Western Force slam Australian Rugby Union’s business plan

Nick Taylor has picked up the General's comments
Mr Edwards has also given Taylor some fresh views too.
This will now get it in mainstream media. Fantastic
I have been critical of the board in the past but I have nothing but praise for Mark and them all today.
Keep fighting and thanks General



Nick Taylor
Tuesday, 11 April 2017 10:10PM

Western Force claim they have uncovered major flaws in the Australian Rugby Union’s business plan that will be used to cull a side from next year’s Super Rugby competition.
The evaluation, that was only revealed when the Force board met the ARU’s chief operating officer Rob Clarke and chief financial officer Todd Day on Monday, has been described as fundamentally flawed by RugbyWA vice-chairman John Edwards.
The Force have already issued a writ against the ARU in the Supreme Court as they battle the privately owned Melbourne Rebels for survival.
A clause in the alliance agreement signed by the club and the governing body commits both parties through the current broadcast deal that ends in 2020.
“The ARU are considering breaching our alliance agreement and we are not going to allow this without an almighty scrap,” Edwards said.
“It was the worst business plan I have ever seen. They should have been embarrassed putting it in front of us.”
Edwards said the Force were also battling the Victorian government who had threatened to pull funding for the 2020 Bledisloe Cup and a British Lions Test in 2025, games that have not yet even been agreed on for Melbourne, if the Rebels were cut.
“It’s the Force versus the Victorian Government and the Rebels are just a side show,” he said.
“They even had a model where the Rebels stay in the competition for two years before closing down with the ARU taking control.
“On every aspect of the evaluation of a rugby nature we smashed both the Rebels and the Brumbies who were not considered a financial risk in any way which is also flawed.
“The most important thing now is for people to buy their shares in the Own The Force campaign.”

More here

https://thewest.com.au/sport/western...-ng-b88443885z

It is great that we are being kept in the loop, and the ARU could take a leaf, but I hope that RugbyWA doesn't get so caught up in the fight that they lose a clear head. I know this is likely to be contentious, but having been through analogous situations in my working life there comes a point where relationships become so fractured that they are irretrievable. It isn't possible to force people or organisations to get along, but some semblance of that has to be present for us to continue to work with the ARU. There is no point winning if it makes your position untenable going forward.

If we are to fight this out, we would have to come away with some cast iron guarantees of continued support. If we can be confident of a workable ongoing relationship, have at it. But it would be far worse if we were to win this battle, then have the cost (in all forms) negated by the ARU just canceling the license in 2020 anyway. Or maybe even to continue as the perennial red-headed stepchild, to blame and punished for every single woe in Australian rugby. If that were the case, perhaps better now to use the legal action to negotiate a favourable break. The priorities might be locking in an agreement on additional community funding, and finding a viable way to continue supporting a professional development system and NRC involvement despite the absence of a SR team. It wouldn't be much for the fans, can't say I've much confidence that they won't make a pigs ear of the NRC yet, even less sure I could support something that would just help validate and bolster the system that excludes us, but at least it would maintain a path for the sake of the players.

The ARU have now said it is all about finances with the ARU quoting they have spent $28M in unbudgeted funds propping up franchises. RugbyWA received money last year to the tune of how much? Which other clubs have received bail outs and how many times.

Easy fix, all you ARU/WA board corporate fish heads whatever you like to call yourselves that signed this and said that bullshit!

'Last on, first off'.
See ya later REBELS!

It would be unaustralian to do it any other way.

Might as well drop this here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-1...-snaps/8435526

"Super Rugby debacle proof Australian sport is stretched beyond breaking point

The imminent demise of one Australian Super Rugby team is both a warning sign for Australian sport and a lesson from history that has not been learned.

It's the story of sporting competitions expanding beyond their means.

The beginning of the Super 12 Rugby competition in 1996 was a fantastic innovation — a new competition comprising the best 12 teams from the best three countries, playing each other on a weekly basis was just what the sport needed as rugby embraced its new fully professional status.

The three Australian teams, the New South Wales Waratahs, the Queensland Reds and the ACT Brumbies, represented the heartland of Australian rugby.

But then Super 12 became 14 with the addition of Perth's Western Force and South Africa's Cheetahs in 2006, before it expanded to 15 when the Melbourne Rebels entered the competition in 2011 and finally 18 as it stands for this season at least.

At 18 teams Super Rugby is bloated and incomprehensible and only the most diehard fan can explain how four conferences and five separate points tables work, and how Japan and Argentina were part of South Africa.

Bringing the competition back to 15 teams and cutting one of the Australian franchises - either the Force or Rebels who are based in staunch AFL states - may hurt, but it makes sense.

Hindsight says it was inevitable, but the cost now will be messy legal battles, the end of careers and broken dreams.

This is a story that has been repeated time and again in Australia.

Mistakes repeated across codes

Take rugby league. In 1995, and with the Super League war brewing in the background, the Australian Rugby League welcomed four new teams into a ridiculously expanded 20-team competition.

Gone from those 20 teams were the Seagulls (from that notorious Australian sporting graveyard, the Gold Coast), North Sydney, Brisbane's South Queensland Crushers (remember them?) and Perth's Western Reds.

St George and Illawarra have since merged as have Balmain and Western Suburbs to form the Wests Tigers.

There was even a short-lived team in Adelaide, the Rams, which lasted one season in the NRL following the demise of Super League.

