Rumours of third tier comp concerning
By Bay35Pablo, 9 Jul 2011 Bay35Pablo is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- ARC, Australian rugby, NSW rugby, NSW Rugby Union, NSWRU, third tier rugby
Friday’s Ruck & Maul section of the Herald provided some disturbing rumours about the possible future for Australia’s much talked about, and desired, “third tier”, which has been club rugby since the ARC came and went in 2007.
Ruck & Maul is usually a bunch of unsourced rumours, or about unnamed persons, which is often a cause for frustration by readers (like myself). Growden has been about the traps for decades, and will almost certainly have a source of some type, but without that it is often hard to tell whether the rumours have any weight or not.
Sometimes they have turned about to be true, other times not. In some instances if you are in the know already, you know who he is talking about, so you wonder why he doesn’t just name the persons.
The rumour is that “some officials” (no suggestion as to whether NSWRU, SRU or who) are trying to form a 10-team “Super Club” comp, comprising “four teams from both Sydney and Brisbane, and one each from Canberra and Melbourne.”
My first thought was giving four teams to each of Sydney and Brisbane is a bit generous for Brisbane. With no disrespect, the Shute Shield currently provides something like 60 per cent of the Super Rugby players (at least that’s the number I have seen bandied about recently).
While the Melbourne and Canberra clubs would presumably simply provide feeders for the Super Rugby clubs, and almost act as a reserve grade side for each, the Brisbane and Sydney clubs would clearly be looking outside just the Reds and Tahs extended squads.
As such, with the numbers Sydney provides, and the sheer size of Sydney requiring arguably more than four clubs to not leave an area of Sydney out (and abandon it to other codes), I would suggest the split would be more appropriately five to three in Sydney’s favour (I await return fire from Brisbane Roarers as to why I am wrong).
Salving the egos of the Brisbane comp may be playing a part I suspect. My first riposte would be to tell me how many Brisbane teams would be competitive in the Shute Shield, and vice versa.
However, the real cause to my mind for consternation is the suggestion the four clubs from Sydney “may well be Manly, Sydney University, Southern Districts and a combined Eastern Suburbs-Randwick line-up.”
Left out of that are:
* The currently unbeaten Eastwood, winners of premierships in 1999, 2001 and 2002, and with strong juniors.
* Warringah, currently propping up the ladder, but traditionally a strong side with strong juniors. And who detest Manly, so their fans may have an issue supporting Manly as “their” side even if just down the road.
* Northern Suburbs and Gordon, always competitive and based in the North Shore rugby heartland. See Warraingah above for chances of supporting Manly, plus harder to easily get to games in Manly.
* Parramatta, West Harbour and Penrith. While Penrith and Parramatta have struggled in recent years, West Harbour are not in the same boat, and are a competitive side with a good ground and decent depth (leaving aside complaints they keep stealing Parra’s juniors).
So essentially Sydney west of Camperdown, north of the Georges River, is left without a team. This suggests the “old rugby” thinking, that the sport can survive based in the east and north of Sydney (actually, given two teams based in Camperdown and the east, mainly in the east it seems!), has prevailed.
This is everything that is wrong about that type of thinking, and is the thinking that dooms rugby to lose out to league and AFL. Without the west (hell, everything but the east) of Sydney, rugby will stagnate and wither.
Further, having uni in the comp, notwithstanding their great strengths, is sure to be a source of great resentment if this comp gets off the ground. Rest assured the fans of any team not getting a gig won’t be supporting them.
To my mind it would make more sense to have a combined North Shore/Northern Beaches side (and possibly separate sides), an eastern suburbs side involving Uni (Sydney Fleet anyone?), and a western Sydney side or two (Woodies/West Harbour and Penrith/Parra, or combined – Western Sydney Rams?).
To my mind Southos are the ones that have the weakest claim despite their various strengths, and this reeks of what Cronulla and Canterbury did in the Super League war, in jumping ship to ensure their survival. Are they one of the pushers for the comp? If so, then for this reason?
My thoughts has always been a Southos/Uni side playing out of Kogarah had merit as a side covering southern Sydney.
I’ll be interested to see what if anything comes of this plan, but god help rugby in Sydney if it gets off the ground in the format suggested.
