National Rugby Championship 2014

[Dave Beat]

I hope the ARU look at Australian Rugby and the growth instead of what appears to be some of the self centered views that are being posted.

I thought this 3T was about growth and development of rugby, and not;
1. Having contracted players not even playing because Force / Rebs / possibly Brumbies don't release.
2. A stand alone team making the cut because of politics, and that couldn't even make the play offs last year.
3. Screw 10 teams, screw 8, why not just have VIC, WA, ACT as proposed and throw in NSW & QLD and make it 5.

I'm loosing interest - bring on the SS - http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/shute-shield-2014.13467/page-16 a far better thread.

 

[gel]

It will do the opposite. The Sydney teams will need to do less work if there's only three of them instead of five. They'll be stronger by default with more Super players - and any extra spots opened up by not recruiting Shute players from other franchises is outweighed by spots lost due to cutting the NSW teams by 40%.

You have misunderstood what I have written.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I hope the ARU look at Australian Rugby and the growth instead of what appears to be some of the self centered views that are being posted.

I thought this 3T was about growth and development of rugby, and not;
1. Having contracted players not even playing because Force / Rebs / possibly Brumbies don't release.
2. A stand alone team making the cut because of politics, and that couldn't even make the play offs last year.
3. Screw 10 teams, screw 8, why not just have VIC, WA, ACT as proposed and throw in NSW & QLD and make it 5.

I'm loosing interest - bring on the SS - http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/shute-shield-2014.13467/page-16 a far better thread.

That's just the Australian Super Rugby conference. Which sort of defeats the purpose of establishing a competition to provide more development opportunities to a wider range of players.

I agree in regards to the whole standalone issue. Though, I will say that for the likes of Randwick as has been previously alluded to they do have the brand aspect to them. And it did say they were looking to link with Easts. Both Uni and Randwick have the history to be able to draw on and gain the necessary criteria to qualify regardless of one of their recent playing history.

For the most part we are getting what we wanted with all groups involved in some sort of JV set up. In a couple of instances they aren't the JV's we would have preferred but JV's none the less.

We need to just wait and see. It could very well come to pass that the likes of the Randwick/UNSW JV only lasts in its proposed form for one season before they look to move forward. This process was never going to be perfect but it certainly is better than what we have at present.

Regarding the proposed QLD Country squad. Last night the Reds pulled over 7,000 to their game at the Toowoomba Sports Ground. Could be a reasonable base for such a team if not based at Bond Uni.

 

[Dave Beat]

That's just the Australian Super Rugby conference. Which sort of defeats the purpose of establishing a competition to provide more development opportunities to a wider range of players.

Regarding the proposed QLD Country squad. Last night the Reds pulled over 7,000 to their game at the Toowoomba Sports Ground. Could be a reasonable base for such a team if not based at Bond Uni.

• Aust Super Rugby Conference - sort of, and that is my point:

1. I know, I was raising that in reference to - Some people are saying Force / Rebs / Brumbies don't release players, doesn't that go against the grain of having the next best on the park playing.
2. Then look at NSW & QLD who contribute larger numbers to the WOBS and having to field multiple teams with the remaining contracted players.
3. Then look at NSW in a smaller isolation, take away the Wobs and Uni players who is left and how are they shared?
4. Then in the mean time, Rebs / Force / have retained all contracted players some may not even get game time. Plus they blood no local talent whilst NSW & QLD are the blooding and developing new players that the Rebs, Force, and Brumbies can pilfer.

• Reds pull over 7000.

Manly pull over 5000 + to the Rats game, and consistently pull very good crowds (plus good on and also off the park). Could be a reasonable base for a 3T team.

All my posts have only shared what I think would be good for Australian Rugby that's all.

Some one said Randwick have a brand - maybe, but it might only be limited to rugby. Why not call - East, Randwick, Southern - BONDI BEACH ??? that name has a Global brand.

I have asked and nobody has answered -
If Randwick just scraped into the finals last year how are they possibly going to have the playing talent to compete?

 

[Hawko]

Relocation costs is the worry, and probably why Force and Rebels will keep most of their contracted players in situ.

I worry about the proposed NSW country team and would reluctantly have 9 teams in the competition.

Relocation costs were a big part of why the ERC failed last time. If we are to have relocation it needs to be organised so that players who have not set up to permanently live there are the ones to move. Then they can go back to live with Mum and Dad for a couple of months. Forcing someone with a wife and two kids to move will not only be disastrous for them, it will cost an absolute fortune as they will almost certainly be moving into the Sydney rental market.

I am more than worried about the proposed NSW country team being ready in time. The city teams, especially in Sydney, will be struggling to be ready. The country team will have to do all the things the city teams have to do plus work out their logistics nightmare. I would leave them out of the picture this year and tell them they will come in next season, which will give them time to organise. A nine team competition is just a ten team competition with one bye week and is therefore logistically quite simple. It would be my preference.

 

[kiap]

You have misunderstood what I have written.

When it doesn't make sense—attack!

Reckon you're wrong in wanting to stack sides with Super players. We could probably just run another rehash of the Australian Conference trophy, but there would be less opportunity for developing players.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

• Aust Super Rugby Conference - sort of, and that is my point:

1. I know, I was raising that in reference to - Some people are saying Force / Rebs / Brumbies don't release players, doesn't that go against the grain of having the next best on the park playing.
2. Then look at NSW & QLD who contribute larger numbers to the WOBS and having to field multiple teams with the remaining contracted players.
3. Then look at NSW in a smaller isolation, take away the Wobs and Uni players who is left and how are they shared?
4. Then in the mean time, Rebs / Force / have retained all contracted players some may not even get game time. Plus they blood no local talent whilst NSW & QLD are the blooding and developing new players that the Rebs, Force, and Brumbies can pilfer.

• Reds pull over 7000.

Manly pull over 5000 + to the Rats game, and consistently pull very good crowds (plus good on and also off the park). Could be a reasonable base for a 3T team.


All my posts have only shared what I think would be good for Australian Rugby that's all.

Some one said Randwick have a brand - maybe, but it might only be limited to rugby. Why not call - East, Randwick, Southern - BONDI BEACH ??? that name has a Global brand.

I have asked and nobody has answered -
If Randwick just scraped into the finals last year how are they possibly going to have the playing talent to compete?

Mate, that's the role the Shield plays are the primary nursery of Australian Rugby and the role it will likely continue to assume probably for at least another decade or so. It's very much the same issue for the Queensland Premier Clubs.

I also don't disagree in regards to the Marlins being a good options as a standalone and if I'm honest I was surprised to learn that they apparently weren't interested in the early days of this process. Though, I do like the effort of the NS clubs to form a united front which I think will see them as the most competitive Sydney based squad.

The argument for Randwick over pretty all other clubs is that they are known not only internationally within Rugby circles but a great number of people from outside the fraternity are aware of them. In fact, I'd wager that the Wicks would be the club most would be aware from the outside looking in.

I'm not saying it's the best possible option, but clearly they have been able to leverage that presence to getting the necessary finances etc on board to be seriously considered as the Eastern Suburbs option for the Sydney NRC contribution.

As a side note. I actually think it could provide an interesting bit of rivalry to the NRC from a NSW perspective. During my time playing at Coogee everyone hated to the Wicks. Everyone. Their presence alongside the Uni-Balmain JV could provide that instant tribal rivalry needed to give the games some real meaning.

Be honest, now that it seems they will be present. Don't you just want to see the NS team take them to the cleaners just to prove they shouldn't be playing at this level. Your disagreement already suggests as much. Embrace the hate.

Oh, and while Randwick are my SS team. I'll be supporting the Rams in the NRC. Once a westie always a westie

 

[Dave Beat]

Mate, that's the role the Shield plays are the primary nursery of Australian Rugby and the role it will likely continue to assume probably for at least another decade or so. It's very much the same issue for the Queensland Premier Clubs.

I'm not saying it's the best possible option, but clearly they have been able to leverage that presence to getting the necessary finances etc on board to be seriously considered as the Eastern Suburbs option for the Sydney NRC contribution.

As a side note. I actually think it could provide an interesting bit of rivalry to the NRC from a NSW perspective. During my time playing at Coogee everyone hated to the Wicks. Everyone. Their presence alongside the Uni-Balmain JV could provide that instant tribal rivalry needed to give the games some real meaning.

Be honest, now that it seems they will be present. Don't you just want to see the NS team take them to the cleaners just to prove they shouldn't be playing at this level. Your disagreement already suggests as much. Embrace the hate.

