Western Force 2017

[lou75]

​

1. RugbyWA, it guaranteed the Force/RugbyWA involvement in the Super Rugby competition to 2020.
2. I believe it was two seperate transactions but yes.
3. The ARU own one, so five but four not owned by the ARU.
4. The Rebels should have been in the picture since day one but tbh so should the Brumbies. The ARU's ineptitude kept the Rebels & Brumbies off the chopping block originally. If they looked at the historical financial strength(with a few blips) and the growing player strength over here we wouldn't be anywhere near this picture if the ARU were smart.
5. The ARU have the license which is bundled in with the agreement for us to exist until 2020, the license wasn't cancelled.
6. The only thing I can gather is that the ARU didn't realise we actually give a shit about rugby because they can't be bother taking a flight over here to see how strong it it.

Thank you BLR
Is there a copy of the Alliance Agreement about?

 

[kiap]

Thank you BLR
Is there a copy of the Alliance Agreement about?

A public copy? Wouldn't think so. A document of contract rather than a constitution.

In saying that, I'd reckon the points above were gleaned from media reports; for the most part from statements by those in RugbyWA.

 

[Strewthcobber]

The own the Force prospectus has a lot of the details if interested

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[lou75]

A public copy? Wouldn't think so. A document of contract rather than a constitution.

In saying that, I'd reckon the points above were gleaned from media reports; for the most part from statements by those in RugbyWA.

I was hoping a copy might find its way into g&g!! just for us purists who want to hold the ARU accountable of course

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Does anyone else think that the decision is based on the fact that the ARU does not think that WA will be able to develop enough players? Eastern state players moving to Melbourne is much more palatable for the players. Disappointing I know because of the number of players coming through at the moment in WA but they are hedging that the few top line ones would make it over in the eastern states.

 

[BLR]

Does anyone else think that the decision is based on the fact that the ARU does not think that WA will be able to develop enough players? Eastern state players moving to Melbourne is much more palatable for the players. Disappointing I know because of the number of players coming through at the moment in WA but they are hedging that the few top line ones would make it over in the eastern states.

I would doubt it, considering the amount coming out of the West from such a low base and the clearly stated objective not the rely on the Eastern States it would be silly to cut that off.

 

[lou75]

did the WARU President declare his vote?

 

[BLR]

did the WARU President declare his vote?

It's RugbyWA. And no one did, that's what makes it a secret vote.

 

[GaffaCHinO]

did the WARU President declare his vote?

The Western Australian on the ARU board definitely voted against the reduction of teams back in April

 

[Forcefield]

Does anyone else think that the decision is based on the fact that the ARU does not think that WA will be able to develop enough players? Eastern state players moving to Melbourne is much more palatable for the players. Disappointing I know because of the number of players coming through at the moment in WA but they are hedging that the few top line ones would make it over in the eastern states.

No.

Good players come to the Force. TPN, Coleman, Lance. This decision was based on what was easy and what would put no noses out of joint. We are likely as not to end the season 2nd in the Aussie conference and with arguably the worst luck with injuries. We would have a bright future from here if given the chance.

 

[lou75]

It's RugbyWA. And no one did, that's what makes it a secret vote.

I get that it was secret, but VRU declared their vote before and after.

 

[Boomer]

I get that it was secret, but VRU declared their vote before and after.

Well, yes, the VRU called the meeting in tandem with RUPA. RUPA are record saying they's like five teams. So...

RugbyWA have no reason to declare anything. Again, it's a secret vote. Stupid rule, fyi, but it's a secret. So...

 

[lou75]

Well, yes, the VRU called the meeting in tandem with RUPA. RUPA are record saying they's like five teams. So.

