Injunction / Appeal hearing - Rugby vs ARU! 23.08.2017

[wallabydarnd]

I think that's the IP, not the license, so my post is a little misleading, however our IP will be valuable in the context of a new international competition. We will want to compete as the Force (even if only to stick it up the ARU)

Nah ERU will keep the name IP etc for when they start a Sydney western suburbs franchise

[sittingbison]

Western Sydney Force

Marketing wet dream if you are a W(b)anker

[Sheikh]

I still have to check the ARU constitution but I think each member state gets a vote - and you should start with garnering up support from SA, NT and TAS, who, collectively, from memory received funding for community rugby less than Pulver's annual salary!! , so , a little injection from TF for new club house / coaching / uniforms / whatever - could surely shore up their support. IMO the ARU are picking off the states one at a time - they tried Force and Rebels - couldn't get Rebels this time, but got Force (hopefully not) - next Rebels in 2020, then community funding to reduce for SA, NT and TAS. This is not a time to think 'oh we should not antagonise the ARU or they will cut our funding' - they are going to cut your funding either in real dollars or nominal value of dollars. By the way Victoria IMO would vote with you on this because we know i. we were on the chopping block and ii. we will be again in three years time if this Board stay on. ACT are on their knees financially, so their vote would be worth something, and even NSW could do with a cash injection - lets be honest, all the member unions could do with more than their few million distributed to the member unions and affiliated unions.

It got mentioned on here when the EGM was being proposed. There are 16 votes, I think, split this way:

NSW - 2
Qld - 2
Vic - 1
WA - 1
SA - 1
ACT - 1
NT - 1
Tas - 1
Each franchise - 1
RUPA - 1

Because each franchise is run by the state RU, effectively NSW & Qld gets 3 votes, ACT & Vic get 2 votes, WA should have 2 votes, but the ARU controls the Force so RWA only gets 1 vote now, like SA, NT & Tas.

You need 75% of the vote for a motion to pass (so 12 votes), or to put another way 5 votes will block a motion. Of course, there should only be 15 votes now, because the ARU believe that the Force is no longer a going concern, so to use their vote would be unethical, wouldn't it?

[lou]

It got mentioned on here when the EGM was being proposed. There are 16 votes, I think, split this way:

NSW - 2
Qld - 2
Vic - 1
WA - 1
SA - 1
ACT - 1
NT - 1
Tas - 1
Each franchise - 1
RUPA - 1

Because each franchise is run by the state RU, effectively NSW & Qld gets 3 votes, ACT & Vic get 2 votes, WA should have 2 votes, but the ARU controls the Force so RWA only gets 1 vote now, like SA, NT & Tas.

You need 75% of the vote for a motion to pass (so 12 votes), or to put another way 5 votes will block a motion. Of course, there should only be 15 votes now, because the ARU believe that the Force is no longer a going concern, so to use their vote would be unethical, wouldn't it?

That's how I read it 15 votes in total. So in my mind, WA+SA+NT+TAS+VIC+RUPA = 6/15 to get the other 6 you need to appeal to the eastern states and the franchises. I would think the franchises would vote with their member union, so + Rebels = 7/15. The Eastern block has always been difficult to deal with, but is it possible that ACT = 2 votes and first of QLD or NSW would be 3 votes - total now 12/15. When I say first of QLD or NSW, I mean who is the first to realise that a new Board that is receptive to TF extra financing would mean extra $$ for them too. It would have to be more concrete than my post on TWF, but I'm sure back room scenarios are played out like this a lot, there needs to be strong incentive for NSW, QLD and ACT to act. Even the thought that the member unions were considering this course of action should start to get to unnerve the current Board, who, by the way, I have heard them say they think things are moving along well! Also, the Board will argue that they were re-elected already this year - but according to my timeframe, they were re-elected before they announced the actual cut, so no mandate there. If they are sure of themselves, they should offer themselves up for re-election now.

[Jules]

So remembering some of the drivel we have heard from ARU on this weren't they going to reveal all the reasons for us being cut after legal action? Well it won't make a difference to the ruling so come on then!

[Jules]

John welborn on Alan Jones this morning. Sorry can't post the link but on 2GB website.

[Occidental]

John welborn on Alan Jones this morning. Sorry can't post the link but on 2GB website.

http://www.2gb.com/podcast/john-wellborn/

[JPR]

John welborn on Alan Jones this morning. Sorry can't post the link but on 2GB website.

Just listened to this discussion good positive presentation.
Link http://www.2gb.com/podcast/alan-jone...w-august-25th/
Listen between 1.13.40 & 1.24.30

[WF2006]

Never really gave Alan Jones much credit in the past, and for that I admit I was wrong.
I always thought that he was an overpaid talking head with a massive ego problem. I put him in the same basket as Kyle Sandilands.

I admit that I did this with very little knowledge and exposure to him or his program. Only the occasional scandalous remark that made national broadcasts really came to my attention.

I was wrong.

I now firmly believe he is one of our most important allies. He is keeping up the fight OUTSIDE WA. His voice is heard in the rugby heartland of NSW. This is the environment that Clyne and co live and breathe. Our local media can keep presenting stories here in WA, but they hold no weight with the ARU. Jones' program does.

Keep up the good fight Mr Jones.

[SteveWA]

Just listened to this discussion good positive presentation.
Link http://www.2gb.com/podcast/alan-jone...w-august-25th/
Listen between 1.13.40 & 1.24.30

"Certainly the Chairman Cameron Clyne is trying to talk to everybody" ... I think Mr Jones probably should have said "talk at everybody" based on what Mr Wellborn had to say.

[fulvio sammut]

Never really gave Alan Jones much credit in the past, and for that I admit I was wrong.
I always thought that he was an overpaid talking head with a massive ego problem. I put him in the same basket as Kyle Sandilands
I was wrong.

No, you weren't, and you have done a great disservice to Mr. Sandilands.

[shasta]

Never really gave Alan Jones much credit in the past, and for that I admit I was wrong.


Keep up the good fight Mr Jones.

You sure were not wrong. I am happy he is on our side of this particular fight. But that is very much separate from his past "attrocia".

You don't earn the title "Shock Jock" for your good behavior on air.

[andrewM]

Whilst I can't say I am a big fan of Alan - I'm not a fan of that style of radio broadcast to be honest, I rate him miles ahead of Sandilands, who is just an obnoxious knob full stop. Happy he is on our side and impressed that he has supported us for so long now.

[GIGS20]

It's amazing how having somebody on your side can cover over the fact that he's an opinionated knob.

If Jones was spruiking the case for bin the force with equal vigour you'd be calling for the sack. It just happens that we're on the right side of his opinions at the moment.

He's saying that last week was an aberration and the wallabies will bounce back this week, so he's not Perfect.

[zed]

It's amazing how having somebody on your side can cover over the fact that he's an opinionated knob.

If Jones was spruiking the case for bin the force with equal vigour you'd be calling for the sack. It just happens that we're on the right side of his opinions at the moment.

He's saying that last week was an aberration and the wallabies will bounce back this week, so he's not Perfect.

Yup the guys a knob and I suspect his support for the Force is self serving, but we'll take all the support we can get at this stage!