Page 3 of 47 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 702

Thread: Arbitration hearing - Western Force v ARU - 31.07.2017

  1. #31
    Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Reality
    Posts
    1,170
    vCash
    5274000
    I got no idea how the leak recepticle has come to the conclusion that a reduction in total matches played next year dictates which teams will be in the competition. How does the number of matches played affect the fact the ARU signed an agreement with us to keep us in the competition until 2020? The competition is the same, the broadcast deal has been proposed but not changed and the ARU are contractually obliged to advocate for and work with us to ensure our survival.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  2. #32
    Immortal Contributor jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    10,470
    vCash
    5558000
    Dry July! TWF Contributor! MO-vember Donator The Bronze Star of Faith
    Before i finish reading that article.

    Jamie, IT'S "RUGBY WA". Dickhead.

    Now i've read it & the rest of the thread.

    I think it's a chicken or the egg scenario.

    I think there needs to either be a variation to the current broadcast agreement. As obviously with a reduced number of teams the terms of that contract can no longer be met; OR a new broadcast contract will be required that states the number of teams involved and the number of games. BUT until there is the 'correct' number of teams required for a new agreement, that contract wont be able to be met either. And you would think that all parties involved would be hesitant to sign an agreement they know they can't comply with.

    Either way given the way contracts and all the legal shit associated with them works in today's world. SOMETHING will need to happen with this contract/broadcast agreement. RWA is assumedly pushing for it to be a variation on the current deal as opposed to a new one.
    The proof would be whether during the negotiations between SANZAAR and the broadcast partners there was a new contract drawn up. or if they were just seeking to amend the current one.

    Given the fuck around we've seen since the start of the year and the fact it's gotten to arbitration, i'm going to be going with the latter.
    Especially because in my commercial experience, I have seen firsthand that a variation is MUCH easier to pass through the system than a whole new deal.
    It will all come down to who is required to testify, and if they are legally obligated to tell the truth; because then the details of the negotiations to shake up the competition will be heard as evidence.

    Personally something to that effect would be the first question I'd ask, and it would be asked in as many ways as possible over the course of the hearing.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Last edited by jono; 01-08-17 at 10:09.
    I STILL HAVE FAITH!!!

  3. #33
    Player
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    336
    vCash
    5078000
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    Before i finish reading that article.
    The proof would be whether during the negotiations between SANZAAR and the broadcast partners there was a new contract drawn up. or if they were just seeking to amend the current one.
    From the SANZAAR press release back in April

    SANZAAR is delighted that its major broadcast partners have after due consideration agreed to the restructured format within the existing broadcast agreements. Our broadcast partners are an important stakeholder and their vision for Super Rugby moving forward is the same as ours.

    5 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  4. #34
    Immortal Contributor jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    10,470
    vCash
    5558000
    Dry July! TWF Contributor! MO-vember Donator The Bronze Star of Faith
    Quote Originally Posted by volvo View Post
    From the SANZAAR press release back in April

    SANZAAR is delighted that its major broadcast partners have after due consideration agreed to the restructured format within the existing broadcast agreements. Our broadcast partners are an important stakeholder and their vision for Super Rugby moving forward is the same as ours.
    Hopefully this is accurate and arbitration goes quickly in our favour

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    I STILL HAVE FAITH!!!

  5. #35
    (Previously WFDS) WFDom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Rocko
    Posts
    1,381
    vCash
    5430000
    Quote Originally Posted by volvo View Post
    From the SANZAAR press release back in April

    SANZAAR is delighted that its major broadcast partners have after due consideration agreed to the restructured format within the existing broadcast agreements. Our broadcast partners are an important stakeholder and their vision for Super Rugby moving forward is the same as ours.
    Hansie, John.... I'm sure our crack legal unit are well aware of this? ;-)

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Great game, Fucken battled right through to the 80!

  6. #36
    Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Reality
    Posts
    1,170
    vCash
    5274000
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    Before i finish reading that article.

    Jamie, IT'S "RUGBY WA". Dickhead.

    Now i've read it & the rest of the thread.

    I think it's a chicken or the egg scenario.

    I think there needs to either be a variation to the current broadcast agreement. As obviously with a reduced number of teams the terms of that contract can no longer be met; OR a new broadcast contract will be required that states the number of teams involved and the number of games. BUT until there is the 'correct' number of teams required for a new agreement, that contract wont be able to be met either. And you would think that all parties involved would be hesitant to sign an agreement they know they can't comply with.

    Either way given the way contracts and all the legal shit associated with them works in today's world. SOMETHING will need to happen with this contract/broadcast agreement. RWA is assumedly pushing for it to be a variation on the current deal as opposed to a new one.
    The proof would be whether during the negotiations between SANZAAR and the broadcast partners there was a new contract drawn up. or if they were just seeking to amend the current one.

