By Andrew Logan
December 23rd 2007 @ 9:02pm
A Christmas present for club rugby
According to a few well-placed sources, Wallabies and Waratahs will once again grace the paddocks of Sydney club rugby next year.
In a move certain to excite park spectators, players not named in a Wallaby or provincial 22, should be available for selection by their club for that weekend.
Following the axing of the ARC, the next target on the list appears to be much of the Academy infrastructure, with many believing that the Academies actually hinder the development of young players by replacing the weekly grind of club rugby against older more experienced opponents, with a series of internal trials and staged contests.
Such a course of action would further antagonise the Rugby Union Players Association (RUPA) who are understandably livid about the loss of the ARC – a competition in which they represented over 200 players.
RUPA have long pushed for a limit on the number of games a player can play in a season and the current limit sits at 30 games per player per season. This limit would certainly be under threat if professional players were to play club rugby, because it appears that the new club season will be at least 22 games plus finals, which when Super 14, Tests, Australia A and other programs are factored in, will make for a busy season. In addition there appears to conjecture over what acually constitutes a game – particularly when a player who plays 20 minutes off the bench in S14, is not available for his club the next day. By contrast, NRL players regularly play for their clubs on Saturday following a Friday night Test, or midweek Origin game.
The situation would appear to be tailormade for another confrontation between RUPA and the ARU, and this time RUPA will have few allies, since the clubs, and one would think most spectators, will be firmly in favour of the players returning to club rugby. Many rugby people have little time for the RUPA stance, arguing that players in the UK play up to as many as 50 games per season in the various competitions anyway, and that our young players could use the toughening up.
If the players return to their clubs, attention would be refocused slowly back onto club rugby by the end of the 08 season, just in time for a new national club competition to be launched in 2009.
Interestingly, a national club competition may not be the death knell for Sydney club rugby that the punters believe, since the vacated spots appear likely to be filled by an equivalent number of suburban clubs moving back up to first division – a possibility which will have a club like the Drummoyne Dirty Reds salivating.
Regardless of what actually happens, you can count on three things. One, club rugby will regain much of its stature in 2008. Two, the stoush between RUPA and the ARU is just warming up. And three, players will play more real rugby.
Two out of three ain’t bad.
Roar tip: the most cheered 'Roar of the crowd' article each day goes to the top middle column of the homepage. So cheer articles you like and keep the best floating to the top.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(17)
~~~~~~~ KB
Yes MC has his agenda, which is pretty clear…but in reality it’s more about what we think as a culture(s) as the world becomes more and more heavily globalised. The tedency with basically everything is to call...
Loading ...
Mike said | December 23rd 2007 @ 9:50pm | Report comment
As a former Dirty Red, I was led to believe (ie. might not be true) that Drummoyne chose not to play first division because they wanted to stay amateur. I think Colleagues might be in the same boat. Although there is certainly the argument that there are a couple of “marquee” players - former greats - receiving something more than a pat on the back at these clubs, it is nevertheless an important point to consider when looking at restructuring club comps and a national comp idea.
Should the divide between professional and amateur be a well-defined line, or should it overlap and blur?? I would think that getting whatever money involved at whatever level in a club situation was a good thing. And the relegation/promotion system keeps each grade reasonably well balanced.
Also, a lot of the clubs in the suburban first division are “old boys” clubs also, which means they are never really short of players (provided that school is still playing strong), but I believe also bars them from paying players??
Does anyone know more about this? I am just speculating….
But yeah, they should play more than 30 games. That’s just being soft.
Andew Logan said | December 23rd 2007 @ 10:04pm | Report comment
Hi Mike,
I have no hard evidence on the paying of players in Subbies, however if the talk is to be believed there are a number of clubs who pay their first graders to some degree. There are also a few clubs who I understand have an effective ban on player payments because they believe it is against the ethos of suburban rugby. Colleagues and Old Ignatians are among this number as far as I know.
