0
I googled "Wayne Smith Rugby" and got instant access to the article. I think if you clear you history and cookies it should grant you access.
Probably a symptom of Rugby in Australia though, you have to pay to watch it via Fox, a lot of the Rugby writers write for the SMH or The Australian that have pay walls once you hit a certain amount of articles for the month.
Rugby has the image that it is only for the top end of town, maybe not so much over here in WA but certainly does in Sydney.
This is the article:
"The Australian Rugby Union could be in violation of its own constitution if it decides to evict the Melbourne Rebels from Super Rugby.
The ARU announced after its board meeting on Sunday that it had narrowed the choice of teams on the eviction list to two, the Western Force and the Rebels — though why the Brumbies were exempted has never been properly explained — but since then the process has degenerated into almost outright warfare.
The first shots were fired on Monday evening when the Force, after an unsatisfactory meeting with ARU officials, took out a writ in the Supreme Court notifying the union of their intention to apply for an injunction against the plan to revoke their Super Rugby licence. At the same time, Rebels owner Andrew Cox put the ARU on notice that the franchise was *reserving all its legal rights.
The situation grew even murk*ier yesterday when club officials brought to light the section of the ARU constitution that governs who is entitled to vote as a member of the company and the procedure for expelling a member.
Under section 3.2 (a) of the ARU constitution, the voting members comprise the state and territory rugby unions, the Super Rugby licensees and the Rugby Union Players Association. At present, the Rebels are a voting member but the Force, having been taken over by the ARU, are not.
But it is section 3.2 (d) that is giving some comfort to the Melbourne team as the ARU moves to axe one of its Super Rugby teams: “The Company may expel or suspend a Voting Member by a resolution passed at a general meeting of the company by a unanimous vote of all voting members, other than the Voting Member proposed to be expelled …”
In the event that the ARU wished to expel the Rebels, the Victorian Rugby Union, which is also a member, would surely vote against it. And given that the constitution requires a unanimous vote, theoretically the ballot would be defeated.
The issue was raised by VRU chairman Tim North at the ARU annual general meeting on Monday and it has always been that clause that has given the Rebels a belief that their position is safe. *Indications last night were that, because of that constitutional clause, the ARU would be forced to negotiate with the franchise if it decided to axe the Rebels.
It is understood the ARU will argue that if for whatever reason a franchise loses its licence, it automatically would cease to be a *voting member. Its advice is that it would not need to be expelled under the constitution.
Seemingly, it is a different matter for the Western Force since it lost its voting rights as a licensee in the ARU takeover last August. But a different set of complications arise with the Perth outfit, given that the ARU signed an agreement to guarantee it a place in Super Rugby while the broadcast agreement was in place.
The legal issue here is whether a new broadcast deal was brokered when SANZAAR decided to reduce Super Rugby from 18 teams to 15 next year, or whether it was simply amended, in which case the Force would claim they, too, are untouchable.
As for the untouchables, questions are being asked in both Melbourne and Perth as to why the Brumbies were given a clean bill of health. Canberra’s population of less than 400,000 surely impacts on their long-term sustainability and the ARU can expect some searching questions on why it did not broker the only sensible outcome to this crisis — putting Rebels and Brumbies officials in a locked room and not letting them out until they had hammered out a merger agreement.
Still, the mere fact that obscure clauses in the constitution are being minutely examined means the possibility that they might be the team axed has suddenly become very real for the Melbourne team. For the first time in this month-long crisis, their general manager of rugby operations, Baden Stephenson, on Tuesday addressed the Rebels players about their concerns for the future.
Yet the constitutional clause may have given the Rebels a false sense of security and caused them not to pursue the cause of rallying their supporters in the same way that the Force has mobilised the Sea of Blue.
The financial and fan passion campaign have merged into the Own the Force plan, where members of the public are invited to *purchase shares in the franchise to buy back their licence. It is understood some $3 million worth of shares have been solid. The club is aiming for between $5m and $10m. Still, they are within sight of the $4.75m that Rebels owner Andrew Cox is reportedly asking for his *licence. Cox met with ARU chief Bill Pulver yesterday but refused to provide any information about the meeting. Presumably, he told Pulver face-to-face how furious he was with the ARU’s handling of the entire SANZAAR *review.