    Given the fuck around we've seen since the start of the year and the fact it's gotten to arbitration, i'm going to be going with the latter.
    Especially because in my commercial experience, I have seen firsthand that a variation is MUCH easier to pass through the system than a whole new deal.
    It will all come down to who is required to testify, and if they are legally obligated to tell the truth; because then the details of the negotiations to shake up the competition will be heard as evidence.

    Personally something to that effect would be the first question I'd ask, and it would be asked in as many ways as possible over the course of the hearing.
    Try going into your bank and tell them you're no longer liable for your mortgage as the number of houses in your street has changed. This is what the ARU are trying to argue against us. The number of teams in the competition has changed therefore our partnership with you is null and void.

    3 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  7. #37
    Immortal Contributor jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    10,470
    vCash
    5558000
    Dry July! TWF Contributor! MO-vember Donator The Bronze Star of Faith
    Quote Originally Posted by WFDom View Post
    Hansie, John.... I'm sure our crack legal unit are well aware of this? ;-)
    They would be all over it. But hard to have that information fed to reporters and then expect to argue that it's a new contract.

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    I STILL HAVE FAITH!!!

  8. #38
    Legend Contributor Alison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    5,662
    vCash
    5548000
    TWF Contributor!
    Wonder where the UK journo got the figure of $13million from as the amount the ARU needs to pay to Cox to buy back the licence. If accurate, they have got themselves into a right royal mess!!

    As others have said, it seems clear that the ARU went to that SANZAAR meeting without having done their homework. They all need to be sacked for that gross dereliction of duty and held to account for the very costly debacle that has ensued. How do they live with themselves?

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    I may be wrong...but I highly doubt it, because I'm an Alison
    (Note for dullards: this 'signature' is not meant to be taken seriously)

  9. #39
    Immortal Contributor shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Mandurah
    Posts
    11,327
    vCash
    5564000
    The Bronze Star of Faith TWF Contributor!
    Quote Originally Posted by Alison View Post
    How do they live with themselves?
    Dunno. But first class travel, accommodation, expense accounts and free fully catered admission to the best seats at major events probably helps to ease the pain. If all else fails, just bail.

    1 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

  10. #40
    Immortal jargan83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Earth Capital
    Posts
    19,108
    vCash
    200000
    141 Club Award The Bronze Star of Faith
    Quote Originally Posted by Alison View Post
    Wonder where the UK journo got the figure of $13million from as the amount the ARU needs to pay to Cox to buy back the licence. If accurate, they have got themselves into a right royal mess!!
    Much like every other journo since the saga began I'd say he pulled it out of his arse.

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  11. #41
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    17,067
    vCash
    1200000
    The Bronze Star of Faith
    Quote Originally Posted by Alison View Post
    Wonder where the UK journo got the figure of $13million from as the amount the ARU needs to pay to Cox to buy back the licence.
    an article written by Jamie Pandaram, who was fed the 13 Million dollar line by Clunk. It is completely immaterial how much it will cost to be rid of the Rebels, if money's the question, the answer lies within "what will it cost to KEEP the Rebels in the competition" I betcha that number adds up to more than the cost of removing them!

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  12. #42
    Champion sittingbison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    North Freo
    Posts
    2,005
    vCash
    5344000
    I suspect these rubbery figures are why the Force showed Col Clunk and Sgt Schultz the door at the 48-72 hours meeting

    Discombobulation....$28m disbursement, the $13m forgiven debts, the current loans, the $1fee , the future Bled $5m, the promised $8m centre of excellence, $4m cost of the IP, the $6m savings after the Force are guillotined Yada Yada Yada it all adds up....pull any multi million figure out of your well lubed rectum and nobody questions it

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Last edited by sittingbison; 01-08-17 at 14:40.
    The long sobs of autumn's violins wound my heart with a monotonous languor

  13. #43
    Player Kev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    SoR
    Posts
    275
    vCash
    5072000
    The biggest thing the ARU has ... is their grave-diggers shovel.

    It's digging the largest, most sheer sided hole imaginable.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  14. #44
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    36
    vCash
    5156000
    Neddies Facebook page are reporting that arbitration is over expect a decision next week

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  15. #45
    Champion SinBin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    1,283
    vCash
    5442000
    Quote Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
    Neddies Facebook page are reporting that arbitration is over expect a decision next week

    3 Not allowed! Not allowed!

Page 3 of 47 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Western force vs Chiefs 2017
    By volvo in forum Western Force
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: 26-04-17, 10:46
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 22-12-16, 08:38
  3. STANDER EXTENDS WESTERN FORCE STAY TO 2017
    By The InnFORCEr in forum Brynard Stander
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-09-15, 12:00
  4. Arbitration on Super arbitration
    By travelling_gerry in forum Melbourne Rebels
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 22-10-09, 23:03
  5. Force fast-track Henjak hearing
    By tdevil in forum Western Force
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 14-02-08, 09:16

Posting Permissions

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