I thought it was proposed as less a merger and more a takeover of the Rebels by the Brums? Ie, Vic becomes a feeder state?
Printable View
I thought it was proposed as less a merger and more a takeover of the Rebels by the Brums? Ie, Vic becomes a feeder state?
And how can you change/alter/move the goal posts on a contract between parties without informing/advising all parties involved? What if the Force had gone ahead and cut a deal with another sporting comp like say for example Pro12 without telling the ARU, bet all hell would've broken loose then?
Scrote
It's spelled Scrote
Looks like that secret and confidential SANZAAR sauce has access to the ARU legal team and is leaking like a sieve again.Quote:
Originally Posted by ARU Leak Receptacle
PS. Alisaon scroat is incorrect. The word is spelled SCROTE. As in "What an untruthful bunch of scrotes" HTH. ;)
Good point. And IIRC there are clauses in the agreement along those lines which the ARU have not complied with.Quote:
Originally Posted by valzc
Bugger beat me to it. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGS20
The alarming thing about all this is, is that if we survive, it's only until 2020 anyway. They would still have every intention of killing off this expansion area regardless, nuts to rugby in WA since 1893. Let's just play into the hands of our international rugby competitors and our domestic competitors from other sports. Fucking brilliant
These "scrotes" in the ARU board will be lucky to be around after this year, let alone 2020. The way they've destroyed rugby in Australia as it is, hopefully there will be a whole new regime with a couple of intelligent brains between them.
ps: thought scrote was slang for scrotum.
Correct - from Roscoe Rules in the novel "The Choirboys". Please don't ask what Roscoe means by "helmets or ant eaters" ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by valzc
Noted!Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGS20
Side Note, lets have a look at Australian Sports in general.
(*At a high 'media' blubbering reports)
ARU = This Debarkle of Super Rugby to Super Cuts (Been managed poorly by the Senior Management / Board)
NRL = No expansion but its a national competition, plus salary cap rorts continuing (Managed poorly)
Cricket = Do I need any explanation (managed poorly)
Aleague = Trying but Gallop is there so wait for it to go shit in a handbasket.
AFL = Must be laughing, TV Rights thru the roof. Expanding the game, NOT expansion (but do they need to ??) - Managed Correctly and WELL.
Dont get me wrong I'm not an AFL lover, but I know a good egg when I see one, and ARU can continue down the spiral path...
TELEGRAPH - UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-uni...nd-resolution/
ABITRATION BEGINS as ARU and Western Force WORK TOGETHER TO FIND A RESOLUTIOM TO DILEMMA.
Ben Coles
31 JULY 2017 • 1:19PM
The latest phase of the Australian Rugby Union's long-winded process to remove one of their five teams from Super Rugby began on Monday, when the governing body entered into arbitration with the Western Force.
Back in April the ARU announced that in accordance with an agreement with SANZAAR that one of their sides would be removed from the competition ahead of 2018.
South Africa has already fulfilled its part of the agreement, announcing at the start of July that the Southern Kings and Cheetahs were both being cut as the competition reverts from 18 teams back to 15 - five from New Zealand, four from Australia, four from South Africa, plus one respectively from Argentina and Japan.
Meanwhile players from the Force and Melbourne Rebels, the other franchise previously believed to be in the frame for the axe, are now no closer in August to knowing whether they will need to find a new team for next year.
A "48-72 hour" timeline was originally put in place by ARU chairman Cameron Clyne back in April, an estimate that has looked increasingly absurd as the months have gone by.
Removing the Rebels has always appeared to be a tougher task for the ARU given they are privately-owned by millionaire Andrew Cox, who took over the franchise in 2015, with the ARU now needing to pay A$13 million (£7.9m) to buy Cox out.
The Perth-based Force meanwhile, first introduced to the competition in 2006, have fought tooth and nail this year both on and off the field to preserve their Super Rugby status, finishing with the second-highest points total of the five Australia teams in this year's competition.