ARU chairman Cameron Clyne missed that meeting but did not escape scot-free, appearing on former Wallabies coach Alan Jones’s Sydney radio program where he and the ARU board were advised quite clearly to resign.
The prospect of the ARU reducing its presence in Super Rugby from five teams to four has triggered a Rugby Union Players Association campaign to redress the inequalities of the current *salary cap and the ARU’s top-up system. In the recent Rebels-Waratahs match, the Rebels were able to spend $5.7m on salaries while the Waratahs spent $8.7m — all thanks to the top-ups. And the Force also operate under the same injustice.
“(The ARU) are judging the Rebels and the Force at this point in time on their lack of financial success, which can be correlated back to their lack of on-field success,” RUPA chief executive Ross Xenos said. “But at the same time the player investment of the ARU has made in both those teams has not been anywhere near the investment that it has made to the Reds, Waratahs and Brumbies over the last five years.”
In other words, the ARU is judging the Rebels and the Force on their financial failures that they themselves helped cause.
Proudly Western Australian; Proudly supporting Western Australian rugby
In other words, the ARU is judging the Rebels and the Force on their financial failures that they themselves helped cause.
so what the ARU is saying is that we can't vote to save ourselves - but the rebels can vote to kill us off.
Thanks ARU.
Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate
However Stookie is still on the board (ARU are the Force Rep), so I don't think there is going to be any unanimous decisions at HQ anytime soon.
80 Minutes, 15 Positions, No Protection, Wanna Ruck?
Ruck Me, Maul Me, Make Me Scrum!
Education is Important, but Rugby is Importanter!
Wouldn't the ARU board be in breach of their "fiduciary obligations" to rugby by ignoring every piece of advice that outlined bringing in a 5th team would be a financial disaster? Surely a clause in the employment contracts of the ARU board dictates that they must act in the best interests of Australian Rugby. Deliberately putting Australian Rugby into near insolvency must surely constitute a breach of employment contract by Pulver and his cronies.
By not exercising their power of veto they have shown a willingness to act outside of their "fiduciary obligations" to Australian rugby.
When you read it that way the ARU Board don't vote. it would be up to RUPA, one of the other licencees or State Unions to save our necks. Crazy as that seemsthe voting members comprise the state and territory rugby unions, the Super Rugby licensees and the Rugby Union Players Association.
"The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David
At least the article does acknowledge that the current funding arrangements for players favour the tahs and the reds of the world.
The 'sensible' option of brumbies and rebels merging is still talked about. Would love the know the criteria under which the brumbies have already been deemed safe.
Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate
Explains why nothing about fighting from rebels or the fans. I wonder if they will get a big turn out Saturday and I hope this won't be resolved before we can do a protest. I would love to know what was discussed at the meeting with Cox and Pulver yesterday..
I'm wondering if Pulver and/or Clyne will visit Rugby WA/Force over here ever.
"12 Years a Supporter" starring the #SeaOfBlue
Ok now the ARU Constitution doesn't appear to be published online so far as I can find, but from reading the above combined with the ARU wiki and my own memory that means teh voting members are as follows?
1. RUPA
2. Super Rugby Licensees:
a) NSW Waratahs
b) QLD Reds
c) ACT Brumbies
d) Melbourne Rebels (Andrew Cox)
e) Western Force
3. State and Territory Unions:
a) ACT and Southern NSW Rugby Union
b) NSWRU (with 2 votes)
c) QRU (with 2 votes)
d) Victorian RU
e) RugbyWA
f) South Australian RU
g) Tasmantion RU
h) Northern Territory RU
Therefore using the above situation, if a unanimous vote is required, does that not mean that theoretically the Rebels have 3 likely votes against expulsion (i.e. Cox, VRU and RUPA), while we at least still have 2 (RugbyWA and RUPA)?