Learning from the enemy – an affordable Third Tier competition

[WorkingClassRugger]

Because then you're funding 2 specially assembled sides instead of one AND you're pissing off the club power brokers which is part of what sunk the ARC to begin with.

Use the parts we've already got in place and only add bits when necessary.

The only issue with using clubs and the whole promo/relegation idea in my mind are:

1. It's well known that some clubs are struggling financially, how many could feasibly afford the extra expense of this competition? I know why Bruce likes the NEAFL model as his club are one of only a few that could afford to compete beyond their current commitments. But who else? Tuggeranong, probably but I seriously question many others. It would become very much a closed shop very quickly with it becoming a competition of who can best afford it not who qualifies with results on the field. Again Bruce's lot would be ideal candidates (not bagging Uni, they have done the work and built the base to do this and you cannot bag them for that) but not terribly fair on others. I would wager to guess that the AFL underwrites quite a bit of the NEAFL's operating costs imposed on participants. We don't have that luxury.

2. It very restrictive on players with ambitions to chase higher honours. Yes, Uni and their ilk have talented footballers that deserve the exposure, but, so do others clubs, and some of them may be better than those competing in this model. Having one or even two additional squads would allow for a greater player of gaining that exposure. It could lead to player's skipping across (moreso than a present) into the clubs that would be perennial participants. It would provide in time a high level of competition but at the expense of others clubs.

3. Yes, while you will have to fund more squads like in the ARC, by using the lesson's learnt in the ARC the emphasis can be put on running it lean. That means no importing player's ala Melbourne, taking advantage of budget airlines, flying teams in and out in one day were possible, use re-existing facilities and not contracting player's. It's a pathway for player's with ambition for higher honours not an additional revenue source. If 5 of the squads are 2nd XVs for the Super Rugby franchises then their players would continue their arrangements that already in place.

4. Play it in a completely different window to the club seasons. Early spring comes to mind. Minimal competition from other codes and existing structures plus it keeps the clubs positions as a vital development pathway for the game.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Bardon]

Rather than having actual promotion and relegation you could have qualification each year based on results of the previous years Shute Shield/QPR and have some spots ring fenced if the Super franchises "A" teams are involved, something along the lines of how HEC qualification works. This would ensure the most competitive teams gain entry each year and give every team a fair shot at participating.

Also like the HEC you could reserve one spot for the winners of the competition so they would have automatic qualification to next years comp and in the event the winners qualify anyway the extra spot would go to their region.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

To echo others sentiments, very good idea Bruce. I've been thinking along similar lines recently and have come to two conclusions.

1. We need to decide why we want a third tier.

Is it because there is a desire from Rugby supporters for another competition to support? Or do we just want something that will help develop more players?

If you want both, then we need a third tier. If you just want to develop more players than maybe we can look at something like the NFL combine. The ARU invites all the hot prospects to a few weeks of training/matches and we all get a look at what they can do. Simple and cheap.

2. If we want a third tier, what should it look like.

If I recall correctly, Sydney clubs like Uni have stated that they want to go it alone in any third tier comp. Initially I thought this was overly self-serving but after some thought I would agree. They should go it alone. Some of these clubs have built really great systems for producing players. Some of these clubs have over a hundred years of history behind them. And some these clubs have really dedicated, passionate supporters including many on this forum.

Any third tier competition needs to tap into that existing support, we simply can't create teams from sratch and expect them to be well supported. We already have to do that for Super Rugby.

So, in my opinion our third tier needs to start with Sydney and Brisbane club rugby. Two consolidated, standardised, competitions that form our third tier. Along with this, the comps in Perth, Melbourne (I'm not sure what level the Canberra comp would be at, so they could be included here or go it alone) are given funding and infrastructure with the long term goal of bringing them closer to the Sydney/Brisbane levels.

Then, we have our National championships, an extension of the Australian Club Championship (with better marketing). A very quick rundown, say the top three Sydney clubs, the top two Brisbane clubs, the top Canberra club and the Perth and Melbourne Barbarians (made up of locals and those signed to the appropriate super rugby team). Eventually you would want the top clubs from these comps to compete, but in the meantime a barbarians style rep team would suffice. Then, to further save costs you break the teams out into two conferences which already halves the travel to and from Perth making things cheaper. Then the top two from each conference go into a semi final round, then a final. Similar to the World Cup format.