I can see real problems if so, as I’d see the former three ARC teams making more sense as long as the Rays moved back to northern Sydney and the Fleet to the east.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Reds back in contention, but Waratahs need a cleanout (287)
- What Hansen’s first squad means for the Wallabies (191)
- ALAN JONES: We have the players, it’s the coaches that are to blame (161)
- Who will be in the Wallabies’ backrow? (158)
- Will Cooper and Mitchell be back in time for Wallaby selection? (156)
- CAMPO: Will Deans change the style of the Wallabies play? (128)
- Tahs out. Brumbies win ugly. And Quade’s back! (124)
- McKenzie or White: who will be the next Wallaby coach? (9)
- Chiefs back on top after downing Bulls (3)
- Rebels know Super improvement needed
- Quade can play way into Wallabies squad (2)
- A Kiwi’s advice to Wallaby supporters (15)
- Confessions of a rugby union traitor (6)
- Reds focus on Brumbies, not finals
- A Kiwi’s advice to Wallaby supporters (15)
- Confessions of a rugby union traitor (6)
- Brumbies vs Reds: a lesson for the other provinces (10)
- Chiefs vs Bulls: Super Rugby live scores, blog (14)
- Hola Argentina, and welcome to the Rugby Championship! (24)
- Irish coaches looking to head Western Force (15)
- Dull Super Rugby coaches equal dull rugby (50)
- Explore:
- ARC, Australian rugby, NSW rugby, NSW Rugby Union, NSWRU, third tier rugby


July 9th 2011 @ 7:35am
Red Rooster said | July 9th 2011 @ 7:35am | Report comment
You need to add the Gold and Sunshine Coast to the Brisbane catchment. Futher Queensland has won the last 5 schoolboy championships and likely to win a 6th on Sunday. The third tier need to provide quality as well as look after volume and Queensland is producing at every level including womens
July 9th 2011 @ 8:15am
Jack Petro said | July 9th 2011 @ 8:15am | Report comment
RR – good point about the GC and SC but if you had 2 teams out of Brisbane and GC and SC that gives an impressive 4 to the Brisbane Club comp. I can see B35P’s point about Sydney having the combined Sydney based teams (all based in Sydney) which gives 3, then add the Country Cockatoos (who can add drafted Shute Shield players attached) to make 4; which leaves 1 from Canberra and 1 from Victoria … sorry WA but you’re TOOOOOOOO far away to be of any relevance to the discussion.
The biggest problem is that when JON returned to the fold, the ARC Competition (wash my mouth out with soap) disappeared from existence – imagine (if finances weren’t a problem) what the landscape would look like now with those teams consolidating supporters (etc).
B35P – unfortunately Growden is an angry, negative man who loves nothing more than causing trouble within the NSW rugby landscape (he should move over to the UK where the weather would suit his writing). For all its merits this rumor may be true but I think it’s more about the journo getting his jolly’s than putting something of merit forward.
July 9th 2011 @ 8:58am
Working Class Rugger said | July 9th 2011 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Jack Petro
For the Spirit (it would need to be a combined Perth team) to compete they’d have to not only provide the finance for their own team to travel east but likewise for the competition to travel west. They could do it. It’s just do they have the combined wil to do so.
July 9th 2011 @ 8:56am
Working Class Rugger said | July 9th 2011 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Evidently there’s also an alternative model making the rounds as well in opposition. The biggest problem is that from what I have heard the model above has the promised financial backing. I realy do not want to see the West for much of the Northern Suburbs neglected and it may require some unholy unions to ensure that doesn’t happen. If Randwick and Easts can come together (believe me, having played for Randwick, they hate Easts or at least did) then the likes of Manly and Warringah can go beyonf\d their rivalry to enter a team, could also involve the likes of of Norths (who have a really good side this year but lack results).
The West would have to provide a true united front as none of them have the individual financing to go it alone. I’d keep the 4 teams from Sydney but under different set ups. Split the North into two with Gordon and Norths joining forces and Manly and Warringah doing likewise. The West united with all four clubs and the Eastern Suburbs teams with Souths or alternatively Souths alone but picking up the Ilawarra catchment 45 mins down the road.Four to 5 Syd team, 4 QLD team (I like both the suggestions of the GC and Sunshine, especially the Sunshine Coast which is a better bet than the GC imo) and 1 Canberra (idealy combined) and Melbourne (the Axemen). That’s 11 not much of a stretch from the proposed 10. But it won’t happen as Uni want to go it alone. Or they could make it 12 teams.
If the current propsed idea gets up it won’t last. And this is why. The Combined forces of the likes of Randwick and Easts wil rapidly cut the competitive advantage that Uni currently enjoys that will affect their recruitment. It will happen, they’ll take their toys and go home. Uni have a role in Aus Rugby but not at a national level. I’d imagine the purpose of this competition would be to build a marketable product. While Uni has a brand its only really strong among its alumni. So unless you can get thousands of the former students to role up week in/ week out then they’ll struggle to build anything. Combined teams would cover greater geographical spread as well as provide an even higher level of competition that make it a marketable product in my opinion.
