Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
Agree, the Nth V Sth became more of a trial game in the end game 1 probables , game 2 possibles for the Sydney team. Suggesting it as an end of season comp, and names provide some geographical, patriotic history.
A Proposal For A New Third Tier Competition In Australia
- Thread starter Scott Allen
- Start date
- Status
Agree, the Nth V Sth became more of a trial game in the end game 1 probables , game 2 possibles for the Sydney team. Suggesting it as an end of season comp, and names provide some geographical, patriotic history.
emuarse
Desmond Connor (43)
I think this is good, but you really do need a Melbourne team, and even a Perth team. with those teams having a bit of extra cash to get a few good players from NZ & SA.
p.Tah
John Thornett (49)
that's what I was trying to say. Sorry if it wasn't clear. My original post came from a discussion where I had a bet with a mate on how long it would take Poido to come out and criticise the Uni proposal.
In my mind a third tier needs to do two things:
- improve our player depth by concentrating the talent
- develop the game in Australia
I want to see ways the club proposal can do this. I'll have more of a think about it, but A Heineken Cup comp with clubs from Brisbane, Sydney and Canberra isn't going to achieve either of these goals.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
Just thinking of funding, eastern states first and then evolve, and grow.
It use to be VFL and a very strong base allowed the growth to AFL.
All for the growth, but it needs to be financially sensible
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
But it is a start.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
By doing your second point he first the first point should follow,
Put an Auskick program through he schools - Wall Wallaby.
Use that old jingle and promote senior rugby, I want to be a Walla Wallaby.
Each Shute shield club supports their junior clubs or schools buy having a Curtain Raiser before First Grade, maybe 2 games one in each half.
Third Tier, let it develop.
p.Tah
John Thornett (49)
I agree and now they need to develop a 5 year, 10 year and 20 year plan showing how this proposal will evolve. When will Vic and WA come into the comp?
They need to model the effects of the introduction of this tier. If the Super Clubs (e.g. Syd Uni, Randwick etc) dominate the comp and the top talent gravitates to them, what measures will be put in place to ensure that the game doesn't regress in areas such as Western Sydney? How can they still develop the game in these unrepresented areas?
What can be done to develop the local club comps in WA and VIc, so when its financially viable to bring them into this 3rd tier they have developed their teams so they will be competitive.
It's going to require a lot of stakeholders to get together to pull this off successfully. I hope they can.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
I agree players from outside the Sydney competition would need to be involved. That's why on top of the four Sydney rep teams you bring in close by country regions and allow the Force and Rebels to use them their proxies in the competition alongside a Brumby Runners setup. Over time as it finds its feet then slowly introduce a rep squads located in both and transition. I think keeping it tight at first while not ideal in terms of locales of competing teams would at least provide the high performance atmosphere we need in a concentrated comp. Get the Brisbane teams to do likewise and over a 5 to 10 period transition it into a National Championship.
Orange Peeler
Peter Burge (5)
From my understanding there is a premiership Rugby Competition in each state and territory.
My proposed national 3rd Tier Competition
1. Sydney
2. NSW Country
3. Brisbane
4. Qld Country
5. Darwin
6. Perth
7. Adelaide
8. Hobart
9. Melbourne
10. Canberra
I'm sure their is much more that could be added to this.
My proposed national 3rd Tier Competition
1. Sydney
2. NSW Country
3. Brisbane
4. Qld Country
5. Darwin
6. Perth
7. Adelaide
8. Hobart
9. Melbourne
10. Canberra
- each premiership competition would act as a feeder to their associated 3rd Tier Team.
- each state could retain its local club competition.
- Local Club players not selected first up in their regions 3rd Tier squad may apply to another 3rd Tier Team.
- To assist the Pacific Island nations the ARU should invite Fiji, Tonga and Samoa to partner with Darwin, Adelaide and Hobart e.g. Hobart forms a partnership with the Tongan Rugby Union to share players, coaching and facilities in the name of development.
I'm sure their is much more that could be added to this.
There are many models for an Australian semi-pro domestic comp, from the old ARC system to playing the England system of club promotion and relegation after the original teams participate in Year 1 - with some assurance to Perth, Melbourne and Canberra that they would always have a team in it.
There is usually one thread a year on the matter in this forum and some years there are two or three. Most of us who have been with the forum for a while have made a dozen posts and for some like myself it must be close to a century if they can count the times they have written on the matter before this forum existed and before work on setting up the ARC was done.
