• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Where to for Super Rugby?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ACT Crusader

Jim Lenehan (48)
The right to appeal is pretty limited and leave is required. I doubt this part of the legal stoush will take long.

As I understand it they are not appealing a decision by a Tribunal or Court so leave would not be required. To gain any injunctive relief to restrain the ARU from acting on the outcome of what was essentially private arbitration, they would need to win the arguable question to be tried and balance of convenience tests. Not necessarily easy cases to win.
 

Killer

Cyril Towers (30)
As I understand it they are not appealing a decision by a Tribunal or Court so leave would not be required. To gain any injunctive relief to restrain the ARU from acting on the outcome of what was essentially private arbitration, they would need to win the arguable question to be tried and balance of convenience tests. Not necessarily easy cases to win.


Clearly I'm not a lawyer, I assume you are only discussing the arbitration issue.
Do you see scope for other not directly related legal action.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
I think things will move relatively quickly now.

The ARU and SANZAAR will push ahead on the basis that the Force are cut.

Whilst a legal challenge will be announced I think the time frame makes it likely that players will start to announce new destinations for next year.

What's certain is there is going to be a lot of the ARU's dirty laundry aired in the next couple of weeks.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Depends if there's and injunction in place or not.

If RWA get an injunction to stop the ARU carrying out their decision then nothing will happen. At all.
 

swingpass

Peter Sullivan (51)
I think it will be hard to stop anything. The staff and players ALL work for the ARU. One would assume their contracts reflect that and will go where told or be paid out.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
As I understand it they are not appealing a decision by a Tribunal or Court so leave would not be required. To gain any injunctive relief to restrain the ARU from acting on the outcome of what was essentially private arbitration, they would need to win the arguable question to be tried and balance of convenience tests. Not necessarily easy cases to win.

Sporting bodies in Australia have a fairly low success rate in the courts when trying to exclude teams from competitions. The club/franchise nearly always wins. Just ask the NSWRL.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
I think it will be hard to stop anything. The staff and players ALL work for the ARU. One would assume their contracts reflect that and will go where told or be paid out.

It all depends on what case RWA are mounting and what are the legal issues in question. Until we know the terms of the action and what if any injunctions have been granted, we're grasping at thin air.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
I think it will be hard to stop anything. The staff and players ALL work for the ARU. One would assume their contracts reflect that and will go where told or be paid out.

With the ARU's record of contracting and legal negotiations, I wouldn't be banking on anything until after the first court appearance.
 

James Pettifer

Jim Clark (26)
I'm confused re what happens to force players. If the force are gone in 2018 and force players remain contracted to ARU but other four Super Rugby teams are fully rostered then force players have no Super Rugby playtime and instead play club footy hoping cheika still considers them for wallabies selection. The other option is to go OS. This is a nightmare scenario but I don't know where force players esp wallaby reps eg coleman, DHP fit into the new landscape.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

But the teams don't have full rosters. Most will find positions. Some will go overseas and some will end up out of professional rugby
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
As I understand it they are not appealing a decision by a Tribunal or Court so leave would not be required. To gain any injunctive relief to restrain the ARU from acting on the outcome of what was essentially private arbitration, they would need to win the arguable question to be tried and balance of convenience tests. Not necessarily easy cases to win.
I knew I would regret speaking.
It's governed by Commercial Arbitration legislation.
The WA provision says
"

34A.Appeals against awards
(1)An appeal lies to the Court on a question of law arising out of an award if —
(a)the parties agree, before the end of the appeal period referred to in subsection (6), that an appeal may be made under this section; and
(b)the Court grants leave.
(2)An appeal under this section may be brought by any of the parties to an arbitration agreement.
(3)The Court must not grant leave unless it is satisfied —
(a)that the determination of the question will substantially affect the rights of one or more of the parties; and
(b)that the question is one which the arbitral tribunal was asked to determine; and
(c)that, on the basis of the findings of fact in the award —
(i)the decision of the tribunal on the question is obviously wrong; or
(ii)the question is one of general public importance and the decision of the tribunal is at least open to serious doubt;
and
(d)that, despite the agreement of the parties to resolve the matter by arbitration, it is just and proper in all the circumstances for the Court to determine the question.
(4)An application for leave to appeal must identify the question of law to be determined and state the grounds on which it is alleged that leave to appeal should be granted.
(5)The Court is to determine an application for leave to appeal without a hearing unless it appears to the Court that a hearing is required.
(6)An appeal may not be made under this section after 3 months have elapsed from the date on which the party making the appeal received the award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal (in this section referred to as the appeal period).
(7)On the determination of an appeal under this section the Court may by order —
(a)confirm the award; or
(b)vary the award; or
(c)remit the award, together with the Court’s opinion on the question of law which was the subject of the appeal, to the arbitrator for reconsideration or, where a new arbitrator has been appointed, to that arbitrator for consideration; or
(d)set aside the award in whole or in part.
(8)The Court must not exercise its power to set aside an award, in whole or in part, unless it is satisfied that it would be inappropriate to remit the matters in question to the arbitral tribunal for reconsideration.
(9)Where the award is remitted under subsection (7)(c) the arbitrator must, unless the order otherwise directs, make the award within 3 months after the date of the order.
(10)The Court may make any leave which it grants under subsection (3)(c) subject to the applicant complying with any conditions it considers appropriate.
(11)Where the award of an arbitrator is varied on an appeal under this section, the award as varied has effect (except for the purposes of this section) as if it were the award of the arbitrator."
NSW is the same.
You'd get a stay of the award if you have an appeal with the relevant prospects of success, which are considerably more demanding than "a serious triable issue".
 

