Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
Which 9 teams get culled to create a 12 team comp, presuming the Tuggers get invited along and nobody from Perth/Melbourne does?
Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
Which 9 teams get culled to create a 12 team comp, presuming the Tuggers get invited along and nobody from Perth/Melbourne does?
hoggy
Nev Cottrell (35)
They may agree with that but where is the plan, Where is the vision, why not grow a set and actually state what you want to do. The game can't continue when your only plan moving forward is the Wallabies winning the next Test match.
You have RM Williams and Landover's but underneath that it's f_____g emergency housing.
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
Assuming the uni teams are out because their structure is not well suited to a shift to professionalism, Brothers (North), Easts, Souths and West's makes a lot of sense as the selection from Brisbane and it is timed well with them taking 4 of the top 5 spots.
I don't know Sydney as well but it's probably Randwick, Manly, Parramatta and 2 others?
I also want to make it clear that this speculation is not endorsement. Trying to replicate some sort of NRL/AFL model a quarter of century on, in a very faux-organic way, seems like a fool's errand and waste of what might well be out last chance.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Why do the state sides need to play after? The NRL don't do that.
It would be better if we had a proper origin series, WA can play Vic as well.
survival of the fittest - those with the resources (dollars and venues)
that's really such a minor detail. It is whatever it is. The main point being a national club competition
That's exactly whats happening I reckon. I'm so glad you see it that way too- its seems so obvious I couldn't understand why it wasn't being discussed
Members Section
John Thornett (49)
If we are going to blow it all up just have division 1 - 5 & if your good enough to stay up good luck to you if not so be it the end of your club
SS
Qpr
JID
Dewar
WA
Would be very funny to see after 5 yrs of that where certain clubs are actually at
SS
Qpr
JID
Dewar
WA
Would be very funny to see after 5 yrs of that where certain clubs are actually at
HooperPocockSmith
Alfred Walker (16)
It’s honestly insufferable to read, listen and watch the bias that’s afforded to Randwick. You’d think this team was about to save Australian rugby. They’re the only club team that’s ever mentioned in conjunction with a wallabies. Hoiles imported half the team for the last 6 weeks of the Shute Shield. The Randwick mafia have their tentacles so far entrenched into the executive level of RA it’s not funny. Honestly, how the fuck is Ben Donaldson anywhere near the wallabies at the moment. If I have to read another article about Campo, Kearns, the Ellas and EJ (Eddie Jones) I’ll blow a casket.
HooperPocockSmith
Alfred Walker (16)
A few too many beers and I got c and g mixed up.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Better than more Super Rugby. Its fucken shite.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Of course but it needs to the only competition. This isn't a 3rd tier, it's the main competition and there's nothing higher except Test rugby*
*And an origin series which is maybe 1-3 games a year but a rep side on origin obviously - but not proper state teams.
Wallaby Man
Nev Cottrell (35)
The state entities aren’t going to give up power for a consolidated model with any potential of their Super Rugby sides been abolished. Chances are most of them will want long term or perpetual licenses grants in giving up areas of governance. The 5 teams if people like it or not is what will remain. There is more chance the current conversation around club comps etc. is more to appease influential and loud stakeholders during the consolidation process so we don’t get any disruption and we end up with a SRAU as it’s what the players need and want. It’s also what the state bodies want as it will allow a 12 month high performance program to be run for the first time.
Muzza
Herbert Moran (7)
For the 3rd tier comp, why can't they take the the team that wins from each state (or top 2) Shute shield etc, and then make a champions league where the winner is crowned lets call it "OZ rugby champion"? By doing this it won't disturb the what currently being done and won't favour NSW and Queensland for the 3rd tier.
I guess the question starts with - what’s the need for a third tier? Is it to provide a higher level of rugby than club rugby to provide the link between club and super rugby?
If so, then the above doesn’t nothing for that.
Is it just to provide more content and ‘engage grass roots’ rugby fans - then yeah sure. I guess that option is something.
hoggy
Nev Cottrell (35)
Its dead because because lots of reasons.
1 The limitations placed on it by having Test rugby as your primary product, and its slave relationship to it. When you tell your main audience that nothing is worth watching except Test rugby, its then very hard to engage or excite your potential audience with a product you are forever undermining.
2. The competition cannot evolve, grow or adapt to market conditions because it operates with too many constraints, its slave relationship to "Test primacy" means that it is forever compromised when specific decision need to made for its own prosperity.
3. The market in Australia is different from NZ, the game can prosper in NZ with Super rugby due to the position the "All Blacks" have in society over there and the dominance rugby has in the sporting landscape in NZ
4. Australia is different, rugby is not the preferred sport here, it sits precariously 3rd or 4th in the pecking order. It also competes with 2 very well run other sports in NRL & AFL that both produce a product that Union is struggling to compete with.
5. It is very clear what Australians like and support and both the NRL & AFL deliver that to them, Union constantly goes on about the point of difference with the game being "so called International" yet there is very little evidence over the years that they really care about that point of difference,
6. The NRC cannot solve the problem as it does not address the primary issue, that is better domestic market penetration to grow your supporter and fan base, it just adds another cost level and continues the death by a thousand cuts.
7. Rugby starts in February and goes through to November, there is just so much content yet no one really knows from one week to the next what team they are following, Rugby Unions content is just all over the place. The casual fan has no chance.
8. The game cannot survive on long distance sugar hits, promises of future wealth, I'm gonna make you rich one day, seriously ya think that's gonna work.
Yet since 2000 that's all we've ever done. Its the next broadcast deal or the next Super rugby format or the next World Cup or the next Wallaby win, the game here is like a drug addict, I'll get it sorted after one more hit.
9. To much of the current structure prevents innovation, everyone's protecting there own patch, just last week it was reported that three of our Super rugby teams are basically insolvent, yet the teams cannot adjust to market conditions & the competition cannot make the required adjustments to address the issue's.
To many people are being paid over above market wages but the income is simply not matching those wages.
10. Relying on Test match revenue, yes the Wallabies are the primary revenue earner, but it is foolish trying to finance a football code through one team, and in doing so you essentially prevent everything else from becoming more financially viable.
Anyway I'm staring to waffle, Rugby can have a great future in Australia, but it has to get the basics right first.
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
I do agree with you on the current franchises are likely not going anywhere but that doesn't negate the potential for a proper national competition involving at least some of the existing clubs as well. Use them as a base to build off. Issue criteria for the clubs to qualify around financing and facilities etc., state the end goal is 10-12 teams with 5-7 spots up for grabs and see what comes of it.
So essentially they keep the Tahs, Reds, Brumbies, Rebels and Force and add whichever entities emerge via the bid process for a 10-12 team home and away competition.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
See that's a reasonable attitude to come into the idea of this with.
Replacing Professional rugby with a domestic club competition would probably work as laid out in many places.
But there seems to be... a failure to acknowledge that it's not smashing together the SS and the QPR, throwing money at it, and letting it rip. There will be mergers, there will be relocations, there will be cuts. There will be seemingly "unreasonable" favour shown to certain "growth" regions or former "representative" teams. There will be redistribution of junior zones.
And there will be a ripping away of whatever "community" connection remains for the High Performance arms of the Successful franchisees. There'll be no 3rd or 4th XVs or 2nd or 3rd Colts. Or Masters teams. Potential no women's teams or 2nd XVs either. Colts players are either constantly understrength with the U20 RC and JWC, or have an absurdly stop start season. Teams will play at grounds where they can make money through ticketing, sponsorship and selling Corporate/event packages, not at the local oval. A lot of what the "grassroots" community values is going to be lost along the way.
Last edited: