National Rugby Championship 2014

[Train Without a Station]

Is there an inconsistency where Eastwood doesn't participate in any NRC venture but still gets to have their players available to play for the Western Sydney JV? The club will apparently not contribute in any way to the costs of running the JV but their better players still get the benefit?

Odd comment. What would you expect? NRC teams to just overlook Eastwood players for inferior players just because they aren't aligned with a team? What benefit does Eastwood get anyway?

I thought that sort of thinking was what we were trying to avoid with this?

its not that different, in reality the reason both clubs can try and go it alone is because of their political pull within the boys club that is rugby administration. Both have had good times and bad times, like any club.

In any case to suggest that uni was ever in the sights to work with any of the western clubs would be laughable. Much like the reason Souths and Easts haven't gone that well with Randwick the relationship would be demanding, demeaning and untenable. Maybe randwick should've paired with Uni

No, it's completely different. Uni have been able to demonstrate sustained success and financial solvency.

Randwick in recent history have not be able to achieve either.

Uni has shown at Shute Shield level for a number of years that they are already ready to compete in the NRC and meet the requirements of running a team in this. Randwick haven't.

Randwick haven't shown any political pull to make them considerably successful on or off the field the last few seasons. To expect them to do so in a higher level environment would be expecting them do to otherwise without showing anything to give any reason to expect this.

 

[RugbyFuture]

the football club that randwick runs from investigations doesn't seem to be in trouble in comparison to the licenced club. Though I'm unsure. In terms of success that reflects on my comment of good times and bad times. Randwick did have sustained success for a long period of their history. USyd didn't meet the requirments for competing in the NRC hence their joint venture with balmain, as the NRC board don't like the pure clubs from shield rugby going up. Though I agree they are ready at the right time for playing capacity. From their long term plans and hearing of their alliances with local organisations such as UNSW it seems that they are in the same rebuilding phase that we might have seen uni in before their decade long dominance. Although randwick don't show any of their might in on field performance, they still have as old boys the current wallabies and tahs coach, as well as significantly regarded men in the field such as bob dwyer on their beck and call. Parra is an example of any club being able to turn things around fairly quickly with the right management team and in any case, to compare this to the a-league, if things fail after one season the commission can revoke a licence.

 

[Forcefield]

Are the Force looking at replacing those 10 - 15 players, if they are do you have the intel on where their scouts are looking?

At the moment I think we will lose about 8.

I hope that a lot of them will be filled internally. E.g. Alby Mathewson will probably head overseas so Ian Prior will become the starting 9, and either Ryan Louwrens from the EPS (WA) or Justin Turner from the WTS (WA; if he can stay fit) will come into the main squad. In that case, Pat McCarthy (WA) from the academy might be an option for the EPS or either Ryan or Justin in the EPS. If Sias Ebersohn left, Luke Burton (WA) would take his place in the main squad, and maybe Dillyn Leyds (RSA) might come into the EPS. That kind of thing. I think we currently have 6 WA produced players in the main squad and EPS, I'd like that number to increase to 9 for next season.

I think the positions we aren't as able to easily fill internally are locks, backrowers and outside centre/wingers. I don't have any specific intel but I would wager an arm and a leg that the Force will pursue Ben Tapuai, Rob Horne and James Hanson. Pretty sure they are all off contract at the end of 2014. I think we should also be looking closely at Jack Dempsey and Pat Sio.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Randwick did have sustained success for a long period of their history. USyd didn't meet the requirments for competing in the NRC hence their joint venture with balmain, as the NRC board don't like the pure clubs from shield rugby going up. Though I agree they are ready at the right time for playing capacity. From their long term plans and hearing of their alliances with local organisations such as UNSW it seems that they are in the same rebuilding phase that we might have seen uni in before their decade long dominance. Although randwick don't show any of their might in on field performance, they still have as old boys the current wallabies and tahs coach, as well as significantly regarded men in the field such as bob dwyer on their beck and call. Parra is an example of any club being able to turn things around fairly quickly with the right management team and in any case, to compare this to the a-league, if things fail after one season the commission can revoke a licence.

