The Pulverisation of Australian Rugby

[Train Without a Station]

Dave you keep bringing up this flawed scenario though.

Uni stays in it's current state if SS was no longer in place. Yet without SS taking the best players, none of their teams get better players/coaches, etc and they merely face subbies clubs in their current state? As people generally are as invested in rugby as they are in their clubs.

Did it ever occur to you that if other clubs were in the top division of rugby in NSW it may attract better and more sponsorship and volunteers that just haven't been compelled to put their time and money in due to them being in a lower division?

If for example Manly being a subbies team would lose all this, then surely others could potentially gain by their division being the premier division of rugby.

My idea is pretty simple. Build the base. Not strengthen the semi-fucking elite. Build the TV product level, as this will provide further money to build the base.

By build the base, focus on the juniors. Development resources, days subs reductions will encourage more junior players.

Let the clubs that want to pay players stand on their own 2 feet. With more juniors the code will grow much more than it ever would focusing on the top 12 clubs in Sydney.

Instead of trying to hold on to the top peg in a diminishing code perhaps be happy to be less important, but in a much stronger code.

 

[Dave Beat]

Dave you keep bringing up this flawed scenario though.

I'm not going to use Manly as an example - how would the top division be made up when there is such a huge gap between divisions now.

You honestly think fingers will be clicked and the players at Uni / Woods / Southern will simply just disburse to other clubs - seriously.

Back in the mid 90's when there was promotion and relegation Dirty Reds were not winning, improving, and even had some wins in some grades and a draw against Parra. So a team that couldn't win a game smashes the top 2nd division team by over 40 points in every grade - there is a bigger gap now.

And you think you can just click your fingers and we will have a new division - you have to be kidding.

 

[Train Without a Station]

No. There would be a lag between the quality coming back to where it needs to be and the talent spreading. Hence why I said it would at the very least be detrimental in the short term and the biggest impact would be the difference in the time it would take players to adapt to professional environments.

Probably in the long term too but the way SS Clubs try to hold the game to ransom in any way they can I'm not too sure about that.

A lot has changed since the 90s though too. Sports Science and coaching information is far more readily available. I doubt these top clubs are so far advanced from the subbies clubs as you think. The biggest difference is the willingness and ambition of the players.

 

[Dave Beat]

A lot has changed since the 90s though too. Sports Science and coaching information is far more readily available. I doubt these top clubs are so far advanced from the subbies clubs as you think. The biggest difference is the willingness and ambition of the players.

and that change also has a bigger gap.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Dave you keep bringing up this flawed scenario though.

Uni stays in it's current state if SS was no longer in place. Yet without SS taking the best players, none of their teams get better players/coaches, etc and they merely face subbies clubs in their current state? As people generally are as invested in rugby as they are in their clubs.

Did it ever occur to you that if other clubs were in the top division of rugby in NSW it may attract better and more sponsorship and volunteers that just haven't been compelled to put their time and money in due to them being in a lower division?

If for example Manly being a subbies team would lose all this, then surely others could potentially gain by their division being the premier division of rugby.

My idea is pretty simple. Build the base. Not strengthen the semi-fucking elite. Build the TV product level, as this will provide further money to build the base.

By build the base, focus on the juniors. Development resources, days subs reductions will encourage more junior players.

Let the clubs that want to pay players stand on their own 2 feet. With more juniors the code will grow much more than it ever would focusing on the top 12 clubs in Sydney.

Instead of trying to hold on to the top peg in a diminishing code perhaps be happy to be less important, but in a much stronger code.

Were you around when there were 2 divisions in the top level of club rugby in sydney?
Were you around when there was promotion and relegation between those divisions in Sydney?
Do you know where the 2nd division clubs who did/could not get back into 1st division are now?
Of those how many have produced a s 15 player?
Where did S Poidevin start his Sydney club career? why did he move?
Some of us have been through this before and we know how it ends.

 

[Dave Beat]

Were you around when there were 2 divisions in the top level of club rugby in sydney?
Were you around when there was promotion and relegation between those divisions in Sydney?
Do you know where the 2nd division clubs who did/could not get back into 1st division are now?
Of those how many have produced a s 15 player?
Where did S Poidevin start his Sydney club career? why did he move?
Some of us have been through this before and we know how it ends.

Poido - UNSW.

 

[Braveheart81]

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.

The model that is currently in place makes it difficult to change this sort of thing. The ARU can't just decide to reduce the amount they pay to a Super Rugby franchise from year to year because those amounts are based on existing contracts which are based largely on the TV deal.

Likewise, there is no easy way to cut payments to players because that is covered by a CBA with RUPA.

It may be prudent for NSWRU to decide the Waratahs need to pay a higher annual dividend to NSWRU to fund the Shute Shield better, but I'd also assume that amount is covered by an existing contract that probably runs to the end of 2015 (as that seems to be the drop dead date for most things to enable NSWRU to look at private consortiums taking over the Tahs from 2016).

The Shute Shield is in a difficult position because it requires funding from the rugby bodies in Australia that actually make money. It is hard to quantify what exactly Shute Shield/Premier Rugby provide to rugby in Australia in general. The last 10 pages of this thread has mostly been spent discussing that with little resolution.

The ARU has I think quite rightly decided that there needs to be a layer between Shute Shield and Super Rugby and that is the NRC.

It would seem to me that the likely eventuality is that the NRC will become more professional over time and the Shute Shield/Premier Rugby will become more amateur. This is primarily because the Shute Shield and Premier Rugby are too big to become professional enough as the next level below Super Rugby.

Maybe the eventual scenario will be that some of the Shute Shield clubs become more professional and become part of the NRC either as a consortium or standalone and some of the clubs will ultimately drop down to being more subbies like.

It's a harsh reality, but in a situation where money is scarce, the Shute Shield and Premier Rugby are likely to be the areas that miss out.

I think if we were in 1996 again, substantial changes about the way we structure the game would be made compared with what was done. I think Shute Shield and Premier Rugby would need to split into a top tier and a bottom tier and potentially some clubs would merge. The third tier would then be structured from that.

 

[I like to watch]

Dave you keep bringing up this flawed scenario though.

Uni stays in it's current state if SS was no longer in place. Yet without SS taking the best players, none of their teams get better players/coaches, etc and they merely face subbies clubs in their current state? As people generally are as invested in rugby as they are in their clubs.

Did it ever occur to you that if other clubs were in the top division of rugby in NSW it may attract better and more sponsorship and volunteers that just haven't been compelled to put their time and money in due to them being in a lower division?

If for example Manly being a subbies team would lose all this, then surely others could potentially gain by their division being the premier division of rugby.

My idea is pretty simple. Build the base. Not strengthen the semi-fucking elite. Build the TV product level, as this will provide further money to build the base.

By build the base, focus on the juniors. Development resources, days subs reductions will encourage more junior players.

Let the clubs that want to pay players stand on their own 2 feet. With more juniors the code will grow much more than it ever would focusing on the top 12 clubs in Sydney.

Instead of trying to hold on to the top peg in a diminishing code perhaps be happy to be less important, but in a much stronger code.

If the ARU was actually using the SS money to fund junior development you would have a reasonable argument,but they are not.
Rather than invest in juniors as each of the other codes do,they are now taxing their juniors.
In reality,the ARU set up the NRC,asked the SS clubs to fund almost 1/2 the teams with no lead time.
Then they announce a month after the inaugural NRC ends that a long standing grant to each SS has ended.
The corporate ARU is cannibalising every part of the amateur structure.

 

[Dave Beat]

The model that is currently in place makes it difficult to change this sort of thing. The ARU can't just decide to reduce the amount they pay to a Super Rugby franchise from year to year because those amounts are based on existing contracts which are based largely on the TV deal.

Likewise, there is no easy way to cut payments to players because that is covered by a CBA with RUPA.

It may be prudent for NSWRU to decide the Waratahs need to pay a higher annual dividend to NSWRU to fund the Shute Shield better, but I'd also assume that amount is covered by an existing contract that probably runs to the end of 2015 (as that seems to be the drop dead date for most things to enable NSWRU to look at private consortiums taking over the Tahs from 2016).

The Shute Shield is in a difficult position because it requires funding from the rugby bodies in Australia that actually make money. It is hard to quantify what exactly Shute Shield/Premier Rugby provide to rugby in Australia in general. The last 10 pages of this thread has mostly been spent discussing that with little resolution.

The ARU has I think quite rightly decided that there needs to be a layer between Shute Shield and Super Rugby and that is the NRC.

It would seem to me that the likely eventuality is that the NRC will become more professional over time and the Shute Shield/Premier Rugby will become more amateur. This is primarily because the Shute Shield and Premier Rugby are too big to become professional enough as the next level below Super Rugby.

Maybe the eventual scenario will be that some of the Shute Shield clubs become more professional and become part of the NRC either as a consortium or standalone and some of the clubs will ultimately drop down to being more subbies like.

It's a harsh reality, but in a situation where money is scarce, the Shute Shield and Premier Rugby are likely to be the areas that miss out.

I think if we were in 1996 again, substantial changes about the way we structure the game would be made compared with what was done. I think Shute Shield and Premier Rugby would need to split into a top tier and a bottom tier and potentially some clubs would merge. The third tier would then be structured from that.

At least some of us are providing some rationale comonsense - good points.
Couple of years back half way through it became top 6 / bottom 6 - all clubs still played all grades in the same jersey, that system had it's pro's and cons - not saying i was for or against it, but shit i saw some good rugby games in the second half.

