3rd tier is back in 2014 [Discontinued]

[Quick Hands]

people have to be dreaming if they think they're going to have 4 teams out of 8 or 10 based in Sydney

Dreaming is how we accomplish that which most people think can't be accomplished.

 

[Quick Hands]

I thought the gap between super rugby and Shute shield is why Sydney uni has won 7 of the last 8 or what ever it is.

I didn't say there wasn't a gap, closing the gap is the whole point of 3T. I said the gap isn't as big in terms of ability as people think, it's a lot to do with the training and coaching that go with being in a professional squad as opposed to a club set-up. Put the very best of the club players in a professional squad with the best players from 2 or 3 other teams, plus the super players aligned to those clubs and you might not see such dominance.

 

[wamberal]

people have to be dreaming if they think they're going to have 4 teams out of 8 or 10 based in Sydney

Just as a matter of interest, both the NRL and the AFL seem to get by pretty well with a preponderance of their competitions in Sydney and Melbourne respectively.

I am not advocating a similar course, but who knows?

 

[Slim 293]

If there's any more than 8 teams than there'll definitely be 4 based in Sydney/NSW.........

 

[Done that]

If there's any more than 8 teams than there'll definitely be 4 based in Sydney/NSW...

3

 

[Slim 293]

3

Yes, 3 is a number..........

But as I stated, if there's more than 8 teams then there would have to be at least 4 from Sydney/NSW.........

 

[Quick Hands]

Just as a matter of interest, both the NRL and the AFL seem to get by pretty well with a preponderance of their competitions in Sydney and Melbourne respectively.

I am not advocating a similar course, but who knows?

The 2 big markets in an otherwise small (population wise) country. It makes sense to maximise your exposure in at least one of those markets.

As the Americans say, you do your best business on main street.

 

[Train Without a Station]

To say the NRL and AFL do pretty well completely ignores the fact that half of those clubs in Sydney and Melbourne run at a loss and are propped up by the leagues TV deal only.

They are in that situation because they were suburban competitions that evolved into national competitions and the teams with the greatest historical significance all were from the one city. It would be foolish to see this issue in these competitions and completely ignore them in developing a close rugby equivalent. Why try and develop something which would require major restructure in the event of success? That would seem like an attitude resigned to failure.

I agree that Sydney and Brisbane should have more than 1 team each to accommodate their extra playing talent in their regions. We should resist the urge to plonk 6 or more teams within both of these cities though.

 

[Hugie]

I think that would be a big mistake, particularly in Sydney which is not interested in sport.

I think a much better model to look at is Basket ball in Australia:

• It is about the level of professionalism we are looking at.
• It has the sort of crowds we are looking at
• It has about the same number of teams.
• It generates local loyalty and support (something difficult to generate in Sydneysiders).

At least the ARU should make a solid study of how the Basket Ball comp. is run in Australia (not the GPS which different to Australia for those of you who are confused).

 

[RugbyFuture]

Yes, 3 is a number....

But as I stated, if there's more than 8 teams then there would have to be at least 4 from Sydney/NSW...

Think if they were to go 4 teams for the tahs territory its more than likely that the fourth would go to a country zone/newcastle than a USyd team. Then again I suppose we just have to wait to see what the NRC commission will do.

 

[Quick Hands]

To say the NRL and AFL do pretty well completely ignores the fact that half of those clubs in Sydney and Melbourne run at a loss and are propped up by the leagues TV deal only.
.

But both competitions have taken the view that the extra money made from TV deals and the exposure for sponsors and the game in the biggest markets offsets the loss-making.

The question for rugby is what is the right number and how do you work out what the right number is. My view would be that it would be better to take a calculated risk on 4 teams in Sydney rather than the safe option of 3.

I did note that the criteria released by the ARU included:

applications will be considered on key areas including financial performance; professional team staffing structure and environment, commitment to player development, venue facilities, links to Super Rugby clubs, and current or potential fan base.

I'd think that Sydney Uni, the proposed Syd North joint venture, a joint venture involving Randwick and Easts/Souths and a joint venture involving Eastwook, Parra, Penrith and Wests would each be able to satisfy most if not all of the above criteria.

 

[wamberal]

To say the NRL and AFL do pretty well completely ignores the fact that half of those clubs in Sydney and Melbourne run at a loss and are propped up by the leagues TV deal only.

Or, to put it another way, they have record television deals that are based upon Sydney and Melbourne centred competitions.

My guess is that broadcasting revenues are going to become increasingly more important for the ARU, and if the best revenues come from a competition that is not evenly spread out, so what?

I am not advocating any particular disposition of teams, simply pointing out the obvious fact that the two most successful leagues are skewed. Who cares about the history? They are both banking a bill or so, they can afford a bit of a loss here and there along the way.

 

[Done that]

What I am saying is 3 from Sydney.This includes Sydney Uni as part of a package.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Quick Hands,

Broadcast deals are lucrative based on viewer numbers though. The more locations the better numbers, providing you aren't ignoring sectors of existing markets.

Sure you can offset half the teams in one city losing money with a good TV deal, but wouldn't you in an ideal world prefer to not lose money to those teams and use that money to grow the bottom end of the game?

