The other option is that the decision to cut the Force was actually made before 31 December 2016 and therefore the decision of the board on 20th of Feb was not an event of a material nature.
The other option is that the decision to cut the Force was actually made before 31 December 2016 and therefore the decision of the board on 20th of Feb was not an event of a material nature.
But they didn't report it either way. Pull that stunt in a listed company and you'll be sharing a cell with Bubba
Good one GIGS20:lolup:
..Attachment 5049Quote:
WALLABIES great John Eales believes a Senate inquiry into rugby is needless...He openly questioned the Senate inquiry that has been ticked to examine the state of the code in Australia with focus on the transparency or lack of it around the ARU’s decision to cut the Force.
“I would seriously question whether there is a need for that (but) it’s not me making that decision,” said Eales, a two-time World Cup winner.
“I know that there is nothing the ARU or the ARU board has got to hide.”
Eales said a detailed timeline of events and financial modelling published on the ARU’s website since late Tuesday provided answers.
“We’ve published everything. Go through that timeline and there’s detail,” Eales said.
Just wondered if you could answer this:
1. Do submissions have to be questions or can they just be relevant facts?
2. Also, the aph website states that you should only submit information that you would be ok having in the public forum - so, when does it get to the public forum? Before the Senate sees it, or after?
3. If the senate wanted to subpeona some one and they were overseas how would that work?
4. Would it matter if you shared your submission with a journalist who published the submission before the senate hearing - does that kind of thing jeopardise anything?
5. Nick Taylor wrote an article last week about the ARU leaking the Alliance Agreement with the VRU guys and in the article it states that this will be included in the investigation by the Senate - how does an article in the paper get included in the submissions?
I know some of these questions sound dopey, but, I would really appreciate answers if any of you can offer them.
Your point about the leak of the alliance agreement is one of the most relevant I have seen in regards collusion between the ARU, The VRU and a one time ARU staffer now based in Melbourne. Difficult to prove but definitely worth asking the questions under oath. This inquiry won't get the Force reinstated but might just make some people's positions untenable.
As long as your submission relates to the terms of reference, you can pretty much write what suits. Remember, that you are an example of public opinion and therefore your questions are in and of themselves, evidence of lack of transparency. The inquiry is looking to uncover the facts about the process and the costs on a national footprint. I'm sure they would prefer well written and supported facts to a bunch of questions, but pointed questions will help the members to understand what investigation is required (assume that none of them have hung off every breath of commentary like we have) As an Australian citizen, you have the right to submit whatever you feel is relevant
Some new info I hadn't read before in this article:
1. Pulver etc finally had the decency to meet with hodgo, will be interesting to hear what cane out of that
2. This mentions that NRC is likely to be gone next year
Sounds like idea of Twiggys comp is to supplement super rugby and he will not be trying to poach players from other teams etc
https://thewest.com.au/sport/rugby-union/andrew-forrest-in-secret-rugby-talks-with-aru-about-breakaway-indo-pacific-competition-ng-b88595109z
The clerk of the committee is the best person to contact about submissions. I think there is a fair bit of guidance on the Parliament website too.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_...ublic_Hearings
I am looking forward to see what Stooke has to say
OK, so without trying to put it too bluntly, what the actual f@#k have these jokers done with the extra 30 million dollars per annum? They can't afford to fund grass roots. they can't afford to run super rugby They apparently can't afford to run the nrc They can't afford a proper national women's como They can't get the wallabies to win a game The men's sevens isn't lighting the world on fire The wallaroos crashed out of their world cup The under 20s aren't looking too flash. Surely we're reaching the definition of criminal negligence. The code survived the last broadcast agreement on A THIRD OF THE Money for gods sake. Is nobody going to call these mungbeans to account?
How much does it cost to send the men and women on the world sevens series circuit?
I pretty much had this exact thought over the weekend.
They shouted about the current TV deal from the rooftops about how much more money would be pouring into the game yet there has been zero benefit to the game for the reasons you list despite announcement of the strategic plan for Rugby which was again shouted from the rooftops.
Cameron Clyne said in one of his media statements that the code was 2 years away from being insolvent! Where has all the money gone? If I had to guess I'd say that money pit in Melbourne that was spared the axe would be great place to start looking.
Hopefully the senate inquiry can actually get some answers out of what appears to be the board that is presiding over the doom of it's own sport.