Terms of Reference for a Senate Inquiry into the Future of Rugby Union in Australia

Just got this back from the Roar for the article that I posted about the senate Inquiry.


"Thanks for submitting your article, titled 'The Western Force corpse just twitched', to The Roar. Our editors felt the post wasn't quite right for our audience, or that it wasn't ready to be published.

Feel free to work on it a little more, give it a proof read, then resubmit.

Good luck with the revision!

The Roar"

It wasn't my finest work but I am slowly putting my conspiracy theorist tinfoil hat on.

I have requested a more detailed explanation (Other than the form letter) to find out if it was my literary skills or the content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimboL

Just got this back from the Roar for the article that I posted about the senate Inquiry.


"Thanks for submitting your article, titled 'The Western Force corpse just twitched', to The Roar. Our editors felt the post wasn't quite right for our audience, or that it wasn't ready to be published.

Feel free to work on it a little more, give it a proof read, then resubmit.

Good luck with the revision!

The Roar"

It wasn't my finest work but I am slowly putting my conspiracy theorist tinfoil hat on.

I have requested a more detailed explanation (Other than the form letter) to find out if it was my literary skills or the content.

---

Content. David Lord and Spiro have both posted numerous articles after a night on the tiles.

If it wasn't ready to be publish they might ask if it has been finished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimboL

Just got this back from the Roar for the article that I posted about the senate Inquiry.


"Thanks for submitting your article, titled 'The Western Force corpse just twitched', to The Roar. Our editors felt the post wasn't quite right for our audience, or that it wasn't ready to be published.

Feel free to work on it a little more, give it a proof read, then resubmit.

Good luck with the revision!

The Roar"

It wasn't my finest work but I am slowly putting my conspiracy theorist tinfoil hat on.

I have requested a more detailed explanation (Other than the form letter) to find out if it was my literary skills or the content.

---

Arrogant pricks!

Just read Tim North's response to the Inquiry. If you're going to point out petty mistakes in other people's work, it's a good idea to make sure your own doesn't contain any. Mr North is obviously too arrogant to proof read his own work.

He comes across as an absolute pig.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alison

Arrogant pricks!

---

I have set myself a goal to be rational and not "Red-Line" at the the slightest hurdle.
I am going to wait for their response before raging against the machine.

It is entirely possible that they didn't like my death metaphors or the suggestion that Imperium and the ARU may be getting a colonoscopy when the recommendations come down in November.

The Roar editors have edited one of my articles in the past, some of it was justified and I appreciated the improvements, others changed the meaning. I can't see why they wouldn't replace a word or 2 in my last one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimboL

Just got this back from the Roar for the article that I posted about the senate Inquiry. "Thanks for submitting your article, titled 'The Western Force corpse just twitched', to The Roar. Our editors felt the post wasn't quite right for our audience, or that it wasn't ready to be published. Feel free to work on it a little more, give it a proof read, then resubmit. Good luck with the revision! The Roar" It wasn't my finest work but I am slowly putting my conspiracy theorist tinfoil hat on. I have requested a more detailed explanation (Other than the form letter) to find out if it was my literary skills or the content.

---

Their audience is Sydney-centric sycophants and wallabies bum boys, nothing written based upon the facts uncovered in the inquiry will suit their audience.

Spiro was happy to post suggesting that the Force should be moved to Parramatta

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimboL

I have set myself a goal to be rational and not "Red-Line" at the the slightest hurdle.
I am going to wait for their response before raging against the machine.

It is entirely possible that they didn't like my death metaphors or the suggestion that Imperium and the ARU may be getting a colonoscopy when the recommendations come down in November.

The Roar editors have edited one of my articles in the past, some of it was justified and I appreciated the improvements, others changed the meaning. I can't see why they wouldn't replace a word or 2 in my last one.

---

Timbo can you post a few excerpts. It sounds entertaining

Post it here...put a link in a post over the the Roar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrycobner

Timbo can you post a few excerpts. It sounds entertaining

---

I have just got a reply from the Roar, They aren't really happy with my opinions and conclusions without supporting evidence. I respect this but as an unpaid contributor to a site that profits from my contributions, I am struggling to give a flying fish. I am happy to write the greater article, but will need a bit of help from "you lot", the bulk of my opinions have been brewed from information here. I am a bit self conscious about my article and having doubts about whether or not I have caked the content.

