Reshaping Australian Rugby essential for the future
Roar Pro
By Patstick, 4 Oct 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Pro
There is no hiding from the facts: Rugby has quite literally dropped the ball. Fans are dismayed about how the game is administered and played. The good news is there seems to be, on the Roar blogs anyway, plenty of people willing to put forward ideas on how to revitalize this beautiful game.
Sheek has strong views on the national comp issue, Andrew Logan has addressed the need for a Supporters Union to aid grass roots rugby and most of us believe that the buying league players days are over. I have a few ideas of my own on how to help the Rugby cause which I like to share.
There are obliviously two arms to modern Rugby – Professional and Amateur.
I’ll deal with the Amateur first. It seems that a lot has been said and written about players having a clear pathway to their potential rugby careers. By restructuring the amateur arm, I think we can help solve many professional rugby issues. Every capital city has a club competition, and I assume NSW Country and QLD Country have their own competition as well (forgive me if this assumption is wrong). Overlooking Tasmania & Northern Territory, sorry guys, this leaves us with eight club competitions nationally. Here is how I can see the club competitions restructured for the better:
1. Pre Season Cup/ Charity Cup – Split the comp into groups then have a finals series. Provides a good warm up to the premiership and some silverware to the clubs cabinet.
2. Club Premiership – Each competition is run as per normal, however there should be a greater emphasis on winning the premiership. I hate the phrase ‘minor premiers’. A team that has consistently been the best all year should be celebrated as, for example, the Sydney Premiers. This should have the same significance as the English Premier League. When they win the league it is massive achievement on its own merit.
3. Club Cup – By finishing in the top four positions in the ‘premiership’, you qualify for the, e.g. Sydney Club Cup. I know to some this may be splitting hairs on how competitions are presently run, but I do think the distinction is imperative. One is a reward for the best all year, the other the best on the day.
4. National Rugby Cup – Each of the previously mentioned eight club competitions provide two teams – the Premiers and the Cup holders. If one team does the ‘double’, wins both the Premiership and the Cup, then the other team who made it to the Cup final qualifies. 16 teams are entered into a four week knockout cup.
5. State Premiership – Lets take back the names of the states from the professionals and return it to its natural amateur roots, then put them into a national competition. Eight teams – NSW, QLD, ACT, VIC, SA, WA, NSW Country & QLD Country. Everyone play each other once, team on top of the ladder at the end wins.
6. State Cup – Top four from State Premiership qualify for the Cup finals.
7. Australian Kookaburras – Strictly amateur representative team to play maybe second or third tier nations both home and abroad.
8. Club Sevens – After the 15 a side club comp finishes, introduce a Sevens Competition that runs parallel to the State Comps. Have four carnivals in each of the 8 Club comps, north, south, east, west. Team on top after the four carnivals is crowned, e.g. Sydney Sevens Champions.
9. National Sevens Cup – From the eight clubs Sevens competitions, the top four qualify for the National Cup.
I know that was a lot to take in, but I believe this demonstrates a clear pathway for a player. At club level there is a chance at winning four local competitions and two national competitions. There is the prospect of representative honors at a state and national level. The structures are some what there and all they need is a little tweaking, restructuring and, of course, a lot of hard work.
Which leads me into the professional arm.
The two issues with professional Rugby seems to be player depth and the Super Rugby Competition / National Competition.
1. Player Depth – The above competitions would help develop the depth in Rugby needed to compete on a professional level. The National Rugby Cup and State Premiership & Cup is the perfect place for would be professional rugby players to prove they’re worthy of a contract to a Super Rugby team.
2. Super Rugby / National Comp – With the states names being reclaimed by the amateur arm, obliviously new names/teams are needed for the Super Rugby Competition. I think this can be achieved by calling the teams by their cities, e.g. Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, Canberra. These names should be adopted for the new Super 15 comp. These teams then are the foundation teams for our future national comp. When expansion comes up again in the Super 15, we add another Aussie team – Western Sydney, Adelaide, Gold Coast, Central Coast, North Sydney, Wollongong, Townsville, etc, without to much fuss.
