Following up on my article earlier in the week, I wish to approach another alternative to achieving a third tier in Australian rugby union, which is often looked upon unfavourably by many but would prove much simpler to achieve by utilising existing structures.
Using the traditional clubs to form a third tier or even talking about it can be considered taboo but it is an option that really needs to be investigated and discussed.
For some the likely make up of the teams which would be competing is unpalatable. However, in order to get such a concept as a third tier up and running they may be a necessary evil (I don’t begrudge their success, that much should be noted).
It’s fairly basic in its formation. When taking into account most, if not all, of the Super Rugby talent tends to be concentrated in a select number of clubs (in Sydney those clubs are Uni, Manly, Souths and to a lesser extent Eastwood), it could be said the basis for a third tier could feasibly already exist only needing the willingness to form such a competition.
A National Club Championship should total around 12 teams and, depending on the ability of both the Perth and Melbourne comps’ ability to do so, involve composite sides from each in the form of the Axemen and Gold.
If that is indeed the case, then both Sydney and Brisbane would supply four teams each (the top four from that year’s Shute Shield Championship the same for the Brisbane Competition) and Canberra would provide two.
In terms of length, it would all be determined by the use of pools.
The 12 teams would be split into two pools or conferences. Each team would play each other once, with the top two from each pool moving forward to a semi-final (in terms of where they would be played, the team which only had two home games in the pool stage would gain the semi final to even the number up a bit), with the winner advancing to a two leg finals series.
In all it would be a eight week commitment that would likely involve much of the current Super Rugby talent and a fair chunk of the prospective talent as well.
To many it’s far from perfect but it would be more workable in terms of cost and support. It would also be more club-friendly, which would overcome much of the friction experienced during the Australian Rugby Championship.
If more teams wished to compete the number could be brought to 14 or as few as 10. If both the Perth and Melbourne comps elect not to compete, then Sydney could supply five teams (12 team competition), Brisbane four (10 teams) and Canberra three (eight teams).
The point is by using clubs it provides a greater degree of flexibility, which would be needed in its establishment years.
And of course, to qualify you will need to finish in the top four of each city’s respective club competitions.
The quality is there if executed well. Watching the Manly/Sydney Uni game this past Sunday demonstrates that.
It may lead to some clubs needing to cooperate in order to compete, it could kick others into action. Whatever the result, we are all agreed that something has to be done to fill the widening gap between club and Super Rugby.
The difference here is that we would be using established brands instead of greenfield ventures.
Longhaul
Guest
What rubbish. The reason that the Wildfires withdrew from the Shute Shield was because the precious Sydney clubs did not want to travel all the way up to Newcastle to play away matches. As long as Sydney considers itself the repository of all rugby ability in Australia this concept won't get off the ground
Charcoal
Guest
Actually, Eastwood doesn't have a lot of SR talent at all. Apart from Benn Robinson who has played the last few games, there are no other front line SR players in their squad. There are a few fringe and ex-SR players and a sprinkling of young, talented up and coming players, so they have punched well above their weight. A lot of their success (4 premierships in 14 years and the last 4 years as Minor Premiers) could be attributed to their great coaching staff. The problem with the Shute Shield is the disproportionate amount of talent that gravitates towards Sydney University because of the offer of scholarships, which no other club can match even if they do pay their players. This is particularly obvious in the Colts where year after year Sydney University virtually has a mortgage on whole competition. When you have SR contracted players in 2nd Grade and even today on the bench for 2nd Grade, it starts alarm bells ringing about the equity and fairness of the competition. It's a cancer on club football in Sydney, bleeding other clubs of talent that would otherwise play locally. You only have to look at a club like Gordon, in the North Shore heartland, which has struggled in recent years, although it has a plethora of rugby playing private schools within its catchment area. I suspect a lot of the talent has been sucked up by Sydney University. As long as the NSWRU continues to ignore this imbalance, the competition can have no credibility. Sooner or later, they're going to have to bite the bullet and make some unpalatable decisions about the competition's future structure.
