3rd tier is back in 2014 [Discontinued]

[Dave Beat]

That's right, Stands. It is scheduled to be completed in time for the 2015 football season.
.

Ouch, I hate football. Wish it read rugby season

 

[Quick Hands]

So what would happen to Souths,Easts & the Wicks if SU stood alone?

I'd hope that they would combine as a single entity. If Manly and Warringah and Gordon and Norths can put decades of rivallry behind them for the greater good, then surely Randwick and Easts can.

SU need to stand alone, they have the resources and infrastructure and any club going with them would be in the way rather than adding to the process.

 

[lily]

This thread is great. Lot's of heart felt debate. My question is this, Who is going to help subsidise the white and brown collar workers who cant quit their jobs? As someone said earlier this comp will become littered with schoolboy, 20s reps. Have a look at any Rugby News this year and you'll find some still in 3rd grade or playing colts.

 

[Quick Hands]

Not hating on Uni but if this is a major consideration then it could be a significant speed bump they will struggle to overcome if the commission holds true.

I'd like to think that Sydney Uni will think outside that square and use their tremendous resources to bring rugby to the south-west. They already have Canterbury as a junior club, they just need to keep going in the same general direction until they hit Cambelltown.

EDIT: Think of what that would do to the fan base. The idea has worked successfully in AFL/VFL for at least 40 years, their inner city clubs were allocated outer suburbs as their zone as Melbourne expanded. It works if it's done properly.

 

[Bruce Ross]

I'd like to think that Sydney Uni will think outside that square and use their tremendous resources to bring rugby to the south-west. They already have Canterbury as a junior club, they just need to keep going in the same general direction until they hit Cambelltown.

EDIT: Think of what that would do to the fan base. The idea has worked successfully in AFL/VFL for at least 40 years, their inner city clubs were allocated outer suburbs as their zone as Melbourne expanded. It works if it's done properly.

Do you really think that would stop the hate and the jealousy, QH? If Uni expanded its catchment area it would be accused of expansionism.

You have a club that produces more professional rugby players than any club in the world; that almost never recruits Grade players from other Sydney clubs but accepts with good grace when its players go to other clubs; and that has set the standard for club rugby in Australia. And there is a collective determination to bring that club to its knees.

When the ARU proposed an Australian Club competition in the early 2000s Sydney Uni took it in good faith and virtually alone amongst Australian clubs worked to prepare itself for that competition, recruiting professional coaches and administrators and making full use of Sydney Uni Sport's provision of S & C coaches. It is a matter of history that NSW Rugby hijacked the four franchises which the ARU had allocated to NSW, handed one to Melbourne and took control of the remaining three in order to run its Academy program on the cheap. Notwithstanding the fact that Uni was totally opposed to the flawed ARC structure it is a matter of record that it supplied around 35 players to the competition.

We are about to see a reenactment of the 2007 fiasco. I have little doubt that ARC Mk II will see Uni excluded, but the Club will go on doing what it has been working on for two decades. That is, providing the opportunity for young rugby players to simultaneously achieve their sporting and academic potential. And this approach is mirrored in numerous other Sydney University sporting clubs - in athletics, Australian football; cricket; hockey; soccer; swimming and women's basketball, etc. I keep telling our clubs that the real measure of their success will be the extent to which district clubs in their sport hate them and want to destroy them.

It's a lot harder to build up than to tear down.
.

 

[Quick Hands]

Do you really think that would stop the hate and the jealousy, QH? If Uni expanded its catchment area it would be accused of expansionism.

You have a club that produces more professional rugby players than any club in the world; that almost never recruits Grade players from other Sydney clubs but accepts with good grace when its players go to other clubs; and that has set the standard for club rugby in Australia. And there is a collective determination to bring that club to its knees.

When the ARU proposed an Australian Club competition in the early 2000s Sydney Uni took it in good faith and virtually alone amongst Australian clubs worked to prepare itself for that competition, recruiting professional coaches and administrators and making full use of Sydney Uni Sport's provision of S & C coaches. It is a matter of history that NSW Rugby hijacked the four franchises which the ARU had allocated to NSW, handed one to Melbourne and took control of the remaining three in order to run its Academy program on the cheap. Notwithstanding the fact that Uni was totally opposed to the flawed ARC structure it is a matter of record that it supplied around 35 players to the competition.

We are about to see a reenactment of the 2007 fiasco. I have little doubt that ARC Mk II will see Uni excluded, but the Club will go on doing what it has been working on for two decades. That is, providing the opportunity for young rugby players to simultaneously achieve their sporting and academic potential. And this approach is mirrored in numerous other Sydney University sporting clubs - in athletics, Australian football; cricket; hockey; soccer; swimming and women's basketball, etc. I keep telling our clubs that the real measure of their success will be the extent to which district clubs in their sport hate them and want to destroy them.