July 9th 2011 @ 9:31am
sheek said | July 9th 2011 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Bay,
If there’s any truth about this proposed comp, then it says a lot about some rugby folk in this country – & none of it’s any good.
There is so much that is totally wrong with this proposed 10 team comp, I won’t even start, but you’ve done a good job of detailing some of these stupid ideas.
Why does Sydney University continue to be treated like some sacred cow? It simply sucks the oxygen out of developing the game into other much needed areas.
This is just another short-sighted, short-term, self-preservation, motivated idea by some very selfish people so quick to cast off their fellow clubs & constituents. Just like some of our current politicians.
I thought rugby union deserves better, but then again, maybe it doesn’t…..
July 9th 2011 @ 12:30pm
Atawhai Drive said | July 9th 2011 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
I’ll believe in this new comp when I see it up and running.
But in the meantime, this latest exercise in kite-flying gives those so inclined yet another opportunity to bag Sydney University, Greg Growden, the ARU and anyone else perceived to be standing in the way of rugby’s ascent to the sunlit uplands.
Can’t wait for the Randwick-Eastwood game this afternoon, and the Reds-Crusaders tonight.
July 9th 2011 @ 3:21pm
p.Tah said | July 9th 2011 @ 3:21pm | Report comment
AD, I agree I’ll believe it when I see it. Growden says ‘a well known cashed up club figure will be asked to help fund it’… So no-one has actually agreed to fund it. In fact they haven’t even asked him!
My guess they’re going to ask mining magnate Ken Maloney the Southern Districts patron… Hence Southern Districts inclusion in the comp.
July 9th 2011 @ 1:23pm
p.Tah said | July 9th 2011 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
I agree Sheek, From a practical perspective what happens to the other Sydney teams who arent part of this National comp? Do they play in the Shute Shield against Manly’s, Southern District’s and Uni’s 2nd XV? What happens if there are injuries to the players in the East/Randwick national comp team? If the stand alone Randwick team are doing well in the next tier down and set up for a finals birth you can gaurantee they won’t be letting their players replace the injured players in the national comp.
July 9th 2011 @ 9:41am
Yikes said | July 9th 2011 @ 9:41am | Report comment
Agree totally with Sheek!
July 9th 2011 @ 10:28am
sheek said | July 9th 2011 @ 10:28am | Report comment
Yikes – is this a first…???
July 9th 2011 @ 10:59am
Rickety Knees said | July 9th 2011 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Me too Sheek! Great article Bay. IMHO this is the Elites of Sydney looking to corner the game into their back yard.
July 9th 2011 @ 9:53am
kingplaymaker said | July 9th 2011 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Bay and Sheek the real question is why are there so few teams? If it’s meant to develop the game and give as many players as possible opportunities it should have as wide a coverage as possible, so of course there should be far more Sydney teams. Of course there need to be teams for the Gold Coast, Newcastle…Adelaide? As well.
July 9th 2011 @ 10:15am
sheek said | July 9th 2011 @ 10:15am | Report comment
KPM,
The ARC model (2007) was fine – it clearly identified 3 Sydney rugby regions – greater west, north harbour, east & south.
The problem was that the north harbour players turned out for Central Coast, & south & east played out of North Sydney oval. Which pleased nobody (except Central Coast fans, since their team won). There were other problems like quarantining the top 30 world cup players. No comp can thrive without its stars.
Brisbane can probably have a second team – dividing Brisbane naturally north-west & south-east along the Brisbane river.
But the national comp would have to be capped at 10 teams initially. Also, IMHO, it would require changes to super rugby, which I’ve mentioned ad infinitum previously.
But the short-sightedness of some folk, particularly in Sydney, is ensuring the game remains burdened under the yolk of blinkered self-interest.
July 9th 2011 @ 10:50am
Working Class Rugger said | July 9th 2011 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Here, here!!
July 9th 2011 @ 10:05pm
Bruce said | July 9th 2011 @ 10:05pm | Report comment
err…I think you meant hear, hear.
July 9th 2011 @ 11:10am
kingplaymaker said | July 9th 2011 @ 11:10am | Report comment
Sheek interestingly the ITM Cup is planned at some stage to be reduced from 14 to 10 teams and the Currie Cup has 8.
My dream in the long term is that these teams could increasingly take on the attributes, following, player recruitment structures of Super teams, and hence be easily turned into Super teams.
