Tier 3.5 - An Alternative NRC

[Train Without a Station]

QH fair points but surely it's in the interest of clubs like Manly to say something like

"Yes we think we could improve the game in our area with more funds and it's necessary. But don't lump us with those loonies. We are quite happy with being involved in the NRC and plan to continue that and hope all our club supporters come out to support the Rays in the future"

Especially when you have former club officials like Alan Jones pushing the barrow.

Whilst Michael goes a bit off the deep end, the 4 paragraphs basically sum it up.

Then there's what Braveheart mentions about declining interest in the NPC in NZ. The ARU has a reason to try and develop and alternative to Super Rugby, but also a High Performance need for the NRC.

The clubs are basically looking to get into a dying market with no benefit to them other than potential interest - which is what's drying up in that market.

And of course there's a lot of what Barbarian and Peter Playford have mentioned in the past.

If this proposal goes ahead, and we have a game of Randwick vs Borthers. Who is this going to watch this game that doesn't already go watch a Randwick game? It's not a higher level of competition and will have zero known players in it. It's the type of thing that basically appeals to:

* Lower Grade Players already there;
* People who know people playing personally;
* People who played for that club in the past.

Compare that to if the Rays play whoever. Who's going to watch this game? Potentially people associated with all 4 clubs as it widens the potential fan pool and with a higher level of competition with more known players it may appeal to people who don't go to Shute Shield games.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

The issue Barbarian is that those of us that post on Fora and Blogs are the hard rusted on core of supporters. Just like the Tahs supporters who stuck in there through the continual failures and the Hickey/Foley years of denial. It is not a good base on which to judge support. The overwhelming majority here were supportive of Foiley/Hickey at the Tahs. Of Deans at the Wallabies... the list goes on. The majority view in a social media context is not really a representative group especially when you can see that many posts are repeated across multiple sites.

There won't be winners in this but there may well be a sustainable outcome.
If the "rebel 8" (not my term) collapse I expect a vast number of people will be lost to the game. If they win the day the NRC will die in its current form and Pulver and the board will also be gone. Indeed they may well struggle to survive this in any event as their handling of the whole saga up to this point has allowed this wound to fester for years, and it has been openly festering without being addressed in a manner which actually resolves the issues. It has been very poor management and engagement with significant stakeholders and the end result is this confrontation and schism which as somebody above said is very reminiscent of 1908.

One of the goals of nrc is about providing better professional pathways for earning money from rugby as one key goal, longer term at least.

We lose players overseas and to league because we don't have enough professional pathway opportunies. And Papworth himself went to league for money so does that not tell you he should understand this. Yet he carries on thinking amateur clubs are all that matter.

Papworth is a contradiction by his own past behaviour and the poorly written rant of a letter shows he has no idea what is required to get all the right pieces of the puzzle to get a good rugby product that can sustain better growth.

Anyone who wants to follow poido and Papworth with their half baked ideas on rugby's salvation and want to relive the glories of club rugby as it was in the amateur era go right ahead. But unfortunately they don't realise the world has moved on from their amateur playing days and no time machine exists to take them back there. Pity as I would happily pay for their time travel ticket back to the 1980's where they belong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[amirite]

I'll be honest, this whole issue reeks of anti-establishment attitude and nothing more.

Asking for more funding without a clear and direct programs/projects to spend it on is silly. It's a half baked plan at best.

And as far as the Shute Shield clubs wanting to be a 3rd tier by starting a national comp and still claim to be grass routes - you can't be both.

 

[amirite]

The revolt has started in ernest.
http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-unio...ional-rugby-championship-20161020-gs70cw.html

 

[Braveheart81]

No club has any Tahs players contracted, few aspiring players or "rockstars". The pathway is very well known now, get identified as a school boy, get in the various schools sides, get signed to an EPS (which will get you a club spot where you rarely if ever play) and play in the NRC, Under 20s.

The Clubs have no relevance to the development of players now. And just look at where that has got us. Under skilled "elite" players who struggle to pass and kick a ball.

So If the Clubs tell the ARU to stick it what does it matter? They don't supply anything anyway do they. The national Club comp SHOULD pose no risk to the elite NRC should it.

This is a bit of a chicken and egg argument. You're seeing to argue that the clubs have less relevance now and that has sent us backwards because you're comparing the situation now against the situation 20 years ago when the clubs were incredibly relevant.

Is that the right comparison though? It's not like we've moved in a different direction to other countries and they have stuck with the traditional club model feeding the professional teams. We have been slow to follow the development of professional structures that our competitors have implemented and are trying to play catch up.

I know you aren't a fan of the NRC and we have had this discussion before but I genuinely think the competition has improved substantially each year and this year in particular the standard across the board is high. Certainly the average NRC game is head and shoulders above an average Shute Shield game in terms of quality. It is giving developing players a chance to show their wares against better players than they ordinarily get to play against and I think it is gaining traction in terms of importance, particularly amongst the players. This is no longer just an end of season add on to the main part of their season.