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
In this model the travel expense would be incurred by the ARU not the clubs. They would have a minimum of 3 home games during the pool phase in which they would be entitled to all the gate and sundry. It will only run at a over a 8 week season maximum. The composite sides i.e. Perth and Melbourne would be the responsibility of their respective Unions. The Western Sydney team would play out of either Concord or Merrylands. Games would be played on Saturday or Sunday. When travel is required squads will travel the morning of the game and will return the same day. Player payment will be up to the clubs. The only expense to be incurred by the ARU is for travel and subsidizing broadcast.
Bakkies
Guest
This idea was raised in the early 90s when I started following the game. It didn't happen then and I can't see that happening again. Too many clubs are broke including the likes of Randwick. For a Canberra side to work it has to be the Kookaburras rather than alienating people by being an extension of the Vikings. It's a catch 22 as Tuggeranong money is necessary for survival. Don't forget this club only really kicked off properly in the 90s. The clubs will have to have a decent size wage cap to pay players as it's tough on players that have day jobs. I see this people I work with that play in intercounty GAA sides they also have to play for their local clubs. A substantial amount of holiday time is taken up due to football commitments and training camps. GAA is completely amateur so there are no exceptions to the rule.
Bakkies
Guest
As far as I know ANU-Norths have a clubhouse. Easts clubhouse across the road from Manuka Oval was demolished. It was a decent size building too.
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
Nunga, Yes, I am aware. In fact I've seen an overview of the competition on another site. Your information is a little off however. It's not 12 teams but actually 24 teams in both the U15s and U17s bracket (so 48 squads in total). The selection process is supposed to be starting relatively soon. The plan includes 4x Sydney and Brisbane teams plus a swathe of country based teams from both states as well as the ACT, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth. Teams will be split into two conferences (North and South) of 12 teams each. The Northern Conference will contain the Queensland teams plus WA and the Southern will have the NSW squads plus the ACT, Melbourne and Adelaide squads competing. In all its estimated to cost around $1.5 million dollars. It also states that the 2014 season is a trial of the program in terms of whether 24 teams in both grades is the appropriate fit. Overall, its a good move, one that looks to expose talented young Rugby players to high level coaching and skills development. It also states participants will undergo strength and conditioning programs including nutrition education and life skills that include drugs and alcohol awareness sessions as well as general behavoural standards. I think its a good move from the ARU and should keep the 24 team model in order to provide a pathway to kids across the country. It's a program that we can actually say is better than that of League and one that could be a real draw card. There is one detracting element to it, not that restrictive in comparison to other sports but kids participating will have to pay a levy which while at first appears restrictive will actually decrease as sponsorship comes on board.
Nunga
Guest
Is anyone aware that there is a national under 15 and 17's comp that will be played early next year over 7 weeks. It supposedly will comprise of 12 teams from around the country and this concept is being driven by the ARU. This sounds like a model they might be having a look at for opens.
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
Charcoal, I'm actually a ardent follower of the Shute Shield. The standard this season has been better than recent seasons which is a real positive. However, the competition is a bit skewed in terms of competitiveness when the SR talent returns. Think about it, outside of Uni (who fielded a near SR team last Sunday with I think only 1 player not playing the game professionally), Manly, Souths and Eastwood which club has a decent coverage of SR talent? Some like Warringah have a few former SR players and the odd journeyman but npot enough to compete with the top 4 who can rely on a number of full timers and other players very near that quality. A good example of this was the Randwick/Wests game. Randwick had one of their best games in a while. They accounted for Wests relatively comfortably. Not bad for a team ranked 8 up against the 5th ranked team. But that game come only a week after they lost 78 nil to Uni. It's obvious the gap is too wide. It needs to be addressed as its not healthy for the competition or the players including those within the top 4. They need more games against teams of similar quality.
