Should the Australian Rugby Championship come back.

[Lee Grant]

stoff - And assets are not just cash - though every CEO would like to have it that way.


I haven't had a lot to say in this thread as I have said so much in the past deploring the lack of an ARC.

There is some good stuff in the thread but I think we should read carefully what Brucie is saying.

I, for one, would not be averse to seeing Sydney Uni put forward a team in a new ARC, nor any other Oz club that has the resources, including organisational resources, that they have - though there probably isn't another one.

This is not the opinion I would have had a few years ago, but that is not here nor there; we are allowed to change our opinions.

As for synthetics not being a good thing. I have to disagree on that matter. I went to every Rays game in Gosford and Sydney. Manly players and Rats players couldn't play in the same team with North Sydney guys? - poppycock, and they won the comp.

I also watched every ARC game that could be downloaded and all they had as commentary was the officials chat you get on Sports Ears. I doubt if anybody watched more ARC games than I did in one way or another. I loved the ARC comp, just loved it, but nevertheless I would like Sydney Uni to be a team in any new comp.

People may think it is not egalitarian enough to have an elite club stand alone in a national comp but I look at it a different way (now). If it is feasible for Oz rugby to reprise the ARC in some form and it did not include Sydney Uni, then it would forgo the benefits that would accrue to the competition from a team that has the natural resources it has, and has had for a long time.

.

 

[RugbyFuture]

in the long term though, if the ARC was to become popular, or popular enough, with a wider audience, who would support USyd? sure they have a large community behind them for the shute shield, but they would have a relatively small one in a national comp the size of the NRL or bigger.

 

[Bowside]

Maybe they could reach a compromise whereby the sydney habour province team is run out of the Uni and has 'University of Sydney' somewhere on the jersey or adopts Uni's colours, but still encompasses players from other clubs in the province. That way Uni Sydney could stay in the shute shield, whilst also having a strong affiliation with an APC team.

If there was a provincial comp would the shute sheild then revert back to being an amateur competition?

 

[TOCC]

TOCC, I can now see where you were coming from with your earlier comment:

"Not including a Uni team in a new competition is a no-brainer, its highly unlikely that either UQ or Sydney Uni are about to financially back a professional team anyway."

The assumption that you and a lot of other people make is that the third tier would necessarily be made up of professional teams with "multi $million budgets". However, this doesn't have to be the case as shown by the situation when the previous ARC was introduced.

At that time - and now - Sydney Uni was not paying its players. Some were on very modest scholarships, a very small fraction of what they were offered to play for the ARC franchises. As I pointed out above, 33 Sydney Uni players ended up participating in the ARC competition. I believe that almost without exception they would have preferred to play for their club in that competition even if they weren't paid.

At the first grade level the Sydney Premiership competition is semi-professional in the sense that most players get paid something. Uni is an exception to that, yet they train and play for 11 months of the year and willingly participate in physical conditioning programs that are at least equivalent to those at the Super franchises. To those who refuse to believe that players would be prepared to do that without being paid I would ask why do rowers train for 25 hours a week without any remuneration?

There is nothing wrong with players being paid, but the primary purpose of a third tier competition should be the development of players who progress to higher levels. The most cost effective way of implementing this would surely be to have a situation where players are not faced with the expense and disruption of having to relocate for a relatively short competition.

A case like that might be sustainable for the first couple of years of the competition, but inevitably, with a increase in popularity the other clubs will start to earn more money, which will mean they will be paying there players more, not only that the facilities would gradually improve of the other clubs as well. Can Sydney University really continue to compete if players are been offered $30'000 at another club?

At which point, the University itself would have to question its interests in funding a professional rugby side, its my opinion that the university wouldnt want to be associated with a professional structure.. I could be wrong, but at the risk of having there image tainted through the additional media spotlight i dont think they would want this.

yes. otherwise theres no point to the domestic comp. its just the QPR and Shute Shield combined. in fact, you can just have them play in those two pools and have the winners of the grand finals play eachother....oh wait....


Read the actual picture by its key and the comment above it, the townsville, newcastle etc etc teams dont exist until sustainability is achieved.

adelaide is included so that rugby can get a small foothold somewhere other than where everything is and also gives a secondary feeder for the brumbies, rebels and the force.

this provides a means to keep those teams from just ending up the state teams.

