Where to for Super Rugby?

[TOCC]

And that's also the problem with the two cut south African sides moving north, it does nothing to concentrate their player pool either. SAANZAR have made an absolute meal of this, right there alongside the aru.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

It's surely the elephant in the room at SANZAAR... did SARU have plans to take teams north before they approached/backed the idea with the rest of the SANZAAR board.

 

[Wilson]

Absolutely, and while there's no excuse for the aru's shambolic handling of this mess it's the lack of leadership, vision and direction from SAANZAR that's ultimately going to kill super rugby. Can't really blame SA for looking for alternatives, wish the aru were that proactive

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

Absolutely, and while there's no excuse for the aru's shambolic handling of this mess it's the lack of leadership, vision and direction from SAANZAR that's ultimately going to kill super rugby. Can't really blame SA for looking for alternatives, wish the aru were that proactive

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Super rugby being killed isn't the worst thing to happen to Australian rugby.

 

[Wilson]

Depends on the way it dies, right now it's doing it via our collapse which is not great

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

Super rugby being killed isn't the worst thing to happen to Australian rugby.

No, but it's the difference between something squealing in pain as it dies a painful death, as opposed to quickly putting it out of its misery

 

[Quick Hands]

Depends on the way it dies, right now it's doing it via our collapse which is not great

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Largely self-inflicted one must say.

 

[Quick Hands]

No, but it's the difference between something squealing in pain as it dies a painful death, as opposed to quickly putting it out of its misery

Unfortunately a slow death is what we're going to see. The only hope of a quick extinction is if crowds and TV viewer numbers continue south.

At the moment it's a bit like standing on the bridge of the Titanic, we're just heading towards the iceberg and the ship isn't answering the helm.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

It's surely the elephant in the room at SANZAAR. did SARU have plans to take teams north before they approached/backed the idea with the rest of the SANZAAR board.

All reports indicating SARU had planned well ahead a soft landing for two teams cut. Its called 'strategic planning' - something the ARU should perhaps learn to do - but apparently the word 'strategic' and 'planning' is something they think can be done in 48-72 hours.

 

[Mr Doug]

First question: what law, or company rule, have they broken?

oztimmay, it doesn't necessarily need to involve the "breaking of a law, or company rule". It can be a 'public perception'.
If Cheika said, "I'm going to ask my players to try and put as many All Blacks in hospital on Saturday, as they can", that isn't breaking any 'law, or company rule', but it could be perceived as "bringing the game into disrepute"!!
I also feel that there must be several businesses aligned to the Western Force, and the WA State Government that could lodge a "restraint of trade" action against the ARU, under the 'Trade Practices Act of 1974, (as amended)'.

 

[oztimmay]

oztimmay, it doesn't necessarily need to involve the "breaking of a law, or company rule". It can be a 'public perception'.

Yes, public perception is a powerful thing. People will vote with their feet, e.g. not attending fixtures. However, youv've talked about launching court proceedings for "bringing the game into disrepute. I don't recall any criminal code that has this enshrined as in law. Feel free to enlighten me if you know of one.

Making this argument in court would be tantamout to describing the bad "vibe" of the situation.

BTW - if Twiggy tries that line, he can use this guy to run the case.

If Cheika said, "I'm going to ask my players to try and put as many All Blacks in hospital on Saturday, as they can", that isn't breaking any 'law, or company rule', but it could be perceived as "bringing the game into disrepute"!!

Wouldn't that be inciting violence? Something I believe is against the law across Australia state and territories?

I also feel that there must be several businesses aligned to the Western Force, and the WA State Government that could lodge a "restraint of trade" action against the ARU, under the 'Trade Practices Act of 1974, (as amended)'.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010, but we're splitting hairs.

But do you really think the businesses aligned to the Western Force would do something so drastic that they could tarnish their own brand? Take a look at their partner's page for example:

https://www.westernforce.com.au/partners. some thoughts

• Three of those partners are WA government entities. Sure the WA government could attempt to restrain their trade, but I do;t think the government is in the business of stopping free enterprise in their respective. states. doesn't tend to win votes, and it takes them away from the core business of running a government. Any state government action might have an equally tough action from a federal government who doesn't want state government meddling with national sporting bodies.
• BMW - already a Wallaby partner, can't see them jeopardizing that relationship.
• BLK - the Wallabies already have an appreal partner, won't be worried about a smaller player trying
• Pindan - Wallabies already have Buildcorp, but admittedly the relationship is on shaky ground for other reasons.
• CD Dodd - not sure how to even compare this one...
• AFEX - not sure they would worry about a share trading / FX platform. Plenty of others around to use.
• Clough - see Pindan response

So, you can see the known associated business _could_ try and restrain trade, but I think it would be worth the financial effort. They would get better results with a social media campaign, and even that is questionable.