Which is why 10 is a good number. 10 in each country, the two structures mirroring each other more and more. That’s three Sydney, two Queensland, Melbourne, Perth, Canberra, Adelaide, Newcastle.
In fact if there were 10 teams in Australian Super rugby now, you wonder if the NRL would have such an easy ride.
July 10th 2011 @ 5:03pm
kovana said | July 10th 2011 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
“Sheek interestingly the ITM Cup is planned at some stage to be reduced from 14 to 10 teams and the Currie Cup has 8.”
I think its already started.. With the ITM cup divided into 2 division.. The Prmiership and Championship… 7 teams in each division for this year.
July 11th 2011 @ 11:53am
soapit said | July 11th 2011 @ 11:53am | Report comment
and it will need some kind of rich patron to fund it for the first (5 minimum) seasons. the final piece in the puzzle.
July 9th 2011 @ 10:03am
kovana said | July 9th 2011 @ 10:03am | Report comment
If this is true..
It would be nice if it was 4 NSW teams, 3 QLD teams, 1 ACT, 1 Vic and 1 WA.
July 9th 2011 @ 11:15am
Bakkies said | July 9th 2011 @ 11:15am | Report comment
those models are terrible. I wouldn’t trust Growden any day of the week. It’s been proven merging Sydney club sides in to souless identities doesn’t work. Don’t just wack teams in Western Sydney, Gold Coast and Central Coast for the sake of it. Third tier rugby doesn’t need to buy in to this code war rubbish that is going on between the two insular codes. That’s was another problem with the ARC the teams were paying expensive rent on loig stadiums in these areas that you need to half fill to break even. Basic accounting. I have said here recently that the current standard of club rugby is atrocious.
Another thing is scheduling. Super Rugby is due to finish in August next year. current club competitions don’t want to be drained so they will have finish by August. How many of these grounds get used for cricket in the summer which effects start times.
Something sustainable has to be presented to O’Neill he is a beancounter and former bank CEO. Has to sold for tv rights Rugby can’t pay a broadcaster to show it. Would prefer there to be a historical link such as bringing back the Sydney rep team and the north vs south brisbane rivalry. The clubs have to play out of grounds that are affordable to rent or that Rugby owns to make it sustainable
the teams should be
North Brisbane- Ballymore
South Brisbane- Ballymore
Sydney- North Sydney, Manly or Coogee
Western Sydney- Concord
Canberra- Viking Park
Melbourne- tbc
Perth- NIB or perry lakes
NSW Country- Gosford, Newcastle, Wollongong or Coffs
July 9th 2011 @ 11:33am
Working Class Rugger said | July 9th 2011 @ 11:33am | Report comment
Ideally the teams would be in my opinion.
Sydney – Minimum Easts, Randwick and Uni with Souths as a possibility playing out of Coogee Oval asthe best of a bad lot.
Southern Districts – note only if they endeavour to include the Illawarra (14 clubs all with juniors and traditionally one of the strongest country regions) which is only 45 mins down the road. Out of intially Foreshaw but with games in the Illawarra
North Sydney – Manly, Warringah, Norths and Gordon playing out of either Rat Park or North Sydney Oval (preferred)
Western Sydney – Parra, Penrith, Wests and Eastwood playing out of St Mary’s Stadium with games also held at Concord and TG Milner
North and South Brisbane (sorry not aware of the geography of the teams in Brisbane out of Ballymore
Sunshine Coast or Gold Coast.
Canberra an amalgamation out of Viking Park
Melbourne out of Olympic Park
Perth out of NIB
And NSWCoutnry out of Gosford.
July 9th 2011 @ 11:54am
sheek said | July 9th 2011 @ 11:54am | Report comment
WCR,
For your info…
The Brisbane river runs roughly north-east to south-west dividing the city into north-west & south-east.
Excluding Sunshine Coast to the north of the city & Gold Coast to the south of the city, the remaining 8 Brisbane clubs would divided geographically as follows:
North-(West) Brisbane – Norths, Wests, Brothers, GPS.
South-(East) Brisbane – Souths, Easts, Sunnybank, Uni.
July 9th 2011 @ 12:13pm
Bakkies said | July 9th 2011 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
I would rather the NSW teams be separate entities rather than pooling clubs. The teams are set up with no attachment and recruit accordingly rather then on club lines. That’s why regional rugby is struggling in Wales where clubs that hate each other feed in to a new regional identity.
all black fan we only need a tv deal that will pay the bills. We are not talking stupid money here.
July 9th 2011 @ 12:04pm
sheek said | July 9th 2011 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
Bakkies,
“Merging Sydney club sides into soulless identities doesn’t work”.
