• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Sydney Shake Up

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
From The Fitz Files today (grain of salt usually but sometimes has substance).

WHAT THEY SAID
Jeff Sayle, on Randwick Rugby Club's parlous financial state: ''If we don't amalgamate we would probably cease to be here.'' Staggering.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/the-fitz-files/its-time-to-revisit-the-crawford-report-20120817-24e2f.html#ixzz23sTEiZvg

All the more reason to shake up Sydney Rugby.

Is the Wicks like a run down British Country Manor house?

A couple of other Shute Shield clubs in a similar state as well if one listens to the words on the street.
 

AussieDominance

Trevor Allan (34)
this thread is called the Sydney Shake Up....you are all probably unaware of the SRU Constitution which was passed unanamously a couple of weeks back by all clubs in attendance. Note Manly did not attend.

Within the constitution is the provision that all 12 current clubs remain in the competition for the next 3 years. So despite what Growden wrote today (check the article under the title First Grade Concerns.. http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...-on-kiwis-under-high-ball-20120816-24bg0.html) the 12 clubs are here til atleast the end of 2015.

We talk about shaking up the comp. We talk about Tahs standing up to the players and telling them which club they should align themselves with. We have even talked about the good old Labor Party argument of restraint of trade.

To shake up the comp, I personally would LOVE to see nothing more than a genuine attempt, and I mean genuine, from both NSWRU and ARU to promote the competition. We constantly hear how the Sydney Comp is the Premier Club Rugby Competition in Australia.yet it doesn't even have a major sponsor. Funding has been cut to it by ARU. The media promotion of the competition from NSWRU is minimal at best and only improves, albeit slightly, once the Super 15 has finished.

2 things need to change in my opinion to shake the comp up.

  1. they need to limit the amount of juniors and school players heading to the Varsity. In fact, they need to restrict the amount of players playing for clubs from without their home district.
Now before the Varsity apologists start throwing grenades at me, hear me out. What Uni have done to grow themselves in the last 20 years is simply nothing more than extraordinary. But I think it is akin to the growth rugby league had in the 50s and 60s and in particular the St George Dragons. We are all aware of their superb run of continued premierships, but at the time, NSWRL had the foresight to recognise that that dominance was killing the competition. They also had the balls to do something about it. Pity the same has not been recognised and acted upon by our code's administrators. But when you have old boys in the highest rugby position in the land, we all know nothing will ever change without their express approval. Shame.


The beauty of the NRL is that in any given year, 8 clubs are a chance of the making the grand final, with about 4 who would be considered as genuine contenders within that 8. So at the start of the year, everyone's side is capable of doing something special. The students have long expressed thir desire to play in a strong and viable competition. They have threatened many things over the years, but deep down, I believe they are happy in the Shute Shield. They have thrown down the challenge to all other clubs to catch them. Uni are clearly the benchmark. The problem is, the only way clubs can catch them is to throw money around to try to do achieve similar success. Every other club does have access to scholarships, or college fee grants without throwing a bit of money around themselves. So it is an uneven playing field. I can hear Bruce Ross already typing a show me and prove it response! So limit the transfers from outside the district. The points cap can be 'rorted' through applying discounts etc. And despite what others believe, I dont think it is having the desired effect. Unless Uni lose all 3 Colts grand finals, I dont think the PPS argument is a worthy one. So limit the player movement, pick a number, it might be 8 players across 3 grades of colts or whatever.

2. Rugby has NEVER taken the game to the people. Never has, never will...unfortunately. The promotion of the competition is completely non existent save for the efforts of the clubs getting local paper coverage. Our local paper doesnt even have a rugby column! Shaking up the competition, by promoting the hell out of it, is something that has never been tried. Now is the time to do it

You have hit the nail on the head here. Limit the amount of transfers/players registered from outside the district. Some players have legitimate reasons for moving clubs - fair enough. Some just do it for money/other high powered incentives(Uni Scholarships etc im not just talking Sydney Uni here quite a few city clubs do it).

This would allow for junior development to be the main focus of recruiting programs.
 
O

Ole Two Blue

Guest
You have hit the nail on the head here. Limit the amount of transfers/players registered from outside the district. Some players have legitimate reasons for moving clubs - fair enough. Some just do it for money/other high powered incentives(Uni Scholarships etc im not just talking Sydney Uni here quite a few city clubs do it).

This would allow for junior development to be the main focus of recruiting programs.

I have always found it astonishing how a kid is only too happy to play for his District in State Champs but then come U16 and above, he goes to the highest bidder........
 
O

Ole Two Blue

Guest
Great post.
Any clues why manly didnt attend? Spit bridge under repair?
The uni old boys' power is difficult: in some ways it is only uni and the woodies who have kept Shute shield rugby from dintegrating into a complete rabble.
part of the problem is that there is,as John Ribot used to say, no vision for the game. To have that you either need people with no affiliations (hard to get in an essentially amateur game) or zealots (a fine line usually between using their zeal for good instead of evil). Or both.
PLUS MONEY.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
[/quote]

No idea............though in the last year they have attended less than 4 meetings. You would have to ask them why they cant be bothered.
 

