0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Andy, I apologise if I came across as attacking you, That is not my intention.
You, like nearly everyone here, including myself, has the interests of WA rugby at heart, even if we perceive those interests differently.
I am concerned that many of us are deluding ourselves, and are being deluded by some who should and do know better.
IRB hold the equivalent of the "copyright" to Rugby Union. They are entitled to exercise those rights of ownership as they see fit.
They are within their rights to protect the good name and reputation of their sport by preventing any Body whom they do not approve of from participating in it. That's what lead to the creation of rugby league which, in order to play a sport vaguely resembling rugby, had to play with 13 men, abandon the lineout, castrate the scrum, and adopt changes to the manner in which possession of the ball passes from one team to the other.
If there was a viable, financially sound body in WA (not in Administration) with a proven track record and administered by people to which the IRB could not reasonably object on the basis of their past record, then maybe, just maybe, should they refuse to recognise that body, it could apply to the courts for orders permitting it to take part on the grounds of unreasonable, unconscionable and oppressive behavior. But they would have to convince the court that they should be there , and there can be no WA rugby until they do. This could take years.
On the basis of the costs claim against RugbyWA arising out of their recent failed attempt to sue the ARU, the legal costs incurred by the proponents on both sides could be in the millions.
Where is that money to come from?
Not an issue Frank, wasn't taking it as personal. The reason I thought that ruling interesting was that it wasn't a squabble between administrative bodies, but between a specific competition and the supposedly sole representative body. All the bollocks to date aside, it is where I have always expected this would wind up, as the ARU were never going to willingly ratify another competition. So that ruling seems very applicable, as it suggests that the ACCC can rule that RA cannot deny WA the opportunity to participate (especially when they have provided zero other alternative), and if they are permitted then WR has no reason to block the comp and other five countries. It shouldn't have come you this, but pretty much was always going to when the IPRC was made an "Australian" competition.
Didn't see the RWA stuff playing out quite the way it has, but would suggest the same rationale would apply. A competition just needs an organising body - no reason it couldn't be separate from RWA and all its issues. It would of course need to be financial, but I would have thought that would only be on the same basis as RWA ever has been - by the players and clubs themselves. And once organised, same ruling should apply - RA shouldn't be able you use their position to stop people engaging in a legal activity. It is the epitome of a monopoly, if not a stand-over racket, and as noted the ACCC has taken specific action on a sport for exactly that. And I'd note that the question of who owned the sport never came up, because I don't buy that WR or anyone can claim that by any authority. They are all ultimately no more than a progression of organising bodies, owning some brands and trademarks and regulating the behaviours of those that choose to be their members, but not owning the activity itself. It would be like saying that one organisation owned hunting, or every single golfer had to pay dues to the PGA or give up his sticks.
The ARU/RA has got over its initial anger at RWA's decision to go into VA.
After thinking more about it, the ARU/RA has come to the conclusion that liquidating RWA is not such a bad thing, because in the present climate, the ARU/RA is unlikely to affiliate a new Union in WA, which neatly solves the ARU/RA's immediate "WA problem". It also gives it a bargaining chip in any (presently unlikely) future discussions with the Rugby Community in WA and/or the WA Government about the resumption of Rugby Union in WA.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spor...0014b07099a6b1
The ARU/RA initially poopooed Smith's thesis of 8 April 2017 that cutting the Force would be the nuclear option and would lead to the demise of Rugby Union in WA. But as the litigation kept coming, as reaction and anger from WA grew and following the totally unexpected Senate Inquiry, the prospect of WA becoming a nuclear wasteland for Rugby Union has become progressively more attractive to the ARU/RA.Originally Posted by Wayne Smith, The Australian
The above is rumour, gossip and hearsay.
Last edited by FingerTips; 05-12-17 at 05:45.
Makes sense FT. As we now know that the RA was looking to cull a team in August last year, there was no money saved as Reynolds ran rings around Pulver and ASIC have responded WA have got the resources to send the RA out of business. Stooke and Sinderberry have got enough contacts in the ACT and Sydney to mobilise those two unions and constituents to take on the RA.
