Rumours of third tier comp concerning

agree pitches a big big issue. So with that as a background sorry but the traditional clubs are not going to survive as a direct feed to Super Rugby unless they can fund own private pitch with seating and lighting. The new cricket model of city v city with 2 each in Melb and Sydney could be something to look at. I think the 5 Super franchises with one extra in Sydney and Brisbane. Gold Coast, Newcastle/Central + one other. I would play double headers in Sydney and Brisbane where possible. Its all about the cost but only need an airline sponsor + live TV some vibrant betting and you have costs covered. Seriously get the admin centralised under a commission and the three levels ARU/Super and this (plus 7's) could be run by one organisation. It about generating the revenue rather than all the petty Rugby politics.

I brought this up previously but backing the rumoured IRB expansion of the vPacific Rugby Championship toward establishing a Super Rugby B competition involving all 5 Aus and NZ academy teams. Add in a Western Sydney team to round it out at 14 and push to play it after SR sans the Wallabies. Change the names of the Acadmey player from Tahs A etc to Sydney, Brisbane and so forth. Bingo, there we have a tier just below with a great deal of the expenses being covered by the IRB.

absolutely agree that ARU must get professional about it, realise that they may not be able to get everything they want perfectly and decide which are the key items they want. i did write an article arguing for your "development reasons" model (super sides continuing minus wallabies) as an interim step before we can sustain a national comp as it could be up and running easily next year (all the infrstructure is already there). i think a lot of people would be surprised at just how small the ARC crowds were (rarely over a couple of thousand and never cracking 5k from memory, even in the final) so i would have thought it wouldnt be too hard to get those kinds of numbers when there's real decent rugby on offer even if the comp itself wasnt the most exciting (ie the state teams playing each other yet again). i think ARC should be the long term goal but having the interim step would give it a better chance of success by getting these fringe guys a chance to shine and get onto the publics radar as thats who they'll be selling the ARC on eventually.

because it would end up as it has in EPL where there's only ever a handful of clubs that win it, those in the relegation zone would only get decent earnings every second year (say) and then couldnt compete in any way with those up the top.

how will it generate more cash or cost less than the ARC?

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.

and it will need some kind of rich patron to fund it for the first (5 minimum) seasons. the final piece in the puzzle.

Great thread of discussion. I loved the ARC from a rugby point of view. It cost too much and didn't leverage Club infrastructure. From next year the new Super Rugby format will see the final in early August. Followed be a new Tri-Nations format going through to middle of October. It seems to me the ARU need to drive the change. They need to get a TV deal done to support a tier of rugby above the club comps. For mine, this tier can't have hard and obvious links to clubs. Why? Because no matter how you do it, you'll end up with some kind of relegation promotion system that will see the majority of the rising talent go to those clubs and keep whatever other club comp exists floundering worse than it is today. My solution is to have the Sydney, Brisbane, (insert city here) club comp modified to run so that it finishes on the same weekend as the Super Rugby final (early August). For a city like Sydney, you have the 12 teams play each other once and then 3 weeks of finals. Maybe build a bye round in for teams to stretch it out, etc. but you basically have a comp running for 14/15/16 weeks that ends early August. Then you take you top 30 players into the national team and focus on the Tri-Nations. You basically are left with 120 contracted Super Rugby professionals. You leverage the resources and the brands of the 5 Super franchises and you start a new semi-professional comp with 10 teams. 2 teams managed by each Super franchise. Basically, their non-Wallabies, plus Academy players, plus rising talent they have their eye on, plus some experienced senior players form the club scene. You then play a round robin comp, 4 teams in finals (2 weekends) in parallel with the Tri-Nations. This comp also allows the national coach to get game time into the legs of players not in the match day 22 and players coming back from injury. It all hinges in getting a TV deal. Preferably free to air. There are other things they should do to lower costs of running matches and broadcasting matches. Thinks like a double header in Sydney on a Saturday followed by a double header in Brisbane on a Sunday. Also, please only use rectangular grounds (no cricket pitches) like Concord Oval and TG Millner and SFS and leverage the volunteer base of the strong clubs to run the day operationally (this could be shared/rostered around). This would give the Super franchises something to do with their already paid for coaching and management teams and a great way to evaluate the rising talent under more pressure and scrutiny than club footy. Plus having this on free to air TV would promote the Super franchise brands (make sure the linkage is obvious in team names and colours) which should grow overall interest in rugby and excitement for next season’s Super Rugby and even drive more pay TV subscriptions…

"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.

Before any third tier gets off the ground, the point of it needs to be established and agreed upon. If the point is for developmental reasons then the the idea of the Super academies playing each other during the international season, plus maybe one other team, works best. It allows the non-test Super players to continue to work on combinations, and for other fringe/club players to step-up and fill the void left by the Wallaby stars. It is also the most financially viable strategy. Of course, it could prove to be very dull and repetitive for the fans following on from Super Rugby itself. For this reason it would fail to capture the hearts and minds of the spectators I suspect. And this is why the point of the tournament needs to be agreed upon. If it is to win the hearts and minds of fans with a new national tournament, then the ARC model (with a few tweaks) is by far the soundest model. Sure, the teams were new, but given more time, I think they would prove to be far from arbitrary. They were (mostly) carefully thought out and “worked” as far as new teams go. However, the ARC needs to prove that it can be financially viable before it will get off the ground again, and since it has to contend with no Wallabies available and a short season, it faces an uphill battle. If the priority for the new tournament is simply to give players a bigger stage to play on, then the best clubs from the different comps around Australia playing in an end of season champions league probably fits best. However, it would also have to contend with some of the Super players missing out who play for clubs that don’t make it. It would also fail to capture most of the fans who are attached to other teams that also miss out. This is why I originally ended up at my fairly radical alternative model: http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/05/04/a-new-structure-for-club-rugby-in-australia/ But that alternative of course, also has many hurdles to jump.

For the Sydney teams priority should be given to heartland areas without NRL teams. ie. Eastwood, Gordon, Norths. While also making sure there is at least a team in the other Eastern Suburbs heartland. The West needs a team but is there demand for it? The idea of merging Manly and Warringah, Gordon and Norths sounds logical but don't know if merging 2 rival teams works. Look to the merger of Manly and Norths in rugby league, though I guess both are different areas though still close together.

Crazy Horse Unless the Wazzies are true to their word in seceding from our federation - again, this time over avarice in coveting the spreading of the wealth from mining. So this will solve any national status definitions in respect of this comp and others.

There can be no national competition in any sport that does not include Western Australia. Without WA you just have an East Coast Cup. Give each State Rugby Union a licence or licences and let them work out how they will field the teams. WA didn't want the ARC to end and is ready to go right now.

I have no problem with the '3rd tier' being a club based competition, but like most I would rather is was province based. I think artificially merging clubs is a useless idea and will never work, likewise picking the same clubs to play in a comp like this every year will just make those clubs stronger and the rest weaker, which is bad for the game. If I was setting up such a comp I would firstly try and sign and airline sponsor and a tv deal, both of which are pretty crucial. Secondly I would make it top 4/3 from sydney and brisbane and the winners from the other provinces. The teams would play in Cup style competition with pools (might require more teams) or a single round comp with no final, and would still compete in there normal state competitons. But before any of this can be done the finaces of the clubs need to be sorted and the club comp expanded. It will only be popular is an egalitiarian approach is taken in setting it up, but it seems this never happens in australian rugby.

I'm with you Kim.

how 'bout, when the rugby comps (shute shield and brisbane comp) are over for the year, in the month of october they have a round robin comp of NSW B, QLD B, ACT B, Western Force B, and Melbourne REbels B. At that time of the year, all of the wallaby players are on the spring tour. While all of those B sides will be a mixture of super rugby players, fringe super rugby players and the best players from both the shute and brisbane comps. it gives an opportunity for the fringe players and club players to win themselves a super rugby contract for the following season, and it bridges the cap between club rugby and super rugby

WCR, that is the most exciting rumor I've heard on the roar. It solves so many issues. The PI get professionally exposure and Australia gets it '3rd tier'... The only down side is the NZ NPC will get whittled a bit more... again.

There can be no credible national competition that does not Include WA. It wasn't the West that sabotaged the ARC in 2007.