 

[Micheal]

Deleted my post as I think it was a bit misunderstood. Probably the result of me indulging myself with the absurdity of it.

I'll try to more appropriately express my thoughts later.

 

[gkd1169]

i for one support the clubs. the one thing the nrc will never have is tribulism which the clubs will have. lets face it sydney and brisbane are the only rugby states and the nrc is a farce. i will stand with pappy and poido and support anything that overthrows bill pulver the most gutless and useless ceo of all time.

 

[Highlander35]

Regardless of people's opinions, NRC's locked in for another 4 years, as is Super Rugby.

Don't see that club competition being able to run effectively, let alone get permission from the governing bodies during that time.

Then if the soup collapses they'll break the allegiances scrambling to enter some sort of expanded Soup/NRC merger.

And if it doesn't, well, who knows what will be happening by then, between expansion, global season discussions and the evergrowing cash reserves of the NH.

Having said that, the French are going to dock competition points for having insufficient numbers of NFQs in their squads. Might be harder to keep the Superstars. Probably easier to retain everyone else.

 

[Slim 293]

i for one support the clubs. the one thing the nrc will never have is tribulism which the clubs will have. lets face it sydney and brisbane are the only rugby states and the nrc is a farce. i will stand with pappy and poido and support anything that overthrows bill pulver the most gutless and useless ceo of all time.

Ha........ good luck with that.

 

[amirite]

i for one support the clubs. the one thing the nrc will never have is tribulism which the clubs will have. lets face it sydney and brisbane are the only rugby states and the nrc is a farce. i will stand with pappy and poido and support anything that overthrows bill pulver the most gutless and useless ceo of all time.

Mate, that club on your account was founded in 1989 as an amalgamation. Do you not think these amalgamated NRC clubs could build to that point?

In addition, I think Pulver's KPI would've been establish a 3rd tier and a better pathway for U20 players and he's done both of those things - we'll see those positive outcomes in player development with time.

All Pappy has done is ask for more money with no clear and obvious place to spend it. Do you not think a 'champion's league' of top 4 Brisbane/Sydney clubs will see the best players flock to particular clubs and bury the rest? It's bad for your own league.

Oh, and a big fuck you from Victoria and the rest of the 'non-rugby states'. A code doesn't need 50% of the country anyway, right?

 

[John S]

Is this starting to get away from the main thread?

TBH, maybe I'm still young enough to see some positives in the NRC, but I don't think the current NRC is a farce, we've seen in NSW anyway, some good up and comers coming through who might not have progressed from Shute Shield to Super Rugby without it, or at least plied away year on year before being noticed.

 

[Jack Belly Sparrow]

Here's my two bob's worth.

A post season break away comp is pie in the sky stuff. As far as I'm aware it's a few clubs looking to grind the axe about the perceived zero funding support of Sydney club rugby. And the target of the ARU is the wrong target in any case. It is well known that ARU kicked in $300k for the broadcast fees this year. So claiming they didn't support the Sydney comp is completely inaccurate. Now we all know, I'm usually one of the first to sink the boot in to the ARU at any given opportunity. I think they have dudded the development of the game for decades, and the most annoying thing is that they don't listen. Case in point being this new 'Western Sydney Strategy' that is apparently in place. Not one constituent club from the region was contacted for input into it. So yet again, we have a western sydney strategy written, developed and delivered by mosman and bellevue hill folk. I can't say it won't work, because only the ARU and NSWRU have seen it, but I reckon if they're delivering it without the support of the clubs on the ground there's a better than average chance that it won't work.

There was a headline the other day along the lines of 'The game is dying'. And I couldn't agree more. But breaking away to start up a post season çlub championship' is my opinion insane. And as far as I am aware, it does not have the unanimous support of the clubs. After all, what's being mentioned in the press is the top 4 from Sydney, the top 4 from Brisbane playing in this break away comp. What of the other teams? What of say the top 2 from Canberra? Where do they draw the line as to how many teams? And most importantly, why do they think the NRC is going to go away? I am not a fan of the NRC. I don't think it addresses a skill shortage (especially when it comes to handling and defence) but it's here, it's here to stay so I sort of give a shit about it. Mainly because I want to see the players I know do well in it. But the ARU have committed to Sanzar and the broadcasters that the NRC is here for the duration of the current broadcast deal. Like it or loathe it, we're stuck with it.

Sydney Rugby has plenty of it's own problems that need addressing more urgently than a post season club championship style comp. For starters, the inequity in the draw. As long as you don't play everyone twice there will always be the claim that the draw is unfair. Whilst I've said publicly that Norths deserved their Premiership and they were the best team (imo) that Parramatta played in 2016, Norths also had an extremely favourable draw. Whilst the 3 teams that came 10th, 11th and 12th in 2015 had the toughest draw being the only 3 teams in the comp that played 5 of the previous seasons top 6 twice. Norths and Manly had the easiest draw of the 12 clubs. Until the draw issue is addressed we will continue to have people like myself making such points, which gets us bogged down.

