• 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.

Shute Shield 2016

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Goldust said:
Train, clearly the SS sticks in your claw. Thats ok, I am going to enjoy having the SS back this weekend and not lose sleep over what the rugby landscape looks like. Hopefully, you too are out watching some rugby somewhere. Enjoy.
Click to expand...


No. It's not that at all. Good club rugby competitions are a great addition and provide a wider development pool.

Just the view of some that it's most important aspect in the entire country and should be funded over other areas that are likely to provide a greater return (both in new talent brought in to the game, and bringing in fans).

If the money was there it would be great if lower levels could be funded better. It only helps. But with limited funds comes prioritizing.
 
eastman

eastman

Arch Winning (36)
The reality is that the ARU has to pay for the SS to be televised and that's not the case for NRC- there's the simple justification for its existence.
 
W

Wilsonmate

Guest
eastman said:
WIlsonmate, just to play Devil's Advocate if SS is so special/ tribal and connects to people, why does it not make any money? And if you're solution is that it doesn't receive funding well then that completely misses the point.
Click to expand...


I think its important to remember that Any rugby competition that feeds into Super Rugby etc needs funding to either grow or expand. Since rugby turned professional, it has been extremely difficult to keep players at there clubs due to financial opportunities. Money went into Super rugby rather than the clubs like it used to. And that's okay, the game had to change. However, if what the ARU wants is a feeder/pathway into pro rugby, its right under our nose. It had proven sustainable, surely with its supporter base, grounds, history, would it not be better for the ARU to look at what they think needs to be upgraded (facilities, ground standards, coaching etc) rather than rip that apart, start again with branded teams that run at a loss as well, and is bleeding more money than the SS did comparatively?

I firmly believe that the SS would be a better competition and an even more fruitful development competition than the NRC or equivalent
 
Dave Beat

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
AussieDominance said:
I am glad you have the effort Dave Beat and wilsonmate cause I don't. Let's just try run Australian Rugby without the Shute Shield clubs.

Has it ever been inconceivable that some players are perhaps not good enough to make Super Rugby and that it has nothing to do with the pathway they came through. (Referring to the 11 players you named).

They are more likely to make it through the Shute Shield though as due to it's structure and development program is the best club rugby competition in Australia.
Click to expand...

Bullshit Aussie - your a punter on here contributing and you get to the games and the is effort through enjoyment as it rubs off on people and more people come to games, buy beers, and enjoy the arvo - that is rugby.
 
W

Wilsonmate

Guest
eastman said:
The reality is that the ARU has to pay for the SS to be televised and that's not the case for NRC- there's the simple justification for its existence.
Click to expand...


Um, wrong. The ABC paid for it to be televised. Just like Fox Sports is payingfor the NRC
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Wilsonmate said:
Ive quoted statistics in an earlier post, but ill list them here too

Today we see five Super Rugby teams, with only two just making the top half of the competition. Australia is ranked sixth in the world and the ARU has announced a $6.3 million deficit.
The ARU is technically broke, as are four out of five of the Super franchises. Funding for Club Rugby has been reduced from $100k in 2009, to $28k in 2011 and to nil in 2015.
Click to expand...


Today we see double the TV revenue of 2015, so your point about the Super Rugby teams not making money is untrue.

That was based on the teams not receiving the same cut of the TV rights of what it costs to run those same teams. That's because the ARU was siphoning off money to top up other areas like central admin, community rugby grants, etc. which were not actually covered by the fees charged.

These teams also provide professional places for Wallaby eligible players to play full time against other full time professionals. Without Super Rugby there would be no professional structure and no professional Wallabies.

Today Australia is ranked 2nd in the world too.
 
Dave Beat

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
eastman said:
The reality is that the ARU has to pay for the SS to be televised and that's not the case for NRC- there's the simple justification for its existence.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I've read somewhere clubs have contributed financially to broadcasting.
It was some pationatte SS (Beasties) supporters that actually got it up and running with Club Rugby TV, and another Easts contact Fordham. At the start they did it though enjoyment, passion, and as volunteers.

and Umm
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Wilsonmate said:
I firmly believe that the SS would be a better competition and an even more fruitful development competition than the NRC or equivalent
Click to expand...


