Strengthening the NRC for rugby's future

If we stick to what you guys say is our strengths etc, I'd like to know what your strategy is for countering the success of the other codes nation wide when it comes to expansion and engagement. They aren't exactly staying in their heartland and leaving the rest of Aust alone. All 3 other major codes are being very aggressive and successful when it comes to spreading their game. Nation wide. Every child that has a great time with his friends at another ASO's youth program and brings home their free ball/bag/hat is another one that probably won't play rugby. And not being able to follow a team from their region playing against teams from other regions around Aust definitely isn't helping.

There is 1 in Brisbane now. And Adelaide, whether it is realistic or not, should be on the expansion radar of anyone who takes developing a national comp seriously. As should the Hunter Valley as a whole, not just Newcastle, South Queensland as a whole, not just the Gold Coast and Sydney should have 3 teams (deal with it Eastern Sydney).

That may be true. But what we need is a governing body that places engagement between NRC teams and the community they will be representing as a higher priority than an exciting product with quality players. They won't be "clubs", but fans need to feel the same way about them as they do their local representative team. And not see them as a business enterprise, franchise or "club" in the same vein as an NRL "club". The current governing body may or may nor understand this. But they have definitely placed a higher priority on making money.

I notice that Bret Harris from The Australian wrote an article on The Roar during the week. Way back in 1982 he published a book titled: "The Marauding Maroons", & he wasn't referring to RL state of origin. In fact up to the beginning of 1982 there had only been two state of origin matches, one per year in 1980 & 81. It just goes to show how effectively the QRL stole the 'Maroons' moniker which previously used to belong to any Qld sporting team. But I digress..... One of the most progressive thinkers & administrators in Qld at the time, Lyn Crowley, had this to say at one point: "NSW Country and Queensland Country are absurd entities because geographically they are just too big to administer efficiently". This was quoted in Harris' book in 1982. Just 7 years after NSW Country had risen to be briefly the most powerful rep team in Australia in 1975. It makes no sense to have New South Wales & NSW Country representing the same area minus metropolitan Sydney. Or to have Queensland & Qld Country representing the same area minus metropolitan Brisbane. Something for those of you constructing any type of premier national comp to think about.

'As do clubs like Sydney University, and those that provided the 20 non-contracted amateurs to the Spirit team that won the NRC last year…' I bet your bottom dollar that the likes of Sydney Uni do more than Tuesday and Thursday a week. AIL 1A and 1B clubs (the equivalent of the Shut Shield) and GAA clubs here train right through the week. That's a massive difference. There's no way you would rock up to a semi pro/pro comp after going through a junior club training schedule (junior clubs here train twice a week) which is what the Melbourne clubs were doing 10 years ago. You would get killed.

Hi TWAS, how are you going?Playing today? Here are links to the ARU,s 2016 Annual Report: "https://issuu.com/australianrugbyunion/docs/high_res_copy_of_annual_report_-_op?e=24291087/46922949" Go to page 2, "WHO ARE WE" According to the ARU Annual Report, there are 11 voting members, not 16. There are also 7 non-voting members. The ARU states that voting members are: 1/ ACT +Southern NSW. 2/NSW RU 3/Northern Territory RU 4/Q'ld RU 5/SA RU 6/Tas RU 7/Vic RU Rugby 8/Rugby WA 9/Melbourne Rebels 10/Waratahs 11/ RUPA The NON-VOTING MEMBERS are: 1/ Aust Barbarians 2/Aust Junior RFU 3/Aust Schools 4/Aust Services 5/Aust Women 6NSW Country Ru 7/ Sydney RU Are you right or is the ARU Annual Report right?

You mean as opposed to now, when those teams support the Rebels Super Rugby team and fill out the very competitive Rising NRC team using players that do two hour sessions on a Tuesday and Thursday? As do clubs like Sydney University, and those that provided the 20 non-contracted amateurs to the Spirit team that won the NRC last year... They didn't get a call telling them they had to put a team out the following Saturday. They had plenty of heads up to find out which 20 or so players might be interested in the opportunity, maybe even prepared to do overs for the year or so before they had to take the field. After all, the ARC was no more professional than the NRC - probably less, being as there were even less professional players in Australia in 2007 than there were last year.

'And what does “prepared professionally” mean? ' Clubs were run by volunteers for recreational Rugby players doing two hour sessions on a Tuesday and Thursday (that includes 1st Grade) not aspiring professionals. Players well in to their 40s were playing 1st Grade. No training five days a week which is expected at a professional level and the head coach (who only had one or two assistants) one of the few paid people in the club still has to work a day job. You are deluded if you think that these players could step straight in to a ARC side.