The overflow was only 5 mil. they proposed they could rid this debt of 2-3 mil. that leaves 2 sydney houses as debt. thats almost the same debt my parents have.

Rugbyfuture, you need to work out what is is that you really want to achieve out of a ARC competition, now you need to remember that with a expanded Super15 competition and overlapping tri-nations, there wont be the lull in rugby union that there is currently..

The need for a third tier of rugby union is based on the necessity of another level of rugby union closer to the quality of the Super15 then the club system is currently. In theory this will build depth in Australian rugby and overall improve the strength of the Super15 sides and the Wallabies.

So does basing a team in Adelaide, Perth, Townsville and Melbourne really lend to that cause considering these players already play in the club systems of Brisbane and Sydney. no, they dont contribute anything.

Brisbane, Sydney and Canberra are the rugby heartlands of Australia, this is where the most players reside and this is where the majority of the corporate support is based. Hence it makes complete economic and financial sense to base the foundation of a new competition on these areas, start a new competition with a number of teams from these marketplaces.

When financial stability is achieved in 2-3 years through increased broadscast agreements and sponsorship support then look at establishing teams in Melbourne and Perth.. After a further 3-4 years of consolidating the competition, then look at expanding into the non heartland regions of Townsville and Adelaide.

 

[stoff]

I find it interesting how the debate in this thread seems to be coming back around to the model that the AFL or NRL have used to grow their competitions. Rugby doesn't have the latent support around the country that soccer has had, so unless there is some serious backing by a broadcaster or some other source of big corporate funds a truly national comp would flounder in the early years.

I think the reality is the only way something bigger can be built is with tv coming on board to help raise exposure and get more cash into the game. The problem is that Fox have their money in league and Super 15, and the free to airs can't put the cash in that Fox can. The other difference in the other non spherical football codes is that they are the top level of their sports. The national comp product for Rugby is non-premium compared to what the other codes can offer.

The only other pathway I can see to a national comp of some sort is reserve grade sides from the 5 Australian Super 15 Franchises playing a comp whilst the Super 15 is running. This is harder for Melbourne and the Force to maintain a large enough list (how many people would relocate for an academy contract), but maybe a model similar to that used by the Melbourne Storm with their alliances with Brisbane league clubs could provide the players to make it happen.

 

[mark_s]

Logistically this would be hard and may discourage fans somewhat, but one possible compromise would be to have say 4 synthetic teams plus the most recent winners of the Shute shield and Brisvegas comp. The stand alone clubs would have their choice of venue for home games.

Everyone plays each other once and top two teams play off in a final. Thats a six week comp that could fit in nicely after a reduced shute shield comp.

Imagine the kudos if Uni won that each year as well!

 

[RugbyFuture]

Rugbyfuture, you need to work out what is is that you really want to achieve out of a ARC competition, now you need to remember that with a expanded Super15 competition and overlapping tri-nations, there wont be the lull in rugby union that there is currently..

The need for a third tier of rugby union is based on the necessity of another level of rugby union closer to the quality of the Super15 then the club system is currently. In theory this will build depth in Australian rugby and overall improve the strength of the Super15 sides and the Wallabies.

So does basing a team in Adelaide, Perth, Townsville and Melbourne really lend to that cause considering these players already play in the club systems of Brisbane and Sydney. no, they dont contribute anything.

Brisbane, Sydney and Canberra are the rugby heartlands of Australia, this is where the most players reside and this is where the majority of the corporate support is based. Hence it makes complete economic and financial sense to base the foundation of a new competition on these areas, start a new competition with a number of teams from these marketplaces.