I presume you mean the 2007 ARC model. I must disagree with you here. The ARC creators realised it was impractical to lift every Sydney Shute Shield team into a national comp. They also realised it was futile to cherry pick some teams ahead of others.
The Sydney Fleet & West Sydney Rams were very well thought out, borrowing on the history of the First Fleet (1788) & fledging wool industry (early 1800s).
Reading the thoughts of Melbourne Rebels owner Harry Mitchell is quite instructive. Mitchell acknowledged Melbourne had no history, so they had to borrow one. They borrowed the rich history of the gold miner rebels of the 1850s & the Eureka Stockade incident of 1854.
Every history has a beginning, a starting point.
What do you suppose was here before Sydney University (1865)? Or Nelson NZ (1870)? Or Hamiltons & Villagers SA (1875)? What do you suppose was here before NSW RFU, or Canterbury RFU, or Western Province RFU?
They all had to start somewhere…..
July 9th 2011 @ 12:17pm
Bakkies said | July 9th 2011 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
The Fleet and Rams were combining players from certain clubs that can’t stand each other and you don’t think the Central Coast Rays were souless come on? They were forcing fans from the northern side of the harbour to go up to Gosford to watch a team in lime green jerseys. Don’t get me started on the East Coast Aces
July 9th 2011 @ 1:18pm
sheek said | July 9th 2011 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
Bakkies,
Yes, I DO agree with you on all counts. But as the old saying goes – “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water”.
The concept of the ARC was sound, but the implementation was poor.
One of many mistakes was to say that Sydney Fleet were a feeder for Randwick, Easts, Souths & Uni.
The ARU should simply have said, “we have 3 franchises covering Sydney rugby, based on a combination of geography, population, economics, history, tradition. Those 3 teams will be located in the greater west, on the north harbour & east/south”. No mention of feeder clubs.
And yes, we’ve mentioned the ludicrous situation of Sydney north harbour players turning out for Central Coast.
The emphasis should have been on the franchises representing those geographical areas, without any of feeder clubs. The clubs would naturally draw mostly, but not exclusively, from their regions.
July 9th 2011 @ 10:44pm
Crazy Horse said | July 9th 2011 @ 10:44pm | Report comment
Perry Lakes is in the process of being demolished. Rugby WA moved into their flash new headquarters last week.
July 9th 2011 @ 11:39am
Ian Whitchurch said | July 9th 2011 @ 11:39am | Report comment
What rugby union needs to do is really simple – copy the code with a clue.
Look at this comp.
http://www.neafl.com.au/
You’ve got the reserves sides of the next tier up, and you’ve got club sides playing each other. Yes, there’s a gap in class between Sydney and the rest, but through the comp the gap is actually less than you’d expect – for example, Mount Gravatt beat the Brisbane Lions reserves on the 26th June.
You’ve got two conferences, which mostly play each other.
The NEARU model would be pretty simple – everyone stays in. The Southern conference also gets the ACT Brumbies and NSW Waratahs reserves side. The Northern Conference gets the Queensland Reds reserves side.
The Shute Shield goes to the highest-ranking Southern Conference club side, and the Queenslanders do the same thing for the Doughty Shield. These two teams then play off against each other.
Now, there is a risk that this will collapse in a screaming heap as people who are loyal to clubs rather than the code white-ant the proposal. There is a risk that rugby clubs that do not own poker machine licences or rich benefactors will collapse. There is a risk that rich rugby clubs will refuse to accept drafts, salary caps and other ways to ensure the both an even competition, and that the foregoing doesnt happen.
But these are risks in any case – but do the simple thing. Copy the code with a clue.
July 11th 2011 @ 12:00pm
soapit said | July 11th 2011 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
then what happens when super rugby finishes? where do the non wallabies play? or does the comp only run till the end of the super comp. that wouldnt be too desirable, you’d want something to go along with the tests.
July 9th 2011 @ 11:51am
allblackfan said | July 9th 2011 @ 11:51am | Report comment
IW, that only works if you have a mega-TV deal bringing in the money to make such a format work.
Aust rugby can’t expect to earn anywhere near such a deal like the AFL got (except maybe in partnership with NZ, at the least)
July 9th 2011 @ 1:24pm
Ian Whitchurch said | July 9th 2011 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Allblackfan,
Under the NEARU model there arent significant additional costs – you have the same clubs that exist now playing each other, with a couple of trips per club per year interstate.
Bluntly, the biggest plus is it avoids the politics of ‘what clubs do we cut’, and thats a mess in any competition in any code.