Ever since the demise of the Australian Rugby Championship (ARC), the greatest challenge for Australian rugby has been to find an effective third tier competition to allow players on the cusp of Super Rugby to get exposure to professional rugby.
Without a third tier the players are in the extended squads and academies from the Super provinces are forced to rely on injury to a first teamer, to get any exposure to playing with and against the top level players – and generally get limited or no game time through the season.
Additionally, not all top level internationals are identified when they are in their teens or early twenties. Without a third tier the pool of players who are receiving professional level development at any one time is much smaller.
A late blooming player coming through in their mid to late twenties with no exposure to professional training and playing is a difficult way to go about things.
The other problem with having no third tier is a commercial one. Once the Super Rugby season is over, Australian rugby finds itself in the position of having a maximum of one high level rugby match a week (involving a team from Australia) in the public domain.
It’s no secret that the Australian winter sport scene is one of the more competitive scenarios you could find yourself in, and leaving such a huge chunk of the season to be dominated by your competition, will inevitably make life difficult.
Simply, the games are your advertising and one or zero games of rugby a weekend will always struggle to compete against seven games of rugby league or AFL.
So that’s the easy part; we need a third tier.
The idea is not revolutionary. What has been the struggle though was finding a way to get something up and running that was financially viable.
The numbers of fans that followed the ARC in its short life apparently didn’t provide enough funds to run the teams. Basically, there was too much cost to pay and not enough fans of these new teams to provide the cash.
The solution would seem to be to find a competition model which has lower costs and more fans to cover those costs. These, along with widening the pool of professional or semi-professional rugby players, are the three key factors for the Australian rugby third tier competition.
The solution is thus. Once the Super Rugby season is finished and the Wallabies squad is selected and assembled, play another round (or two) of interstate matches with the teams only using the players that are left after the Wallabies are gone.
Points accrued in the Super Rugby season are kept and then added to by the reduced squads and then a one-off final is played between the two top teams (or a two week three team final system if you want to stretch it out). This would accomplish our aims of a competition model that was cheaper, had more fans watching and widened the pool of semi-pro players. Let’s deal with them one by one
1. Costs out. The players’ salaries would generally already be accounted for. The main change would be that instead of players returning to their clubs after Super Rugby to play alongside the amateur ranks, they would continue playing at the higher level.
To widen the pool there would inevitably be additional players requiring payment but this is kept at a minimum with only 30-50 (say) minimum base salaries being required to cover for the missing Wallabies throughout the year. Compare this with the 120 estimated additional players required for the ARC and its clear there is a significant saving. The provinces would already have staff and systems set up ready to go so there would be a potential saving there too (as opposed to starting new teams).
2. Fans (money in). Each team has an existing fan base and there would be no need to build from scratch, additionally pleasing to fans of lower Super ranked teams is the fact that the teams on top would theoretically lose the most Wallabies. As a result the lower ranked teams would surge up the ladder post-Super Rugby and would be better than even chances to qualify for the final(s).
What’s more this system would provide these teams and fans something real to play and cheer for in the second half of the super rugby season with points achieved being carried through in the Aussie only section. The potential for a better TV deal then the ARC had also exists as the competition would be less of an unknown quantity for potential broadcasters. Finally, it would ensure that there were more high level games of rugby (read advertising) going on through the Australian winter.
3. Player pool. The ARC was in hindsight stretching too far and couldn’t be sustained. Obviously the more players in the pool the better but if the comp can’t pay the bills and it all goes belly up, the pool ends up being widened by zero. An additional 30 to 50 players getting regular high quality game time every year, would seem to be a more realistic increase and a large step in the right direction.
This all seems to tick a lot of boxes to me.