But the elephant in the ideas room is the cost of the idea or rather the lack of revenue to cover it's cost.
That's what we should be talking about, in theory, 95% of the time, because the other part is easy; yet it is the easy part we always talk about.
And when we think of revenue we have to think of demand. We can say that if we produce a good product the demand will come later, but the graveyards of businesses are choc-a-block full of outfits that tried to create a demand.
[I am sorry this is a negative post and so high-horse.]
The ARU will have a bit of a windfall from the Lions tour but it would be unwise to splurge that in setting up and operating another ARC that would likely last just one year, again, and eat its capital reserve.
If demand isn't there and the ARU can't afford it, I think the only way forward is for prospective teams to be self-funded by owners of capital, consortia if you like, who don't expect a market return on investment. I would make an exception with Perth, which should be funded or part funded by the ARU.
If we get such investors we can't direct that their team has to operate in this place or that place because of this good rugby reason or that one. Nice if you can get it but the marketplace for capital is usually not nice.
If we can get a comp started like that the demand could be created for the second tranche of investors who will have to set up shop in vacant rugby areas.
No, I don't know where such investors are either; so this line of thought may be futile - but at least it is talking about funding.
PS - for "investors" you can add "and/or existing clubs who could already pay their way in a national competition". I have a feeling that Sydney Uni would find the wherewithal (and for folks who think it is too elitist, Oz rugby would be barking mad not to use the Sydney Uni resource).
The Canberra Vikings could probably afford to get the ACT flag waving again, which would mean that 6 more would be needed to start a new comp with 8 teams, which we had last time.
.
There is usually one thread a year on the matter in this forum and some years there are two or three. Most of us who have been with the forum for a while have made a dozen posts and for some like myself it must be close to a century if they can count the times they have written on the matter before this forum existed and before work on setting up the ARC was done.
But the elephant in the ideas room is the cost of the idea or rather the lack of revenue to cover it's cost.
That's what we should be talking about, in theory, 95% of the time, because the other part is easy; yet it is the easy part we always talk about.
And when we think of revenue we have to think of demand. We can say that if we produce a good product the demand will come later, but the graveyards of businesses are choc-a-block full of outfits that tried to create a demand.
[I am sorry this is a negative post and so high-horse.]
The ARU will have a bit of a windfall from the Lions tour but it would be unwise to splurge that in setting up and operating another ARC that would likely last just one year, again, and eat its capital reserve.
If demand isn't there and the ARU can't afford it, I think the only way forward is for prospective teams to be self-funded by owners of capital, consortia if you like, who don't expect a market return on investment. I would make an exception with Perth, which should be funded or part funded by the ARU.
If we get such investors we can't direct that their team has to operate in this place or that place because of this good rugby reason or that one. Nice if you can get it but the marketplace for capital is usually not nice.
If we can get a comp started like that the demand could be created for the second tranche of investors who will have to set up shop in vacant rugby areas.
No, I don't know where such investors are either; so this line of thought may be futile - but at least it is talking about funding.
PS - for "investors" you can add "and/or existing clubs who could already pay their way in a national competition". I have a feeling that Sydney Uni would find the wherewithal (and for folks who think it is too elitist, Oz rugby would be barking mad not to use the Sydney Uni resource).
The Canberra Vikings could probably afford to get the ACT flag waving again, which would mean that 6 more would be needed to start a new comp with 8 teams, which we had last time.
.
p.Tah
John Thornett (49)
I see the third tier being a development league. I just can't see it creating any sort of demand outside of us diehards.
I wish they'd bring the Super Rugby academies back and use them in a more structured competition. We don't have to pretend its a competitor to the NRL or AFL, it's just a way to develop talent to improve our Super Rugby stock. We don't need an ITM Cup or Currie Cup, we need all eyes and wallets focused on Super Rugby.
I wish they'd bring the Super Rugby academies back and use them in a more structured competition. We don't have to pretend its a competitor to the NRL or AFL, it's just a way to develop talent to improve our Super Rugby stock. We don't need an ITM Cup or Currie Cup, we need all eyes and wallets focused on Super Rugby.
It is what it is
John Solomon (38)
The 3rd tier investment will cost a lot of money either way, so pick your poison, SS Clubs reinvigorated or Uni's leveraged.
Today very few SS clubs have much in the way of infrastructure or financial capability to lift to the level required.
Many Universities have existing infrastructure and at least access to financial support.