Last year it would have looked like this:

1. Eastwood
2. Syd Uni
3. Whoever came third in the Shute Shield, I can't remember.
4. Sunnybank
5. Brothers
6.Tuggeranong
7. Perth Barbarians
8. Melbourne Barbarians

Personally, I would love to see these famous old clubs go at it

Now there are many logistical and political issues to overcome here, but I feel most of them could be removed or at the least mitigated with clear regulations and governance from the ARU (things like all the good players wanting to play for the already successful clubs, even though this already happens).

I could live with this. Both Perth and Melbourne could use the Gold and Axemen monikers.

 

[Lee Grant]

Well done Bruce and others. If we want change we have to do something different.

I have written about this matter several times since the ARC became defunct and my last effort was to have a comp of existing club teams from Qld and Sydney plus a team like the Vikings from the ACT who used to compete in the other two places.

The Rebels would have their A team in the comp. I forget what I said about the Force, but it may have been to leave them out for a year or two because of excessive travel and accommodation costs. My model wasn't perfect but it was cheap.

The Sydney and Qld teams had to satisfy certain financial criteria as part of their application. In total there would be only 8 teams, about, to start and at some point there would be an annual relegation and promotion. The promoted team would have to pass the same financial criteria as the others had to do every year and if that new team was not top dog of the also rans, but 2nd to a team that couldn't afford to compete in the national competion, too bad.

I guess that the significant difference between my old model and Bruce's is that the Reds, Tahs and Brumbies A teams weren't involved. Bruce's model would devastate the Sydney and Brisbane club competitions, which will be affected enough with what I suggested.

But in the spirit of - we have to do something different - let's try something. Anything we come up with will tick rugby boxes but the golden rule has to be that it always has to tick the financial boxes, else we are pissing in the wind.

Again.


PS - there will be whingeing from poor clubs like mine, The Rats, but too bad. They had this situation in England when the clubs for the Premiership were elevated at the start of the professional era - a different situation and in a small country, I know - but it turned out OK.
.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Lee

The ability for clubs to afford Bruce's model is the only issue I have with it and why I suggest removing clubs from the equation. However, as you say some clubs will have t just grin and bare it. It may also lead to some compromise agreements regarding clubs in order to compete such as some clubs looking to join forces in order to compete at that level. Not too bad an outcome.

 

[Forcefield]

The problem with any model that includes clubs is that the clubs will cannibalise their competition. In Sydney for example, players who have Super Rugby aspirations will flock to presumably Sydney Uni, Eastwood and Manly or Randwick.

The ARC was the right model. It just needed configuration, leadership that does not allow costs to be underwritten so casually and time. In time, it would have become more sustainable. There were some crazy costs such as venue hire for venues far bigger than they needed to be or the $70,000 (I think it was 70 grand) paid to the ABC to televise half the games. You could probably get away with paying the players slightly less as well. I imagine that, with more potential Super Rugby players unearthed, player costs would decrease a bit too.

 

[p.Tah]

I like the idea, my concern is the 'arms race' that may ensue as clubs attempt to buy the best talent to ensure they don't get relegated. Players jumping ship to a new club if their team gets relegated, the new promoted team dumping some players that got them to first division and so on. I think the tribalism will go out the window pretty quick. I think its a mstake to damage the club rugby scene. Aren't I ray of sunshine?

My preference would be to dispense with the clubs and have several Super rugby 'B' teams.

Reds have two 'B' sides (I know that doesn't quite make sense, but you know what I mean). Tahs three 'B' teams. Split into two conferences:

East Conference:
Waratahs East (Uni, Easts, Randwick, Southern Districts)
Waratahs West (Eastwood, West Harbour, Parra, Penrith)
Waratahs North (Warringah, Manly, Gordon, Norths)
Brumby Runners

North Conference (based in Brisbane)
Reds North
Reds South
Rebel Rising
WA Academy

- Brumby Runners can be bused into Sydney. WA and Rising fly in and out of Brisbane. Will be tough on WA players.
- Home and Away, Semi Finals and Final - 8 week competition
- comp played at start of season (March - April)
- Potential Aust u20s included. Get a good hit out before JRWC.
- players all return to their respective club teams after the comp. Minimal disruption to club scene.
- Super Rugby Teams have seen top talent play a higher level and know who to call into Super squads when injuries occur later in the season.