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
I wish their was a public opinion poll on the ARU as I suspect they just see this as a storm in a tea cup and have no idea how little confidence the public has in them as a sporting organisation
 

bigmac

Billy Sheehan (19)
But the teams don't have full rosters. Most will find positions. Some will go overseas and some will end up out of professional rugby
I hear the brumbies are close to full but the rebels have capacity. Interesting to see what eventuates.

Tahs certainly need some new blood.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
 

Highlander35

Andrew Slack (58)
A thought occurred t me this afternoon, when Twiggy pledged to do what it takes to keep the Force in Super Rugby was he referring to the actual team or to Rugby in general?

Could the financially struggling ARU convince Twiggy to buy the Rebels at an over valued price and move them to Perth and rename them as the Force?

Pick a best of team from both squads and have a ready to win team in Perth and the ARU save face by being able blame the former CEO and also Twiggy for getting rid of the Rebels.

How would they do that though?

The whole point was that the ARU didn't have the Rebels to sell, and the transfer of Shares to the ARU more or less removes the "Every man has his price factor", at least for the next 10-12 months, and for the purpose of retaining the Rebels, that's probably all they need.
 

James Pettifer

Jim Clark (26)
I hear the brumbies are close to full but the rebels have capacity. Interesting to see what eventuates.

Tahs certainly need some new blood.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Rebels have plenty of space.

Confirmed to be down 2 locks from last year, 4 in the back row, 1 scrum half, 2 fly half and a full back.

They also have a lot of players who have their contract up.

There is plenty of space for the "better" super rugby players if they want to stay in Australia. But it means that 30 (or so) players will be without work in Australia. This will hit players across all teams.
 

James Pettifer

Jim Clark (26)
How would they do that though?

The whole point was that the ARU didn't have the Rebels to sell, and the transfer of Shares to the ARU more or less removes the "Every man has his price factor", at least for the next 10-12 months, and for the purpose of retaining the Rebels, that's probably all they need.



Assume you mean VRU.

Twiggy could come to the VRU with his whole fortune and they'd tell him to bugger off.

Of course, if he really wanted to, he could set up a "rebel" rugby competition. The ARU run on just over $80 million a year - he is estimated to be worth 6.84 billion - so that is pocket change for him. However, he probably considers the various charities he contributes to more worthwhile.
 
B

BLR

Guest
So, can we get some ACTUAL information how the VRU are going to get their bank account about $0?
 
D

daz

Guest
So, can we get some ACTUAL information how the VRU are going to get their bank account about $0?

Why? I understand you are looking for something to hook onto, but even if the Rebels only had 3 cents in the bank, the cull decision was always about who was the easiest to cut.

The ARU had two options, regardless of talk about mergers, etc, and that was either cut through the alliance agreement, or hope Cox had a price and buy the Rebels licence. He did, but not for the ARU, so the Rebels were and are completely protected by a privately owned licence.

I truly suspect all the talk about "criteria" and financials, etc is really just noise - the ARU needed to cut a team to satisfy SANZAAR, and the Force were the "easiest" target. I really think that is the basic truth of the matter.

The on-going financial viability of the Rebels, whilst seemingly unknown and more than likely complicated at this stage, is unlikely to change matters. If the Rebels fall over at the next hurdle, the ARU will either prop them up or let them fold; either way, that won't help the Force right now.

Still, we know that the lawyers will keep things ticking over for the short term.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top