Originally Posted by
jono
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.