Would cost similar to Bruce's model but would keep Club Scene strong.

 

[kiap]

Which clubs are in rude good health financially?

Vikings, Sydney Uni, ..... any others ..... ?

Those that can finance their own team without needing handouts should be given a shot. If there are a select few cashed-up clubs then just pick them - don't even worry too much about promotion and relegation, at least initially.

Add in state 2nd XVs and a comp is almost there, even if it's only 6-8 teams to start with.

 

[Lee Grant]

Forcefield

The clubs will be cannibalised as were the English clubs. I have no problem with that in a transition period as the Poms had at the start of the pro era. The impossible was made possible with a lot of pain.

People won't like it before it happens, nor after, but to have change sometimes you have to do things that were never done before.

The Oz clubs were cannibalised, in a sense, in the 2007 ARC also. All clubs got big bites taken out of them, especially Sydney Uni whose players were all in the ARC if they weren't with the Wobs.

Remember the Trevor Allan Cup? Sydney didn't have enough good players left in the ARC period and had a low level comp; I imagine that it was the same in Brisbane also.

Old model or new model or something in between, club rugby will suffer, but it depends what you want: club rugby how it is now, or a 3rd tier ARC including financially strong clubs, and a virtual 2nd grade 4th tier comp, hoping that the player base will grow to bring the quality back.

And let's not forget with all our nice theories: that participants, including Super teams if they have teams in it, have to pay their way.

Have to.
.

 

[Bardon]

The problem I would see with that model is who would provide the coaches and infrastructure and everything else needed to run a team even for just an 8 week period. Hopefully not the Super Rugby franchises as the 'Tahs are having enough trouble running one team as it is.

 

[kiap]

The problem I would see with that model is who would provide the coaches and infrastructure and everything else needed to run a team even for just an 8 week period. Hopefully not the Super Rugby franchises as the 'Tahs are having enough trouble running one team as it is.

Aren't the Brumby Runners, Junior Tahs and Red Heelers playing matches against Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa within one leg of the Pacfic Rugby Cup these days? There's gotta be the bones of what's required already there, although some more funds would be needed.

 

[p.Tah]

The problem I would see with that model is who would provide the coaches and infrastructure and everything else needed to run a team even for just an 8 week period. Hopefully not the Super Rugby franchises as the 'Tahs are having enough trouble running one team as it is.

I'm pretty sure David Nucifora could coach all the teams.
But seriously, WA, Runners and Rising already have the coaches and infrastructure. It would fall onto the Tahs and Reds to look after their teams. Yes the Tahs are a shambles now but so were the Reds a few seasons ago and they are now looking at re-introducing an academy side. The ARU are currently funding two very large academy sides. Could this not be reallocated to this comp?

 

[Bardon]

If I were an Aus supporter the thought of the future of Aus Rugby being dependent on the administration skills of the 'Tahs organisation would give me nightmares.

How would sponsorship work if 2 Super Rugby franchises were controlling 3 teams. Would they have to display the sponsor of the parent Super team?

Also would you end up with most of the teams wearing blue jerseys like in Super Rugby?

Would club teams be compensated in anyway for players on their books that take part?

The other possible problem I see is that the idea is to have a competition that will concentrate the most talented players so there is a better path to Super Rugby. But with all the representative teams in their respective catchment areas being run by the Super Rugby franchises there's the disadvantage that the same people may be making the judgement calls on who to pick for the representative teams and making recommendations as to who to contract for the Super Rugby franchises. i.e. there's no second pair of eyes on the selection process.

I know it seems like I'm knocking your idea. But I'm honestly just trying to pose some questions as an outsider to help flesh out any of the ideas put forwards and 'mI certainly not an expert on the Aus club rugby scene.

 

[Garry Owen]

Bruce,

One of the factors that killed the ARC was the expense of putting players up at (reasonable) accommodation after the game. Originally players were expected to fly home after the game, but could you imagine that? Play a game of rugby and then get back on a flight for a long haul?

How to over come this?

