Where to for Super Rugby?

[Moono75]

I would have thought if the Force Alliance Agreement hinged so importantly on the Broadcast deal and the KEY assurance was that the Force were guaranteed to remain in the competition until the end of that deal in 2020, then any variation to that broadcast deal would require the ARU to negotiate in good faith a variation to the Alliance Agreement with the Force.

The ARU have basically got a Ford Falcon, taken the badges off it, stuck a Mercedes logo on it and said, nah mate your wrong, fair dinkum this cars a Mercedes! It still looks like a Ford, drives like a Ford, the nuts and bolts are still a Ford, putting a new badge on it don't make it German!!

 

[Killer]

The consideration is money paid. Whether or not the amount changed from the original agreement is irrelevant as it is ongoing payment.

Your argument might be valid if the payment was made in full at the beginning of the contract, and they sought to change the terms without further payment. Not the case.

Edit: I'm pretty certain the terms can be changed by consent regardless of whether the contract was originally legally commenced. (Note: i don't really deal with contractual issues too often).

Double edit: if a contract is not technically correct it is not necessarily void ab initio. In some circumstances it can simply be deemed voidable, which means the parties can choose to adhere to the contract anyway.

Are you saying that the consideration doesn't matter here? sorry I'm confused by your edits.
Do these edits mean that the broadcast agreement could possibly be claimed as a new agreement.
Thanks, I know its all guess work without being there.

 

[Derpus]

^^^^^
If its an entirely new agreement then what happened in the past agreement is irrelevant. If you are changing the terms of an existing agreement then that can be done by consent. Consideration doesn't really factor in as long as there is some (for the contract to remain valid).

Even if the contract has a defect, it may not be completely void and null. In some cases the contract can still operate and the parties can continue to rely on it.

Moono: It may be that the Force's agreement was an ancillery contract to the TV rights deal, meaning it was dependent on the main contract existing under it's original terms.

Disclaimer: i practice in an area of law that really doesn't require me to be an expert on contracts.

 

[Killer]

^^^^^
If its an entirely new agreement then what happened in the past agreement is irrelevant. If you are changing the terms of an existing agreement then that can be done by consent. Consideration doesn't really factor in as long as there is some (for the contract to remain valid).

Even if the contract has a defect, it may not be completely void and null. In some cases the contract can still operate and the parties can continue to rely on it.

Moono: It may be that the Force's agreement was an ancillery contract to the TV rights deal, meaning it was dependent on the main contract existing under it's original terms.

Disclaimer: i practice in an area of law that really doesn't require me to be an expert on contracts.

Yes thanks, so based on your first para there is an argument, from what we know, that the amendments do not mean that we have a new agreement. Basically its not cut and dried at all?

 

[Derpus]

I'd be surprised if they amended the agreement and came out and said they had a new agreement. But also i guess the distinction wouldn't seem important for a press release.

But yes, we can't in any way determine what they have done without more information that we cannot access.

 

[Killer]

I'd be surprised if they amended the agreement and came out and said they had a new agreement. But also i guess the distinction wouldn't seem important for a press release.

But yes, we can't in any way determine what they have done without more information that we cannot access.

Thanks Derpus, that's been very helpful

 

[Lee Enfield]

I'd be surprised if they amended the agreement and came out and said they had a new agreement. But also i guess the distinction wouldn't seem important for a press release.

But yes, we can't in any way determine what they have done without more information that we cannot access.

Which is probably why the Sanzaar press release didn't call it a new agreement.

Considering that a new agreement was the justification the Aru needed to cut the force and comply with Sanzaar's decision to reduce the number of teams, the details in the press release might be more important.

 

[Killer]

Which is probably why the Sanzaar press release didn't call it a new agreement.

Considering that a new agreement was the justification the Aru needed to cut the force and comply with Sanzaar's decision to reduce the number of teams, the details in the press release might be more important.

Yes as you said.

Coles is very experienced, but not seeing or even knowing about the press release, which I suspect is the case, could be advantageous to the WF appeal application?

 

[Braveheart81]

Coles is very experienced, but not seeing or even knowing about the press release, which I suspect is the case, could be advantageous to the WF appeal application?

Why?

It's irrelevant to the question at hand. The agreement and any variations to it are the relevant pieces of information in the dispute, not what people said about it.