Conceptually, I believe that Premier Rugby should be a promotion/relegation setup in conjunction with suburban rugby, which would allow all clubs to find their own competitive level (assuming that there was a national comp running above Premier Rugby). Of course there would be a number of issues to be resolved in this instance eg ground standards, number of grades, budgets and sponsors etc.
I’m as interested as anyone to see how it plays out eventually.
Cheers…
Spiro Zavos said | December 24th 2007 @ 12:06am | Report comment
The quest for a third tier rugby competition between tests and club rugby has become the Lasseter’s reef of Australian rugby. An internal ‘provinmcial’ type of tier was forgone in 1900 when a decision was taken to establish rugby clubs in Sydney of a geographical basis. There was a fear, sparked off by the Rev Mullineux and his touring British side in 1899, that clubs based on school allegiances or work place groupings could give rise to bartering for players for players between clubs. If players had to play for the side that played out of where they lived this bartering system would be killed off, it was argued. In New Zealand they opted for a local club system which in many cases had old boys clubs etc plus a provincial system.
All this is by way of making the point that a third tier ‘provincial’ system in Australia has to be based on the clubs where the tribalism resides.
The ARC deliberately(?) tried to get club tribalism and loyalty out of its competition. It carried this through to the ridiculous extent of playing the eastern suburbs entity out of North Sydney Oval. When I pointed this out to people running the tournament, before it had started, and asked by Coogee Oval or even the SFS wasn’t used, I was told the SFS was too big for the games.
Andrew Logan’s point about the Australian players playing too few matches in a year makes sense. It smacks of RUPA, at least, trying to ration the work load of the players so that more professional players are needed.
I’d like to see an audit, too, of the academies: how many matches a year do academians play? How successful are the academies in bringing talent on?
My guess is that really talented players like Kurtley Beale would have benefited more from playing in the Australian Sevens side than at an academy. Potential stars should perhaps be farmed out to clubs so that they can get good rugby to bring on their talents.
In the end I believe that a third tier national competition based around the leading clubs is the only and best way forward for Australian rugby. But wiser heads than mine will have to work out how this can be achieved.
sheek said | December 24th 2007 @ 1:33am | Report comment
I think it’s great that leading Wallabies will get the chance to play for their local premier rugby district clubs. George Gregan was a Randwick registered player from 1996-2007, & played in the myrtle green…..ONCE!
However, any idea we can turn back the clock say 20 years, when leading Wallabies appeared for their clubs in over a dozen matches are gone. The season is simply too cluttered. Even half-a-dozen games would be a wonderful achievement.
Spiro mentions the 3rd tier comp between tests & club rugby being the Lasseter’s reef of Australian rugby. I guess it boils down to whether you want Australian rugby to be truly national, or simply NSW-Qld-centric.
As someone who believes in the “nationalisation” of Australian rugby, I’ve always considered a national comp to be of superior importance than club rugby. If rugby remains only NSW-Qld-centric, it will only expand to a certain level, & never realise its full potential. That would be sad & unfortunate.
RUPA’s edict that leading Wallabies play a maximum of 30 matches is outdated, & no longer sustainable. As mentioned, in Europe some players are appearing in close to 50 matches. The maximum number of matches must be realistic, while still considering the players. I think the new figure should be 35, with the view it might even go up to 40.
Apart from club rugby, many fans would also like to see midweek tour games reappear. Not to mention the implementation of a national comp.
So if a leading Wallaby could play 10-12 tests; 2-3 midweek games; 13-15 Super matches; 6-7 national comp matches; & a handful of club games, that’s already upwards of 35 matches. And I haven’t even mentioned pre-season matches (2-3).
This is one reason why I have suggested previously, that the S14 be truncated (say, 2 pools x 7 teams). This would virtually halve the number of matches played by each team from 13-15, to 6-8. This then frees up 7 extra matches (weeks) that leading players can devote to club rugby &/or a national comp.
As for the Academy concept, it’s great for specialised learning. But ‘warehousing’ these young players is stupid. Young, emerging players need to be with their clubs, playing with & against the gnarled old veterans, & learning from them.
Gatesy said | December 24th 2007 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
It just seems so obvious to me that it should be a state-based teams competition.
