Shute Shield shuffle - the new national hit?

Well it looks like the ARU has been beaten to the punch in cashing in on the 7's boom. But it would appear that there is an opportunity for an Australian wide 7's comp to find a national champ to go to Twickenham. Given that the Brumbies will be the Australian representative it suggests that Super Rugby sides will remain the predominant club brand for professional rugby (both XV's and 7's). Club rugby will be a development tool, while the Super B will be a polishing comp to upskill players and ingrain them into that pro environment. I think it's inevitable that Super Rugby will expand to 6 teams per country (Lions, Western Sydney, North or South Auckland) and at that stage there'll be little space left in the calendar for much more pro rugby. The academy comp and 7's will be the vehicles to attract young talent, with the promise of Olympic and international touring potential if you're good enough. And the money that goes with it. Seems like a fairly coherent plan to me, one which should offer a lot of TV content and high profile events for publicity and marketing.

I agree with some of what you're saying in your last point. I think club rugby will always fulfill that purpose for the players that will always stay at that level, join the committee or coach, including having all the lower grades for those playing for enjoyment. But I also think that club rugby can still provide the development and standard of competition for the young up and comers that are trying to get to the next level. It allows the new young guys to test themselves against experienced first graders so that selectors can judge them to see whether they will go on from their schoolboys careers or not. To answer your question, if we take an average team say Warringah - last year they came 7th - in the team list for one of their teams, they had 5 Super rugby players and another that trialled with the Tahs. The rest were a mix of seasoned first graders and young up and comers. And obviously as you go up the ladder from last year, those numbers of players cracking Super rugby squads increases greatly.

Sydney, NSW Country, QLD Country, Brisbane etc are all the traditional representative teams of each "region". They're certainly are not new. The reason I want to to run post SR and more importantly post Club is to avoid any clashes and allow for the best unsigned talent to be able to have a chance to push for a contract. The reasons I see for the ARS being different from the ARC is cost. You'd notice that I mentioned the five cities with SR franchises. They'd likely be stacked with players from the current SR squad with some EPS guys, could even split them to form the core of two teams if they chose to go to a two team structure in both Sydney and Brisbane instead of the country squad (and in terms of cost, that would be more likely) as they will already be signed to a franchise as a development competition they won't need to be paid. Same for the club guys. Make it an aspirational competition. Meaning guys are chasing opportunities meaning that there shouldn't be any need to pay anyone outside of perhaps coaching staff. That's an big expense already massively reduced. Accommodation was another killer last time. Both in terms of putting guys up in Melbourne (poorly managed by the VRU) and the fact teams would travel days in advance of games. By linking with the SR franchises at its core, much of that expense is eliminated as all the talent should be already based in those cities. Something that wasn't the case during the ARC. In terms of game accommodation, adopting a fly in/fly out methodology would help. With the exception of Perth, there would be no need for teams to stay over night anywhere. They'd arrive in the morning and leave in the evening after the game. This is how the NBL has operated for years. Then there's ground hire. Another issue during the ARC. Look for smaller grounds, use club grounds if they are of appropriate quality. TG Milner is one that springs to mind. For a Western Sydney squad St Mary's Stadium would do fine to start. By looking to do those three things you'll cut costs by some margin. The issue with the ARC was that it attempted to go too big too soon in terms of costs. Big stadiums, paying players etc. There really isn't much difference between my ARS and Super B but with more team and opportunity. When it come to TV surely we can get that up and running if the Australian Ice Hockey League can. Hell, they even run a truly national competition. Surely if they can do both of these. Rugby can.

I have already answered it. "Plenty" is what the clubs are getting now (and I do appreciate this is different from state to state). The issue is that you don't want a professional and national third tier for fear that it may force the clubs to be exactly what they should be: state-based and truly amateur competitions.

Well if that is so then you can respond to his points.

The Super B proposal is just a remodelled APC which was played the season before the ARC started.

Don't you have an answer to my question?

Yes cause at least Bakkies gives me considered responses, that show he knows things about Rugby, which is a lot more than can be said for you Mike.

1. It is clear that was inevitable long before this thread started. The important thing is that your arguments and mine have been put on display for others to judge, and they are part of an on-going public debate. 2. Sorry but I am at a loss as to where you have mentioned a single difference between the New Zealand rugby landscape and ours - we are both agreed that they are different, but I have no idea why you think that any particular difference is relevant to what we are discussing. 3 & 4. Of course you do. I am not writing these things to convince you!

Said better than I ever could. Phil, your arguments are heading towards fantasy-land.

How have they not? Are you seriously arguing that more of the ARU's very limited resources should be thrown at the clubs with no prospect whatsoever of it being recouped? That sort of argument will just give the clubs a bad name.