It's a lot harder to build up than to tear down.
.

It may or may not stop the hate and jealousy (which used to go Randwick's way). In terms of expansion, the critics can't have it both ways; they can't on one hand criticise Uni for having no juniors and then criticise them for developing juniors in an area of Sydney that almost no-one in rugby wants to know about. (Including our highly paid CEO's).

I actually have more faith in Uni's ability to accomplish expansion than I do in either the NSWRU or ARU doing so. As you rightly point out, Uni have the runs on the board. Why any governing body wouldn't want to take advantage of that expertise, I haven't the first clue. Give Uni the 4th Sydney franchise/licence (or whatever the term is) and encourage them to develop the south west.

I'm encouraged that the ARU seem to be involving the clubs and encouraging them to take a role. Some weeks ago I suggested that there be 4 Sydney teams along the following lines:
Sydney North - Manly, Warringah, Norths and Gordon
South East - Easts, Randwick & Sthn Dist
North West - Penrith, Parra, Eastwood & Wests
Sydney Uni - starting at Camperdown and taking in all points south-west to Cambelltown.

Nothing has shaken my belief in the need for 4 Sydney teams, with Uni standing alone if it is to be based on Shute Shield clubs (as it seems to be).

Whilst there is much jealousy out there, thinking rugby people and clubs have seen what Uni have done and have tried to the best of their ability to emulate them. Manly have certainly attempted to rise to the standard of Uni, rather than try to bring them down. In fairness, it should be acknowledged that the district clubs don't have access to many things that Syd Uni do - but that's not Uni's fault.

Finally, not using the resources and expertise of Sydney Uni in both 3T and expansion would be shortsighted in the extreme and would prove what a bunch of morons we have running the game.

 

[p.Tah]

Could Sydney Uni go it alone in the NRC and form a team based on their players, but not call themselves Sydney University?
Essentially they are backed by Uni and use their resources but they are a team that represents a region rather than a institute.

 

[RugbyFuture]

My problem isn't with sydney uni as a team but as a propagater in this supposed developmental competition, built to broaden the horizon of rugby and take it away from the club politics of the old world view of rugby as only for the elite and university educated/private school boys who look down on others.

I think one thing stands true, and that is that if USyd are looking to go up into this comp it seems to point at a view that even though they negotiated with the club comps, this national comp may eventually decimate the notoriety and importance of that 4th tier pathway. It would effectively relegate the shute shield back to a more fully amateur competition with true geographical borderlines determining a players loyalty to the club. That is somewhat of a threat to the juggernaut USyd rugby brand. I understand the reason why they're bidding.

There is a select set of team spots available right here right now, and they need to be able to broaden the market so that we can expand further later. Do you think USyd as a club can achieve that? I know similarly Eastwood wouldn't, Gordon certainly couldn't, both even if they had the finances and players, it just wouldn't work whether they are deserving or not.

Right here, Right now, it wouldn't be good for Rugby.

Maybe further down the line.

 

[I like to watch]

I don't believe SU should get a gig as a solo entry as the expense of any SS clubs.
But if there are 4 Sydney teams,and no SS clubs that are willing to partner with others miss out,then where is the harm?

 

[Knuckles]

strong mail friday that Balmain money and Sydney Uni expertise will form an Inner West team.

 

[Dave Beat]

It's a lot harder to build up than to tear down.
.

Just extracting an important component;
There is always a common thread to;
try and tear down success.
to look for excuses.
That is wrong, in all works of life, if we lined ourselves to success we would all improve, enough of that.

As I've said I have no issue Uni Standing alone, but it may cause an imbalance and that is were it may become difficult.

• Team 1 Nth Harbour.
• Team 2 Uni.
• Team 3 is made up of Sths / Easts / Randwick / Wests/ Eastwood / Parra / Penrith - and team 3 try doing that on this suggested quota system.

3T will have greater success if the supporters see quality entertaining rugby, it will attract support and that is the catalyst for sponsorship. I can't be swayed it should be a rep team, i think quota is a crock of - -.

 

[Dave Beat]

I'd hope that they would combine as a single entity. If Manly and Warringah and Gordon and Norths can put decades of rivallry behind them for the greater good, then surely Randwick and Easts can.

SU need to stand alone, they have the resources and infrastructure and any club going with them would be in the way rather than adding to the process.