What requirements didn't Sydney Uni meet on their own?

Any sustained success that isn't occurring around now is irrelevant because now is where we are. Anything that has occurred a decade ago may not necessarily occur again.

Sometimes you need to be in the right place at the right time. A successful (financial and on the field) place is the right place and now is the right time.

You are advocating that Randwick are given a team in a comp that not every applicant may get a team because they "might" turn things around, though they haven't shown any reason to necessarily justify it. Then you point to this connected old boys network that has done nothing to prevent them getting to where they are now as something that will help them turn it around.

There are a few teams that appear to be able to stand alone. Nothing suggest Randwick are one. Not every one of them will get the opportunity to compete as a stand alone. Why should Randwick get the opportunity over a more deserving bid, purely because their "name" has more credibility, even though Randwick have failed to convert that into anything but mediocrity on and off the field right now?

 

[Brumby Runner]

Odd comment. What would you expect? NRC teams to just overlook Eastwood players for inferior players just because they aren't aligned with a team? What benefit does Eastwood get anyway?

I thought that sort of thinking was what we were trying to avoid with this?

I am thinking more along the lines that if a club (in this instance Eastwood) or its players can get the benefits of NRC without having to commit to the costs side of things, is there a danger that other clubs might also pull out of the JVs they are presently involved in. I don't think that would be good for the NRC nor in the long run for the SS. Eastwood has been one of the main players in the SS lately and imo should be engaged in a real fashion in the NRC. I think it is Eastwood;s attitude that is weird or odd and should have been avoided.

 

[Train Without a Station]

But that's the whole concept. No club is obligated to step up. Eastwood have made the decision that they are (likely) not in a financial position to do so. Nothing wrong with that.

Clubs are in JVs because they think there's something in it for them. If they don't think they can financially sustain being in a 3T I hope they do pull out now. Better now than mid season.

I struggle to understand this benefit the club is gaining without being involved. Eastwood players who play, do so at risk of injury and being unavailable for the following SS or going to another club linked with the 3T team they may play for because the coach gets in there ear and convinces them it's better for their chances to be somewhere linked to the 3T team.

You're describing it like Eastwood are being done a favour by their players being picked to play for a 3T team. The whole concept is the best players should be playing in this comp regardless of where they come from.

 

[Dave Beat]

But that's the whole concept. No club is obligated to step up. Eastwood have made the decision that they are (likely) not in a financial position to do so. Nothing wrong with that.

Clubs are in JVs because they think there's something in it for them. If they don't think they can financially sustain being in a 3T I hope they do pull out now. Better now than mid season.

I struggle to understand this benefit the club is gaining without being involved. Eastwood players who play, do so at risk of injury and being unavailable for the following SS or going to another club linked with the 3T team they may play for because the coach gets in there ear and convinces them it's better for their chances to be somewhere linked to the 3T team.

You're describing it like Eastwood are being done a favour by their players being picked to play for a 3T team. The whole concept is the best players should be playing in this comp regardless of where they come from.

I'm not in touch with what transpired in QLD, but it sounds like the Woodies stance is similar to that of the Premier Clubs in QLD???

 

[Brumby Runner]

I struggle to understand this benefit the club is gaining without being involved. Eastwood players who play, do so at risk of injury and being unavailable for the following SS or going to another club linked with the 3T team they may play for because the coach gets in there ear and convinces them it's better for their chances to be somewhere linked to the 3T team.

You're describing it like Eastwood are being done a favour by their players being picked to play for a 3T team. The whole concept is the best players should be playing in this comp regardless of where they come from.

And that is precisely one of my concerns. There will likely be a long-run concentration of best players in the NRC-aligned clubs to the detriment of those not aligned and hence to the detriment of the SS. I think there's an element of cutting off one's nose to spite the face in any club's decision to remain aloof from the NRC. And I do believe the best club players will have a better chance of picking up a NRC playing gig if their club has a real link with a JV outfit.

 

[Train Without a Station]

That may be a possibility. But if Eastwood say they are in no position to be part of a 3T, it's not anybody else's position to say they have to be.

