• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Where to for Super Rugby?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BLR

Guest
KevinO said:
I think the Rebels would be the first team the comp would attempt to sign after the Force. 1 its privately owned so the ARU cant stand in the way. 2 its called the Rebels. Joining a Rebel league would make sense.
Click to expand...

Could they meet financial sustainability targets? Maybe a separate Victorian team with an entirely different structure and run by entirely different people, but the Rebels I wouldn't touch with a 40 foot pole.
 
Rebels3

Rebels3

Jim Lenehan (48)
BLR said:
Could they meet financial sustainability targets? Maybe a separate Victorian team with an entirely different structure and run by entirely different people, but the Rebels I wouldn't touch with a 40 foot pole.
Click to expand...

Get over yourself. I want the Force to remain as I believe they have just as much right to a team to support than anyone else but how quickly you have forgotten how ordinary the Force have been just about every year of their existence, including this one where they were second best of an absolute turd of a bunch of teams and this amazing support was marginally on average more than only two other teams.

I sympathize with the situation you are in and couldn't understand how angry you must be, but you and only a minority of others have also come across as classless, dividing and living/festering on a diet of opportunism to throw criticism and ridicule at those who by in large support you and have their own children with just as much right to grow up supporting a team. You can be angry and rightfully so, but how bout you be the bigger man and be angry with a little class and show these corporate warriors at the aru what some dignity actually looks like.
 
GaffaCHinO

GaffaCHinO

Peter Sullivan (51)
And it gets worse for the ARU

Western Australian Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds will call for a Senate Inquiry into the Australian Rugby Union’s decision to cull the Western Force from Super Rugby, with Federal Minister for Sport Greg Hunt also lobbying for an investigation.

Senator Reynolds told The Australian yesterday she will seek the support of the Senate for an inquiry as soon as the upper house resumes in a fortnight. With the NSW Supreme Court to determine tomorrow whether to grant the Force leave to appeal against the decision, events seem to be gathering pace around the ARU’s controversial call to cut the Force from next year’s competition.

Hunt also weighed into the controversy yesterday in support of the Force. “We have an overwhelming preference for five Australian teams as part of the Super Rugby competition,” he said.

“The loss of a team for any state is devastating for both players and supporters. I would urge the ARU to work with the Force and the WA Government to look for a five team solution. I have now raised the issue with the ARU.”

He also supported Senator Reynolds’ call for an investigation of the process that led to the decision. “Any external review that charted a path to this outcome would be welcome.”

The Force’s billionaire backer Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest will meet today with ARU chairman Cameron Clyne and two directors, John Eales and Brett Robinson, in Adelaide to determine whether any support he can give the game nationally and in the West can persuade the ARU to reverse its decision.

And, as expected, the West Australian Government has warned the ARU it will sue it for the $100 million-plus it has poured into the Force — a move that could bankrupt the cash-strapped national body.

Senator Reynolds put the ARU on notice with an adjournment speech to the Senate last week at which she called for the ARU to publicly release information relating to the board’s decision to cut the Force, in particular “the big spreadsheet” it claimed demonstrated the decision was in the best interests of Australian rugby.

Yesterday, she upped the ante.
“There are serious questions that need to be answered on how the ARU came to this decision and I believe a Senate inquiry can bring much-needed transparency to the process, ”she said.

When someone as well respected as former ARU board member Geoffrey Stooke OAM resigns and publicly states ARU processes ‘lacked integrity and due diligence’, it is time to act.’’
She said she was deeply disappointed that no ARU officials had attended Sunday’s “Save the Force” rally to explain to Force fans why they had made the call to cut the franchise. “Therefore, I will be calling for the first public inquiry hearing to be conducted in Perth, so that those most impacted by their decision can hear first-hand the reasons why,” she said.

“If the ARU has nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from Senate and public scrutiny of their decision making processes.”

The ARU seemingly was always acting on the premise that, as the national body owned their Super Rugby licence, culling the Force would not pose any logistic problems, but it has become clear in the 11 days since it made that decision that it has brought down a firestorm on its own head.

Certainly if the WA government is able to demonstrate the ARU committed to having the Force based in Perth for the foreseeable future, it would have a solid case to call for compensation for the $95m it poured into the redevelopment of nib Stadium and the $17m it invested in the RugbyWA headquarters.

In his letter to ARU chief executive Bill Pulver, West Australian Premier Mark McGowan spelt out his state’s demands. “These investments were not made lightly and were made with the clear expectation and understanding that the Western Force would continue to participate in the Super Rugby competition,” McGowan wrote.

“Therefore, the WA state government believes the decision by the ARU to remove Western Force from the competition is in breach of its commitments to the people of Western Australia. With this in mind, I can confirm the WA state government is now exploring all legal options aimed at seeking compensation from the ARU.”