Otherwise, if you have a city/ club based comp how do you pick which club or clubs are to be the recipients? If it is to be by promotion and relegation this brings its own sets of problems, and I suspect that, in Sydney, it is not going to be possible to integrate subbies and premier clubs, in order to achieve this.
In my model, you keep your premier club and subbie distinctions but have an administrative overview in which the districts feed into the premier club organisation, for all purposes such as junior development etc.
So, surely, isn’t the way ahead to get back to what I have said before - the cricket model?
That way the State Unions are well and truly in the mix, and players from all clubs have equal opportunity to be selected.
You would have an open transfer system so that the states such as Vic, Tas, SA and NT could recruit a certain number of players from other places, initially, or, indeed for as long as they need.
You could consider having an extra team in NSW and Qld, playing as a Country side or as a regional side.
In terms of logistics of travel etc, you might play a pool system.
The competition could be played throughout the season, or in a block.
You could also have an Open team and, say an U21 team playing curtain raisers, with the Academy sides playing occasionally at the same venues. This would give the occasion more of a “club day” feel and bring more spectators.
You could play the games in daylight hours and bring our more families, and create atmosphere
All this is really doing is getting back to the old days, but at a higher level. In other words, you have a state based, but club-style competition, using the tribal aspect of the state jersey, as your rallying point.
You could re-brand the naming so that the Super 14 sides retain their names. For example, NSW could go back to being called the Blues, ACT could keep the Vikings, Qld could go back to it Kookaburra emblem etc. This then creates a point of difference to the Super 14
You could start by using smaller venues, such as North Sydney Oval, Manuka, Parramatta Stadium., Ballymore etc if it was unlikely to bring crowds immediately, but the idea is to crawl before you run.
We would have to accept that certain games wouldn’t necessarily bring big crowds, so the venues would be tailored for that.
TV broadcasting would obviously be the key and that is another good reason why this should be state based. The brand is already there, whereas clubs in one city won’t mean a thing to supporters in another.
I still believe that this is the answer and it is staring us all in the face.
Harold said | December 24th 2007 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
My thoughts:
1. Clubs like Colleagues and Old Iggies have their defined their place (and point of difference to amateur rugby players) in subbies and have no intentions of playing in Premier. If anything they become a great place for a premier player to finish his career, playing park rugby with his mates, training one night a week and picking up life long business contacts along the way. Whereas teams like Campbelltown and Drummoyne may have higher aspirations to play premier rugby. A pure promotion / relegation system just would not work between subbies / premier.
2. It’s a given that a national competition in some form is essential to fill the breach between S14 and club rugby. The ARC clearly did not meet its commercial objectives but a compromise is required to some extent. Whilst not being financially irresponsible to develop the next generation of professional rugby players may require a loss leader approach to this competition - look at the breeding ground the Pure Cup creates for Australian cricketers and they play in front of a couple of groundsmen and one or two retirees who love the game. We have clubs in place that have, to some extent a following.
3. My roadmap for a national competition: a ten team competition, with the top 4 clubs from Sydney against the top 4 clubs from Brisbane, with a team from each of the ACT and Perth. Qualification is based on the previous year’s league table, much the same as qualification works in the European Cup, with the difference being that the ARU or state unions can identify players from clubs outside of the top 4 in Sydney and Brisbane who can be drafted into the qualifying clubs for the duration of the national competition only. Tough rules on strong clubs poaching these “draft” players is essential.
In this way you retain club identities, place higher focus on the club competition as qualification delivers financial / sponsorship benefits, whilst still providing a pathway for talented players from lower ranked clubs.
sheek said | December 24th 2007 @ 3:22pm | Report comment
Harold,
Re your thoughts. Point one above, agree. Teams in Subbies are generally happy with their lot. Promotion & relegation works within Subbies as club’s fortunes rise & fall over time. Cross promotion/relegation with premier rugby won’t work.
Point two above. A Pura Cup style national comp is precisely the point as you describe above. However, rugby has the advantage of being able to implement a more fan-friendly national comp than cricket. On the other hand, Cricket Australia subsides the Pura Cup through its test matches, international & national one-dayers, & of course, T20.
