Choose 4 clubs would you include in a national comp

[Andrew B Cox]

While I like the concept of promoting rugby in more areas this comp will only work if the best players are involved. The bolded teams above will not include them. The talent is in Premier/Shute/JD comps.

You could make the country teams origin sides or in the case of Melb, and Perth - non playing S15 squad members.

after all, those guys will be living in those areas.

 

[en_force_er]

You could make the country teams origin sides or in the case of Melb, and Perth - non playing S15 squad members.

after all, those guys will be living in those areas.

You'd have to make the country team an "origin side".

Of course you'd invite any good country player (and there's more than a couple) to move to Sydney for a couple of weeks but you wouldn't offer them too much renumeration for the sake of keeping costs down.

The reality is Country NSW is massive and the players have to make concessions to represent it if it were for a long term tournament.

 

[East Coast Aces]

QLD - Uni, Sunnybank, Brothers, Easts

Even geographical spread, the 4 best venues to watch, the 4 most consistent clubs. All are very well run financially. Sunnybank has a very profitable and generous licensed club, Uni are well supported by the University of Queensland. (Ashgrove-GPS should feel hard done by)

Personally I don't think this is the right option for 3rd tier, I agree 100% with Pulvers plan, a Super B and a Post Season Club Championship.

 

[Jets]

QLD - Uni, Sunnybank, Brothers, Easts

Even geographical spread, the 4 best venues to watch, the 4 most consistent clubs. All are very well run financially. Sunnybank has a very profitable and generous licensed club, Uni are well supported by the University of Queensland. (Ashgrove-GPS should feel hard done by)

Personally I don't think this is the right option for 3rd tier, I agree 100% with Pulvers plan, a Super B and a Post Season Club Championship.

GPS would have to be in ahead of Easts, especially if financial stability was taken into account.

I can understand why you'd want them in though. Guess it doesn't matter as it's not going to happen.

 

[East Coast Aces]

GPS would have to be in ahead of Easts, especially if financial stability was taken into account.

I can understand why you'd want them in though. Guess it doesn't matter as it's not going to happen.

Easts are in a very good financial position these days. I can't say the exact figures but they have alot of $$ in reserves now and looking to increase that every year. As I have said before the board these days are very good at running things off the field. They have made some changes to their Rugby program and I think you will see tangible results in all the grade next season. 2013 will be similar results to last year, but it won't be a surprise/shock to the club like the results were last year.

 

[angrydog]

Easily the most sensible recomendation and funnily enough largely ignored...You cant have individual clubs represent as they will feast off the riches of other clubs who dont qualify.

Sydney districts - West, North, East and South (Uni and Souths)

Brisbane - West, North, East and South

ACT - North and South

Vic - Combined rep team

NSW Country

Qld Country

WA - Combined rep

14 teams all up which could be refined down to 12 maybe.

 

[Woopsie]

Easily the most sensible recomendation and funnily enough largely ignored.You cant have individual clubs represent as they will feast off the riches of other clubs who dont qualify.

Sydney districts - West, North, East and South (Uni and Souths)

Brisbane - West, North, East and South

ACT - North and South

Vic - Combined rep team

NSW Country

Qld Country

WA - Combined rep

14 teams all up which could be refined down to 12 maybe.

Whilst a sensible recommendation, conceptually...it does seem very similar to

The Australian Rugby Championship, often abbreviated to the ARC (also known as the Mazda Australian Rugby Championship or the Mazda Championship for sponsorship reasons), was a domestic which ran for only one season in August–October 2007. The competition aimed to bridge the gap between existing club rugby and Super Rugby. The ARC involved eight teams: two from Queensland, three from New South Wales and one each from Australian Capital Territory, Western Australia and Victoria.
From its inception the ARC divided many in Australian rugby, with arguments over the structure and format of the competition and concerns that the creation of arbitrary state-based teams undermined the strong club competitions in Sydney and Brisbane. On 18 December 2007, the Australian Rugby Union (ARU) announced that the ARC would be scrapped due to financial losses of A$4.7 million

I once mooted a post (club) season competition run within the boundaries of each state; of an 8 team "district" competition that would promote rugby within each region, allow for a developmental pathway for players outside metro regions and would not cannibalise the existing club structure.

Loosely speaking...