We keep expanding the Aussie conference to Aussie teams until the Super Rugby Comp becomes a Heiniken Cup style comp. We have then effectively evolved a national comp with some support and background/tradition within Super Rugby.
And hopefully, with the setting up of the new professional teams, the Rugby politics/egos can be held to an absolute minimum.
Also, when opting for a mascot, lets keep it to animals. Why? Kids can relate to an animal name. The animals should be the kings of their species: Bulls, Rams, Tigers. Lions, Eagles, Falcons, Brumbies, Sharks, etc. Kids can gravitate to these names, not useless marketing names like Force or Kings.
That’s my two bob worth. Actually looks a bit more than that! I welcome your thoughts and ideas.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- France turns to Parra and Trinh-Duc
- Rebels look to lift for formidable Blues in rugby trial
- Mr Fix-It Lucas wants to nail down No.10
- Force roost loses ‘Mother Hen’ Sharpe
- Victory beat Mariners with Kewell winner
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (202)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- national rugby competition, Rugby Australia, Rugby Union
sheek said | October 4th 2009 @ 8:20am | Report comment
Patstick,
NSW Country & Qld Country, as their names imply, cover all the country areas in those states. NSW Country is further divided into regions – Far North Coast, Mid-North Coast, New England, Central North, Central West, Western Plains, etc. Ditto Qld Country.
These regions have anything from 6 to 12 clubs within each region, often traveling 100s of kilometres each weekend for a game, especially in Western Plains. The point is, NSW Country doesn’t have a localised comp like occurs in the capital cities.
The thing that hit me just recently, was how poor our base of player participation is, our juniors. In fact, it’s frighteningly narrow. It’s amazing how the figures can be in front of you, but you’re not fully aware of them.
There are 12 senior premier rugby clubs in Sydney fed by only 58 junior clubs. Of course, you can also say there are probably 58 private & public high schools also feeding those 12 premier rugby clubs. Even so, they are very depressing figures.
I admire your proposal (& Andrew’s). I’ve already been down this path myself these past 20-25 years. But the lack of rugby union playing numbers has finally hit home like a Mike Tyson haymaker. I can’t believe the game has actually gone backwards these past 5 years or so, despite the development in WA.
I simply don’t know how your above proposals will be serviced, variations of which I’ve also argued for over the years. We need a massive injection of youth into the game. The problem is, this sort of thing takes up to 10 years to correct.
I’m afraid Australian rugby really is in a mess, & rugby fans are in for a very long, slow haul……….
Firestarter Bob said | October 4th 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Australian rugby is doing just fine. In fact, I’m off to see a national club game today with another 80,000 fans and millions watching at home on tv. Meawnhile, upper class English rugby in Australia is just about dead.
Bay35Pablo said | October 5th 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Are we starting this boring rugby league is union trolling thread again … ?
allblackfan said | October 4th 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Regarding an amateur national club competition, you can’t leave out Tasmania and NT — in fact, it’s probably easier to include Tasmania than WA (from a logistics point of view)
And what makes you think another Aussie team will get in an expanded S15? It’s already clear that any new teams will come from outside the Sanzar alliance — Japan, PIslands or Argentina.
Even if it didn’t, Taranaki S15 bid apparently was more impressive than either the Southern Spears or VRU.VicSuper15 proposals.
Bay35Pablo said | October 5th 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
Allblackfan, the national participation figures in the ARU 2008 report show numbers in NT and Tassie as being negligible. You can leave them out of any national comp, along with SA. The Tassie Jack Jumpers never even won a game in the ARS I think. The aim there should be to build the junior base, to the point where they can have a viable club comp, and provide some representative participation in the mean time at a lower level to give them something to aspire to.
Patstick said | October 4th 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Sheek, what do you think about renaming the Super 15 teams after cities rather than states?
sheek said | October 4th 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Personally, I prefer NSW, Qld, ACT & WA but I guess it’s the world we live in now that seems to prefer Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra & Perth.
Sadly, many country areas are dying off anyway, which is probably reflected in the city-centric mentality.