 

[zer0]

Yes, public perception is a powerful thing. People will vote with their feet, e.g. not attending fixtures. However, youv've talked about launching court proceedings for "bringing the game into disrepute. I don't recall any criminal code that has this enshrined as in law. Feel free to enlighten me if you know of one.

I'm no lawyer, but the 1985 All Blacks tour to South Africa was halted via an injunction based on a clause in the NZRU's constitution stating it was obliged to act within the best interests of the game. I imagine that would be just about the closest example you'd get.

But, as I say, I'm no lawyer, so have no idea how applicable (or not) it is to this situation.

 

[dru]

^^^
ozT, I love the self righteousness. Clearly legal ground here on bringing the sport into disrepute has little standing at law. Feel happy after your rant? Condescension from a profession, much? Well done.

Law and ethics however are not necessarily aligned. This will be born out in the world of popular opinion.

I cant see many thinking that the ARU have made a solid start.

 

[kiap]

I'm no lawyer, but the 1985 All Blacks tour to South Africa was halted via an injunction based on a clause in the NZRU's constitution stating it was obliged to act within the best interests of the game. I imagine that would be just about the closest example you'd get.

But, as I say, I'm no lawyer, so have no idea how applicable (or not) it is to this situation.

Interesting one.

Public protests and calls for the 1985 All Black tour of South Africa to be cancelled fell on deaf ears at rugby union HQ. In May, Auckland lawyers and ‘grass roots rugby players’ Patrick Finnegan and Philip Recordon took the New Zealand Rugby Football Union to court. Arguing that it was in breach of its constitution, which promised to ‘promote, foster and develop the game’, they sought an injunction to stop the tour proceeding. This was not initially granted, but the plaintiffs were granted leave to test an aspect of their case in the High Court. On 13 July Justice Casey granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. With the All Blacks due to leave within days, the NZRFU had no option but to cancel the tour.​

​

The controversy stirred up memories and divisions formed during the 1981 Springbok tour of New Zealand. The sequel to the injunction was the 1986 Cavaliers rugby tour of South Africa.​

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/nzrfu-injunction-cartoon

 

[oztimmay]

^^^
ozT, I love the self righteousness. Clearly legal ground here on bringing the sport into disrepute has little standing at law. Feel happy after your rant? Condescension from a profession, much? Well done.

Law and ethics however are not necessarily aligned. This will be born out in the world of popular opinion.

I cant see many thinking that the ARU have made a solid start.

Not trying to rant, just trying to provide balance in a discussion. But sure, if you see it as a rant, I'm not going to try and change your view.

Yes, I get it, there a lot of emotion involved in this saga. Only a week ago my team was in the crosshairs. The Rebel fans collectively have felt horrible from all the uncertainty, and we can only sympathise with all the Force fans as they endure more pain. I'm lost a Football team to culling (Fitzroy), and yea it sucks to lose a team.

But, my point is that, if the Force really want to win the legal argument, they need to argue on facts of law. Attempt to bring a charge of "bring the game into disrepute" in a legal context is unlikely to succeed. I'm sure with their army of legal experts and advisors, they are trying to find a breach in law to get the culling overturned. If they find one, and can successfully prosecute the argument, then we have five oz teams. If not, then I'm sure they have other plans in train.

If it was my team, I'd be doing exactly the same thing.

I agree with you; law and ethics are not really ever aligned, hence why you see bad people literally get away with murder. If you try the ethical path, you can appeal to the inner decent human. The Force is doing a great job of this. mobilising an army of supporters through SM to help save their team. As a Rebels fan, I'm envious of their effort, as I felt we didn't focus our energy enough in this area. Something for the future.

FWIW - no, I'm not a Lawyer. Just another voice on a forum who wants Rugby working again in Oz.

