Learning from the enemy – an affordable Third Tier competition

The AFL has set up in the non-traditional Aussie Rules states a Second Tier competition which has some features which could be adapted to create a viable Third Tier competition for Australian rugby.

The NEAFL competition operates across Sydney, Brisbane, the ACT and the Northern Territory. It includes the reserve sides from the Sydney Swans, GWS Giants, Brisbane Lions and Gold Coast SUNS. The rest of its teams are club sides from the two major cities and the two territories.

In Australian rugby the reserve teams from the Super franchises only play a very limited number of games, largely against one another, and do not have the opportunity to participate in a regular ongoing competition. At the same time there are serious imbalances in playing strength between the Premiership clubs in both Sydney and Brisbane.

Both of these problems can be addressed by setting up a new Third Tier competition, which might have the imaginative working title of the 3T competition. Each of the Australian Super franchises would enter their reserve sides in the 3T. Then existing clubs would be invited to apply to be included. It can be anticipated there would be at least one application from the ACT plus a number from both the Sydney and Brisbane Premiership ranks. The club applications would be assessed on the basis of defined criteria.

Let us say that in its first year the 3T would consist of 10 teams, 5 Super franchise and 5 club sides. The competition format would consist of a single round of 9 games followed by a 2 week finals series. Importantly 3T would run concurrently with Super Rugby and the Sydney and Melbourne club competitions. Games would be played either on Sunday afternoons or as early fixtures to Super games.

The Super franchises would use players from their own contract or training squads plus players recruited only from those clubs in their city which were not themselves involved in 3T. This would provide a pathway for players from all clubs to experience high level competition.

Clubs involved in 3T would still have to fulfill their normal Saturday afternoon obligations, meaning that they would have to have sufficient playing strength to field an additional team. The fact that their best players would be involved in 3T would serve to diminish some of the present disparities in playing standard within the Sydney, Brisbane and probably ACT competitions.

Players involved in 3T would continue to live in their home cities thus eliminating the need to pay relocation and accommodation expenses. Franchises and clubs would be free to make their own decisions as to what remuneration, if any, their players would receive. Ideally 3T should be conducted basically as a pre-professional competition.

The main cost involved in mounting 3T would be air travel for teams playing interstate. This could be funded from sponsorship income plus a grant from the ARU which will be the ultimate beneficiary from the new competition.

There might be difficulties initially in gaining TV coverage of games but this is likely to become a relatively minor problem in the near future. The NEAFL competition already makes use of live video streaming and the rapid emergence of other forms of new media will greatly diminish the existing operators’ control over what is broadcast.
.

I like the general premis and I do think that the NEAFL is a great comp. However considering the Super squads consist of only 35 contracts, it might be a stretch to have a 1st and 2nd team.

However, they do play 2nd team fixtures already and this proposal would mean that they would be more actively recruiting from club rugby to fill the gaps. I understand that AFL teams like the Swans also co-opt club players for their NEAFL commitments. The fact that our franchises couldn't recruit from those clubs which are also in 3T would provide opportunities for players from those clubs which are currently weaker.
.

This would be a huge step in the right direction. I would love someone to study and release the findings of NZ rugby pathway vs Aus pathway (jnr rep, schools, U20, club, prov). Quality of competition , amount of games played, etc.

We all know how the report would read, would be interesting to see the numbers anyway.

The third tier issue is our (rugby die hards) generations carbon tax debate!

Absolutely agree Jiggles. We have seen the last couple of years nearly all of the Australian franchise struggle with field a competitive 22 due to the limit of 30+5EPS contracted players. Every team has had to go to club players outside of the 35 to field teams.

Having said that I agree that if we were to set up Academies with players that actually play high level games like the 3T concept proposed by Bruce then there would be some real benefit to all franchises.

The only problem is an existing High Performance Manager will need to undo his work of a National Academy and go back to the regional model based on Super Rugby teams.

Unless we do this we will always have an inferior conference to the SA and NZ conferences. SA in particular have a massive development pathway through not only their Currie Cup but more importantly is their Varsity Cup.