Which is what we need, as opposed to your arguments designed to make club rugby the highest priority, higher than the Wallabies, S15 or any other part - the tail wagging the dog, as it were!

"Yes I’ve seen them and they prove you wrong." Please Phil, don't waste my time. You know perfectly well that Australian S15 teams have consistently tended to finish in the bottom half of the table over the last ten years or so. Things like the Reds victory in 2011 are anomalies, not representative of our overall achievements. It appears that you are prepared to write anything if it will bolster your argument, regardless of truth. Far from supporting club rugby, your arguments and methods will only harm it.

To be honest WCR, I don't see a lot of difference from your ARS proposal and the one being planned by the ARU? Other than the seasonal timing and the fact that the Super B won't step on the toes of the clubs. If the ARS was to predominatly use Super Rugby players, as part of their contractual obligations (and be based on strict geographical links) then it is essentally the same as a Super B. This is especially the case if you base teams in Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth and potentially Western Sydney and Brisbane 2. As you suggest, these locations are the most self sustaining, which is why they are the current Super Rugby bases (with a Western Sydney and Brisbane expansion). Of course the issue with that WCR is that you'd crush Club rugby and politically that would be hard to get over the line. You'd also have to create new brands that would require promotion to generate fan goodwill and market awareness, unless you use the Super Rugby brands. But the biggest hurdle for and ARC/ARS idea is the costs I believe. You have to pay for coaches, venues, facilities etc which presently don't exist. At least by sticking to the SR and Club entities you are using existing setups, staff and grounds that are already paid for and hired. The ARC saw a $5M loss, something which the ARU just cannot handle again given their financial position. I don't really see too many reasons why a revamped ARS would cost any less or generate more revenue than before? It still wouldn't have any Wallabies, it still would struggle to attract TV viewers in a VERY busy time of the year and it wouldn't utilise any existing brands or fanbase.

''You don’t think most of the guys playing 1st grade club rugby don’t have aspirations of making Super rugby teams? I think most of them do, especially the young guys.'' Players between the ages of 25 and 35 are the heart and soul of a 1st Grade team are less and less likely to crack Super Rugby. Players younger then that move about for uni or go overseas on working holidays. They play Rugby for enjoyment, become family men and bring their kids through the club. Some of them become committee men and/or coaches when they hang up the boots. These aren't the types that will become Rugby professionals and they are vital to keep clubs ticking over. On average how many players per Sydney club crack Super Rugby squads? Irish Rugby has a smaller player base, large pro squads including A sides and academy players that play in their own competitions and that doesn't effect the standard of club Rugby.

Thanks Matt. I hadn't seen that article but it does give me some hope that Bill Pullver is trying to do something that benefits all parts of rugby in Australia.

Yes I've seen them and they prove you wrong. I think I'll agree to disagree with you re. the ARC. In the article Matt has posted, it doesn't look like an ARC is on the cards anyway. I was very glad to see him acknowledge that they don't want to do any damage to club rugby and want to move club rugby season and have the Super B before it so players would then play club rugby,

How have the clubs got plenty of focus?

You don't think most of the guys playing 1st grade club rugby don't have aspirations of making Super rugby teams? I think most of them do, especially the young guys. The players drain isn't like it used to be because now there are 5 Aust Super rugby teams so there are more opportunities to get into those teams. And the guys that have performed at club rugby have gone on to do very well in Super rugby, like the examples I mentioned previously. Interesting that Hill is being asked to reapply right around the time that they get a new CEO. Why have Damien Hill's players come out and supported him? Even those that are leaving the Rebels? That's good that coaches need to be evaluated. Again like I said the Pacific Nations Cup is fine as it doesn't impact Club rugby, but if it was a Super B concept my concern was that it would have a big impact on Club rugby. Good to hear the article Matt attached below that points to it finishing before Club rugby. From looking at their website, it still looks lot of the Kings are from Currie Cup teams to me.

1. Your argument doesn't sound very convincing to me. 2. You asked me how our landscape is different and I gave you 3 examples. These are reasons why we shouldn't be trying to replicate those countries competitions. You've missed the point about the standards of teams. I'm talking about the standard of teams after the super rugby season ends when their non Wallaby players come back to the teams. Quade Cooper doesn't fall into this category if he's in the Wallabies. I'm saying that the standard of our club teams is just as strong as one of those in the NPC, therefore we don't need an ARC. You don't think Sydney Uni would compete well against any of the NPC teams with all it's non Wallaby Super rugby players back? 3 & 4. I think you're dreaming about how much money and following can be generated with an ARC. Good luck with that.