3rd tier is back in 2014 [Discontinued]

[suckerforred]

Suckerforred you say:

But they are all Queenslanders!!!! Beau for example


Most important thing is that no matter what franchise they play for we just want the Wallabies to be successful.

I should have included /sarc at the end. I thought Beau as an example may have given it away........

You make my point precisly. Players in this day and age of professionaliam are unlikely to play their whole career in Australia with the one franchise. Particular those that are 'on the fringe', i.e. good enough to be in the team but perhaps not consistantly in the starting line up.

But moving on............. this is about 3rd tier.

 

[suckerforred]

Apparently the Rebels are banking on having 16 of their 35 available for the NRC. The exclusions are allegedly:

1. Players in the Wallaby Squad
2. Players who are off-contract and not re-signed
3. Players on leave

Interestingly there is no mention of players singed for 2015 being included in that. I was told that players who are signed for 2015 will not be signed until after the NRC, which I found odd because it is often not the case and some signings may be made during the Super Rugby season in fact.

And

4. Players with injuries.

My feeling, hope, is that the Super Rugby players who have a niggling injury that, although not bad enough to prevent them playing could do with some time off for rehab and/or treatment will not be included in the NRC.

The length of the playing season, club, super & international, is now very very very long. If you then includ preseason then the guys at international level are lucky if they get 4 weeks off a year. Yes I know they will not be in the NRC but my point still stands. Some of these guys need a bit more time off and I think that the Super franchises will make that decision.

 

[Pete King]

If Eastern Sydney rah rah types can't bring themselves to go to Redfern Oval (can't have the beemer oogled by unsavoury types, sniff), isn't the UNSW David Phillips Field at Daceyville rectangular without a cricket pitch, plenty of parking for cars (away from the rif raf) and with a stand and dressing rooms which are better than those at Coogee?

Id be happy to go to redfern and I think you would fine that a big percentage of the Randwick players would have at least at some stage played in the junior South Sydney Juniors league comp growing up. The David phillips field is another decent option. Outside of the changeroom facilities and cricket pitch Coogee Oval is a fantastic ground for viewing and playing and they could do worse then to go to but a neautral east randwick , uni ground would be best.

 

[Dave Beat]

Dave, I just wish the ARU would announce the teams and hopefully provide their reasoning behind the selection of the teams.

As far as Randwick (or any other team other than Uni) standing alone, I'd suggest that we'd really need to see the tender submitted to understand how a single club believes they could run a team in the NRC.

I was quite frankly gobsmacked to see Randwick had submitted a stand alone tender and, like others, I don't see how they would have the resources to make it work. But again I'm not privy to the contents of the tender. As far as players are concerned, I'm also confused as to how the ARU are going to allocate the S15 players to the NRC teams.

Using Randwick as an example they have the following S15 players:
Beale -- assume he would be in the Wallaby squad
Kepu -- as above
Carraro -- should be available for NRC
Horwitz -- should be available for NRC

I think the announcement from the ARU said that about 13 S15 players (not required by the Wallabies) would be allocated to each NRC team, depending on the number of teams, plus a few development palyers. So Randwick would receive say 15 players who have no connection to their SS team plus presumerably Carraro and Horwitz, hence the Randwick NRC team would bear little resemblance to the SS team.

So it all seems a bit surreal to me.

Or have I misunderstood something???

I don't know how true this is, but i reckon the ARU is using forums like GAGR to assist in their development of the NRC.
ARC - pissed clubs off.
ARU - this time says clubs give us your ideas.
ARU / Media - ???? dribble bits and pieces out and we post away sharing thoughts and ideas
In all honesty as frustrating as some of it maybe now, we all maybe saying in hindsight - what a great way of doing it as we've all put out some ideas.

 

[wamberal]

At the end of the day the ARU carries the can for the success or failure of the NRC. I do not have any vested interest in all this, admittedly, but as a veteran rugby tragic I am willing to assume that they know what they are doing. I hope.

 

[the coach]

At the end of the day the ARU carries the can for the success or failure of the NRC. I do not have any vested interest in all this, admittedly, but as a veteran rugby tragic I am willing to assume that they know what they are doing. I hope.

Wamberal, I willing to assume they know what they're doing also -- I just wish they'd tell us!

 

[Tigers Tale]

Sidenote: checkout some of the IP the superleague had at one stage, including the "brisbane brumbies" http://www.ipaustralia.com.au/applicant/super-league-pty-ltd/trademarks/

The other trademark here with cross code connections was the Canberra Vikings.

 

[Dave Beat]

Wamberal, I willing to assume they know what they're doing also -- I just wish they'd tell us!

So do I, but id be amazed if they didn't have a troll in there reading the thoughts of the rugby tragic out there and tweaking their ideas / plans a little.