It occurs to me that we may perhaps be talking at slightly cross purposes. To be clear, I am certainly not suggesting that an Adelaide team could be introduced to the NRC in its current form. What we have at the moment is a Super Rugby reserves comp, demonstrated by your observation that if the Force is cut, it is unlikely that an NRC team in WA will be sustainable even with SR players originating from WA ...self interest on the part of the SR teams will get in the way and it will likely become too difficult. If the current model is persisted with, it is probable that the same will ultimately be true of the competition as a whole and it will eventually become "more cost effective" to only have four or five teams with exactly the same footprint as the SR teams. No growth, minimal gain, and all the intrinsic interest and support you can expect from a reserves comp. It will also never offer any sort of alternative to SR, as it will be inherently tied to it. So while it has been useful in bringing the NRC into existence, the current model isn't likely to ever be any more a domestic competition than is SR currently. The whole point of this article was exactly that, exploring what needs to be done for the NRC to make that transition. My point in one of the early posts was that it would take two things - for the competition to be professionalised in its own right, and for the teams to become representative of (and more importantly, benefit) the club communities below them rather than the professional teams above them. The NRC would need to become the "professional base" in each location, acting as the bottom rung of the professional game across Australia. So in the instance of Adelaide, the way to visualise it would be the state team, all being paid as full time professionals, training as part of a professional set-up, participating in a competition at the end of the club season in conjunction with professionals from SR. The wages would largely come from the GPR, the professional training programs perhaps overseen by the ARU high performance group, and some of the players may well be individuals who have relocated for the professional opportunity (just as happens now in all the Premier comps). But with full time training, the players in any location would quickly surpass anything the NRC is currently producing using teams consisting primarily of amateurs. But as with the question the article poses, it is all what could be, not what will be. Personally I don't hold out much hope given the mindset of the sport. As I see it there are three possible ways forward - they'll continue down the current path to a smaller and smaller footprint, they will try to introduce professionalism to the current model and end up with nothing more than the academies again, or they will maybe recognise the need for change and have a try. But even if they give it a go, there is a pretty good chance the vested interests will try to shape it to their benefit, or they will do a slipshod job with no real thought or view to the future. The chance they might actually think it all through, taking an evenhanded approach to produce a well thought out and competitive competition....well, let's say I wouldn't suggest even a champion free-diver hold their breath.

And what does "prepared professionally" mean? If it can take an apparent bunch of hack amateurs from near uselessness to capable of supporting a super rugby team in a year, one might suggest something similar might take a similar bunch of hacks to the point of supporting a mere NRC team...

If you read the article on the Cricket tab things aren't rosy with FTA. Ch 9 have been instructed to give away their Cricket rights as they don't have the funds (not doubt too much has gone to the NRL) to meet the ACB's demands. They are also losing money on their coverage. As for Ch 10 they're back in the shít financially and their share price is dropping rapidly. You have to pay the ABC to televise games and I doubt they would fork out to broadcast Foxtel's pictures.

Piru I'm definitely not a fan of Jeff but he is right in this instance. Bringing in an Adelaide side without a professional base and set up supporting it (which is what the unions outside of NSW are doing) would be suicidal and they would have to find the funds themselves. The ARU don't have the money to give them a hand either. Same thing would occur in Perth if the Force do get the chop and the players leave WA regardless of where they go to continue their Rugby careers.

'But that is just a guess, as they never tried it. In 2010 Melbourne would have had no different a base than they did in 2007' There is a reason why they didn't try it. It would have been utterly stupid if they did do that. - 1st Grade players were only training twice a week on the pitch and as far as I know did limited conditioning outside of that. - The VRU tried to create a Pillar Cup after a condensed First Grade season with teams combining to prepare for such a season it didn't work logistically and only lasted for one year. The standard wasn't much higher than First Grade. - Clubs weren't prepared professionally like they were when they knew the Rebels were coming and going to shake things up. - Who would coach such a weak side? - They barely were competitive in the ARS.

Nailed it JC, you are correct it's not rocket science, the simplest ideas are often the best.

The point being it’s lazy to suggest Franks and his cash was critical to football beginning to realise its huge potential beyond participation and it’s Socceroos following. Without Lowy loaning money at the time, does it happen? If no, then year, it was critical.

And in order to the ARU to implement any structural change, it needs agreement from the bottom up. The ARU are at the mercy of the member in proposing any structural change. Voting rights are as follows: NSW 3 (1 for Member Union Status, 1 for Super Rugby Team and 1 for more than 50,000 participants) QUEENSLAND 3 (1 for Member Union Status, 1 for Super Rugby Team and 1 for more than 50,000 participants) WESTERN AUSTRALIA 2 (1 for Member Union Status and 1 for Super Rugby Team) VICTORIA 2 (1 for Member Union Status and 1 for Super Rugby Team) ACT & SOUTHERN NSW 2 (1 for Member Union Status and 1 for Super Rugby Team) SOUTH AUSTRALIA 1 (1 for Member Union Status) NOTHERN TERRITORY 1 (1 for Member Union Status) TASMANIA 1 (1 for Member Union Status) RUGBY UNION PLAYERS ASSOCIATION (RUPA) 1 There are 16 votes. 6 lie with NSW and QLD alone. They only need to get ACT to agree and they can block any reform. The biggest structural change needs to occur in the state unions, who would potentially be the biggest losers from the change. You wonder why it's never happened?

"but my main point was that the reforms introduced to soccer were wholesale as you pointed out. We definitely agree that the ARU needs a bomb under them”." BINGO!!! That's what I've been arguing as well. I see a lot of similarities between the old Soccer Australia and the ARU.... the organisation is like the Roman Empire, trying to hang onto power but ultimately falling apart to the point where it needs to be blown up and start again. The whole game of rugby in Australia needs structural reform from the bottom up. Unless they do this, then it will only get worse. I hope it does get worse because the current structure isn't what I want. It's time to do it.

Yup. FTA is the way to go. Locking it up on Fox is a killer. I've even taking to watching the odd League game (in which I have very little interest) when I need a footy hit. It's so available. We abandoned the overpriced Murdoch monopoly way back.

Yep, I've not seen Justin post before but he obviously knows what he's talking about. Like I said it would be great to have an article from him. He is probably more of a football fan on the roar and strayed across.

and what Australian provincial side beat the Lions last time they were out here?