0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Is this binding or non binding arbitration? Does anyone know or more to the point allowed to say? Also who is the arbitrator?
Generally speaking you aren’t learning much if your lips are moving!!!
Well, now that a Member of the Party of Government in WA is on the Rugby WA Board, who knows what might happen ....
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.
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.
Were they the same legal advisers when the "alliance agreement" was entered in to?
"The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David
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.
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.
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.
A new day a new story-
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spor...e3c95638859669
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.”
Proudly Western Australian; Proudly supporting Western Australian 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.
C'mon the![]()
![]()