And what of the National Basketball League?

Here is a list of just some of the teams that have come and gone since 1979 — the Canberra Cannons, Sydney Supersonics, West Sydney, St Kilda, North Melbourne, South East Melbourne, Nunawading, Victoria Titans, Frankston, Geelong, Glenelg, Gold Coast (Rollers and Blaze), Hobart, Launceston, Devenport, Newcastle Falcons, Hunter Pirates, West Adelaide, Souths Dragons, Townsville and the Singapore Slingers.

Even the A-League has lost three teams in its short 12-year history; the New Zealand Knights, Gold Coast United and the North Queensland Fury.

The calls for an expansion of the current 10-team competition are loud, but with most of the teams privately owned and running at a loss, there is no way any of those owners would want an even smaller share of the pie.

Equally strong is the call for a second-tier competition, but who pays?"



Still a bit more to go in that article.

Some strong support for keeping the Western Force from Brendan Cannon on G&GR's weekly podcast.

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/pod...ng-with-canno/

Andrew makes a valid point about relationship damage, however I can't help but feel that we have been set up and betrayed, significantly damaging the relationship to start with. Yes the code is in deep financial trouble and the ARU has moved to try and address that by dropping a team, but the way they have done that, including through a sham 48-72 hrs "consultation phase" and the evidence filtering out over the last few days strongly indicate they had already determined it would be the Force that was to go. Due process has not been followed, in fact nothing even approaching a decent process!

In my view it is the ARU that has acted without integrity and with complete disregard for the Force's and WA's interests, leaving us no option but to fight hard. We were set up, so don't worry much about who will get pissed off in this very ugly fight for survival, I am happy for the Rugby WA Board to go very hard on this, it seems our only chance of survival.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macattack

...
In my view it is the ARU that has acted without integrity and with complete disregard for the Force's and WA's interests, leaving us no option but to fight hard. We were set up, so don't worry much about who will get pissed off in this very ugly fight for survival, I am happy for the Rugby WA Board to go very hard on this, it seems our only chance of survival.

---

With some of our help, like this: http://twf.com.au/showthread.php?t=38743

The ironic thing is we won't need financial assistance from tgemif we stay.

Probably the most important issue to note is that we have an Alliance Agreement with the ARU negotited to create a very special relationship between the 2 Parties. This is a model the ARU wanted to enjoy with all 5 franchises over time. In lining us up for the axe with zero engagement between the parties they have significantly breached the deep trust they sought to deliver. If we win this battle we will win for all the right reasons and we will immediately set about shoring up relationships through a new agreement and the return of our licence. Time will heal this and we will do more than our part to ensure it does. What is important now is that we complete the Own the Force campaign as we need to be able to demonstrate we are ready to take the keys back.

How explicit is this agreement General - in a court environment will it be interpreted in the spirit it was written, or will they get technical and say things like 'But this agreement was written in relation to a TV agreement that no longer exists'? or is the agreement more broader in scope than this?

The ARU are choosing between a franchise that has demonstrated self sustainability in the past and is working back to self sustainability vs a franchise that has lost $20 million in 6 years and continues to lose money. Good thing the ARU doesn't have shareholders, the ARU would be sent to the loony bin on a blue card for a head assessment!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalahard

The ARU are choosing between a franchise that has demonstrated self sustainability in the past and is working back to self sustainability vs a franchise that has lost $20 million in 6 years and continues to lose money. Good thing the ARU doesn't have shareholders, the ARU would be sent to the loony bin on a blue card for a head assessment!

---

Maybe a red card is a better option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blueandblack

Maybe a red card is a better option.

---

Or a firing squad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sandgroperrugby

The ARU have now said it is all about finances with the ARU quoting they have spent $28M in unbudgeted funds propping up franchises. RugbyWA received money last year to the tune of how much? Which other clubs have received bail outs and how many times.

---

Force takeover cost $4.7mil
Rebels, in six years, have seen ARU pour in more than $20mil

There is no circumstance or measurement where the Rebels are in front of the Force. The only deciding factor, as admitted by ARU officials to RWA, is potential funding from the Vic gov for test matches. Fund that is not yet been contracted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blueandblack

Mistakes repeated across codes

Take rugby league. In 1995, and with the Super League war brewing in the background, the Australian Rugby League welcomed four new teams into a ridiculously expanded 20-team competition.

Gone from those 20 teams were the Seagulls (from that notorious Australian sporting graveyard, the Gold Coast), North Sydney, Brisbane's South Queensland Crushers (remember them?) and Perth's Western Reds.

St George and Illawarra have since merged as have Balmain and Western Suburbs to form the Wests Tigers.

---

What seems to be forgotten in the discussion of other sports cutting is that there has generally been another team in the same city to support and while a lot of supporters are lost, most move onto another team. Where there hasn't been other teams locally the sport has died. How's rugby league in Adelaide or Perth? Gold Coast any sport!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewM

How explicit is this agreement General - in a court environment will it be interpreted in the spirit it was written, or will they get technical and say things like 'But this agreement was written in relation to a TV agreement that no longer exists'? or is the agreement more broader in scope than this?

---

Listen to Clyde's interview with Alan Jones, despite dodging as hard as he could, Jones nailed him on it and he finally agreed, if there's a loophole, their lawyers haven't found it yet