• 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.

Waratahs 2016

Status
Not open for further replies.
WorkingClassRugger

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
I like to watch said:
Not an accurate analogy at all.
The funding for NRC franchises, the player costs,and the ownership models are completely different to those of the ARC.
Without the support of SS,the NRC would be much weaker than it is.
Click to expand...


Would it? Prior to the ARC the ARU surveyed the players and found that they were massively in favour of it. I'd imagine that this would still largely be the case. Now, NSW is the only state where the clubs are involved. So the strength of the other NRC teams won't be affected. Now if the clubs chose to pull out leaving just the Rams who are privately owned wouldn't that strengthen the Rams as players would, and they would, look to them for the opportunity to play at a higher level? And considering the guys behind the NSW Country group did it via their own equity it may be reasonable to think they could keep it going.

Sure, it would mean that the competition would contract to just 7 teams but it would also openthe opportunity to run it over two full rounds for 12 games. It would also mean that while originally thre were 4 NSW teams, now three which should lead them to being generally more competitive. Going to just two will make them very competitive overall.
 
Quick Hands

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Just to clarify my postion:

I have never said that SS is better than or even as good as NRC - it's clearly a level below.

I have never said that SS is a better development pathway than Aust 20s - its' not, in fact they are part of the same pathway. SS players have been picked in Aust 20s ever since I can remember and it is clearly a step up for the players involved.

I haven't raised funding at all in terms of this discussion. Once the NRC was established, I accept that the ARU won't be able to fund other competitions - certianly not in their current financial situation anyway. What they should be doing is allocate funding and/or resources to all levels of the game. Funding being tied to programmes not just cash for consolidated club funds.

I have never said, and I have never heard it seriously suggested that SS players have the same fitness levels as super players. It goes without saying that full-time professional players at super level have higher fitness levels that part-timers who have to train before and after work. In a day when straw men have been produced at records levels, that one takes the cake.

SS is good for rugby in NSW and Australia for a number of reasons. It provides a structure for development from 6s to grade and beyond, it provides a high standard of competition for participants, it is an excellent place for young aspirational players to gain skills which will stand them in good stead at higher levels, it gives much needed coverage to rugby in the local press and thus creates vital interest in the game beyond the rusted on fanatics. The idea that if some people get their way and the standard of SS is reduced and that subbies clubs will fill the void, is either based on naievety, ignorance or prejudice.
 
cyclopath

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Dear Anyone Posting In The Past Four Pages.
OFF TOPIC!!!!
Thank you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Pfitzy

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
And this is about the time we reach for this GIF:

giphy.gif
 
barbarian

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
Quick Hands said:
The posse will be out in force Wamberal to round up all us dissenting posters.:)

I only bother because I refuse to be shouted down by the mob.
Click to expand...

What 'posse'? What a load of rubbish.

Mate it's a forum. Nobody is shouting anyone down. Nobody has said you can't post, or shouldn't post, or tried to stopped discussion on this subject.

It's a robust discussion with strong views on both sides. There is nothing wrong at all with that. Don't try and claim anyone here is trying to 'silence' you or shut down debate.
.
 
AussieDominance

AussieDominance

Trevor Allan (34)
WorkingClassRugger said:
Would it? Prior to the ARC the ARU surveyed the players and found that they were massively in favour of it. I'd imagine that this would still largely be the case. Now, NSW is the only state where the clubs are involved. So the strength of the other NRC teams won't be affected. Now if the clubs chose to pull out leaving just the Rams who are privately owned wouldn't that strengthen the Rams as players would, and they would, look to them for the opportunity to play at a higher level? And considering the guys behind the NSW Country group did it via their own equity it may be reasonable to think they could keep it going.

Sure, it would mean that the competition would contract to just 7 teams but it would also openthe opportunity to run it over two full rounds for 12 games. It would also mean that while originally thre were 4 NSW teams, now three which should lead them to being generally more competitive. Going to just two will make them very competitive overall.
Click to expand...


The ARU is running the NRC on a shoe string. Going to two teams would create a whole heap of problems with clubs trying to sign players who should be playing NRC Rugby and having to pay away from home allowances and rentals etc for the 8 week period just to get the best 7 teams of players in Australian Rugby on the field. Otherwise if they don't do that the competition doesn't represent the best players. NSW does have enough talent for four teams it just has the organisation's in potentially the wrong orders/set ups/franchises.
 
WorkingClassRugger

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
AussieDominance said:
The ARU is running the NRC on a shoe string. Going to two teams would create a whole heap of problems with clubs trying to sign players who should be playing NRC Rugby and having to pay away from home allowances and rentals etc for the 8 week period just to get the best 7 teams of players in Australian Rugby on the field. Otherwise if they don't do that the competition doesn't represent the best players. NSW does have enough talent for four teams it just has the organisation's in potentially the wrong orders/set ups/franchises.
Click to expand...


As far as I'm aware they don't relocate any players at the moment. Even NSW Country is primarily based in Sydney so playere don't have to incur the cost of moving. This would stay the same. If the clubs pulled out leaving just the two private franchises they would still be based in Sydney. The Sydney guys that feature in the other teams relocate for Super Rugby not the NRC.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Hopefully Kepu returns to the Tahs.

A propping group next year of:

Kepu
Robertson
Ryan
Ta'avao

Sandell and Orr (EPS) would be pretty sweet.

Someone might have to join Ryan on the LHP side considering we'd suddenly have a glut of THP.
 
formerflanker

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
The Waraths (See - staying on topic!!!) are stronger by having a depth of potential below NRC and Super Rugby. The Shute Shield fulfils that role.
At a community level, Shute Shield rugby delivers local enthusiasm for rugby.
It is well worth while persevering with and deserving of funding.
 
AussieDominance

AussieDominance

Trevor Allan (34)
Braveheart81 said:
But no one can say how much funding that should or can be, and what should be sacrificed in order to provide that funding.
Click to expand...


I think the last year the funding happened it was 25 k per club this was though to be pretty paltry but at least it was something.

50-60 k would probably allow each region/club to employ a development officer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top