1. Clubs play other clubs during regular season. (eg - Sunnybank v Uni, Eastwood v Uni, Ballina v Lennox, Dalby v Roma, Cottesloe v Wanneroo, etc)
2. The best players excluding "fulltime contracted players" from each club get chosen for their district to play other districts. (eg. Brisbane North v Central Qld, South Harbour v Far Nth Coast)
3. The best players from each district get chosen for their region to play other regions. (eg. Sydney v NSW Country or City v Country )
4. Players from each region can be viewed for potential to progress to a professional "franchise" (eg. Reds v Waratahs)
5. Players are selected from these "franchises" for Wallaby honours

It certainly seems a logical progression, and if run within state, then the needing funding of and the logistical operation of would not make it prohibitive as a concept.

Or we could just run with the existing status-quo of going to the right school, getting noticed by the right person, going into an academy, not forming a strong relationship with a club or community and then asking for $ from those clubs, training in controlled environments, and then hopefully gain a fulltime contract amongst the top 25 of each "franchise"

I did say "once mooted", as I was pretty much panned for it.

The single biggest issue is funding.

 

[en_force_er]

Easily the most sensible recomendation and funnily enough largely ignored.You cant have individual clubs represent as they will feast off the riches of other clubs who dont qualify.

Sydney districts - West, North, East and South (Uni and Souths)

Brisbane - West, North, East and South

ACT - North and South

Vic - Combined rep team

NSW Country

Qld Country

WA - Combined rep

14 teams all up which could be refined down to 12 maybe.

Vic and WA have much higher populations but are not rugby centric so they obviously only deserve one team, that's a given.

ACT North and South? I don't think ACT deserves 2 teams, I mean they've got a great thing going at Super level right now but I don't think enough of them are out of the ACT system to rationalise 2 sides.

To put it into perspective: ACT has a population of around 400,000, Syd has a population of a bit over 4 and a half mil, and Bris has a pop of a bit over 2 mil (plus GC's 600,000).

As for NSW and Qld Country? It can't happen. It's far too sparse for these teams to assemble for more than 1 or 2 fixtures a year. I think country blokes that are good enough should be given insentives and perhaps even grants to play in the city sides and that the city sides should have to play home games in country locations but yeah, I don't think I'd work as a rule. It's one thing for the blokes to rock up on a Saturday but they could end up playing a Syd Uni/Souths hybrid team with no team training? You're dreaming if you think that'd work.

What might work is a NSW Country team drawing from players who are city based with country origin (like the NSW Country Gold fixture each year) plus a couple of good country players who are willing and have a flexible enough lifestyle to relocate for a while. This COULD work.

So, if this model were to be floated I'd be good to see:

4 Sydney Teams (split as listed above but also given country locations like Gosford to play a home game at a season)
2 Brisbane Teams (North and South river)
1 GC team (recruiting from the 2 coast teams, Sunnybank, and perhaps the country side)
3 Rep sides from WA, Vic, and ACT.
POSSIBLY 1 NSW Country Gold team (City based players of country origin plus a couple of country based players that are available and good enough).

This would be good to see. But it will never happen.

 

[en_force_er]

I've got mail guys here's what we're likely to be getting in place of a 3rd Tier:

• 50-man Super Rugby squads are being floated as a real possibility with players 36-50 being paid peanuts. The extra players would be blokes that are around 24 who play club and never quite made it (like AJ Gilbert) and in the case of WA/Vic/ACT the best of the local players so that they don't cost much. I'd imagine we'd see the full squad contracts be upped to 35 players and the EPS being upped to 15 players. This is good because most Super sides already have 50 guys regularly train with them and are slipping them a small living allowance anyway. I'd just make it official and perhaps see them paid a little extra.
• Super Rugby B, it's going to happen reasonably close to as pitched. It's a forgone conclusion basically.
• A National Uni competition. The ARU are not bank-rolling this but they're happy to let it happen. Personally, as long as Super B exists (which isn't ideal but it's workable) and it's not our "official" 3rd tier then I'm happy for this to happen.

Now, none of this is ideal but I've had high up blokes tell me this is what the conversations at a high level consist of.
There's a possibility they've exaggerate the likelihood of each bit occurring but I know for a fact that all of this is at least on the radar.

 

[Done that]

What is the benefit of such a club competition other than to provide something to talk about on G & G. ?
The state capitals each have a premiership winner at the end if their respective local competitions.
Why would you introduce 3 of the beaten clubs from those competitions into a national competition to have a second bite of the cherry
when they have already shown they are not the top team locally ?
If it is to somehow be some sort of 3rd tier exercise/opportunity as some have suggested , what happens to the players who are not in one of the selected 4 teams ?

 

[en_force_er]

What is the benefit of such a club competition other to provide something to talk about on G & G. ?
The state capitals each have a premiership winner at the end if their respective local competitions.
Why would you introduce 3 of the beaten clubs from those competitions into a national competition to have a second bite of the cherry
when they have already shown they are not the top team locally ?
If it is to somehow be some sort of 3rd tier exercise/opportunity as some have suggested , what happens to the players who are not in one of the selected 4 teams ?

Exactly.

 

[Aussie D]

As we seem to have strayed from the original topicinto another thread about 3rd teir concepts here is my 2c:
10 teams - WA, Vic, Canberra, Top 2 Shute Shield (minor premiers and premiers if they are the same than the runners up gets the gig), a 3rd Sydney team made up of players from the remaining clubs, top 2 Hospital Cup teams (same deal with Sydney) and a third Queensland side made up of players from thre remaining clubs and the 10th team an ARU development team featuring U20s and Indigenous players (who seem under-represented in rugby comparedwith NRL and AFL).

 

[en_force_er]

As we seem to have strayed from the original topicinto another thread about 3rd teir concepts here is my 2c:
10 teams - WA, Vic, Canberra, Top 2 Shute Shield (minor premiers and premiers if they are the same than the runners up gets the gig), a 3rd Sydney team made up of players from the remaining clubs, top 2 Hospital Cup teams (same deal with Sydney) and a third Queensland side made up of players from thre remaining clubs and the 10th team an ARU development team featuring U20s and Indigenous players (who seem under-represented in rugby comparedwith NRL and AFL).

This isn't an attack on you but it's an attack of this manner of thinking (which I shared with you for a period).

Back when the ARC failed people were all saying it was because of no tribalism. I don't know if this was right but it seemed reasonably logical (if very exaggerated).

You really think a team of mismatched players from 10/12 SS clubs, one of 8/10 of the HC clubs, and a developement team are going to get anyone to watch them barring there Mums and Dads? This tournament would not only not make money (which is to be expected) but we'd end up with crowds numbers in the hundreds with no TV interest.

Also, presuming say Souths and Uni compete in this (the current SS finalists), who funds their travel costs? They're independent organisations to the ARU with their own finances and resource strengths and limitations.

So, it fails financially but how does it do developmentally? It will will force the players who consistently want a shot at national exposure into 1 or 2 teams because after all, why chance your hand at competing with a couple of hundred 1st grade players from across the state for selection when you can train with the coach all year.

This me friend (plus the reasons listed in Done that's post) are why it's a pipe dream.

 

[BeastieBoy]

To get back to basics this can't be just another competition for rep teams. It must be about helping club rugby in Australia and developing and fostering existing tribal loyalties. How do we do that with so many clubs and not run the risk of killing off many long standing clubs because of the wealth of a few. How also do we engage all the talent we have outside super rugby so we put our best in front of the media and paying spectator to give it a chance for success and also provide a pathway. Well I think joint venture teams along the lines of st George Illawarra eg easts/Randwick Home games would alternate untill larger stadiums were justified. Colours would be important. Rule changes to reduce stoppages and to attract media and spectators. Then hopefully dollars flow to help the clubs. That way the lower grades of the feeder clubs have a buy in to the success of the venture and a opportunity to reach. They are there every year so they can have a business plan they can build on. It builds on existing support networks within the clubs.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

To get back to basics this can't be just another competition for rep teams. It must be about helping club rugby in Australia and developing and fostering existing tribal loyalties. How do we do that with so many clubs and not run the risk of killing off many long standing clubs because of the wealth of a few. How also do we engage all the talent we have outside super rugby so we put our best in front of the media and paying spectator to give it a chance for success and also provide a pathway. Well I think joint venture teams along the lines of st George Illawarra eg easts/Randwick Home games would alternate untill larger stadiums were justified. Colours would be important. Rule changes to reduce stoppages and to attract media and spectators. Then hopefully dollars flow to help the clubs. That way the lower grades of the feeder clubs have a buy in to the success of the venture and a opportunity to reach. They are there every year so they can have a business plan they can build on. It builds on existing support networks within the clubs.

