Shute Shield 2025

[Pfitzy]

Perhaps Subbies could look at opening up it's payment scheme again to attract more players to the game from overseas etc to fill clubs and support the game in Australia.

Prevailing opinion is that it would be the quickest way to kill clubs in Subbies.

I think a better way to support the game in Australia - or at least in Sydney - would involve a review of how our Junior, Senior, and Schools Unions work more harmoniously.

 

[teamsport]

Some of your points are valid, and some don't ring true in the least.

My experience in speaking with clubs across the Subbies landscape is that Premier Clubs only get in contact when there is something they need. And sure, your own club should be your top priority, but this is about the game more broadly.

I acknowledge that Premier Clubs can't be everywhere in Sydney, and that geographically we're always going to lean to the east. So Subbies clubs are generally not waiting around for the SRU to deliver us to nirvana. There are varying levels of wariness through to hostility toward SRU clubs in this.

The concept of "pushing players" from one club to another wouldn't work if you introduced it right this minute. It would take time and consideration, some planning, and understanding of who benefits (spoiler alert: everyone). If, for example, I can offer Eastwood a landing pad for players who aren't going to be on the 4th Grade bench that week, even if they want to wear Woodies shorts and socks, why wouldn't they take it? This is how things used to be, after all.

I recently spoke with someone in a Premier Club, to pick their brain on a particular topic. They specifically mentioned working better with local clubs, schools etc, because the top level are slowly starting to realise we all share the same problem.

And the alignment piece has been discussed in nearly every single discussion I've had this year. We can't keep ring-fencing things, and slinging mud at each other, because that way lies damnation.

My experience from Shute Shield clubs is Subbies clubs only ring when they need assistance and usually to beg for supposed excess players. No one has excess players other than perhaps one or two blokes who turn up and it is unsafe to play them.

Which statements don't ring true?

Do the Renegades have a budget for junior development or do they just expect Senior players to turn up (if they don't why not?) Eastwood, Gordon, Sydney Uni and a number of clubs have junior development staff in schools off there own back.

No doubt players over time would move towards a different club if they still wanted to play rugby, but I can categorically tell you do not know how Shute Shield clubs fund themselves. TIP it is through community and number of teams and a history of rugby in these areas. Higher amount of participation funds the clubs in 80% of these clubs (Sydney Uni & Eastwood perhaps the only ones who don't). This is through sponsorship and game day revenue/crowds. Try watching a game at TG Milner when it is only 2 grades and you would be lucky to see anyone at the ground.

In relation to Eastwood you raise an interesting point you want to be a landing pad to a club that you think has additional players when it forfeited games in 4th grade last season. Find that hard to justify.

No doubt players perhaps could be dual registered across SRU & Subbies if they play in the lowest grade of representation at the club that day.

Overseas players account for around 20 grade players in each club in the competition if these are not funded through it's current model (i.e shrink to 3 grades) the next place the Grade clubs will look is lower level players i.e people currently playing Subbies. That is not healthy for anyone.

Rugby is a world game use it's strengths and let the wealth of the game drag in more players to create greater participation which we all ask for.

 

[Pfitzy]

Which statements don't ring true?

The following for various reasons:

Having the Shute Shield clubs support rugby in the district by providing active rugby playing members keeps rugby in a healthier position not to the detriment which is what you are insinuating.

Not sure I insinuated anything of the sort. I am merely stating the need for better alignment, and providing suggestions.

Premier Clubs ("Shute Shield" is First Grade) do support rugby in the district, but do they make rugby healthier?

Take into account the loss of ~30 clubs across Sydney in the last 20 years or so, and the loss of lower teams at existing Premier clubs.
Juxtapose that with the general fortunes of rugby in Australia over the last 2 decades.

I'd suggest the presence or absence of a Premier club has had little to no effect one way or the other. The fortunes of Premier clubs rise and fall based a lot on their own actions, and the results on the wider rugby community are fairly benign.

In saying this, I'm not laying the blame for everything bad at the feet of SRU; there are internal failures that needed addressing from an administrative and cultural pov at clubs who failed, and some who persist today.

