"Transparency" at the ARU

[lou75]

Could the ARU be taken to Court on the grounds that they're not acting to "foster & promote" the game per their Constitution?

And 2.2 : the income and property of the Company must only be used to further the objects of the Company set out in rule 2.1 (keeper of the code and so on) and no part of that income or property may be paid or transferred, directly or indirectly, to any Member of the Company by way of dividend, bonus or otherwise.

I would think that the EGM called for by RUPA & VRU will have some serious discussions and with VRU President Tim North QC (Quade Cooper) at the helm driving those questions it will get nasty re the payments made to MRRU and any further payments to them

 

[stoff]

And 2.2 : the income and property of the Company must only be used to further the objects of the Company set out in rule 2.1 (keeper of the code and so on) and no part of that income or property may be paid or transferred, directly or indirectly, to any Member of the Company by way of dividend, bonus or otherwise.

I would think that the EGM called for by RUPA & VRU will have some serious discussions and with VRU President Tim North QC (Quade Cooper) at the helm driving those questions it will get nasty re the payments made to MRRU and any further payments to them

What about payments made to other members of the company such as all the state RUs? I'm pretty sure that the following clause 2.1(b) covers off payments to members in course of business activities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lou75]

What about payments made to other members of the company such as all the state RUs? I'm pretty sure that the following clause 2.1(b) covers off payments to members in course of business activities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does "must only be used to further the objects of the Company" = "in course of business activities"? and does buying a franchise (to possibly close it) constitute the course of business activities?

 

[dru]

Does "must only be used to further the objects of the Company" = "in course of business activities"? and does buying a franchise (to possibly close it) constitute the course of business activities?

It feels like a lack of ethics to me but I'd imagine they would manage to classify - closing a franchise to reallocate funds (supposedly for survival of the code) - as the legitimate course of business activity.

 

[fatprop]

Does "must only be used to further the objects of the Company" = "in course of business activities"? and does buying a franchise (to possibly close it) constitute the course of business activities?

Of course it does, it is no different from opening new franchises or closing failing operations

 

[fatprop]

Could the ARU be taken to Court on the grounds that they're not acting to "foster & promote" the game per their Constitution?

Way back in 1985 a coupla lawyers who happened to be members of an Auckland rugby club took NZRU to Court & successfully argued that sending a team to South Africa wasn't in the best interests of the game, that being a requirement of NZRU's Constitution at that time.

Could this be a way of getting the matter before the Courts without party A suing party B for millions that neither can afford? Plenty of lawyers on here, it seems, I'd love to know what they think.

Unlikely, they can't be sued for continuing with an unsustainable business model, how does that "foster and promote"

 

[fatprop]

Spiro Zavos is often attacked in these fora but IMO he makes some very valid points and observations here, many of which relate directly to this thread's topic:

http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/05/22/spiro-aru-madness-pocock-earns-three-times-mcmahon-not-playing/

It isn't unusual to see key employees get deals where as part of their contract includes a sabbatical or as in Buddy Franklin's Swans massive deal, he gets his money even if he retires.

With Pocock coming back, McMahon will be third choice and he is getting paid as a third choice

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It isn't unusual to see key employees get deals where as part of their contract includes a sabbatical or as in Buddy Franklin's Swans massive deal, he gets his money even if he retires.

With Pocock coming back, McMahon will be third choice and he is getting paid as a third choice

Pocock had little to no bargaining power: he clearly wants to be at the 2019 RWC, probably wants to be captain so whatever he did he would be back in time to press his claim.
To me it makes absolutely no sense for the ARU to pay him - whether Buddy Franklin gets paid on retirement or not.

 

[Braveheart81]

Pocock had little to no bargaining power: he clearly wants to be at the 2019 RWC, probably wants to be captain so whatever he did he would be back in time to press his claim.
To me it makes absolutely no sense for the ARU to pay him - whether Buddy Franklin gets paid on retirement or not.

Surely his bargaining power was massive foreign contract offers and the ability to get paid handsomely over a couple of years from 2016-2018 knowing he could return to Australia in 2019, play the season and make the RWC squad.

I don't think the only aim of the contract was to keep him for the 2019 RWC. They clearly wanted him for as much of the time beforehand as possible.

 

[stoff]

Pocock had little to no bargaining power: he clearly wants to be at the 2019 RWC, probably wants to be captain so whatever he did he would be back in time to press his claim.
To me it makes absolutely no sense for the ARU to pay him - whether Buddy Franklin gets paid on retirement or not.

I don't think Buddy gets the money, rather it is just counted towards the salary cap as if he had.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ACT Crusader]

I think there has been "integrity" issues on player pay dating back to the splurge days of Sailor, Medicare and Lote. It appeared the ARU broke the bank for these and others which whilst other players wouldn't begrudge the individuals 'gettin paid', there would've been an element of, 'I'm gonna get mine too', because I'm a starting Wallaby. So it's unsurprising that Pocock is on that sort of money in today's world. This was the slope that had been set many years ago.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Surely his bargaining power was massive foreign contract offers and the ability to get paid handsomely over a couple of years from 2016-2018 knowing he could return to Australia in 2019, play the season and make the RWC squad.