Brett McKay said | October 4th 2009 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Patstick, just wanted to touch on your point about mascots. Rugby, and particluarly country rugby has a long and proud history of producing some of the best and most obscure team names and mascots to ever grace a sporting field. If you imited things to the animal kingdom, you’d lose some classics like the Hay Cutters, the Pokolbin Reds, and the Vincentia Van Goghs (“we make rugby an art”)…
Damo said | October 4th 2009 @ 11:38am | Report comment
City Names are probably more like the truth. No-one from Broken Hill commutes to SFS to train for the Tahs.
Bay35Pablo said | October 5th 2009 @ 10:48am | Report comment
Patstick, you have been hanging out with sheek too much …
The ARU and state earn too much money from the S14. Anything that changes that radically would have to ensure the same income at least.
The most fundamental change that needs to occur, at least in NSW (which I have more knowledge of), is the club comp and schools.
The clubs need to be consolidated into a semi pro comp with about half the teams, playing in a comp after the S15 ends in August, and going into October/November like the NPC and Currie Cup does. The numbers should be about twice the size of the non Wallaby players, so you have half the players dropping down from S14 (and already pro), and the other half coming up from clubs (and thus now getting paid, and exposed to the S15 players). This should ensure good games that people and TV will pay to watch. If every game was as good as the Shute shield final, you could sell that, but it had about a dozen S14 and Wallbies involved, which was why!!. You might make that comp have 2 teams, 1st grade and colts.
The Shute shield either becomes Division 1 of subbies, or it ends before the super club comp begins. Either way, they have to give up on losing about half their top players from August. It works in NZ where clubs run during S14, but as I understand it end or lose their best when the NPC begins after S14.
Off the top of my head you could have:
Northern Beaches (Manly & Warringah feeders) playing out of Rat Park & Manly and eying up Brookvale, North Shore (North Sydney & Gordon) at NS Oval & Chatswood, East Harbour (Easts & Wicks) at Woolhara & Coogee (eying up SFS), Botany Bay (Uni & Southos) at Uni & Foreshaw but eying up Kogarah, Western Suburbs (Eastwood & West Harbour) at Concord & TG, and Cumberland (Penrith & Parra) at grounds all over the west. Alternatively, Parramatta (Parra & West Harbour) and a Penrith club with serious NSWRU support. If anything, I would try to have 2 or 3 West teams rather than just Penrith – Hills District, Penrith & Liverpool/Campbelltown.
However, this will never happen. Even assuming you could get together the TV and income deal to fund it, the clubs would be rather dead than do it. Better dead than subbies. Even if for the good of the game, they’ll fight it to save their own at times dying clubs. Plus it is too radical for most.
If it happened the aim would be to bring in more teams over time, like the NSWRL became the ARL and NRL. Canberra Kookaburras, Central Coast Wave/Rays, Newcastle Wildfires, Illawarra Warriors, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Melbourne, then Perth. The aim being to build out of the local clubs, but probably with Sydney players parachuted in to bolster their playing ranks, perhaps through a draft system.
sheek said | October 5th 2009 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
Pablo,
Perhaps you’ve been hanging out too much with me….. your suggestions & observations above have a Sheek-like characteristic to them!!!
Invictus said | October 5th 2009 @ 5:35pm | Report comment
Bay,
Why not run the premier competitions (shute shield et al) earlier in the season as the qualifying competition for the National Club Championship (think FA cup/Champions League). NSW & Qld country would use regional representative sides rather than clubs. Make it home and away rather than round robin and do away with finals series (they aren’t need if you play everyone twice, home and away). Take the top 4 from Brisbane & Sydney, the top 3 from Perth and Melbourne, the top 2 from Canberra and Adelaide, the premiers from Darwin and Hobart and the top 2 regions from NSW & Qld Country (24 teams in all). Split into 2 pools of 12 and play round robin, followed by qtr finals, semi finals and final.
That way you have a truly national competition and the stumbling block, the clubs, should be willing participants.
Yikes said | October 5th 2009 @ 5:47pm | Report comment
Invictus,
The problem with you proposal is very simple: given our player base, any national domestic competition MUST have the best players playing the best players. Your solution would not have this.
