QLD Premier Rugby 2014
- Thread starter thierry dusautoir
- Start date
- Status
East Coast Aces
Johnnie Wallace (23)
TrainerGB
Ward Prentice (10)
Sorry, I should of advised clubs are meant to fund it, find sponsorship, put in all the hard yards, and then the players that play, may not be the players who have worked hard in that jersey all year.
E.g. The criteria turns out to be top 3 QRU teams. So the players that put in their blood sweat and tears all year, may not get an opportunity to play on the big stage because the ARU has stepped in and said "you must play these guys"
That is surely not good for the clubs? I know my players won't appreciate it!!
It's like asking the girl to the dance, buying her dress, getting your own outfit sorted, picking her up, and then sitting back watching her dance with a Wallaby wannabe....
Sent from my mind......
E.g. The criteria turns out to be top 3 QRU teams. So the players that put in their blood sweat and tears all year, may not get an opportunity to play on the big stage because the ARU has stepped in and said "you must play these guys"
That is surely not good for the clubs? I know my players won't appreciate it!!
It's like asking the girl to the dance, buying her dress, getting your own outfit sorted, picking her up, and then sitting back watching her dance with a Wallaby wannabe....
Sent from my mind......
rugbywatch
Larry Dwyer (12)
I may be barking up the wrong tree but what would be wrong with 3 QRU teams in this comp. Each team made up of 3 premier clubs and then Queensland country players divided amongst the 3 teams.
Say for example:
North: Brothers, GPS, Norths
Central: Uni, Wests, Easts
South: Sunnybank, Souths, Gold Coast
All three clubs in the region work for funding as an individual through sponsorship and then pool money together to form the regional team.
To make sure no club is ripped off, a quota of a minimum 6 players from each club be put in place for the squads to ensure exposure.
Say each jersey contains the 3 premier clubs logos plus all a sub-major sponsor from each club then combining to find one major sponsor for the team to fund.
Thoughts or am I way off track of what can happen????
Say for example:
North: Brothers, GPS, Norths
Central: Uni, Wests, Easts
South: Sunnybank, Souths, Gold Coast
All three clubs in the region work for funding as an individual through sponsorship and then pool money together to form the regional team.
To make sure no club is ripped off, a quota of a minimum 6 players from each club be put in place for the squads to ensure exposure.
Say each jersey contains the 3 premier clubs logos plus all a sub-major sponsor from each club then combining to find one major sponsor for the team to fund.
Thoughts or am I way off track of what can happen????
TheBigDog
Nev Cottrell (35)
@rugbywatch
I like that concept and have it does have its merits. My biggest concern with it though is that if the team needs to be funded through the clubs involved, whos to say they will all contribute equally? For example right off the bat you would know that Uni would be able to contribute the most to the Central team whereas traditionally the other two have struggled to make large profits in recent years.
In a situation like that do you give Uni the right to have majority of players in the squad? Im solely basing this on what is currently happening in Premier rugby at the moment, if the above option was introduced it may mean better sponsorship available to all clubs and more revenue etc.
I like that concept and have it does have its merits. My biggest concern with it though is that if the team needs to be funded through the clubs involved, whos to say they will all contribute equally? For example right off the bat you would know that Uni would be able to contribute the most to the Central team whereas traditionally the other two have struggled to make large profits in recent years.
In a situation like that do you give Uni the right to have majority of players in the squad? Im solely basing this on what is currently happening in Premier rugby at the moment, if the above option was introduced it may mean better sponsorship available to all clubs and more revenue etc.
rugbywatch
Larry Dwyer (12)
Yeah definetly agree with you BigDog. I suppose that's something the clubs would have to work out. But maybe you're right in saying that bigger and more financial sponsors would jump on board knowing that there was potential of a broadcasting deal with FoxSports
TrainerGB
Ward Prentice (10)
And I think that might be another reason why the QRU aren't keen on the concept. Could create so many issues.
Sponsorship wise, I agree, Norths cannot attract the sponsors GPS can at this stage, so what's fair?!?!
Sooooo many potential issues!!!
3 franchises, run separately? Unaligned coaches and committees/boards? Sole focus is the franchise?
Sent from my mind......
Sponsorship wise, I agree, Norths cannot attract the sponsors GPS can at this stage, so what's fair?!?!
Sooooo many potential issues!!!
3 franchises, run separately? Unaligned coaches and committees/boards? Sole focus is the franchise?