There are a lot of players from the western suburbs who go to Premier Clubs out of area, for example, and could save hours a week (and petrol $$$) staying at a more local Premier club. Yet they don't. Sometimes this is within the club's control, and sometimes it isn't.

Your solution would force the problem up the grades and within 2 - 3 years the Shute Shield clubs would potentially struggle to field a third grade. That is healthy for no one.

Supposition. If that were true, all SRU clubs would struggle to field a 4th Grade and Colts 3 right now.

As I said: any form of realignment wouldn't be a blanket change overnight. It would need time to work through how it looks.

In relation to subbies having players drop from 4th grade or 3rd grade to subbies is just unrealistic the standard of the Subbies comp is appalling other than the top 3 or 4 clubs. The side that won 1st division subbies contained a number of players who made one finals appearance in about 4 seasons of 4th grade at Souths.

I think you need to check your facts. Several of the Blue Mountains players had played for a Shute Shield team and during a period of relative success for that club. Many of their opposition in Waverley were foreign players that you've lauded as part of the solution. Perhaps some of their best days were behind them, but it was still quality play.

No, the standard isn't Shute Shield across the board, but many of those Kentwell sides would be competitive against 3rd Grade of several Premier Clubs.

Lower grades increase revenue and provide funding for the top grade to compete and attract players.

I think you're overstating the financial value of this - the registration fees paid by players would mostly be consumed by the cost to field a side (insurance, registration, levies, physio, coaching, playing kit etc).

I think it would be more accurate to say that the sponsorship at a larger club is the main financial driver, with player fees playing a smaller part.

Big clubs and environments that train appropriately for the standard the player wants is what makes these players play at grade clubs. As well as the ability to be in a big club with a lot of connections. The game would lose players if players were pushed towards the Renegades from Eastwood.

I agree with what you've said in this statement in the main; definitely the opportunities at a larger club are superior to my little Div 4 club. Which is why I'm trying to grow it into a Div 3 club, and then Div 2 and so on; so we can be a big club that provides opportunities.

The bit in bold I would counter with: how many players do we lose because another option isn't presented to them? Big clubs who fill 3 Colts teams before Xmas know that attrition is coming, so they have to worry about keeping their ~90 players happy with game time until injuries hit.

What about the kids who didn't make the cut? Are we just throwing away Players 91-120 or are they going somewhere else? If they can't make Colts 3 at one Premier club, are they going to try another Premier Club? Could they go to Subbies?

 

[Pfitzy]

Try watching a game at TG Milner when it is only 2 grades and you would be lucky to see anyone at the ground.

Try watching a game at TG at all...

 

[Pfitzy]

Do the Renegades have a budget for junior development

Nup - starting juniors from scratch is a very resource-intensive process, as we found out a decade ago. It requires more money and personnel than we have in an environment saturated by league and soccer. Similarly, there are junior clubs in the area who don't have seniors, so that is where the leg work starts and the connections need to be built.

Eastwood, Gordon, Sydney Uni and a number of clubs have junior development staff in schools off there own back.

They do. And primarily for those clubs - which I get because they're paying for it. As long as their mission statement is to grow the game of rugby in the same way as the NSW Rugby DO pool, then we should all benefit and grow accordingly.

And yet, as you pointed out:

In relation to Eastwood you raise an interesting point you want to be a landing pad to a club that you think has additional players when it forfeited games in 4th grade last season. Find that hard to justify.

That is an interesting point, on two fronts:

1) You are thinking (again) in today's terms, instead of a potential path forward; and
2) You've claimed that rugby is healthier with Premier Clubs around, then provide an example where it isn't.

Eastwood, and the other clubs not meeting their numbers or getting the results they want, will no doubt have a plan to move forward on how they address their woes. It is cyclical in nature if the right people are behind the wheel (Eastwood were back-to-back Shute Shield champions only a decade ago, after all).

Wouldn't it be great if there was a support network of clubs in alignment with them to be part of a solution?

It isn't a zero sum game, after all - the talent is there to help everyone I think. Rugby just needs to get out of its own way, sometimes.

