James Pettifer
Jim Clark (26)
Well, I would have contributed to Own the Force but I really didn't want to put my own team at any increased risk.
Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
Well, I would have contributed to Own the Force but I really didn't want to put my own team at any increased risk.
dru
Tim Horan (67)
I've got feathers if you have tar. BYO pitchfork.
M
Moono75
Guest
All 5 teams strike. Its happened plenty of.times.in the NFL. Please dont quote the collective bargaining agreement as the reason why they couldn't. The ARU would come to the table and change their tune in quick time.
M
Moono75
Guest
Its not about one team. So prior to the cut all teams agreed this was a terrible decision, its better to retain 5 teams, RUPA said this isnt the way forward. So if you unite and stand as one where can the ARU go? Bring in replacement players for the 5 teams? That would kill Super Rugby in one season. But they didnt have the guts to do it.
Player strikes arn't about one team its about a group standing togerher as a collective to achieve the desired outcome.
What we got was window dressing support for cameras and the players who could have stood together and changed this with the support of the rugby community did zilch.
So WA Rugby and Twiggy push on and try to effect some change in Australian Rugby with the IPL.....do the heavy lifting. So Super Ruby dies at the end of the broadcast deal. lf the IPL is a success, should the current 4 Oz Super Rugby teams be given a free ride in? What do you think all West Australian rugby supporters would say after the way we have been treated?
Killer
Cyril Towers (30)
Not just one team, 20% of the RUPA group
M
Moono75
Guest
The NFL and Major League Baseball have all had lockouts which have cancelled games despite having collective bargaining agreements in place. The teams and players had the power. Heads in the sand.
Bad things happen when good people stand idly by. Never more true in a sporting context.
Bad things happen when good people stand idly by. Never more true in a sporting context.
T
TOCC
Guest
It wouldn't have resolved anything.. ARU had put pen to paper and agree to cut a team before the teams were informed, the ARU locked themselves Into a binding contract, which was the $80million figure presented to TF to save the Force, it's also why at the EGM the decision to cut a team was supported, again because the contractural obligations the ARU agreed to with SANZAAR presented no alternative.
A strike would have only exacerbated the financial issue further im afraid.
The torpedo
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Adding to this, NBA players went on strike as well back in 2011. And while it isn't recent, F1 drivers went on strike at the 1982 South African GP over superlicences and a couple of other rules that FISA (pre-cursor to the FIA) wanted to bring in
Aurelius
Ted Thorn (20)
In other words, the player's union is basically useless for anything other than offering tea and sympathy. If there couldn't be a player strike or any other consequential action, at the very least we didn't need to have the chairman of Rugby NSW declaring that his region should get the lion's share of the saved money, or the media reports about other unions "greedily eyeing up" our playing list, or leaks to journalists naming the players who are going to jump ship to the Rebels on the happy day that the Force finally fold. One thing that was made clear in the recent cricketers' strike was how much they saw themselves as part of a family - men, women, Test stars and Shield rookies. They were all for one and one for all. All that was made clear in this sorry tale was how disposable the Force and Western Australian rugby are to the rest of the country, and how so much of the game is run by petty opportunists. For the record, I'd feel just the same if the Force had started leaking to the West about the Rebels players we were looking to poach.
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
However, it does mean it will be interesting to watch the new CA bargaining rounds when they resume and if RUPA they can stall it in to next year...........
andrewM
Herbert Moran (7)
I'm not sure if the second point I was trying to make was clear;
Yes I am super pissed that one team's supporters did sweet FA and wasn't touched, again making a mockery of the whole process.
The second point being don't think just because you've got a piece of paper you are protected. The ARU won't bat an eyelid when you have to mortgage the house for the third time. There won't be an Uncle Clyde next time and kind Mr Twiggy down the road won't be interested.
Yes I am super pissed that one team's supporters did sweet FA and wasn't touched, again making a mockery of the whole process.
The second point being don't think just because you've got a piece of paper you are protected. The ARU won't bat an eyelid when you have to mortgage the house for the third time. There won't be an Uncle Clyde next time and kind Mr Twiggy down the road won't be interested.
The difference between the NBA, NFL lockouts and the Super situation is that the players are facing radically different outcomes in the current situation.
In the US, all players faced a similar fate - a collective bargaining agreement that wasn't to their satisfaction. So a strike was in the interests of the entire player group.
But in Super, while 20% of the player cohort stands to lose everything, the other 80% will actually see their salaries rise. So as much as the 'all for one and one for all' sentiment is noble, I'm not actually sure how many Tahs, Reds, Brumbies and Rebels would actually stand up for something that would see their earnings diminished.
RUPA are not the playing group in this case. RUPA wanted their membership base to be as large as possible, so having the Force in Super Rugby was very much in its interests.
If you were a fringe player at the Brumbies, why would you surrender your earnings to strike for an outcome that would see you potentially on less cash?
.
In the US, all players faced a similar fate - a collective bargaining agreement that wasn't to their satisfaction. So a strike was in the interests of the entire player group.
But in Super, while 20% of the player cohort stands to lose everything, the other 80% will actually see their salaries rise. So as much as the 'all for one and one for all' sentiment is noble, I'm not actually sure how many Tahs, Reds, Brumbies and Rebels would actually stand up for something that would see their earnings diminished.
RUPA are not the playing group in this case. RUPA wanted their membership base to be as large as possible, so having the Force in Super Rugby was very much in its interests.
If you were a fringe player at the Brumbies, why would you surrender your earnings to strike for an outcome that would see you potentially on less cash?
.
Killer
Cyril Towers (30)
The old tactic of divide and conquer. If they cut another team it will still only be 25% unhappy campers and 75% happy. That's good, it saves those in control having to make intelligent decisions. Such as asking those that they work for whether they should sign a contract killing off a team before doing it!
The ARU were firmly of the view that they would be insolvent within two years if they didn't cut a team.
Everything has be framed with that in mind. Whether the ARU were correct in that belief is impossible to know because you can't play out both situations.
If the ARU were of that belief and didn't act and then did become insolvent in 2019 would it really have been an intelligent decision not to act?
Everything has be framed with that in mind. Whether the ARU were correct in that belief is impossible to know because you can't play out both situations.
If the ARU were of that belief and didn't act and then did become insolvent in 2019 would it really have been an intelligent decision not to act?
Killer
Cyril Towers (30)
Such major decisions need to take all members along with the process. Do you think all the member unions cannot make intelligent decisions.
I would think this type of decision would and should be taken to the members with all the facts.
Not up to them to act as God for their employers.
I would think this type of decision would and should be taken to the members with all the facts.
Not up to them to act as God for their employers.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
How does the expected rise in payments to the remainder sit with supply and demand economics? The demand for players has suddenly reduced by 20%, while the supply of players (all things being equal) increases by 25% over the new market. Just how does that lead to higher payments? Not to mention that the reduced future income expected from any renegotiated TV deal will put further downwards pressure on player payments.
The ARU are charged with making these decisions. They are the peak body for the sport in the country.
They are not merely a representative body of the state unions. That is the major aspect that changed under the Arbib review.
Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
Things aren't equal - there's a very large demand for players from overseas, and the NRL player payments are going up too. What increases is the ARU's supply of money to meet the demand for competitive professional players - or at least the supply isn't likely to decrease (paycuts!) with the financial drain of 4 teams rather than 5
- Status