Declining participation and ARU plans for the future

[Lindommer]

The times are a changing, some time back everyone thought I should be sent to the funny farm, today most seem to agree more or less we need sooner rather than later a national domestic competition. Waits for massive reaction to this as I have held this back as it means looking at doing something not so much new but different to now. We need an 8 team national domestic competition for the next media deal..... This is what we need to do, and God forgive me, but we need to copy Gallop and Buckley from FFA. We cannot leave anybody out, the Shute teams, posters who believe in Super Rugby, park players, GPS schools everybody in rugby needs to have their voice heard and their views respected. This has never happen(ed) in the rush by Flower and Pulver to get their versions going..... This can only work if we involve the SS teams somehow in the new teams.

Scrummie, this has been done recently: do you recall the CapGemini conference in 2006 when EVERY level of Australian rugby was consulted at the time about the future direction of Australian rugby? It was agreed by players from all levels another strata of competition was needed between club and Super rugby. And so the ARC was born in 2007. Only then did the Poidevins and their ilk from Randwick, Easts, Uni, Eastwood, etc, come out of the woodwork and whiteant this new competition as it threatened their exalted positions in the sandpit. Papworth has recently stepped into the breach to continue this tradition of wanting to keep his club at the top of a very small pile to the greater detriment of rugby in this country.

Your remark about involving the SS clubs in the new teams is particularly apt; every Oz union has got behind their NRC representatives, apart from the NSWRU. The only thing we hear from NSW is the whining from some clubs and their naysaying about the relevance of the NRC, bugger all leadership from the NSWRU how we can contribute to make our four (or three) teams excellent. Even the basket case QRU get behind their NRC teams, and success at this level follows. The productive soils of the private schools in Sydney will eventually become over-worked and subsequently lose their yields. It's happening now with soccer numbers passing rugby at quite a few GPS and CAS schools.

Rant over.

 

[wamberal]

Lindommer,


Speaking as an old Eastwoodite, I have to defend Pappy to an extent. I do not know much about his background but, perhaps like me, he grew up within spitting distance of the club. He certainly did attend Epping Boys High, which is situated a kilometre or two from Millner, and played for Eastwood.


When his loig career came to a screeching halt because of injuries, he moved heaven and earth to get back into the blue and white.


Perhaps, like me, he has loved the club since he was old enough to talk.


There might be something special about all clubs. There is certainly something very special about Eastwood. A rugby club built from virtually nothing, on donated land, which was cleared by volunteers (I was one of them, as a boy) and built on ghe back of donations (I still remember "A bob a brick").


Why criticise somebody who has given a lot of his time and energy to a lifelong love?

 

[Braveheart81]

Why criticise somebody who has given a lot of his time and energy to a lifelong love?

Papworth has spent plenty of time and effort doing exactly the same to many other people with entirely similar amounts of dedication to rugby as him.

There's no doubt Papworth has contributed greatly to rugby, particularly in Sydney but there's also little doubt he's now using that to push his own agenda and that of the other Shute Shield clubs.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Wamberal, I'd say this sentence sums up why.

"this tradition of wanting to keep his club at the top of a very small pile to the greater detriment of rugby in this country."

He loves his club and seemingly (perhaps I'm wrong) wants to see them successful, without regard for the best interests of the game as a whole.

As a note I must exclude the Rats, Marlins, Gordon and Norths from Lindommer's criticism. They really have gotten behind the NRC and are one of the best examples of how it can work.

4 clubs in geographical proximity to combine for a quasi-representative NRC franchise which enables progression from their clubs, but also working as a function franchise at that next level.

 

[I like to watch]

He loves his club and seemingly (perhaps I'm wrong) wants to see them successful, without regard for the best interests of the game as a whole.

Too harsh.
Why can't he have a differing view as to the best way forward,without having his intentions/integrity questioned?

i have heard his opinion on the way forward,i don't agree with his views on the NRC,but I have no doubt that he sincerely believes his viewpoint is the best solution for the code.
A lot of what he says has merit,but gets lost in the binary argument about NRC being all good or all evil..

 

[Train Without a Station]

ILTW I say seemingly because I wonder, would Papworth see any way forward being the right path that erodes Eastwood's standing in the game?

