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

[SteveWA]

no. There's plenty of Force talk and plenty of disgust about how this whole ordeal has played out.

Reg, I appreciate just how difficult it is to moderate a community site (I am a mod of one of the longest running Wikis in existence).

However my observation of the tone and tenor of discussion on GAGR recently is that the apologists like amirite and wamberal get away with innuendo and denigration, while those supporting the WA perspective get banned. In addition, people like Hugh are constantly saying "I don't know about that but ...." and off they go on an ignorant and uninformed rant.

So, with respect, I do believe the people complaining here have a genuine grievance.

[Bakkies]

Re timing of info being released by the Senate Inquiry - I wonder if the good Senators have played a bit of "rope a dope" here.

It's an old tactic to have particular info but hang onto it until you have ferreted out the lie from the target, you then post this info showing the target as disreputable - just a thought.

Yep. I only got my mail at the close of business yesterday.

[Bakkies]

http://www.2gb.com/podcast/alan-jone...november-10th/

Alan Jones talking about Rugby from 23mins. The ARU has over 140 staff that which doesn't include part time match officials, casuals, contractors, players, etc. There is a prospective booklet for CEO applicants.

[GIGS20]

In the Answers to Questions on Notice


How many people on here actually made submissions to the Inquiry? Pretty sure Alison did and there was another poster who had theirs referred to as correspondence (that isn't up as it is all David Vaux and John Edwards).

I don't mind saying on here that I was submission 16...my conservative employers was the reason I wasn't keen to have my name out there, but if you can make the jump from GIGS to my real name I figure you know enough to get me canned anyway.

[Alison]

In GnGR’s defence, they allowed me to publish my piece on the ARU finances when the Roar refused to. Reg was instrumental in getting the information out there.

[Bakkies]

I see the Senate Inquiry thread has been moved from suggested threads on to the Rugby discussion on G & G.

[zimeric]

yep a little more visible now which is a positive step

[GIGS20]

I have kicked start conversations on the Roar

http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/11/10...igns-leicester

Bit quiet in response there Bakkies.

[shasta]

I don't mind saying on here that I was submission 16...my conservative employers was the reason I wasn't keen to have my name out there, but if you can make the jump from GIGS to my real name I figure you know enough to get me canned anyway.

We knew it was someone from here when there were enough links to TWF to out-link The Man.

[GIGS20]

We knew it was someone from here when there were enough links to TWF to out-link The Man.

Got lazy, couldn't be arsed finding actual facts to support my points!

[sittingbison]

GIGS20 is The Man

[Bakkies]

Bit quiet in response there Bakkies.

It will warm up. People have come on stating that the Roar haven't covered the hearing

I am just reading de Clyne's testimony how's this for lies

Senator REYNOLDS: Mr Clyne, didn't you actually say not so long ago—just now, in fact—that there was no guarantee from the Western Australian government? We understand there was the transport safety sponsorship, which was provided and guaranteed, and you've now just acknowledged the Western Australian government did put a bid in for extra financial support.

Mr Clyne : No, I said the sponsorship deal was not forward-contracted beyond one year.

Senator REYNOLDS: Sorry, forward contracted?

Mr Clyne : We didn't have a commitment beyond one year with regards to the sponsorship. However, we did say, 'Let's assume it will occur.' We actually gave the credit for that, and we also gave the credit that the Own the Force would be fully subscribed. On both those factors, even though they weren't actually contractible, we gave the credit to them in the WA bid and it was still inferior to Victoria.

Having read John's submission it was pretty clear that the Road Safety deal was confirmed for three years

CHAIR: I've got a question on notice. Given the conflicting evidence we had about who led the negotiations, can you take on notice confirmation of who led the negotiations. Was it Mr Clarke or Mr Pulver?

Mr Clyne : The management team are responsible—it's not an individual in the organisation. Bill would delegate across a range of people. They've all got tasks to take. I'm happy to take the question but I don't quite understand what the issue is.

CHAIR: I think the best thing for us to do is to give you the Hansard record and you can see where the conflicts are and you can confirm with us what your understanding is of who led the negotiations.

Senator REYNOLDS: And was there a conflict of interest.

CHAIR: There are issues perhaps of conflict of interest, and was there a conflict of interest declared by Mr Clarke?

Mr Clyne : He is an employee of the ARU, so I don't believe he has a conflict of interest because he's acting in the best interests of the ARU. As to his past associations, the ARU is full of people, as are many franchises, who have worked in a whole range of different entities within rugby. When he is an employee of the ARU, he will act in the best interests of the ARU.

Senator REYNOLDS: Mr Clarke is on the public record as saying that the two purchasers were longstanding friends—again, there is the relationship with Mr Gray and the unit trust. I want to confirm that you've never heard about the unit trust before?

Mr Clyne : I haven't, no.

CHAIR: Thank you. Can you take that on notice, please. We have finished for today. Thank you very much to broadcasting, the secretariat and of course our witness.

Can't see de Clyne's answer to the question on notice on the Inquiry website.

[GIGS20]

GIGS20 is The Man

Ahh twf, the only place in the world where that is an insult!

[GIGS20]

Can't see de Clyne's answer to the question on notice on the Inquiry website.

It's commercial in-confidence.

[UAUdiver1959]

And the ARU still tried their best to impede the Own the Force campaign. Pulver asked for it not to be released and then stifled membership by announcing that the Force was the one to go.
It kills me that nothing has been said about Pulver asking Howarth not to release the prospectus. Pulver obviously thought that this was going to be another hindrance in shutting us down.