I'm off to Nepal to become a mountain goat.
- Jun 27, 2006
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Lakers,Inter,Man U
Also the ARU own the "Western Force" name so this new comp would mean a change of name if the ARU don't support it. ARU also hold the player contracts for those Force players that have resigned for next year.Forrest just sounds like Clive Palmer with his talk of a new comp. People won't get behind Force vs Fiji vs Samoa in parallel with Super Rugby and the ARU would probably just sanction players who opt to play in it with non-availability for Wallaby selection.
I hope Super Rugby dies a slow, painful death.
I know, it's bluff and bluster from Twiggy the used car salesman.Also the ARU own the "Western Force" name so this new comp would mean a change of name if the ARU don't support it. ARU also hold the player contracts for those Force players that have resigned for next year.
I would like to think they are kept as a pathway for WA juniors while allowing current and former Force players at other Super Rugby sides being eligible to play for them to enable them to field a strong side.I also want to see what happens to the Perth Spirit now.
I would like to think the ARU would take 11 years of work in WA seriously, but they don't.I would like to think they are kept as a pathway for WA juniors while allowing current and former Force players at other Super Rugby sides being eligible to play for them to enable them to field a strong side.
The ARU owns the Western Force having bought them from the WARU in 2016.
A condition of the sale was the 'Alliance Agreement' - an agreement which required the parties to, amongst other things, 'co-operatively work in an alliance to grow and develop rugby in Western Australia'.
The Alliance Agreement expired: 'on the expiry date of the last of the SANZAR Broadcast Agreements (being 31 December 2020) or, subject to clause 2.4, if the last of the SANZAR Broadcast Agreements is terminated or renegotiated earlier as a result of the renegotiation of the commercial terms of a broadcast arrangement, such earlier date.'
The WARU argued that dropping the Western Force from the Super Rugby competition breached the Alliance Agreement.
The ARU argued that the 'Alliance Agreement' had expired as a result of the broadcast agreement renegotiation that ended in July 2017.
The case was a simple matter of contractual interpretation and the court applied the words as written in the agreement not with the implied meaning the WARU assigned those words.
The judge opined that 'hopefully they (ARU AND WARU) both had the interests of furthering the game of rugby union in mind. It is to be remembered that ARU owns the Force. If the alliance comes to an end, it owns the Force unconditionally without any potential obligation to sell it back in the future, and can do with it what it likes, even destroy it.
"As the facts of this case demonstrate, they were supposed to be allies, but they were not friends."
The court held that the Alliance Agreement was terminated when the broadcast agreements were renegotiated. The ARU is free to cut the Force from Super Rugby.
Its not Fiji or Samoa. Expect Hong Kong, Singapore, Sri Lanka etc.Forrest just sounds like Clive Palmer with his talk of a new comp. People won't get behind Force vs Fiji vs Samoa in parallel with Super Rugby and the ARU would probably just sanction players who opt to play in it with non-availability for Wallaby selection.
I hope Super Rugby dies a slow, painful death.
So the government really would've been paying for it. What a generous billionaire.Mr Forrest met with Mr Clyne and ARU officials in Adelaide in late August and made the $50 million offer, though ARU CEO Bill Pulver later clarified the offer was "in the range of $10 million to $50 million" over several years and via the Australian Rugby Foundation, making the sum tax deductible.
ARU-Western Force Relationship
While it has historically consumed the second-highest amount of additional support funding from the ARU among Super Rugby clubs behind the Melbourne Rebels ($7.7m v $19.3m, 2013-17), it was assumed that both teams would be self-sufficient from the 2018 season onwards and historical funding was not used as a key determinant in the ARU’s decision.
Interesting reading, my take is:Some background reading...
Yep, has been that way since day one.Interesting reading, my take is:
a) Decision was made SOLELY on the basis that the Force license was the only one the ARU could terminate. The document admits as much, so why go into all the other analysis?
The 'financial modelling' is complete horseshit, hence my quote above.b) The financial modeling shows negligible difference between retaining the Force or retaining the Rebels. They seem to become insolvent about 3 months apart in 2020 timeframe in both cases - hardly a differentiating factor and subject to a lot of uncertainty.
I'm no lawyer but the Alliance Agreement appears to be worth less than the paper it's written on. The broadcast agreement still runs to 2020 and the only 'renegotiation' is the reduction in teams. The ARU have effectively said 'we'll buy the license and IP and in return guarantee your place in the comp until 2020... unless the comp is reduced to fewer teams in which case we'll use owning the license to punt you out'.c) I'm surprised by the Court's interpretation that the Alliance Agreement was no longer valid - the reason given is that it ceased to valid once the competition was reduced to 15 teams by SANZAAR - but this decision was made by Sanzaar - it seems a bit unusual that a party can lose its rights under one contract (Alliance Agreement) through the actions of other non contracting parties (Sanzaar) unless the Alliance agreement contained a specific termination clause relating to a team reduction. But in that case, wouldn't there be some kind of good faith obligation, or at least an expectation for the ARU to take steps to be able to fulfill its obligations under the Alliance Agreement?
Everything coming out of the ARU is contrived.d) The resolutions put to the Rugby Union Members on May 29 seem contrived to me. They were unusual in that they were resolutions to "Keep 5 teams alive" and to "reconsider the decision to reduce the number of Australian Super Rugby Teams", rather than a vote to "Reduce to 4 teams" The important distinction being that if the vote did not get the required approval threshold, then the it did not pass - which is apparently what happened. Does anyone know what the voting procedures are? Do they require unanimity? And why did they have the vote anyway, since SANZAAR had already resolved to reduce to 15 teams, a commitment that the ARU claims they cannot get out of?
I'm not sure this would have worked with the distance, but I think a merged Brumbies/Rebels could've been more workable. The Brumbies rugby program is excellent, the Canberra market is not.e) They should have merged the Force and the Rebels - split home games between the two cities and tried to avoid the scorched earth they have created in WA
You are not alone, and the ARU seems to have zero concept of this.I have long been a fan of Australian Rugby, but I am bitter and resentful now. I want to see the ARU suffer and hope they get successfully sued by the WA State Government.
Errrrr, yes? We're talking about removing a team from Super Rugby, and they try and sell not kicking WA out of the sport altogether (reforming any of these comps has nothing to do with SANZAAR or Super Rugby) as some kind of act of benevolence.Western Australian representative teams will also continue to compete in the following tournaments and National Championships:
• National Women’s XVs Championships
• National Men’s Sevens Championships
• National Women’s Sevens Championships
• National Youth Men’s (U17) Sevens Championships
• National Youth Women’s (U17) Sevens Championships
• Australian U19 Championships (replacing the Super U20s competition)
• Australian Schoolboys (U18) Championships
• Australian U16 Championships
• U15 Junior Gold Cup
Yeah well that is the point he is talking about bringing the 150 Aussie home from overseashttps://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/...n/news-story/123a67fa7fb93bd0df05b82eb8fbc85c
Twiggy 'in negotiations' with the ARU for his IPRC to not clash with Super Rugby, reciprocal eligibility for IPRC/Super Rugby players etc.
I'm not really sure how this would all work. Super Rugby runs Feb to August. NRC runs September to November. Southern hemisphere tests usually follow Super Rugby with Northern hemisphere tests after that.
Would the IPRC run over our Summer/Autumn? Alongside the NRC?
The only way it would get off the ground would be if he threw a **** ton of money at it to entice players from other comps to play in it.