Please be nice, or at the very least, constructive with your comments.


"The Force Corpse Just Twitched"

The recent senate hearing into to the state of rugby in Australia has brought some significant information to light, if not the greater Rugby media.

There has bareley been a peep about it here on the Roar and I write this article because nobody else has and this topic needs visibility.

For those of you in the Fox/ARU media bubble, reading sanitised, missing or buried articles:

1. The ARU had board level discussions firming the intent to axe an Australian Super Rugby team 8 days before signing the notorious Aliance Agreement with the Western Force.
2. Clyne took umbridge over Senator Reynolds having access to this damming information, he believed to be secret.
3. Imperium look like they were scaming cash out of the ARU, paying themselves hefty consultancy fees and syphoning money through a web of companies.
4. Imperium appear to have been technicaly insovent at the commencement of the contract.
5. The ARU held/hold the Rebels IP and had the ability to "Exit" the Melbourne Rebels from the competition.

The implications of the first point may result in the "Western Force - ARU Aliance Agreement" being Void, as now there is evidence that it was negotiated in bad faith.
This means that there may be a new hope for the picked over carcass of the defunct franchise.

For both Imperium and the ARU board members involved, an ASIC colonoscopy is forcast.
Senator Renolds is quoted saying that the ARU should probably sack whomever did the due dilligence on that deal.
Cameron Clyne was heard to distance himeslf from this so fast it made Usain Bolt nervous about losing his 100m record.

So we now turn to speculate about what happens next.
Many ships have sailed and Twiggy's IPRC is already in motion. Western Australa's Rugby royalty, Jo Hodgeson, is quoted saying that Matt is very busy working on the project.

In my opinion, the chances of the Western Force being restored next season remain grim. There might be trouble brewing for the ARU, there certainly will be some for Andrew Cox.

I am hoping that we can find an outcome that maintains an Australia-wide rugby footprint that includes both Victoria and Western Australia but I fear that the already sharpened pitchforks and "Kill the Rebels!, Kill The Rebels!" chant will go from a murmor to a deafening roar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimboL

"The Force Corpse Just Twitched"

---

Breaking News:

Roar editor Feedback:

"To be honest, I'd put the chances of it getting published at around 50-60%, but that obviously depends on what is kept and removed/edited from the original piece."

I will now stew in my own juices and contemplate whether this is a fair assessment and response or if it is part of a greater ARU conspiracy in need of a kicking in the greater social media. Your thoughts appreciated.

my 2c

Dispassionate and logical argument trumps emation. Many of the summation posts here, plus some of the senate submissions, spell out what happened and when it happened, point out inaccuracies (ie lies) in ARU statements, and draw conclusions from disparate sources such as determining that Cox paid hiimself with the $6m to avoid bankruptcy in NZ

The problem is going to be TWAS and various other shills and sockpuppets will scupper any anti ARU article with a barrage of blather, or idiots like joe barker will make rediculous stupid statements that divert the commentary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sittingbison

my 2c

Dispassionate and logical argument trumps emation. Many of the summation posts here, plus some of the senate submissions, spell out what happened and when it happened, point out inaccuracies (ie lies) in ARU statements, and draw conclusions from disparate sources such as determining that Cox paid hiimself with the $6m to avoid bankruptcy in NZ

The problem is going to be TWAS and various other shills and sockpuppets will scupper any anti ARU article with a barrage of blather, or idiots like joe barker will make rediculous stupid statements that divert the commentary

---

I can take 'Twas the night before christmas's diversionary arguments, but It's not going to matter if they won't publish it to start with. My objective was to get the message out to the insulated community and at least get them to be aware, even if they don't agree.

They probably object to the certainty with which you state most of the likely outcomes of the inquiry.

It would be a lot more agreeable to any media outlet with a liberal sprinkling of "allegedly" and "senator Reynolds acuused" in it.

If you manage all the arse covering and they still don't want it, then you have a genuine cause for complaint

I would put links to where you got the information to cover what is written in the bullet points. Which would basically be from the reports that have been made public in Australia and NZ, on Hansard record from the hearing, quotes from actual press releases etc.

There is nothing wrong with what's written in there. I would also put a conclusion to make it look like the article is completed.

Proof read the article and name spellings which will put you above certain 'journos' over there.