Andrew B Cox

Sydney Middleton (9)
Andrew, the only club you say should definitely stay where it is, happens to be the club with the worst track record with juniors(if they have any).

You're probably right about giving them a wildcard given their unique position, however you'll find that they have three junior clubs (Petersham, Cantebury, Balmain) compared to Wests single junior club.

Their junior rep team in under 12s was pretty good. They had Peter Delavere coaching them and appeared to be well resourced.

Hypothetically, those two clubs could be wrestling for the Inner west franchise.
 

Done that

Ron Walden (29)
Well, I only ever played at one club, and coached there for six years.

And my closest friends are the guys I played there with.

So I guess it makes sense.
It's of no consequence to me , I just noted that in some of your earlier posts this year (post West Harbour coaching days) you
had the West Harbour logo attached, now you feature Eastwood's.
 

Lindommer

Steve Williams (59)
Staff member
You're probably right about giving (Uni) a wildcard given their unique position, however you'll find that they have three junior clubs (Petersham, Canterbury, Balmain) compared to Wests single junior club.

Uni's "junior" clubs are an artiface, Sydney University Football Club had nothing to do with the establishment of juniors at Petersham, Canterbury and Balmain. They used their financial muscle to catch these three and deflect criticism of them for not having juniors. FFS, Sydney University is a UNIVERSITY, where students go to study after high school. Everything a university caters for should only be for adults, apart from possibly childcare for parents attending the said institution.
 

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
Aren't Petersham and Balmain already established rugby clubs with affiliation to NSW Suburban Rugby Union?

The spaghetti relationships that are the organisation chart of NSW rugby then has the junior division of those NSW Suburban clubs affiliated to SJRU, and also "playing for" a SRU Shute Shield club in terms of district representation at NSW JRU State championships.

Time to simplify things, methinks.
 

Andrew B Cox

Sydney Middleton (9)
Uni's "junior" clubs are an artiface, Sydney University Football Club had nothing to do with the establishment of juniors at Petersham, Canterbury and Balmain. They used their financial muscle to catch these three and deflect criticism of them for not having juniors. FFS, Sydney University is a UNIVERSITY, where students go to study after high school. Everything a university caters for should only be for adults, apart from possibly childcare for parents attending the said institution.
I'd have to say that there are plenty of junior clubs not established by the district clubs. In fact, I'd guess the majority. Point is, Uni does a good job with their junior program. Arguably better than other districts.

In the context of my original remark about re-casting district boundaries on geographical lines, I'd posit that University could mount a strong argument to look after the inner West, given their track record on the field and their resources.

West Harbour also is financially secure with good resources. However, they're not exactly flushed with juniors either. Before Bob Ellis kicked off Wests Juniors in the early nineties, I'm not even sure they had any.

As HJ says, who's responsible for whom when it come to juniors needs to be simplified.
 

Andrew B Cox

Sydney Middleton (9)
By what measure?
By the measure that I've seen them at the State Cup with experienced coaching, good kit and appear to be very well prepared. Having been involved in juniors at Wests and Eastwood, I got the impression that they're doing things pretty well. The under 12s this year in particular, beat Wests and Randwick among others. So while it's not definitive, they are arguably performing better than other districts.
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
that's the wrong measure.
How many age groups represented in June?
How many village clubs?
How many registered junior players?
These are better measures than how many games one under 12 team won.
They would not compare favourably in these respects.
 

MACCA

Ron Walden (29)
From The Fitz Files today (grain of salt usually but sometimes has substance).

WHAT THEY SAID
Jeff Sayle, on Randwick Rugby Club's parlous financial state: ''If we don't amalgamate we would probably cease to be here.'' Staggering.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/the-fitz-files/its-time-to-revisit-the-crawford-report-20120817-24e2f.html#ixzz23sTEiZvg

All the more reason to shake up Sydney Rugby.

Is the Wicks like a run down British Country Manor house?

A couple of other Shute Shield clubs in a similar state as well if one listens to the words on the street.
I think that Mr Sayle may have been referring to Randwicks licensed club, not the football Club. The licensed club has merged with another club in the last few weeks ( I think it is the Petersham Marrickville RSL Club, however I will stand corrected) .
 

Andrew B Cox

Sydney Middleton (9)
that's the wrong measure.
How many age groups represented in June?
How many village clubs?
How many registered junior players?
These are better measures than how many games one under 12 team won.
They would not compare favourably in these respects.

So, just off the top of my head...

1. All age groups represented at State Cup in June. Compare that to Wests- no 13s and all other age groups had to rely on imported players to be competitive.
2. 3 Village clubs. Compared to Wests who have 1.
3. Registered numbers. No idea, but given the number of village clubs, I'd say more than Wests

So even by your measures, they are doing better than their nearest neighbour.

