• 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 2020

WorkingClassRugger

Simon Poidevin (60)
Something I've suggested for sometime with SU. Coming from Macarthur, I'm sure that you recall that I have long had the view that SU should be given the area to develop.

Noting that the university has an agriculture and veterinary science campus at Camden.

Could be another option.
 

wamberal

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
At the very least they'd have to separate the professional arm and the community arm.

Coming back to this point, and talking about the University "clubs". I agree that Sydney University represents a resource that could be more of a force for the good for the wider game. However, I am dubious that the powers that be at Camperdown would necessarily see things the way that others might. Looking at it from their point of view, what on earth is in it for them to spend time and effort cultivating the game in Campbelltown, to use your example?

If there is to be a professional domestic competition, with maybe a dozen franchises, SU would obviously be one of the strongest candidates in the nation. Would they accept obligations that they would not see are in their own interests?

Other possible Sydney candidates would presumably be amalgamations or alliances of existing district clubs. Nurturing the game in their home territories would make sense to them, and would be in their self-interest.


IMHO the best single condition that could be placed on a Sydney University entrant would be that their playing stocks must all be genuine undergraduates. That would be controversial, maybe they would refuse, but if they accepted it they would be doing a helluva lot more for the game in Greater Sydney than by paying lip service to Campbelltown (as worthy as that area is of development: I remember going there many years ago, having rounded up a couple or three retired Wallabies for a club dinner, at the request of one of my mates who lived there).
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Coming back to this point, and talking about the University "clubs". I agree that Sydney University represents a resource that could be more of a force for the good for the wider game. However, I am dubious that the powers that be at Camperdown would necessarily see things the way that others might. Looking at it from their point of view, what on earth is in it for them to spend time and effort cultivating the game in Campbelltown, to use your example?

If there is to be a professional domestic competition, with maybe a dozen franchises, SU would obviously be one of the strongest candidates in the nation. Would they accept obligations that they would not see are in their own interests?

Other possible Sydney candidates would presumably be amalgamations or alliances of existing district clubs. Nurturing the game in their home territories would make sense to them, and would be in their self-interest.


IMHO the best single condition that could be placed on a Sydney University entrant would be that their playing stocks must all be genuine undergraduates. That would be controversial, maybe they would refuse, but if they accepted it they would be doing a helluva lot more for the game in Greater Sydney than by paying lip service to Campbelltown (as worthy as that area is of development: I remember going there many years ago, having rounded up a couple or three retired Wallabies for a club dinner, at the request of one of my mates who lived there).

They do whatever they believe is for their own self-interest, that's unfortunately human nature. The question might be; "How to make it worth their while to do the right thing?"
 

pnut

Sydney Middleton (9)
I get people hate uni etc. however that aside bit hard to argue a very large % of their players go onto a professional opportunity. Isn’t that the real end game for Shute shield clubs? If not what up and coming player would sign up For that club.
 

Pfitzy

David Wilson (68)
I get people hate uni etc. however that aside bit hard to argue a very large % of their players go onto a professional opportunity. Isn’t that the real end game for Shute shield clubs?


Is it? I'm told regularly on here that Club Rugby is the lifeblood of the game and should be all things to all people so don't remove their 2 spare Colts teams or their redundant lower grades :cool:

Seriously tho if Sydney Uni *is* a springboard for the professional player, it works to the detriment of all other clubs. It is easier to look good in a successful team than a struggling one; everyone else is doing their job, so you can do yours.

There was a situation a few years back where a national U20 rep had to play 2nd Grade Colts for USyd because there is a limit of rep players per team.

Success breeds success, that's for sure. Uni shouldn't (necessarily ;) ) be punished for dragging themselves out of 2nd Division 40 years ago to become the Premier force in the competition.

The real questions are around what lessons can practically be implemented at another club. "Have a world-class university at your fingertips" doesn't work for everyone. And if everyone seeks to go to Sydney Uni, how are other clubs meant to get better?
 

wamberal

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
I get people hate uni etc. however that aside bit hard to argue a very large % of their players go onto a professional opportunity. Isn’t that the real end game for Shute shield clubs? If not what up and coming player would sign up For that club.

In which case what is wrong with requiring the player ranks of University "clubs" to be composed only of undergraduates?

It is not about hating them, it is about a fairly general understanding that Sydney U in particular has huge advantages compared to the district clubs. The location is one, they are very central and well serviced by transport options. They have access to some benefits in terms of facilities just because they are publically funded tertiary institution.

BTW the last time we went there to a game was the last. Facilities for visiting spectators were non-existent.

In the good old, bad old, days Sydney Uni players were pretty much all undergraduates. It seemed to be accepted that when a player graduated, he would go on to play for a district club. What on earth was wrong with that model?
 

Done that

Ron Walden (29)
Because Sydney University rugby club, is just that, a rugby club, like all the other clubs in the
competition, although the name might suggest otherwise.
It is no more logical to compel it's members to be undergraduates than it would be to
compel players from your Eastwood or any of the clubs to do likewise.
In fact, one does not even have to be a student at that institution to play for that club.
In the "old days", it's players did attend Sydney University, & were allowed to
play for the club for one year after graduating.
 

wamberal

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Yes, I think we all know that. The simple fact is that SU not a club, it is an institution within which one sport offered is rugby. Some of the overheads that the other genuine District Clubs have to bear in their entirety are shared with other sports and (gasp) are subsidised by the public purse, or the student body as a whole.