Point three above, disagree. Far too messy. The national comp must contain static teams. That is, whose participation is expected to last into perpetuity. Teams can be added in time, but only discarded with great reluctance.
Having clubs qualify for national comp year in & year out, will create enormous angst. That’s why a provincial national comp (APC) works so well. Clubs retain their status within their state framework.
You can also have a national club comp (ARC) like the A-League, but greater thought would be required in the creation of franchises.
With respect to tradition, every tradition has a beginning. This is less a problem. The concepts are fine. The greater difficulty is getting the structures right. And kick-starting the imagination of fans.
Yehudi said | December 24th 2007 @ 6:15pm | Report comment
Regarding the vexed question of whether Subbies clubs pay their players, I can say that yes, they do, some of them and no, I’m not telling. I can also say that the club I am proud to be associated with as a player, coach and committee member (Kings’ OB) does not. It is not a matter of our being constitutionally disallowed from, or financially unable to - it’s simply that we believe that isn’t the right way to get the results we want and be the Rugby Club that our members want us to be.
The senior members of the club can (and do) do far more for the players than lobbing five grand at a few of them. I have lost count of the number of players who have established careers through a contact at KOBS over the years. It would be hundreds.
And a propos the point that promotion and relegation between Subbies and Sydney grade competition wouldn’t work - that’s probably true, for all but a handful of clubs. I would venture to suggest that it is more down to infrastructure and administration questions more than player depth or quality. Not to mention the fact that inevitably a grade club has to have a different philosophy and overall approach to its season - to have to adopt that would be to rip the soul out of a good subbies club; a soul that in the case of Kings’ we and our antecedents have spent 40 years building.
And in a final remark, it seems silly to tinker with Subbies to fix Club Rugby’s problems. Subbies is running just fine, thanks all the same. All personal views and not those of KOBS, blah blah blah ….
Jon
sheek said | December 25th 2007 @ 9:26pm | Report comment
Dave74,
When premier rugby promotion/relegation was used in the late 70s & early 80s, it was considered to be an unmitigated failure. I do like the idea of an expanded premier rugby comp. I would suggest 16 teams in a fixed northern & southern division (each of 8 teams).
Northern Division: Norths, Manly, Warringah, Gordon, Eastwood, Penrith, Central Coast & Newcastle.
Southern Division: Souths, Easts, Wests, University, Randwick, St.George, Campbelltown & Illawarra.
You could sub Drummoyne for one of St.George, Campbelltown or University (my choice!).
Every club would play 22 rounds (twice against fellow division clubs & once against opposite division clubs). As for finals, there are 2 choices. Either crossover finals at the quarter-final stage onwards, or separate final 4s, with a ’super-final’ between the 2 divisional winners.
Concord oval was previously tried as the centre for NSW rugby, & ultimately failed. Agreed NSW have been known as Waratahs as far back as 1927, & almost certainly beyond. The ‘Blues’ has always been adopted by our league cousins. And yes, the ACT were previously known as the Kookaburras, which is infinitely more Australian than Vikings.
The Brumbies came into existence in 1996. But there was a ridiculous situation back in 1995, for those who can remember, when both the ACT rep side, & Canberra club side in the Sydney comp, were both known as Kookaburras!!!!!
The traditional Qld rugby emblem is the koala inside a Q. The WA state team were previously & unofficially known as the ‘Swans’ or ‘Black Swans’. The emblem of the Force is a stylised swan whose lower body morphes into a hurricane, or tornado. The SA state team is known as the ‘Black Falcons’, or ‘Falcons’.
Melbourne/Vic rep sides in recent years have used both Axemen (ARS) & Rebels (ARC). I like both nicknames, with perhaps the Rebels closer to Victoria’s history, especially thier march to statehood.
Gatesy said | December 25th 2007 @ 10:34pm | Report comment
This effin debate keeps turning Sydney-centric!!