 

[Cat_A]

You are also assuming that no Brisbane club will be stand alone - which may not be the case. By all accounts two South Queensland clubs have been pushing hard for stand alone status. Both are closely connected to Universities. Which would mean that there could be 3 Queensland teams!

.

One might be Bond, and I don't have any information about that one way or another. It would be unusual if Griffith, QUT or CQU put in a team, given their only real rugby connection is Uni Games.

But I assume the other University-connected team you are referring to is University Rugby Club? If so I can assure you that "all accounts" are completely false; no shred of truth whatsoever in the Uni Rugby Club pushing for standalone status, let alone "pushing hard".

 

[the coach]

So do I, but id be amazed if they didn't have a troll in there reading the thoughts of the rugby tragic out there and tweaking their ideas / plans a little.

It's not me

 

[Bowside]

I'll also blatently post this which I posted on twitter a few days ago.

I don't mean to be rude, because I admire the effort you've put into this. But IMO names like pythons, dolphins, cutters etc. are a bit plastic.

I think the names need to be picked on a case by case basis and take into account more localised geography as well as the university connection. Does every team really need a random local animal attached?

Just off the top of my head I'd be leaning more towards names like:
- USyd-Balmain
- North Harbour
- West Sydney
- Randwick (gasp.)
- Ballymore
- UC-Vikings

Although I think it would be funny if the Perth team was called the Honey Badgers.

 

[Bowside]

And while we're at it, traditional style jerseys with no more than 2 or 3 colours max.

I think every team should wear the same jersey for the first 5 seasons to build up an image. It is a myth that you need to change the jersey every year in order to sell more - look at the AFL.

 

[RugbyFuture]

I don't mean to be rude, because I admire the effort you've put into this. But IMO names like pythons, dolphins, cutters etc. are a bit plastic.

I think the names need to be picked on a case by case basis and take into account more localised geography as well as the university connection. Does every team really need a random local animal attached?

Just off the top of my head I'd be leaning more towards names like:
- USyd-Balmain
- North Harbour
- West Sydney
- Randwick (gasp.)
- Ballymore
- UC-Vikings

Although I think it would be funny if the Perth team was called the Honey Badgers.

NRC commission aren't allowing it. No old names are allowed just like no standalone clubs.

North Harbour and Greater Sydney are the two on that list that ARE being used.

also reducing the sides that are in brisbane and canberra to single locations severely restricts their possible catchment (in terms of branding) and the idea of this is to both provide a pathway for young players but also broaden the people who support rugby.

I do agree with the jerseys though which is the actual reason I created that chart.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Where exactly did it say there were no stand alone clubs allowed, no names of existing clubs allowed, etc.?

 

[RugbyFuture]

subtext and from what I know through my working with one of the teams.

also fifth line here too http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...n-benji-marshall/story-fni2fxyf-1226826415299

 

[MACCA]

It's not me

Haha
Its not me either!!
Its not paranoia when you actually know the whole world is against you...

 

[the coach]

subtext and from what I know through my working with one of the teams.

also fifth line here too http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...n-benji-marshall/story-fni2fxyf-1226826415299

This Telegraph article seems to contradict the original ARU announcment which called for EOIs from "existing clubs wanting to compete in their own right" as one of the categories and contained a tick box for "Stand Alone Applicant".

Either the Tele is making it up or the ARU has shifted the goal posts!

 

[RugbyFuture]

I would suggest that line was for new clubs being formed with no clear affiliation to a state union or 4th tier side. They probably have communicated a number of on the down low criteria to the clubs in order to sustain political sustainability which I think would include no standalones etc.

You have to question if it was allowed why USyd would change their brand for the bid too...

Wonder when they're planning for the announcement though. Theres not much time for contracts and corporate development between now and when its supposed to start and the enthusiasm from some people has shifted to speculation that because of the ARU's financial position they won't proceed.

 

[the coach]

I would suggest that line was for new clubs being formed with no clear affiliation to a state union or 4th tier side. They probably have communicated a number of on the down low criteria to the clubs in order to sustain political sustainability which I think would include no standalones etc.

You have to question if it was allowed why USyd would change their brand for the bid too.

Wonder when they're planning for the announcement though. Theres not much time for contracts and corporate development between now and when its supposed to start and the enthusiasm from some people has shifted to speculation that because of the ARU's financial position they won't proceed.

The original announcement quoted 28/2 as the target date to announce the successful tenderers. I agree with you: "sooner the better".

 

[Dave Beat]

This Telegraph article seems to contradict the original ARU announcment which called for EOIs from "existing clubs wanting to compete in their own right" as one of the categories and contained a tick box for "Stand Alone Applicant".

Either the Tele is making it up or the ARU has shifted the goal posts!

Ah me thinks it's those good old trolls.