A tertiary institution, particularly one as well endowed as SU, has inbuilt advantages when it comes to recruitment, some of those advantages will never be available to the real District Clubs. SU has a guaranteed input of rugby talent.


For the game to prosper once again, the playing field simply has to be made a bit more level. How is it in the game's interests for this elite ivory tower to dominate the competition, without any requirement on it to spread the game more widely within a catchment area?
 

pnut

Sydney Middleton (9)
Most clubs have links with tertiary organisations or ability to help with employment opportunities.
Gordon UTS
Randwick UNSW
Manly ICMS

Eastwood need to be more proactive rather than just buying players each year. No wonder they are the loudest voice of lack of funding.
 

Done that

Ron Walden (29)
Yes, I think we all know that. The simple fact is that SU not a club, it is an institution within which one sport offered is rugby. Some of the overheads that the other genuine District Clubs have to bear in their entirety are shared with other sports and (gasp) are subsidised by the public purse, or the student body as a whole.


A tertiary institution, particularly one as well endowed as SU, has inbuilt advantages when it comes to recruitment, some of those advantages will never be available to the real District Clubs. SU has a guaranteed input of rugby talent.


For the game to prosper once again, the playing field simply has to be made a bit more level. How is it in the game's interests for this elite ivory tower to dominate the competition, without any requirement on it to spread the game more widely within a catchment area?

I'm not a follower of the Sydney University Club, but your post is an oversimplification of the reasons for their success.
SURUFC is in fact a club. Students at SU can play for whatever club they so choose. Also, one doesn't have to attend SU to play for that club.Some of their players don't attend SU. SURUFC recruit players from outside of that institution just as other clubs recruit.Some students at SU play for other clubs.
Whatever inbuilt advantages that club has was not evident when on two occasions they were dropped to second division in the past.Why ? At that time they were no better off financially than other clubs,& so they decided to remedy that, & they are now a well run & financially well off group.That is the principal basis of their success .
As much as I'd like to see other clubs share some of their success,I can only say good luck to them.
As far as SU having an advantage over other clubs, what about the advantage that your Eastwood club has ,inasmuch as
that they have their ground donated to them by a wealthy benefactor, & I am given to understand ,
the ground has been sold for a large amount of money, rendering them at a greater advantage over all other clubs, even that from SU?
 

The Honey Badger

Jim Lenehan (48)
BTW the last time we went there to a game was the last. Facilities for visiting spectators were non-existent.


Wam, not sure when you were last there. Still a bit shabby I know, but the students have made a few improvements for spectators.


SUFG.jpg
 

formerflanker

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Telegraph is reporting that Shute Shield will start July 18.

13 rounds.
3 week final series.
Grand final under lights October 31.
Waratahs may come back to clubs between rounds 8 and 11.
A broadcast deal is being negotiated.
Possibility of 2 representative matches for SS players - city vs country, and country of origin.
No experimental rule changes.
Round 1 will profile Sydney Uni vs Warringah at Rat Park.

(Apologies if this has already been mentioned. It's the first I have read of it in the papers).
 

WorkingClassRugger

Simon Poidevin (60)
I'm not a follower of the Sydney University Club, but your post is an oversimplification of the reasons for their success.
SURUFC is in fact a club. Students at SU can play for whatever club they so choose. Also, one doesn't have to attend SU to play for that club.Some of their players don't attend SU. SURUFC recruit players from outside of that institution just as other clubs recruit.Some students at SU play for other clubs.
Whatever inbuilt advantages that club has was not evident when on two occasions they were dropped to second division in the past.Why ? At that time they were no better off financially than other clubs,& so they decided to remedy that, & they are now a well run & financially well off group.That is the principal basis of their success .
As much as I'd like to see other clubs share some of their success,I can only say good luck to them.
As far as SU having an advantage over other clubs, what about the advantage that your Eastwood club has ,inasmuch as
that they have their ground donated to them by a wealthy benefactor, & I am given to understand ,
the ground has been sold for a large amount of money, rendering them at a greater advantage over all other clubs, even that from SU?


I ain't no Uni lover either. But, I have to agree with everything you've said here. Yes, they have a few natural advantages in terms of access to Uni facilities but what has made them so successful has been a great deal of ambition and the willingness to do what's necessary to achieve that. They've clearly gathered a the right people on board to help drive success and good for them.

I think the other clubs would be better off looking at what Uni have done and work toward emulating that success rather than spit bile in their direction.
 

WorkingClassRugger

Simon Poidevin (60)
Wam, not sure when you were last there. Still a bit shabby I know, but the students have made a few improvements for spectators.


SUFG.jpg


Looks really nice on TV. I often wonder if there's any plans to build a second grandstand on the camera facing side as I think it would add to the look in terms of the level they are aspiring to in terms of quality of their program if they had two grandstands full of people in them.
 
Top