• 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.

The Pulverisation of Australian Rugby

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
I could say money has gone through the whole of the Rebels because you still haven't come back on my earlier question/s and justified growth down there, but know - your comment would be one better that would also be a waste of money - they play social football, if they had aspirations to play at a higher level they would have joined a premier club to start with.
Your comments show little knowledge of how the Gold coast Rugby works. Bond university breakers are actually a rep team for the gold coast comp. Any player in the club comp can be asked to try out or play for the premier side. To say the guys running around in the local comp are all social players is a little off track.
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Just to note..

19 local perth club players were capped for the Perth Spirit in the NRC including 16 in the first game of the season, and whilst i don't have the total figure for the Rising i know in one game they had 7 local club players in the match day 23.

Given the majority of Force, Brumbies, Rebels and Reds players remain and play in the respective local club competition, how can the ARU continue to justify giving a sizeable grant to the Shute Shield whilst neglecting other club competitions?

I wonder if this decision has anything to do with the Governance review, previously the NSWRU could have formed a voting block against it.

Didn't just go to Shute Shield - Premier rugby as well.
 

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
So without the 4 rays teams the 70 odd players per club would cease to exist?

More likely he subbies competition would be strengthened and if the rays were a rep team for the region, you would end up with something similar to the squad you have now.


I'll smoke what he's smoking.

On something, fark me.

Sending quality players down to subbies - on drugs.

Most people say - playing against quality opposition improves players, maybe return players and select from the Dewar Shield (or bowl). I'm guessing some first grade players receive payment of some type - will they stay in union with a Kentwal club that struggles to pay a cent (and new ARU laws aren't allowed to) or could they be lost to the code, or expand the player exodus.

Why am i being drawn back to silly posts, i must be on drugs to.
 

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
Your comments show little knowledge of how the Gold coast Rugby works. Bond university breakers are actually a rep team for the gold coast comp. Any player in the club comp can be asked to try out or play for the premier side. To say the guys running around in the local comp are all social players is a little off track.

Tah, i have know knowledge at all up there and appreciate your feedback - i mistakenly read between the lines - cheers.
 

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
Yes it does. And if all the quality players were playing subbies, it would improve subbies and div 1 subbies would be essentially a premier grade


So Sydney Uni keeps its structure and players because the players like the offering in this new comp and plays against St Pats - and we have a score of 150 points to nil - shit yeah that is good for rugby.

Woods keep their model and coach that has worked, players enjoy playing together, & like playing in a winning team and they play the Dirty Reds - 140 - 0, value in that game as well.

hmmm, yeah, starting to think this may work.
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
Just to note..

19 local perth club players were capped for the Perth Spirit in the NRC including 16 in the first game of the season, and whilst i don't have the total figure for the Rising i know in one game they had 7 local club players in the match day 23.

Given the majority of Force, Brumbies, Rebels and Reds players remain and play in the respective local club competition, how can the ARU continue to justify giving a sizeable grant to the Shute Shield whilst neglecting other club competitions?

I wonder if this decision has anything to do with the Governance review, previously the NSWRU could have formed a voting block against it.
If they were not getting ARU funding,then they should.
I am certainly not suggesting g that only SS clubs should be assisted by the ARU.
If Bill has to cut funding,then reduce the $6 odd mill he gives to the Tahs.
They have turnover of $20M pa,they can absorb the $330k much easier than the amateur clubs.
Same same with the other Soup/premier club grants in other states.
 

Train Without a Station

Steve Williams (59)
Good solution ILTW. Let's multiply that $330k the ARU already doesn't have by 5.

And while we're at it, we'll cut their grant to the tahs who have posted a number of losses even though they are crucial to secure TV money.

If they ARU can afford it they should be pumping money into junior development through clinics and competitions like the AFL does with aus kick and reducing junior subs so the rugby is more financially competitive. That's where the future of the code is. The more kids they get playing, the more fans they will get.
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
It's not $330k x 5, it's $28k per premier club.
Big difference.
And you are double dipping,either the ARU funds it or the Soup franchises do,not both.
The Tahs should increase their revenue dramatically but if they don't,they can shave $330k from their $11.6M employee/team costs.it's not that tough an assignment.
The ARU have already demonstrated the value they attribute to little kids playing the game.
$200 per team!
This will do me on this subject,we just seem to be talking at each other so I invoke rule 10 upon myself.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
I can't believe that a proposition is being seriously advanced that suggests that diluting talent across more small subbies is going to be better for rugby.

I'd have thought that the general idea that strong juniors = strong colts = strong grade clubs = strong NRC = strong super teams = strong Wallabies. To me it's so uncontroversial that I'm at a bit of a loss to understand the contrary view, which seems to be that weakening any one link in the chain won't affect the parts above and below.

I realised that a percentage of people from certain sections of Australian rugby had a pathological hatred for the Waratahs/NSWRU - I never thought this extended to Shute Shield. It's quite ugly really.
 

Train Without a Station

Steve Williams (59)
It's not premier grade by virtue of it's professionalism, it's due to it being the highest standard of competition. Without it, the next best becomes the highest standard. With most of the quality players, it's standard would likely (definitely) improve.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
[quote="Train Without a Station, post: 693747, member: 3162" We are disputing the claims that rugby would basically cease to exist without the Shute shield and it's clubs.[/quote]

I can't recall that anyone has ever said this. What people have said is that it good for Australian rugby to have strong rugby competitions at club level and that weakening club level weakens rugby as a whole. This doesn't only apply to SS, it applies to the premier competitions (whatever their names) in Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne and Perth as well.
 