 

[wamberal99]

Eastwood will be stronger when they get settled in their new home.

 

[teamsport]

The following for various reasons:



Not sure I insinuated anything of the sort. I am merely stating the need for better alignment, and providing suggestions.

Premier Clubs ("Shute Shield" is First Grade) do support rugby in the district, but do they make rugby healthier?

Take into account the loss of ~30 clubs across Sydney in the last 20 years or so, and the loss of lower teams at existing Premier clubs.
Juxtapose that with the general fortunes of rugby in Australia over the last 2 decades.

I'd suggest the presence or absence of a Premier club has had little to no effect one way or the other. The fortunes of Premier clubs rise and fall based a lot on their own actions, and the results on the wider rugby community are fairly benign.

In saying this, I'm not laying the blame for everything bad at the feet of SRU; there are internal failures that needed addressing from an administrative and cultural pov at clubs who failed, and some who persist today.

There are a lot of players from the western suburbs who go to Premier Clubs out of area, for example, and could save hours a week (and petrol $$$) staying at a more local Premier club. Yet they don't. Sometimes this is within the club's control, and sometimes it isn't.




Supposition. If that were true, all SRU clubs would struggle to field a 4th Grade and Colts 3 right now.

As I said: any form of realignment wouldn't be a blanket change overnight. It would need time to work through how it looks.




I think you need to check your facts. Several of the Blue Mountains players had played for a Shute Shield team and during a period of relative success for that club. Many of their opposition in Waverley were foreign players that you've lauded as part of the solution. Perhaps some of their best days were behind them, but it was still quality play.

No, the standard isn't Shute Shield across the board, but many of those Kentwell sides would be competitive against 3rd Grade of several Premier Clubs.




I think you're overstating the financial value of this - the registration fees paid by players would mostly be consumed by the cost to field a side (insurance, registration, levies, physio, coaching, playing kit etc).

I think it would be more accurate to say that the sponsorship at a larger club is the main financial driver, with player fees playing a smaller part.




I agree with what you've said in this statement in the main; definitely the opportunities at a larger club are superior to my little Div 4 club. Which is why I'm trying to grow it into a Div 3 club, and then Div 2 and so on; so we can be a big club that provides opportunities.

The bit in bold I would counter with: how many players do we lose because another option isn't presented to them? Big clubs who fill 3 Colts teams before Xmas know that attrition is coming, so they have to worry about keeping their ~90 players happy with game time until injuries hit.

What about the kids who didn't make the cut? Are we just throwing away Players 91-120 or are they going somewhere else? If they can't make Colts 3 at one Premier club, are they going to try another Premier Club? Could they go to Subbies?

'I think you need to check your facts. Several of the Blue Mountains players had played for a Shute Shield team and during a period of relative success for that club. Many of their opposition in Waverley were foreign players that you've lauded as part of the solution. Perhaps some of their best days were behind them, but it was still quality play.

No, the standard isn't Shute Shield across the board, but many of those Kentwell sides would be competitive against 3rd Grade of several Premier Clubs.'

Checked facts and Jordan McGregor and Luke Smart are on the other side of there 30's and haven't played first grade football for about 8 years and barely went through the lower grades. Waldo Wessels is the same albeit a bit younger. They played 4th grade and barely looked line winning for about five seasons. They made the finals series once maybe twice.

Eastern Suburbs would beat that side by 80 in 3rd grade. They wouldn't be able to keep up the conditioning levels are too high for blokes who haven't trained properly for close to a decade.

In relation to your point about making rugby healthier I would argue transferring players to districts where rugby can't attract players anyway is potentially not healthy at all. Putting a Shute Shield club in Penrith and saying we want all players to go there didn't work as it didn't have the adequate funding something that you seem to think relies upon telling players to go to a club with short histories who can't sustain themselves at the moment. Participation grows support and allows access to funding something you are suggesting should be artificially created in Subbies. There is nothing stopping Subbies clubs recruiting like Shute Shield clubs.

