Force 2018

[ForceFan]

Mitchell was knob before he came West, was a knob here and still is a knob. Surely Fox can do better than him. They probably don't know how he is perceived by many or even most.

Why should Drew be any different from the rest (excluding Nick McArdle) of the FoxSports panel?

 

[Killer]

So it seems sanzaar were throwing their weight around.

It would be nice if the Perth Airport Unions refuse to fuel planes carrying SANZAAR teams.

Let them take the long way!


The Australian understand that SANZAAR, having grown weary of the corner into which the Australian Rugby Union had painted itself, had planned to release the 2018 Super Rugby draw last Friday — minus the Force — but was persuaded to hold back until Justice David Hammerschlag had handed down his decision yesterday in the NSW Supreme Court.

The most brutal had SANZAAR suspending Australia and then conducting its own “beauty pageant” to determine which of the five Australians teams would be culled. The answer was predetermined: the only one without a Super Rugby licence would have to go, and that was the Force.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...n/news-story/8f8d70be4f7a9e9c4259dc145cac811e

 

[Scrubber2050]

What was the decision of the Judge ?

 

[Shiggins]

from senitor Linda Reynolds " It's done. The Senate has approved an Inquiry into the Future of Rugby Union in Australia following Western Force's elimination from the national competition. My sincere thanks to all my Senate colleagues for their support."

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

from senitor Linda Reynolds " It's done. The Senate has approved an Inquiry into the Future of Rugby Union in Australia following Western Force's elimination from the national competition. My sincere thanks to all my Senate colleagues for their support."

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

I'd have a lot more confidence in the whole process if she stopped referring to this "national competition" in her statements

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[oztimmay]

I'd have a lot more confidence in the whole process if she stopped referring to this "national competition" in her statements

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

Odd wording.

I thought the national competition, known to most as the NRC, was going quite well. THey even expanded to add another team from Fiji.

Perhaps she meant to say "International Rugby Competition, involving five nations, multiple broadcasters, spread over multiple timezones".

 

[swingpass]

Odd wording.

I thought the national competition, known to most as the NRC, was going quite well. THey even expanded to add another team from Fiji.

Perhaps she meant to say "International Rugby Competition, involving five nations, multiple broadcasters, spread over multiple timezones".

or perhaps she simply has no F..ing idea .

 

[oztimmay]

or perhaps she simply has no F..ing idea .

Bingo!

 

[Killer]

Thanks to Quick Hands, here is an article on Clyne when the CEO of NAB.

https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/the-nab-spin-machine-in-overdrive,4199

This para from the above article perfectly encapsulates Clynes tactics when being questioned.

Managing the message remains the NAB’s top priority. Clyne’s 29 May performance on 3AW has one online commenter noting astutely:

‘He sells this crap like a used car salesmen selling a car with a blown engine for full price. Conveniently not addressing the most important issues and relentlessly presenting the irrelevant.’​

 

[mst]

Odd wording.

I thought the national competition, known to most as the NRC, was going quite well. THey even expanded to add another team from Fiji.

Perhaps she meant to say "International Rugby Competition, involving five nations, multiple broadcasters, spread over multiple timezones".

Its a context and language thingy: The Australian government does not have jurisdiction over international things, only national things involved in international things so its sounds clumsy but it captures the essence of what is meant and its understood. It also covers (captures) the NRC (and other parts like 7.s, womens etc) involvement so the broader the better.

 

[mst]

My community service:

So for those that want to play along at home here is your chance to have your say.

Its an audience and at least you get to have a say. Will it do anything? Saying or doing nothing certainly wont.

Your submission could ensure the committee are well informed about the game and are prepared if they call witnesses.

The players:

Senate Community Affairs References Committee

Senator Rachel Siewert Australian Greens , WA
Senator Slade Brockman Liberal Party of Australia , WA
Senator Sam Dastyari Australian Labor Party , NSW
Senator Jonathon Duniam Liberal Party of Australia , TAS
Senator Louise Pratt Australian Labor Party , WA
Senator Murray Watt Australian Labor Party , QLD

So for those at home this should move forward (as expected now) and more details should emerge on this page over time: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs

For the keyboard warriors I would suggest that submissions that are balance and factual and not emotive usually hold more weight and relevance. Consider the committee and its purpose and write to the audience and within the ToRs. Be concise and to the point EG: (examples only)

• Will funding be balanced in WA compared to the East coast? (including promotion / marketing).
• Should the Super Rugby being professional and for profit be under separate governance away from amateur and community rugby (especially due to Gov funding),
• impact on WA school programs,
• Impact on WA business that invested in sponsorship's now gone
• Impact on those who were employed in WA rugby
• Impact on families of young players now pathways have changed, wasted infrastructure etc.
• Should players be discriminated against by the ARU of a rebel / other league is set up?
• Player welfare (pro / amateur/ junior) going forward

Remember this is about what the Government can do which mostly could be around governance and funding.
Submissions can be from all points of view so don't feel you need to be on a side or a particular side.
Please be aware that most submission are made public unless there are really compelling reasons why and its requested.

