With all the club rugby grand finals around the country now behind us and the Wallabies’ last home game of 2013 played in Perth last weekend, rugby in Australia now enters its annual period of hiatus for the best part of five months.
It’s at this time of year, August through to October, we’re told, the ARU’s grand plan for a national club competition of sorts will be played, hopefully from next year.
Development of new tiers of rugby has certainly been something of a hobbyhorse for Bill Pulver since he first moved into the corner office at St Leonards in February.
The argument has been made – with a fair amount of truth to it – that Pulver has done more on the ‘national comp’ front in eight months than predecessor John O’Neil did in his second stint of five years in charge.
Talk of ‘the next tier’ has increased in recent weeks, as the major club comps around the country wound up.
Both the News Ltd and Fairfax press have been reporting on the various developments for a few weeks now and, if nothing else, it is at least good the discussion is ongoing.
Not that everyone is happy about it, mind you.
The Sydney clubs were said to be more than a touch bemused being told their continued ARU funding would be contingent on payments to club players ceasing.
And if that wasn’t enough, the ARU wants to legislate that Super Rugby-contracted players will remain in their ‘Super’ state for club rugby and not return to their Sydney or Brisbane clubs.
The most recent development is talk of Pulver’s double-barrelled vision for the Australian rugby calendar.
The national club competition at this time of year looks to be where we’re heading, but I’ll come back to that.
Bret Harris reported in The Australian last weekend that Pulver’s pet “Super B” project has had a shift of focus.
Instead of being the trumped up, supposedly made-for-TV modified rule format that Pulver has espoused for much of his time in the big chair, Harris reported the ARU has now hatched a plan with would see “Australia’s Super Rugby B teams [playing] in the Pacific Nations Cup.”
The Pacific Nations Cup is the IRB-funded competition comprising Japan, Fiji, Tonga, Canada, and the United States. Samoa sat out the 2013 competition, instead playing in the quadrangular tournament in South Africa, alongside Scotland and Italy.
While the PNC idea sounds more suitable and feasible than the original ‘Super B’ plan, Harris quoted Pulver as saying the plan to include the Super Rugby second XVs in the PNC was “…a work in progress, but hopefully it will be ready by next year.”
You would have to presume part of that work in progress would involve discussions with the IRB themselves.
At this point in time, the IRB has said nothing publicly of the ARU’s ambitious plan.
Where Pulver and the ARU might find themselves between the proverbial rock and a hard place is how they progress the national club competition structure.
Most reporting thus far has centred on a 10-12 team competition made of teams from Brisbane and Sydney, single sides from Canberra, Perth, and Melbourne, and possibly even NSW/Queensland Country.
Harris quoted Pulver last weekend as saying, “We will be looking for expressions of interest from the clubs. Whether they are stand-alone teams or combinations of teams is yet to be determined.
“In an ideal world we would like to get it up and running next year, but whether we can pull it off, I’m not sure.
“There are some funding implications that need to be resolved, whether by a broadcaster or other solutions.”
A single team from Canberra, Perth, and Melbourne makes obvious sense. A combined Country side is perhaps pushing things, from a logistics standpoint, but should still be considered regardless.
Where things will get ugly is how to accommodate teams from Sydney and Brisbane.
One of the major sticking points of the 2007 Australian Rugby Championship was that the Sydney and Brisbane teams were artificial creations, representative of no one.
The Sydney club presidents made no secret of their dislike of the format, and indeed, the crowds in both cities were underwhelming.
The ARU looks to be having a bit each way; in suggesting they’ll call for expressions of interest regardless of the fact they haven’t worked out whether to admit clubs in their own right, or through amalgamations.
It seems as though they’re waiting to receive the EOIs before they determine what they actually want.
Presumably, every Brisbane and Sydney club will want to prove they’re worthy of inclusion. ‘Amalgamations’ seems like a nice way of asking the clubs to fashion the artificial creations themselves, but it still seems to me the issues from 2007 are set to resurface.
Let’s just assume for the sake of example a ten-team format is preferred, and the combined Country idea doesn’t fly.
You would presume the remaining seven spots would be split, with four to come from Sydney, and three from Brisbane.