The NRC has nothing at all to do with Shute Shield. If an SS club feels it's in their best interests to be a part of it, then good for them. If they don't, they shouldn't be pressured into going broke trying to.

 

[Bowside]

A few points re - Randwick that haven't been mentioned:

• Immediate access to high quality coaches. It is not unreasonable to expect guys like Dwyer, Ella or Gaffney may end up involved in coaching a Randwick NRC team in the short term. Also regular 'masterclasses' from Jones, McKenzie etc.
• Ability to attract players. Lots of Australians in Europe are Randwick old boys (Elsom, Turinui, etc). This opens up the possibility of them making cameo appearances between contracts or at the end of their careers.
• Inability to function in a Joint Venture. I obviously have no real grasp of the politics at play, but it could be argued that Randwicks attempt to go it alone is party due to them not believing any possible JV with other clubs would 'work'. Brothers in QLD would be a similar case, strong culture and history, but no one would want to get into bed with them, and they wouldn't want a bar of anyone else.

Last post I'll make on the topic of Randwick.

 

[Bowside]

It is possible that Eastwood are taking a long term view of the situation. Arent they in line to receive a full redevelopment of their home ground and facilities?

Maybe they are waiting for others to fail before launching a stronger bid in a few seasons time.

 

[Braveheart81]

The biggest concern regarding the Force, Rebels and Brumbies keeping all their Super Rugby contracted players is that if there are Super Rugby players not getting a start (or possibly even missing the matchday 23) in the NRC then it won't be achieving one of its primary goals.

As well as providing a greater opportunity to the best non-contracted players, I'd argue that it is even more important to provide experience to the fringe Super Rugby players who get little to no opportunity during the season.

That said, I also think there is plenty to be gained by having the Rebels and Foce being amongst the strongest few teams in this competition.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Bowside I'd argue against any case for this immediate access to players and coaches on the basis that they haven't been able to engage any of this recently so why would the NRC be any different to when they were in the premier club competition in Australia?

Stephen Hoiles playing as part of trying to make a professional comeback appears to be the single example of this.

 

[Dave Beat]

A few points re - Randwick that haven't been mentioned:

• Immediate access to high quality coaches. It is not unreasonable to expect guys like Dwyer, Ella or Gaffney may end up involved in coaching a Randwick NRC team in the short term. Also regular 'masterclasses' from Jones, McKenzie etc. I'm sure other NRC teams / clubs could also talk about succesful past couches. What next we will have the Rats saying we can bring in Rod McQueen.
• Ability to attract players. Lots of Australians in Europe are Randwick old boys (Elsom, Turinui, etc). This opens up the possibility of them making cameo appearances between contracts or at the end of their careers. That is another example of why they should not be stand alone, isnt the 3T about developing local talent,
• Inability to function in a Joint Venture. I obviously have no real grasp of the politics at play, but it could be argued that Randwicks attempt to go it alone is party due to them not believing any possible JV with other clubs would 'work'. Brothers in QLD would be a similar case, strong culture and history, but no one would want to get into bed with them, and they wouldn't want a bar of anyone else. Possibly because their interpretation of joint is a little different.

Last post I'll make on the topic of Randwick.

It smells, sorry it stinks.

I actually hope Ewen is coaching the Wobs, and not getting distracted with a masterclass

 

[I like to watch]

A few points re - Randwick that haven't been mentioned:

• Immediate access to high quality coaches. It is not unreasonable to expect guys like Dwyer, Ella or Gaffney may end up involved in coaching a Randwick NRC team in the short term. Also regular 'masterclasses' from Jones, McKenzie etc.
• Ability to attract players. Lots of Australians in Europe are Randwick old boys (Elsom, Turinui, etc). This opens up the possibility of them making cameo appearances between contracts or at the end of their careers.
• Inability to function in a Joint Venture. I obviously have no real grasp of the politics at play, but it could be argued that Randwicks attempt to go it alone is party due to them not believing any possible JV with other clubs would 'work'. Brothers in QLD would be a similar case, strong culture and history, but no one would want to get into bed with them, and they wouldn't want a bar of anyone else.