Sent from my mind......
thierry dusautoir
Alan Cameron (40)
This just sounds like someone from a richer club and expecting all the power due to the ability to flash the cash. A bit Monty Burns-esque really
I would argue that Uni wouldn't have as much corporate sponsorship as other clubs, they don't really need it. If anything I would imagine clubs like Easts & Wests would be a bit better at getting sponsorship. Two of wests largest sponsors are two very well known companies in Hutchinson's Builders and Sci-Fleet, while Easts have Cromwell Property Group.
The way I would see it is that like any partnership there would be give and take. Uni could provide Gym access and training fields? Wests might rope in their sponsors? While Easts could be the home field? Or something along those lines...no club would be useless. It will take a lot more than cash flow to get these franchises rolling, and I honestly doubt any lone club could justify stumping up the cash on it's own.
The idea of financial clout dictating player ratio's is absurd, Easts won the competition but it's a known fact that they aren't the most stable club financially. Are their more talented players supposed to give up on higher honours because their club is a pauper compared to some? Then when all their players leave for richer clubs we are back at the beginning with the issue of player drain.
Which in the end why they made it regional teams so as to at least give the impression that all clubs are equal.
I would argue that Uni wouldn't have as much corporate sponsorship as other clubs, they don't really need it. If anything I would imagine clubs like Easts & Wests would be a bit better at getting sponsorship. Two of wests largest sponsors are two very well known companies in Hutchinson's Builders and Sci-Fleet, while Easts have Cromwell Property Group.
The way I would see it is that like any partnership there would be give and take. Uni could provide Gym access and training fields? Wests might rope in their sponsors? While Easts could be the home field? Or something along those lines...no club would be useless. It will take a lot more than cash flow to get these franchises rolling, and I honestly doubt any lone club could justify stumping up the cash on it's own.
The idea of financial clout dictating player ratio's is absurd, Easts won the competition but it's a known fact that they aren't the most stable club financially. Are their more talented players supposed to give up on higher honours because their club is a pauper compared to some? Then when all their players leave for richer clubs we are back at the beginning with the issue of player drain.
Which in the end why they made it regional teams so as to at least give the impression that all clubs are equal.
tigerland12
John Thornett (49)
TheBigDog
Nev Cottrell (35)
No one said they wanted financial clout to dictate player ratio but it is one of the downsides to some of these proposed setups that we're talking about.
I fully believe that the best players should be playing in this competition but i've said it from that start that I think this whole idea is going to be dictated heavily on how much money a club has. Never said it was fair but I just have that feeling.
Lets say the North, Central, South idea is proposed to the QRU and clubs. Whats stopping a financially viable team from saying - well we dont really want to piggy back these other teams so we're willing to go into the comp by ourselves. The QRU says 'you cant do that' the club then says well righto we're not getting involved or releasing our players. There would be several clubs currently in the Premier comp with the resources to do that. And you would end up in a position of player drain.
Im really trying to say that I don't see how this is going to work. I don't think clubs are going to be happy sharing their resources as much as we would like to think. In the end its going to come down to where the money comes from whether it be clubs, the ARU or the QRU.
thierry dusautoir
Alan Cameron (40)
Would be the most hated team of all time
It would end up being a preppy monstrosity.....team clubhouse would be Fridays
Gameday would see Crosby Rd turn into some scene similar to the result of Great Gatsby/Melbourne Cup bastard child......every man would be given a blazer and finger of 15 year old Chivas Regal on entry, while women will be given a fascinator and glass of Dom Perrion .
Supporters from Norths will be still be allowed their pluggers and token tinnie however as a compromise and in the spirit of assimilation it will have to be a can of Heineken.......
Just joking......but only about the Norths supporters, the other stuff is inevitable.
thierry dusautoir
Alan Cameron (40)
[quote="TheBigDog, post: 558191, member: 7137Whats stopping a financially viable team from saying - well we dont really want to piggy .[/quote]
There wouldn't have to be 'piggy backing' though it would be like any other business.
If person A, B a& C came together to form a company and needed capital of $150,000 to get off the ground. Each person would be required to put up 1/3 of the cash each. Hence forming company 'ABC'
Any expenditure or profits would belong wholly to 'ABC'. If more money was needed the clubs would agree to input the same amount.
Any equipment, fields or that jazz owned by A, B or C individually would be loaned/rented by 'ABC'.
The only problem would be if any of A, B or C started trying to profit through the newly formed enterprise instead of leaving at as an entity which only goal is to break-even and serve a purpose.
This is the very basic's of forming such a company but I don't doubt it should be the way things go. The only 'piggy backing' that could happen is if one club can not stump up the full some of money but offers to trade off what they owe through some other service i.e rent free use of their facilities. Which wouldn't even be a to big of issue if some clubs are willing to make minor concessions.