To randomly pick out seven clubs, let’s say Easts, Sunnybank, and GPS are admitted from Brisbane, and Parramatta, Warringah, Sydney Uni, and Souths get the nod from Sydney.
While the supporters of these seven clubs will be thrilled – and presumably enthusiastic – to see their colours run around on the admittedly niche national stage, will the supporters of the remaining clubs really get behind any of them? Is the ‘greater good’ enough to get them on board?
And if not, then how is that any different to the unsupportive stance the clubs took back in 2007?
If, as you would presume would actually happen, the four financially strongest Sydney clubs and the three strongest Brisbane clubs express their interest and win any tender process, wouldn’t that just confirm the split between the haves and the have nots?
And players from the ‘weaker’ clubs will gravitate toward the ‘big seven’.
All this seems to confirm is that despite all the misgivings and cock-ups from 2007, the ARC format was actually correct. Those artificial creations were actually representative.
And so this is the corner Bill Pulver is painting himself into. Clubs standing alone or amalgamated entities, however they go, it will be impossible to keep everyone happy.
Yet the perilous state of Australian rugby necessitates something must be done.
I’ve been saying this for years, that just as Australian rugby can’t afford a third tier, it can afford to not have one even less.
It is the $64 million question, Bill. And you simply must not get it wrong.
Jarbo Brooks
Guest
It might be worthwhile hitting the kiwis up for inclusion in the ITM cup using existing super rugby franchises. With the wallabies not involved there would be plenty of opportunity for the up and comers and its value as a television product might be enhanced in both countries. The savings on start up costs would be considerable and games could be taken to regional areas rather than being played in the capitals. All sides would already have a fan base though if it is well received you could always break up NSW and QLD into a couple of franchises.
John
Guest
And how much worse would it be otherwise?
Pash from Manly
Guest
It annoys me that everyone says the ARC didn't work, when it ran in competition with the Rugby World Cup. There are so many games to watch in a World Cup, you don't get time for a new comp with very little promo to remind you of it. I went to the first Fleet game and then switched to the RWC. I was ready to buy a jersey and get deep into it for the next year, but it got scrapped. That was a painful day, when I read it was cancelled.
bernie
Guest
It's actually not. If you want a viable financial model, suck it up and accept it will involve clubs who can afford it underwriting it - which means it will involve those clubs. Anything else lacks money. So why do we have all these concepts and permutations proffered on this page, and on these pages every time this issue comes up, which clearly aren't financially viable? Instead of an argument about what form it could be, like you write about every month Brett, how about a different subject: only one model has the money - one underwritten by the wealthy clubs. Are we prepared to accept it? It will have benefits (a clear third tier), it will have downsides (it will end club rugby as we know it, and a lot of clubs people are passionate about). But we're wasting our time pontificating about other options because none that I've seen written here or on other pages has a cent to support them. You could even add to that article colour on how the UK's Premiership was formed. Pre pro-rugby they had sides like London Scottish etc. running around with wonderful histories, and Saracens were nowhere. Then the clubs with money emerged and it's all different - but it's a hugely successful club competition. Australia's setup is different, but are we prepared to undertake a similar restructure? Just spare me another article about how we all wish there were another tier created but only if we can promise that no club will get left behind, or that they'll all end up equal. They're not all equal now! That's why some of them are devastated at a lack of ARU funding, and some couldn't give a hoot. It isn't a catch-22 at all. There are costs and benefits - just like life. A third tier will hurt. Are we willing to wear it?
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
I find it completely hilarious that Australian Rules can organise a competition involving clubs from Brisbane, Canberra, Sydney and Darwin and rugby union cannot. What on earth is the problem with having a national club competition with a Northern and an Eastern divisions, with the Sydney and Canberra clubs providing the core of the Eastern comp and the Brisbane clubs the core of the Northern ? It's clearly not funding travel - check the accounts of the NT Thunder for how little that costs. Im just putting it down to the same incompetence that causes Sheek to call for the destruction of the only rugby union club that is vaguely on the same page for professionalism as the Newtown Jets, Central Districts or West Perth.
vlad
Guest
Rugby's staunch amateurism means there is no grass roots semi pro circuit for youngsters. How about a youth u/19 or u/21 comp, using the current super rugby clubs? Just like the USA runs college concurrent with the NFL (it even has bigger crowds). Then young talent has a reason not to switch to semi pro league, AFL or football if they do not make the big team immediately.