 

[Train Without a Station]

If the ARU was actually using the SS money to fund junior development you would have a reasonable argument,but they are not.
Rather than invest in juniors as each of the other codes do,they are now taxing their juniors.
In reality,the ARU set up the NRC,asked the SS clubs to fund almost 1/2 the teams with no lead time.
Then they announce a month after the inaugural NRC ends that a long standing grant to each SS has ended.
The corporate ARU is cannibalising every part of the amateur structure.

Up until now, the ARU has put more into Shute Shield financially than it has taken out. That's before you even consider the amount of contracted players who play in it, where the money ultimately comes from the ARU.

 

[I like to watch]

This debate is about what the ARU are doing now,not what happened in the past.

 

[Dave Beat]

Up until now, the ARU has put more into Shute Shield financially than it has taken out. That's before you even consider the amount of contracted players who play in it, where the money ultimately comes from the ARU.

Really, you I question your understanding of rugby.

You are kidding aren't you.
I'm sure there are allot of board members of club rugby who spend countless hours running good clubs that, have good revenue, retained profits, and they do it for $0 - in my eyes ARU are taking a hell of a lot from club rugby and not just benefiting from the players that come through.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Read my comment Dave.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Up until now, the ARU has put more into Shute Shield financially than it has taken out. That's before you even consider the amount of contracted players who play in it, where the money ultimately comes from the ARU.

You just don't get it: the ARU only exists because of the clubs.
When the game went pro the ARU leveraged the players produced by the clubs and sold their talents to Rupert Murdoch - they could only do so as trustees for the game in this country.
The position of the ARU has never changed from that of trustee.
Just imagine your world: where would the players come from? They don't come from school; they don't come from subbies; league rejects?

 

[Braveheart81]

What's the answer though?

Do we staff the ARU with volunteers?

Do we return the top level of the game to being amateur?

It's enormously difficult to reconcile between the professional and amateur level and largely it comes down to money. We have the professional side generating revenue, largely through TV deals and the amateur side heavily reliant on funding from the levels above.

The Shute Shield is in a difficult position because what it provides up the chain is impossible to quantify whereas what is passed down to it is easy to quantify because it has a dollar sign in front of it.

 

[Braveheart81]

You just don't get it: the ARU only exists because of the clubs.
When the game went pro the ARU leveraged the players produced by the clubs and sold their talents to Rupert Murdoch - they could only do so as trustees for the game in this country.
The position of the ARU has never changed from that of trustee.
Just imagine your world: where would the players come from? They don't come from school; they don't come from subbies; league rejects?

The situation has changed heavily though. In the 90s and earlier, the centre of a player's universe was probably their club. There were less games with the Wallabies and also far less games for NSW and Qld.

That is no longer the case. I'd say the centre of the professional player's universe is now their Super Rugby team and the Wallabies now fills a far greater portion of their time as well.

The connection between a Shute Shield/Premier Rugby club and a professional player is far less than it was previously.

The ARU are trustees of the game in Australia, but is part of that responsibility to ensure that the amateur side of the game remains unchanged forever more?

It would seem that it's becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile between professional and amateur as the game struggles to maintain a solid financial footing here.

 

[TOCC]

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

Yes but significantly less and Perth, Canberra and Melbourne received nothing

So my question remains, how does the ARU continue to justify giving grants to the Shute Shield whilst neglecting other competitions, albeit with smaller or lesser grants?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It was marginal - the S10 went to the S12.
Its not about the present elite player's connection to his club - it is about the wider playing (and watching) fraternity and attracting them to a game we all love so that the game can prosper.
The point I have been trying to get across is that if the ARU's only role is to generate money to give to elite players that is nothing but an entirely circular process - it cannot be justified for its own sake.
They have to have a wider role in rugby to justify their existence: if only the wallabies and s15 "matter" then why do they matter?

 

[TOCC]

IS I don't think anyone believes the sole existence of the ARU is to generate revenue purely for the professional side of the game.. However the professional side of operations is what's going to generate revenue to filter down to grassroots, and right now, the professional side of operations is about to go belly up, so all non-critical spending needs to be cut.

 

[Braveheart81]

It was marginal - the S10 went to the S12.
Its not about the present elite player's connection to his club - it is about the wider playing (and watching) fraternity and attracting them to a game we all love so that the game can prosper.
The point I have been trying to get across is that if the ARU's only role is to generate money to give to elite players that is nothing but an entirely circular process - it cannot be justified for its own sake.
They have to have a wider role in rugby to justify their existence: if only the wallabies and s15 "matter" then why do they matter?

The ARU is a body made up of the state unions.

To expand the ARU's responsibility, presumably you'd need to take it away from the NSWRU and other state and district unions.

I guess the flipside is could the professional game be run without the ARU?