Senate enquiry into Australian Rugby

[swingpass]

Recommendations 4 & 5 have the most potential to be a problem for ARU and MRRU / Imperium - suggest ASIC take a look. Whether ASIC do or not of course is another matter. Dont think thr report throws much new light on whats already known.

 

[Slim 293]

Just browsing through....... as expected really.

I think this sums it up:

4.34 The committee understands and shares the deep disappointment of the submitters and Western Force fans who consider that their team was unfairly removed from the competition. The committee laments the team's demise but accepts that little can be done now the licence has been surrendered.

 

[kiap]

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1

4.15 The committee recommends that the Australian Sports Commission consider an additional principle to be introduced in the Commission's Sports Governance Principles in relation to National Sporting Organisations' commitment and duty to player welfare.

Recommendation 2

4.18 The committee recommends that Australian Rugby Union immediately transfer all intellectual property and trademarks associated with the Western Force to RugbyWA.

Recommendation 3

4.20 The committee recommends that the Western Australian Government:

review evidence to the committee in relation to the process used to eliminate Western Force from the national Super Rugby competition; and

seek further legal advice on what assurances were provided to them by Australian Rugby Union and in particular the Australian Rugby Union negotiations with both the Victorian and Western Australian Governments which informed the good faith investment decisions by the Western Australian Government on behalf of Western Australian taxpayers.

Recommendation 4

4.29 The committee recommends that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission review the evidence received by the committee regarding transactions involving the Melbourne Rebels.

Recommendation 5

4.30 The committee recommends the Australian Securities and Investments Commission review the financial circumstances reported in the Australian Rugby Union's annual reports against the evidence presented to the committee.

Recommendation 6

4.37 The committee recommends the Australian Rugby Union consider implementing measures outside of state based bodies which ensure the involvement and engagement with grassroots rugby union supporters, particularly in relation to consultation in decision making processes that concern significant change to the nature and future direction of the sport.

Recommendation 7

4.38 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government examine the structure of sporting organisations in Australia with a view to maximising community involvement, and increasing the accountability and transparency of organisations that bear the custodianship of a sport.

Recommendation 8

4.39 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government undertake a review of world's best practice sporting policies in relation to sports funding and performance measures.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

So is a Senate Committee recommendation something ASIC can pretty much ignore & no one will care or is it more Papal Bull in nature?

 

[swingpass]

So is a Senate Committee recommendation something ASIC can pretty much ignore & no one will care or is it more Papal Bull in nature?

More the former, senate commitees make thousands, just some are actively taken up. It often depends on whether the Govt of the day dominates the Commitee make up and want the desired outcome.

 

[mst]

So is a Senate Committee recommendation something ASIC can pretty much ignore & no one will care or is it more Papal Bull in nature?

Unlikely as Departments are generally required to report back on actions relating to recommendations (not just the go through the motions reporting either.!)

 

[Strewthcobber]

2.100 The committee believes that, despite the analysis undertaken by the ARU to decide which team to eliminate, the Western Force was the only licence that could be legally terminated prior to the due diligence and analysis process taking place.

2.102 The committee has significant concerns that the decision to remove the Western Force was made earlier than 11 August 2017 and was skewed against the Western Force by not placing enough emphasis on historic financial data, and the ownership structure of the Melbourne Rebels.

Seems like a bit of a contradiction from the committee.....

(And to be fair, they may be referring all the way back to the alliance agreement)


Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Tex]

So is a Senate Committee recommendation something ASIC can pretty much ignore & no one will care or is it more Papal Bull in nature?

I don't think a committee can direct a department or entity, hence "recommends".

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[mst]

I don't think a committee can direct a department or entity, hence "recommends".

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

The wording is subtle but the meaning and intent is not. It takes less than this to make departments take cation as required. The recommendations as usually tested (to see if they can be done) before the reports are released.

 

[GaffaCHinO]

2.101 Confidential evidence provided to the committee shows the ARU were directly involved in the execution of the transfer of the Melbourne Rebels' licence
from Imperium to Victorian Rugby Union. The committee understands these negotiations were well underway by June 2017.

From Senate report...

 

[RugbyReg]

That's perhaps the most damning one I've seen posted so far.

 

[jimmydubs]

That's perhaps the most damning one I've seen posted so far.

Reinforced by

2.88 The ARU, however, told the committee that no decision was made until the announcement was made on 11 August 2017 because insolvency remained a real possibility for the Melbourne Rebels:

As part of our process of negotiating with the Melbourne Rebels we got to the point where we were able to conduct due diligence on the Melbourne Rebels. And it was clear to us at that point that there were serious financial concerns which could potentially result in an insolvency event. In fact, at the 12th hour minor shareholders within the Melbourne Rebels came forward with incremental capital to prop up the enterprise, which removed it from the prospect of insolvency.[105]

2.89 The committee have since been made aware through a confidential submission that the ARU suggested Imperium exercise a put option and were involved in negotiations which cleared Melbourne Rebels debt thereby allowing the put option to the Victorian Rugby Union to be exercised. These events took place in June 2017 and effectively made it impossible to end their licence.