QH if Uni are alone, awe have Nth Harbour, and then Sth, Easts, Wicks join together - does there need to be a 4th team to capture Parra, Penrith, Wests, and Eastwood?

 

[Quick Hands]

Could Sydney Uni go it alone in the NRC and form a team based on their players, but not call themselves Sydney University?
Essentially they are backed by Uni and use their resources but they are a team that represents a region rather than a institute.

I've suggested previously somewhere that they would benefit IMO from calling themselves Sydney United in 3T. In the end it would be up to them, but I think it would enable them to reach more supporters.

 

[Quick Hands]

QH if Uni are alone, awe have Nth Harbour, and then Sth, Easts, Wicks join together - does there need to be a 4th team to capture Parra, Penrith, Wests, and Eastwood?

I'm a big fan of the 4 teams in Sydney concept as a step to growing the game. If you look at the players we had in the top 4 Shute Shield clubs this year, there's enough talent there, particularly if it's supplemented by talent from other clubs in the joint venture.

EDIT: And if you look at the clubs involved

SU - stand alone
Manly - added talent from Warringah, Norths and Gordon involved
Sthn D - added talent from Easts and Randwick involved
Eastwood - added talent from Wests, Parra, Penrith involved

The talent is there, this just provides them with the opportunity and also may keep in rugby some of the the guys who go to league to play Toyota Cup u/20s.

 

[Dave Beat]

I'm interested in the WA & VIC model though - I want to see them succeed and get stronger over the coming years so they can select from within rather than have just 2 states providing the pathway.

WA & VIC will have the benefit of support and funding from the ARU, oops sorry about that the Soup Teams that the ARU supports.
Were as the NSW and QLD teams are starting from scratch (unless they are UNI).

I've floated my thoughts, how can we get the VIC & WA 3T teams selecting solely from within their state. I'll start;
Have U21 & Grade in the 3T.
Year 1 they have the benefit of their Soup team.
Year 2 tweaked a little, slight reduced benefit of Soup.
Year 3 tweaked a little more, slightly reduced against
Year 4 or 5 their 3T is 100% local, with the support of the allowable marquee players.
This structure would have the U21 getting exposure early, and by the time they are stepping up to grade they should / could be competing.

I understand all this employer, employee, stuff and don't dispute it. However if this is about the ARU developing Australian rugby the soup teams operate under the ARU so player distribution may change.

 

[Dave Beat]

I'm a big fan of the 4 teams in Sydney concept as a step to growing the game. If you look at the players we had in the top 4 Shute Shield clubs this year, there's enough talent there, particularly if it's supplemented by talent from other clubs in the joint venture.

EDIT: And if you look at the clubs involved

SU - stand alone
Manly - added talent from Warringah, Norths and Gordon involved
Sthn D - added talent from Easts and Randwick involved
Eastwood - added talent from Wests, Parra, Penrith involved

The talent is there, this just provides them with the opportunity and also may keep in rugby some of the the guys who go to league to play Toyota Cup u/20s.

Well there we go, i think there is a very strong arguement for 4 teams.

 

[Tackennut]

The zone concept worked really well for many years. However the issue with geographic zones is some zones are better than others. An afl(vfl) example...... I grew up in warragul it was essesdon zone then changed to hawthorn, warragul was part of latrobe valley league and very strong so essendon and hawthorn respectively were very strong teams while they had latrobe valley zone. This is not an huge problem to overcome I could see this as a good stepping stone recruitment strategy for rugby.

The real benefit for zones is the tribalism it generates in broadening the support base. Using the example above as a young tacter we all barracked for essendon and still do to this day. When hawthorn took over the zone then all the kids started supporting hawthorn as the players were recognised as locals to larobe valley.

The tribal concept i think was a desired outcome of the original Arc but the model didnt allow for it . I think this time the approach is much better. So purely from a support base persepective I think Sydney uni sole approach with a zone is a good thing the teams ......dare I say it ......brand has to be identifable by the community. I can also see a combination working as well. I'm interested in what randwick will do they also have a strong brand (yes I said that word again)

 

[refugee]

heard that randwick had put in a jv with NSW uni
no confirmation

 

[wamberal]

QH if Uni are alone, awe have Nth Harbour, and then Sth, Easts, Wicks join together - does there need to be a 4th team to capture Parra, Penrith, Wests, and Eastwood?

It beggars belief that Eastwood, Wests, Parra and Penriff would not be included, somehow. Eastwood in particular have been fairly successful for a few years I think it is fair to say.

 

[Dave Beat]

It beggars belief that Eastwood, Wests, Parra and Penriff would not be included, somehow. Eastwood in particular have been fairly successful for a few years I think it is fair to say.

sort of