Trev from the bush
Guest
I am surprised at how ARU and State Union bodies fail to grow the management of Clubs. No sharing or growing of the collective pool of talent of how to enhance and productive grow their own organizations. If any new competition ends in July this causes a HUGE problem for Clubs who must collect Subs from players. Most Clubs are only a month away from insolvency now. If the season is shortened, only a small percentage of Subs are paid and Clubs will fold. Evidence is clear from 2007-08 when the Pillar Competition was attempted and then aborted in Victoria.
Garth
Guest
According to the IRB/RWC websites, Namibia, Kenya, Madagascar & Zimbabwe are still in the running for Africa 1(assuming I have read them correctly). Kenya has beaten Zimbabwe recently, not sure on Madagascar's recent results, but I'm still picking Namibia to take the slot.
Sceptic
Guest
the successful launch and popularity of the A-league exposes the sheer ineptitude of rugby administration in Australia over the past decade. there is no reason why we couldn't have had a bona fide national rugby comp by now - it just needed to be the centerpiece of the domestic season, with full wallaby participation. (even worse is that our lack of a domestic rugby comp is a major reason why the sanzar/super rugby deal is such a mess) In any case - its not to late to fix things. It may be a pipedream but for mine - Pulver should approach FTA networks (ten, for one, is crying out for sporting content) with a proposal a new domestic rugby competition. to start with, all you would need is to add a 6th team to the 5 existing super franchises (which have built up their brands over the past two decades and shouldn't be discarded) for a 10-12 week competition. the 6th team could be a 2nd NSW team, based in Western Sydney or Newcastle, depending on which area/union has the better bid. In 2-4 years, expand to add whoever missed out and a 2nd team from Qld (probably north qld) to make it 8 teams. sure, its only 10 games, but the top teams would have an additional 6-8 games in super rugby, which should be a Heineken cup format (or Asian Champions League to keep the analogy consistent) As for the third tier - just keep the Sydney, Brisbane and ACT club competitions as they are. But eliminate the finals seasons for each and being in a knockout comp of say the top 8-10 clubs from all three (top 4 from Sydney, Brisbane and top 2 from Canberra) The Shute Shield and Brisbane Premier Rugby would be decided on first past the post - followed by a national ( or at least east coast) club knockout tournament. Has a better shot at succeeding than anything else I've seen.
DR
Guest
Wow. Good news but i can't see it taking them past them. Mind you i write this without really knowing to be fair. A lot of Namibias players play in SA don't they? Maybe Kenyas as well?
fredstone
Guest
Sheek, Every NZer and especially every Saffa can see exactly what you are saying, but unfortunately the vast majority of your countrymen can only appreciate rugby when the ball's been thrown around like there's a hoop at each end. The best part for me, and probably most saffas, last saturday was Owen Franks head popping out of the scrum so fast I thought he'd have whiplash and then the legal connection Bismarck made with Dan. Unfortunately most Aussies seem unable to enjoy such moments.
Tane Mahuta
Guest
I would be a little surprised to see them drop to 7th but its very possible. I think 6th is highly likely. Eng, Wal and Fra are good sides on paper and I think Wal and Eng will start to hit a bit of serious form off the back of a successful Lions tour and a few of their players coming of age. Rob 9 asked me if I thought that Eng and Fra had better players than Aus and imo they do now and so does Wales. Nobodies going to like it but imo Aus is actually the ranked higher than they should be and will be by years end.