Submission link: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Making_a_submission

About: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...Senate/Community_Affairs/About_this_committee

Attending a public hearing

• Anyone can come to a public hearing but only witnesses are invited to speak

Most hearings are held in public and anyone is welcome to come and listen.
If the hearing is in Canberra, the venue will usually be a committee room in Parliament House. Hearings outside Canberra are usually in venues such as town halls, community centres, hotel conference rooms or the state parliament.
The secretariat can tell you the date, time and place for each hearing and help you find the list of witnesses on the inquiry website.

• It is up to the committee to decide who will be a witness at a public hearing

Committees generally choose witnesses from those who have made written submissions to the inquiry. Committees aim to hear from a variety of organisations or individuals representing different views or with different concerns. Sometimes, to ensure a variety of views, a committee may ask an organisation or individual that has not made a submission to be a witness.
Because time for hearings is limited, usually only a small proportion of submitters will be invited to give evidence. If you wish to be considered as a witness at a hearing, you should note this in your written submission to the inquiry.

• Public hearings are broadcast live on the internet

If the hearing is held in Canberra the video and audio of the hearing will be broadcast live on the internet.
If the hearing is held outside Canberra, only the audio will be available.
Media may also be present. If you have concerns about being recorded, photographed or filmed, you should raise this with the committee secretariat before you start to give evidence. The committee can decide whether to allow the media to record you or it can impose conditions on any recording of the hearing. In making the decision, the committee will balance principles of open proceedings, public interest, and fairness to the witness.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Does this mean the Senate could make enquiry as to the Brumbies dealings?

KPMG forensic accountants report never released, matter referred to Federal Police, they in turn refer it to ASIC in November 2016 and 10 months latter still nothing.

Not sure if this is garden variety public service incompetence or Canberra protecting Canberra?

 

[oztimmay]

Does this mean the Senate could make enquiry as to the Brumbies dealings?

KPMG forensic accountants report never released, matter referred to Federal Police, they in turn refer it to ASIC in November 2016 and 10 months latter still nothing.

Not sure if this is garden variety public service incompetence or Canberra protecting Canberra?

It's under court suppression. Don't think senate powers can compel the release of documents already under order.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mst]

Does this mean the Senate could make enquiry as to the Brumbies dealings?

KPMG forensic accountants report never released, matter referred to Federal Police, they in turn refer it to ASIC in November 2016 and 10 months latter still nothing.

Not sure if this is garden variety public service incompetence or Canberra protecting Canberra?

It's under court suppression. Don't think senate powers can compel the release of documents already under order.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even if they could they would remain suppressed and the be dealt with behind closed doors which does happen in certain circumstances.

FWIW I believe its your latter reason. The CBR times had tried on multiple occasions to FOI documents and the ACT Gov keeps rejecting / playing funny buggers. The latest Audit report (this year) done by anther auditor is also suppressed!!!!!!! Go figure.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...view-of-super-rugby-club-20170831-gy8cgy.html

 

[Killer]

They should interview Cox under oath as a witness

 

[oztimmay]

Even if they could they would remain suppressed and the be dealt with behind closed doors which does happen in certain circumstances.

Correct. Just like they could reveal the spreadsheet in a closed session due to commercial in confidence considerations.

The Vic deal could be discussed under those controls, for example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[oztimmay]

They should interview Cox under oath as a witness

They don't swear an oath, and they are under parliamentary privilege when they speak at committee. Effectively protecting themselves from any legal action based on the material discussed at committee.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mst]

Oztimmay - It would be interesting to see where the line would be in this if you argued against the commercial in confidence caveat if it involved Government funding for non-commercial use as it could be in the public's interest being amateur sporting unions involved essentially.

 

[oztimmay]

Oztimmay - It would be interesting to see where the line would be in this if you argued against the commercial in confidence caveat if it involved Government funding for non-commercial use as it could be in the public's interest being amateur sporting unions involved essentially.

I know. As a keen armchair Lawyer, it would centre around this public interest test. It might be in the intersts ofthe senate committee to air (and potemntnilly embrass) the owners of any unpleasant information. THen again, if the Vic government (or any government or territory administration for that matter, no one is off the hook) would argue it's not in anyone's interest to discuss sensitive commercial matters as it may negatively impact future commercial dealings. Work in Vic government (won't say where), they treat these types of things very seriously, to the extent where legal action would eventuate.

So, it boils down to a state versus federal dick measuring contest that no one gives two fucks about.

 

[Killer]

They don't swear an oath, and they are under parliamentary privilege when they speak at committee. Effectively protecting themselves from any legal action based on the material discussed at committee.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't care about Cox, it's what he says about the rest of them that interests me. Clyne, Clarke, Pulver, Day etc