 

[jimmydubs]

So the rebels were broke again and going to fold, so the ARU steps in and helps negotiate private backers to get them back to break even so they exercise put to VRU that ARU also supported.
Excellent so supporting the blackhole of rugby funds in Australia to survive meanwhile turning down $50 million. Seemingly with the sole intention of shafting the Force.
As the national governing body WTAF.
Does Vic the rebel have pictures of the ARU board?

 

[stoff]

So the rebels were broke again and going to fold, so the ARU steps in and helps negotiate private backers to get them back to break even so they exercise put to VRU that ARU also supported.
Excellent so supporting the blackhole of rugby funds in Australia to survive meanwhile turning down $50 million. Seemingly with the sole intention of shafting the Force.
As the national governing body WTAF.
Does Vic the rebel have pictures of the ARU board?

Close. Cox was broke and minority shareholders who would undoubtedly have been aware of what it took to save the licence paid the debt to prevent the ARU taking it back. Assume the ARU wanted a quick fix and a battle on one front so facilitated an inevitable Rebels transfer to the VRU to prevent a second costly legal action. Major difference between Force and Rebels positions was that Vic the Rebel never signed a deal that allowed the ARU to take his licence.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[amirite]

Close. Cox was broke and minority shareholders who would undoubtedly have been aware of what it took to save the licence paid the debt to prevent the ARU taking it back. Assume the ARU wanted a quick fix and a battle on one front so facilitated an inevitable Rebels transfer to the VRU to prevent a second costly legal action. Major difference between Force and Rebels positions was that Vic the Rebel never signed a deal that allowed the ARU to take his licence.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. A big piece of subtext here (and my understanding of why the ARU waited longer than their 72 hours) is they hoped the Rebels will declare insolvency or bankruptcy (not sure of the correct legal terminology) and the problem will have solved itself. The fact is, the Rebels going out of business was the only avenue at any point in this whole thing for the Force to stay.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I don't read it that way at all Stoff.

It seems to me that the finding was that the Rebels were on the verge of insolvency, and had that happened the license would either have been returned to the ARU or ceased to be operative. In either case, it would appear that the ARU could easily have cut the Rebels without any fear of legal consequences. But, it seems to me, the ARU did not want that outcome for some unstated reason and facilitated the payment of the debt and the exercise of the Put option. Quite a deliberate strategy to retain the Rebels for a reason that is best known to themselves.

 

[mst]

Setting aside the report, there are two tasty "Easter eggs" in Reynolds address to the Senate about the report.

The first is about the ARU's alleged attempts to disrupt the enquiry. I believe Reynolds referred to the behaviours as "inappropriate and highly mis-directed attempts to stop the enquiry" .

The second was right at the end of her address; " evidence given...... again circumstances under which the committee will now further review the provision of this evidence and the content of the evidence".

Interesting to see if anything comes of either of those statement but it appears the Committee are not happy with the conduct of certain witnesses and particularly the ARU.

I did like the suggestion made by Reynolds that ARU sell the Force IP rights back to Rugby WA for $1.00.

 

[jimmydubs]

Close. Cox was broke and minority shareholders who would undoubtedly have been aware of what it took to save the licence paid the debt to prevent the ARU taking it back. Assume the ARU wanted a quick fix and a battle on one front so facilitated an inevitable Rebels transfer to the VRU to prevent a second costly legal action. Major difference between Force and Rebels positions was that Vic the Rebel never signed a deal that allowed the ARU to take his licence.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Close. But it explicitly reads how I and Brumby Runner have laid it out.
Not sure what the source of the alternative narrative is?

 

[kiap]

The first is about the ARU's alleged attempts to disrupt the enquiry. I believe Reynolds referred to the behaviours as "inappropriate and highly mis-directed attempts to stop the enquiry"

Some have suggested Clyne called Turnbull directly.

I did like the suggestion made by Reynolds that ARU sell the Force IP rights back to Rugby WA for $1.00.

It's gotta be worth two bucks if the Rebels were worth one.

 

[mst]

Close. Cox was broke and minority shareholders who would undoubtedly have been aware of what it took to save the licence paid the debt to prevent the ARU taking it back. Assume the ARU wanted a quick fix and a battle on one front so facilitated an inevitable Rebels transfer to the VRU to prevent a second costly legal action. Major difference between Force and Rebels positions was that Vic the Rebel never signed a deal that allowed the ARU to take his licence.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^^^^ Try exit package.

Cox was paid out. Thus why the rumours about him wanting to sell were floating around. He needed to but he also needed to keep it quite to keep the price up and not be cornered. He dropped enough hints to the ARU but they were unwilling to pay his price ($6mil+).

" The group, led by VRU president Tim North SC, approached long-term benefactors for funds to purchase the Rebels licence from holder, Melbourne businessman, Andrew Cox.

When Cox, disappointed by the Rebels' on-field performance and stressed by some of his other investments, was satisfied with his exit package, he then sold the licence for a debt-free club to the VRU for $1."

So how did North & co know he was wanting to sell?

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u.force-out-of-super-rugby-20170816-gxxde5.html