NRC would be substantially more expensive as there would need to be payments for every single participating player and coach.

I'd love if we could achieve it, but it would need a major injection of external funds to achieve it. More than what Buildcorp would be willing to put up I'd imagine.

If you paid every player $500 per week for the tournament, plus a few coaches, you're looking at about $140,000 per team. With 8 teams (perhaps 7.) that's over $1 Million just on player salaries.

And that's not including accom and flights etc

Reading too much in there. Analysing your own model, then seeing it come up short.

 

[Braveheart81]

If you were going to put money into women's XVs and couldn't afford to fund it seriously, surely the money is best spent on coaching and training and ensuring the best players can be involved (some $$) rather than flying them around the country to play games.

I don't think it does anything for growth if all you are doing is making a series of amateur games happen where presumably the preparation has been severely limited due to a lack of resources.

 

[half]

What would the slower version look like?

What should the structure be?

Who pays for the top AFL guy?

Thanks for the questions.

What would the new version look like.

Either a 8 or 10 team competition running when Super Rugby runs now.

What should the structure be?

The existing 5 Super Rugby teams, plus 3 to 5 others, say Newcastle ? hunter, Central Coast etc.

The ARU would run and control the competition, but not the teams, they would have owners,

Who pays for the top AFL guy?

The big question, but we are going broke now as well so I could equally ask how can we keep funding what we have.

But to be more specific, we would still play international matches and sell these games to networks, add gate money and most internationals these days the city they are in also pay.

What may happen

Me thinks more players will head overseas as the new teams will not have the revenue to keep top players. However it only as I see it quickens what is already happening.

Also it will open the doors and pathways for many to come and play, we will be surprised I think on the quality of whats oyt there if we have teams to develop players.

We select the best players regardless of where they are playing, so test in Australia and overseas always have the best players.

The next bit is pure speculation on my part, I accept if you think it is beyond crazy and foolish. But I think it will happen.

If we free the teams from being under the control of the ARU directly we will find rugby people or groups willing to invest in the local domestic competition teams if the cost are not to huge. Which means playing out of smaller stadiums, lower wages and broadcast on youtube /facebook .

Again thanks for the questions..

 

[RugbyReg]

Reading too much in there. Analysing your own model, then seeing it come up short.

sorry, what do you mean?

Do you mean in reference to the wage component? Perhaps, but it hits pretty hard at the whole gender equity argument when you put have the women playing the same competition but aren't paying them the same amount.

Actually, the $500 per week may be excessive. I think some have suggested some of the men are getting just a couple of grand out of it.

 

[RedsHappy]

Perhaps, but should it be? I think the expectation from Buildcorp is gender equality. So players would be paid.

And because much of the NRC player base is covered by pre-existing Super Rugy contracts, the cost of the women's NRC would be substantially more expensive as there would need to be payments for every single participating player and coach.

I'd love if we could achieve it, but it would need a major injection of external funds to achieve it. More than what Buildcorp would be willing to put up I'd imagine.

If you paid every player $500 per week for the tournament, plus a few coaches, you're looking at about $140,000 per team. With 8 teams (perhaps 7.) that's over $1 Million just on player salaries.

And that's not including accom and flights etc

RR - I think you are broadly correct above, give or take and even if the player payments were zero or token. Add flights, accom, player insurances (not small these days) etc as you say. The investment in even a half-done women's NRC would be non-trivial $s and for sure Buildcorp would know that and they'd well know that the ARU was not flush with spare funds for new comps.

One of the reasons I strongly suspect there is more to this than meets the eye.

 

[RedsHappy]

Just on the NRC.

I among others have called it out from day one as rushed and would end in tears. Looks like its heading that way.

I gain no pleasure in saying the "Nobody Really Cares" competition structure was wrong and I still think this.

Maybe its time we took a leaf out of Frank Lowy's management book. Lets appoint a top AFL guy to run rugby so the person can establish a model for a national domestic competition.

I am aslo an NRC sceptic from way back. Three seasons on I see no evidence of it achieving its stated goals and KPIs as stated at inception.

And its core product design that deliberately 'de-tribalised' its foundation teams and built a comp on synthetic-only team realities largely divorced from the real grass roots in club land was always IMO super high risk.

With minute crowds and viewership the troublesome issue right now is surely what credible sponsor can be found to replace Buildcorp's apparently $1m per NRC season.

That is just huge for a comp like this with a very low eyeball count in an increasingly small niche sport based upon synthetic teams.

 

[Braveheart81]

Thanks for the questions.