What is the point of having Polotu-Nau (who plays for Parramatta, which would never be in the Top 4 in Sydney) not doing anything while hookers from Adelaide and QLD Country are playing in a national comp??
ARC was already criticised for not having the Wallabies playing in it (it was a RWC year). Your comp has 3rd and 4th rate players playing. Who would watch that, let alone sponsor it or broadcast it?
A National Comp can never be formed from clubs which also play in another (year-long) competition. Because then all the best players would gravitate to the clubs that had the most likelihood of being in the National Comp, which would decimate the ranks from amongst the other clubs.
Invictus said | October 5th 2009 @ 6:00pm | Report comment
Yikes,
How many games did he play for Parramatta this year?
The point is that if the clubs are the stumbling block for a national competition then find a way to make them participants.
Also, this competition would act similar to the trials proposed on other threads by potentially unearthing talented players from country areas and non-traditional rugby states.
Additionally, if you end up with players gravitating to those clubs percieved as being more likely to participate in the national competition, how is that different to what is happening now? Players are required to go to Sydney or Brisbane (and Perth and Canberra to a lesser extent) to try to get a Super rugby contract. I would much prefer players to have opportunites to showcase themselves without needing to move interstate.
Yikes said | October 5th 2009 @ 6:11pm | Report comment
Not many, 1 or 2. But is that a reason to have him sitting on the sideline should he not get selected for the Wallabies tour?
I know what your point is – get the clubs involved – but I think my argument remains valid. You must have the best players playing the best players, and just because we might unearth some genius flanker from Nedlands doesn’t change that fact. Your proposed structure is a national comp without the best players in it.
The ARC structure was exactly the right structure. It was just too costly to be viable. As will be any national competition, as much as it pains me to say it.
Invictus said | October 5th 2009 @ 6:12pm | Report comment
Check point 4 on the subsidiary post.
Yikes said | October 5th 2009 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
So, what you’re saying is that all the club players from Sydney and Brisbane whose clubs didn’t make the national comp but who are better than the other players are going to be drafted into teams from around Australia??
Aside from the relocation costs, what is the point of this? You are replacing the local players which can’t be much good for the blokes who have been playing in that position for that club all year in the club comp. Plus it’s silly. Why “limited” draft. Do you want the best players playing each other or don’t you? Where would the draft end? Just about the entire Warringah or Easts squad would be better than any of the players in three quarters of the teams you list. So why not just play as Warringah or Easts? Why split them up and relocate them at great cost around Australia?
Again, ARC had the right structure. Have each national comp team have feeder clubs and give the team first rights to the players from those clubs. Then shop around left over players so that you have the best playing the best. Simple. The problem is the damn thing cost too much for rugby to afford.
Invictus said | October 5th 2009 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
Yikes,
1. It gets the clubs onside.
2. It has the potential to unearth new talent from country areas and non-traditional rugby states without requiring the players to move to sydney or brisbane (steve merrick ring a bell).
3. It is a bottom up, organic growth model rather than a top down impositional model.
4. Some form of limited player draft could be made available to teams qualifying for the NCC
5. TPN et al won’t be available as he will be on wallaby duty anyway (for the majority of the time).
Invictus said | October 5th 2009 @ 6:08pm | Report comment
Sorry, double post.
Bay35Pablo said | October 5th 2009 @ 7:45pm | Report comment
Yikes, I agree the ARC was the right format but was too costly. However, from what I can see the figures and expectations were unrealistic. The 2008 NSWRU refers to the ARU advancing a line of credit of $1.7m to help with the ARC that was meant to last 8 years, but which had $1.13m spent in the first season.
Basing the Rays in Central Coast was just daft, as was putting the Fleet in North Sydney.
Crowd expectations were I think 4-5K (which was unrealistic), and ended up being 1-3K. The venues were too big in the circumstances, meaning the fees were wasted.
Starting it in a RWC year was daft.
The costs for a number of the teams, such as Melbourne, blew out, I assume in part due to start up costs. However, I also understand the travel and accommodation below out, as everyone had a blank cheque from the ARU who said they would cover it (without enough checks), but that may not be right.
