Shute Shield should be local rugby's third tier

If the underlying reason for the new so-called third tier is to thwart Uni and to save The Shute Shield, let me just mention the following sporting clubs, and then perhaps we will have no more of this nonsense: Manchester United, Bayern Munchen, St George, and even Randwick.

Another option is the provincial setup which is done geographically and seems the best option. Sure some areas will have big populations and some small, however like NZ's NPC Unions could loan up to 4 players from stronger provinces, therefore with Brisbane being so strong many of their second string players could be loaned out to strengthen teams such as North and Central Queensland. The competition Iinitially should not go longer than 8 weeks to minimise costs. The teams could be split into 2 divisions and each division could also be split again into geographically sensitive conferences to reduce travel. Queensland Provincial Teams could include: - North Queensland (Cairns, Townsville, Mt Isa) - Central Queensland (Central Highlands, Rocky, Mackay, Bundaberg) - Sunshine Coast (including clubs in north Brissy) - Brisbane (Made up of the remaining Brisbane clubs) - Gold Coast (Gold Coast, Darling Downs) NSW teams could include: - North NSW - Central NSW - West NSW - East Sydney - West Sydney - South NSW Then also have the other states: - Northern Territory - Tasmania - Victoria - Western Australia - ACT - South Australia This could see a 7 team Premier division and a 10 team first division which could be split into 2 5 team conferences. Surely these provincial comps allow Premier club rugby to remain relevant as players will be playing for a chance to play in the Australian Provincial Champs.

There are plenty of options for a national ARU competition I believe other than the one I am suggesting below. The ARC was principaly a good idea but surely the finances of this competition could be run much better. Quality players are currently playing Shute Shield and Brisbane Premier rugby for little or no money so I don't understand why the ARC needs to be a professional competition, as like NZ NPC most players will play for the prestige anyway. The ARC could easily be a sucess as an amateur/semi professional competition, with 2 or even 3 tiers. I like the idea of including minor rugby states as well as country regions from NSW and QLD because these other areas outside Sydney and Brisbane struggle for the lack of any meaningful rep rugby competition, and as a result sponsorship is hard to come by as little media attention is given to rugby in these areas. My favoured setup would be a 8-10 team premier division featuring some leading state teams such as ACT, WA, Victoria as well as some stronger regional sides from NSW and QLD such as Gold Coast, Brisbane, Sydney, Central Coast, Newcastle etc. Below this you could have a 1st Division which is competed for in conferences so that travel is minimal (ie already existing competitiojns such as Queensland and NSW Country Champs which could be rebranded as Australian NPC Division 1 QLD, and Australian NPC Division 1 NSW for example) Winners of regional conferences could play off with the winner getting promotion to the Premier division. I can't see any increased cost for these lower divisions as they are already played as Country Championships. However I can see sponsors and supporters getting excited as these Country Championship Competitions become important on a national scale and theoretically wherever you live in Aussie there is always the chance your team could one day be promoted to the Premier division.

I haven't been there for a while but I would be very surprised if a "top-level subbies team" train once a week. These clubs generally have 5 grades and colts, their players are very committed. I dont really seem much difference between the div 1 subbies and shute shield clubs, only in budget and playing ability.

John O'Neill used to have a mantra - 'unity of purpose'. Unfortunately, while those words sound nice, very few people in the rugby community are actually practising or living out the saying. It's every man for himself; every club for itself; every union for itself. This is the unfortunate reality.....

OJ, Very good questions, but the answer is a kinda rhetorical "how long is a piece of string". A possible scenario back in 1908 is that Australia & NZ would have joined forces, followed by Wales & France. South Africa would probably have also come across somewhere in this timeframe. This would have left England, Scotland & Ireland isolated. It must be said that the Australian administrators of the day had an unfortunately superior attitude to their NZ cousins, which would not have helped matters! Continuing on, England would have broken first of remaining 3, & probably joined by Ireland. We can assume for the purpose of the exercise that Scotland would have resisted for the longest against any watering down of amateurism! I couldn't possibly offer a timeframe of how long this might have taken. I imagine it would have all resolved itself before the mid-1920s, I think (hope). The 5 nations would have been disrupted, but in the southern hemisphere things would have ticked along as before. I think had rugby become professional in the 1980s, it might be in even better shape than it is today. The problem with professionalism in 1995-96, is that it was done under the shadow of superleague. There was genuine fear that superleague was going to rip the heart out of rugby by buying up many of its best players worldwide. The threat was very real. And the resultant scramble for everyone to get what they could still affects the game today. In Australia, the leading Wallabies have been way overpaid for a decade or more. And very little money has found its way to grassroots rugby in that time. Even in the 1980s players weren't talking about fulltime professionalism. They were still happy to hold down a job Monday to Friday. Their demands in 1980 weren't much different from 1908. Generally speaking, they wanted to be paid an allowance commensurate with the average wage of the day when travelling interstate or overseas on rep duty with state/provincial or test teams. Of course, travel, transits, meals & accommodation would all be covered by the various unions, as is the case today. They also wanted the requisite medical insurance to guard against injury & loss of wages while recuperating. And have all their playing kit supplied free of charge. All very reasonable requests. Of course, over time there would have been pressures for the game to become fully professional. But I like to think that had there been semi-professionalism in the 1980s, then the transition to full professionalism in the 1990s would have been much better managed.

