0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
It’s been happening more and more frequently in rugby these days, when someone says or does something that makes you shake your head and wonder.
Michael Cheika came out with a comment this week that made me question how in touch he is with Wallabies fans. “I’m not sure why you would be angry, because it’s your national team,” he said. “You’d be disappointed, 100 per cent.”
I have tremendous respect for Cheika and when he opened up to me about his family’s roots in *Lebanon, I gained a new sense of wonder that this man had risen through rugby — which, let’s be frank, didn’t always embrace *inclusiveness — to become Wallabies coach. But I found myself thinking, “I’m sorry but that’s just wrong.”
Be angry! No one ever started a revolution because they were *“disappointed”. And nothing less than a revolution can turn the ship around before it is dashed to *pieces on those rocks, dead ahead. Be angry that a magnificent *Wallabies history is being devalued. Be angry that a team that won two of the eight World Cups decided and played in another two finals is being made to look a laughing stock. Be angry that every one of those gold jerseys is a hand-me down and frankly the current team is struggling to fill out those precious pieces of cloth.
That’s not to suggest you should harass people on their *private number or email, or even give them a gobful at the rugby. But if a team puts in a defensive *effort that leaks 40-odd tackles by halftime, when the All Blacks have two men against six Wallabies *defenders and they still score, that’s not cause for disappointment. That’s white-hot anger *bubbling over. Justifiable anger.
READ MORE
Wallabies have power to fight backJOHN EALES
Kiwis brace for Dunedin dust-upIAIN PAYTEN, DUNEDIN
And when the Australian Rugby Union rejects the offer of tens of millions of dollars from Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest because it has given its word to SANZAAR that it will cut a Super Rugby team — when the entire rationale was that the reason for doing this was a lack of money — that, too, is cause for anger.
The ARU will say it is too late for such generosity and will ask where was Forrest when the Western Force really needed him. Well, at a guess, he was minding his own business, confident that justice would prevail and his team would be spared. Only when he realised he had presumed too much did he reluctantly enter the fray.
By any means, it is a stretch *accepting the ARU’s rationale, particularly when they will be compelled to keep the Force if the appeal judgment goes against them, but let’s just go through it one more time.
If they lose the appeal, in their minds they can go to SANZAAR clean of heart, having done their best to honour their commitment but unfortunately the legal system wasn’t having any of it. But had they accepted the money and rescinded their own decision to “discontinue” the Perth club, then that would have been dishonourable.
OK, have you got that? *Because there are a few things that need to be said in reply.
What about the fact that the West Australian government is suing the ARU for not acting “honourably” when it inferred the Force and Super Rugby were there to stay and so needed a headquarters?
Perhaps the ARU can legally justify its actions by arguing that no promises, written or oral, were ever made. They’ve become very good, after all, at exploiting fine points of law. But a state government, moreover one from an AFL state, made a commitment to devote more than $100 million of taxpayers’ money to rugby on the understanding that the Force had a guaranteed future. How honourable will that fight be?
And the ARU also have reportedly discounted the threat of a senate inquiry into the whole process. They happened to mention this fact to Forrest, former ARU director Geoff Stooke and former Wallaby John Welborn during the meeting in Adelaide where they were discussing money or the lack thereof. In passing, they may have mentioned that the federal Sports Minister Greg Hunt was not in favour of a Senate inquiry. In fact, while Hunt hasn’t specifically backed a Senate inquiry and has no power to arrange for one, he has stated that he believes that “any external review that charted a path to this outcome would be welcome”.
Both sides appear to be doing some selective editing of his *comments, quoting Hunt where it is convenient to do so. But the *reality is that the West Australians seated across the table were not the ARU’s friends. Perhaps at one time they were and hopefully some personal friendships will *remain once this is all over, but from a corporate sense, you have made them your enemies — and they were quick to spread the word *afterwards.
One interested listener was West Australian senator Linda Reynolds, the person who first raised the possibility of an inquiry. The ARU’s comments have now caused her to redouble her efforts to bring it about.
But just think for a moment how isolated and out of touch the ARU has become. The nation’s primary law-making body, federal parliament, has turned its attention to how rugby is behaving and threatening to bring all the powers of a Senate inquiry to bear, and yet the ARU is unconcerned.
One senses there must be something the ARU won’t or can’t tell us to explain their behaviour, but they are staying silent. We all know the game is in dire financial strife, but both the Force and the Melbourne Rebels have moved to shore up their positions.
Yet even if Queensland and NSW are about to go under, where is the sense of “we’re all in this *together”? Why were the professional players not sounded out about taking a pay cut? They have taken a hit before for the good of the game and their solidarity *behind the “Stronger As Five” campaigns suggested they would have done so again.
If the situation became so *drastic that Australia had to withdraw from SANZAAR and organise its own domestic competition — hopefully with some assistance from Fox Sports — then the rugby community would have accepted that, perhaps even welcomed it. And if some senior Wallabies left for overseas, well, perhaps the day has arrived when we start selecting the Australian team from abroad. It’s going to happen at some point, regardless.
This could all have been done as a community.
And the ARU would not find *itself now — having been warned from within not to go down this path — totally isolated from the game and its people.
It’s never too late to make the right decision.
Obviously we all hope to win the appeal, but if we don't how can we give affect to Twiggy's financial support to keep the Force alive?
Is it a joint venture with the Sunwolves in Super Rugby for the remained of this broadcast deal (2020) ?
Is it developing some sort of Asia League ? - but if so against who? And during the Super Rugby season or the Northern Hemisphere season?
By the looks of it if we do lose the appeal Twiggy seems very keen to start a new competition into Asia, I dont think a merger with the Sunwolves will happen, just too many logistical problems. I know this article was already posted but it gives good detail to how the competition might look like.....
Forrest is promising his backing to set up an alternative and lively international rugby competition with a range of countries including the United Kingdom, New Zealand, South Africa,China, Singapore and Hong Kong. There have been several approaches to Forrest already from interested parties since he made a public promise to have the Western Force thrive no matter what.
http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnist...#ixzz4qvJ0b6p7
Also link below to Forrest talking about possible new rugby comp on Fox sports news. Talks about how there is good broadcasting revenue in Asia. https://www.foxsports.com.au/video/r...etition!639483
Also Mark Sinderberry said it would definitely be worth exploring if the appeal fails...
"This is a really exciting concept and picks up on some interesting rugby we're seeing in Asia," Sinderberry said.
"Certainly Twiggy's vision is one we'd be very excited to understand.
"It's an embryonic idea, but one worth exploring.
"There's a number of cities and countries in Asia that do play rugby at the moment and are looking at ways to develop their own programs. So we think it would be very well received."
But Sinderberry stressed his No.1 preference would be for the Force to remain in Super ranks.
http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2017/08...e-asia-options
Roy and HG's take on the Rugby saga - around the 26 minute mark.
http://player.triplem.com.au/mix/#/s...%20&%20HG/8372
But if appeal fails will twiggy stump up the cash to keep all our staff and players?
If so perhaps if we dont have fixtures this season we could loan out the players while they remain signed to us. Works well in uk football .
Today's Offsiders program has some interesting comments into Twiggy's offer to the ARU. I think Tracey Holmes said she did an interview with Stooke which should be on The Ticket, but it's not yet up on the ABC news radio website yet
Around the 6:50 minute mark
http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/off...033S00#playing
Andrew, The Force need to be ready for a major announcement as soon as the Court's decision is made! The "powers that be" had better be ready!!!
Thanks Andrew. Should be interesting when it goes up. Sounds like, although an exact asking price was not given by Clyne; that Stooke, Forrest and Welborn had a clear understanding that 50 mill was well in the ballpark. Clyne has admitted discussing this (after the lying bastards had previously said going bact to 5 was impossible). I'd lay odds his "categorically refute these claims" is only about an exact money amount.
Senate enquiry PLEASE! These blokes need to answer all the questions over their behaviour. I'm coming to the view that if we win an appeal and SANZAAR accepts 5 Aussie teams, they might just escape proper scrutiny.
"The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David
It would appear 'someone' in this bunch of idiots is calling the shots, and perhaps it's not Clyne after all- seems he's running under orders from above. There doesn't appear any rational logic in turning down such an offer apart from what would appear to be a power struggle going on which has rapidly gone out of control. I reckon whoever is actually calling the shots behind the ARU has been seriously rattled by Twiggy and his potential to take over the joint, whoever is in charge is clinging like mad to stay on top.
There must be something more to all this.
Anyway, posted this idea on the G&GR forum, recieved a few likes for it, but someone told me I might have got my sums wrong, thoughts?
I find this interesting, I would consider instead, that we just have the Australian group with six teams instead of five. Lessen the out-of-conference games for the Australian teams, but increase the number of NZ-SA inter-conference games to balance out the schedule. That would accommodate the Force and give us more of the NZ vs SA match-ups that the NZRU say is their priority. This would also lessen the time-difference games that the SunWolves would have to play in. It may even open up the possibility of the SA teams flying from Perth to Tokyo, so that the SunWolves don't have to play any of their home games away from Japan.".limited appeal of a 16-team round-robin competition.and the loss of popular home and away ‘derbies’ in each country."
NZ group - 4 home in conference, 4 away in conference, 5 vs SA, 3 vs Aus - 16 matches
SA group - 4 home in conference, 4 away in conference, 5 vs NZ, 3 vs Aus - 16 matches
Aus group - 5 home in conference, 5 away in conference, 3 vs NZ, 3 vs SA - 16 matches
We could play under the concession that we would still have the same amount of finals spots, despite having a larger group than the others, as a trade-off for Australia retaining it's five teams.Are you sure those numbers add up? Off the top of my head it looks like NZ & SA x30 v Australia but Australia x36 v NZ & SA?
Japan and the Pacific Islands for Aussie Super 9's!
Let's have one of these in WA! Click this link: Saitama Super Arena - New Perth Stadium?
Sorry, Chibi, but you do have your sums wrong. If each team in the NZ conference plays 3 in the Aus conference, that's 15 games. Likewise, there's 15 games between the SA conference and the Aus conference. So with 30 games, each of the Aus conference's 6 teams only gets 5 games each.
Break it down like this:
Blues play: Brumbies, Force, Rebels
Chiefs play: Reds, Sunwolves, Tahs
Crusaders play: Brumbies, Force, Rebels
Highlanders play: Reds, Sunwolves, Tahs
Hurricanes play: Brumbies, Force, Rebels
Bulls play: Reds, Sunwolves, Tahs
Jaguars play: Brumbies, Force, Rebels
Lions play: Reds, Sunwolves, Tahs
Sharks play: Brumbies, Force, Rebels
Stormers play: Reds, Sunwolves, Tahs
So the Brumbies, Force & Rebels play 3 NZ & 2 SA, while the Reds, Sunwolves & Tahs play 2 NZ and 3 SA.
Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon
I wish they were more vocal ..from what I have seen and looked for the "support" from the East Coast has been deafening in it's silence![]()