Charcoal
Guest
Sorry Sheek. Why do you have to make it so complicated? There was nothing wrong with the original concept of the ARC. They just got it wrong with the implementation. When you had teams supposedly representing certain regions, ie Sydney Fleet from the Sydney Eastern Suburbs playing home games at North Sydney, and the Central Coast Rays , representing Northern Sydney clubs, playing out of Gosford (totally alienating its rugby heartland on the North Shore), what would you expect. The only thing they got right was the Western Sydney Rams, although I think it would have been more successful in terms of crowd support if their home games had been based at Concord Oval instead of Parramatta Stadium. I also wish to take issue with those that berate the standard of the Shute Shield (and I'm sure also the Hospital Cup). I doubt if many of these critics have actually regularly witnessed these games, particularly as the Super Rugby players return. Sure, there are some games that are pretty ordinary, but there are also some games between the leading clubs which of a high standard befitting Super Rugby. Last week's Manly v Sydney University game was as intense as any Super Rugby match as was the less publised match between Eastwood and Southern Districts. Wallaby reject Benn Robinson, playing for Eastwood, was particularly emphatic in acknowledging that it was a tough day at the office in adjusting to club rugby.
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
Redsfan, Your points are all fair enough. In my considerations I did ponder the use of clubs over composite sides or vice versa. I cannot atest to knowing much about the composition of the Brisbane spread in terms of talent. But using Sydney as a guide, most if not all of it is concentrated in just 4 teams. The point of including a Western Sydney composite side (my first post in the thread) came after realising that outside the clubs players who are up to that level from outside the clubs that would qualify would and should be provided a vessel in which to compete. That and I'm an advocate of having representation in an area comprising almost half the city but would be guaranteed not to be represented via the clubs. In terms of the clubs, I envisage two means of determining who they'd be. First, qualifying as I have suggested by finishing in the top 4 in their respective comps. Or as suggested above by a Canberra based poster the 1st place Canberra side plus a combined composite of the rest. The second option in terms of clubs would be setting strict criteria to compete in terms of finance and competitive level. Sure in time (quite a short period actually) talent may gravitate to a select few clubs but that may be a necessary evil. It may even spur some clubs into action, force cooperation and actually assist in elevating the standards below my model. Having say 12 teams (remember they will all be self funded in terms of talent, and encouraged to chase their own sponsorship) would be ample opportunity to help develop talent em mass as well as opportunity for coaching talent to. You actually touch on one of the key factors of using clubs and that is facilities. The use of club grounds will be key in keeping costs down. The pathway is at the very least clear enough from my perspective. Club Rugby>NCC>SR>Wallabies. Eventually if successful a Colts equivalent would be introduced to add another development level. Overall, my ideal number is 12 (could be cut to three clubs each from Syd and Brisbane plus a composite side to catch the overflow in both cities) teams running in two conferences of 6 teams playing each other once with the top 2 progressing into a semi-final series an then a home and away playoff for the Championship. In all no more than 8 weeks and 34 games. in regards to the Crowd funding method I presented a few days ago. I think it would certainly be worthwhile in at the very least investigating. If nothing else it would useful in gauging the interest and demand for such a competition and could prove the tipping point in actually getting something meaningful done. I'm not necessarily against the concept of Super B, its just it seems to be thrown together to attempt to appease the masses and not particularly thoughtful in its conception. At least at first.
Redsfan
Guest
I like that you are looking at this from various angles. It's an issue that deserves a lot of consideration. I particularly like your crowd funding idea! Very innovative! For me designing a third tier starts with agreeing on some guiding strategic principles. Here are mine; 1. Must be a true concentration of players who are of a higher standard than current club. The best of the rest. Non wallaby super players plus the countries best club players. Those auditioning for super, or able to really test those that are. True meeting point of club and super. 2. Pathways must be obvious, stable and open all those good enough to reach the standard. 3. Development is key - for both players, coaches and refs. 4. Sustainable - costs must be minimal and sustainable. Fewer teams rather than more. Shorter rather than longer comp. balance is the key. 5. Third tier must be established with due respect paid to the comps above and below it. P1 tells me it should be played after super and club. P3 tells promotion and relegation might not be best. It also tells me a national club comp using top 4 teams from bris/syd would result in some players who are up to the standard not playing in the comp. I think sometimes it's best to keep things simple. 2 teams in bris, 2 in syd, 1 in each of Canberra Perth melb. Leverage the super rugby facilities. Play at suburban grounds. Just call the teams QLD Red QLD White like schoolboys do. Plus ACT WA VIC etc. with the force and rebels supply so few wallabies they'd probably have more super players so I wouldn't be too worried about the quality of locals making the teams easy beats. Also hungry young lads from Sydney or melb would surely work a way to volunteer for teams in other cities. Actually leverage anything you can get for free, because it will be cost that decides this thing. RUPA would need to be on board so that standard super contracts include participation in this tier. Anyway that's my ramble...