People need to realise that this isn't about individual club's getting richer or more prestige, this is about providing all players better pathways.
There wouldn't have to be 'piggy backing' though it would be like any other business.
If person A, B a& C came together to form a company and needed capital of $150,000 to get off the ground. Each person would be required to put up 1/3 of the cash each. Hence forming company 'ABC'
Any expenditure or profits would belong wholly to 'ABC'. If more money was needed the clubs would agree to input the same amount.
Any equipment, fields or that jazz owned by A, B or C individually would be loaned/rented by 'ABC'.
The only problem would be if any of A, B or C started trying to profit through the newly formed enterprise instead of leaving at as an entity which only goal is to break-even and serve a purpose.
This is the very basic's of forming such a company but I don't doubt it should be the way things go. The only 'piggy backing' that could happen is if one club can not stump up the full some of money but offers to trade off what they owe through some other service i.e rent free use of their facilities. Which wouldn't even be a to big of issue if some clubs are willing to make minor concessions.
People need to realise that this isn't about individual club's getting richer or more prestige, this is about providing all players better pathways.
SouthernX
John Thornett (49)
Let's use your precious GPS as a example @bigdog
How long do you imagine your talent pool would stick around your club if they weren't afforded the opportunity to player higher grade footy? I'd think only the most loyal of clubman would stick around because everyone playing premier grade is using it as a stepping stone to hopefully play a higher level of footy.
I've heard of the Reds holding back players from club footy but I've never heard of the reds holding back players from the wallabies. This is exactly what your suggesting could happen that a club would boycott the national comp setup because they were not happy with the format. Snowflake chance in hell they'd have a shot because you pay your insurance to the QRU/ARU & not to GPS... And t would then fall on the player making the decision whether they wanted to play for the Brisbane Central/north team or stand united with the GPS boycott cause.
TheBigDog
Nev Cottrell (35)
SX my point was that it is lose/lose situation if we have that setup IMO.
Of course, if GPS decided to not allow players to play they would then be forced to leave if they wanted higher honours and then on the flip side, if the QRU/ARU said alright you can fund yourselves and become Brisbane North, there would be a player drain to the club. In either of scenarios club rugby would suffer and none of us want that.
Im all for club equality and not trying to bring other clubs down and certainly do not believe GPS should be in a better stead than other clubs. Im just picking holes in these formats and bringing out the possible issues.
Of course, if GPS decided to not allow players to play they would then be forced to leave if they wanted higher honours and then on the flip side, if the QRU/ARU said alright you can fund yourselves and become Brisbane North, there would be a player drain to the club. In either of scenarios club rugby would suffer and none of us want that.
Im all for club equality and not trying to bring other clubs down and certainly do not believe GPS should be in a better stead than other clubs. Im just picking holes in these formats and bringing out the possible issues.
Breakdown
Charlie Fox (21)
Surely a line needs to be drawn in the sand by the QRU & a season draw confirmed immediately so that all clubs can plan for success?
With start dates from March 1st to April 26th been mentioned, this lack of clarity is likely to have many clubs ill-prepared & have a negative impact on the competition.
Is this developing the game? No!
With start dates from March 1st to April 26th been mentioned, this lack of clarity is likely to have many clubs ill-prepared & have a negative impact on the competition.
Is this developing the game? No!
Pauly
Sydney Middleton (9)
They'd even hate themselves ...Would be the most hated team of all time
East Coast Aces
Johnnie Wallace (23)
How many times do I have to keep saying this. Easts has been "financially stable" for a number of years. It was about 5 years ago since they used a loan facility from the QRU and paid that all back atleast 2 years ago. Since then they have built up a substanial sum in reserves. The current board which has been in place largely unchanged for 5 years has done a tremendous job maximising sponsorship and revenue from food and beverage. (As well as charging the hightest player fees.)
This years premiership ultimately came from investment from the club in strength and conditioning and rehab prehab via co-contributions from the club and players. This lead to a halving of injuries and unquantifiable improvement in indiviual performance.
From what i heard there will be a bid process similar to how the A-league clubs were started. I hope Easts put there hands up for a Brisbane licence
FilthRugby
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
I think the idea of this 'new' comp is absolutely ludicrous. I've said it before and I'll say it again, this was only introduced by a New South Welshman (typical) whose pissed off Sydney University has been so dominant in the Shute Shield.
As for the GPS and Brothers situation you’d get a better reaction by letting a pig loose in a synagogue, we want nothing to do with those latte’ sippers from Ashgrove.
As for the GPS and Brothers situation you’d get a better reaction by letting a pig loose in a synagogue, we want nothing to do with those latte’ sippers from Ashgrove.
- Status