I'm not trying to imply he has no regard for the game's future, but I doubt he would be objective enough to see any future where places such as the rugby club he loves are less important.

That's probably the fundamental problem with Australian Rugby. The strength of the club support leads us to have a lot of people who are more so "club fans" than "rugby fans" so much. Their passion and support is their club first and the game as a whole second.

 

[wamberal]

Of course I stuck my chin out, no surprise to take a punch or two.


In defending Papworth, I am simply pointing out the fact that emotion and tradition are enormously important. As is the involvement of ex-Wallabies like him and Poidevin, who do what they do for love, not money.


As for Poidevin, I have a neighbour whose young nephew is hovering between a life in our code, or the opposition. He has already been offered a contract by St George-Illawarra (at the age of 15!).


He is in a junior development squad at Randwick which is coached by Poido. This is the only thing that will keep him in our game, and he is bloody good, apparently.


Let us remember the value of these legends of the game, and not demean them for their passion. Their passion must be harnessed, somehow.

 

[half]

Lindommer re your post at the top of the page

Agree on talks were held back in 2006 and further agree about the Wicks, Woodies etc not jumping on board. Additionally accept and acknowledge the damage and white anteing that took place.

What I don’t accept is all of Rugby was involved and I think it was rushed. Flower was under huge pressure and he rushed the ARC without full support and the model was expensive.

My simple point is Flower like Pulver should have waited. Their time tables were very short and I wanted to somehow get involved but it was done with such a rush. I contrast this as I wrote above to what the FFA did, they spend 3 to 5 years in negotiation with all stakeholders. Everyone it is said gave a little ground for the common good. Groups that had been at open war for decades sat down with FFA and nutted it out. FFA invested time and lots of money to get agreement.

The results of when you pull together a highly dysfunctional group and somehow unite them with common goals creates in and of itself a very positive and uplifting effect to all involved. Imagine everyone in rugby pulling together, Queensland and NSW Unions cooperating and helping each other.

FFA their lengthy negotiations developed two massive programs steaming from their local district teams which is both growing and more importantly creating demand over time for their product and most importantly creating highly qualified players.

Sorry to be so much on soccer, however they have come from nowhere and we can learn from what they did.

The two things they did was create an FFA Cup and it has over 700 + teams entered in it. Secondly they created a National Premier League of 100 teams and to register as a team required you to have an academy and a technical director trained to a certain level to set the training across all age brackets. Essentially 100 Australia wide training academies, add to that the state sporting bodies and the Australian Institute of Sport and that each A-League club has to run an academy, and the various sports schools around Australia and they have close to 150 training academies.

Back to rugby, we have four years before the next media deal. The ARU needs to create over the next four years a workable national domestic competition of between 8 & 10 teams. From these teams connections back into Shute teams and local district teams.

Most importantly we should learn from FFA, don’t start until everyone is on the same page. The skill is to get everyone on the same page. If the mission statement is clear in what is wanted by the ARU and its not rushed as I believe both the ARC and the NRC were, hopefully we can get it right.


This will in turn create pathways and hopefully more players will stay.

 

[Train Without a Station]

But half the FFA Cup and National Premier League and rugby are totally different situations.

Neither of them marginalized traditional power brokers who are potentially outdated now.

The NRC had been one previous revision and years in the making. But there were no further compromises available. Due to financial constraints any FFA Cup type model was not feasible, in addition it failed to provide the format and performance benefits required.

The ARU could have discussed this for years and we'd still be at the same impasse.

The timing created zero issues for the Rays and their 4 associated Premier Clubs to develop a very logical team and support the concept. The timing only created an issue for those who were unwilling to compromise.

If the NRC isn't a workable national domestic competition of between 8 to 10 teams that connects back into Shute teams and local district teams then I don't know what is.

What needs to happen is some of the Shute Shield teams needs to connect into an NRC pathway, because given the chance to do it all themselves, half have managed to cock the whole thing up and create a problem that doesn't need to exist, whilst the other half have marked their stake in the future.

 

[half]

TWAS

Don't disagree with most of what you posted.

However, as you point out even today there are divisions. Can I ask you a straight up question. Do you think the NRC will develop into a meaningful national competition within say 4 years.