Overall, the impression was that those who planned it got it completely wrong. Their figures were about as good as the Cross City Tunnel and Lane Cove Tunnel traffic experts.
And they thus put the ARU off the idea for years.
If the ARU wants to get private equity into the game (as Wayne Smith of the Oz says, where was the discussion on that?), a club comp at a similar time to the NPC and Currie Cup would surely be the way to best utilise it, and get the national comp we need. Trying to force it down the throats of the state unions just creates more ructions (which the sport hardly has a shortage of). People feel an ownership of the state teams because the unions operate on membership. Flog them off without consultation and you create bad feelings. No one complained with the HAL franchises because they were just that. As such, if you set up a Joint Venture with a tie in to clubs at their choice, and tender to the private sector to buy into the Western Sydney Rams in the ARC, you don’t end up with South Sydney style resentment.
But I won’t hold my breath.
Yikes said | October 5th 2009 @ 8:02pm | Report comment
As I said in a previous thread, I think private equity for a national comp would be great. But I just don’t see too many sponsors barging down the door to help fund a third tier competition.
Let’s face it – you’re only going to get private equity for potentially profitable professional teams which play the whole season – allowing it to build a fan base and media profile and make (lots of) money. No 3rd tier comp will ever do that because of S14/S15 means it can’t form a full season.
Keep in mind that SA and NZ have no major season-long football competitors like we have NRL and AFL here. The culture here is that you support your team for the season. This is why extending S14 to S15, going longer and playing a domestic conference is going to make it our de facto national championship.
Invictus said | October 5th 2009 @ 9:30pm | Report comment
The problem with this is that the granting of additional franchises to australia is in the hands of other nations. Why should they help us??
Yikes said | October 5th 2009 @ 8:15pm | Report comment
I might add, without re-litigating ARC and the reasons why it was canned, it’s very easy in hindsight for you to sit there and say this and that was daft.
I agree the three Sydney teams would have been better placed in the the north, south and west of Sydney rather than CC. But the CC bid was a very attractive one. And I can’t help thinking that if one team had played out of the east/south, like Kogarah or Coogee, and no-one turned up, the critics would have said “Why the hell didn’t they go to the Central Coast!?”
The thinking behind the venues was that the comp had to be in some ways professional. The feedback from the potential sponsors was “We don’t want to support a tournament that looks like a scaffolders convention on TV”, ie club grounds. They wanted small-ish, but professional stadiums. Bluetongue, Parra, NSO, Members Equity, Ballymore, etc fit the bill.
Basically, if you think crowds of 4-5K are unrealistic (as you write), you will never get a national comp for rugby in Australia. Because without those kinds of numbers for attendance, you will never be able to afford the various costs.
Invictus said | October 5th 2009 @ 5:52pm | Report comment
Based on this years results you would have the following pools of 12 -
Brothers (Bris)
Souths (Bris)
Gold Coast (Bris)
Easts (Bris)
Palmyra (Perth)
Nedlands (Perth)
Cottesloe (Perth)
Tuggeranong (ACT)
Queenbeyan (ACT)
University (Darwin)
Townsville (Qld Country)
Gold Coast (Qld Country)
Sydney Uni
Randwick
Gordon
Manly
Moorabbin (Mel)
Box Hill (Mel)
Power House (Mel)
Brighton (Adel)
Burnside (Adel)
Newcastle-Hunter (NSW Country)
Illawarra (NSW Country)
Hobart Lions
Invictus said | October 5th 2009 @ 6:15pm | Report comment
You probably wouldn’t televise every game as there would be a few hidings handed out, particularly in the early years.
Justin said | October 6th 2009 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
How many weeks a year would you like these amateurs to be playing?
Having any team ouside of Sydney/Brisbane playing a Syd/Bris team is a complete waste of time and money and will achieve zero.
Sorry to pour cold water on it but the gulf is that big its not funny. A Vic State team might be able to stay within 30 points of a Syd/Bris club team on a given day.
Invictus said | October 6th 2009 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
“Having any team ouside of Sydney/Brisbane playing a Syd/Bris team is a complete waste of time and money and will achieve zero”
And this is one of the great problems the game faces. Throwing our hands in the air and saying it’s too hard will also achieve precisely nothing.
