Boomer
Alfred Walker (16)
Wait?
What?
Now we care about deadlines? I though we gave up on that idea about 48 to 72 hours ago?
Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
Wait?
What?
Now we care about deadlines? I though we gave up on that idea about 48 to 72 hours ago?
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
Super Rugby is in a bad way but it is also the way forward for professional rugby in Australia. In a saturated market, it is our point of difference. Week in week out international rugby.
The structure has become to complicated with this conference stuff. Simplify it back to each team playing each other once.
The disarray of Australian rugby is an internal issue and needs to be sorted as a separate issue. The way we manage the code within Australia isn't a matter for SANZAAR.
The structure has become to complicated with this conference stuff. Simplify it back to each team playing each other once.
The disarray of Australian rugby is an internal issue and needs to be sorted as a separate issue. The way we manage the code within Australia isn't a matter for SANZAAR.
Lots of details in this article from the DT. Basis for legal argument, who's representing who, possible actions.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...l/news-story/ff098c0925880e90e759a81e71fd0cb5
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...l/news-story/ff098c0925880e90e759a81e71fd0cb5
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sauron
Larry Dwyer (12)
Seems to me that it should be relatively easy for the ARU to make the argument that it's a different agreement, based on that. Then again, I'm not a lawyer, and the ARU have a habit of shooting themselves in the foot.
I have heard elsewhere that 5 teams seems to be highly likely for next year. I hope that's the case.
I have heard elsewhere that 5 teams seems to be highly likely for next year. I hope that's the case.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
This might be premature, but if all five teams survive for 2018, where does it all go from there? Presumably, the Force will have established their rights until at least 2020, so there should be no lingering questions hanging over their heads.
But what of the Rebels, Brumbies, Reds and Tahs?
Will the Rebels continue to be the massive drain on financial resources they seem to have been over the years? Will they even have anybody willing to take on the license?
Will the Brumbies finally put to bed the ICAC/AFP investigation, or will it put the Brumbies to bed?
Probably no change at all for the Reds and Tahs who will continue on the merry way to mediocre performances.
Will there be a forced merger of two franchises?
I think we are only just approaching the half way mark in this ongoing saga.
But what of the Rebels, Brumbies, Reds and Tahs?
Will the Rebels continue to be the massive drain on financial resources they seem to have been over the years? Will they even have anybody willing to take on the license?
Will the Brumbies finally put to bed the ICAC/AFP investigation, or will it put the Brumbies to bed?
Probably no change at all for the Reds and Tahs who will continue on the merry way to mediocre performances.
Will there be a forced merger of two franchises?
I think we are only just approaching the half way mark in this ongoing saga.
Killer
Cyril Towers (30)
No I would say it is just changes made to the same agreement, everything is the same even the end date. The only change is the proposal to change the number of teams.
For mine they are also clearly making changes against the intent of the alliance.
I would guess that even if the decision goes against the WF there would be grounds to appeal it in the Supreme Court, an open court so that would be very interesting not to mention very time consuming.
I'm also not a lawyer.
FiveStarStu
Bill McLean (32)
As I said earlier in this thread, the biggest danger the ARU have is if they successfully cut a team and next year nothing improves. Competition is dead if that happens. It'd reveal a structural failure of the code so big even the Twiggiest of investors would be rethinking their investment.
I'd suggest that a similar result out of a five team year would at least result in the Brumbies and Rebels merging.
James Pettifer
Jim Clark (26)
Maybe it is like some IT projects I have seen which will be complete in 12-18 months and it is always 12-18 months from now.
Highlander35
Andrew Slack (58)
Killer
Cyril Towers (30)
It seems to most fair minded people that the ARU does not have the right to cut the Force based on their change of broadcast agreement argument. How this relates to the law I don't know.
The Following thanks to Shasta TWF
The Following thanks to Shasta TWF
TELEGRAPH - UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-uni...nd-resolution/
ABITRATION BEGINS as ARU and Western Force WORK TOGETHER TO FIND A RESOLUTIOM TO DILEMMA.
Ben Coles
31 JULY 2017 • 1:19PM
The latest phase of the Australian Rugby Union's long-winded process to remove one of their five teams from Super Rugby began on Monday, when the governing body entered into arbitration with the Western Force.
Back in April the ARU announced that in accordance with an agreement with SANZAAR that one of their sides would be removed from the competition ahead of 2018.