I doubt the Brumbies have got more money from the RA the ACT Government increased their funding and UC are fully on board as the relationship has been repaired.
'I may be a Senator but I am not stupid'
https://omny.fm/shows/the-alan-jones-breakfast-show/cameron-clyne
Link to Senate Report http://www.aph.gov.au/senate_ca
https://www.change.org/p/rugby-australia-petition-for-cameron-clyne-to-resign-as-chairman-of-the-rugby-australia-board
How long can you cover your arse before the truth comes out?
Answer the bloody questions!
Putting things off only makes the final outcome worse.
One of the problems in putting a group of people on a Roller Coaster without safety belts is that on each descent, more people get thrown out of the cars.
IMHO this shows just how financially flat broke the RU actually are. Seems to me they’re not far off insolvency themselves -the money they ‘saved’ culling the Force has disappeared in a nanosecond, so their prospects for the next year don’t look very promising! What I’d like to know is who is making these decisions, is Clyne the gang leader again? Get rid of Clyne & the Board, Pulver is out the door so surely a new Chairperson would bring sanity to their train wreck of an administration & the greedy legal team they’re using for advice. RU want to play hardball? Let ‘em, they’re disappearing up their own backsides. And getting ASIC in the door will blow the place up, we really need to pressure ASIC to act.
The more the RA spend on lawyers, junkets, consultants, fighting Twiggy rather than working with him and propping up basket cases like the Rebels and the Reds they are sending themselves further in to the abyss. Given that tin pot venues like AAMI Park and whatever super fund is sponsoring the stadium on the Gold Coast have been chosen as test venues next year to go with one less home match against the ABs (NZ's turn to host two tests) they are heading in to 2019 where there is a guaranteed loss coming up due to the reduced 4 Nations.
The Sanzaar deal is due to be negotiated next year and there is no guarantee that Super Rugby will continue, if it does with the reduced number of teams (and SA looking to send more to Europe), NZ looking at alternate broadcast partners, the Sydney venue refurbishment (they have already pissed off an alternative in WA), there is a massive possibility of receiving a brutal tv deal that will hammer the bottom line.
They are farked and they know the NZRU can't trust them financially and relationship wise to go in to partnership to start a trans tasman comp they have been crying out for.
'I may be a Senator but I am not stupid'
https://omny.fm/shows/the-alan-jones-breakfast-show/cameron-clyne
Link to Senate Report http://www.aph.gov.au/senate_ca
https://www.change.org/p/rugby-australia-petition-for-cameron-clyne-to-resign-as-chairman-of-the-rugby-australia-board
Agreed. With all due respect Hansie, most of us are in an information vacuum here and your lack of rebuttal to any of Fulvio's points does not raise any confidence about where the game ACTUALLY stands right now. Some actual counter arguments rather than outright dismissal would be appreciated.
Depends on what he is allowed to say due to deals and possible legal involvement.
'I may be a Senator but I am not stupid'
https://omny.fm/shows/the-alan-jones-breakfast-show/cameron-clyne
Link to Senate Report http://www.aph.gov.au/senate_ca
https://www.change.org/p/rugby-australia-petition-for-cameron-clyne-to-resign-as-chairman-of-the-rugby-australia-board
A quote from Twiggy
"The hottest fires forge the strongest metals"
The more that the EARU continue to try and destroy us the more we will come together and the more we will try and fight back. An ocean is too large and powerful to destroy just like the sea of blue, the more you try and fight us the stronger and more united we will become, we will never surrender!
Last edited by volvo; 05-12-17 at 09:11.
Base the iprc in singapore. Have no links to aru. WA team would be linked to singapore rugby union in every way inc insurances etc. Might even be tax advantages.
Do the same for the wa club comp. WA rugby can be a branch of singapore rugby. Singapores chances of winning rugby games would soar.
Just a thought.
I am really a Palmyra troll.
Darkness back down with the logical thoughts it doesn’t suit you!