My message is simple. The best franchises are already in place. The States! The brands are there, the jerseys are recognisable, the model is simple. We can start a national competition tomorrow, with every state and territory involved, from the outset.
Come on guys, start thinking outside your Sydney Club squares. If you want this game to flounder around for the next hundred years, keep this debate down in the weeds, where it is at present. I wish I hadn’t mentioned subbies vs premier etc.,
I live in Canberra. For people like me who live in Canberra, or Perth or Adelaide or Melbourne or Darwin it is a very simple. Get a national competition happening. If places like SA or NT can’t compete, then there are plenty of Queenslanders or New South Welshmen or Canberrans who will move there to get a game!
This is definitely my last post on the subject, because I’,m getting nowhere with this, and yet it seems so obvious and logical.
Dave74 said | December 26th 2007 @ 2:08am | Report comment
Agree with the notion of no promotion / relegation between premier rugby and subbies. I would like to see premier rugby expanded with teams from the SW of Sydney, Central Coast, Newcastle and the Illawarra (2 divisions of premier rugby - promotion / relegation between them), with each club having 2 grades, U21 Colts, U19, U17, U15 and U13.
Gatesy, I like thge idea of using Parramatta Stadium as the base (initially at least) for the NSW team in the APC but it will not happen as it is too far from the eastern suburbs. Maybe they can use Concorde Oval instead. By the way, think NSW has always been the Waratahs (as far back as 1927 at least), ACT were known as the Kookaburras until the mid-90s and the introduction of the S12.
Keir Anderson said | December 26th 2007 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Bloody awesome, one of the key reasons for the decline of club rugby has been the consistent way in which the ARU and NSWRU has restricted Wallabies and Waratahs from playing for their local teams.
Feel free to have a go at me about have a third tier and expanding the game and etc but the simple fact is I have more loyalty to Randwick than I do to the Wallabies and hence I don’t care.
Lindommer said | December 26th 2007 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
Keir, your attitude is exactly what’s holding rugby back in this country: my lot’s top of the pile and bugger the rest of you. This selfish position by the established wealthy Sydney clubs must be resisted at all costs or rugby will remain the plaything of a privileged few in Sydney’s eastern and northern suburbs. Like you, I’m a product of a Sydney GPS school where rugby was a big part of that school’s sporting calendar, but, unlike you, I chose to join one of the less fashionable Sydney clubs, and did my stint behind the BBQ, as junior club secretary, as junior district president, as lower grade touch judge, etc. Rubbing shoulders with the not-so-priviliged brought home to me how important it is to make rugby a more inclusive game, not an exclusive one.
Just think how magnificent it would be for Randwick to have an equally strong club from Sydney’s western suburbs to play against and give the Greens a tough match. Or even a club from Perth or Melbourne, heaven forbid. I look forward to the day when the Melbourne Rebels play a Sydney team in the final of the regional or provincial championship with a team dominated by Victorians.
If rugby stands still in the Australian sporting landscape it will continue to wither on the vine.
Yikes said | December 27th 2007 @ 11:30am | Report comment
I think the guts of the idea put by Andrew is great. Better players playing club rugby more often. Who can argue with that? A Christmas present indeed. However, three points:
1. The framing of Academies vs Club Rugby is just rubbish. All the state Academy players play club rugby. What was described in the article “replacing the weekly grind of club rugby against older more experienced opponents, with a series of internal trials and staged contests” just doesn’t happen. The Academy “season” as it were lasts barely a month or two and is generally over come April. Have a look at this season’s fixtures:
http://tinyurl.com/2rr37r
Sure there would have been other trials, etc, but I would hazard a guess noone missed more than 2 or 3 games of club rugby from being involved in an academy, if that.
2. I agree the 30 game limit is ridiculous. More to the point, if it is 30 games, it should be 30 x 80mins. The current situation where 10 mins off the bench = 1 game is a joke. RUPA’s argument (I think) is that it represents a game *trained for*, hence contributing to player burn out. Stuff that. Keep it at 30 games, and start counting minutes played.