South Africa has already fulfilled its part of the agreement, announcing at the start of July that the Southern Kings and Cheetahs were both being cut as the competition reverts from 18 teams back to 15 - five from New Zealand, four from Australia, four from South Africa, plus one respectively from Argentina and Japan.
Meanwhile players from the Force and Melbourne Rebels, the other franchise previously believed to be in the frame for the axe, are now no closer in August to knowing whether they will need to find a new team for next year.
A "48-72 hour" timeline was originally put in place by ARU chairman Cameron Clyne back in April, an estimate that has looked increasingly absurd as the months have gone by.
Removing the Rebels has always appeared to be a tougher task for the ARU given they are privately-owned by millionaire Andrew Cox, who took over the franchise in 2015, with the ARU now needing to pay A$13 million (£7.9m) to buy Cox out.
The Perth-based Force meanwhile, first introduced to the competition in 2006, have fought tooth and nail this year both on and off the field to preserve their Super Rugby status, finishing with the second-highest points total of the five Australia teams in this year's competition.
Local billionaire Andrew Forrest, the former CEO of Iron ore producer Fortescue Metals Group, pledged his support when speaking on the field after the Force's emphatic 40-11 win over the Waratahs to round out the season.
Forrest and the Force announced on Monday that they are now offering supporters interest-free loans to buy shares in the franchise. In other words, the Force are not going down without a fight.
Representing a rare area of rugby union in Australia in the west given the other four sides are clustered together on the east coast from Brisbane down to Melbourne, arbitration is just the first hurdle in a long battle to keep their place at the table.
Matters have been complicated further given the ARU took over the Force last year at a cost of A$4.8 million, which led to the Force's players and staff becoming ARU employees.
Part of that takeover deal with Rugby Western Australia (Rugby WA), and a key element of the arbitration process, is an alleged clause that guarantees the Force's participation in Super Rugby until 2020, the end date for the current broadcast deal agreed with SANZAAR.
"RugbyWA's position is clear. Under current arrangements the Force is entitled to participate in the Super Rugby competition until 30 December 2020," read a statement back in April.
"There is no basis on which the ARU can purport to remove the Western Force from the Super Rugby competition. The ARU must work to ensure that the Force remains based in Perth for many seasons to come."
Arbitration processes are rarely fascinating but this case bucks the trend. Victory for the Force would put the focus back on a number of unanswered questions.
Who do the ARU attempt to cut if not the Force? How severe will the financial ramifications be for the ARU, already feeling the strain? Could Super Rugby be forced to play with 16 teams instead of 15 next year?
Even if the arbitration goes the way of the ARU, the Force are unlikely to reluctantly roll over given their new and significant financial support from Forrest.
Regarded for so long as rugby union's pinnacle competition outside of internationals, even as enticing a final as Saturday's between the Lions and Crusaders at Ellis Park is not enough to distract from the fact that Super Rugby finds itself in a bit of a mess, particularly in Australia. The Force, quite rightly, are holding their ground
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-uni...nd-resolution/
ABITRATION BEGINS as ARU and Western Force WORK TOGETHER TO FIND A RESOLUTIOM TO DILEMMA.
Ben Coles
31 JULY 2017 • 1:19PM
The latest phase of the Australian Rugby Union's long-winded process to remove one of their five teams from Super Rugby began on Monday, when the governing body entered into arbitration with the Western Force.
Back in April the ARU announced that in accordance with an agreement with SANZAAR that one of their sides would be removed from the competition ahead of 2018.
South Africa has already fulfilled its part of the agreement, announcing at the start of July that the Southern Kings and Cheetahs were both being cut as the competition reverts from 18 teams back to 15 - five from New Zealand, four from Australia, four from South Africa, plus one respectively from Argentina and Japan.
Meanwhile players from the Force and Melbourne Rebels, the other franchise previously believed to be in the frame for the axe, are now no closer in August to knowing whether they will need to find a new team for next year.
A "48-72 hour" timeline was originally put in place by ARU chairman Cameron Clyne back in April, an estimate that has looked increasingly absurd as the months have gone by.
Removing the Rebels has always appeared to be a tougher task for the ARU given they are privately-owned by millionaire Andrew Cox, who took over the franchise in 2015, with the ARU now needing to pay A$13 million (£7.9m) to buy Cox out.