If 8 of the clubs were told to field a 5th grade they could probably do it as mentioned. Eastwood will get it back under control they just went through a period under Batger where the only players they recruited were overseas players and now they are trying to bring a core of local players through. This is not me minimising the affect of overseas players which are very valuable to the comp but you still need to retain a local core. As mentioned there would be 20 - 30 players in the 12 clubs minimum that are overseas players through the grades probably more.

Subbies needs to embrace this to lift player numbers and participation in rugby in NSW. Your point about Western Sydney to be brutally honest, that club is actually doing OK yes a few players are going to other clubs but they have more Western Sydney boys than 5 years ago and are on the improve as a club. A change in admin could halt that though.

'I think you're overstating the financial value of this - the registration fees paid by players would mostly be consumed by the cost to field a side (insurance, registration, levies, physio, coaching, playing kit etc).'

You book a ground you need to turn up anyway for training and match day adding an extra team means you have an extra 80 people at your game minimum do the maths. Not just one year but these people should become long term supporters of your club.

'What about the kids who didn't make the cut? Are we just throwing away Players 91-120 or are they going somewhere else? If they can't make Colts 3 at one Premier club, are they going to try another Premier Club? Could they go to Subbies?'

As mentioned this really doesn't happen often and I think whoever is telling you this is naive. Yes players sit on benches but less than a handful of players would not get used and as mentioned these are the players that are physically incapable and would get injured.

 

[teamsport]

Nup - starting juniors from scratch is a very resource-intensive process, as we found out a decade ago. It requires more money and personnel than we have in an environment saturated by league and soccer. Similarly, there are junior clubs in the area who don't have seniors, so that is where the leg work starts and the connections need to be built.



They do. And primarily for those clubs - which I get because they're paying for it. As long as their mission statement is to grow the game of rugby in the same way as the NSW Rugby DO pool, then we should all benefit and grow accordingly.

And yet, as you pointed out:



That is an interesting point, on two fronts:

1) You are thinking (again) in today's terms, instead of a potential path forward; and
2) You've claimed that rugby is healthier with Premier Clubs around, then provide an example where it isn't.

Eastwood, and the other clubs not meeting their numbers or getting the results they want, will no doubt have a plan to move forward on how they address their woes. It is cyclical in nature if the right people are behind the wheel (Eastwood were back-to-back Shute Shield champions only a decade ago, after all).

Wouldn't it be great if there was a support network of clubs in alignment with them to be part of a solution?

It isn't a zero sum game, after all - the talent is there to help everyone I think. Rugby just needs to get out of its own way, sometimes.

Well if you aren't contributing to the junior game how can you ask for handouts from Shute Shield clubs for players when your club is struggling for players. Why don't you contribute to Eastwood or Western Sydney financially to provide junior development in your local area. They have people who do development so why not use them?

Hand up not out.

 

[footy_footy]

Seems like a silly debate. Premier Clubs and Subbies Clubs appeal to different audiences and that's the beauty of it. It would be near impossible to get 'alignment' because you would be forcing players to change their attitude. So what if a lad wants to be a part of a Premier Club even if that means sitting on the bench for 3rd Grade Colts or 4th Grade - he's happy being a part of a club and will enjoy the post-match piss with his mates. You can't manufacture that. You can't force people to change their approach to playing grassroots rugby in the name of 'alignment'. It works both ways as well - look at West Harbour - they have 3-4 fairly big Subbies club in close proximity to them (Briars, Petersham, Drummoyne and St Pat's). Wests have had their issues over the years and at time would have loved to have some of these players to bolster their lower grade and colts setup. Fact of the matter is these Subbies guys like their club and, for whatever reason, don't see the appeal of Premier Rugby and that's ok. The day you start forcing players to pull on a different jersey in the name of 'alignment' is the day you will see a deterioration of both Premier and Subbies. Let the players choose the club the like.

 

[Pfitzy]

Fair. I've diverted this thread enough.

 

[yoursinrugby]

Does this chat include colts if not is there a forum for that

 

[Elwee's Loo]

Does anyone know of Hospital Cup players moving to Shute and vice versa?

 

[The Phantoms]

Does this chat include colts if not is there a forum for that

There was a separate Colts forum for nsw Colts in 2023.