When financial stability is achieved in 2-3 years through increased broadscast agreements and sponsorship support then look at establishing teams in Melbourne and Perth.. After a further 3-4 years of consolidating the competition, then look at expanding into the non heartland regions of Townsville and Adelaide.

im saying again. the townsville part is there as part of a ten year expansion plan. this infact goes beyond what you propose in terms of time, however.

do you think that the ARU would get away with not including atleast a team from perth and melbourne? keeping in mind the ARU is made up of all the state unions, not just the two founding ones. do you really think that the lesser clubs would stand for only the more powerful clubs getting into a competition? do you really think that including uni, as great an asset it is to australian rugby, and should be congratulated on their histoyr, would fit into another reason the ARC would exist, to expand the demographic base of rugby in australia? depth would come with a growth in prominance of rugby. that is the idea in all actuality.

in relation to the statement:

So does basing a team in Adelaide, Perth, Townsville and Melbourne really lend to that cause considering these players already play in the club systems of Brisbane and Sydney. no, they dont contribute anything.

well the idea is to move these players out of this system and into the third tier. creating or including just sydney and brisbane based clubs defeats most of the purposes of a third tier comp, because it doesnt move rugby anywhere new, it simply shifts the system to the side.

 

[H...]

I'd say shorten the comps in NSW / QLD / VIC and ACT and have them first past the post.

Then take the top X number (say 4 from sydney, 4 from brisbane and 2 each from Victoria and ACT) of teams from each comp and have them play the National Championship. The teams that miss out can play for the fork or spoon or whatever, but only against the other teams from their state

If it takes off, Perth and whomever else will get involved. If it doesnt, they haven't missed out on anything.

 

[TOCC]

do you think that the ARU would get away with not including atleast a team from perth and melbourne? keeping in mind the ARU is made up of all the state unions, not just the two founding ones. do you really think that the lesser clubs would stand for only the more powerful clubs getting into a competition? do you really think that including uni, as great an asset it is to australian rugby, and should be congratulated on their histoyr, would fit into another reason the ARC would exist, to expand the demographic base of rugby in australia? depth would come with a growth in prominance of rugby. that is the idea in all actuality.

yes the ARU can get away with it, the way that the ARU is structured, QLD and NSW can get something approved without the support of the other states.. This is well known.

I never said Uni should be included in a ARC, in fact i said it was highly unlikely that either of the Uni teams would gain the backing of there respective University to support a professional rugby team.

well the idea is to move these players out of this system and into the third tier. creating or including just sydney and brisbane based clubs defeats most of the purposes of a third tier comp, because it doesnt move rugby anywhere new, it simply shifts the system to the side.

lmao, no it doesn't, think about it, say for example you cut parramatta, gordon, west harbour, northern suburbs and penrith out of the Shute shield and include UQ University, Sunnybank and Canberra Vikings, the overall standard of that competition just improved.

Not to mention the fact that the top players of those relegated teams are likely to gravitate towards the 'premier' clubs, which further strengthen's the competition.

 

[RugbyFuture]

and yet you make the base of australian rugby smaller by doing this....

longterm

is what you're actually looking for

 

[Moses]

I still reckon the Tahs should do a deal with the NZRU on their own to enter the ITM cup, Kiwi's would be more inclined to expand if they O/S travel only involved the short haul flight to Sydney, and presumably exposure to the Sydney audience would help their bottom lines.

 

[wolverine]

The big issue overall in a period when Aus rugby's core operating income is in continuing decline and the NSW RU and QRU are now in various forms of operating losses, is this: where would $Xm in investment in the game be best spent and how?

The available $m for loss-making new national projects aren't that big any more.

Agreed. Your post #45 on NRL: Considering a Raid on 'Vulnerable Rugby'? also identified that a revived ARC or national competition would struggle to obtain the necessary funding from the four key sources: RU subsidies, TV/media, business sponsorship, and gate takings. In that thread, Lance Free quoted the NZRU's reasons for rejecting Australian involvement in their NPC.

IMO for reasons such as those listed above, and elsewhere, neither reviving the ARC, or expanding club competitions to a national basis, are financially achievable. Furthermore, I don't think they are the right strategic goals for Rugby. We already have a national competition - it is called Super Rugby. Besides the Wallabies, that is Rugby's major product. We'll have our own conference next year with home-and-away matches.