Oh, and while Randwick are my SS team. I'll be supporting the Rams in the NRC. Once a westie always a westie

That's right, but we are talking Third Tier and not Shute Shield. That is why I said they should not be allowed to retain all their contracted players - they should use this opportunity to blood some of their local crop against the next level.
Some of the old Nth Hbr / Sth Hbr clashes / trials for the Sydney also had some rivalry.
Yes but my posts aren't about that, I'm only suggesting what I think will be best for the 3T - and sorry that is not Randwick standing alone.

 

[Slim 293]

It's not about wanting to stack players, but having a sensible model in place where players are aligned with teams relevant to their Super and club rugby backgrounds, and not creating silly rules that only applies to some teams.........

This concept of the 3 non-NSW/QLD teams only having access to a set number of players just creates more problems.

Are the 18 players made up of non-Wallaby players? If so what happens when players in the Wallaby squad aren't selected for test duties and need to come back to the NRC? Are those teams allowed to have their Wallabies back or will the ARU send them into NSW to stock up teams? Will a player like Jesse Mogg, who is originally from Qld, but plays Super and club rugby in Canberra have to play for a Sydney team?

Which is my next point....... you can't be sending players who play outside of NSW, who have come from QLD, the ACT, Victoria, WA, South Africa, Fiji, New Zealand, Japan etc to go live and play in NSW, because they're outside of the 18 players selected.

Will the ARU be paying for the short term living expenses for them? What about their families?

The only simple selection process is this:

Canberra - Brumbies & Academy/JID players

Melbourne - Rebels & Vic Clubs

Perth - Force & Perth clubs

2 x Qld Teams - Reds & Brisbane clubs

Sydney Uni/Balmain - Waratahs & Sydney Uni/Balmain

North Harbour - Waratahs + Manly/Norths/Warringah/Gordon

Greater Sydney - Waratahs + Eastwood/Parramatta/Penrith/West Harbour/Sthn Districts

East Sydney - Waratahs + Randwick/Easts

NSW Country - Any players with NSW country roots (Personally, I don't think there should be a country team and there are 2 teams too many)

Obviously the main criticism with this model is that the Sydney teams have their Super Rugby players thinned out, but the flip side is that they have exclusive access to players from the top club rugby competition in the country.

Sure, the Rebels and the Force will be stacked with Super Rugby players, but without being condescending they aren't exactly the cream of the crop, and their club rugby competitions are at a much lower standard that it's not going to do them any good to have too many of those players in the squad.

The other issue is supposedly having Super Rugby players in the non NSW/Qld teams not getting sufficient game time..........

It's a fair point, which is why players should be able to negotiate going to play in teams they have some association with e.g.. Josh Mann-Rae will be sitting behind Siliva in Canberra so it's only fair that he can go play for NSW Country.

Having said that, a player like Nic Stirzaker could be sitting behind Burgess at Melbourne, but if he goes back to Sydney Uni he could still be sitting behind Phipps....... the other option is to send him to another NSW team that he has no association with, but then of course it means some other Super Rugby player is going to miss out...........

The fact is there will be some teams with better depth and some Super Rugby players will not be making the starting XV..........

But it's the only way to spread some of the talent without forcing players from their homes or creating artificial teams, which was a problem with the original ARC.............

Anyways, that's my rant for today.

 

[MACCA]

It's not about wanting to stack players, but having a sensible model in place where players are aligned with teams relevant to their Super and club rugby backgrounds, and not creating silly rules that only applies to some teams...

This concept of the 3 non-NSW/QLD teams only having access to a set number of players just creates more problems.

Are the 18 players made up of non-Wallaby players? If so what happens when players in the Wallaby squad aren't selected for test duties and need to come back to the NRC? Are those teams allowed to have their Wallabies back or will the ARU send them into NSW to stock up teams? Will a player like Jesse Mogg, who is originally from Qld, but plays Super and club rugby in Canberra have to play for a Sydney team?

Which is my next point... you can't be sending players who play outside of NSW, who have come from QLD, the ACT, Victoria, WA, South Africa, Fiji, New Zealand, Japan etc to go live and play in NSW, because they're outside of the 18 players selected.

Will the ARU be paying for the short term living expenses for them? What about their families?

