Australia A - Back on the Cards

[LeCheese]

Personally I am strongly against not using the existing teams in a new comp. The Waratahs and Reds are some of our best IP and have established membership bases. For a new comp that needs everything to go right it would be insane to do away with that in favour of entirely new teams everywhere like the NRC had (even if some of them are basically just the Super Rugby team by another name).

New teams probably will struggle but we also don't improve our competition by bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

Absolutely agree that exisiting teams must remain, and we need to be careful not to dilute their support. Purely theorising, but if we’re wanting a domestic comp, why not make it truly national and bring in an Adelaide and/or Darwin based team?

As I said, I’m just spitballing and this wouldn’t be easy task, but Adelaide is no stranger to rugby, and being the first pro team for a football code (or any code?) in Darwin could have some recruiting benefits.

 

[Braveheart81]

Absolutely agree that exisiting teams must remain, and we need to be careful not to dilute their support. Purely theorising, but if we’re wanting a domestic comp, why not make it truly national and bring in an Adelaide and/or Darwin based team?

As I said, I’m just spitballing and this wouldn’t be easy task, but Adelaide is no stranger to rugby, and being the first pro team for a football code (or any code?) in Darwin could have some recruiting benefits.

Assuming the new teams have private owners that are fully funding the team outside of receiving their share of broadcast rights, where would they want to locate them?

If they want them in Adelaide or Darwin go for it. I'm betting second teams in NSW or Queensland would be more desirable though.

 

[dru]

@BH I'd just be running over the same ground, I suspect. I suspect the bigger issue here, is not just where the new teams are, but how you build them, and what measures you implement to try to ensure a closer to level playing field. If the answer is "none, sink or swim on a commercial basis" - I suspect sink is the result. For the whole comp not just the new teams.

That said, if the funds are there to allow international recruitment and getting a first shot at players coming off contract, and there is a chance to get close to the quality Force started with on their return - that would work fine.

 

[liquor box]

The problem is that not only are Rebels unlikely to be able to manage two teams, they are not on their own. If you were able to pick up Fiji it might balance that element, but even then things are tricky.

You have the SRU/NSWRU issue to broach. There is surely a way through this but maybe seek 3 teams in NSW and put out offers to the SS clubs for interest, then spread the Waratah players and coaching staff through whatever happens. I'm not convinced you will assuage the more noisy club politics with 2 teams.

Loan players who are contracted to other franchises could play for teams who don't have the resources of their own or use limited overseas talent.

Why is there a need for the clubs to agree? I am sure the Tahs can negotiate a contract with players to be a professional player without going through the clubs. If they want to be a pro, then they sign on with their state franchise.

The clubs will just have to live with what happens.

 

[RugbyReg]

The Shute Shield would continue running at the same time.

We have to create new teams. Sydney and Brisbane are really the only markets where that seems viable.

In my view it is essential to bring in private equity for these teams and not have them fall under the umbrella of NSWRU/QRU.

Personally I am strongly against not using the existing teams in a new comp. The Waratahs and Reds are some of our best IP and have established membership bases. For a new comp that needs everything to go right it would be insane to do away with that in favour of entirely new teams everywhere like the NRC had (even if some of them are basically just the Super Rugby team by another name).

New teams probably will struggle but we also don't improve our competition by bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

you can't have a QLD Reds team with its 140 years of history representing the best players in the state (even in this wacked out professional age) and then a 2nd team in QLD. Waratah fans can throw out their own team's history - that's for them to decide.

If you want numbers then it's the NRC with

QLD Country
Brisbane City
Western Sydney
Sydney
Central Coast?
Canberra
Melbourne
Perth
Fiji

And maybe you chuck in a South Coast/ Illawarra type team to soak up some of the the Canberra depth

Run that as a two round competition and then finish with an interstate series after that - be it state of origin or whatever. I just can't get my head around the contracting though.

 

[LeCheese]

Assuming the new teams have private owners that are fully funding the team outside of receiving their share of broadcast rights, where would they want to locate them?

If they want them in Adelaide or Darwin go for it. I'm betting second teams in NSW or Queensland would be more desirable though.

Sure, but I think we need to ensure we use this opportunity to expand the game’s reach. If there is a second team based in QLD, it would have to be the north and could represent northern Aus (FNQ, NT, north WA). Likewise with a second team based in NSW or Vic team that could encompass SA. I just don’t think diluting support for existing teams is the answer.

 

[kiap]

8 teams seems like the minimum viable number for a new comp in my view. I don't think we can go back to 5 or 6 and proclaim it as a step forward.

Would Fiji have an option elsewhere? They're somewhat reliant on Australian Commonwealth funding aren't they? Plus World Rugby still helps fund them. Hopefully they are tied to us.

They are somewhat reliant, to the tune of a couple mill. Fiji govt - via a separate entity - stumps up a bit more again, per season.

The pros and cons of Rugby Australia walking away from New Zealand

Threats of a trans-Tasman schism are nothing new but there are points on both sides as Australia again considers going its own way.

www.smh.com.au

Paul Cully, who always needs to be read with a grain of salt, thinks Drua will go with the keewees:

"Australia would probably lose the Fijian Drua. This is a big one because it is often assumed that the Drua would go with Australia. However, after Super Rugby Pacific was confirmed, a well-informed source close to the Drua told the Herald that had there been a split, they would have gone with NZ..."