 

[Killer]

Why?

It's irrelevant to the question at hand. The agreement and any variations to it are the relevant pieces of information in the dispute, not what people said about it.

I'm no lawyer, but for mine it gives a different start point. The ARU first has to discredit the press release. Maybe there are other documents that also refer to the agreement just being an amended agreement.
All guess work.

 

[Slim 293]

The press release would be irrelevant.............

All that matters is what's in the contracts themselves.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm no lawyer, but for mine it gives a different start point. The ARU first has to discredit the press release. Maybe there are other documents that also refer to the agreement just being an amended agreement.
All guess work.

No they don't. There is no onus on the ARU to prove anything.

The starting point is that the ARU has cancelled the licence of the Western Force.

The Western Force need to prove that they weren't legally entitled to take that step due to the alliance agreement.

From there the ARU needs to show that the alliance agreement was no longer binding on them because the broadcast agreement had changed (or potentially that it was never binding to begin with).

I think the SANZAAR press release is a complete furphy and has no impact on the dispute.

 

[Killer]

No they don't. There is no onus on the ARU to prove anything.

The starting point is that the ARU has cancelled the licence of the Western Force.

The Western Force need to prove that they weren't legally entitled to take that step due to the alliance agreement.

From there the ARU needs to show that the alliance agreement was no longer binding on them because the broadcast agreement had changed (or potentially that it was never binding to begin with).

I think the SANZAAR press release is a complete furphy and has no impact on the dispute.

ok

 

[Lee Enfield]

What was said by Sanzar, as Braveheart said, isn't important to the case, as that will be determined by the facts.
The statement potentially shows that publicly at least, Sanzaar do not regard this as a new contract. It also shows that publicly, the Aru and Sanzaar aren't necessarily playing off the same sheet of music.

Essentially the statement just adds fuel to the fire for the masses who aren't privy to all the information and potentially gives insight on how Sanzaar view this agreement.

 

[stoff]

This is an appeal with extremely limited scope. The facts are now the facts. This isn't a new court case. There is no opportunity to introduce new evidence.

The appeal of granted, is limited to an obvious error of law. Ie how the arbitrator applied the law to the facts.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

The statement potentially shows that publicly at least, Sanzaar do not regard this as a new contract.

Or is it just the easiest way to express the fact that they've convinced the broadcasters to pay the same amount of money for less product in a re-organised structure?

It clearly isn't an entirely new contract.

Would any CEO write a press release going into intricacies of it being a variation to an existing contract when that detail is irrelevant to the message they are releasing?

Clearly the SANZAAR CEO wasn't making the statement as a legal disclosure of what had been agreed to. It was a somewhat triumphant announcement that they'd still be getting the same revenue for a change in format that they hoped would revitalise the competition.

 

[Derpus]

No they don't. There is no onus on the ARU to prove anything.

The starting point is that the ARU has cancelled the licence of the Western Force.

The Western Force need to prove that they weren't legally entitled to take that step due to the alliance agreement.

From there the ARU needs to show that the alliance agreement was no longer binding on them because the broadcast agreement had changed (or potentially that it was never binding to begin with).

I think the SANZAAR press release is a complete furphy and has no impact on the dispute.

Yeah this is where the concept of an ancillary contract comes in. If they could establish that the contract was ancillary then when they changed their contractual agreement with SANZAAR the contract with the Force becomes void and they have every right to do whatever they want. My guess is this is what happened. Just a guess though.

 

[Lee Enfield]

Or is it just the easiest way to express the fact that they've convinced the broadcasters to pay the same amount of money for less product in a re-organised structure?

It clearly isn't an entirely new contract.

Would any CEO write a press release going into intricacies of it being a variation to an existing contract when that detail is irrelevant to the message they are releasing?

Clearly the SANZAAR CEO wasn't making the statement as a legal disclosure of what had been agreed to. It was a somewhat triumphant announcement that they'd still be getting the same revenue for a change in format that they hoped would revitalise the competition.

All good points and they probably form the basis of the decision of the arbitrator.

Using new agreement probably would have helped the aru in the public selling of the decision and perception.

 

[chiraag]

So if the contract is void, does the license go back to RugbyWA?

 

[Derpus]

Which contract?

In short, no.