Is private ownership coming to Aussie rugby?

More information from BRC: $1 million rugby revolution September 7, 2012 A story broke yesterday about Balmain Rugby Club’s involvement in a $1 million rugby revolution currently being developed. With that in mind here is some clarification on our plans and its ‘wrinkles’. Since March this year we have been working on the creation of a 3rd tier competition to supplement the development of rugby in Australia. Over that time we have worked on different models while trying to maintain a strict fiscal discipline to ensure that this is an achievable goal and not a pipe dream. We are now a lot closer to that goal but there is still a long way to go. Our plan is not anti-establishment, instead we are developing a viable solution and we will be working with the various bodies to ensure its success. Our proposal includes the realignment of club competitions to match the Super rugby finishing date which would free up players to compete in this competition while The Rugby Championship was played. We believe there is a window in late August, September and early October each season for an attractive rugby product using players that do not make the Wallabies 30 player squad, alongside young developing players. It would act in part as a selection tool for Australia’s rugby franchises and assist them with assessing talent in a higher standard than premier rugby. We know from our discussions with these franchises that it is a concept they would support. This competition will be similar to the 3rd tier competitions currently existing for the last two World Cup winning nations New Zealand and South Africa; the ITM and Currie Cups. Our short term plan is based on building a sustainable competition by managing overheads. The vast majority of rugby followers agree that a completion like the proposed is a tremendous opportunity but the barriers to entry are primarily fiscal. Conscious of this we have decided, at least in the first season, to concentrate on two conferences; one in Sydney and the other in Brisbane. It is then hoped once the tournament proves itself that we will expand into other rugby strongholds in Perth, Melbourne, Canberra and potentially NSW Central Coast, NSW & QLD country. In the first season each Sydney and Brisbane conference will have 6 privately funded teams based on districts that will appeal to a broad supporter base. By keeping participating teams to 12 in the first year we believe the returning players from each Australian Super rugby franchise (30 contracted players + 5 extended playing squad members) will strengthen these teams beyond what is possible in premier rugby. The introduction of 5 Super rugby franchises has undeniably diluted the standard in premier rugby competitions and the well documented financial challenges of these premier clubs have been exacerbated by the player drain to Super rugby. All clubs have an important part in Australian rugby but the cavernous hole between club rugby and super rugby is only getting bigger. The Australian Rugby Championship in 2007 provided this bridge between club and Super rugby and produced some tremendous rugby while uncovering current Wallabies such as Kurtley Beale and Lachie Turner. But the high cost of travel dictated for the new proposed tournament that we would need to look at a different model, at least in the first instance that is played in cities where travel is reduced to short commutes. New Clubs will be created and all 12 teams will be privately owned. Importantly we would not have promoted this concept without the substantial interest in ownership from individuals we have targeted and we are confident that creating these Clubs with inspired owners will not be a speed hump. The basic premise of this competition is the promotion of developing footballers – providing pathways that will once again make Australia a great rugby nation yet at the same time appeal to the rugby faithful who have come out and overwhelmingly endorsed the idea. To develop young footballers all 30 man squads must be made up of at least 10 players under 22 years of age. Marquee signings will be encouraged and will be outside the modest salary cap. Non-marquee players will receive modest match payments with the opportunity to win the $1 million prize money. They will be part-time players and will need to supplement their incomes with other employment or rugby contracts. This competition won’t make players rich but it will provide players increased exposure to potential future employers while continuing their development via contact in game situations with a higher standard of players, teams and coaching. The season will be short and intense. 5 games will be played in each conference with the top 2 teams from each conference playing off in the conference Semi-Finals – Sydney 1 v Brisbane 2, Brisbane 1 v Sydney 2. Winners will go through to the Grand Final. Matches will be played at times attractive for television such as Friday night double headers at 6:30pm & 8:30pm. These matches will be played at suburban grounds; eg Leichhardt Oval, Redfern Oval with low entry fees offering fans value for money. Sunday afternoon games will be played at 4:00pm with mid-week night games as the tournament develops. Earlier this year we spoke in confidence, to key decision makers at Fox Sports and Channel 10 about the concept of a 3rd tier rugby tournament and the resulting proposal we are developing is based on their feedback. It is without doubt a work in progress and we look forward to the continued refinement to make this an attractive product for television and Australian rugby fans. Watch this space! We Are Balmain.