The tv deal is another issue that needs addressing. It is unsustainable, unfair and neither the SRU or 11 clubs benefit from it financially. there is 1 club however that gets a massive benefit from it and I'll that up to you learned scholars to work that out.

Finally, I'm all for consideration of a break away comp. But not what is being proposed. If Premier Rugby wants to remove itself from the cage that is a fast sinking NSWRU/Waratahs ship then sure, let's talk. But do it so the comp benefits. ALL of the clubs benefit from it. And the clubs actually have a say in the destiny of their own competition.

'Rather than fighting from the scraps from Longshanks' table!!!'

 

[Spieber]

Papworth is a contradiction by his own past behaviour and the poorly written rant of a letter shows he has no idea what is required to get all the right pieces of the puzzle to get a good rugby product that can sustain better growth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was somewhat bemused by how the letter was so poorly written/structured. It was way too long and I had difficulty ascertaining what was being suggested other than a rerun of Back to the Future. I am really surprised that so many reasonably educated people supported it.

Frankly, I hope Bill Pulver et al are regular readers of GAGR as some of the ideas and thoughts generated here are worthy of consideration (eg train coaches or focus resources in potential growth areas).

 

[Spieber]

Deleted my post as I think it was a bit misunderstood. Probably the result of me indulging myself with the absurdity of it.

I'll try to more appropriately express my thoughts later.

Two thirds of your post was pretty good. Possibly reflects the majority view of posters here.

PS Re Shute Shield attendance - your friends may not have attended a game but I wonder how many follow a club and watch the Saturday arvo game on TV. Will check with my sons, who are in their 20s.

 

[the coach]

Sorry for this language. But fuck them and fuck Club Rugby if they do this. The ARU should make it very clear that it's the NRC or nothing for players. I won't be watching this bastardised attempt to screw the game over and I won't be watching the Shute Shield ndxt season either.

This is the key line from the article IMO:
"prompted ARU boss Bill Pulver to agree to a summit of stakeholders to review the union's strategic plan."

Objective achieved!

 

[wamberal]

So all you chaps are going to spend the first few months of the season doing nothing, waiting for the NRC to begin?


I'll be watching Club rugby.

 

[amirite]

So all you chaps are going to spend the first few months of the season doing nothing, waiting for the NRC to begin?

I'll be watching Club rugby.

Well you can willfully misread the comments, in the meantime I'll pragmatically and holistically look at the situation.

 

[the coach]

I believe there is a place for the NRC, but I'm not sure where it fits.

The SS should return to 2 full home-and-away rounds as the first step, and the same in Brisbane and Canberra if that is not the case now.

Secondly, I don't believe Oz rugby needs or can support 5 Super teams as well as the NRC. Let's get back to 3 strong Super teams consolidating the best players in Oz and without any players ineligible to play for the Wallabies. This year we had 2 of the 5 teams with first string 9s ineligible to play for the Wallabies --- how the f*** does that help Australian rugby?

The ABs, with their greater depth and lack of competition from other winter codes (every kid in NZ has one ambition, to play for the ABs), has benefited enormously from Super rugby as they now have a genuine pool of over 150 players to select for the ABs. How many players in their Super teams are ineligible for the ABs?

 

[Train Without a Station]

Coach I agree with your view in some ways.

With a fully functioning NRC Australia doesn't need 5 Super Rugby teams.

But until NRC players are paid competitive wages to keep them, equal to current Super Rugby wages, it's absolutely necessary.

Look at the 2005 season. The Wallabies got about 20 injuries and were absolutely fucked because the entire player pool was about 90 players.

Plenty of NZ players were ineligible in 2016:

Ben Volavola
Nemani Nadolo
Jack Ram
Male Sa'u
Michael Leitch
Hiroshi Yamashita
Fumiaki Tanaka
Siua Halanukonuka
Patrick Osborne
Motu Matu'u
Tony Lamborn

The issue is that Australia doesn't need the NRC and Super Rugby really. But it needs the money from Super Rugby and the development from NRC and neither provide both right now.

 

[the coach]

Coach I agree with your view in some ways.

With a fully functioning NRC Australia doesn't need 5 Super Rugby teams.

But until NRC players are paid competitive wages to keep them, equal to current Super Rugby wages, it's absolutely necessary.

Look at the 2005 season. The Wallabies got about 20 injuries and were absolutely fucked because the entire player pool was about 90 players.

Plenty of NZ players were ineligible in 2016:

Ben Volavola
Nemani Nadolo
Jack Ram
Male Sa'u
Michael Leitch
Hiroshi Yamashita
Fumiaki Tanaka
Siua Halanukonuka
Patrick Osborne
Motu Matu'u
Tony Lamborn

The issue is that Australia doesn't need the NRC and Super Rugby really. But it needs the money from Super Rugby and the development from NRC and neither provide both right now.

Does Australia really make money from Super rugby?
From Bill Pulver's comments it sounds like it costs more than it makes, especially the Western Force and the Rebels.