John O'Neill's two biggest mistakes

One disaster to another? Including leading the golden era of aus rugby and soccers resurgence in Australia in the most competitive sporting marketplace in the world? - His book was based on these accomplishments - you should have a bit more balanced perspective

WCR. That might be the case, but I think the establishment of a third tier needs to take into account the integrity of the comps above and below it. Wouldn't want the design of a third tier to entrench a lopsided contest at Shute level. I don't have a strong opinion on whether its clubs or not at third tier. But I think maintaining integrity of Shute/prem is essential. But so is making the third tier economically sustainable. And clubs might play an important part in that. It's definitely a balancing act.

I recently attended a symposium sponsored by the RFU on talent identification https://mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment/u/0/?ui=2&ik=96a616b52f&view=att&th=13e60595f24834ac&attid=0.2&disp=inline&safe=1&zw&saduie=AG9B_P9WK3D-_kB6VldZDpyX_8_8&sadet=1378816024792&sads=i54hF-CVMQdHz6S5btMaGOwHMzg&sadssc=1 There were a number of conclusions, however, the one that applies to this discussion is the following, talent needs to be identified between the age of 14 to 16 and those athletes need to be in a programme, like the AASE academy where they can be coached by a level 3 or level 4 coach in a totally professional environment so they can then go through England under 18 and under 20 squads in preparation for senior rugby. The rugby club that is affiliated with the college is paid by the RFU and when they produce a player that goes on to play representative rugby i.e. Eng under 18 they are paid a bonus.

I imagine you're thinking that because it was originally made with football posts on it, it was intended to be a football trophy. It was not. It was gifted to the NZRFU by the then Governor-General of NZ. He may not have been a New Zealander, but he'd been GG for four years at that point, so I think he knew what the predominant sport was and who he was giving the trophy to. The engravers made a mistake, but it was always intended to be a rugby trophy.

I tend to agree with Sheek;s assertion that the moves the ARU are making while not popular are made with the eye to the future. Something should be done and done now. They haven;t done anything that can;t be undone. A prerequisite to a national competition is the strenghtening of the Rugby structures in WA, Victoria and the ACT especially at junior levels.. An influx of underage players from QLD and NSW might achieve that aim. The ARU should be offerring financial incentives to clubs who develop such players. Without the formation of a national competition to act as a feeder to Super Rugby then Australia will find it harder to compete at international Rugby. Let me get this straight the captain of the English under 20s the same team that won the Junior World Cup is an Australian while another one Alec Hepburn comes from Perth? It just about sums up the problem with the current system here.

Why was the Ranfurly Shield created? Enlighten me cause you seem confused

I can only refer to the the Shute Shield as I know nothing about the relative strength of individual clubs in Brisbane. In the Shute Shield there are only really four clubs with most if not all of the available SR talent concentrated within them. Of those four, Eastwood who will feature in the GF this weekend in all four grades, possess the least amount of SR talent and only one player who would be first choice at that level. So, in essence the thinking of the ARU would be along the lines that say if the top 4 from Sydney qualify, they would bring the best available talent along with them. Again no sure about the other competitions. In a article I posted last week the solution to the issue of talent missing out would be to established a composite team in Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra competition to ensure the talent that falls outside the top 3 or 4 would then be able to compete. Though for that to happen, it would likely require only the top 2 from each competition to be able to qualify to keep it to 10 teams. In the article I've read the window for this competition would be August-September which would mean Club Rugby would need to be moved into alignment with SR, which I actually don't think is a bad idea. What I find interesting is the proposed requirement that SR players that were contracted externally of their local competition .i.e. Force, Rebels. That they would be required to remain within the local structures of their employers. This would actually open up more opportunity for players down the line. Ideally, I'd like to see it set up along rep lines. In Sydney you could have a similar set up to that of the ARC. North Harbour - Norths, Gordon, Manly and Warringah, Sydney - Uni, Randwick, Easts and Souths and Western Suburbs - Wests, Parra, Penrith and Eastwood. Similar splits could be done in Brisbane (say 2 teams), Canberra (2), Melbourne (1) and Perth (1). However, if it takes a hybrid model then so be it.

James, I disagree with your opening statement. Did the All Blacks ever need South Africa money in the past to make them (the ABs) the force the are today? NZ rugby is so used to operating on a shoestring budget that the absence of SA money won't hurt NZ as much as you think, especially with the Americans paying closer attention through sponsors AIG and eventhe owners of San Fran's AT&T park; see below or just google http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/sprug/736680434-rugby--san-francisco-may-host-all-blacks

Gee allblackfan what does Michael Brial have to do with this.Are you still smarting because an Aussie had the temerity to confront an All Black and didn't treat him with "respect". You are clutching at straws if you think a comment like that ads validity to anything you say.

I don't have to take a breath Working Class Rugger. I want the powers to be to know that a lot of people are already peed off and that we don't want changes to further undermine the grass roots of rugby.

One recent develpement after Otago went broke is that NZRFU insists that if you want funding help you have to submit a financial statement that shows you will breakeven after all expenses including whatever you are going to pay players. Yes there is a cap as well but that is to stop there being prima donnas hogging the cash. How is the Currie cup and lower club levels managed?