As for how long they will be playing – as long as possible. Note that the end of S14 correlates with the change to NCC from local competitions.
You don’t like the idea, fine. What do you think we should do??
Justin said | October 6th 2009 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
Well there is no point doing something just for the sake of doing it either which much of this appears to be.
Simply put we need a comp in between club and S15 rugby. That was the ARC, its the answer but not on such elaborate terms in the begining. Run it to coincide wth the Currie Cup and ANZ Cup. With One HD you “might” find someone willing to pay for the rights unlike last time. I assume most of the entities would have learned alot about costs last time and shouldnt make the same mistakes with blowouts.
As Yikes? said you must have the best players playing in any higher level comp. You cant have rank, unfit amo’s playing against pro and semi pro. It may work in football but not in rugby.
Also we dont need cups like Euro football. Aussies like home and away with finals. Not one week, cup, one week league etc etc. Keep it simple.
As for amateurs playing as long as possible, have you ever thought that many of them are only interested in playing for 15-20 weeks a year? I can tell you in Melbourne that anymore than that are you are little chance of seeing players turning up.
Bay35Pablo said | October 5th 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
For schools, you can GPS, ISA, CHS etc. You divide them up into distcicts or divisions on areas or merit. The hard bit would be working out which team goes into which division first, but you can overcome that. You could also have a Cup like now, in adition to the regular season.
One issue would be larger (especially GSP) schools with large numbers of grades needng opponents. However, they have this issue already within GPS. Further, they could play in lower divisions.
The big issue would be the GPS schools suffering the ignominy of not being in Division 1, if and when they werebettered by other schools and relegated.
Again, this will never happen, as the old boys networks will again die before this happens. Even if it would be better for overall school competitions, which they would never admit. “Tradition” wins over anything else. Well, traditionally the sport was amateur, you couldn’t lift in line outs, etc.
Perhaps you could have those schools who want to keep the traditions playing in a cup or 2nd comp, at least for their 1st grades, for those old trophies. However, I’ll bet over time the Division 1 cup would become the most important. Imagine a fibros v silvertails final, with Kings v Prairewood or similar. The crowds would flock.
If the ARU or NSWRU were to impose this from the top down, by withholding funding if they didn’t go along (which is how the government did it with soccer), it could be done. But the current structure means the ARU and NSWRU are selected by those who would need to change. As such, it wouldn’t happen without an AFL style Commission in charge. Further, the current admin is too caught up in the Wallabies and S14, not the lower levels where it matters in the long term (or if they are, you could fool me).
The fact is, the current approach will be the current result. The sport treading water or at best slowly growing. My pick is slowly dying while AFL and soccer pour funds into western Sydney and Queensland, and league finds a holding war and union dies.
The ARU have to take a long term view to development. They have to set 5, 10 and 20 year objectives, and set out plans to reach them. Part of teh issue is also the admin changing every few years as one lot overthrows the other. The example of the O’Neill, Flowers, O’Neill regimes shows this. O’Neill builds to a crescendo with the RWC2007, then gets punted, Flowers seems to pfaff around for a few years includign running the ARC at the wrong time and costing a bomb, and then O’Neill returns to have to wrestle with the problems coming out of the last few years. While some of these are of his own making (as some say, RWC 2003 should have flows into an ARC style comp in 2004), there is no continuity.
Yikes said | October 5th 2009 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
Quick point – The Unions do not fund private school rugby, so there is nothing to withhold (they do pay some towards Australian Schoolboys and various championships and tours but nothing to the schools directly).
Bay35Pablo said | October 5th 2009 @ 7:55pm | Report comment
Yikes, So I take it this means none of the $1,028,356 in the NSWRU Anuual Report indicated as going to “Youth” was for schools? And not one cent of money was spent via development officers, refereeing, etc?
And the $600,000 allocated to the Australia Rugby Football Schools Union in the 2008 ARU Report?