The only simple selection process is this:

Canberra - Brumbies & Academy/JID players

Melbourne - Rebels & Vic Clubs

Perth - Force & Perth clubs

2 x Qld Teams - Reds & Brisbane clubs

Sydney Uni/Balmain - Waratahs & Sydney Uni/Balmain

North Harbour - Waratahs + Manly/Norths/Warringah/Gordon

Greater Sydney - Waratahs + Eastwood/Parramatta/Penrith/West Harbour/Sthn Districts

East Sydney - Waratahs + Randwick/Easts

NSW Country - Any players with NSW country roots (Personally, I don't think there should be a country team and there are 2 teams too many)

Obviously the main criticism with this model is that the Sydney teams have their Super Rugby players thinned out, but the flip side is that they have exclusive access to players from the top club rugby competition in the country.

Sure, the Rebels and the Force will be stacked with Super Rugby players, but without being condescending they aren't exactly the cream of the crop, and their club rugby competitions are at a much lower standard that it's not going to do them any good to have too many of those players in the squad.

The other issue is supposedly having Super Rugby players in the non NSW/Qld teams not getting sufficient game time....

It's a fair point, which is why players should be able to negotiate going to play in teams they have some association with e.g.. Josh Mann-Rae will be sitting behind Siliva in Canberra so it's only fair that he can go play for NSW Country.

Having said that, a player like Nic Stirzaker could be sitting behind Burgess at Melbourne, but if he goes back to Sydney Uni he could still be sitting behind Phipps... the other option is to send him to another NSW team that he has no association with, but then of course it means some other Super Rugby player is going to miss out.....

The fact is there will be some teams with better depth and some Super Rugby players will not be making the starting XV....

But it's the only way to spread some of the talent without forcing players from their homes or creating artificial teams, which was a problem with the original ARC.....

Anyways, that's my rant for today.

Good Rant - got to start the thinking process somehow!
Maybe the powers to be will invent some kind of draft to get the S15 players out to the NRC teams.

 

[Dave Beat]

@slim 293 that is not a rant, you made some good fair points. Some I agree with, some I don't.
Randwick standing alone I do not like.
Rebs, Force, retain all their contracted I do not agree.
Brumbies retaining all of theirs given their contribution to the wobs i might agree, or a variation.
On the phone so that's all folks.

 

[kiap]

rules that only applies to some teams...

The 18 Super player limit would apply to ALL TEAMS, Slim.

You sneaky Canberra politico-types are trying to get a carve-out to increase your own Super funds. And for only some teams.

Typical snout in the trough stuff from the vested interests on Capitol Hill.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Slim, why I advocate the smaller Super Rugby Teams keeping their contracted players is just like you've said. However, if players want to player interstate, a good example is if Ben Meehan feels he won't get game time and wants to play for a Sydney team, that should be encouraged as Dave mentions, because it's no benefit him sitting outside the match team. But relocation shouldn't be forced on to players as part of a quota.

 

[RugbyFuture]

@slim 293 that is not a rant, you made some good fair points. Some I agree with, some I don't.
Randwick standing alone I do not like.

I think if you're going to be complaining about randwick then you have to be complaining about uni too. no matter what position they ended up with recently they both have similar histories of being hated y everyone else and a lot of political pull within the national structures.

Even their proposed standalone bids (if they are indeed going to use those brands) are in actuality supported by other clubs and outside money too.

 

[Dave Beat]

I think if you're going to be complaining about randwick then you have to be complaining about uni too. no matter what position they ended up with recently they both have similar histories of being hated y everyone else and a lot of political pull within the national structures.

Even their proposed standalone bids (if they are indeed going to use those brands) are in actuality supported by other clubs and outside money too.

Randwick finish 8th
Uni win, and are in the GF of each grade and colts.
A little different

Okay so Uni do a JV with Wests, Parra, Penrith - tell me how many players Wests, parra Penrith will field? By having Uni stand alone Wests, Parra, and Penrith can develop the west and get exposure.

Now look at Wicks, Easts, Souths in a JV and tell me how many players the Wicks will field, Souths would have the largest representation.

A look yesterday I recall the wicks had 2 players plus Hoiles with the Tahs - Beale and Kepu both possibly with the Wobs - so were are their players coming from?

As I have said above, my beef is not with the Wicks they have a great CLUB history, I'm simply suggesting what is best for the 3t in my opinion.

 

[Forcefield]

It's a lot for us to speculate on at the moment. It is really hard to say how many players will be out due to Wallabies duty, injury or because they have been released by clubs that no longer want them. The Force have 15/30 players off contract in 2014 and history says around 10 of those will move on. What happens if you are only left with about 15 players after all of those are taken out?