Thanks Sheek, it seems you dealt with this dilemma directly yourself. If I were in your shoes I'd probably have done the same thing. I guess what I'm driving at is if there's a change at the top, then perhaps the premier clubs and subbies somehow have to come together to share resources and players - not exist separately as they currently do. Just imagine that: either a great opportunity to pool and consolidate resources or another political bunfight of vested interests!

RickG, You mention some of the problems bedevilling club rugby. Mates of mine still involved with premier rugby clubs say they are bleeding to a slow death. It's only generous sponsors that is keeping many of them afloat. Ideally, premier club rugby ought to be amateur until things settle down. By settle down, I mean the whole structure & way the Australian rugby season is run. Clubs believe they have to pay their players because "other clubs are doing it", so they get into a fatally spiralling cost war. The next two questions are how much do you pay your leading players, & how many club players are entitled to be paid. You might decide on paying 20 players, but then all of the 2nd grade team wants to be paid. And then son, & so on..... Eventually, I think players in premier rugby clubs ought to be paid, but the hole issue needs to be addressed by a think-tank of the country's best minds. I don't think, for example, the ARU can simply leave the matter to the provinces. The provinces themselves don't seem to be showing much leadership, & you can't expect the premier rugby clubs to govern themselves, because they're driven by self-interest mostly. I don't have my head around all the issues of club rugby, except to agree it's a mess out there. In my own personal experience form long ago, after playing in A teams all through school, including two year 1st XV, & several seasons A grade colts, I decided (prematurely as it turned out) that I wasn't interested in serious rugby anymore, & went to play Subbies for the next 8 years. Some dozen or so of my school & colts mates went on to play 1st grade with several different clubs at the time, making me believe I could also have achieved that. regrettably, I decided not to pursue that course of action. But I just wanted to enjoy my Saturday arvo rugby without too much hassle. But back then it was perhaps easier to make those kind of decisions, because no money was involved.

Do you think it would've led to a pro/amateur split along the lines of tennis and cricket (albeit it without the influence of television)? How about if the game had turned professional in the 80s when shamatuerism was rife and players were deflecting to league? How would this have effected the rugby landscape?

Well OJ, I believe Australian rugby would have had the support of both NZ & perhaps SA in this matter. Eventually also, I think Wales & France would have sided with Australia's stance. The problem is, those countries decided to "play under the table". There are numerous ingenious ways to get around the amateur status that existed for so long. Unfortunately in Australia, the rugby community wasn't strong enough or populous enough to adopt the same ingenious methods as existed in say NZ & SA. So Australia might not necessarily have been isolated. But they never bothered to find out.....

If rugby had turned professional in Australia in the early 20th century, don't you think it would've broken away and morphed into something similar to rugby league? If Australian rugby had been professional and the rest of the countries amateur, surely it would've been isolated from the home unions in particular. When you're isolated, you tend to evolve along different lines. In all likelihood, they would've developed a different form of the game I think.

Thanks for the info Sheek and Brett, I was aware of most of what you mention but not in great detail. I thought Ora was referring to more recent events. Sheek, I'd love to know your thoughts on if and how amateur Shute Shield clubs could cooexist with the current subbies structure. I'm thinking along the lines of a guy studying at uni, or working and with a mortgage and young family, who's playing 1st grade in a premiership club for the love of it. He know's he's not S14 material and isn't bothered. Apart from the desire to play the highest level he can, why would he do the 2 nights training per week plus extra commitment when he can go and play in a top-level subbies team, train once a week, get on the cans after games and still enjoy the game and the cameraderie? I guess I just don't see how it can all fit together. I know this dilemma exists now but if Shute Shield clubs are pushed back to completely amateur status it makes it stand out a bit more.