Given that a decade ago, they had no club junior club affiliation. I say they're doing well.

Also, unlike Wests, they didn't have to play in last years' 4th grade jerseys (You try putting an 11 year old in a XXXXL and make him feel special!). And they didn't hand out leftover grade kit.

So would you like me to rephrase my earlier comment to 'They do a better job with their juniors than their neighbouring club'?

So going back to my previous comment - "In the context of my original remark about re-casting district boundaries on geographical lines, I'd posit that University could mount a strong argument to look after the inner West, given their track record on the field and their resources" - this holds true.

And let's not get too bogged down with the juniors here. It is an important component, but not the only one.
 

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
This is a great thread.
  • Demonstrates patriotic supporters.
  • Alot of Great ideas.
  • Should it be just the Sydney Shake up - lets make it NSW Shake up whilst its wobling and there are some good changes being made. As "ONE EYED WJ" or Bruce i think said "bleed from the top down".
I believe there are SS clubs who could stand alone in a 3T and would love to see it evolve, I like Andrew Cox's district boundaries (how I don't know though as clubs are steeped in history and would like to retain it - I.e. Wests & Dirty Reds).

I only hope the good ideas are being plucked and a SWOT being prepared for NSW Rugby to develop.
 

Done that

Ron Walden (29)
As you say West Harbour has only one junior club , which however , in contrast to Sydney University's "juniors " , was established by the West Harbour club & it's endeavours,
whilst University's junior clubs were in existance & funtioning prior to them becoming associated with Uni.
Given the frequent complaints by members & supporters of other clubs & the generally held opinion amongst them , regarding what is perceived as an inequatous situation
regarding the resources of the other clubs & those of Uni. , & the unlikely event of the gap ever closing in the forseeable future , perhaps an argument could be made for
redistributing the Petersham , Canterbury , & Balmain clubs relationship , to other clubs.
Under your tacit recommendation/suggestion , you would see Sydney University absorbing the West Harbour club & it's resources ,players & juniors , hardly a recipe , I would
have thought ,for the equalisation of clubs in the Shute Shield , or the levelling of "the playing field " , in fact such an event would likely make the gap between Sydney University
& the other clubs even greater , than that which currently exists.
 

Andrew B Cox

Sydney Middleton (9)
As you say West Harbour has only one junior club , which however , in contrast to Sydney University's "juniors " , was established by the West Harbour club & it's endeavours,
whilst University's junior clubs were in existance & funtioning prior to them becoming associated with Uni.
Given the frequent complaints by members & supporters of other clubs & the generally held opinion amongst them , regarding what is perceived as an inequatous situation
regarding the resources of the other clubs & those of Uni. , & the unlikely event of the gap ever closing in the forseeable future , perhaps an argument could be made for
redistributing the Petersham , Canterbury , & Balmain clubs relationship , to other clubs.
Under your tacit recommendation/suggestion , you would see Sydney University absorbing the West Harbour club & it's resources ,players & juniors , hardly a recipe , I would
have thought ,for the equalisation of clubs in the Shute Shield , or the levelling of "the playing field " , in fact such an event would likely make the gap between Sydney University
& the other clubs even greater , than that which currently exists.


Gee whiz, where do I start?

Firstly, I agree absolutely that if a restructure of the Shute Shield were to take place, a redistribution of junior clubs more equitably should take place.

I also agree that University has an advantage over the other clubs. This advantage, however, has been forged to a large degree by them- given that they were about to be booted out in the mid nineties. Also I understand the role compulsory student unionism has played in their financial advantage. This no longer exists, and their current situation is built upon great relationships with sponsors and an active alma mater.

As a senior club, they are doing things well. Most of it by hard work and commitment. So i see no benefit in dragging them down. Hell, I never thought they were unconquerable.

Now, on the subject of juniors - I merely said they were doing a good job (in my opinion). I was asked to use measures provided by I like to Watch, and did so, comparing them to the club I am currently working with. They compare favourably.

The notion that a club needs to establish a junior club in order to claim it as their own, is problematic. Sure Bob Ellis helped establish West Juniors in the 90's, and he had played for Wests. That doesn't necessarily mean that Wests built the club. Both Hawkesbury Valley and Rooty Hill sit under the Penrith banner- but only a few years ago they were Parramatta clubs. Is Penrith as guilty as Uni in 'pilfering juniors?'

In my lifetime, Hunters Hill has been an Eastwood, Gordon and now a Norths junior club. One of the fathers involved in the establishment of the Beecroft club was a rugby league player from the Eastern suburbs, with no relationship with Eastwood at all.

Balmain is a club in its infancy. What is illegitimate with it sitting under Uni's banner? Have Petersham or Cantebury been affiliated with other clubs? Maybe some one can tell me. Despite being 2kms from Concord Oval, Drummoyne is associated with Norths. How does that happen?

Finally, in the context of making rugby better in Sydney and NSW, equal distribution is needed, absolutely. But don't believe that weakening the club with 'best practice' makes the sport stronger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top