What would the new version look like.

Either a 8 or 10 team competition running when Super Rugby runs now.

What should the structure be?

The existing 5 Super Rugby teams, plus 3 to 5 others, say Newcastle ? hunter, Central Coast etc.

The ARU would run and control the competition, but not the teams, they would have owners,

This is not really like for like though.

There was never any intention that the NRC would be a replacement for Super Rugby. It was designed to run during the test period to include Super Rugby players who weren't part of the Wallabies and the best club players to bridge the gap between the fully professional side of the game and the largely amateur side of the game.

Clearly an exit from Super Rugby would take a huge amount of forward planning and couldn't be rushed.

I don't think that in any way suggests that the NRC was rushed and would have been done differently if it had been delayed a couple of years. It was always meant to be a new competition requiring new teams to fill a void where there currently wasn't anything.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I honestly think organising a Womens NRC would be pretty doable.

The Victorian, Western Australian, ACT, Country NSW teams stay the same from Women's state champs (rebadged though). The Sydney and Qld teams split in two in alignment with the NRC. Add in Armed Services and South Australia too, because they've got a place in the Women's game and suddenly you have your 10 teams.

Run it like the old Junior Gold Cup where you fly up to Sydney/Brisbane on Friday afternoon and play Friday night and Sunday morning. Could have the whole comp done in 5-6 weeks. Probably can't see a financial pathway to it being semi-pro though.

Potentially, they'd have to look at 2 pools of 5 to make this logistically/financially possible.

They could also look to have a NSW V Qld game at the end of it, selected from the 2-3 local sides.

The person with the money wanted the women's comps as a curtain raiser to the men's NRC.
Based on KOB's experience one would have to wonder at the quality of such a comp - it would seem that if you turned up you'd be in.
So unless buildcorp were prepared to foot the whole of the bill for the women's NRC it couldn't be justified.
We lose a nepotistic local building company as a sponsor and the Ab's pick up Montres Tudor SA - i.e. rolex

 

[half]

^^^^^

BH, I don't think we will ever agree on the NRC.

No disrespect intended, but I feel you represent many in rugby, and where you see rugby and where you see it going, I feel we over a beer we would disagree on most things pertaining to rugby.

The essential difference between us IMO is a mind set of whats important in rugby a sorta pecking order if you want. Maybe I am wrong but you see Wallaby success as close to the top of your pile. I don't.

My value system, rates spreading the game and creating pathways and structures. Over time they will do more to Wallaby success than short term fix's today.

Take the NRC, two general points made in the establishment and development of the NRC, first was preparing players for higher honours, in this regard it has been a success. I tend to think your thinking is this is what it was set up to do in the main.

However in the grand set up and equally but now almost forgotten aspect was to grown rugby, in this regard it has failed in fact given it lacks total support it has almost not helped grow rugby. This IMO is a huge nay mega fail.

The engagement outside the hard core rusted on is almost nil, and many within rugby don't support it.

So its the test in many ways to rugby thinking. Because it helps the national team its a success which to me translates that many in rugby see Wallaby success as whats wanted as the first order objective.

Me I want to expand the game, and our wants are so very different I don't think we will ever agree.

 

[RedsHappy]

The person with the money wanted the women's comps as a curtain raiser to the men's NRC.
Based on KOB's experience one would have to wonder at the quality of such a comp - it would seem that if you turned up you'd be in.
So unless buildcorp were prepared to foot the whole of the bill for the women's NRC it couldn't be justified.
We lose a nepotistic local building company as a sponsor and the Ab's pick up Montres Tudor SA - i.e. rolex

Moreover and btw: I would think for sure that a smart corporate player like Buildcorp would know full well that losing an NRC sponsor of their very large magnitude (in relation to the NRC's intrinsic, objectively measurable business value to any sponsor which is 4/5ths of fuck all to be blunt) would very likely risk killing the whole NRC full stop. (Unless the ARU ponied up for the new funding gap so created - echoes of the ARC now emerge.)

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark about all this.

 

[I like to watch]

sorry, what do you mean?

Do you mean in reference to the wage component? Perhaps, but it hits pretty hard at the whole gender equity argument when you put have the women playing the same competition but aren't paying them the same amount.

Actually, the $500 per week may be excessive. I think some have suggested some of the men are getting just a couple of grand out of it.

Some are playing for less than that.
The gender equity argument,needs to take into consideration the effort expended.
At local level, the women are on par with 3rd grade in terms of intensity and number of sessions.