Where to for Super Rugby?

[Braveheart81]

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.”

I don't think the press release matters. The broadcast agreement and the variations agreed to it are going to be what was used to determine the outcome of the arbitration, not the statement made by SANZAAR.

Presumably the response to this question is that the broadcasters agreed to continue paying the same amount of money whilst agreeing to a change in format from 18 to 15 teams with one extra round.

 

[Killer]

I don't think the press release matters. The broadcast agreement and the variations agreed to it are going to be what was used to determine the outcome of the arbitration, not the statement made by SANZAAR.

Presumably the response to this question is that the broadcasters agreed to continue paying the same amount of money whilst agreeing to a change in format from 18 to 15 teams with one extra round.

if we are talking about points of law. The boss of sanzaar says it is the same agreement and no new agreement has been signed to counter this. if it walks like a duck!

 

[Braveheart81]

if we are talking about points of law. The boss of sanzaar says it is the same agreement and no new agreement has been signed to counter this. if it walks like a duck!

Yet no one making the connections that these public statements indicate that there is no new agreement has seen whatever the variation agreement was that agreed that the same money would be paid for a 15 team comp with one extra round.

Clearly there is some sort of document that exists that was signed by SANZAAR and the broadcast partner agreeing to the changes. If there wasn't, we wouldn't be in the position we are now.

If you are talking about the SANZAAR CEO's statement when the announcement was made I'm pretty sure no court or arbitration hearing is going to consider that the primary document to determine the case.

 

[I like to watch]

if we are talking about points of law. The boss of sanzaar says it is the same agreement and no new agreement has been signed to counter this. if it walks like a duck!

But unfortunately that's not the law.
It might walk like a duck and sound like a duck, but when lawyers get involved, we discover that the DNA slightly differs and now the argument rests on a ridiculously minor technical point about definitions.

 

[BLR]

Essentially what everyone is saying Killer is SANZAAR lied to the public and the actual documents presumably very different.

 

[Killer]

But unfortunately that's not the law.
It might walk like a duck and sound like a duck, but when lawyers get involved, we discover that the DNA slightly differs and now the argument rests on a ridiculously minor technical point about definitions.

ok maybe the duck analogy is wrong, read it without that quote.

However you want to argue it, Braveheart, it is still just alterations/amendments to the same agreement. There is no new BROADCAST agreement, sorry about the capitals.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Is there a Natural Justice aspect or obligation from the ARU towards the Force in the process leading to its decision? If so, is it possible the ARU hasn't provided the Force with all the evidence that they have used in making their decision, or allowed the Force to make its case against the evidence provided? From the public evidence, it seems the "speadsheet" containing all of the material evidence wasn't made public until after the decision was brought down.

 

[BLR]

From the public evidence, it seems the "speadsheet" containing all of the material evidence wasn't made public until after the decision was brought down.

RugbyWA have seen the spreadsheet and the arguments are incorrect and bullshit apparently, so I would say that is more just enough deceitful piece of propaganda by the ARU to keep the masses satisfied.

How do you fight a point when the reasoning behind it is incorrect but the ARU still push through and say it is indeed correct despite the evidence?

 

[Killer]

Is there a Natural Justice aspect or obligation from the ARU towards the Force in the process leading to its decision? If so, is it possible the ARU hasn't provided the Force with all the evidence that they have used in making their decision, or allowed the Force to make its case against the evidence provided? From the public evidence, it seems the "speadsheet" containing all of the material evidence wasn't made public until after the decision was brought down.

in conjunction with BLR and your comments BRunner, Boomer posted this on the Force thread.
http://nedlandsrugby.com.au/2017/08/17/super-rugby-saga-becomes-scandal/

 

[Slim 293]

Thanks to Oztimmay in the Rebels thread........

This contradicts the conspiracy theories coming from the west:

WE told you here a few weeks back about the 10-year content deal being negotiated between the Victorian government, the VRU, the Rebels and the ARU.


Our sources down Mexico way say is worth closer to $13-14 million than $20m, and whatsmore, it still hasn’t been finalised.


