Thought it might be a good idea for a new thread for anything that comes from over East WRT the hearing.
Two go in. One come out!
Any news yet? I'm in bits!!!! :S
Printable View
Thought it might be a good idea for a new thread for anything that comes from over East WRT the hearing.
Two go in. One come out!
Any news yet? I'm in bits!!!! :S
If it goes according to what usually happens, the parties would have provided their evidence and written submissions, will speak to the Arbitrator on them, will present their final arguments, and the Arbitrator will reserve his decision and present it in written format in (usually) one to three weeks.
Don't get your hopes up for an immediate decision.
Are both parties present for the presentation of arguments?
If so, Hansie, thumbs up or down, obviously not binding.
The parties may or may not be present. As I said, the evidence is usually provided on the papers.
Their Counsel certainly will be.
I'm sure old mate Pandaram will fill us all in :rolleyes:
Western Force’s future hangs in balance as ARU and WA Rugby lawyers argue on broadcast deal
JAMIE PANDARAM, The Daily Telegraph
an hour ago (at 20:19 31/07/2017 AWST)
FIFTEEN games. The Western Force’s future will depend on this key figure.
As lawyers for the ARU and WA Rugby began their submissions at their arbitration hearing in Sydney on Monday, it has emerged that a crucial point of argument is the difference in games between the 2017 broadcast agreement and the new proposed schedule for next year.
The 13 broadcasters remain the same. The broadcast money remains the same, and the term of the deal, through to the end of 2020, is also unchanged.
So the major contentions are the reduction of 18 teams to 15, and the difference in the number of total matches to be played under the two deals.
The current agreement stipulates a competition in which 135 regular round games and seven finals matches will be played.
The new proposed deal has 120 regular round games, and seven finals matches.
The difference between the 2017 model of 142 games opposed to new proposal of 135 games will be a major point of contention.
WA Rugby’s case is based on an alliance agreement with the ARU that guarantees them survival as part of the current broadcast deal.
They are arguing that this is the deal that must be adhered to.
The ARU is arguing that the new proposed deal is the binding agreement, therefore allowing them to cut the Western Force from the competition.
But WA Rugby see the new deal as virtually identical to the existing one, save for the reduction of three teams and 15 games.
The ARU had chief executive Bill Pulver and general counsel Richard Hawkins at Monday’s hearing, while their legal case is being led by former Australian solicitor-general Justin Gleeson.
The ARU’s departing chief financial officer, Todd Day, will also be called as a witness during arbitration.
WA Rugby’s case is being handled by former WA governor Malcolm McCusker.
Unlike the 2015 Super season involving 15 teams with a six-team finals system, SANZAAR will keep the current eight-team finals model for next year’s 15-team competition.
This will feature the winners of the Australian, New Zealand and South African conferences, followed by the next five highest points earners regardless of conference.
While both WA Rugby and the ARU hope the arbitration hearing will be finished within three days, this case could drag on for months yet.
It has become apparent that if WA Rugby lose the arbitration hearing, they will take the case to the Supreme Court if they win a right of appeal.
A lengthy legal battle could bleed dry the ARU, who are already in a financially perilous state.
The Force have billionaire mining magnate Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest backing them and are prepared to explore every legal avenue in a bid for survival.
Forrest’s calls for a merger between the Melbourne Rebels and Brumbies will not be explored by the ARU, who see the Canberra team as having met the financial and performance requirements to remain safe.
The Rebels are hoping that private owner Andrew Cox can finalise a sale of his licence to Victorian Rugby Union, who backed by the Victorian government, would see the Melbourne side safe.
But if the ARU loses this arbitration case, they must explore the possibility of buying the licence from Cox to axe the Rebels.
To my mind, if the new deal is "proposed", that means its not yet fully agreed to by all parties and officially signed off. Thus the "current agreement" should still be valid.
Also how can you activly act against the best interests of a party of which you have entered into a alliance agreement.
Im no lawyer but I pretty sure that doesn't pass the was sniff test nor is it ethical.
You have got to be kidding me. Is this the extent of their case? FFS
I suppose it's still only "proposed" because they haven't yet culled the 18th team.
The barrister they have was solicitor general of Australia no less.. Wonder how much money the ARU are paying for this!! At least our lawyers have more than an interest in the cash in our case.. if we win (fingers and everything crossed) and go on to have a brilliant couple of seasons would be a great script for a film!
Forrest’s calls for a merger between the Melbourne Rebels and Brumbies will not be explored by the ARU, who see the Canberra team as having met the financial and performance requirements to remain safe.
If the test for remaining safe is meeting financial and performance requirements then why the hell weren't the Rebels shown the door back in April? Or in 2015 come to that. What a bunch of tosspots! And what a scroat Panadaram is.