Shute Shield 2017

[WorkingClassRugger]

Draw to come out in a few weeks, and SRU have shifted the SS GF so that it overlaps with Rd 1 of the NRC..

And the Shute Shield has lost me as an avid viewer.

 

[amirite]

I'm yet to read the rational behind this, but it seems pretty ridiculous.

Yes, the ARU haven't met the SS club's expectations, for reasons that are fair and unfair, but this is a massive 'fuck you' and marginalises the top 2 club's players (who will on past years have around 10 NRC starters ea).

If flipping off guys you've got beef with is more important than running a cohesive rugby club/competition, then you're not only not a very good rugby administrator, you're not a very good adult.

 

[amirite]

And the Shute Shield has lost me as an avid viewer.

Hard to tell who made this decision, though.

No point depriving yourself of some good footy, and some good honest club people of the pleasure of your company.

 

[AussieDominance]

I'm yet to read the rational behind this, but it seems pretty ridiculous.

Yes, the ARU haven't met the SS club's expectations, for reasons that are fair and unfair, but this is a massive 'fuck you' and marginalises the top 2 club's players (who will on past years have around 10 NRC starters ea).

If flipping off guys you've got beef with is more important than running a cohesive rugby club/competition, then you're not only not a very good rugby administrator, you're not a very good adult.

If the ARU told your club to front up with 30 k two season's in a row to fund a franchise with massive risk, withdrew funding, made you shorten your season, made you pay a levy for every player you register and then didn't listen to any suggestion you offered I don't think you would be cooperating either.

To call them a poor adult after copping that abuse is pretty poor from you in my opinion.

You can only take so much. Some of these clubs are at huge risk financially and payments aren't even a huge problem anymore.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Hard to tell who made this decision, though.

No point depriving yourself of some good footy, and some good honest club people of the pleasure of your company.

For this to have occured it would have required the consent of at least the majority of the clubs. So its fairly safe to say its a majority initiative.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

If the ARU told your club to front up with 30 k two season's in a row to fund a franchise with massive risk, withdrew funding, made you shorten your season, made you pay a levy for every player you register and then didn't listen to any suggestion you offered I don't think you would be cooperating either.

To call them a poor adult after copping that abuse is pretty poor from you in my opinion.

You can only take so much. Some of these clubs are at huge risk financially and payments aren't even a huge problem anymore.

Mate, this is a powerplay. Nothing more, nothing less. No one forced the clubs to invest in the NRC. The opportunity to do so was a deliberate attempt to involve the clubs in the pathways further up the tree.

As for the financial side of it. Well, there are many, many clubs who operate on a great deal less than the Shute Shield clubs but they all manage to make do.

 

[I like to watch]

If the ARU told your club to front up with 30 k two season's in a row to fund a franchise with massive risk, withdrew funding, made you shorten your season, made you pay a levy for every player you register and then didn't listen to any suggestion you offered I don't think you would be cooperating either.

To call them a poor adult after copping that abuse is pretty poor from you in my opinion.

You can only take so much. Some of these clubs are at huge risk financially and payments aren't even a huge problem anymore.

Pulver has definitely gone the rubber glove sans lube on SS clubs.

But without being privy to discussions, it reeks of self sabotage to me.

It's difficult to get the public behind decisions that look like they have been made on basis of retribution for perceived wrongs.

 

[Dave Beat]

Can anyone please advise;

• the season start date and GF date of the last 4 Shute Shield seasons.
• the NRC start date and GF since inception.

Before i start thoughts on this I'd love to know these dates.

 

[amirite]

If the ARU told your club to front up with 30 k two season's in a row to fund a franchise with massive risk, withdrew funding, made you shorten your season, made you pay a levy for every player you register and then didn't listen to any suggestion you offered I don't think you would be cooperating either.

To call them a poor adult after copping that abuse is pretty poor from you in my opinion.

You can only take so much. Some of these clubs are at huge risk financially and payments aren't even a huge problem anymore.

The reality is the SS is a midpoint in a pathway, if they don't want to be treated as such they're pulling the wool over their eyes.

The concept of the right to funding and backlash to levies and fees (the costs of which have been passed onto the playing community) reflects a lack of understanding of how money works. Is this adulting?

 

[RugbyReg]

Can anyone please advise;

• the season start date and GF date of the last 4 Shute Shield seasons.
• the NRC start date and GF since inception.

Before i start thoughts on this I'd love to know these dates.

Don't know about the Shute Shield

NRC:

2014:
- started = 21 August
- GF = 1 November

2015:
- started = 20 August
- GF = 31 October

2016:
- started = 27 August
- GF = 22 October

 

[Dave Beat]

The reality is the SS is a midpoint in a pathway, if they don't want to be treated as such they're pulling the wool over their eyes.

The concept of the right to funding and backlash to levies and fees (the costs of which have been passed onto the playing community) reflects a lack of understanding of how money works. Is this adulting?

Pathway.
being the key word, a good path has each step working together.
yeah sometimes they require work and improvement but should never create a fork in direct.

A small discrepancy and the start of a path, may result in a huge difference down the track if both paths keep going in their direction.