Against this backdrop, Clyne, Eales and Robinson are flying today to Adelaide to meet Forrest.

It is viewed as a convenient halfway point between Sydney and Perth. But if their expectation is that Forrest will pull out his chequebook and offer a massive amount, then it will quickly prove to be a wasted trip.

Forrest has made it clear that he does not do business that way and expects there to be a significant degree of self-help. If, however, they go in to negotiate practical ways that he can assist, then perhaps it will prove a productive meeting.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...d90114ae40702eb02bb+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

Click to expand...
 
stoff

stoff

Phil Hardcastle (33)
GaffaCHinO said:
And it gets worse for the ARU
Click to expand...
Should be a pretty quick senate inquiry. "We looked at which team we owned and canned that one. The others were too hard to get rid of." I think the whole 'process' thing was just a massive PR disaster designed to make it look like they at least considered someone else before boning the Force. The problem with pretending to have a process is people the e spect you followed it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
GaffaCHinO

GaffaCHinO

Peter Sullivan (51)
stoff said:
Should be a pretty quick senate inquiry. "We looked at which team we owned and canned that one. The others were too hard to get rid of." I think the whole 'process' thing was just a massive PR disaster designed to make it look like they at least considered someone else before boning the Force. The problem with pretending to have a process is people the e spect you followed it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yeah because the acquisition of the license, the signing of the alliance agreement, the fudged numbers, the behind closed door deals with Cox all seem legit to me........ Nothing to see here.
 
B

BLR

Guest
Rebels3 said:
Get over yourself. I want the Force to remain as I believe they have just as much right to a team to support than anyone else but how quickly you have forgotten how ordinary the Force have been just about every year of their existence, including this one where they were second best of an absolute turd of a bunch of teams and this amazing support was marginally on average more than only two other teams.
Click to expand...

Bloody hell, do I have to put a 'not having a go' on every post? Just read what I wrote and think about it, do you in all honesty think everything is hunky dory at the Rebels and no changes need to be made? Or stay the course and do what has always been done.

I know the Force have been shit for many reasons over their existence so asking those questions on how to change it, as a supporter of my team isn't a bad thing, it is the only way you get something changed.
 
KevinO

KevinO

Geoff Shaw (53)
BLR said:
Bloody hell, do I have to put a 'not having a go' on every post? Just read what I wrote and think about it, do you in all honesty think everything is hunky dory at the Rebels and no changes need to be made? Or stay the course and do what has always been done.

I know the Force have been shit for many reasons over their existence so asking those questions on how to change it, as a supporter of my team isn't a bad thing, it is the only way you get something changed.
Click to expand...

BLR said:
Could they meet financial sustainability targets? Maybe a separate Victorian team with an entirely different structure and run by entirely different people, but the Rebels I wouldn't touch with a 40 foot pole.
Click to expand...

Mate you do have a go, read your own comments before trying to defend your BS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BLR
stoff

stoff

Phil Hardcastle (33)
GaffaCHinO said:
Yeah because the acquisition of the license, the signing of the alliance agreement, the fudged numbers, the behind closed door deals with Cox all seem legit to me.... Nothing to see here.
Click to expand...
Not saying it wasn't murky - just they acquired the Force licence to give themselves the option that they took. Any other process was smoke and mirrors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Joe King

Joe King

Dave Cowper (27)
This has probably already been asked, but if the Force get to stay, then why can't the ARU allow ONE team (either the Force or Rebels) to import as many non-Australian players as they want?

How much would this help with our lack of competitive issues?
 
M

Moono75

Guest
Don't forget the Shiggins v Rest of GAGR rivalry. Some say bigger than Hatfield v McCoy.
 
Highlander35

Highlander35

Andrew Slack (58)
bedandbreakfast said:
WA v Vic is an existing rivalry, much like NSW v Vic and NSW v Qld :D
Click to expand...


Brothers and Sisters are natural Enemies

Like New South Welshmen and Sandgropers
or Queenslanders and Sandgropers
or Victorians and Sandgropers
or Sandgropers and other Sandgropers
Damn Sandgropers, they ruined Sandgropia
 
B

BLR

Guest
Joe King said:
This has probably already been asked, but if the Force get to stay, then why can't the ARU allow ONE team (either the Force or Rebels) to import as many non-Australian players as they want?

How much would this help with our lack of competitive issues?
Click to expand...

I think the ARU are blinkered on the Wallabies being the only true concern. (considering the money they once pulled in, for good reason)

The point being I don't think the current board would actually give a toss if we had 5 weak teams as long as we had a strong Wallabies. Hell, they had Cox begging to open up the rules but they wouldn't. I just don't buy they want Super Rugby to be anything more than a feeder competition to the Wallabies. Hopefully the mess at the moment changes things and we get a strong comp as a whole like in NZ which will in turn flow through to the national side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top