Man on the hill

Alex Ross (28)
Is it just me , or is there a delciious irony here. Clubs that went broke selling beer to rugby fans are now questioning why the ARU won't trust them with $28K?
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
You mean the irony of $200 for bledisloe tickets times 70,000 ($14m), $30m surplus (or was it $40m) from RWC 2003, $2m golden chute for JON, $40m in recurrent TV recenue but shit we're broke ( you never get full value for a cellar) but just kept sending us players and taking financial risk on no cost to the ARU 3rd tier comps, you mean that irony?
Or do you mean the "you've got to have a professional structure, rugby academies and a pathway (look we have 27 pathways) or you get no money, oh shit look we're giving you no money anyway despit complying with these requirements" or is it the "we can't download the data from any of the 2 phones you've lost in the last month (or from the phone you sent the image to) and we want to sack you but since we're not allowed to sack you we're gonna negotiate a several hundred thousand dollar top up so you can stay at that Tahs even though that several hundred thou is the entire SS or premier rugby grant and even though the oz rugby public think you've had enough chances (as do we)" irony: which delicious irony do you mean?
Summary: Going broke selling beer looks like Harvard MBA material in comparison.

You've got to laugh at some of the arguments advanced don't you?

It was revealed by someone a few pags back, that little old Manly made about $500,000 profit "selling beer to rugby fans" - no highly paid CEO, no $32,000 a year to the chairman, no TV revenue from their matches that are telecast, etc.

It's also argued that if they go broke bad luck, they should be allowed to die and their players will just go and play subbies and the amateur administrators who can't make a buck are a bunch of boofheads, but the ARU, with cutting edge admistration, chaired by a corporate guru and run by another corporate high flyer are apparently exempt from the same standards, for reasons not yet apparent.

As I said a few pages back, the ARU should be as mismanaged as the clubs (note for the usual suspects, I said clubs NOT SS clubs)
 

Tah and feathered

Watty Friend (18)
Some great points of argument and rivetting reading. With brad and Angelina in town its a pity we cannot send them this and EOYT thread as i am sure they could make a great movie out of it and Brad has experience from Moneyball.
It would have to be billed as a fictional story as no one would believe its a true story and i think Brad should play Tah and Feathered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tex

Train Without a Station

Steve Williams (59)
You've got to laugh at some of the arguments advanced don't you?

It was revealed by someone a few pags back, that little old Manly made about $500,000 profit "selling beer to rugby fans" - no highly paid CEO, no $32,000 a year to the chairman, no TV revenue from their matches that are telecast, etc.

It's also argued that if they go broke bad luck, they should be allowed to die and their players will just go and play subbies and the amateur administrators who can't make a buck are a bunch of boofheads, but the ARU, with cutting edge admistration, chaired by a corporate guru and run by another corporate high flyer are apparently exempt from the same standards, for reasons not yet apparent.

As I said a few pages back, the ARU should be as mismanaged as the clubs (note for the usual suspects, I said clubs NOT SS clubs)


QH. Clubs were given very generous grants which should have assisted them in moving towards professionalism. If I have understood what has been said, the peak of the ARU grant was when clubs were told they needed full time employees.

They got a head start by their move to professional set ups being subsidized, and have slowly been weened off to become self-sustaining.

Why do you think they should be subsidized in perpetuity (Keep in mind the ARU STILL pays for the ABC broadcasting, which helps broaden the SS, gets sponsors names on TV, etc. when no other successful sporting code does this?

That's why I don't understand. The only answer I can seem to come across is some implication that it's what Australian rugby has always done, in which case I'd argue that's a pretty fucking good reason not to do it.

From what I can understand, the AFL seems to pay most of it's attention to the top level, whilst only really providing resources to junior level, more so at the younger ages. It's the most successful sporting body in Australia at the moment so I don't know how anybody can say that is not a good basis to start with for rugby.

There's quite frequently been structural changes at state league (Premier Grade equivalent) and below yet this has not negatively impacted the game.
 

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
QH. Clubs were given very generous grants which should have assisted them in moving towards professionalism. If I have understood what has been said, the peak of the ARU grant was when clubs were told they needed full time employees.

They got a head start by their move to professional set ups being subsidized, and have slowly been weened off to become self-sustaining.

Why do you think they should be subsidized in perpetuity (Keep in mind the ARU STILL pays for the ABC broadcasting, which helps broaden the SS, gets sponsors names on TV, etc. when no other successful sporting code does this?

That's why I don't understand. The only answer I can seem to come across is some implication that it's what Australian rugby has always done, in which case I'd argue that's a pretty fucking good reason not to do it.

From what I can understand, the AFL seems to pay most of it's attention to the top level, whilst only really providing resources to junior level, more so at the younger ages. It's the most successful sporting body in Australia at the moment so I don't know how anybody can say that is not a good basis to start with for rugby.

There's quite frequently been structural changes at state league (Premier Grade equivalent) and below yet this has not negatively impacted the game.

You are bucket full of ideas.
The only one put forward used the word "if"
I'll use Sydney Uni as an example as they are the bench mark with some clubs looking to follow their practices.
Will players leave Uni if the SS was not there? I think not otherwise they already would have.
So will Uni play against a team like St Pats, or where would you place them?

Far greater number of people see the value in premier grade rugby (in all states) and the value it plays in mini's / juniors / colts / and grade as players rise through the ranks.
 
Top