 

[brokendown]

this whole situation should not have to come down to a point of law.It should be about what is fair and reasonable-something that the ARU considers irrelevant

 

[The Honey Badger]

I would like a Lawyer here to explain.

The whole thing swings on whether or not the broadcast agreement is the same agreement (or a new/different one) referred to in the agreement between WARU and ARU.

So the Force had a clause guaranteeing them a spot till the end of the broadcast agreement.

Surely the intent of that clause was very clear to both parties.

If the ARU can dodge that clause by changing another agreement (the broadcast agreement via SANZAAR) then something is unjust and must be wrong at law.

If the ARU knew at signing that clause was worthless then that has too be unscrupulous and certainly not in any good faith.

 

[stoff]

I would like a Lawyer here to explain.

The whole thing swings on whether or not the broadcast agreement is the same agreement (or a new/different one) referred to in the agreement between WARU and ARU.

So the Force had a clause guaranteeing them a spot till the end of the broadcast agreement.

Surely the intent of that clause was very clear to both parties.

If the ARU can dodge that clause by changing another agreement (the broadcast agreement via SANZAAR) then something is unjust and must be wrong at law.

If the ARU knew at signing that clause was worthless then that has too be unscrupulous and certainly not in any good faith.

I'm not a lawyer but spend around 50% of my professional life dealing with contracts and contract law so have a solid grasp of the concepts.

The issue is not with the contract. If the Force had wanted absolute security they would have insisted on a clause that guaranteed them a place until 2020 without qualification. The ARU's argument would be that a new broadcast deal is exactly the scenario the contract contemplated. Knowing nothing about the rest of the agreement, the fact that it contemplates a change in broadcast deal means RugbyWA should have considered that broadcast arrangements could change when agreeing the terms. If you don't assume the worst case, something that appears fairly innocuous can come back to haunt you.

For what it's worth i think this clause would have been given very little thought at the time, and was probably only inserted to cover the chance that super rugby fell apart completely for some reason.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

So the Force had a clause guaranteeing them a spot till the end of the broadcast agreement.

Surely the intent of that clause was very clear to both parties.

If the ARU can dodge that clause by changing another agreement (the broadcast agreement via SANZAAR) then something is unjust and must be wrong at law.

If the ARU knew at signing that clause was worthless then that has too be unscrupulous and certainly not in any good faith.

There are disagreements over contracts all the time. It is a massive area of the world's legal work and disputes.

It has to be technical because nothing else is reasonably workable.

I am sure the ARU's position would be that the Force were guaranteed a licence in the 18 team Super Rugby competition but when it dropped to 15 teams that is a different competition/broadcasting agreement and that guarantee no longer applies.

Everything the ARU did in arriving where we are now has been poorly handled, deceitful and grubby but from a legal perspective I don't think it would have been a hard decision to determine that a competition with 3 less teams and an extra round was a different broadcasting agreement to the one with 18 teams.

 

[Killer]

I'm not a lawyer but spend around 50% of my professional life dealing with contracts and contract law so have a solid grasp of the concepts.

The issue is not with the contract. If the Force had wanted absolute security they would have insisted on a clause that guaranteed them a place until 2020 without qualification. The ARU's argument would be that a new broadcast deal is exactly the scenario the contract contemplated. Knowing nothing about the rest of the agreement, the fact that it contemplates a change in broadcast deal means RugbyWA should have considered that broadcast arrangements could change when agreeing the terms. If you don't assume the worst case, something that appears fairly innocuous can come back to haunt you.

For what it's worth i think this clause would have been given very little thought at the time, and was probably only inserted to cover the chance that super rugby fell apart completely for some reason.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What is your opinion on this Stoff?

SANZAAR is delighted that its major broadcast partners have after due consideration agreed to the restructured format within the existing broadcast agreements. Our broadcast partners are an important stakeholder and their vision for Super Rugby moving forward is the same as ours.”

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/sanzaar-announcement-3-teams-to-be-cut/

 

[Lee Enfield]

I think there is a good case building against the ARU that their handling of this matter and the decision to cut the Force lacked procedural fairness, which is grounds to appeal the decision.

What I find strange is that in social media posts, both the ARU and Sanzaar continued to refer to the new broadcast deal as being still the current deal.