Australian Rugby / RA

[Kenny Powers]

Very easy to amend it to "super rugby"competition. You're in Parliament, not a court of law.

EDIT: And of course you've also noticed clause (f)?

Does this mean the Senate could make enquiry as to the Brumbies dealings?

KPMG forensic accountants report never released, matter referred to Federal Police, they in turn refer it to ASIC in November 2016 and 10 months latter still nothing.

Not sure if this is garden variety public service incompetence or Canberra protecting Canberra?

 

[cyclopath]

The documents may be helpful with a timeline, also some with nothing to gain will not be willing to perjure themselves. I doubt Clyne has many friends in that den.
I agree though, senators are mostly useless at interrogation.

One need only look at the average senator to realise that Keating was on the money.

 

[Leo86]

My question for the Senate.

If the ARU are meant to as per their constitution grow and foster the game refuse to endorse any player playing in a WA team for a differnt comp for Wallabies eligibility. Will the government continue to endorse the Wallabies to be allowed to wear the national emblem whilst their governing body discriminate against their fellow countrymen?

 

[daz]

My question for the Senate.

If the ARU are meant to as per their constitution grow and foster the game refuse to endorse any player playing in a WA team for a differnt comp for Wallabies eligibility. Will the government continue to endorse the Wallabies to be allowed to wear the national emblem whilst their governing body discriminate against their fellow countrymen?

Have the ARU said they won't select players playing in a currently fictional league?

Anyway, assuming this indo-PAC league happens, how is that different to not selecting an Australian player who plays in Japan or France, etc, and does not meet the eligibility requirements?

Are those players also being discriminated against?

 

[Killer]

This Twiggy situation created by Mr Self Interest Clyne will cause a huge schism in Aus rugby.
The more successful TF's comp is the more damage that will be done to the ARU and Super rugby.
Success is guaranteed due to TF's cash, contacts and passion.

The ARU can't make a profit now.
Their financial statement just released is dire.
Sponsors are leaving, who would get on with them after all this, and it's not even a national comp now!
Public perception of rugby and the ARU is shit and getting shittier thus minimal support for Fox, sponsors or crowds.
Senate inquiry equals more shitty publicity.
WA Govt suing, maybe nothing? or possibly a quick death.
Other legal action by RWA?
A 5 team conf, mostly local H&Away will be crap, see Reds V Tahs last season.
Sunwolves will be another anchor unless they have a big bag of money.
Wallabies need to win, a 50:50 proposition.
Cheika is still coach, can't afford to change.
Low income year leading into RWC.
2020 possibly no SARU and no SANZAAR and no EU broadcast money.
If they do stay all broadcast monies will be way down.
Maybe a Trans Tasman Comp, all on NZ's terms.
Playing only NZ teams is a bore, still small crowds.
Fox broadcast income will not be better than current.
BTW who is paying for the Rebels losses now, actually the ARU mostly were and still will be.
Any money for women's rugby and 7's rugby or are they cut too.
Is there any money going to grassroots?
Whats happening in the Brumbies dodgy land deals saga.
Have the Reds still got their 7m debt that they are carrying.
Who or what is the next sacrifice.

The point being that the trajectory of Aus rugby is down and the bottom is still not even in sight.
This potential death spiral will cause all sorts of ugly problems between all participants. Who will be cut next or will you just drag each other off the mountain all roped up together.
I don't see a way out, without massive restructure nothing can change. Aside from intent you need cash and income to restructure but there is none to spare.
Never fear Clyne is here.
oh well?

 

[Leo86]

Anyway, assuming this indo-PAC league happens, how is that different to not selecting an Australian player who plays in Japan or France, etc, and does not meet the eligibility requirements?

Are those players also being discriminated against?

Oh i get it. So if you look at a map, atlas, etc Western Australia is in a country called Australia. Australia has a representative team in rugby union. So regardless of competition is still an Australian team with Australian players. France well thats a whole other country on a whole other continent and Japan well you must have the same map the ARU have in thinking its part of Australia. But actually its not. Its located in Asia quite a large continent in itself

 

[Moono75]

Have the ARU said they won't select players playing in a currently fictional league?

Anyway, assuming this indo-PAC league happens, how is that different to not selecting an Australian player who plays in Japan or France, etc, and does not meet the eligibility requirements?

Are those players also being discriminated against?

Because there will be a Force team based in and playing out of Perth in the new competition as opposed to a player living and playing overseas. I think Perth is still considered part of Australia although sometimes I highly doubt it!

 

[USARugger]

Have the ARU said they won't select players playing in a currently fictional league?

Anyway, assuming this indo-PAC league happens, how is that different to not selecting an Australian player who plays in Japan or France, etc, and does not meet the eligibility requirements?

Are those players also being discriminated against?

Does anyone have a link to any official documents regarding selection policy? As far as I can find, the language of the Giteau Law centers around a contract with an Australian Super Rugby side. If that's the language used in the actual selection policy documents then it's a pretty huge stretch to claim the hypothetical exclusion of those players as a form of actual discrimination.

 

[Slim 293]

Giteau's law as reported back then..........

It allows overseas-based players to be eligible for selection in the Wallabies, so long as they have played more than 60 Tests for Australia and have also held a professional contract with an Australian Super Rugby franchise for a total of at least seven years.

The fact is that players in a hypothetical Twiggy league couldn't represent the Wallabies unless they've played 60 tests for Australia.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

There may be a quid for the ARU in consulting to the AFL on how to solve the crisis of having too many juniors:
"Gillon McLachlan has vowed to find football grounds in Sydney for junior players being turned away by local clubs due to a critical shortage of facilities.

Pointing to the scarcity and inadequacy of grounds as "almost the biggest challenge facing our game", the AFL chief vowed he would not "accept turning kids away" after holding talks in the harbour city on the eve of the finals with the president of Sydney's biggest junior club."
http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-has-grounds-for-concern-in-sydney-20170906-gycax1.html

 

[daz]

Giteau's law as reported back then....



The fact is that players in a hypothetical Twiggy league couldn't represent the Wallabies unless they've played 60 tests for Australia.

Yep, that sounds about right. Unless the ARU amend that criteria for Twiggy-Ball League, which I would doubt as it would almost certainly be a level down on Super Rugby standards.

 

[dru]

I had the pleasure of appearing at a senate hearing many years ago. I think he will survive. This has got nothing at to do with his past as a banker, and no senator would be stupid enough to think that it does.

OTOH his past and background provides little to make him loveable to the Senators. I'm not sure he'll find too many friends in Canberra.

 

[daz]

Oh i get it. So if you look at a map, atlas, etc Western Australia is in a country called Australia. Australia has a representative team in rugby union. So regardless of competition is still an Australian team with Australian players. France well thats a whole other country on a whole other continent and Japan well you must have the same map the ARU have in thinking its part of Australia. But actually its not. Its located in Asia quite a large continent in itself

Thanks for the geography lesson. But that all means doodly squat given that the requirements to be picked for the Wallabies has nothing to do with location, and everything to do with meeting the 2 very clear criteria.

The Western Force (or whatever the new team name will be, since I understand the ARU own the Force name and brand - happy to be corrected there) are no longer a Super Rugby side, so right now the exact same rules apply to those players who go off to play Twiggy-Ball as players in France, Japan, etc.

 

[wamberal]

One need only look at the average senator to realise that Keating was on the money.

The greatest collection of party hacks and other mediocrities ever.

 

[wamberal]

Because there will be a Force team based in and playing out of Perth in the new competition as opposed to a player living and playing overseas. I think Perth is still considered part of Australia although sometimes I highly doubt it!

It all depends on whether any proposed competition actually plays rugby, under the purview of Whirled Rugby, and whether any Australian participation has the blessing of the ARU.


If not, it is a rebel competition, and the players would clearly not be eligible for national selection.

 

[flat_eric]

My question for the Senate.

If the ARU are meant to as per their constitution grow and foster the game refuse to endorse any player playing in a WA team for a differnt comp for Wallabies eligibility. Will the government continue to endorse the Wallabies to be allowed to wear the national emblem whilst their governing body discriminate against their fellow countrymen?

I'm not sure about that. Having some involvement in senate estimates hearings, there are definitely some wiley operators. Notably Nick Xenophon and (now formerly) Scott Ludlam, but there are plenty of others who earn their keep.

 

[Leo86]

Thanks for the geography lesson. But that all means doodly squat given that the requirements to be picked for the Wallabies has nothing to do with location, and everything to do with meeting the 2 very clear criteria.

The Western Force (or whatever the new team name will be, since I understand the ARU own the Force name and brand - happy to be corrected there) are no longer a Super Rugby side, so right now the exact same rules apply to those players who go off to play Twiggy-Ball as players in France, Japan, etc.

Look if the Force left willingly and started their own comp in spite of the ARU, fine then the ARU can be as they are and not care for rugby in ALL of Aus.

Major point being, We were pushed out. We dont have a comp to support but a team, our NRC team is under threat also. (forgive me for not trusting the ARU)

So we are taking steps to continue, foster and grow Rugby not just in Aus, WA and now other countries.

I think the least the ARU could do in not completely abandoning WA would be to endorse this comp and allow players to be eligible for Wallaby selection and return our IP for us to continue being the Force. Some of these players are Western Australian, should they be punished for wanting to play at home)

Why cant this comp be embraced and Australia have 2 comps they are a part of (same as SARU). There are a stupid number of Australian players playing overseas and this has the possibility to bring some back (hopefully)

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Look if the Force left willingly and started their own comp in spite of the ARU, fine then the ARU can be as they are and not care for rugby in ALL of Aus.

Major point being, We were pushed out. We dont have a comp to support but a team, our NRC team is under threat also. (forgive me for not trusting the ARU)

So we are taking steps to continue, foster and grow Rugby not just in Aus, WA and now other countries.

I think the least the ARU could do in not completely abandoning WA would be to endorse this comp and allow players to be eligible for Wallaby selection and return our IP for us to continue being the Force. Some of these players are Western Australian, should they be punished for wanting to play at home)

Why cant this comp be embraced and Australia have 2 comps they are a part of (same as SARU). There are a stupid number of Australian players playing overseas and this has the possibility to bring some back (hopefully)

I think you have to look at history, to some extent.
Super League, World Series Cricket and even the original pro rugby concept of involving Kearns et al all had serious repercusions for their participants in relation to the traditional governing bodies.
Dont forget that blokes like Ken Wright were not even allowed to run the water for colts in the amateru era because they had accepted money from the other rugby code.
Its debatable just how far the ARU has moved from those amateur days!
While the ARU seem to have brought about the demise of the Force it is doubtful they would feel any moral obligation to support the Force in a different competition.
Its interesting to speculate what World Rugby's position might be: we've never been top of the xmas card list so maybe they would not lean on Asian national unions to steer clear - but in the end their view is probably that complete control of the game is desirable and is best achieve by defending the ARU through threats to affiliation to any foreign union that embarks on participation in Twiggy Ball.
All other prior rebel leagues have had a media backer looking for content - that's not twiggy: maybe his fellow West Australian, K. Stokes cold be enticed, but 7 probably isn't looking to have a rugby war.
God forbid that I should ever promote anything of Fitzsimons but this provides some background to how we got to pro rugby:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6184605-the-rugby-war

 

[Leo86]

I think you have to look at history, to some extent.
Super League, World Series Cricket and even the original pro rugby concept of involving Kearns et al all had serious repercusions for their participants in relation to the traditional governing bodies.
Dont forget that blokes like Ken Wright were not even allowed to run the water for colts in the amateru era because they had accepted money from the other rugby code.
Its debatable just how far the ARU has moved from those amateur days!
While the ARU seem to have brought about the demise of the Force it is doubtful they would feel any moral obligation to support the Force in a different competition.
Its interesting to speculate what World Rugby's position might be: we've never been top of the xmas card list so maybe they would not lean on Asian national unions to steer clear - but in the end their view is probably that complete control of the game is desirable and is best achieve by defending the ARU through threats to affiliation to any foreign union that embarks on participation in Twiggy Ball.
All other prior rebel leagues have had a media backer looking for content - that's not twiggy: maybe his fellow West Australian, K. Stokes cold be enticed, but 7 probably isn't looking to have a rugby war.
God forbid that I should ever promote anything of Fitzsimons but this provides some background to how we got to pro rugby:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6184605-the-rugby-war

Ive read the book, but will concede that i am of an uneducated opinion due to age and involvement of rugby starting during 2003 WC but escalating with the Force (hence my passion)

This comp isnt for greed, to take over, spite but for survival.

Ive said before if the ARU endorses this, I will be back with the Wallabies (I havent replaced em, Im goin to this weekend's test, but I couldnt even put on my jersey to watch bledisloe 1 on the couch) which in turn will have me then still wanting to watch Super to see how the other players are gong.

Its not one or the other in my head but 2 comps simultaneously i can/will follow and get to support my team and still go to live matches

 

[Braveheart81]

The ARU stating that the decision they made to cancel the Western Force licence was entirely based on the fact that they thought they would be insolvent within a couple of years otherwise seems fairly watertight to me.

Clearly the line of questioning should follow that the actions they took around the Alliance Agreement were not conducted in good faith and that seems entirely true but I am not sure what it will achieve beyond making the ARU look slightly more cartoon villain-ish than they already do.