Bruce, an almost identical model was developed in 2008 by some key clubs in Sydney, Canberra and Brisbane. It lost energy after a poorly written article by a journalist in the Australian that caused a loss of trust within the group.
The then ARU Chairman had seen the proposal and was supportive however ARU energies were targeted elsewhere after the initial return of JON.
The concept was for a European model of Heineken Cup & ECC. WA, ACT, Vic franchises would enter 2nd XV teams. Sydney would enter the Top 4 clubs from previous years Shute Shield, 3 from QLD on a likewise basis. (this could be amended based on a compromise of Bruce's suggestion).
All other Sydney and QLD Clubs are in Div II. Games are played on specified weekends throughout the year in tandem with the existing club Premierships as per Europe.
To fund the comp all participants would need to pay their expenses with the realized commercial returns from the comp being rebated.
It may require start up capital from the ARU in the first year.

Great idea, Moses, but I've had a first go. Time to get other members involved.

G&GR - Australian Rugby's Think Tank. Although that may be damning with faint praise.
.

Considering that funds is the issue I think that idea definitely has legs. Start out as a 5 team and expand as stronger clubs can provide the resources to join.

That would be 8 matches, fp. You weren't by any chance on the Sydney Rugby subcommittee which reputedly determined that the first round of the 12-team Shute Shield competition would run for 12 weeks? That is supposed to be the reason why we had a bye week before the abbreviated second round started.
.

Don't dismiss that so lightly. Not sure about the corporate structure of Gaggerland, but this site is more widely read and talked about than many would believe. As I pace the ovals and grandstands of heavensgame, I am surprised how often I hear about G&GR, or someone quoting directly from the forums. Either they are the OP or they are just a parrot.

Has any thought been given to establishing G&GR as a lobby group or think tank? Good way to get funding for the operation of the site if the G&GR CEO were actually paid for our services.

I read in the papers on the weekend that the Arbib/Cosgrove governance review wanted to consult with all rugby stakeholders, and I reckon that we could take a lead in that if we get our collective act together.

G&GR - The voice of reason in Australian Rugby - You know it makes sense.

Bruce this is a great idea: the question is who in the ARU is going to develop the idea to fruition? The issue of the short term cost of travel cannot be allowed to stall the development of a competition in which the fringe s15 players can get weekly competition against one another.
I see Virgin Australia are pursuing corporate customers with business class fares said to be 20% below the previous prevailing level: this is/we are the sort of demographic they are looking for.

We all know fringe SR playings need to have high quality games every week if Australian rugby is to move forward. Something like Bruce's concept is a must.

Not for the first time, HJ, I was being too subtle. What I meant by "damning with faint praise" was that there is not much evidence of alternative sources of ideas in Australian rugby.
.

And we, collectively as gaggerlanders, should build on that and perhaps take commercial advantage of that for the betterment of the game we all love, as well as G&GR itself. There is no real alternative.

If Arbib/Cosgrove are fair dinkum, I sense a rare opportunity is opening up.

Some time ago I spoke to Mark Arbib at a social function. It seems that the terms of reference for the governance review are very narrow. It did not appear to cover anything other than the composition of the ARU Borad.
.

Is Mark Arbib the ARU Borat?

Or maybe Spiro Zavos would need to be appointed into that position.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

OK I got the impression from the article that Cossie was looking at a far wider scope. I admit that it was in the Fairfax papers, so either I read the article incorrectly - that is a possibility, or they got it wrong - that is a good probability of that occurring as well.

Regardless, I think that that G&GR Consulting Pty Ltd has a good ring to it, and our collective knowledge and networks and independent frank and fearless advice is something that the Gaggerland Prime Minister, and Minister of Finance could be able to take commercial advantage of.

Back to the thread. We do need some lateral thinking to provide the missing link between club and Super, and to provide that depth in the pathway to gold.

Easy money in rugby appears only available to the salaried executives and Board members. Everyone else has to work their proverbials off for crumbs.

Whatever we come up with must be economically sustainable, scalable, and affordable for the participants clubs and spectators.

EDIT:
It was this article (Grumbles = Author) and these particular words in bold that lead me to think the Cossie review would be quite wide in scope.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/aru-female-influence-a-step-towards-level-playing-fields-20120719-22d4m.html#ixzz21RU6wfEC