Tier 3.5 - An Alternative NRC

[Gnostic]

Papworth thinks he is speaking for the wider rugby public, but I really don't think he is. The response to my article today has been almost universally positive, which is rare on GGR and not what I was expecting.



I think there is certainly a hard, hard core of Shute Shield supporters willing to go to the wall with him, and these ex-players may well be in that constituency.



But the wider rugby public? I'm not sure at all they subscribe to these views. They are involved with juniors, or subbies, or in the regions. And that group looks to me to be far bigger than the one Papworth is speaking for.

.

The issue Barbarian is that those of us that post on Fora and Blogs are the hard rusted on core of supporters. Just like the Tahs supporters who stuck in there through the continual failures and the Hickey/Foley years of denial. It is not a good base on which to judge support. The overwhelming majority here were supportive of Foiley/Hickey at the Tahs. Of Deans at the Wallabies..... the list goes on. The majority view in a social media context is not really a representative group especially when you can see that many posts are repeated across multiple sites.

There won't be winners in this but there may well be a sustainable outcome.
If the "rebel 8" (not my term) collapse I expect a vast number of people will be lost to the game. If they win the day the NRC will die in its current form and Pulver and the board will also be gone. Indeed they may well struggle to survive this in any event as their handling of the whole saga up to this point has allowed this wound to fester for years, and it has been openly festering without being addressed in a manner which actually resolves the issues. It has been very poor management and engagement with significant stakeholders and the end result is this confrontation and schism which as somebody above said is very reminiscent of 1908.

 

[Slim 293]

So just to be clear, when Pappy and pals were bleating about the grassroots of Australian rugby, they were really just talking about their on self interests i.e. a few select premier clubs..........

Just to be clear...........

 

[Gnostic]

I don't think the 40 odd signatories, have been snubbed by the ARU time after time,when trying to get their viewpoint over.



Personally, I never play ultimatums,until all avenues have been explored,as it's hard to complete any project with ill feelings between parties.

And I absolutely make sure I'm in a position of strength.

They are threatening to burn Bill by setting fire to themselves in his proximity.



Let's just take Randwick as an example.

How many Tahs contracted players do they have?

How many aspiring players joined them for their 'connections'

How many and going to choose Wicks over Tahs?

How many Schoolboy rockstars do they have in colts?

How many will stay with Wicks if it threatens their state/ARU 20's spots?

You like Bill have missed the point entirely.

No club has any Tahs players contracted, few aspiring players or "rockstars". The pathway is very well known now, get identified as a school boy, get in the various schools sides, get signed to an EPS (which will get you a club spot where you rarely if ever play) and play in the NRC, Under 20s.

The Clubs have no relevance to the development of players now. And just look at where that has got us. Under skilled "elite" players who struggle to pass and kick a ball.

So If the Clubs tell the ARU to stick it what does it matter? They don't supply anything anyway do they. The national Club comp SHOULD pose no risk to the elite NRC should it.

Funny how it does pose a risk because the very real danger for the ARU is that more people support Club rugby than supports the "Elite".

Then again if it isn't a risk, no worries the Clubs can go their own way and stand or fall on their own merits and the ARU can continue with trickle down economics. I would however refer Bill Pulver and Co to the writings of acclaimed Economists Joseph Stiglitz (who unlike the great JON didn't get inducted into a management Hall of Fame he just got some shitty award from some Nobel bloke) and Thomas Pickety. They'll tell one pretty accurately what the outcome of trickle down structures is.

 

[kiap]

If the "rebel 8" (not my term) collapse I expect a vast number of people will be lost to the game.

It's a kite-flying exercise, an ambit claim. And Pappy, if you take him at his word, will still be putting corner flags out after it fails.

If Alan Jones is "lost to the game", though, then this whole debacle might even be worth it.

That'll make Pappy less Yappy.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I didn't say they brought him over.

My point is the prospect of being spotted and getting a full time contract was more of a lure than anything the club did.

If the was no ARU funded contract to secure if he was spotted I'd say he would not have played rugby for Norths.

 

[I like to watch]

You like Bill have missed the point entirely.

No club has any Tahs players contracted, few aspiring players or "rockstars". The pathway is very well known now, get identified as a school boy, get in the various schools sides, get signed to an EPS (which will get you a club spot where you rarely if ever play) and play in the NRC, Under 20s.

The Clubs have no relevance to the development of players now. And just look at where that has got us. Under skilled "elite" players who struggle to pass and kick a ball.

So If the Clubs tell the ARU to stick it what does it matter? They don't supply anything anyway do they. The national Club comp SHOULD pose no risk to the elite NRC should it.

Funny how it does pose a risk because the very real danger for the ARU is that more people support Club rugby than supports the "Elite".

Then again if it isn't a risk, no worries the Clubs can go their own way and stand or fall on their own merits and the ARU can continue with trickle down economics. I would however refer Bill Pulver and Co to the writings of acclaimed Economists Joseph Stiglitz (who unlike the great JON didn't get inducted into a management Hall of Fame he just got some shitty award from some Nobel bloke) and Thomas Pickety. They'll tell one pretty accurately what the outcome of trickle down structures is.