Skip
Guest
They end up like Hornsby and Drummoyne.
Mike
Guest
DB, great post. I agree that something like this would immediately attract the attention of Australian TV executives. They would be listening as soon as the proposal was outlined, because it carries the potential to attract viewers right across Australia - local teams playing derbies, with a healthy mix of classic rivalry thrown in - NSW v Queensland, Sydney v Melbourne, Perth v everything east, etc. If you even organised a Lacrosse competition on those lines you would get a reasonable amount of interest - Australians love city-based and State-based tribal rivalries on a sporting field. "Channel 10, from what I understand, are looking for a sporting product to match channel 9 and 7 with the AFL." I am not surprised. They must be, just as a matter of market dynamics. I also wouldn't be surprised if SBS threw its hat into the ring; it has shown with soccer and other sports that it has aspirations.
AndyS
Guest
I love these hypotheticals. So, if I was Pulver, what I’d do is: I’d let SANZAR sort its own self out. SA can make whatever proposals it sees fit about the sixth team, NZ and Aus can push their own barrows, but I’d accept that their two stated non-negotiables are protecting the ITMC and CC in basically their current form. If SA asked my opinion, I’d maybe suggest they look at fielding an expat team in the UK so they can actually find out what that really means. Inside Australia, I’d have a B team competition during the Super Rugby season. It would be state based, so effectively the five Super teams initially (maybe SA later if they can be financial). It would be far more amateur than professional, comprising the few players not selected in the SR match day squad and a lot of next generation club players. But if I’m going to fly them all over the country, I wouldn’t do it as some aimless curtain-raiser. I’d do it on the swing shift so that when the Super team is away, the B team is at home – same cost either way. But then I’d market it hard to the Super team supporters and particularly make it family friendly. I’d play it at club grounds, brand it heavily with all the local clubs and allow them all fund raising opportunities. Basically, I’d use it to try and close the gap between the clubs and the supporter base for the professional team. The comp would effectively run one week in two through the season (i.e, largely mirroring the derbies), so most of the players would still feature frequently for their clubs too. After SR, I would then have an ARC. This would be eight teams, being each of the SR teams, Adelaide, WS and probably the GC. These would be much more professional, picking the best out of the preceding comp and giving them intensive training alongside the non-Wallaby professionals. I’d place a strong emphasis on player development, with a significant chunk of funding distributed via the SR clubs on the basis of which teams developed their players. The competition would be much more liberal in terms of ownership models, leveraging heavily off the SR infrastructure but also allowing private equity, member ownership and any other model that might work/help. I’d also let the clubs largely run their own show, given that I’d be expecting them to find much of the funding themselves - based on last time, I’d expect that would run to approximately $600k-$800k each over and above the incentive money from the SR teams. But there would be minimal hand-holding and no loans from the ARU. In particular I would be looking to the three non-SR aligned teams to prove their capabilities to see which one might be next cab off the rank should SR expansion become necessary again. I really like the idea of giving these competitions proper names though, as well as taking much more care over the team names. It is all about marketing…
AndyS
Guest
My problem is all the implications of: "The harsh reality is that NZ might have to decide on a permanent 8-10 team first division & a split second division of what’s left over, 18 or 16 divided into two pools of either 9 or 8. But that’s NZ’s concern." It might suit us to turn SR into an ARC, but the implications for them are that the Premiership would be eliminated and replaced by the Super teams, any professional currently appearing for a Championship or Heartland club never could again, and all their best players would also have to move to one of the few elite teams. You may love the NPC as it is or was, but this change would destroy every bit of that history and tradition. It would reduce their competition to the direct equivalent of our ARC, (amateur) Shute Shield + subbies, and more fool them if they went anywhere near it.
sheek
Roar Guru
AndyS, I don't know that we're disagreeing that much, or whether you're simply looking for an argument? ;-) What the heck am I supposed to say about the NPC? What would you LIKE me to say?? I love the NPC & I love the Currie Cup. I love their history, their tradition. So they should regain centre stage. What exactly is it that I'm saying wrong here? Semantics?? The B comp proposed by Pulver is nothing like I'm proposing. I think I'm getting a headache.....