The Perth-based Force meanwhile, first introduced to the competition in 2006, have fought tooth and nail this year both on and off the field to preserve their Super Rugby status, finishing with the second-highest points total of the five Australia teams in this year's competition.
Local billionaire Andrew Forrest, the former CEO of Iron ore producer Fortescue Metals Group, pledged his support when speaking on the field after the Force's emphatic 40-11 win over the Waratahs to round out the season.
Forrest and the Force announced on Monday that they are now offering supporters interest-free loans to buy shares in the franchise. In other words, the Force are not going down without a fight.
Representing a rare area of rugby union in Australia in the west given the other four sides are clustered together on the east coast from Brisbane down to Melbourne, arbitration is just the first hurdle in a long battle to keep their place at the table.
Matters have been complicated further given the ARU took over the Force last year at a cost of A$4.8 million, which led to the Force's players and staff becoming ARU employees.
Part of that takeover deal with Rugby Western Australia (Rugby WA), and a key element of the arbitration process, is an alleged clause that guarantees the Force's participation in Super Rugby until 2020, the end date for the current broadcast deal agreed with SANZAAR.
"RugbyWA's position is clear. Under current arrangements the Force is entitled to participate in the Super Rugby competition until 30 December 2020," read a statement back in April.
"There is no basis on which the ARU can purport to remove the Western Force from the Super Rugby competition. The ARU must work to ensure that the Force remains based in Perth for many seasons to come."
Arbitration processes are rarely fascinating but this case bucks the trend. Victory for the Force would put the focus back on a number of unanswered questions.
Who do the ARU attempt to cut if not the Force? How severe will the financial ramifications be for the ARU, already feeling the strain? Could Super Rugby be forced to play with 16 teams instead of 15 next year?
Even if the arbitration goes the way of the ARU, the Force are unlikely to reluctantly roll over given their new and significant financial support from Forrest.
Regarded for so long as rugby union's pinnacle competition outside of internationals, even as enticing a final as Saturday's between the Lions and Crusaders at Ellis Park is not enough to distract from the fact that Super Rugby finds itself in a bit of a mess, particularly in Australia. The Force, quite rightly, are holding their ground
Rebels3
Jim Lenehan (48)
I love it how people overseas commenting on the issue use words like clustered on the east coast of Australia, almost like it's a short drive. Melbourne to Brisbane is the equivalent of driving from London and ending up in the middle of Africa somewhere. Sydney to Canberra is the equivalent of London to Dublin and Melbourne to Canberra the equivalent of London to Berlin. Perth to any of these places would seem like the other side of the world to them. This is the sad thing with this, if a team goes that's it for that area. No team is going to benefit crowd wise or through junior catchment. Well maybe junior for act to nsw but that's not going to happen in a million years. If a team is merged, one area will eventually be swolled up.
James Pettifer
Jim Clark (26)
Surprisingly not on Super Rugby but Sean Williams comments on the Pro12 expansion. Currently to be announced tomorrow and start in 5 weeks.
The Kings say that they basically don't have a team at the moment (http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/SuperRugby/kings-face-struggle-to-be-ready-for-pro12-20170725) and will have to start from scratch.
On the negative side for Rugby, the Cricketers look like that they will work out their pay deal which will mean that the ARU can continue as the worst sports governing body in Australia.
D
daz
Guest
Just FYI, breaking news from the ARU/Force Arbitration:
My sources* confirm that at the mid-way point of the second day, it has been agreed that everyone is who they say they are.
Arguments are about to commence from both sides on the first and most pressing concern; lunch.
*I made that up.
My sources* confirm that at the mid-way point of the second day, it has been agreed that everyone is who they say they are.
Arguments are about to commence from both sides on the first and most pressing concern; lunch.
*I made that up.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
The FFA are in a lot of bother, being threatened with an intervention from FIFA.
How many sports governing bodies are you familiar with, by the way? I think you will find that other sports have had plenty of problems.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Perhaps the OwnTheForce initiative is one worth pursuing by some, if not all, of the other teams? Especially if there's some other Twiggy Forrest's out there. Seems to me a good way of providing a big injection of funds into the grassroots and at the same time shoring up the financial strength of the teams - and giving thousands of fans a much greater connection to their team in the process.
Beer Baron
Phil Hardcastle (33)
Does that mean the shareholders have a say in the running?? The qru and NSW Ru wouldnt like being held accountable...
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
- Status