I'm still evolving in my Australian rugby union history, acquisition of knowledge & understanding, but often the reading is 'ugly'. Some people might on occasions think I am unkind in my cynical view of Australian rugby office bearers, but I'm sorry to say there are too many examples from the past where officials thought about themselves before the game itself. Take the rugby league split of 1907-08 as an example. Back then professionalism had an entirely different connotation to today. Today when we think of professional athletes, we think of highly paid & spoilt sportsmen who supposedly devote themselves to their chosen sport 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 12 months a year. In 1907-08, professionalism meant being reimbursed for representing your state or country interstate or oversea. You were paid a retainer for lost working wages, plus expenses for travel, accommodation & entertainment. You were also insured against injury & further loss of wages during recovery. You still had a day job Monday to Friday, & usually Saturday morning as well. And you still played your Saturday afternoon club game mostly for free. Eventually a modest win/loss match payment evolved, along with having your playing kit paid for, & travel to away games. As well as the afore-mentioned medical insurance. So professionalism in 1907-08 was nothing like it is today. The demands of rugby players to be paid a retainer when travelling interstate & overseas was sneered at & ignored. As was their request for medical insurance against injury & loss of wages while recouperating. When push came to shove, the administrators of the day were more concerned with the 'elite sticking with the elite', closing ranks with the establishment of Britain, & retaining their "Britishness". It was a classic class conscious decision to stand rigidly firm against any watering down of amateurism. Had the administrators of the day agreed to the practical & reasonable suggestion of loosening the strict principles of amateurism, rugby union might still be flourishing today without any rugby league on the horizon. But we will never know this for sure..... Anyway, I've suggested from time to time that the rugby administrators of 1907-08 were more interested in preserving amateurism (& a continuation of the priveleged class divide) than they were in preserving rugby union. These people did Australian rugby no favours at all back then..... !

RickG, At the end of WW1 (1914-18) rugby union collapsed just about everywhere in Australia except Sydney. Part of the reason was the well-documented creation of rugby league in 1907-08. The problem was further exacerbated by union shutting down 1914-18 while league continued to operate. The QRU did not start up again until 1928-29, helped amazingly in their resurrection by bitter infighting between the QRL & BRL. From 1920-28 the national rugby union team was known as the Waratahs, since the NSW team was effectively the national team. All the players form this period were retrospectively awarded test caps in 1986. During the period 1920-28, the Waratahs played an amazing 24 matches against the All Blacks, & a further 7 matches against NZ Maoris. If it wasn't for this interaction, Australian rugby might have gone into extinction permanently. I doubt most Australian rugby fans appreciate how close the game came to extinction back in the 1920s. Then in 1977, the ARU was so broke this was the last year they neither hosted International teams, nor sent the Wallabies overseas. As Brett McKay points out, it was at this juncture the NZRU stepped in to assist. 1977 was only 33 year ago! From the following year 1978, Australian rugby began its climb out of the proverbial sewer. We owe NZ rugby a great deal. We might be combatants on the field of play, but we should never forget the assistance they gave us in helping keep rugby union afloat during many dire periods in our history. Apart from the 1920s, the game struggled through most of the 50s, 60s & 70s. It's only since 1978 that Australian rugby has managed to stabilise itself on a consistent basis.

Rick, find the ABC series "Rugby in the Seventies", it's all well documented how NZ agreed to extra Bledisloe games and forgoing gate shares in the late 70s to assist the ARU bottom line...

I'm dying to know how the Kiwis have "pulled Australia back from the brink before".

It will be interesting to see how it goes, It seems a case of some people putting their pride before the best interests of Australian rugby. As a Kiwi I should be happy that Australian rugby is doing itself no favours but then again we have already pulled Australia back from the brink before and I don't think anyone wants to see it happen again. Australia if it can get it's domestic rugby humming could be an Ultimate force in World rugby and be very, very hard to beat.

Read it again - that is my point. With a hell of a following wind the SS barely reaches ARC standard, which I still would've said needed a few years to bed in to even approach the standard of the NZ and SA competitions. With that following wind gradually stripped away over the next couple of years (Aus A program reinstated this year, extended S15 schedule from next year, etc) the standard will very much revert to amateur club level.

Andy it says nothing the Shuite Shield never has been and never will be on par with the provincial competitions that South Africa and New Zealand can offer. The Shute shield isn't even inclusive of the whole country it is primarily a Sydney competition how the hell is that going to grow the supporter base. I think some people are being very naive but it is heartening to know that the majority of people realise that there is something else required above and beyond the current club competitions

As to standard RickG, the way Brian Melrose described it was that the SS finals last year were around ARC level....i.e with no Aus A program, non-playing Wallabies directed to a club and Force/Brumbies players all directed into the competition as well, then the best of the teams playing in the few finals were similar to the ARC week-to-week. How the ARC compared to the ANZC and CC can then be separately argued, but overall it puts a clear context on the general standard of the SS in its current configuration. With some of those advantages removed this year, and even more from 2011...