Let’s do it, John.
soapit
Guest
i remember that too. i wonder how the interest would compare to the interest in the old arc games. i havent been able to find crowd figures for the state of the union matches but the arc match crowds were all under 5000 people (generally quite a bit smaller, with the final down to just 1200) and i think the SOU games would have been getting around those crowd figures if not more and would have cost less than the arc games to put on. look, any third tier comp will likely make some kind of a loss to run when its all tallied (at least at first) but its about minimising that loss and then getting a reasonable return on it with your expanded player depth. for the record the arc was predicted to cost (ie make a loss of) $8million of its first two years which was why it got scrapped. so if we can bring that number down to a more reasonable level by reducing costs it should still be seen as a worthwhile investment by the ARU to get the increased depth even if the crowds weren't earth shattering.
soapit
Guest
"There is no will at any administrative level to develop a third tier." if this is true then of course nothing will happen. however i find it hard to believe that noone at any level of administration is interested in developing a third tier and i believe its the dollars that is keeping it off the radar. we even had an arc for a season a while back so someone somewhere must have some interest in it.
Hamish
Guest
I seem to remember that quite a few years ago some additional interstate matches were played after the super 12 (I think it was then) season was over using the non-wallaby players. it was called Sate of the Union or some such. Didn't last long and attracted little interest.i am not sure that reviving this concept would work. We need a third tier that involves players from outside Sydney/Brisbane - the current base is simply not consistently producing enough quality players. I don't much care how it is done, using existing clubs in an expanded competition or new clubs as long as it involves teams from at least Canberra, Melbourne and Perth as well as Sydney and Brisbane. It should also be possible to bring in other areas down the track, e.g. Adelaide. Expanding the Sydney competition might be possible, but in the past the Sydney clubs have not been keen, Canberra (The Vikings) used to play in the Sydney competition but were excluded by the Sydney clubs.
Invictus
Guest
Easy to say. Difficult to prove. If you have hard numbers that support your case, post them. Otherwise, my opinion is as valid as yours.
Invictus
Guest
Well, if you want a dose of reality then how about this - there will never be a national domestic competition until super rugby expands to 8 teams per conference. There is no will at any administrative level to develop a third tier. And super rugby will never be dismantled in favour of a HC format. It may come to resemble it as the conferences expand but it will be an evolution, not a devolution.
Ray
Guest
I still think the ARC was the model with the best potential for a third tier rugby comp in Australia, but it wasn't given a chance to mature by being cut short after only one season. Its greatest failing was the structure of the Sydney teams, with the exception of the Western Sydney Rams, where you had a Central Coast team, supposedly representing the Northern Sydney clubs, playing at Gosford and a Sydney Fleet team, supposedly representing the Eastern and Southern clubs, playing at North Sydney and totally alienating their respective supporter bases. It was designed to fail. With modification, I believe it could have developed into a successful competition if given at least another couple of seasons.
soapit
Guest
its all very well making a wish list for developing large numbers of players but its just not realistic in dollar terms, hence the need to narrow our goals in the short term. read the last item of the article on development. obviously we want as many players developing as we can get but if we overstretch the whole thing goes bust (like the arc) and we end up with zero outside of super rugby (like we have now). its not about getting everything we want, its about getting somethings we want while being somewhat sustainable
soapit
Guest
the waratahs will never be consigned to history, absolute worst case there will still be at least a couple of matches a year versus the reds and it would become like state of origin is now in league. along with a domestic comp with teams from all over sydney and the other capitals i could cope pretty well with this. rebels have a leg up starting from scratch as they are joining an established competition. different case starting the whole thing from scratch (compare arc crowds to the rebels crowds this year). plus your theory is based on the assumption that super rugby will disappear which to be honest i'm not convinced will happen
Naki
Guest
Equals seriously?
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
just dont call it third tier. that kills it stone dead. even if the reality is the NRL is third tier..................
The Bush
Roar Guru
Brisbane Clubs couldn't afford this (and I have doubts as to how many Sydney clubs could too). Even if you dropped Super Rugby and made this the top "tier", Brisbane could not support six (6) professional Rugby Union sides. I doubt it could even support two (2).