Is it right to tell players that participate in a professional sport that they are not allowed to be paid? Surely all that will happen is that clubs will pay them for "work" We'll soon be hearing that Bill Blogs changed clubs because they pay him $20K per year to cut he grass, it's a bit weird how he never seems to actually cut the grass though!

Agree with all blacksfan. A national club comp using the top 4 finishers plus other composite teams is utterly flawed. Every player good enough to play in a 3rd tier should be there. They shouldn't have to hope that their team is good enough to qualify. Pathways need to be permanent and stable. No a lottery. Using nz as an example, you can see an obvious reduction in teams and participating player numbers and corresponding step up in playing standard as you move from club to provincial to super to test. Once you get to third tier you also have all players in the country of that standard playing in the one comp. (currently good bris club players don't ever see good syd club players - this geographical separation is a major issue for clubs aspirations to be considered third tier). To truly be beneficial it needs to have non-wallaby super players plus the best of clubs. To manage this it needs to happen after super season finishes. To me these are minimum requirements. Once you get to that point, it's a matter of deciding which way you populate it with teams. Is it rich strong clubs stepping up as permanent members, and who take in good players from other Shute/prem clubs - not sure how that would sit from a loyalty perspective. Or is it perhaps a return to state named teams more attached to super franchises. Eg Qld Red Qld White ACT VIC WA Nsw A Nsw B. Both methods have pros and cons.

Er, no it wasn't.

Leading the way? LOL Ranfurly shield was created for something else. Another piece of drivel from planet rugby

" Revisiting the theme of culture: New Zealand once again are leading the way. The maintenance of the Ranfurly Shield as an object of desire as opposed to its relegation to history is as clear a sign as any that lower-level provincial rugby in New Zealand is every bit as healthy as the All Blacks. Every year the ITM Cup raises eyebrows in our offices, with the mix of speed, power, skill and intelligence shown by so many of the players streets ahead of other nations' equivalents. The involvement of the fans and communities continues to give the tournament proper vibrance and atmosphere, creating memorable moments such as Counties Manukau's impromptu tour of South Auckland in the wake of their first-ever Ranfurly Shield win. That kind of thing just makes it a more enjoyable experience all round and makes sure that for every player jetting off abroad to get a payday, there are others coming through. Props to the NZRU. They could have let the ITM drift into obscurity and staleness as other unions have allowed their domestic tournaments to do, but the introduction of the salary cap - not without teething problems - and the determination to ensure as much variety and competitive integrity as possible has ensured there is now a genuinely open tournament where teams are always capable of beating each other. It's kept fans from all corners interested, which has ensured that players from all corners can be noticed and given a chance; exactly what you want from a national sporting culture. The ITM Cup remains the benchmark domestic tournament. " From Planet Rugby

Setting up a superclub competition is not the answer. The provincial setup in NZ, SA, Fiji and elsewhere serves to filter out the talent. You can have really good club players who can't hack it at a higher level (Michael Brial anyone?!). Your domestic rugby structure should look like a pyramid like it does in NZ/SA (all inclusive at the base/grassroots then narrowing as you go higher until you reach your national reps at the peak!);in aust at the moment it looks more like a rectangle!

Gidday Markus, Both The Bush & BenG have partially explained the difference between District rugby (Shute Shield) & Suburban rugby (Subbies). 1. A district is made up of several suburbs. A suburb is part of a district, which is why they used to be known as sub-district, shortened to 'subbies.' 2. As The Bush indicated, district, or Sydney Premiership, or Shute Shield, is an enclosed comp. There is no promotion/relegation. Each of the 12 district clubs fields four senior grades & three colts (U/20) grades teams. That's seven teams in total for each district. 3. There are numerous suburban clubs, divided into as many as six divisions. The first four divisions each have 10 teams, which in turn have four grades. The lower divisions might only have 8 clubs each, fielding just three or even two grades of teams. 4. In suburban rugby (subbies), there is promotion between the top four divisions & also perhaps the bottom two divisions. As mentioned previously, the district system is just that, based on districts, with the single exception of Sydney University. Being the oldest continuous rugby club in Australia, they apparently have "untouchable" status. As also mentioned, suburban clubs are named after suburbs, but also includes other universities, schools old boys clubs, business houses & the like. Also as BenG said, the subbies aren't really feeder clubs for the districts. Basically, if you are an "aspirational" player, you try out for a district club. If you are a "social" player, you choose a suburban club. Standard-wise, it used to be suggested that the first division clubs first grade teams of subbies were the equivalent, or thereabouts, of the district clubs second grade teams. There are many subbies players who played 1st XV at their private or public school, but after leaving school weren't interested in continuing a serious rugby career. The standard of subbies rugby can be very high.

So 'subbies' are similar to NZ clubs, most of which have a similar structure. Do the different regions within the state compete as regions or just as individual clubs?

Hi runit, Thanks for the link. I've had a quick look & will have a deeper look in due course.