While I accept that soccer and rugby grassroots structures are different, I used FFA as an example if you wait and keep putting your case in time logic and commonsense takes hold and big steps can be made.

If I may be so bold I see your position;- you fear a sharpe and sizeable fall in revenue will cause enormous damage, to much damage to recover from. Whereas I see a slow decline doing more damage and rugby reaching the magic tipping point everyone keeps talking about were not enough people care anymore.

 

[Train Without a Station]

No amount of waiting will get logic and common sense to take hold for some though.

Papworth for example cannot see how it's in the best interests of the game to have an NRC competition, with less focus on suburban based competitions.

This is despite our strongest competitor's system being underpinned by one.

How do you talk logic with people where they will not contemplate a future where they aren't a focal point?

If every club was like the 4 Rays Clubs things would be different. They essentially first said "No that's not good that type of competition", "No that execution is wrong" and then when there was a change in approach and a resolution that enabled them to be stakeholders they seemingly said "hey this makes a bit of sense now, let's get on board and ensure we still have a stake if this thing takes off".

And then as a result, they've come forward and worked together for the good of the competition, which will only benefit them.

Papworth (I only use him as his position as essentially spokesperson for the disenfranchised clubs) doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that any national domestic competition that takes players out of club rugby because they are playing in a higher level, may be best for the game. As a result they've ensured they have no stake in it. In fact they don't even want Super Rugby to have a national presence, despite the fact that going forward these teams should now total more revenue than they need in assistance.

 

[Gnostic]

No amount of waiting will get logic and common sense to take hold for some though.



Papworth for example cannot see how it's in the best interests of the game to have an NRC competition, with less focus on suburban based competitions.



This is despite our strongest competitor's system being underpinned by one.



How do you talk logic with people where they will not contemplate a future where they aren't a focal point?



If every club was like the 4 Rays Clubs things would be different. They essentially first said "No that's not good that type of competition", "No that execution is wrong" and then when there was a change in approach and a resolution that enabled them to be stakeholders they seemingly said "hey this makes a bit of sense now, let's get on board and ensure we still have a stake if this thing takes off".



And then as a result, they've come forward and worked together for the good of the competition, which will only benefit them.



Papworth (I only use him as his position as essentially spokesperson for the disenfranchised clubs) doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that any national domestic competition that takes players out of club rugby because they are playing in a higher level, may be best for the game. As a result they've ensured they have no stake in it. In fact they don't even want Super Rugby to have a national presence, despite the fact that going forward these teams should now total more revenue than they need in assistance.

So say the people who still cannot understand why people voted for Brexit etc.

If I don't agree with your opinion or structure its is because I have "no common sense" or ability to use "logic". Such statements have been rife in this debate and do not serve to re-inforce the pro NRC position in anyway. The concerns of those who do not buy into the NRC are valid and without acknowledging them and actually trying to work out a solution those people will not support and may actively oppose the program, especially when such statements are made. Indeed the other statements about it being a political conspiracy to maintain the primacy of the Shute Club is another attack that can just make people say F&^% you then.

Like I've said many times, I have no affiliation with any club, Metro or not, I'm just too far from anywhere these days and family life has taken me down a different path, but for many reasons often stated I do not support the NRC concept. I also am on the record as saying the Australia cannot support 5 Super sides financially, or in terms of player depth and despite your last paragraph the continuous bailouts of the Franchises from the ARU proves this point.

 

[Quick Hands]

Too harsh.
Why can't he have a differing view as to the best way forward,without having his intentions/integrity questioned?

i have heard his opinion on the way forward,i don't agree with his views on the NRC,but I have no doubt that he sincerely believes his viewpoint is the best solution for the code.
A lot of what he says has merit,but gets lost in the binary argument about NRC being all good or all evil..

It suits some posters agenda to reduce everything to a binary argument. They can usually be identified by their assumption that "Shute Shield clubs" are all the same, all act the same, all have the same motivations and any comment or action by someone from one club is immediately attributed to "Shute Shield clubs". It then allows them to dismiss any views contrary to their own as illegitimate.

 

[half]

TWAS

Gnostic is right and said it far better than me no matter the logic of your argument many have not come across to teh NRC.

Beyond that a number of knowledgeable rugby folk both here and on the Roar constantly point it short comings.