It's not a done deal. But I'd think it ultimately comes down to the cash. Is NZ going stump up the full whack for the privilege of flying teams to Suva? We shall see.

 

[Braveheart81]

you can't have a QLD Reds team with its 140 years of history representing the best players in the state (even in this wacked out professional age) and then a 2nd team in QLD. Waratah fans can throw out their own team's history - that's for them to decide.

I just think you give up too much removing the Reds and Waratahs from our primary competition.

If the plan instead was to have them play a three game series each year as a showcase event then maybe that's a viable replacement but the question is when would you schedule it?

If it's a bit of a scratch series with limited build up (because the players are spread elsewhere), would it be as good?

 

[kiap]

Seems strange to be agreeing more with BH today over Reg.

The degree to which the Reds have represented the whole state has waxed and waned. In the pro era it's been on the wane. Peak "Queenslander" would probably have been in the 1980s and 90s. Those who have some rugby history (most don't, and don't care) who like to look back a century and more, would know that the Qld team was in reality SEQ for most of its history. North Queensland was a stronger team than Queensland for a while at the beginning as well.

The era of state rep rugby is largely gone. Yes, the Reds should keep that long history - infinitely better than folding the name in the pro game. But they can't be preventing another pro team in the state.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

The best way to avoid the cluster fuck is to have each super franchise control 2 x teams under their name, think of how QLD ran their teams.

This allows for a 10 team competitions, Run each week end with 2 x double headers and 1 x single header and then in the second round swap the home ground.

eg -
Rd 1 - QLD Country v Rebels 1, Brisbane City v Rebels 2 at QLD
Rd5 - Rebels 1 v Brisbane City, Rebels 2 v QLD Country at Melbourne.

If you are not involved in a double header then you play Friday night at home with your own 2 x teams.

Double Headers would be Saturday and Sunday.

Maybe player loans could be allowed to ensure that all teams are up to standard.

Yeh to me linked to direct super rugby clubs and even potentially their brand possibly is the way to go. But hey I think I really we just need to make sure we have the pathway that works so if their is a different model that works all for it.

 

[Tomikin]

I'm a fan of the Super Rugby A comp structure. Keep the players in as streamlined a path as possible following from academies like Gen Blue etc...

Whilst I think it's a fun idea of getting behind a local area its just a cluster fuck (at least in NSW as per usual) The Rays had various versions/partners. The Stars were initially linked with a Subbies club (Balmain) which is now in Div 5 of Subbies. They also had so many spots to fill some players were being hounded to play. Clubs all want control and don't get along due to old ties and rivalries.

Rae Rae

is that you Raelene... Rea rae

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

is that you Raelene... Rea rae

A lady never tells

Rae Rae

 

[Tomikin]

A lady never tells

Rae Rae

JESUS ~~~

 

[liquor box]

Yeh to me linked to direct super rugby clubs and even potentially their brand possibly is the way to go. But hey I think I really we just need to make sure we have the pathway that works so if their is a different model that works all for it.

QLD proved that pathways can exist by splitting the Super Rugby team essentially in 2 and filling the teams with other players. Some of these NRC players then moved through the the Reds proper. It was also a pathway for coaching too.

 

[PhilClinton]

The era of state rep rugby is largely gone. Yes, the Reds should keep that long history - infinitely better than folding the name in the pro game. But they can't be preventing another pro team in the state.

But realistically where does the support base come from? If the Reds were to remain and bring in a secondary team in QLD, I am not sure rugby is strong enough to sustain that at the moment.

It's very different to splitting the Reds brand in two with City and Country for a secondary competition, the key supporters all still follow the Reds, it's just a geographic matter who they want to support.

 

[Braveheart81]

Seems strange to be agreeing more with BH today over Reg.

Does anyone know a good picture framer?

I have something I need framed.

 

[qwerty51]

If you get rid of the Tahs and Reds, State of Origin actually becomes a real thing.

 

[dru]

If you get rid of the Tahs and Reds, State of Origin actually becomes a real thing.

Expect you have to have an avenue for other than NSW/Qld teams

 

[qwerty51]

Expect you have to have an avenue for other than NSW/Qld teams

Do you? How many "rep" players aren't NSW/QLD heritage? Valetini, Leota, Tupou, Vunivalu, Pone?

I think we can do with that many missing.

 

[kiap]

If the Reds were to remain and bring in a secondary team in QLD, I am not sure rugby is strong enough to sustain that at the moment.

Right now, that may be the case. ... Or not. But my point is general, i.e. - No blanket ban on more than one pro team.

For me, the Reds should remain as a pro team. The idea of (a) being reduced to a few Templeton Cup rep games v NSW only; and/or (b) rebranding as something else like 'City', doesn't make sense. There is no need.

If a 2nd team is workable (my argument doesn't rely on there being a 2nd team) then it should be allowed - imo, alongside the Reds. Not under the Reds.

Does anyone know a good picture framer?

I have something I need framed.

I know, right?

But lest we get too aligned on the same page, I don't think 8 teams is a minimum necessity in 2024.**

Reason I say that is the Aus pro comp should still be supplemented by cross-border competition. It's not a black|white, either|or proposition.

**But I do tend to think the Aus-controlled comp would require Fiji, though, as a going concern to start up.