That's not right at all.
The policy these days,is if you are not in the match day 23 you play for your club.
I think Deegan played every game, Horwitz played plenty,not sure on Kellaway & the winger,but they definitely played during the year.

My point is not that clubs add no value.
Its they are dooming themselves to fail with this ultamatitum.

 

[Slim 293]

Funny how it does pose a risk because the very real danger for the ARU is that more people support Club rugby than supports the "Elite".

Eh?

 

[I like to watch]

cmon these contract opportunities would be there with a different form of the ARU.
You can't give them credit,just because they are there.
In any event,if the choice is playing in the SS for an O/S contract or getting fucked up playing Mungo for Merrylands,I know what I would pick.

 

[Train Without a Station]

The professional game helps the amateur game is my point. That's part of the ARU structure.

In isolation that's a very minor thing with wall benefit.

But that's why I listed a few of the benefits together.

Even if you disagree with that small part, it doesn't really change my point anyway.

 

[Highlander35]

100 % go for it numpties. Game might be better off if a few of those egos got humbled at all the early hurdles.

 

[Quick Hands]

I stand corrected.

By the way, I was interested in your thoughts that the Marlins might not care for the new proposal. Doubt its that simple, but its good to hear.

My history may be wrong, but a chance re-consider the Premier, from recollection with 2500 players to the broader subbies with 7500 (again on recollection) may be useful.

I stand by my view that the west of Sydney can be handled better. As I also grow firmly interested in the Marlins.

I've long said that the west could be handled better, you won't get any argument from me.

 

[Quick Hands]

but even then they don't really give a fuck because everyone knows the Shute Shield is really only composed of four clubs (Randwick, Sydney Uni, Norths and Manly) and all the other clubs in the competition are just filler and were doomed anyway.

If you're going to criticise people for being innacurate, you need to make sure that you get you facts right. I get that you are angry, but lashing out wildly at the first names you think of hardly does the rest of your argument any good.

Norths and Manly have each won the competition twice in the last 50 or 60 years and for some of that time each of them struggled. Recent history would show that neither are particulary influential in NSW rugby circles. Both clubs are also enthusiastic supporters of the NRC.

Brett Papworth isn't connected with any of the four clubs that you mention either.

 

[Quick Hands]

Papworth thinks he is speaking for the wider rugby public, but I really don't think he is. The response to my article today has been almost universally positive, which is rare on GGR and not what I was expecting.

I think there is certainly a hard, hard core of Shute Shield supporters willing to go to the wall with him, and these ex-players may well be in that constituency.

But the wider rugby public? I'm not sure at all they subscribe to these views. They are involved with juniors, or subbies, or in the regions. And that group looks to me to be far bigger than the one Papworth is speaking for.
.

It shouldn't surprise anyone. As I have repeatedly said, most SS supporters aren't in lock step with Papworth et al.

That's not to say that Papworth doesn't have any supporters or that even some people agree with some of the things that he says.

The fact that there are only 4 SS clubs out of the 12 who aren't directly involved with supporting the NRC should give a clue to where much of this is coming from.

They are a minority, they are entitled to their veiw, but it's very much a minority view at all levels of the game.

 

[dru]

It shouldn't surprise anyone. As I have repeatedly said, most SS supporters aren't in lock step with Papworth et al.

That's not to say that Papworth doesn't have any supporters or that even some people agree with some of the things that he says.

The fact that there are only 4 SS clubs out of the 12 who aren't directly involved with supporting the NRC should give a clue to where much of this is coming from.

They are a minority, they are entitled to their veiw, but it's very much a minority view at all levels of the game.

This is going to be key through this mess.

I have asked in the past why it was that no-one from the SS fraternity was standing up publically telling Papworth to pull his head in. Spilt milk perhaps.

There are SS clubs, a majority of them(?), who are the most impacted by this action. I feel somewhat cautious, may wait for bona fides through formal public expression. But they will gain support (that has not been arrogated by the break away).

 

[Dave Beat]

It is the grass roots pathway that needs the focus, to attract, and to retain the kids under the colts age group, ensure they stay in the game through colts and onto grade.

I believe it is far easier having the Premier Clubs achieving this than the ARU, but i believe the ARU should assist with funding and work on a measurable incentive structure to achieve this - so with engagement and results other things follow.

An incentive structure that has return on investment at all levels of the game.

 

[Lindommer]

I suspect this silly attempt at independence by Papworth and Poidevin and their ilk will end up being all piss and wind. They'll never have complete support from members in their respective clubs while the lure of higher representative honours will keep the better players from taking part in any comp during the NRC window. The Shute Shield may've had a good year this year but so did the NRC. The trickling of players through to Super franchises, and other pro teams, from the NRC is starting to become an established pathway for professional players in Oz. How much better is this than the controlled laboratory environment of a closed shop Australian Schoolboy>under 20>Super Rugby>Wallaby route?