Why would existing or new supporters be attracted to watch a 2nd tier national competition that is fundamentally weaker than Super 14, with new teams with little brand identity? A sizable may watch the Brumbies, but a fraction may be motivated to watch a Canberra Vikings team without Wallabies being present (they'll be busy on 3/4N duty). Super Rugby may (and sometimes struggle to) attract sufficient interest. An ARC certainly didn't attract significant interest, incurred large travel costs, lost money, eroded ARU cash reserves. Is such a competition going to make enough money, or generate enough interest, to keep elite or indeed second tier players from the increasing financial lure of European or Japanese pro teams in the future? No.

An old national club model might not necessarily work today. Trans-national competitions (like Super Rugby) may be the best solution for pro Rugby in this increasingly globalised society. In European Rugby, the Heineken Cup has become the most prized competition, and may evolve into its own League. In soccer, the Champions League may one day become a European Super League.

Perhaps an Anglo-Welsh Cup style secondary competition involving Australian teams (e.g. Super franchises minus Wallabies) and Japanese Top League teams might create a significantly different product that doesn't compete with Super 15 or club Rugby. Japan test coach John Kirwan recently argued that Japanese franchises should not join Super Rugby, but instead that the Top League company teams should form an HEC style tournament: Japanese Rugby blog in English. The story was in SCRUM DOWN: Rugby's Super dilemma

Having a Japanese team in the SANZAR competition would, (Kirwan) believes, undermine the domestic competition.

"We don't want to [play in Super rugby] because we have 20 of the biggest sponsors in the world who spend between 5 million dollars to 6 million dollars on rugby teams," he said.

<snipped>

Kirwan's goal has always been to make Japan a top 10 nation. But to do this, the Brave Blossoms need to regularly face the world's best.

<snipped>

One solution would be for a competition similar to the Heineken Cup to be established for the Pacific Rim.

The top provincial teams from Australia and New Zealand would be joined by sides from the Pacific islands, Japan and possibly North and South America, playing in a competition that runs alongside the various domestic competitions.

Now, Super Rugby is our primary franchise comp. NZ already has NPC as a secondary competition, and South Africa has the Currie Cup. However, Australia and Japan could run a secondary competition between September and November. 2 conferences, each would contain 7 Japanese Top League teams, 3 Aus franchises. Like the new Anglo Welsh (LV=) Cup format, a team in one conference would play teams in the other conference. So that could yield 10 regular round games, plus quarters, semis and a final. The challenge is whether Japanese company teams, or other Japanese companies, would be willing to sponsor the competition to gain exposure in Australia, or whether broadcasters could increase subscriptions when Rugby is small fry in Japan.

That could give our state teams like the Tahs 13 home games total in a season, even though Wallabies would only be available for the 8 Super games. While the viewer base and match day attendances for a Japan/Aus comp (sans Wallabies) would be smaller, there'd still be a chance of decent support.

 

[Bowside]

But it would be a farce as even the top japanese teams would struggle against the weaker Australian teams. I dare say the standard of such a comp would be closer to club rugby than super 15.

I think in the short term super 15 squads should be expanded so that each francise is able to field 2 full teams. Whenever an australian team travels domestically they take 2 full teams, an A team to play the super 15 fixture, and a B team to play the curtain raiser. On the rounds when the the super francise is playing against an overseas oponent, the players not picked in the match day 22 could play club rugby, or alternativly they could play friendlys agaisnt touring sides, eg japanese/argentinian clubs or pacific rep sides.

That means that over a season (factoring in injurys) approx 250 guys are playing at a super rugby or close to super rugby standard. It also offers a clearer passage to rep footy. Over time you could even introduce a barbarians team to play agaisnt the second tier teams when the super 15 team is playing an overseas oponent.

 

[RugbyFuture]

we need it for year long publicity, general growth of the game and australian exposure. its called an investment.

japs are never joining in. super rugby is going to change into three domestic comps anyway

done.

 

[TOCC]

we need it for year long publicity, general growth of the game and australian exposure. its called an investment.

japs are never joining in. super rugby is going to change into three domestic comps anyway

done.

haha, whatever

A investment is something which delivers you a return on your initial output, what you are suggesting Rugbyfuture is that the ARU take out a loan on a house with interest repayments that they cant afford.. Is that sensible investing?

Additionally, your prognosis that the 'japs are never joining in' is based on absolutely nothing, if you are going to offer a perspective then at least back it up with a bit of reasoning..