You firmly believe that a competition based in one city with 12 teams and as a result not include 80% of Australia's professional player's would be better than one with 9 teams include all Australia's professional players?
 
W

Wilsonmate

Guest
Train Without a Station said:
Today we see double the TV revenue of 2015, so your point about the Super Rugby teams not making money is untrue.

That was based on the teams not receiving the same cut of the TV rights of what it costs to run those same teams. That's because the ARU was siphoning off money to top up other areas like central admin, community rugby grants, etc. which were not actually covered by the fees charged.

These teams also provide professional places for Wallaby eligible players to play full time against other full time professionals. Without Super Rugby there would be no professional structure and no professional Wallabies.

Today Australia is ranked 2nd in the world too.
Click to expand...


Is there a statistic that backs this up? Because that sounds awfully irrelevant if the franchises still run at a loss. Do you think im trying to get rid of Super Rugby? Fair dinkum, i love it.

Wow this is just a lot of PR spin isn't it, is the Bill Pulvers Alias?. Give yourself a pat on the back, pissing money away, handing out 25,000 green berets, crowd size's decreasing, 30 million in salary for head office & we've got to show for it what? 0 Bledisloe's since 02, 3 tri nations since 96 and 1 world cup, are your defence of all this crap that is going on is "oh but we're second in the world"

Honestly, are you proud of that? Is that good enough for Australian Rugby, are you happy to stop here and say "we're doing our best" cause that's a load of crap.
 
Dave Beat

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
Train Without a Station said:
You firmly believe that a competition based in one city with 12 teams and as a result not include 80% of Australia's professional player's would be better than one with 9 teams include all Australia's professional players?
Click to expand...


Two States NSW & QLD - yes. History has 2 RWC and a number of Bledisloes as well to help support that.

But were / what state did the players of those 9 teams do their schooling?

Come on tell me - what makes up that 80%, what states did they do their schooling?
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Stop speaking bullshit. Papworth misquoted the ARU salaries and now you have almost double what they are.

I'm not defending anything. I'm pointing out the factual errors that you are stating. You said we were 6th. We are not. it's 2nd. You can check here:
http://www.worldrugby.org/rankings#mru

I've not passed comment on whether it's adequate. There is statistics to back all this up. Try reading annual reports. You've seemed happy to criticize me for reading reports which are not published then quote bullshit on details which are publicly available.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Dave Beat said:
Two States NSW & QLD - yes. History has 2 RWC and a number of Bledisloes as well to help support that.

But were / what state did the players of those 9 teams do their schooling?

Come on tell me - what makes up that 80%, what states did they do their schooling?
Click to expand...


History was rugby was amateur too. Our demise coincided with the greater levels of professionalism also.

The greater portion come from QLD and NSW yes. But broadcasters aren't interested in QLD/NSW only teams. Each year more come from Vic and WA too. That will only increase. The Rebels and Force now have multiple local players. That's before we consider the player who grew up there and ply their trade elsewhere (Ah Nau, Leali'ifano, Tapuai, etc.).

How can we limit Australian rugby? Make it hard for anybody outside Sydney or Brisbane to make it through.
 
W

Wilsonmate

Guest
Dave Beat said:
I'm sure I've read somewhere clubs have contributed financially to broadcasting.
It was some pationatte SS (Beasties) supporters that actually got it up and running with Club Rugby TV, and another Easts contact Fordham. At the start they did it though enjoyment, passion, and as volunteers.

and Umm
Click to expand...

Train Without a Station said:
You firmly believe that a competition based in one city with 12 teams and as a result not include 80% of Australia's professional player's would be better than one with 9 teams include all Australia's professional players?
Click to expand...


Do you know how many Wallabies come from NSW and QLD? Its not just about the survival of these competitions, its about funding for the 700+ clubs around the country. If you really think that without saving and nurturing these comps and clubs then you havent a clue whats best for this countries rugby future. Go read articles by Bobb Dwyer, Brett Papworth and enlighten yourself

 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
AussieDominance said:
Sorry who are the Sydney sides funded by?
Click to expand...


Rays - 4 clubs
Rams - A private consortium with each club having a 5% minority stake
Stars - Warren Livingstone
NSW Country - Rick Hutchinson and Peter Tonkin and a group of business men.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top