Local billionaire Andrew Forrest, the former CEO of Iron ore producer Fortescue Metals Group, pledged his support when speaking on the field after the Force's emphatic 40-11 win over the Waratahs to round out the season.
Forrest and the Force announced on Monday that they are now offering supporters interest-free loans to buy shares in the franchise. In other words, the Force are not going down without a fight.
Representing a rare area of rugby union in Australia in the west given the other four sides are clustered together on the east coast from Brisbane down to Melbourne, arbitration is just the first hurdle in a long battle to keep their place at the table.
Matters have been complicated further given the ARU took over the Force last year at a cost of A$4.8 million, which led to the Force's players and staff becoming ARU employees.
Part of that takeover deal with Rugby Western Australia (Rugby WA), and a key element of the arbitration process, is an alleged clause that guarantees the Force's participation in Super Rugby until 2020, the end date for the current broadcast deal agreed with SANZAAR.
"RugbyWA's position is clear. Under current arrangements the Force is entitled to participate in the Super Rugby competition until 30 December 2020," read a statement back in April.
"There is no basis on which the ARU can purport to remove the Western Force from the Super Rugby competition. The ARU must work to ensure that the Force remains based in Perth for many seasons to come."
Arbitration processes are rarely fascinating but this case bucks the trend. Victory for the Force would put the focus back on a number of unanswered questions.
Who do the ARU attempt to cut if not the Force? How severe will the financial ramifications be for the ARU, already feeling the strain? Could Super Rugby be forced to play with 16 teams instead of 15 next year?
Even if the arbitration goes the way of the ARU, the Force are unlikely to reluctantly roll over given their new and significant financial support from Forrest.
Regarded for so long as rugby union's pinnacle competition outside of internationals, even as enticing a final as Saturday's between the Lions and Crusaders at Ellis Park is not enough to distract from the fact that Super Rugby finds itself in a bit of a mess, particularly in Australia. The Force, quite rightly, are holding their ground
Nice to read the last sentence! Support from everywhere for us just not from the ARU 😞
Exactly, what is this bloody criteria FFS, and how does a journo know it has been met, if nobody else seems to know what it actually is. :SQuote:
Originally Posted by Alison
The question of whether this process is binding has come up a few times and I don't recall any difinitive answers so far. Here's a little food for thought from the NSW Court Services website....
http://www.courts.justice.nsw.gov.au...bitration.aspx
Arbitration
Arbitration is an ADR process where the parties present arguments and evidence to an independent third party, the arbitrator, who makes a determination. Arbitration is particularly useful where the subject matter is highly technical, or where the parties seek greater confidentiality than in an open court.
Arbitration may be voluntary, ordered by the court or required as part of a contract.
About the arbitration process
Arbitration can be a much more formal and structured process than mediation or conciliation. In some ways it is more similar to court, because at the end of the session the arbitrator makes a binding decision.
Some of the main differences between arbitration and other forms of ADR, such as mediation and conciliation, include:
the people in dispute need to agree before the process that the arbitrator's decision will be binding and enforceable
there is a much greater need to produce evidence or facts
there may be one arbitrator or a group of arbitrators to hear your dispute
the arbitrator may be a specialist in the subject matter of the dispute or have legal qualifications
at the end of the process the arbitrator will make a decision for the parties.
If an arbitrator makes a decision you are not happy with, you may be able to appeal to a court or other higher authority. However, this may be difficult and require you to point to particular problems with the decision, such as it being biased or unfair. If you have questions about the binding nature of arbitration, you should get legal advice.
When is arbitration suitable?
Arbitration can be particularly useful where mediation or conciliation have not led to an agreement or if you want a process where a decision is made for you, but is confidential and generally cheaper and quicker than going to court.
What role do lawyers or experts play?
Lawyers are often involved in arbitration and may represent the participants. Experts may also attend to give evidence for the arbitrator to consider.