Not if the coaching gets decided by the ARU.

Johnno, it isn't that formal but the ref already has the power to act that way, they have plenty of opportunity to blow penalties or award free kicks rather than form reset after reset. The refs have a bloody hard job at scrum time but they need to get better at managing it when scrums are playing silly buggers.

crip, the removal of rucking was because mum's weren't letting their kids play when they continually saw blokes coming off with bleeding heads. LIneout lifting was an innovation invented by the South African's while they were excluded from international competition. As I said above I miss rucking, it has caused huge complications to the game, lineout lifting however I am massively in favour of. I do think rugby missed a trick by not fully implementing the ELVs, the ARC was a great style of rugby and I'm curious how the game would have developed if they had played under the full ELV rules longer. Personally I want the new comp under the current rules so that we continue to develop within the IRB structure - I can hear where you are coming from in hating the modern game though.

''I note the Brumbies have dropped the ACT, & don’t even want to be associated with Canberra. I find this kind of thinking odd, even though I understand its intention.'' That's not true about them not wanting to be associated with Canberra. There were a lot of hysterical comments on the Canberra Times articles about it. Brumbies Rugby has a catchment outside of the ACT and wants to be inclusive of all the areas it administers (including southern inland and the south coast). The Brumbies get funding from the ACT Government, wears the ACT's colours, plays all the matches in Canberra and have the coat of arms on the jersey. They will always be attached to the ACT.

Have to smile. So it seems that new teams are the way to go, private equity is not only possible at this more modest level but they've even found interested parties, and Ten might be interested to fill all the dead digital space...well, who on earth would have thought any of that??!! Certainly none of the wise men at the ARU, that is certain. Nice to see someone thinking outside the norm, but a couple of observations: 1. There is absolutely no benefit to the Rebels, Brumbies or Force to release any of their Super players to play. They just risk getting a broken player back, with no gain. Other than a couple of development players, I wouldn't be risking them without significant underwriting. 2. Even more so when the scope is so limited. Why would they ever expand the comp to include the ACT, WA or Vic if they already have access to all the best players? 3. If private equity is available and TV interested, why wouldn't they revisit a proper national competition instead? The operating loss of the ARC in it's previous incarnation was $2.5M, with the other $2M being written off loans. Eliminate those loans and that loss equates to $400K of outside money per team for a break-even competition. How does that compare with the amounts expected from private equity for this idea, and why would they settle for the more limited concept?

Gold. Thanks Sheek, Uncle and Brett.

i reckon its a brilliant idea its realistic and much more cost effective and its a good way to get more super 15 players together and will benefit the young and emerging players who would get the chance to play along side these players.And would also add more entertainment quality i hope it goes ahead.

jeznez i have an idea for scrummaging. Maybe it is already in you'd know you are a prop mate. -Basically like Atheltics.: 2nd false start and you disqualified if you break -So 2nd scrum set who ever collapses the scrum , the other team gets a penalty or can ask for a re-set scrum, no mucking about, no 3 or even 4-5 scrums being set just 1 and 2nd time your gone. Penalty.. -And if you collapse a scrum within your own 10metres Penalty try no mercy or mucking about wasting time .

Yes Jeznez. If a rebel comp played under the old rules was set up I would do naked cart wheels in the streets. Anything else is just another step in the wrong direction. With these rules I'm not interested in playing RU, can't stand to watch RU and can't read most of the drivel written about RU anymore. And if my kids want to play football I'll be steering them into Rugby League. The old rules were fun and is what Rugby was built on till it sold out. And why did it have to change anyway? Because some TV people wanted it to happen? (I don't really know and it's hard to find any information). TV peope don't even do a good job producing television. How the hell can they have a hand in changing rugbys' rules? I'm as pissed off about it as i would if Rugby just started playing aussie rules instead. Great idea Jeznez a rebel comp and the IRB can go to hell.