 

[RugbyFuture]

it is when the house will give you a return, in both liveability and long term fiscal gain, because over time it gains value, along with becoming a home and therefore a priceless resource.

the japanese will never join in any competition simply because their competitions price is so much higher than ours. it runs on a completely different system and philosophy, different fan culture, extremeley different player contracts. simply, their rugby culture is that different at this level that it wouldn't work, couple this with what they'd have to do to get money to service that travel, considering the rights which would come with japan v australian clubs, wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[TOCC]

it is when the house will give you a return, in both liveability and long term fiscal gain, because over time it gains value, along with becoming a home and therefore a priceless resource.

no, the point is that you are bankrupt due to the interest repayment..

the japanese will never join in any competition simply because their competitions price is so much higher than ours. it runs on a completely different system and philosophy, different fan culture, extremeley different player contracts. simply, their rugby culture is that different at this level that it wouldn't work, couple this with what they'd have to do to get money to service that travel, considering the rights which would come with japan v australian clubs, wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.

I agree there a lot of complications, i even said so earlier, however to dismiss it and say it "wouldn't make any sense whatsoever" is rather naive, Japan is hosting the RWC in 2019, the JFRU have already said they are going to build to being as competitive as possible at this tournament. It has already been acknowledged previously, for the Japanese to become more competitive they need to be regularly playing at a higher level.

I'm not saying it should happen or that it will happen, but it is definitely a option, it largely depends on the path which the JFRU wants to pursue, they are establishing a executive committee later this year to formulate a strategic plan for the 2019 RWC, one of there priorities will be addressing the issue of raising the competitiveness of the national team.

 

[wolverine]

But it would be a farce as even the top japanese teams would struggle against the weaker Australian teams. I dare say the standard of such a comp would be closer to club rugby than super 15.

The standard of Top League may well be closer to Shute Shield than Super Rugby, but there are 30 Australians over there (including internationals like McMeniman, Heenan, Wing, Drahm), plenty of NZers (including former All Blacks like Thorne, Brown, Hill), in addition to PI internationals, Americans like Clever etc. The standard of an ARC style national comp, club Rugby, or reserve team fixtures would be no higher than an Aus-Japan competition anyway.

I think in the short term super 15 squads should be expanded so that each francise is able to field 2 full teams. Whenever an australian team travels domestically they take 2 full teams, an A team to play the super 15 fixture, and a B team to play the curtain raiser.

That already happens with games between teams like the Junior Waratahs and the Brumby Runners. They attract miniscule attendances of a couple of thousand, don't attract interest from broadcasters, take players out of club Rugby, and probably make a loss.

TOCC's comments are fair. It would be a challenge to institute such a competition, the JRFU and Top League teams can be insular, and their grassroots development structures require dramatic improvement. Aus club Rugby and Top League would need to be shifted earlier and later respectively. Nevertheless, Japanese Rugby may desire more international exposure to improve standards before RWC 2019. The Top League teams already play up to 10 pre-season games as it is, Melbourne Rebels are staging a 3 match tour of Japan in November during the test window (the Top League has a break then), and the Force hosted Japanese teams Toshiba & Yamaha in 2006.

 

[TOCC]

Reds have hosted one of the Japanese teams in the past as well, the ARU has established a working culture with the JFRU by hosting a Bledsloe in Japan.. The links are already there, it's just a matter whether such a concept is feasible..

 

[TOCC]

quote from Brian Melrose, former coach of Eastwood and has been involved in the Sydney Rugby Comp for going on 30yrs and was coach of the Western Rams in the ARC

“I can understand that the ARC was financially a strain and clubs were upset about it but as a competition it was fantastic to be involved with and offered great opportunities. I feel a compromise could be a comp that gave a pathway that allowed for players to compete against each other at a higher, more Pro level. The comp could have done without a team from Perth and Melbourne as they were no doubt expensive. Teams could be more aligned with clubs and be based in Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra. You could maybe scale down the training facilities and the other costs a little and if it had a few years, I believe it could be a more financially viable model as it became a part of the rugby fabric.”

http://www.clubrugby.com.au/the-coo...melrose-looks-back-on-his-time-in-club-r.html

seems to support exactly what ive been saying this whole time