ACT Brumbies now in Australian Rugby Union's gun ahead of Super Rugby cull

[blueandblack]

Interesting that the players are all professionals and yet the administration are worse than amateurs.

[GIGS20]

All the way through to the start of the 2018 season really as much as that would really harm all the teams in Aus.
They'll stall for time until they have their backs to the wall and are forced (if you'll excuse the pun) into a decision.

To be honest, if the Force go, I want it to be at the 11th hour and 59th minute, so that all the remaining teams are on tenterhooks, not knowing who they should sign in key positions and losing players to Europe and Japan.

I think it would be fitting for the Force to destroy Australian rugby on the way out.

[MI5_Dog]

I think it would be fitting for the Force to destroy Australian rugby on the way out.

They won't need to. If it get's to being that late in the piece then the ARU would have already destroyed Aus Rugby.

Personally I suspect the ARU board will have been removed long before then if it gets to that.

[GIGS20]

They won't need to. If it get's to being that late in the piece then the ARU would have already destroyed Aus Rugby.

Well we will have a part to play in that scenario.

That of using the skills of a Mr McCusker to delay the inevitable until such a point that the entire house of cards is brought down.

I'm sure he can argue an injunction to be effective until March of next year.

[Alison]

They won't need to. If it get's to being that late in the piece then the ARU would have already destroyed Aus Rugby.

Personally I suspect the ARU board will have been removed long before then if it gets to that.

But who has the power to remove the whole board? How does that process even get started? Surely the old guard will all come out and thwart any attempted overthrow?

[jono]

While I'd love to see an en masse cleanout of the board (hopefully then they all re-apply and the selection process is public, purely for the popcorn value it will have). Removing the board isn't going to guarantee the survival of the force or the rebels though. The ARU seem to be locked into this 15 team agreement with SANZAAR.

A new board (either SANZAAR [as they're not without fault in this massive governance breakdown, and we havent seen or heard much about ZA's input into all this as yet IMO] or the ARU) will inherit the same problems; and they might be forced into making a snap decision - which might not be the right one.

taking a step back, There is a slight potential for there to be no super rugby next year, but instead a new competition in it's place with interim/enduring agreements between select franchises that are remarkably similar to the participation contracts in place at the moment while new ones are negotiated out in an ongoing basis.

[GIGS20]

But who has the power to remove the whole board? How does that process even get started? Surely the old guard will all come out and thwart any attempted overthrow?

As an incorporated body, the members have the power to remove the board, unfortunately the members of this body are the member unions. I'm not sure if there's anything in the deed of incorporation which enables NSW and Qld to have majority membership in the union, but I can't see how the other members would have allowed two members to vote such a cynical majority into existence if they weren't forced to by the constitution. I would assume that the constitution has carried the same hegemony over from the days when Nsw and Qld were the only member unions, since everybody else was admitted one at a time, they probably were told they were lucky to be getting a seat at the board table at all.

Constitutinal change can only occur at a General Meeting, and needs a significant majority vote of a quorum of members (I'm pretty sure) Election of board members should also be handled at a General Meeting, so a member could call a SGM to vote no confidence in the board and trigger that at any time, however to do so outside of an AGM is rare.

The executive are employed by the board, who has the right to sack any one of them (within the constraints of their contract of employment) at any time.

In short, assuming that this debacle is sufficient to constitute grossly poor performance in meeting KPIs (Which I think everybody following the saga would agree it is) there must be a clause in each executive member's contract which allows for their tenure to be immediately terminated. For that clause to be omitted from any standard contract of employment, would constitute gross mismanagement by the board and, of itself, be sufficient to initiate calls for a vote of no confidence.

But it all depends upon how watertight the constitution of the ARU is.

Does anybody have a copy?

[jono]

can only find their template and recommendations for club constitutions

[GIGS20]

can only find their template and recommendations for club constitutions

Figured as much.

You can probably request a copy from whichever government department has processed the incorporation. COnstitutions of incorporated bodies are meant to be public documents aren't they? But they are not required to give a copy to anybody who isn't a member, they have to do their own legwork.

[blueandblack]

...Does anybody have a copy?

Not exactly but I did find this on a site called TWF. Also there is this, with recommendations at the end: http://myrugby.rugby.com.au/myrugby/...ov/Details.pdf Here is the summary though (with ARU choices): http://myrugby.rugby.com.au/myrugby/...ov/Summary.pdf

[GIGS20]

I found this

Members[edit]
The ARU's members (shareholders) include the unions representing Australia's states and territories, together with the Super Rugby bodies within the country and the Rugby Union Players' Association (RUPA).[15] Members exercise their voting rights at the ARU's annual general meeting. Under the new constitution adopted in 2012, the eight existing member unions and RUPA each provide a delegate who has one allocated vote. Additionally, each of the Super Rugby teams also provide a delegate who has one allocated vote. At this stage, only the Rebels and Waratahs are independently administered so the votes for the other three teams are effectively controlled by the respective member unions that own each team. Finally, any delegate from a member union with more than 50,000 registered players in their region is granted a second vote. Only the New South Wales and Queensland unions exceed that mark at present, so the total number of members' votes is currently sixteen.[15] The ARU also has a number of affiliated groups that do not have voting rights.[15]

Which had a really interestign statement on how they managed to get around the Arbib inquiry.

General, can you tell me what it takes to be identified as a registered player under this definition. I'm sure if that entailed paying a membership fee and not actually taking the field, there'd be a whole bunch of old, fat, fragile bastards like me that would be happy to team up and get Stookey an extra vote on the board.

It'd be hard to cut the Force if RugbyWA Matched both Qld and NSW in AGM votes.

Also, who controls the Force vote now? Does the ARU think they can use that to throw weight behind their proposal to kill the Force?

[Alison]

I just emailed Puller asking for the courtesy of a reply to my email about the 2016 accounts. I'll send him another asking for a copy of the constitution.

[shasta]

OK, so the ARU has requested(?), or ordered(?) the franchises not to sign players. This has the high probability of being a wrecking ball through the Rebels and Force 2018 rosters, no matter who survives. I presume all player contracts have to be OK'd by the ARU, who refuse to discuss this impasse with Rugby WA. What would be the outcome should Rugby WA and/or the Rebels decide, in response to this intransigence, to begin signing players for next year? The ARU would not ratify the contracts (if that's necessary?). That being the case would it constitute restraint of trade?

[BLR]

OK, so the ARU has requested(?), or ordered(?) the franchises not to sign players. This has the high probability of being a wrecking ball through the Rebels and Force 2018 rosters, no matter who survives. I presume all player contracts have to be OK'd by the ARU, who refuse to discuss this impasse with Rugby WA. What would be the outcome should Rugby WA and/or the Rebels decide, in response to this intransigence, to begin signing players for next year? The ARU would not ratify the contracts (if that's necessary?). That being the case would it constitute restraint of trade?

Rebels announced a few players recently. Could have been done before to stop of signing but perhaps, tinfoil time, they have told the Rebs unofficially to keep signing players.

[yungfen]

Simplistic idea.
Not sure if it is actually legally, why the Force and Rebels would not be able to sign players with a clear clause that if the team gets chopped the contract would become void. That way the ARU would not be at risk as the risk would be on the players' side given the possibility of the team losing its licence. But it would also be less stressful for them as they basically will still have a 'job' if their team survives.