I miss rucking but lineouts are a so much better with lifting. Fire up though crip, tell us what you really think! I'm a fan of this new comp. My biggest issue with the idea being proposed is that it is too many teams. I think four in Sydney and four in Brisbane would be a better condensation of talent. With regard to asking this guy to get the rules changed, what is your plan for him? He should just sink a bundle into lobbying the IRB? Or do you want him to set up a rebel comp played under the old rules? Please talk us through your idea of what this guy should be doing?

CB, I was kind of thinking of them as conferences even as I typed about merging later. From the further release below it is targetted to be two conferences.

Another lame idea from a wealthy A hole wanting a piece of the Rugby pie and his ego massaged at the same time. He would be loving all this publicity. Hey rich dude, want to do something great for rugby and get immortalised in the process? Restore the rules of the game that true Rugby fans love - Rucking and no lifting in lineouts. http://youtu.be/AdYyhoZM2bg And to all those Roarers that disagree - Hope you enjoy the terrible state of Rugby Union. You're part of the problem.

From what they have above, the squad make up for each team will roughly be: 10 Super/EPS players 10 Sydney/Brisbane Premier players 10 U-22 players. The middle number will shift depending on marquee signings but essentially the top 5 players from each Shute Shield club would get a run (top six players from the Brisbane Premier clubs). I know the talent spread isn't really that even but that is the theory. I'm liking this idea a lot, the ARU needs to step in and get involved. Move the Shute Shield earlier as they suggest and get this happening.

Brett & Uncle (& apologies for Elisha for digressing), I had to give the matter of your question some thought, as you can appreciate it was so long ago. Uncle was indeed an outstanding player back in 1900. He played the way he speaks & writes - uncomplicated & direct. Maximum effect from minimum effort. But he always gave 100%. Incredibly, Uncle had the same head of hair back then as he does today. ;-) Here's the thing about Uncle - even as a young teenager, he was known as Uncle. He was one of those guys who had an old head on young shoulders. He commanded respect in the dressing room, & everywhere else. Indeed, there is an unconfirmed rumour Uncle may actually be his real christian name. The story goes that even as a new born baby, his parents felt Uncle had that wordly-wise look about him. It's difficult nominating someone else apart from Uncle, but I'm going to have to go with Dennis Lutge, known as Dinny to all & sundry. Dinny was a second rower & backrower, tough & uncomprising on the field, but a true gentleman off it. Dinny played for the Norths Shoremen, having played previously with the Pirates, so called because they would cross the harbour to 'plunder' the opposition! Dinny was as hard as granite, as befitting a wharfie. They bred them tough in those day, the wharfies. Eveything had to raised & lowered off ships by block & tackle, ropes & pulleys. It made men naturally strong & fit. It was a sad day when Dinny joined the exodus to the new rugby league code. Such was the respect that Dinny was held in Sydney rugby circles, that when the Kangaroos sailed to Britain in 1908, he was nominated as rugby league's first touring captain. Brett, you DID ask.....! :-)

Its interesting to watch as the faithful and clubs of Australian rugby are working to under mine the national union they will say its not their goal - however it does show how little faith the clubs have in the ARU and what work its been doing to drive grass and lower level development. If the ARU is wise it should come on-board with this idea and throw its full weight behind it before this goes ahead and turns into a pitched battle for the players.

If that is all there is on offer I would - however the two conferences sound like a much better idea!

Agree - well done!

very pleased to read that there will be two conferences and that there will be a 1v2 between each conference for the semi. Liking this more and more the more I read of it. A bit nervous of the 10 players under 22 but I guess that is a good counter to the encouragement of marquee signings.

Hahahahaha - you guys are hilarious..... :-)