The Infrastructure required looks like full-time professional coaches/doctors/physio's, training fields and secured playing fields, parking for players/supporters, gymnasiums, pools, lighting, performance testing facilities, video/filming/editing facilities, rugby hardware (scrum machine/range of protective clothing and shields etc) dieticians, coaches/players rooms, hospitality/function rooms, medical/recovery/rehab rooms etc.
Just stop now and do an audit of your SS club against this infrastructure checklist -how do they come up? Problems with councils? No money for staff? No gym? etc etc
Now do this same audit against Sydney Uni rugby - shit, they have most if not all of this infrastructure in place now at SS level!
Wonder why they seem to have well prepared teams in every grade?
We haven't even yet looked at the financial capability of SS clubs.
Now, who thinks their SS club can become as 'infrastructure capable' and/or as 'financially capable' as Syd Uni?
Who thinks anyone, including the ARU, can/should finance the SS clubs up to this level?
2 takeaways for mine;
1. The SS will continue being a Syd Uni benefit comp 9/10 years if things stay the same.
2. The more cost effective option is a Uni driven comp as a 3rd tier solution.
Today very few SS clubs have much in the way of infrastructure or financial capability to lift to the level required.
Many Universities have existing infrastructure and at least access to financial support.
The Infrastructure required looks like full-time professional coaches/doctors/physio's, training fields and secured playing fields, parking for players/supporters, gymnasiums, pools, lighting, performance testing facilities, video/filming/editing facilities, rugby hardware (scrum machine/range of protective clothing and shields etc) dieticians, coaches/players rooms, hospitality/function rooms, medical/recovery/rehab rooms etc.
Just stop now and do an audit of your SS club against this infrastructure checklist -how do they come up? Problems with councils? No money for staff? No gym? etc etc
Now do this same audit against Sydney Uni rugby - shit, they have most if not all of this infrastructure in place now at SS level!
Wonder why they seem to have well prepared teams in every grade?
We haven't even yet looked at the financial capability of SS clubs.
Now, who thinks their SS club can become as 'infrastructure capable' and/or as 'financially capable' as Syd Uni?
Who thinks anyone, including the ARU, can/should finance the SS clubs up to this level?
2 takeaways for mine;
1. The SS will continue being a Syd Uni benefit comp 9/10 years if things stay the same.
2. The more cost effective option is a Uni driven comp as a 3rd tier solution.
T
TOCC
Guest
all these are hypotheticals...
At the moment only 2 universities have actually displayed a willingness to commit the sort of funding required to support a team in such a competition.
Yes there are other universities with links to the game, but none have shown a willingness or longterm commitment to fund club rugby to the level that UQ or Sydney University have.. This whole university concept could easily fall flat on its face if a number of the other uni's mentioned dismiss the notion of sporting scholarships and greater investment in facilities and resources, which is a very large possibility.
At the moment only 2 universities have actually displayed a willingness to commit the sort of funding required to support a team in such a competition.
Yes there are other universities with links to the game, but none have shown a willingness or longterm commitment to fund club rugby to the level that UQ or Sydney University have.. This whole university concept could easily fall flat on its face if a number of the other uni's mentioned dismiss the notion of sporting scholarships and greater investment in facilities and resources, which is a very large possibility.
nomis
Herbert Moran (7)
Yeah, there are no easy solutions.
The under 23 uni idea is worth exploring for developing younger players and getting ready for the junior WC, but we still don't know if it could work, or what impact it will really have!
The old ARC was a good concept, and could be done cheaper, but it may not even have the same potential as the original ARC because the Wallaby stars would no longer be available. While they weren't really available in 2007 due to the world cup, they could have potentially been available from 2008. But now the RC has settled in that time slot later in the year.
For the same reason, it's hard to see wealthy individuals wanting to invest in a third tier to create financially viable teams. I could be proven wrong here, but I haven't heard many individuals put their hand up.
I'd be happy with Scott Allen's proposal for club rugby, not because I think it will do a sufficiently better job of developing players, but because I think it would be good for club rugby!
I think in the end, I'm with p.Tah as to the best solution overall:
The under 23 uni idea is worth exploring for developing younger players and getting ready for the junior WC, but we still don't know if it could work, or what impact it will really have!
The old ARC was a good concept, and could be done cheaper, but it may not even have the same potential as the original ARC because the Wallaby stars would no longer be available. While they weren't really available in 2007 due to the world cup, they could have potentially been available from 2008. But now the RC has settled in that time slot later in the year.
For the same reason, it's hard to see wealthy individuals wanting to invest in a third tier to create financially viable teams. I could be proven wrong here, but I haven't heard many individuals put their hand up.
I'd be happy with Scott Allen's proposal for club rugby, not because I think it will do a sufficiently better job of developing players, but because I think it would be good for club rugby!
I think in the end, I'm with p.Tah as to the best solution overall:
I think this is the crucial thing to realise at least from the start. If it grows legs then you can try and increase the public interest in future years.
The main goal has to be player development and to bridge the gap between Shute Shield/Premier Grade and Super 15.
With that in mind, the players participating need to do it because they want a chance to further their rugby career, not to get paid a lot of extra money. The whole thing needs to be run on a shoestring.
On that basis, I think you have two separate divisions, one with a few teams in South East Queensland and one with teams from Sydney, a Canberra team and maybe a Newcastle team.
The top couple of teams from Sydney and Brisbane can meet in a semi final/final at the end.
I don't see how you can include teams from Melbourne and Perth without dramatically driving up costs. It may be an area for expansion after the first couple of years but it would seemingly make things prohibitively expensive in the first year or so.
G
G&GR News Bot
Guest
It’s the hottest day in the history of Sydney and the CEO of RUPA – Greg Harris – is talking me through their proposals for the evolution of Australian rugby outside a cafe in Surry Hills. It’s not just Greg’s F and even C-bombs (refreshing after 20 years of business in the UK) that have
Click this link to read the full article...
Click this link to read the full article...
James Buchanan
Trevor Allan (34)
The problem is, if you want to develop players and reach the maximum number of talented athletes then you need to be looking outside the NSW and QLD catchments. There are going to be players who have stagnated in the VIC and WA comps or even given the game away because the cost of relocating to NSW to play Shute Shield is not a reasonable option for them. In particular I am considering players who come from outside of the privileged private school backgrounds and do not have parents able to support that sort of gamble. If you put teams in VIC and WA, then those players have options to play at a higher/more competitive level and importantly showcase their goods to Shute Shield or even Super Rugby clubs, giving them a degree of certainty of outcome if they do choose to make the move.
I recognise that there is a cost involved, although I question how extensive that cost is. in a 10 week comp as proposed, you will have 5 away games I would imagine. If the players flew economy and appropriate bookings were made, that is hardly more than $500-700 per player (at least from Melbourne) for the season. Yes, that is not 100% ideal for pro athletes but its a hell of a lot better than nothing. Accomadation could be a possible issue but I imagine that involving the Universities might mean that they may be able to use student accommodation at colleges or the like. Alternatively, inexpensive hotels are not that bad, if the alternative is nothing.
And important element of all this is that you are not trying to accommodate professional rugby players into these teams. They don't expect the best of everything, they're doing it for the chance to show off their skills and maybe take the next step from there.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
IMO for anything to happen, the idea/proposal needs to be easy to understand, simple to implement and cheap to run.
Once you start bringing in rep teams or creating new entities, you immediately complicate the issue, make it more expensive and it gets thrown into the too hard basket and then we start again from zero.
Think simple (KISS):
Season 1
Top 4 teams from Sydney, top 2 from Brisbane and 2 Canberra. 1 round competition 2 teams play off in grand final. This system uses current admin and infastructure and has an inbuilt promotion and relegation system.
Add teams in succeeding years as appropriate.
Goal should be to have top 2 Melbourne and top 2 Perth in (not till viable)
For the Force and Rebels to be sustainable long term, they need to be producing half their players locally. This can only be done if they have club teams in 3rd tier.
PS Not sure if Randwick would qualify as a super team on recent results
.
What news of the proposed $1million competition from Balmain RC/The Fanatics?
Been discussed on another thread which has been quiet for a long time.
Been discussed on another thread which has been quiet for a long time.
p.Tah
John Thornett (49)
This weekend highlighted again why we need a third tier.
- Folau is very talented but should be given more time before being thrust into Super Rugby. Based on this weeks game he would have benefitted from more game time with less pressure. We don't have a third tier so he has to play Super Rugby.
- the Kings, who many Saffas believe are the 7th best team in SA after Griquas beat the Force. The Kings have been playing in the SA third tier for a while.
- Folau is very talented but should be given more time before being thrust into Super Rugby. Based on this weeks game he would have benefitted from more game time with less pressure. We don't have a third tier so he has to play Super Rugby.
- the Kings, who many Saffas believe are the 7th best team in SA after Griquas beat the Force. The Kings have been playing in the SA third tier for a while.
- Status