AndyS
Guest
Amen to all that Sheek, our sport does seem to be run by bankers rather than businessmen...
AndyS
Guest
G'day Sheek, It is a bit disingenuous to say that the right solution is enclosed conferences, but that the consequences of that decision for our SANZAR partners are their business. It might (very arguably) be the right solution for us, but you do a pretty good job of mapping all the consequences for NZ yourself - paraphrased, it is basically a rip down and start over on their entire provincial rugby set-up. It is pretty specious to say that the "Currie Cup & NPC would once again take centre stage", when what you actually mean is that both competitions will be ripped to pieces and replaced by something that might look a bit similar, but operates completely different with most of the teams having been completely sidelined as amateur feeder teams. On the Australian side, maybe it is just me, but I would have said that: "the Wallabies plus eight provinces be professional + premier club not being paid" = "add three more Super rugby teams and eliminate Premier club funding" Functionally these would be absolutely identical, so you must be pretty happy with the path we are on at the moment. Certainly Pulver seems to have the second part in hand, pulling the funding for his curtain raiser idea. A cynical man might suspect that when that turns out to be a bit of a dead loss and nothing but a money drain, it will be quietly strangled and the funding just disappear...
Johnno
Guest
sheek on the money send it to SANZAR ASAP, sounds exciting.
sheek
Roar Guru
Okay guys, If I was Bill Pulver, this is what I would do. Firstly, SANZAR would have to agree to "enclosed conferences". Once this structure was approved, then South Africa would have their 8 team premier division Currie Cup; Argentina their 8 team premier division Zona Campeonato; NZ would have their premier division NPC of an agreed amount of teams & Australia would have to find its own national comp. I would then construct an 8 team APC/ARC of 8 permanent provinces. New South Wales Waratahs - covering Sydney, Central Coast, Illawarra & Central-West NSW. Queensland Reds - covering Brisbane, Gold Coast, Sun Coast & South Qld to the Tropic of Capricorn. Monaro or ACT Brumbies - covering Canberra, ACT & Southern NSW. Victoria Rebels - covering Melbourne & all Victoria. Eastern Australia Kangaroos - covering Newcastle & all Northern NSW. North Queensland Emus - covering Townsville & North Qld from Tropic of Capricorn to Gulf & Cape. South Australia Falcons - covering Adelaide & all SA. Western Australia Force - covering Perth & all WA. I wouldn't call it the APC or ARC. I would try to honour the comp after a founding father. Just as Thomas Wills is considered the founding father of Australian football; James Giltinan the founding father of rugby league & John Fletcher the founding father of soccer; historian Sean Fagan suggests that Frederick Campbell is perhaps the founding father of rugby union. Campbell was a co-founder of the Sydney University rugby club around 1865, arguably the oldest rugby club in Australia. He was also a leading pastoralist in the Queanbeyan-Monaro district, with his property at Yarralumla the future site of the prime minister's residence in the future city of Canberra. So I would suggest our national comp could be called the Campbell Shield, or Cup. Another suggestion is the Arnold Shield/Cup, after brothers Monty & Richard, who ruled Sydney & NSW rugby from the late 1800s into the early 1900s. A third suggestion is the McManamey Shield/Cup after James McManamey, leading player & official before the first world war, who also was killed at Gallipoli in 1915. Other names worth mentioning are Edward Raper - first NSW captain to tour (NZ in 1882); Frank Row - first Wallabies captain (1899); Paddy Moran - first Wallabies captain to UK (1908/09) & Edmund Barton - rugby player & future first prime minister!