Australian Rugby / RA

[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.

 

[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.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

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.

The only conceivable way to increase the standard of the Shute Shield or any premier club competition is money. More of it. But even if the Lions/RWC and Nations Championship manages to dig us out of our current situation and put us in a solid financial position I still don't want any of that money going to them.

The schools don't refuse to let kids play club rugby. I played club rugby as a kid with guys who also played schools rugby. Plenty of the League aligned kids in the private system also play club/rep League outside of school. I played schools Rugby, League and club Rugby. An issue is overlap and loading. I wouldn't advise a kid to do what I did and play 3 games a week. And with trials it more like 12-14 games. Which is still not many games but still not only 10.

What we need to do is look at drawing in more kids to clubs, programs to upskill those kids and options around playing such as time/format to allow for as much choice and flexibility around schedules to allow for kids to still play competitive Rugby. Purist may hate it but I've always thought 10s is very underutilized particularly at the junior level. Personally, you could run a Friday night 10s comp with two 25 minute halves with teams of 10-12 kids.

 

[stillmissit]

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.

Are the clubs getting more votes or are you suggesting that the clubs will fill the void? The Shute Sheild clubs aren't exactly flooded with players or money. Don't know about the rest of the country.
I suspect that RA view of grassroots are the major clubs in each state as they attract most interest.

 

[Reds Rick]

I think at the moment this is realistically the best third tier type comp that can be implemented at short notice and with minimal additional money spent.

I see on here and the roar a range of opinions either criticising or trying to improve it but for where we are at in aus rugby at the moment I think it’s important not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The good being:
- that it prepares players for the step up to the next level
- it would take place in a vacuum for all the other oval ball sports so would have some clear air in broadcasting/marketing
- lastly over time could be scalable to get other Aus based (or Japan as the roar article alludes to) teams going

Also don’t agree with the general assumption that it will lack fan engagement, think a lot of people would be surprised if it’s done properly.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Are the clubs getting more votes or are you suggesting that the clubs will fill the void? The Shute Sheild clubs aren't exactly flooded with players or money. Don't know about the rest of the country.
I suspect that RA view of grassroots are the major clubs in each state as they attract most interest.

RA are accountable to their members.

Under RA constitution, Rebels, Tahs and Brumbies don't get a vote any more, the number of votes has reduced, so everyone with a vote now has a bigger influence including the state member unions.

The clubs have a significant influence on NSWRU and QRU, including how they vote and hence now have more influence at RA general meeting level. If RA see grass roots as being the Premier clubs, that's because that's how their member unions (including NSWRU and QRU) want it