The Victorian government threatened to pull the deal off the table several times in recent months to secure the Rebels’ future but the ARU refused to sign it so they could keep the option open of closing Melbourne down, should Rugby WA win arbitration.

But with financial backers who wanted to stay firmly in the background, the VRU outmanoeuvred the ARU by managing to convince Andrew Cox to give the Rebels licence back to them for $1.


They knew the ARU had agreed to the “put option” in the original licence agreement with Cox, and furthermore, knew the ARU wouldn’t want to challenge them on it legally.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...l/news-story/62d1e97b4f6eaf6c1128e5747c597600

 

[Killer]

Thanks to Oztimmay in the Rebels thread....

This contradicts the conspiracy theories coming from the west:



http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...l/news-story/62d1e97b4f6eaf6c1128e5747c597600

well they are the ARU's mouthpiece

 

[BLR]

This contradicts the conspiracy theories coming from the west:

Oh piss off mate.

There are articles claiming that the ARU's signature was on the transfer documents and other articles saying Pulver was sitting in early transfer meetings.

What exactly is a conspiracy about a mountain of different, but similar stories coming out with the same general story opposed to one article contradicting all of that?

EDIT: Besides, this matches the idea that the ARU weren't told about the transfer which has been denied by the VRU and the only one that seems to be holding this version of events is the ARU themselves and now this article.

 

[Slim 293]

well they are the ARU's mouthpiece

 

[Slim 293]

Oh piss off mate.

There are articles claiming that the ARU's signature was on the transfer documents and other articles saying Pulver was sitting in early transfer meetings.

What exactly is a conspiracy about a mountain of different, but similar stories coming out with the same general story opposed to one article contradicting all of that?

There's a whole lot of conjecture floating around............

There isn't really any solid information to back up those claims though.

 

[I like to watch]

ok maybe the duck analogy is wrong, read it without that quote.

However you want to argue it, Braveheart, it is still just alterations/amendments to the same agreement. There is no new BROADCAST agreement, sorry about the capitals.

You don't see that the argument has now narrowed over the definition of new?

I agree with your point that there are enough common points in the original & 'revised' agreements,that common sense says it's not new.
But unfortunately common sense quite often is not a feature of the legal system.

 

[Braveheart81]

Essentially what everyone is saying Killer is SANZAAR lied to the public and the actual documents presumably very different.

Not really. SANZAAR saying they are still receiving the same amount of money from the broadcasters equals the same agreement in terms of what you're making as a public statement makes perfect sense.

The fact that legally there has been a variation to the agreement agreed to come up with that solution is not something you are going to go to in fine detail in a press release.

ok maybe the duck analogy is wrong, read it without that quote.

However you want to argue it, Braveheart, it is still just alterations/amendments to the same agreement. There is no new BROADCAST agreement, sorry about the capitals.

This where the legal technicalities come in. Clearly it has been found that a variation to the original agreement equates to the original agreement no longer being in place.

 

[Killer]

You don't see that the argument has now narrowed over the definition of new?

I agree with your point that there are enough common points in the original & 'revised' agreements,that common sense says it's not new.
But unfortunately common sense quite often is not a feature of the legal system.

I thought the alliance agreement hinged on the current b/cast agreement, therefore the alliance agreement is valid as long as there is not a new b/cast agreement. As you say a narrow point of law.
Also reading between the lines on TWF, this line of argument was not followed and it was not even known by the legal team that these comments existed???

 

[BLR]

Not really. SANZAAR saying they are still receiving the same amount of money from the broadcasters equals the same agreement in terms of what you're making as a public statement makes perfect sense.

The fact that legally there has been a variation to the agreement agreed to come up with that solution is not something you are going to go to in fine detail in a press release.

Could they not have just said that they have signed a new agreement with similar terms in regards to money etc. instead of saying it is within the existing agreement?

That isn't particularly fine detail needed but is pretty important considering what has occured since.

 

[OffsideAgain]

Cat meet pigeons...

 

[stoff]

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/

That it's a press release not a legal document. Whatever instrument was used for the new or amended Rv deal is the only thing that matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk