Ideas for NRC 2015

[kiap]

What is the purpose of the NRC? Is it supposed to be a lite Australian SuperRugby Conference by proxy like the Curry Cup, or a Semi-Pro development competition like the ITM Cup?

Some NRC and SuperRugby franchises have adopted the Curry Cup approach, while in NSW its more ITM Cup.

The different approach isn't from a 'purpose', but is merely a 'consequence'.

Cause and effect. The cause is rugby's divisive political landscape. The effect is old 4th tier clubs (or new entries) stepping up to the 3rd tier in NSW, whereas elsewhere 2nd tier franchies are stepping down.

The question of whether there are too many teams in NSW is not a fixed one. If those teams can find enough resources to be competitive, then there's not too many teams. At the moment they're the weak link.

If the squads lack depth then find more money to pay pro players. Those guys are not going to move for nothing.

The NSWRU/Tahs are the 'England' of Oz rugby and it's only to be expected that they don't want to be involved. They'd prefer to charge teams 30 grand to use their gym.

So basically the NSW teams need to find another sugar daddy.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

What is the purpose of the NRC? Is it supposed to be a lite Australian SuperRugby Conference by proxy like the Curry Cup, or a Semi-Pro development competition like the ITM Cup?

Some NRC and SuperRugby franchises have adopted the Curry Cup approach, while in NSW its more ITM Cup.

Haven't you answered you effectively answered the question what is one of the key things wrong with the NRC with your response above. As last time I checked the teams were playing in the same competition, yet we have completely different models/approaches in NSW versus the rest.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

The different approach isn't from a 'purpose', but is merely a 'consequence'.

Cause and effect. The cause is rugby's divisive political landscape. The effect is old 4th tier clubs (or new entries) stepping up to the 3rd tier in NSW, whereas elsewhere 2nd tier franchies are stepping down.

The question of whether there are too many teams in NSW is not a fixed one. If those teams can find enough resources to be competitive, then there's not too many teams. At the moment they're the weak link.

If the squads lack depth then find more money to pay pro players. Those guys are not going to move for nothing.

The NSWRU/Tahs are the 'England' of Oz rugby and it's only to be expected that they don't want to be involved. They'd prefer to charge teams 20 grand to use their gym.

So basically the NSW teams need to find another sugar daddy.

I don't get why they would not want to be involved given direct benefits they get from NSW NRC sides - ie development of next generation of Tahs players etc

 

[kiap]

I don't get why they would not want to be involved given direct benefits they get from NSW NRC sides - ie development of next generation of Tahs players etc

Well, if they do get involved, great.

I wouldn't be holding my breath, though.

Maybe NSW Country could try to formalise a link with the Brumbies (they're already playing guys like Carter and Staniforth and might be able to get a few more).

The others will likely have to drive their own bus and find improvement within.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Well, if they do get involved, great.

I wouldn't be holding my breath, though.

Maybe NSW Country could try to formalise a link with the Brumbies (they're already playing guys like Carter and Staniforth and might be able to get a few more).

The others will likely have to drive their own bus and find improvement within.

Well if that is case then I do think we have too many Sydney teams. As too hard for 3 Sydney based teams with pool of players to be competitive which is critical for what is a fical sydney sporting market.

Rays looked poised to do ok but if going to compete against other sides need a few more super rugby fringe players OR limit number of Super Rugby Reps so don't get so many as per BRC and Vikings. Got to make teams competitive as part of building crowds and also access to potential existing fan base. Latter why I think Stars model based largely just around Uni is flawed....that has to change.....E.g. Randwick and Easts join Uni/Balmain.

Rams would also do ok but again not with 3 Sydney based teams way they are.

So hence going back to HJ's point that need to define what sort of comp we want re: Super rugby pro lite comp or ITM development style cup and accordingly tinker with rules (e.g. number of super rugby reps) etc to create more level playing field and hence better NRC comp.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Well, if they do get involved, great.

I wouldn't be holding my breath, though.

Maybe NSW Country could try to formalise a link with the Brumbies (they're already playing guys like Carter and Staniforth and might be able to get a few more).

The others will likely have to drive their own bus and find improvement within.

That is not a bad idea to have link with Brumbies for NSW country.....can't see it happening though...would certainly get the Tahs a bit more interested in supporting NRC if did happen though

 

[kiap]

So hence going back to HJ's point that need to define what sort of comp we want re: Super rugby pro lite comp or ITM development style cup and accordingly tinker with rules (e.g. number of super rugby reps) etc to create more level playing field and hence better NRC comp.

Firstly I don't quite agree with Hugh's tagging of an ITM style being developmental if a 'Supe-lite' is not. Supe-lite can be developmental. Is anyone saying that Rising/Spirit/Vikings + the Qld sides are not developing players?

I think we need the strongest competition possible that has a mix of Super and Club players in the squads.

Too many teams heavily dependent on club players and it starts to become a bit pointless. It'd be like the Shute Shield/Hospital Cup except with a bill of a few extra million bucks thrown in.

Equally, you can't go too far with forcing players to move from Super Rugby franchises to Sydney to play for NO MONEY (i.e. dole-level pay). But if the franchise holding the contract has a stake in the team, then it's a different thing as interests begin to align.

So we'll see how it pans out. Some sort of rationalisation is not out of the question IMO. Be nice if the Tahs were part of it, though.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Firstly I don't quite agree with Hugh's tagging of an ITM style being developmental if a 'Supe-lite' is not. Supe-lite can be developmental. Is anyone saying that Rising/Spirit/Vikings + the Qld sides are not developing players?

I think we need the strongest competition possible that has a mix of Super and Club players in the squads.

Too many teams heavily dependent on club players and it starts to become a bit pointless. It'd be like the Shute Shield/Hospital Cup except with a bill of a few extra millions bucks thrown in.

Equally, you can't go too far with forcing players to move from Super Rugby franchises to Sydney to play for NO MONEY (i.e. dole-level pay). But if the franchise holding the contract has a stake in the team, then it's a different thing.

So we'll see how it pans out. Some sort of rationalisation is not out of the question IMO. Be nice if the Tahs were part of it, though.

Agree completely Kiap with views expressed above.....part of benefit of leading club players is to play with and against at least some fringe super rugby players to expose them to more professional levels and also make it more appealing for fans....

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I use the term Super Lite not to be derogatory. I use it because:
1. The Wallabies will not be involved (usually a spring tour or rest/surgery/rehab requirements prevent them from taking the field (unless they are Wobs on the outer or comeback from injury)
2. With a 1:1 relationship between a Super Franchise and a NRC franchise in 1/3 of the the franchises there is little incentive for those teams to not to throw the full weight of the Super Franchise behind the NRC franchise.
3. One other Super Franchise seems to be throwing its full resources behind two franchises, and before injuries, the two team rosters were relatively similar.
4. 5/9 NRC franchises seem to have full support of 4/5 SuperRugby Franchises behind them.

How hard would it be to get the 5th Franchise to toe the line?

In this instance there is a danger of simply extending the Super Rugby season by another 9 weeks as all the Franchises will be out to win rather than take some risks, and blood and develop new talent from Clubland.

In saying that, the SuperRugby franchises that warehouse all the Wallaby talent are at a bit of a handicap because proportionately they would lose a greater % of their first choice players. Boo Hoo tough, time for some HTFU spray.

It is my understanding that Curry Cup is Super-lite. The same franchises that compete in Super rugby also compete in Curry Cup (less their Sprinkboks, team rehab, rested etc), along with some aspirational Super Rugby teams like the Kings and others.

Super-LIte will still be developmental because of the 150 professionally contracted Rugby players in Australia, roughly 30 are committed to Wallaby duties, another 10-20 are in team rehab or resting. The remaining 100 Professional players are spread across 9 NRC squads of 30 + players meaning about 170 non-contracted players are needed to feed the NRC beast. It will be a top down developmental approach. In the Super-Lite Curry Cup Competition, all franchises are using a top down development approach.

The ITM Cup approach to national championship rugby seems to be that Pro players will generally return to their province of origin (with expenses paid by that province [capped by NZRU] to prevent silly spending). The province of origin seems to be a willing coalition of the geographically affiliated clubs in that area.

The Rays is an almost carbon copy of an ITM Cup province. Rams less so as the club coalition cohesion has splintered somewhat. The Eagles is an interesting beast. There is the nostalgic appeal to NSW Country Origin players (provided they are released by their Super franchise) and if that fails then are you from the Wicks or the Beasts. The Twinkle Twinkle Stars have had to swallow some Corporation pride and have recruited a few from outside Camperdown, mainly from the John I Dent comp, but there are a number of players rejected by their "usual" NRC franchises.

In NZL ITM Cup, it is not unheard of for Super Rugby contracted players from Waikato Chiefs to be playing against Waikato Mooloos for their "home" province in the ITM Cup, same for Wellington Hurricanes and Wellington Lions, Canterbury Crusaders and Canterbury Lambs etc. There appears to be more money involved for player payments at ITM Cup province level in NZL than appears to be the case for NRC franchises. Clearly the ITM Cp is not Super-Lite and there doesn't seem to be too much input from the Super Franchises into the ITM Cup team space. It is similarly developmental. NZL also has 5 Super Franchises, so it would be fair to assume that they also have about 100 contracted players (150 Pro players those in Team Rehab and National duties etc) to be spread across their 15 or so ITM Cup teams. In this case the development of players seems to be driven from the bottom up, & that is the case for all ITM Cup franchises.


The two developmental methodologies, top down, and bottom up in SAF and NZL respectively, work in those countries because all participants in the competitions are using the same approach. In good old Oz style, we have 5/9 using top down development, and 4/9 doing bottom up development and it isn't working.

There has to be enough talent to go around. There are roughly the same number of contracted Professional rugby players in NZL, SAF and AUS. All 3 lose their top 30-40 contracted pro players to national duties. The balance of players are available for provincial duties, although in AUS, theoretically there are less teams for the Non-Wallaby contracted pro players to go to. Unfortunately for our model 4 of 5 Super Franchises are actively supporting 5/9 NRC teams, and 4/9 NRC teams rely on a drawing from clubland and hoping that some of the players from the "disinterested" Super Rugby franchise may happen to be aligned with the affiliated/associated clubs behind the NSW NRC franchises.

Can the Waratahs actually support 4 NRC teams, whilst losing a fair chunk of their roster to National duties and remain competitive with other NRC teams that have a 1:1 or 1:2 relationship between Suoer Rugby and NRC? No.

A complete top down Curry Cup approach will not work here while one mob has to spread talent across 4 teams. If we are going Curry Cup Super-Lite then at least one of the NSW NRC franchises has to go.

If we are to try and break the relationship between Super Rugby Franchises and NRC franchises in order to have a more ITM Cup like approach across the country, then where is the money going to come from for the 5 NRC teams that are currently shackled to Reds, Brumbies, Rebels and Force?

If there was an easy solution, I am sure that it would have been implemented already. In the mean time, the NSW NRC teams are just going to have to accept that they will be the whipping boys of the NRC with no hope of winning a title.

It has been stated that many times that the Sydney sporting market is fickle and loves to jump on a winners bandwagon. If there is no chance of a winners bandwagon rolling into town, there will continue to be pitiful NRC crowds at Sydney fixtures with little or no travelling supporters when the NSW teams go interstate. It is not as simple as "no one likes Sydney Uni", so lets get rid of the Stars.

When ARU advertised for Tenders for NRC, I think that they were hoping for more of a ITM cup model than they got. The reality is that there isn't the money or sufficient independent parties in Australia to have an ITM Cup approach across the board for all 9 NRC teams, currently nor for the foreseeable future.

 

[kiap]

to have a more ITM Cup like approach across the country, then where is the money going to come from for the 5 NRC teams that are currently shackled to Reds, Brumbies, Rebels and Force?

It's a long post and I gave it a like but won't quote it all. You've summarised pretty well, Hugh.

The question of "Where's the money coming from?" trumps everything in the end. And I say that for all clubs, not just the 5 in your fragment I've quoted.

You mentioned Super Rugby players from Waikato Chiefs playing against Waikato Mooloos. That's fine, but I reckon they're getting fair paid for it (we're not talking Toulon-style, obviously, but they get some money).

That's the difference with our current NRC. There's only peanuts on offer. Why should a player jeopardise their actual paid contract to go to another club for nothing and risk being injured? It's not the same as when it's approved by the franchise - or all in-house with the NRC team aligned with the franchise.

I have no problem with (say) Rebel players returning to Sydney to play for (say) the Rays. But I repeat your question to the Sydney clubs: Where's the money coming from?

At the moment it's all from the Rebels. The Sydney clubs need more backing; ideally from partnering with the Tahs (for cash, but just as importantly 'kind' - as in coaching, player allocation, facilites, marketing help, and so on). If not the Tahs, then someone else. If no one else, then rationalise.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Agree. Can't blame the players. They have expenses and can not meet these on thin air and a handshake.

For the Sydney players, they can go to NSW NRC franchises on the smell of an oily rag because there is no requirement to maintain another accommodation that a Rebels bloke would need if they were to come to Sydney for 9 NRC weeks with Rays etc. Worse if the player has a family in Melbourne.

Money is the big issue across the board. Show me the money cause I can't see it anywhere.

 

[Brumby Runner]

When ARU advertised for Tenders for NRC, I think that they were hoping for more of a ITM cup model than they got. The reality is that there isn't the money or sufficient independent parties in Australia to have an ITM Cup approach across the board for all 9 NRC teams, currently nor for the foreseeable future.

A great post HJ. Without giving it much thought, maybe the answer might be to require the Super franchises to each sponsor/support two NRC sides. I've always said that the NSW Country and Vikings would be a good fit for the Brumbies and now I see others are saying similar. That would give us a competition with 10 teams of roughly equal strength given the Tahs would generally lose more to the Wallabies than other franchises but would have access to more club players through the SS.

Just the germ of an idea.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Hj you sum up the reality - get rid of a Sydney team so others have a chance of success as we can't sustain 3 Sydney teams being thrashed every week with shit crowds.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I get the not as easy to dump the stars but they would be feeling the pain and see the need for a different model

 

[Hugh Jarse]

A great post HJ. Without giving it much thought, maybe the answer might be to require the Super franchises to each sponsor/support two NRC sides. I've always said that the NSW Country and Vikings would be a good fit for the Brumbies and now I see others are saying similar. That would give us a competition with 10 teams of roughly equal strength given the Tahs would generally lose more to the Wallabies than other franchises but would have access to more club players through the SS.

Just the germ of an idea.

Lots of Wicks players have "graduated" to the Brumbies over the years.

Easts will jump on any bandwagon.

They also call Canberra "The Bush Capital".

You know it makes sense.

Reds -> City & Country
Waratahs -> North Harbour, Sydney Coves, Greater Sydney
Brumbies -> Vikings, Eagles
Rebels -> Rising
Force -> Spirit
Aussie Barbarians (ARU Funded) -> The Swagmen

10 teams, 100 Available non-Wallaby contracted Super Rugby Players = Max of 10 contracted super rugby players max per NRC franchise.

 

[dru]

Hugh, super-lite as a term is derogatory, I think, even if not intended. And I would caution to some other term, even though I agree with the concept of what you are saying.

Back on topic...

Were you an Aussie watching the Hayne Plane during NFL pre-season? For me a fascinating look at how the US run things. The pre-season becomes a test of "the seconds". This is what I see the Reds doing with their NRC involvement. But add in some experienced heads. I like it a lot.

Whether or not this works for the Waratahs, is a different matter, but their apparent indifference to the NRC is inexcusable. I think that teams like the Stars (my "local" NRC team), need to get beyond listing Wallabies as theoretical players, and look to what they can do with the States "seconds".

Melbourne, Perth and Canberra, running with a single NRC team might meet the monicker of "Super-Lite", and I think, finances being available, they need to work toward second teams. Don't have a problem with Canberra adopting NSW Country.

Don't have a problem with a Franchise having three or four teams, which would appear to be the Waratahs role.

I'd like to see the ARU contracted players being made available, unless on duty, for assisting the coaching of the NRC teams. But not available to play. I'd like to see a max no (to be determined) of Super Rugby fully contracted players available. We want the experience, but more important to see the "seconds".

OK, that was a bit of a blather, hope some of it made sense.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Hugh you may have something in there - but as longer term end state perhaps as need to make current teams successful before add others.

I personally would like stars to survive as also my local team but realise not sustainable if they don't find a better hook (eg better existing fan base beyond uni to work with) and concerned if weak Sydney sides drag down quality of competition and its survivAl.
Maybe the wallaby marqee concept does not do much and agree pointless to include them as super rugby allocations unless make them wallaby marqee allocations that don't count for quota etc

rams and rays seem ok but as stated Sydney market fickle and for new Comp less likely to attract new fans if Sydney teams are whipping boys of competition which is why the mix of models probably not long term sustainable without some tweAking

 

[Jagman]

The Stars should really go to the new rectangular Sydney uni Oval no.2 next year. Leichhardt oval is too big and too out of the way. Sydney Uni seem to get much better crowds at Shute shield games though it wouldn't be hard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[neilc]

Does anyone here actually know what the Waratahs attitude/desire for the NRC is? I don't mean what you think, but any feedback or inside info? Is it that the NSW teams don't want their involvement or are they just indifferent? It seems odd, and I would have thought that spreading some of the Super Rugby talent around amongst the 4 teams, and that is players who would barring injury actually be available, not as Dru mentioned, 'theoretically being part of the team', so that the teams are stronger which gives the non Super Rugby players more of a chance to learn off these guys and be part of a competitive team.

You just need a mix of them in the team - look at Brisbane City - they have several regular starting Super Rugby players (Kerevi, Kuridrani, Hunt, Gill, Neville and Frisby who will be a starter next year) and then fringe/EPS guys plus club guys, similar with the Vikings. Teams like the Rams can't compete with that, but if they had a few starting Tahs there for most of the NRC games it could greatly improve their performances. Yes in a World Cup year it is difficult, but if you look at the impact Jono Lance has had with the Country Eagles, and Dave Dennis had when he did play for the Stars, it shows what can be done. Can the Tahs enforce some distribution through the NSW NRC teams?

 

[kiap]

Does anyone here actually know what the Waratahs attitude/desire for the NRC is? I don't mean what you think, but any feedback or inside info?

I can't provide any inside info.

But I think some of it stems from the fact that the Tahs are run separately from the NSWRU. The Waratahs run the Super Rugby team, have their own board, and obviously issue their own annual reports.

Under the agreement put in place when the split was made (to facilitate a possible future private sale, IIRC) the Waratahs pay an agreed annual amount to the NSWRU which goes to fund other rugby; somewhere around a million - or million and a half or so, from memory.

The narrow interest of the Waratahs is Super Rugby, and perhaps Gen Blue and so on (which feed Super Rugby), that's about it. To suddenly become all philanthropic and start throwing extra money or resources into the NRC "in the interests of Rugby" would require a change of mindset and a renegotiated agreement. That's why it's hard to see it happening.

And then on the other side of the coin is the NSWRU. On the whole, they'd prefer to concentrate on the Shute Shield (as inadequate as it is), spending their money to fund what was once the premier competition in Australia in preference to the NRC. It's at an impasse.

So, short of an overhaul of the rugby governance in NSW, the NRC's survival in that state will require third parties to pay.