Last post I'll make on the topic of Randwick.

If it was that easy,why haven't they done these things for the past decade?
I'm a big believer in the best predictor for future performance is past performance.
On past performance,the only competition these guys are likely to be competitive in,would be lower grade subbies.

 

[Rugby Central]

It is possible that Eastwood are taking a long term view of the situation. Arent they in line to receive a full redevelopment of their home ground and facilities?

Maybe they are waiting for others to fail before launching a stronger bid in a few seasons time.

I reckon this is on the money. Why get involved now when the ARU and NSW Government is about to hand you the best facilities in town. Once they're built, the recruitment potential, resource access and financial potential will have them sitting very nicely as the next team to join the competition either as a replacement or expansion team.

 

[RugbyFuture]

What requirements didn't Sydney Uni meet on their own?

Sometimes you need to be in the right place at the right time. A successful (financial and on the field) place is the right place and now is the right time.

You are advocating that Randwick are given a team in a comp that not every applicant may get a team because they "might" turn things around, though they haven't shown any reason to necessarily justify it. Then you point to this connected old boys network that has done nothing to prevent them getting to where they are now as something that will help them turn it around.

There are a few teams that appear to be able to stand alone. Nothing suggest Randwick are one. Not every one of them will get the opportunity to compete as a stand alone. Why should Randwick get the opportunity over a more deserving bid, purely because their "name" has more credibility, even though Randwick have failed to convert that into anything but mediocrity on and off the field right now?

Sydney uni didn't meet the fact that the ARU weren't accepting anyone as a purely standalone club, hence balmain joined in and with warren livingstones numbers and passion, its of a benefit to the NRC and the clubs future. It will be interesting to see how they brand it.

I'm not advocating randwick be given a team because they might turn things around. I'm saying randwick's standalone status is similar to uni's where they have a significant investor on the side who has given more than any other bid has right now, perhaps other than usyd. not to mention that Easts and that investor (unsw) are significantly involved in the bid and structure process. In any case the commission will decide what happens. no matter what your opinion is it looks as if its happening anyway. They have completely new management now and that does mean they might do better, but no matter your stance they've put themselves into a position to advocate for themselves and thats why they will be given a licence. RUPA did a great job of talking rugby up to the marketing managers at the universities by the way.

 

[RugbyFuture]

Also I think all you guys are mistaking eastwood not giving finances for not being involved. The rams are working together for the good of rugby, no matter where the money is coming from they know working together to field a team for western and southern Sydney is the thing that matters.

Brett Papworth in the time between the old ARC and this reincarnation has been the strongest advocate for Western Sydney standalone representation and its not like the other teams involved have never faced financial difficulties.

 

[TOCC]

Commercially this needs to be an attractive package, this will only be done through competitive matches, high levels of skill and entertaining rugby... That won't happen if 3 teams are distinctively superior to the rest. For entertainment purposes the best 150 players in the country need to start each weekend.

Player development, already mentioned but for the Rebels/Force the same players not getting game time during the super rugby season will be the same players not getting game time in the NRC, this is counterproductive to the aim of the competition which is player development. Once again, for the sake of overall player development in this country the best 150 players need to start each week..


People call the quota system or cap a pointless addition, well behold it happens in all sports yet since Australian rugby is broke rather then using the monetary system of a salary cap there will be a limit on professional players selected to ensure an equal distribution of playing talent across the country, to maximise player development, to create a package which appeals to sponsors/broadcasters and to create teams which fans will be willing to pay to watch.



Some have said there is merit in ensuring the Perth and Melbourne teams are of a higher calibre, I disagree adamantly, that's like suggesting their is merit to ensuring the Lions and GWS are the key to success for the AFL... the key to this competitions viability will be in the rugby heartlands, primarily Sydney and then Brisbane, the markets which represent the majority of rugby players and supporters need to be engaged. This won't be done if their teams are getting belted each week.

 

[Slim 293]

I think the spread of players can happen organically without the need for quotas..........

Will the ARU be forking out to cover the living expenses of those forced to play for a Sydney team in the NRC?