Are people not going to watch a rugby comp, because they don't have a team that only serves their immediate region?

Once the competition is up and running and is profitable they should be looking to expand into new markets because having a team in Adelaide getting support would increase viewers and give broadcasters a new capital city market. Having 4 teams cover 4 smaller regions as opposed to say 2, cover twice the area isn't going to have a big change in TV Viewers really. The only change would be that more content would likely bring those same viewers across 2 more games, but then there is the additional cost to finance those 2 more games.

Anyway getting off topic, point I'm trying to get at is long term to be successful they need to expand into new markets. Locating too many teams in strong markets initially will create future problems if they ever want to expand. AFL and NRL were not able to do this due to their competitions expanding from local competitions initially. If this was the Shute Shield expanding I could accept that. It's not, we get the benefit of the mistakes of others, why follow them?

 

[Gibbo]

What I am saying is 3 from Sydney.This includes Sydney Uni as part of a package.

If one more standalone/random entity comes in - I can see it being a 10 team comp. I'd hate to see 3 Sydney teams with one standalone team being accepted. Not because it is Uni, but because one area will have to miss out or won't be represented fully.

If there are 3 Sydney teams, one of which is Uni, then either the North, South or West of Sydney will miss out.

If South, North or West then end up in a JV to make up the 2nd and 3rd teams there will be to too many Shute Shield teams feeding into that those two clubs and less players will be exposed to the NRC level of competition.

So if Uni is accepted, and their is an expression of interest from North, West and Southern Sydney - then I think they will need another entry from another source (ie country/regional etc) to make it a ten team comp.
My two cents - I'm probably wrong.

 

[refugee]

Anyone giving odds on who makes the table??

 

[GunnerDownUnder]

If we are going to have a similar competition as Currie Cup and ITM/NPC, should we not have 14 teams in two tiers of 7 with promotion and relegation?

 

[GunnerDownUnder]

If one more standalone/random entity comes in - I can see it being a 10 team comp. I'd hate to see 3 Sydney teams with one standalone team being accepted. Not because it is Uni, but because one area will have to miss out or won't be represented fully.

If there are 3 Sydney teams, one of which is Uni, then either the North, South or West of Sydney will miss out.

If South, North or West then end up in a JV to make up the 2nd and 3rd teams there will be to too many Shute Shield teams feeding into that those two clubs and less players will be exposed to the NRC level of competition.

So if Uni is accepted, and their is an expression of interest from North, West and Southern Sydney - then I think they will need another entry from another source (ie country/regional etc) to make it a ten team comp.
My two cents - I'm probably wrong.

Where do Randwick, Easts fit in? Randwick is one of the better grounds to visit and they can generate a decent crowd at times.

In my opinion you cant have a stand alone club, this comp should be about stepping up and combining the best NSW has to offer in club rugby.

I also think there is no way they wont have a new teams playing out of the Eastwood complex if it gets built.

 

[Quick Hands]

Quick Hands,

Broadcast deals are lucrative based on viewer numbers though. The more locations the better numbers, providing you aren't ignoring sectors of existing markets.

Sure you can offset half the teams in one city losing money with a good TV deal, but wouldn't you in an ideal world prefer to not lose money to those teams and use that money to grow the bottom end of the game?

Are people not going to watch a rugby comp, because they don't have a team that only serves their immediate region?

Once the competition is up and running and is profitable they should be looking to expand into new markets because having a team in Adelaide getting support would increase viewers and give broadcasters a new capital city market. Having 4 teams cover 4 smaller regions as opposed to say 2, cover twice the area isn't going to have a big change in TV Viewers really. The only change would be that more content would likely bring those same viewers across 2 more games, but then there is the additional cost to finance those 2 more games.

Anyway getting off topic, point I'm trying to get at is long term to be successful they need to expand into new markets. Locating too many teams in strong markets initially will create future problems if they ever want to expand. AFL and NRL were not able to do this due to their competitions expanding from local competitions initially. If this was the Shute Shield expanding I could accept that. It's not, we get the benefit of the mistakes of others, why follow them?

You raise some good points.

I don't think that you will attract regular, committed viewers without a team which services the area in which they live. League's ratings were down this year and one of the reasons given was that the clubs with the biggest committed followers performed poorly (Parra, St Geo). There are supporters of all codes who will watch no matter who is playing - they're like blue ribbon voters, no-one cares what they think, but there are a sizeable section of all codes who only really watch when their team is playing.

Re Adelaide, I rely on Hawko who resides there and I understand that there is a miniscule local rugby community and there aren't the expat communities of PIs, Kiwis, SAF and UK that there are in Perth and Melbourne. Better off on the Gold Coast where the regional council is offering support and there is a 1st class stadium awaiting.

Foxtel and other sponsors will have a big say in how many teams there are (8 or 10), and if it's 8 there will only be 3 in Sydney, if there's 10 there has to be 4 as far as I can see.

 

[Quick Hands]

If we are going to have a similar competition as Currie Cup and ITM/NPC, should we not have 14 teams in two tiers of 7 with promotion and relegation?

Certainly an idea worth looking at. I'm not sure if it would be feasible in 2014, but I would definitely support something along those lines in the future.