 

[FiveStarStu]

There is plenty of merit in discussing this, but there are two things that need to be considered.

1. Need buy in from the current grass roots. We need to ensure that the current clubs are not excluded from playing, or they just get pissed off and self interest will see them kill it.
2. Keep costs low.

A competition involving the Shute Shield/QPR clubs needs to be at the heart of it. I think a two conference system, much like Super Rugby in that the Sydney conference plays other Sydney conference teams home and away and the Brisbane Conference team once and the same for Brisbane Conference. (Builds on existing rivalries/derbies and reduces need to travel so much). It is admirable to try and include Victoria and WA, but point 2 needs to be considered.

Just another idea, a little different to the others.

I think any third tier competition needs to include Perth and Melbourne, hell, I'd include an Adelaide team if I could.

The ideal of player development necessitates that players from all corners get the opportunity to compete at a higher level. For example, I can accept a player drain from less successful Melbourne clubs to more successful clubs to play in a comp, but I'd hate to see a player drain from Melbourne clubs to Sydney clubs in order for kids to get discovered.

This is why the Foxtel Cup appeals to me as a way of getting a club championship started, and why I think the AFL went to it initially. Travel costs are ridiculously low compared to other national championships, players have an opportunity to experience different opposition in front of a larger audience, and it doesn't clash with state championships as much.

I am by no means suggesting it as a permanent solution, and would love to see a national league competition set up at some point, but we need to start somewhere. This could start next year if we wanted.

The Foxtel Cup is the best place to start.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Bruce,

One of the factors that killed the ARC was the expense of putting players up at (reasonable) accommodation after the game. Originally players were expected to fly home after the game, but could you imagine that? Play a game of rugby and then get back on a flight for a long haul?

How to over come this?

I'm sorry but apart from games in Perth, why couldn't they play and then fly back home the same day? I know it's not ideal but is something that may be needed to keep expense's down as much as possible. In time if it begins to pay for itself then start booking hotels.

 

[kiap]

Good point on the long haul flights. A sameday turnaround could work when contained to the East Coast, with 1 - 3 hr flights following afternoon games.

Adding Perth is harder and could need an overnight stay. East-to-West, flying with sun might not be too bad when getting a couple of hours on the timezones. But West-to-East flights would be problematic.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Can I just recap on some of the basic elements of the model I have proposed?

• The franchises always have on their contracted lists players who are essentially on what can be termed "hit-shield contracts", i.e., their basic role is to provide training opposition for those who make up the 22-man playing squads. The hit-shield contract players need to be playing rugby on a weekly basis in order to develop;

• Those clubs wishing to participate in the 3T competition would have to satisfy the organisers that they could meet their playing commitments. They would be responsible for providing the bulk of their participation funding;

• Those clubs seeking entry into the 3T competition are likely to be among those currently dominating the club competitions in their city. Having to provide a 3T team each week would have the consequence of weakening their other Grade and Colts teams. (This has definitely happened to Sydney Uni Australian Football Club following their entry into the NEAFL competition) Thus we will have more even club competitions;

• Given the restricted number of players in each franchise and the inevitable effects of injuries, the franchise teams would need to extensively draw on club players who would be drawn from clubs not participating in the 3T competition. Thus players from all clubs would have a pathway to regular high standard competition; and

• Australian rugby would have an effective Third Tier at very modest cost.

.

 

[FiveStarStu]

Can I just recap on some of the basic elements of the model I have proposed?

• Given the restricted number of players in each franchise and the inevitable effects of injuries, the franchise teams would need to extensively draw on club players who would be drawn from clubs not participating in the 3T competition. Thus players from all clubs would have a pathway to regular high standard competition;

.

Missed this part - very good point you make. I like the idea of making the 'franchise' sides barbarians teams. Would have to stipulate somewhere that players nominate for a club before state though.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Good point on the long haul flights. A sameday turnaround could work when contained to the East Coast, with 1 - 3 hr flights following afternoon games.

Adding Perth is harder and could need an overnight stay. East-to-West, flying with sun might not be too bad when getting a couple of hours on the timezones. But West-to-East flights would be problematic.

It would be the only time I'd envisage the need to have teams stay overnight. Also in a short season it would only require 3-5 trips so the expense shouldn't be too excessive.