Joint ventures would be the pathway I'd like to eventuate for the majority of clubs, and it's good see someone willing to look beyond traditional rivalries for the good of the game. I think joint ventures would be worthwhile looking into and would add real depth to such ventures in regards to playing stocks.

In the Shute Shield thread I suggested that the Shield should look to go to 8 teams in the future. I was suggesting this with thoughts of clubs amalgamating to a degree similar to that of your suggestion. Take Penrith, Parramatta and West Harbour for instance. All three could combine to form a new Western Suburbs DRUFC. With clubs thin on the ground in Western Sydney it would make more sense to combine all of them under one banner.

This would be similar to your proposal (though clubs would remain independent outside of any such competition) which would deliver a higher level of play.

 

[Lindommer]

Picking Australia's strongest clubs to take part in a national competition is a surefire way for rugby to disappear up its own fundament in this country. As if enough of the best schoolboy talent doesn't gravitate to the strongest clubs ATM. Do we want to accelerate this process? How 'bout we think of ways to GROW rugby participation in Australia? Let's start with making the weakest clubs stronger.

 

[I like to watch]

Joint ventures would be the pathway I'd like to eventuate for the majority of clubs, and it's good see someone willing to look beyond traditional rivalries for the good of the game. I think joint ventures would be worthwhile looking into and would add real depth to such ventures in regards to playing stocks.

In the Shute Shield thread I suggested that the Shield should look to go to 8 teams in the future. I was suggesting this with thoughts of clubs amalgamating to a degree similar to that of your suggestion. Take Penrith, Parramatta and West Harbour for instance. All three could combine to form a new Western Suburbs DRUFC. With clubs thin on the ground in Western Sydney it would make more sense to combine all of them under one banner.

This would be similar to your proposal (though clubs would remain independent outside of any such competition) which would deliver a higher level of play.

I couldn't disagree more.
With clubs thin on the ground out west.The solution is not to eliminate 2 of them.
Having nothing west of Concord oval makes no sense at all to me.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I couldn't disagree more.
With clubs thin on the ground out west.The solution is not to eliminate 2 of them.
Having nothing west of Concord oval makes no sense at all to me.

Having three clubs based out West tends to stretch resources and participation particularly at the junior level particularly thin. Too thin for them to be jostling for position and numbers. What I was musing over was the combination of efforts. It could help consolidate the few clubs in the junior ranks under one banner and one uniform competition. It could potentially entice the likes of Campbelltown back (who from what I was told have over 200 juniors) and others outlying clubs of the likes of Camden into the fold. Surely a competition with potentially 10 or 11 junior clubs in which to select from would be better than the three Penrith currently have listed and the 6 Parramatta list and how many West Harbour have.

I think a unified club at the Grade level would present the strongest possible front. From there they could combine resources and efforts to make more of an impact in terms of junior club development.

Regarding getting rid of 2 of them, in a sideline interview during the season Simon Poidevin hinted at the Shield being reduced to 10 teams. Anyone want to bet one of the proposed two would be Penrith.

 

[I like to watch]

Anyone who thinks a young bloke who is a fringe 1st or 2nd grade player, is going to travel from Emu Plains to Concord Oval twice a week to play 3rd or 4th grade in a combined club just doesn't get it.
You don't need to combine the senior clubs, for the juniors to play together.
Gordon,Manly,Norths & the Rats juniors have played in the same comp for years.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Anyone who thinks a young bloke who is a fringe 1st or 2nd grade player, is going to travel from Emu Plains to Concord Oval twice a week to play 3rd or 4th grade in a combined club just doesn't get it.
You don't need to combine the senior clubs, for the juniors to play together.
Gordon,Manly,Norths & the Rats juniors have played in the same comp for years.

Back when I was playing Colts at Randwick, I was still living at home in Camden. I used to travel into Maroubra or Coogee twice a week for training. I wasn't the only one doing that either. It's was about chasing your opportunities.

Also, the way I view it is that having one strong organisation will always do more for the game than having two or three that struggle for numbers and quality. As for having to travel to Concord Oval for training. Why do you assume the training would be run out of Concord? Merrylands would be suitable enough and a little closer.

Even if all the junior clubs joined to compete as one (which they should) it's not about whether they represent Penrith or Parramatta. It's about giving kids the opportunity to play and in terms of representative structures the best possible opportunity at being competitive. And while I know from experience Parra have produced competitive age grade teams in the past I never encountered a strong Penrith team.

Perhaps an amalgamation could be worthwhile looking into at the junior level.