Yikes said | October 5th 2009 @ 8:43pm | Report comment
None of that amount from NSWRU goes directly to the individual private schools or their associations (CAS, GPS, ISA) to fund their rugby programs. There would be some funding for NSW Schools’ representative teams in there, plus of course any activities run at those schools such as coaching courses or referee training could be considered of benefit to the private schools. But it’s hardly “funding” that you would threaten to withhold!
Re the ARU amount to ARFSU – That’s a big number! I would have to check this, but I believe that would be funding to run both the Division 1 and Division 2 National Schools Championships, both big tournaments. I think there might also be some funding for the Australian Schoolboys to tour, for example the team is touring Ireland/UK in November this year. ARU could threaten to withhold that I suppose – bit of a big stick to wield though just to get some NSW schools into line!
Generally, the private schools are accountable to no-one except their Headmasters. Several years ago, the GPS wanted to ban the clean-out at the breakdown from the game, thinking it was dangerous! I think it was only the fact that they couldn’t provide enough referees on their own that stopped them…
Bay35Pablo said | October 6th 2009 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
Yikes, thanks for that.
fact is that using a blunt stick like funding is always a last resort. If you have to force someone to do something, they are always looking for ways out. Convincing them gets better results. I just can’t see GPS ever choosing to give it up.
What is the status at the moment with the private schools playing is their zones? They play GPS on weekends don’t they? My old CHS school played their games on Wednesday arvos against other schools in their zone. Not on bl00dy weekends!!! That for juniors!!!!
Invictus said | October 5th 2009 @ 5:26pm | Report comment
Bay,
The best way to achieve a more inlcusive schools competition is through prize money. Most of the private schools I’ve had anything to do with are always looking for money for their building funds. Pleanty of state schools could do with extra cash. So you need a sponsor and probably some sort fo official sanction.
It is definitely do-able.
Working Class Rugger said | October 6th 2009 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
Invictus
I agree. Perhaps RA should look at doing something along those lines. It doesn’t need to be a cash payment by the way. Think grants. Building, euipment and so forth. Say the Top 16 are giving enough for them to establish a proper Rugby program with scrum machine, pads, jersey’s etc. As you progress further up to the Final the prizes grow to benefit the school as a whole. Say you have a $50,000 euipment grant has the grand prize. This would benefit the whole school and would be very attractive to Public Schools in particular.
JF said | October 6th 2009 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
Not sure about this gents,
Schoolboy rugby is one of the most pure forms of the sport, I would rather keep the concept of winning = money, out of this form of Rugby. I think money could effectively be spent to promote school rugby in other ways. I would like to see a staff member of each rugby playing school made into a type of mini development officer. They could be paid a small amount on top of their normal salary to be the school’s rugby development officer. Maybe something like this already exists? Just a thought.
Invictus said | October 6th 2009 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
It was suggested as an alternative to the big stick to get the private schools on board.
Winning = money is a societal maxim so schoolboy players are already exposed to it.
AndyRoo said | October 6th 2009 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
It also sounds like a good incentive to wave around schools thinking about starting a rugby program.
A few league schools might make the efffort to bring in a coach and have a crack
Working Class Rugger said | October 6th 2009 @ 5:59pm | Report comment
There are many schools particularly public schools that would see the opportunity od winning say $50,000 as a great incentive. But I wouldn’t hand it out as cash. It would have to be spent on school specific eqipment to benefit students.
I must say, I do like JF’s suggestion. Many teacher’s give up there time to coach teams outside of normal school hours ( at least at my school they did). Offering them some sort of assistance ( along with a kit program) so they could act as a DO within individual schools could be just as effective. Couple this with School Development Grants to the victorious schools and you could spark great interest outside of the traditional stronghold’s of the game.
sheek said | October 5th 2009 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Just imagine the cultural shock to GPS schools playing against certain High Schools. Matraville High hosting Kings School – I’d like to see that. Or the reverse! Kings would hire security guards to protect every building on their sumptuous grounds!
Seriously though, all the private & public schools should be divided up as you suggest, or alternately into geographical zones, followed by ‘supe’r play-offs.
Just as a thought, how do they organise their secondary schools Australian football sport in Melbourne, Adelaide & Perth?
Joe FC said | October 5th 2009 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
I like your thinking sheek.