How many subbies clubs are saying they should receive ARU funding ILTW?
The disdain is that the SS Clubs create a situation where they themselves inflate the going rate for players (by competing) and then ask for the ARU to assist in funding their programs.
Super franchises bring in revenue for the game. Does a 2nd Sydney team increase TV markets (which increases value), help appeal to new players (specifically juniors). Also you have to consider would a second Sydney team dilute the Waratahs support? Considering the state has been bailed out by the ARU twice and barely broke a profit after winning the title, surely this would just create 2 franchises needing the ARU to prop them up.
I'm not saying dismembering the Shute Shield is good for the game. I'm asking, if all the supporters want to say how integral it is, provide some reasoning behind this, and how if it was dismembered, it could not be replicated, and the disadvantage would be more than the time lag where new teams need to get up to speed with the level.
Right now part of the benefits that the Shute Shield and their teams provide is due to the fact they are protected as Shute Shield Clubs. Colleagues couldn't just instantly replace Easts. But a huge factor is the fact that all of the talent has gravitated to Easts by virtue of their place in the Shute Shield. Colleagues have no incentive to become a Shute Shield level enterprise because there is no mechanism for them to progress.
Now if the SS was disbanded the strongest clubs would form the Kentwell Cup and by default that would be the premier grade. If there were non SS Clubs there would be a lag while they get up to speed. What I want to be told is why if this was to occur, the game world be worse off, other than the lag of a couple of years while clubs get up to speed.
Basically what are (and can) the clubs doing better going forward, not retell us about the past and say that's why it's so important.
I'm not saying that's the way forward, I'm just saying justify it more than what amounts closely to "all the best players pass through here because the status quo provides no alternative for them to". The system funnels players to the SS clubs as it is.
I'll be the first to admit that players like Jordy Reid and Caydern Neville would not be playing Super Rugby if not for the Shute Shield but how many clubs beyond Uni and Manly are preparing numbers players for that step up?
We can talk about junior development but that would still occur. Almost every sub-union in Australia has junior representative teams without a premier grade team in that state's competition. The Gold Coast had one before the Gold Coast Breakers and continues to have one now that team has become part of Bond University. Despite the lack of alliance with the Hospitals Cup team, players like Jarred Butler still have progressed through the system.
Don't tell me what happens, the same as it happens every. Tell me what's unique and cannot be replaced, or will drop in quality permanently without the current system.
Not true, all super rugby franchises are running at a loss, not to mention the rebels and force who are furiously bleeding money and the ARU has propped them up, in excess of 4 million dollars. So your wrong there
If you want to know whats unique about competitions like the SS?
1. Its tribal, its geographic, there is an established supporter base. It matters to people, there's a connection within the communities a club surrounds, it has an atmosphere and history that surrounds it. Even for the players, it means something to them, that's where they grow up, that's what they aspired to, that's what they knew and that's what they love.
There is nothing like that in the NRC and there never will be, give me figures on supporters attending games, give me viewing figures of a type of "revolutionary rugby" which the ARU has "pissed away" its money on. Really revolutionary, fox sports could barely attract 10,00 viewers NATIONALLY. There are no viewing figures for the 57 year history of the Shute Shield, however, If you compare comparatively the money spent on the NRC compared to the shute shield, per capiter, the Shute Shield is producing superior viewing results at a tiny percentage of the cost. Cry me a river ARU its your own fault your broke.
2. Ask players where they'd rather be, SS/Premier rugby or the NRC. I have had direct contact with players and staff in certain NRC franchises (who asked not be made public as they're trying to do whats best for the game) The players do not care, they have no reason to be there, they don't feel like they're playing for anything. They're performances aren't recognised, the same guys that are picked ahead of them in club competitions are the same guys who get picked from the NRC into super rugby. They feel extremely strongly that if that's the case, they would want to play Shute Shield or have a crack overseas and try to make a living out of what limited time in rugby players have. In some cases ie Matt Sandell has not even played a game for the Sydney Stars (source wikipedia profile) and he's on the waratahs bench! So to say the NRC is a development stage is a load of crap.
There are also serious essentials lacking for sides to provide players. I quote "we go week to week, sometimes not being able to afford ice to treat inury, or even lollies for players to get a sugar rush then training" Its absurd to even suggest that this is a viable replacement to the system that i feel is better suited to continued development of Australian Rugby players.
Also, your quote that "Super Rugby brings in revenue to the game" is literally and incomprehensibly untrue. Quote from an article in 'The Roar'
Today we see five Super Rugby teams, with only two just making the top half of the competition. Australia is ranked sixth in the world and the ARU has announced a $6.3 million deficit.
The ARU is technically broke, as are four out of five of the Super franchises. Funding for Club Rugby has been reduced from $100k in 2009, to $28k in 2011 and to nil in 2015.
We do however have a third tier.
Rugby participants, the ARU proudly announced, are up by 16 per cent. This however is misleading as the numbers are bolstered by carnival participants (whatever this means) and strong growth in women’s rugby.
The number of serious participants is actually close to 248,000. It is from this group our Super and national teams come – and this is the real problem.
Australian rugby does not have enough boys playing rugby. This is not a new problem, but has got worse and is now critical. Club rugby participants rose by 1 per cent and despite the clubs best efforts this is not enough.
The ARU approach through the late 90s and 2000s has been to pick the low hanging fruit via talent identification programs. This in fact exacerbates the problem as many late-developing, but talented players are turned off and change codes or give sport away if they are not selected in a program.
There is no effective net to catch the late developers.