For both Papworth and Poidevin to continue to want club rugby to maintain its previous privileged position in the Australian rugby panorama is reprehensible. Papworth, who fled amateur rugby for the King's shilling in his playing days and now wants to stymie the professional progress of players in his club, occupies the unique position of president of the only rugby club in Sydney (and Brisbane and Canberra?) which owns its grounds. Also uniquely, he has caused his club to be the only one in Brisbane, Canberra and Sydney not to join an NRC franchise. Poidevin? Simon, together with others from glitzy troika of Easts/Randwick/Uni, actively campaigned against the ARC in 2007; he shamelessly used his contacts in the city of Sydney in attempts to sabotage potential sponsors. I wasn't aware of his disgraceful speech to the Weary Dunlop Club in 2007 but it sounds as though he was being consistent in his opposition to the ARC/NRC.

The establishment and continued development of the NRC will lift rugby in this country eventually. I'm not for a moment saying there's no place for club rugby, its position as the building block of the overall structure is important, especially for those young blokes straight out of school as they want to continue playing the game. However, the demands of professionalism (travel for starters, training commitments for another) mean the involvement of clubs in a modern, professional structure with their limited resources is never going to be what it was in years past.

 

[AussieDominance]

The professional game helps the amateur game is my point. That's part of the ARU structure.

In isolation that's a very minor thing with wall benefit.

But that's why I listed a few of the benefits together.

Even if you disagree with that small part, it doesn't really change my point anyway.

Your points are literally grabbing at straws as your not happy with the process Papworth and Poidevin have undertaken.

Of course Simone can't get a professional contract without the ARU but let me tell you most professional players can't get a professional contract without playing for Manly or playing for Eastern Suburbs, Randwick etc.

The ARU got away with murder in making the clubs fund the NRC in Sydney and now they consistently bemoan the fact that the clubs are trying hard to recoup losses that the ARU forced on them to try and develop the 66% of players that it produces for the professional game here.

The ARU works for the good of the game and the majority of the game are not being supported i.e Brisbane and Sydney club rugby.

 

[AussieDominance]

Also before you shoot your mouth off again. I have stated before and will state it again the NRC has a place in Australian Rugby if it was done correctly.

The Waratahs had decided to sign Irae Simone before the NRC even started like most of the blokes they sign which does really raise the validity of the NRC in terms of signing players.

 

[Train Without a Station]

The ARU got away with murder "making the clubs fund the NRC in Sydney"?

This is why the majority are beginning side against you blokes.

The clubs complained about being left out of the loop with the ARC. They wanted a stake.

Only the 4 North Harbour Clubs fund it. The Eagles are not funded by Randwick and Easts and the Rams are funded by a private consortium.

Most professional players can get a contract without the Shute Shield. And do.

The vast majority (ever increasing) are signed to Contracts before they play a game of Shute Shield. This is the changing world and applies to all sports. They are recruited on the back of their exploits in U20 Programs now.

People may disagree with this but this is generally what happens. Very few NZ players are plying their trade in Club rugby for years in hopes of getting an NPC Contract and then Super Rugby gig. The vast majority are siphoned off from Schoolboy teams into academy programs and then NPC Programs because this is how professional sport now works. Closer to the American System where it's all part of elite structures.

There's still a place for club rugby. No matter what there will always be the strongest competition that becomes the Premier Grade by default. And as a result there will always be the odd late bloomer who slips through the cracks and is identified there (Your Caydern Neville's and Rory Arnold's of the world). But they are now more so the minority and it's a fight to recruit these already identified, highly talented youngsters to get the benefit of the couple of years they play at this level before being occupied full time in the level above.

My points are a response to the comment that the Shute Shield got no help from the ARU. But that's false. They got assistance, it's just not direct funding. My comments were nothing about Papworth and Poidevin.

Edited to delete expletive objected to - no more thank you - Ed.

 

[Gnostic]

The "Elite" you say? Ha! The "Elite"?!



What a load of drivel. Gnostic, you need not pair your posts with actual words as it seems cruel for you to make your sentences compete with your Randwick logo to get your message across.

Choice rant.

If you actually read and attempted to comprehend the post you would realise the usage of "elite" in the context refereed to the top tiers of the game, ie:- Wallabies, Super and a referencing of NRC.

If you also bothered to read the background posts you would have also realised I have stated openly I have NO association or affiliation with any Club, to repeat it for you - The Randwick Logo is there in a sentimental acknowledgement of the club that brought me to the game and ignited the passion in the 70s. Indeed the Tahs Logo is there because I have was born and bred in NSW and have resided in the state most of my life. These things do not make me blind to the issues at those intuitions, indeed I was one of the few here talking about the abject failure of Foley and Hickey at the Tahs and was constantly told I should just get behind the team.

Good on you for attending a game. Your circle of mates doesn't change anything I've posted on the subject. Just have a look and take off the angry glasses first.

I have nothing to gain, I'm not a member of a Shute Shield Club, I'm not a Tahs member. On a good day it would be a 13 hour round trip for me to go to a game in Sydney so the number of live games I get to see a limited and hence no memberships. I just understand where this has come from and why, and to write it off as petty egos is just myopic in the extreme and solves nothing.

I certainly hope you can manage to attempt to comprehend this, you mentioned before you have exams (see I actually read and take in the content of the posts before commenting) if you cannot at least RTFQ in your exams (Read The F&^%$ing Question).