0
Andy, I apologise if I came across as attacking you, That is not my intention.
You, like nearly everyone here, including myself, has the interests of WA rugby at heart, even if we perceive those interests differently.
I am concerned that many of us are deluding ourselves, and are being deluded by some who should and do know better.
IRB hold the equivalent of the "copyright" to Rugby Union. They are entitled to exercise those rights of ownership as they see fit.
They are within their rights to protect the good name and reputation of their sport by preventing any Body whom they do not approve of from participating in it. That's what lead to the creation of rugby league which, in order to play a sport vaguely resembling rugby, had to play with 13 men, abandon the lineout, castrate the scrum, and adopt changes to the manner in which possession of the ball passes from one team to the other.
If there was a viable, financially sound body in WA (not in Administration) with a proven track record and administered by people to which the IRB could not reasonably object on the basis of their past record, then maybe, just maybe, should they refuse to recognise that body, it could apply to the courts for orders permitting it to take part on the grounds of unreasonable, unconscionable and oppressive behavior. But they would have to convince the court that they should be there , and there can be no WA rugby until they do. This could take years.
On the basis of the costs claim against RugbyWA arising out of their recent failed attempt to sue the ARU, the legal costs incurred by the proponents on both sides could be in the millions.
Where is that money to come from?