RugbyWA have no reason to declare anything. Again, it's a secret vote. Stupid rule, fyi, but it's a secret. So.

well it would be interesting to have it on record whether RugbyWA voted to keep five or not seeing as the Force are one of the two teams in danger. As far as VRU was concerned, despite some differences with Cox in the past, according to their constitution they were bound to act to develop rugby in the state of Victoria and so to vote for a Super Rugby team cull when our team may be cut, would be to vote against their constitution - how about some transparency from RugbyWA or is this secret men's business that only those inside the tent can know about - if you all have nothing to hide, then speak up and declare the vote.

 

[GaffaCHinO]

well it would be interesting to have it on record whether RugbyWA voted to keep five or not seeing as the Force are one of the two teams in danger. As far as VRU was concerned, despite some differences with Cox in the past, according to their constitution they were bound to act to develop rugby in the state of Victoria and so to vote for a Super Rugby team cull when our team may be cut, would be to vote against their constitution - how about some transparency from RugbyWA or is this secret men's business that only those inside the tent can know about - if you all have nothing to hide, then speak up and declare the vote.

Going by the Forces ceo's statement at the members meeting I would be pretty confident in saying that rugbywa supported the reduction to 4 teams.

You can watch the meeting here and see for yourself

 

[BLR]

I get that it was secret, but VRU declared their vote before and after.

And the VRU also declared they would be seeking clarity over the process during the EGM, which they did not. Their declaration means little.

 

[lou75]

The ARU limited the vote to three issues only and they glossed over the process - they were asked to table documents re the process which they made available to the member unions prior to the egm however these documents were heavily redacted.

 

[BLR]

The ARU limited the vote to three issues only and they glossed over the process - they were asked to table documents re the process which they made available to the member unions prior to the egm however these documents were heavily redacted.

So instead of having two issues related to 5 teams largely putting all their eggs in the same basket they could have had one relating to 5 teams and one about 'what is the criteria for cutting a team' like they said they would. If the criteria was ridiculous they could have achieved the aim of having 5 teams as I don't think the ARU have a proper criteria set up, proving ineptitude.

They ballsed it up.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

No.

Good players come to the Force. TPN, Coleman, Lance. This decision was based on what was easy and what would put no noses out of joint. We are likely as not to end the season 2nd in the Aussie conference and with arguably the worst luck with injuries. We would have a bright future from here if given the chance.

I completely disagree with that. TPN went to the Force by default after failing his medical with Bristol and the tahs had already signed three hookers. Coleman and Lance both went to the Force for an opportunity. Coleman had played only one game (ironically against the Force) and Lance played 10-12 games over a two seasons. I do take on the point from BLR that the number of players of a small base is really good however I am not sure that there will be enough over the next 5-10 years to support a team. The Force have not recruited a genuine top line player since the firepower days. Don't get me wrong lots of the signings have been good and the players have played hard.

 

[lou75]

Going by the Forces ceo's statement at the members meeting I would be pretty confident in saying that rugbywa supported the reduction to 4 teams.

You can watch the meeting here and see for yourself

I can't understand why the state members didn't vote together to keep the five franchises - surely if WA, VIC, SA, NT & TAS formed a block with RUPA they could have won the vote and Force (and Rebels) would be safe - now we are just sitting ducks while NSW, QLD & ACT line their ducks up. (As an aside, I understand that Tahs, Reds, Brumbies voted to cut and Rebels abstained - which would have produced a tied vote - only needed one to cross over to keep five alive - and by the way, this could have resolved the issues Force is facing)

 

[Braveheart81]

I can't understand why the state members didn't vote together to keep the five franchises - surely if WA, VIC, SA, NT & TAS formed a block with RUPA they could have won the vote and Force (and Rebels) would be safe - now we are just sitting ducks while NSW, QLD & ACT line their ducks up. (As an aside, I understand that Tahs, Reds, Brumbies voted to cut and Rebels abstained - which would have produced a tied vote - only needed one to cross over to keep five alive - and by the way, this could have resolved the issues Force is facing)

Each resolution by the members needed a 75% vote to be carried.