The Bush
Roar Guru
hog, A couple of points to be raised; 1. The ITM Cup is the latest version of a competition that has only been running since the 1970s, so that is not "100s" of years of tradition. However the Currie Cup, in one version or another, has been in existence for approximately that period. I'm not taking away fromthe importance of the ITM Cup - the representative Unions that make up the competition have been playing each other for some time, but let's not over sell its long standing tradition. 2. New Zealand and South Africa are reluctant to move their competitions into "Second Division" standing for a reason. They seek the stand alone window at the end of the Super Season so that the young players come through are playing against hardened veterans with Super Rugby experience. Relegating these competitions to "Second Division" status removes their ability to groom players for Super Rugby as young players coming through this competition will not be playing against Super Rugby standard players. Besides, South Africa already has a competition that is played through the Super Rugby season, it's call the Vodacom Cup and features the fourteen (14) Unions plus Namibia and (this year) an Argentinian Selection (called Pampas XV). So South Africa have no need of another "tier".
sheek
Guest
WC Rugger, 10 seems the magical starting number - 3 x Sydney, one each Brisbane, Gold Coast, Newcastle, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth, plus one other (perhaps a 2nd Brisbane team, or Sunshine Coast?). In time you might get expansion from Adelaide, Central Coast, North Qld, Illawarra & others..... Invictus, Better to start small & expand gradually. Rugby union doesn't want to make the mistakes of the A-League, or the ARL/NRL circa 1995. Your model, regrettably, is unsustainable in the short-term. Give it about 50 years (maybe?).....!
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Start with 10 and if it calls for it over time introduce new teams.
Invictus
Guest
The OP's idea is too narrow - a broader base is needed for player development purposes. How many teams will be heavily dependent on how much money can be raised. From a point of view of balance the best number of teams is 14-16, keeping in mind that it will require approx. $8M per team per year to run (very rubbery number but does take into account that 30% of sponsorship revenue must be retained for sponsor servicing). Teams would be Perth x2, Melbourne x2, Canberra x2, Sydney x3 plus NSWC, Central Coast and either Newcastle/Wollongong, Brisbane x2 plus Gold Coast and QldC.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
sheek Three out of Sydney (North, West and East/South), add NSWC based out of either Newcastle or Wollongong, two from Brisbane (North/South) and QLDC out of Sunshine Coast. Canberra, Melbourne and Perth. That makes ten. Each year give trial games to SA and Darwin. In time bring at least one of those on board.
sheek
Guest
Soapit, Which would you prefer - Sydney Waratahs or ..... consigned to the dustbin of history? Because eventually Australia WILL have a national club comp. Transferring Waratahs from NSW to Sydney; Reds from Qld to Brisbane; Brumbies from ACT to Canberra, etc, is much, much, much, much more preferable than losing those icons altogether. General comment. Manufactured franchises CAN work. Every history has a beginning, as I continue to argue ad nauseoum. Read how the Rebels BORROWED the history of the 1850s miners as a starting point. It's clever & it works. You also need to give new franchises time to gel. I thought some of the ARC teams in 2007 were well thought out - especially the Sydney Fleet, Western Sydney Rams, Central Coast Rays, Perth Spirit & aforementioned Melbourne Rebels. Also, read the Bradley report into rugby league in the mid-80s. Less than a decade before the super league wars came along, the NSWRL & ARL wanted to reduce the number of Sydney teams from 12 to about 4 to 6. Relocations, amalgamations or simply coming up with new teams, were considered the way forward. The idea was that most, if not all the famous Sydney clubs, would still exist in a metropolitan comp. When the ARC is reprised, the ARU will firstly need to decide the optimum number of foundation teams - 8, 10 or 12. It will then need to decide on the number of teams out of Sydney ( 3 or 4) & Brisbane (one or two). The 5 current SR teams will need their icons transferred to their capital city. Then add the extras. This, I believe, is the way it will have to be done.....
Silent One
Guest
You could also have a second tier Super Rugby (with 4 aus & jap teams and 2 each from nz, sa & argentina (if they continue to live in the stone age)) in step 4 of scenario 2...
Silent One
Guest
Shot for the feedback a Im a born and bred kiwi so I dont know much about australian rugby etc.
soapit
Guest
this pretty much sums up the problem with expanding a club comp. for every club that get made into one of these national clubs there's one that misses out and those guys arent ever really going to support their arch rivals in a national comp. you'd be waiting for a generation change before too many news fans came in. if some hard decisions were made then it could work i guess but with loyalty running so deep i cant see agreement being reached on which clubs are in or out even before you take into account practicalities (definitely have to have a western sydney team for example). again it could be done but would be a long way off as there would be a lot to work through and they havent even started thinking about it yet. in the meantime we could get something happening as an interim step quickly and easily.