3. Lastly, to comments regarding a new national club comp based on existing clubs, referenced in passing in the above article and proposed by Harold. I don’t think his can work, as a national third tier comp must have the best players playing against the best players. Tatafu Polota-Nau plays for (read: is aligned with) Parramatta. Parramatta don’t have a hope in hell of playing in a National Club comp. So what happens to him? Does he just not play in a national comp? Or does he now have to move to another club? Surely all the top players will gravitate to the clubs with national exposure, and what will that do to the standard of club rugby in Sydney, and the viability of the remaining non-National Premiership clubs? (Not to mention, exactly who will watch Randwick vs Sunnybank, except maybe Keir Anderson?)
Andrew B said | December 27th 2007 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Yikes,
I’d bloody love to watch Randwick vs Sunnybank. I’m not associated with either club, but I would enjoy seeing two quality sides battle it out. And isn’t this the idea of a 3rd tier comp? Better teams playing each other, making for better rugby.
Gatesy,
You have raised your idea of a state based comp before, and in an ideal world I think everyone agrees, but I see two issues. One, as mentioned previously, the difference between Perth’s (for example) premier clubs and Sydney or Brisbane is too great - the games would not be entertaining, nor would they develop the players. And with AFL being so ridiculously strong, I don’t see it ever changing - it would be a constant battle with limited rewards.
And secondly, Australia is bloody huge. Travel costs, travel time and the logistics involved are prohibitive. In the Guinness Premiership teams barely have to travel for 2 hours from ground to ground. I believe a Sydney-Brisbane-ACT comp is the place to start. Other teams from other states could be added at a later date, but the comp needs to walk before it runs.
Yikes said | December 27th 2007 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
Andrew B - while they might be the best teams, they won’t be the best players. The idea of the 3rd tier is to get the best players from across Australia playing against each other (to bolster our reserves for the step up to S14), not to get the best club sides and play them against each other. There is a big difference.
The two could become the one in the same, but not without gutting three quarters of the current NSW and QLD Premiership clubs.
Adam Pearce said | January 13th 2008 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
“As someone who believes in the “nationalisation” of Australian rugby, I’ve always considered a national comp to be of superior importance than club rugby. If rugby remains only NSW-Qld-centric, it will only expand to a certain level, & never realise its full potential. That would be sad & unfortunate.”
Sheek is right and i can see it happening in front of me right now. It needs a fundamental shift in attitude maybe it needs a big fight to get rid of all those out of self-interest keep it where it is now.
“My message is simple. The best franchises are already in place. The States! The brands are there, the jerseys are recognisable, the model is simple. We can start a national competition tomorrow, with every state and territory involved, from the outset.
Come on guys, start thinking outside your Sydney Club squares. If you want this game to flounder around for the next hundred years, keep this debate down in the weeds, where it is at present. I wish I hadn’t mentioned subbies vs premier etc.,
I live in Canberra. For people like me who live in Canberra, or Perth or Adelaide or Melbourne or Darwin it is a very simple. Get a national competition happening. If places like SA or NT can’t compete, then there are plenty of Queenslanders or New South Welshmen or Canberrans who will move there to get a game!
This is definitely my last post on the subject, because I’,m getting nowhere with this, and yet it seems so obvious and logical.”
Gatesy is completely right i’m from SA and i think a team would work great here!.We have hindmarsh stadium which holds about 15k and is close to the action. Our team would initally be a motley crew of players from the eastern states who couldnt get a game there. But the thing is that there are people who providing there is a SA team to get behind would start following rugby union.
My vision is a magners league http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magners_League style league with Just Australia teams.State against State imagine Victoria vs South Australia we dont have rugby union tradition BUT the rivalry is already there and has manifest itself in other sports before.
Also a Heineken Cup style competition with teams from Japan,Pacific Island and South Africa New Zealand and Australia.With a second tier comp for those smaller teams and give Japan a chance.
RUPA edict of 30 games a season is utter rubbish as has being said before when European Players play almost 50 games a season.
We can all do this but we need to get rid of the old guard who have prospered under this system which will lead Rugby Union to be mediocre in the Australian Market and our wallabies to be laughing stocks.