 

[Dave Beat]

Don't know about the Shute Shield

NRC:

2014:
- started = 21 August
- GF = 1 November

2015:
- started = 20 August
- GF = 31 October

2016:
- started = 27 August
- GF = 22 October

Cheers,
I'll check out SS tonight, unless someone is having a quite day in the office.

 

[I like to watch]

The reality is the SS is a midpoint in a pathway, if they don't want to be treated as such they're pulling the wool over their eyes.

The concept of the right to funding and backlash to levies and fees (the costs of which have been passed onto the playing community) reflects a lack of understanding of how money works. Is this adulting?

Yeah and no.

Pulver came to clubs asking them to invest money most if them didn't have into NRC for the good of the sport.
Once they committed funds to it,he withdrew funding to the clubs for around the same level.
So,in one off season he changed the status quo from SS receiving a grant, to effectively SS giving a grant, a double whammy.
Then they were told to reduce the number of rounds, that's 2 home games or another 15-20% of their gate.
Papworths argument is that the ARU are asking clubs to fund the NRC which is to benefit the ARU,not the clubs.
He sees that as unfair.
The backlash to the ARU nicking tuck shop money from kiddies, is more to do with how it demonstrates the ARU's priorities more than anything.

 

[GunnerDownUnder]

2013 Start 6th April Final 14th September
2014 Start 29th March Final 16th August
2015 Start 21st March Final 15th August
2016 Start 19th March Final 6th August

I think this is correct....

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Yeah and no.

Pulver came to clubs asking them to invest money most if them didn't have into NRC for the good of the sport.
Once they committed funds to it,he withdrew funding to the clubs for around the same level.
So,in one off season he changed the status quo from SS receiving a grant, to effectively SS giving a grant, a double whammy.
Then they were told to reduce the number of rounds, that's 2 home games or another 15-20% of their gate.
Papworths argument is that the ARU are asking clubs to fund the NRC which is to benefit the ARU,not the clubs.
He sees that as unfair.
The backlash to the ARU nicking tuck shop money from kiddies, is more to do with how it demonstrates the ARU's priorities more than anything.

But the clubs are only funding one NRC side and from memory no one mandated they had to. Both the Rams and Eagles are majority privately operated concerns.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

2013 Start 6th April Final 14th September
2014 Start 29th March Final 16th August
2015 Start 21st March Final 15th August
2016 Start 19th March Final 6th August

I think this is correct..

So there's room to be able to play a full 22 round schedule if they move the season forward and kick off alongside Super Rugby as they frankly should. Which only puts the true intent of this move into perspective. I also note that according tp the ARU survey 97% of participants in the NRC were happy with the structure of the competition and the pathway and keen to participate again if selected. This move puts huge and unfair pressure on those very same players.

 

[I like to watch]

But the clubs are only funding one NRC side and from memory no one mandated they had to. Both the Rams and Eagles are majority privately operated concerns.

That's not right
At the inception of NRC every club but Woods invested in a franchise in some capacity.
It might be different now, but they got the ball rolling.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

That's not right
At the inception of NRC every club but Woods invested in a franchise in some capacity.
It might be different now, but they got the ball rolling.

The clubs involved in the Rams and Eagles are both minority shareholders. And Uni teamed up with Balmain who invested a sizeable percentage of the funding required. The Stars are now gone and Uni hold 25% of the Eagles. The Rams associated clubs hold so,ething like 5% each. Only the Rays are majority owned and operated NRC franchise.

 

[Dave Beat]

• 2013 Start 6th April Final 14th September

• 2014 Start 29th March Final 16th August

NRC:​

2014:​

- started = 21 August​

- GF = 1 November​

• 2015 Start 21st March Final 15th August

2015:​

- started = 20 August​

- GF = 31 October​

• 2016 Start 19th March Final 6th August

2016:​

- started = 27 August​

- GF = 22 October​

​

2013 Start 6th April Final 14th September
2014 Start 29th March Final 16th August
2015 Start 21st March Final 15th August
2016 Start 19th March Final 6th August
I think this is correct..

Thanks guys,

• So year one of the NRC, it appears some SS clubs kicked the can and contributed funds to launch the NRC.
• And also accommodated the change in dates by reducing the season.

Is this correct?
I haven't seen the SS or the NRC draw for the 2017 season can some one please share both so we can get a better understanding and have a fairer debate. Can someone please share both draws????????

On another note;
Last year the Shute Shield Pathway was included in the Sydney Sevens and it was great for aspiring players to have a crack and get some exposure.
This year the pathway has been missed a little.
Hearing there is some news about the Shute Shield Sevens being played late Jan on the Northern Beaches????

 

[amirite]

Nobody would debate that the way the NSW NRC clubs are run is sub-optimal, compared to the rest of the clubs who are Super rugby affiliated, but the SS clubs weren't made to sign anything, the proof being that Eastwood didn't.

I doubt Pulver made them sign anything, as has been suggested, and if they did it was actually in their best interests because it gave them control/influence of a key development channel and thus a recruitment tool.