 

[RugbyFuture]

its not that different, in reality the reason both clubs can try and go it alone is because of their political pull within the boys club that is rugby administration. Both have had good times and bad times, like any club.

In any case to suggest that uni was ever in the sights to work with any of the western clubs would be laughable. Much like the reason Souths and Easts haven't gone that well with Randwick the relationship would be demanding, demeaning and untenable. Maybe randwick should've paired with Uni

 

[Dave Beat]

The Force have 15/30 players off contract in 2014 and history says around 10 of those will move on. What happens if you are only left with about 15 players after all of those are taken out?

Are the Force looking at replacing those 10 - 15 players, if they are do you have the intel on where their scouts are looking?

 

[Slim 293]

Slim, why I advocate the smaller Super Rugby Teams keeping their contracted players is just like you've said. However, if players want to player interstate, a good example is if Ben Meehan feels he won't get game time and wants to play for a Sydney team, that should be encouraged as Dave mentions, because it's no benefit him sitting outside the match team. But relocation shouldn't be forced on to players as part of a quota.

Oh I completely agree.........

I'm not against spreading the love, but having forced quotas is not good for the teams or the players involved.......

 

[Brumby Runner]

It's not about wanting to stack players, but having a sensible model in place where players are aligned with teams relevant to their Super and club rugby backgrounds, and not creating silly rules that only applies to some teams...

This concept of the 3 non-NSW/QLD teams only having access to a set number of players just creates more problems.

Are the 18 players made up of non-Wallaby players? If so what happens when players in the Wallaby squad aren't selected for test duties and need to come back to the NRC? Are those teams allowed to have their Wallabies back or will the ARU send them into NSW to stock up teams? Will a player like Jesse Mogg, who is originally from Qld, but plays Super and club rugby in Canberra have to play for a Sydney team?

Which is my next point... you can't be sending players who play outside of NSW, who have come from QLD, the ACT, Victoria, WA, South Africa, Fiji, New Zealand, Japan etc to go live and play in NSW, because they're outside of the 18 players selected.

Will the ARU be paying for the short term living expenses for them? What about their families?

The only simple selection process is this:

Canberra - Brumbies & Academy/JID players

Melbourne - Rebels & Vic Clubs

Perth - Force & Perth clubs

2 x Qld Teams - Reds & Brisbane clubs

Sydney Uni/Balmain - Waratahs & Sydney Uni/Balmain

North Harbour - Waratahs + Manly/Norths/Warringah/Gordon

Greater Sydney - Waratahs + Eastwood/Parramatta/Penrith/West Harbour/Sthn Districts

East Sydney - Waratahs + Randwick/Easts

NSW Country - Any players with NSW country roots (Personally, I don't think there should be a country team and there are 2 teams too many)

Obviously the main criticism with this model is that the Sydney teams have their Super Rugby players thinned out, but the flip side is that they have exclusive access to players from the top club rugby competition in the country.

Sure, the Rebels and the Force will be stacked with Super Rugby players, but without being condescending they aren't exactly the cream of the crop, and their club rugby competitions are at a much lower standard that it's not going to do them any good to have too many of those players in the squad.

The other issue is supposedly having Super Rugby players in the non NSW/Qld teams not getting sufficient game time....

It's a fair point, which is why players should be able to negotiate going to play in teams they have some association with e.g.. Josh Mann-Rae will be sitting behind Siliva in Canberra so it's only fair that he can go play for NSW Country.

Having said that, a player like Nic Stirzaker could be sitting behind Burgess at Melbourne, but if he goes back to Sydney Uni he could still be sitting behind Phipps... the other option is to send him to another NSW team that he has no association with, but then of course it means some other Super Rugby player is going to miss out.....

The fact is there will be some teams with better depth and some Super Rugby players will not be making the starting XV....

But it's the only way to spread some of the talent without forcing players from their homes or creating artificial teams, which was a problem with the original ARC.....

Anyways, that's my rant for today.

Is there an inconsistency where Eastwood doesn't participate in any NRC venture but still gets to have their players available to play for the Western Sydney JV? The club will apparently not contribute in any way to the costs of running the JV but their better players still get the benefit?

I simply don't understand why Eastwood would have decided not to participate in the NRC.