Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 66

Thread: Western Force being pushed into secret ARU negotiations

  1. #16
    Champion Contributor sandgroperrugby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wattle Grove
    Posts
    2,083
    vCash
    5308000
    Is this binding or non binding arbitration? Does anyone know or more to the point allowed to say? Also who is the arbitrator?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Generally speaking you aren’t learning much if your lips are moving!!!

  2. #17
    Legend Contributor fulvio sammut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    booragoon
    Posts
    5,592
    vCash
    5064000
    Well, now that a Member of the Party of Government in WA is on the Rugby WA Board, who knows what might happen ....

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  3. #18
    Legend Contributor fulvio sammut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    booragoon
    Posts
    5,592
    vCash
    5064000
    Alison, all you ask about will be in the "agreement", or not.

    Ask RugbyWA to make public a copy of the "agreement" and when they do, the shroud of darkness will soon be lifted.

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  4. #19
    Immortal Contributor shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Mandurah
    Posts
    15,726
    vCash
    5470000
    Given the standing of Rugby WA's legal advisors, I would be astounded if such a clause applies in this case if one exists at all.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  5. #20
    Legend Contributor fulvio sammut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    booragoon
    Posts
    5,592
    vCash
    5064000
    Were they the same legal advisers when the "alliance agreement" was entered in to?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  6. #21
    Immortal Contributor shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Mandurah
    Posts
    15,726
    vCash
    5470000
    Quote Originally Posted by fulvio sammut View Post
    Were they the same legal advisers when the "alliance agreement" was entered in to?
    I was referring to the barrister who has accepted the brief to act in the legal stoushes. Wouldn't have a clue about who checked/drafted the agreement.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David


  7. #22
    Legend Contributor fulvio sammut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    booragoon
    Posts
    5,592
    vCash
    5064000
    If an arbitration clause exists and is competently drafted, if it applies to the issues in dispute, then it is valid, and that doesn't change whoever the barrister involved is.

    It would surprise me however if the clause (if it exists) was not thoroughly considered before the current action was commenced.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  8. #23
    Legend Contributor fulvio sammut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    booragoon
    Posts
    5,592
    vCash
    5064000
    I seem to recall the action was commenced before the current barristers were instructed, however.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  9. #24
    Immortal Contributor shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Mandurah
    Posts
    15,726
    vCash
    5470000
    Quote Originally Posted by fulvio sammut View Post
    I seem to recall the action was commenced before the current barristers were instructed, however.
    Yes, my reasoning was that I thought the agreement would have been rigorously read before the brief was accepted. So if any dispute resolution clause exists, it will likely not override or maybe not even pertain to the end date or cancellation of the licence commitment.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  10. #25
    Senior Player Macattack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    647
    vCash
    5000000
    Quote Originally Posted by Exile View Post
    You mean 2006?
    Corrected, 2006

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  11. #26
    Player LMSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    202
    vCash
    5000000
    There is no legal avenue for the ARU to "cut" any franchise unless the franchise has breached its agreement (and it would have to be a big breech).

    That is why the Force, have been the target as they thought they could easily drop a franchise they "owned" the license for. That and the broadcaster wants an all east coast comp and is will to keep paying the five team price for four east coast teams.

    But even without the "alliance agreement" the an ARU plan to cut a franchise they "technically" own would still likely run head long into a wall. RWA would have a legal field day as would every corporate and government stakeholder. And also the ARU likely knew what was going to play out when they took over the IP ect in August.

    That sorta stuff, in the business world, would see ppl being barred from holding directorships ect, large fines and possibly worse. At the very least it's unconscionable conduct, at worse it's fraud.

    I've said it before, all the reports & insiders had said the Rebels/Cox were close to coming back to the ARU to either hand in the license or with cap in hand as Cox is going to bleed another 3mil this year (that's after the ARU pay them $3mil).

    Their stupidity will no cost the sport tens of millions, as Cox will sue (to help cover his losses) Force will stay because of the agreement and alike, all while the ARU is left with a massive bill that could likely bankrupt the sport.

    This could be Australian Rugby's own Crawford Report moment.

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  12. #27
    Champion
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Bullcreek
    Posts
    1,265
    vCash
    5524000

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  13. #28
    Legend Contributor Alison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    7,308
    vCash
    5000000
    HERE IS THE TEXT OF THE ARTICLE:


    Western Force resist bid to force them into arbitration

    WAYNE SMITH
    Senior sport writerBrisbane
    @WayneKeithSmith

    The Western Force are resisting an Australian Rugby Union *attempt to direct them into arbitration as a means of deciding whether they can survive as a Super Rugby team next season.