I have only recently found some time to be on this site before was way to busy to be actively involved.

My life circumstances as I have often explained is my wife is very sporty and I am aware of swimming, softball and soccer through her involvement. So sometimes being in a position to compare provides a new or say different perspective.

As I pointed out Soccer or FFA argued the toss with the Papworths they had until they talked to enough people and they over 5 or so years eventually won out.

We cannot move forward with so many not supporting it.

IMO we have four years to develop a workable national competition which would include the existing Super Rugby teams, a Hunter / Central Coast, and a western Sydney team, now thats 8 teams, a second Brisbane and arguably one more.

TWAS I asked you a question will the NRC be able in Australia to develop into what people want. My answer is no because it is not the first division and therefore will lack other than hard core rusted on support. Use the Shute teams as the next level down.

 

[Quick Hands]

My suggestion is we have 5 Super Rugby teams already, a Western Sydney team, a Hunter / Central Coast and a second Queensland side.

We already have the 8 clubs that we need, no need to reinvent the wheel that would just involve more start up costs and disruption.

Rays and Rams in Sydney, Eagles for Country NSW, Brisbane City Qld Country, Canberra, Melbourne and Perth.

 

[Quick Hands]

.

As a note I must exclude the Rats, Marlins, Gordon and Norths from Lindommer's criticism. They really have gotten behind the NRC and are one of the best examples of how it can work.

4 clubs in geographical proximity to combine for a quasi-representative NRC franchise which enables progression from their clubs, but also working as a function franchise at that next level.

Glad to see you finally acknowledge that some of us are in it for the greater good.

Hopefully a few others will start to realise that "Shute Shield clubs" are not a single monolithic entity.

There are also SS clubs involved with the Rams. My understanding is that Wests, Penrith, Parramatta and Souths are on board and that Eastwood aren't involved to the same extent as the others. (That's their choice - they may or may not suffer long-term as a result). http://ramsrugby.com.au/about/

A small minority of clubs have little involvement with the NRC, I think that it's their loss, but I don't think it's a big deal. People are entitled to dissenting views (sometimes the minority is right). If the NRC is a good concept, it will survive and prosper. It's probably better that those who don't embrace it aren't involved.

 

[kiap]

IMO we have four years to develop a workable national competition which would include the existing Super Rugby teams, a Hunter / Central Coast, and a western Sydney team, now thats 8 teams, a second Brisbane and arguably one more.

So, a rebrand/takeover something like:

PER: Spirit → Force
MEL: Rising → Rebs
CBR: Kooks → Brums
BNE: City → Reds

QC (Quade Cooper) → Aces​

SYD: Stareagles → Tahs
WS: Rams
CC: Rays
+ ? : Falcons

Fine. But the substance, other than names, is not much different as a starting point to the NRC.

Except the Tahs are involved.

 

[Train Without a Station]

But Gnostic, it's not my structure.

It's the structure of our strongest competitors.

New Zealand, South Africa and England.

New Zealand is underpinned by the NPC.

South Africa have the Currie Cup.

England whilst different due to the relegation and promotion, has their Premiership underpinned by National One.

Even France has the Top 14, Pro D2, the Fed 1 if my understanding of French Geography is correct, is the closest comparison to the Shute Shield.

But all these countries have a top level. Then a national level below before they get into regional/suburban competitions.

Australia certainly does struggle to support 5 Super Rugby sides financially. Player depth that's absolutely incorrect. There are more professional rugby players plying their trade outside Australia than inside. The money isn't here.

You know what's definitely not going to increase revenue, presence and demand though? 3 teams playing 6 home games a year, and playing only 8 games within Australia in a year.

I'm not saying people such as Brett Papworth can't see common sense because they don't agree with me. I'm saying because they are so strongly opposed to what the 3 other most successful rugby nations do, as well as what the nation with the strongest domestic competition does, then I think they can't.

 

[wamberal]

By the way, it is actually possible to want the NRC to survive and prosper, while also wanting one's district club to survive.


Believe it or not! My wife and I did all we could to support the ARC, went to all the Rays' home games, while also supporting Eastwood up hill and down dale.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Who said it wasn't?

Ideally everybody should support a club.

Where the issue lies is people who don't want other pathways and coincidentally think the professional game should be supported by district clubs alone.