I don't think the only aim of the contract was to keep him for the 2019 RWC. They clearly wanted him for as much of the time beforehand as possible.

That bargaining power is illusory - he's absent either way.
Besides which pay him some more when is here and nothing when he isn't.
A sense of entitlement and some bitterness is all this sort of caper breeds: we lose McMahon to Japan and he doesn't meet the Giteau rule - which of course Cheika will change if it suits him

 

[fatprop]

Pocock had little to no bargaining power: he clearly wants to be at the 2019 RWC, probably wants to be captain so whatever he did he would be back in time to press his claim.
To me it makes absolutely no sense for the ARU to pay him - whether Buddy Franklin gets paid on retirement or not.

It appears from the outcome you are incorrect, he had enough bargaining power, but whether getting a paid sabbatical or a larger contract on returning, what is the difference?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It appears from the outcome you are incorrect, he had enough bargaining power, but whether getting a paid sabbatical or a larger contract on returning, what is the difference?

He had enough of something to cause the ARU to behave irrationally - but that's a very low bar and my criticism is of the ARU rather than him (but I am happy to get into that).

Unless you double his contract on return he gets less if he's away for a year, besides which he comes off contract having actually played in only 2 of his 3 (or 1 of his 2) years.
Who pays full price for 2/3 or 1/2 of the goods?

 

[Braveheart81]

That bargaining power is illusory - he's absent either way.
Besides which pay him some more when is here and nothing when he isn't.
A sense of entitlement and some bitterness is all this sort of caper breeds: we lose McMahon to Japan and he doesn't meet the Giteau rule - which of course Cheika will change if it suits him

For cashflow reasons why wouldn't the ARU want the payments spread evenly?

I think the McMahon issue needs to be looked at more closely. Is he just going to Japan for one offseason to make a lump of cash and also smooth his return to Brisbane?

If he wants to go back to Queensland it seems like less of a kick in the teeth to the Rebels if he leaves them for a foreign team first.

McMahon is 22 and rightfully 3rd choice. He may be the best option in time but I don't think he can demand a massive ARU contract right now.

He would know that if he plays the majority of the Wallabies 15 tests this year his income will be very considerable.

 

[fatprop]

Unless you double his contract on return he gets less if he's away for a year, besides which he comes off contract having actually played in only 2 of his 3 (or 1 of his 2) years.
Who pays full price for 2/3 or 1/2 of the goods?

Have you not seen how some NRL contracts have big back ends? It isn't unusual

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Have you not seen how some NRL contracts have big back ends? It isn't unusual

I have - but Im not aware of one where there was a mutual agreement that the player didn't have to play in the middle year of his contract but would still be paid. For one thing that would bugger their salary cap.

For cashflow reasons why wouldn't the ARU want the payments spread evenly?

I think the McMahon issue needs to be looked at more closely. Is he just going to Japan for one offseason to make a lump of cash and also smooth his return to Brisbane?

If he wants to go back to Queensland it seems like less of a kick in the teeth to the Rebels if he leaves them for a foreign team first.

McMahon is 22 and rightfully 3rd choice. He may be the best option in time but I don't think he can demand a massive ARU contract right now.

He would know that if he plays the majority of the Wallabies 15 tests this year his income will be very considerable.

This is not actually about whether McMahon or anybody else is 3rd choice or not worth what Pocock is worth to not play for a year.
As the title of the thread suggests the issue of transparency is: what's the sense in this? I recognise what you say but it doesn't seem to me to explain the good sense in this arrangement.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Inside Shoulder, doesn't it just come down to what is Pocock worth? When and how he is paid isn't really an issue.

Not a exact comparison, but akin to this type of scenario, I knew of at least theee of the large firms that during the GFC engaged highly talented graduates on a contract that paid them for 12 months, but didn't get them to do any work because during the downturn there was less work. They effectively said here is $XX thousand dollars to do as you please, but their contracts were that they were back in 12 months to work.

There were obvious incentives for both sides

 

[I like to watch]

Inside Shoulder, doesn't it just come down to what is Pocock worth? When and how he is paid isn't really an issue.

I agree with this totally, it's about how big a slice of the pie he is getting.
IF the total wages bill is say $28M, and IF he is effectively getting $1.4M, then they are making a rod for their own back.

 

[Braveheart81]

I
This is not actually about whether McMahon or anybody else is 3rd choice or not worth what Pocock is worth to not play for a year.
As the title of the thread suggests the issue of transparency is: what's the sense in this? I recognise what you say but it doesn't seem to me to explain the good sense in this arrangement.

You can argue the price is too much and it may be (but we don't know what the offers Pocock received internationally were).

The year off in between was all agreed as part of the deal. I really don't see how it is any different if they were paying him the same amount of money but only making payments in 2016 and 2018.

I agree with this totally, it's about how big a slice of the pie he is getting.
IF the total wages bill is say $28M, and IF he is effectively getting $1.4M, then they are making a rod for their own back.

Isn't it just a reaction to the market that the top handful of stars are offered dramatically bigger contracts than the players slightly below that who might be really good test players but aren't seen as being amongst the top echelon of players?