Charcoal
Guest
ARC!!! ARC!!! ARC!!! When are you all going to wake up? It all keeps coming back to that and this is the only way to go. Keep it simple. 3 representative teams in Sydney, 2 in Brisbane and I each in Canberra, Melbourne and Perth. No club sides!!! It's original implementation was flawed, but that doesn't mean its shortcomings couldn't have been addressed if it had been given the opportunity, instead of being killed off after only 1 year. Just look at how the Soccer A-League has progressed after some early problems. The ARC should start at the end of the Premier Club competitions, say early September through October. Finishing the club competitions in July as some have suggested is far too early and they should run until at least the end of August. There is no conflict with the club competitions. Whether the club competitions should be totally amateur is another matter, but based on past history it would be a very difficult situation to police. How would Sydney University fit in with this concept? Would they still be able to offer non-cash incentives by way of scholarships? The Shute Shield competition would become even more unequal.
chris
Guest
It's never going to happen having a 3rd tier with clubs with no history plus Australia is struggling to support 2 Rugby codes and don't see a bright future for them.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Samual - very hard to raise the standards when Super Rugby players are being pulled out of the two major comps in Sydney and Brisbane. The remaining players are in a weaker and weaker competition as the best are removed. Hopefully we get two upsides from that removal of players as they get fed into the Canberra, Perth and Melbourne comps. The first hope is that the injection of good players into those leagues will lift the quality and the player numbers in those comps. The second is that by having these players near their professional club for more of the year the Super side will be better. The Brumbies have done this for a couple of seasons now and swear by their success and the ARU is now formalising the Super Sides rights to ensure that the Rebels and Force can try the same. Having weakened two comps to try and strengthen three the next move is to implement a condensed comp that is significantly stronger than anything below Super Rugby today. By only having ten teams max we are going to get a better result than we currently see with top talent spread across Sydney and Brisbane. The ARU can concentrate resources on this group of elite/reprensentative players rather than bailing out failing local club sides who are unable to keep up with the likes of Sydney Uni. The benefits will be multiple here as well. The Super Rugby players that don't make the Wallabies will get meaningful rugby after the Super Season, Wallabies out of form or returning from injury get a proving ground. The best non-Super Rugby players can start earning a reasonable pay packet here to help keep then in Union rather than one of the other codes and they get a pathway/platform to better showcase their ability to take the step up to the fully professional level. Geography is a great inhibitor but I think Aussie rugby needs this and gets so many benefits out of doing it that it just makes sense.
Charcoal
Guest
Agree with you Chester, kick out Sydney University and let them play with themselves. The rest of the DISTRICT clubs can then get on with playing in a more equitable competition.
Charcoal
Guest
I was there as well and North Sydney Oval was near capacity. It was a fantastic atmosphere. Sydney Fleet, supposedly representing South Harbour clubs, but playing their home games at North Sydney Oval, was playing the Western Sydney Rams. I think this was the only local derby played in Sydney. The Central Coast Stingrays, which was actually a representative team of the North Harbour clubs played out of Gosford, totally alienated their supporter base. Imagine what the support would have been if the Central Coast Stingrays, but by a different name representing the North Harbour clubs, had played their home games at North Sydney Oval. It just demonstrates what the potential could have been if the administrators hadn't stuffed up the implementation of the ARC. It deserved more time to become established instead of being prematurely cancelled.
Garth
Guest
May I just ask why Australian rugby is so obsesssed with clubs? Is it because local parochialism is so strong? Or is it a Europhile thing? In the two, most consistently dominant rugby nations, New Zealand and South Africa, clubs are the bottom and most basic layer. They are the grass-roots, combined with the school competitions, which run in parallel. Then there are the provinces, which are most definitely NOT clubs, despite what many Australians seem to think. In NZ, the 5 SR franchises are above the provinces, the SR franchises are also NOT clubs. In South Africa, the Currie Cup sides fulfil this function and are NOT clubs either. Auckland contains many rugby clubs, NONE of which compete in the ITM or Heartland provincial competitions. Instead they are represented by 3 provincial sides: Auckland, North Harbour & Counties-Manukau, which draw there players from their member clubs. So why, in a restored ARC, are people talking about which Sydney or Brisbane clubs get selected (or ignored) to compete?
emurray
Guest
-- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
emurray
Guest
What about something like an expanded nsw and qld comp. Sydney comp with your current clubs add newcastle wollongong Canberra Melbourne Hobart. Qld comp add north qld, nt, wa and sa. Play each other once. Top half go through to national a and rest national b and play teams you haven't played already -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.