    The process of culling one of Australia’s five Super Rugby franchises is becoming a lawyers’ picnic as the ARU and the Force lock horns on the issue of whether SANZAAR’s plan to move from an 18-team competition to 15 teams means a new broadcast agreement has to be signed, or whether the existing deal, which runs through to 2020, will suffice.

    The agreement signed by both parties when the ARU took control of the Force last August stipulated there would be a Super Rugby team in Perth until the end of the broadcast deal.

    If a court now rules the existing deal is extinguished by a new broadcasting agreement, then it spells the death knell for the Force.

    But now, seemingly, there is another legal issue to be resolved before the broadcast deal can even be addressed: the question of whether the Force can be forced to go to arbitration and, if so, whether the arbiter’s decision is final. Clearly, the ARU is acting as though that is the case; the Force, however, believe otherwise.

    The ARU has applied to have the matter referred to an arbitration court, triggering a response from the Force’s legal team, headed by former WA governor Malcolm McCusker and backed up by administrative and constitutional law expert Matthew Howard, to appeal against that application. If a judge backs the ARU, then both parties can be directed to arbitration.

    If the ARU succeeds in taking the Force to arbitration, it will reduce costs, although the only decision the club will accept is continued survival and it will keep fighting until it achieves that aim or runs out of legal avenues.

    Meantime, the club is marshalling its legendary supporter base, the Sea of Blue, with a members evening at its Floreat headquarters tonight to keep them abreast of developments. One talking point will be ARU chairman Cameron Clyne’s admission that it was no certainty that the ARU or SANZAAR would be able to cull one of the five teams.

    Clyne said: “At this stage we’re still working down a process where we’re confident that the process will come to an eventual change, but it’s hard to speculate.

    “Every roadblock that could be thrown in front (of it) has been thrown in front.”

    With the Rebels also threatening legal action, it’s small wonder that the Rugby Union Players *Association continues to argue there are viable alternatives if culling a team proves too difficult.

    Option one is to stick with the existing 18-team format but scale down from four national conferences to three.

    The second African conference could be scrapped if SANZAAR decided to play just a South African zone.

    Their six teams could compete alongside the Australian conference bolstered by the Sunwolves of Japan, while the Jaguares of *Argentina could compete with the full NZ conference.

    Such a competition wouldn’t enable every side to play each other but it would address the anomaly that each year half of the South African teams play no regular season matches at all against the tough NZ sides.

    Option two is for Australia to maintain its five teams while South Africa reduces its representation to four sides. This would provide for a 16-team competition in which every team would play every other team. Anecdotally, this is the model the players’ prefer, although it will marginally increase the amount of travelling they must do.

    RUPA chief executive Ross Xenox said: “The current competition structure has completely disengaged Super Rugby from its fan base and the primary objective of any competition restructure must be to create a more fan-centric model which will then be more commercially viable.

    “By creating a simpler, easier to understand competition such as a 16-team round robin structure, we take away the unnecessary complications of the current model and give the fans a better reason to re-engage with rugby.”

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Proudly Western Australian; Proudly supporting Western Australian rugby

  14. #29
    Immortal jargan83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Earth Capital
    Posts
    21,468
    vCash
    460000
    Quote Originally Posted by Alison View Post
    “By creating a simpler, easier to understand competition such as a 16-team round robin structure, we take away the unnecessary complications of the current model and give the fans a better reason to re-engage with rugby.”
    Unless you live in WA or Victoria, the new model will give you zero reasons to re-engage with Rugby.

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  15. #30
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000
    Quote Originally Posted by jargan83 View Post
    Unless you live in WA or Victoria, the new model will give you zero reasons to re-engage with Rugby.
    That quote was from RUPA president Xenos (or is is Xenox, this article has made me unsure) It proposed 5 NZ teams, 5 Aussie Teams 4 SA teams and the newcomers in a one-conference round robin.

    It would work quite nicely if the Saffers want to ditch their two teams. Everybody plays everybody else once, home and away, finals qualification through ladder position and nothing else.

    Would suck for the Tahs or Brums, who would actually need to win some games to play finals, but everybody else should be sweet with it.

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Negotiations halt between Rugby Canada and U.S. pro league
    By beige in forum International Rugby
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-11-16, 15:42
  2. Queensland Rugby exits Quade Cooper negotiations
    By Darren in forum Queensland Reds
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 19-07-15, 21:48
  3. Force misses out as ARU forms secret comp
    By travelling_gerry in forum Western Force
    Replies: 176
    Last Post: 04-04-11, 22:48
  4. Irish players pushed to play injured
    By beige in forum International Rugby
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-01-11, 08:26
  5. Force deny secret payments
    By NewsBot in forum News Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 26-05-07, 17:59

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •