Force 2018

[waiopehu oldboy]

https://www.change.org/p/the-aru-ke...ish.guest_form_reduction&utm_term=autopublish

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

I'm on it.

 

[Killer]

I'm on it.

wow its moving, up over 2k since I signed this AM

 

[GaffaCHinO]

Over 7000 signatures wow keep it up guys.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Up to nearly 7,500 as of a few minutes ago........

EDIT: Gaffa beat me to it.

 

[Forceright]

I'm no expert.

No this is just in relation to the wording of the alliance agreement and whether in the eyes of the court it guarantees our place until 2020, the end of the current broadcast agreement.

The ARU is claiming the change of format is enough to say that the old b/cast agreement is over and this is a new agreement and therefore the Force is not guaranteed a spot in it.



IMO total BS and against the intent of the agreement.



We have appealed this decision and have to wait and see if our reasons are deemed serious enough to be heard.



IMO it will be heard in a open court because of the public interest and thus a need for transparency, even Premiers are commenting. But I know little about this stuff.



If this fails or even concurrently we will try other means such as you suggested.

I'm no lawyer - but in laymans terms I'm failing to understand how a contract can be signed between 2 parties, then 1 party changes the terms of agreement WITHOUT informing the other party & then says its still the same contract. If the bank wants to change your mortgage contract for example, they can't legally do that, let alone not inform you! If the ARU is saying its now a new contract, surely its then a separate contract between them & SANZAAR alone? In addition SANZAAR publicly stated that the arrangements were in the context of the EXISTING agreement! None of it adds up or makes sense

 

[Killer]

I'm no lawyer - but in laymans terms I'm failing to understand how a contract can be signed between 2 parties, then 1 party changes the terms of agreement WITHOUT informing the other party & then says its still the same contract. If the bank wants to change your mortgage contract for example, they can't legally do that, let alone not inform you! If the ARU is saying its now a new contract, surely its then a separate contract between them & SANZAAR alone? In addition SANZAAR publicly stated that the arrangements were in the context of the EXISTING agreement! None of it adds up or makes sense

Yes the intent imo was clear, we would be there until 2020 at least.
But because Clyne has no integrity and there is no actual detailed wording, I assume as I haven't seen it, he is claiming that they can change the b/cst agreement as they wish without even notifying us because the agreement doesn't say they have to etc. Just BS.

 

[daz]

I'm no lawyer - but in laymans terms I'm failing to understand how a contract can be signed between 2 parties, then 1 party changes the terms of agreement WITHOUT informing the other party & then says its still the same contract. If the bank wants to change your mortgage contract for example, they can't legally do that, let alone not inform you! If the ARU is saying its now a new contract, surely its then a separate contract between them & SANZAAR alone? In addition SANZAAR publicly stated that the arrangements were in the context of the EXISTING agreement! None of it adds up or makes sense

I get that, and there sure are lots of contradictory stories floating around, but the arbitrator would surely have had a set of guidelines to test the veracity of both claimants, and those guidelines would be a few levels above the good old-fashioned pub test.

Clearly, they/he/she found something that tipped the balance in favour of the ARU. What that was, I have no idea.

I/We have to assume that the arbitrator was a neutral party, so in effect, this appeal is based on a point of law disagreement with the arbitrators decision.

A court case against the ARU, by the Force, for false claims, incorrect data, misleading financials, etc, is a whole other thing. With TF's deep pockets and the support of the WA Gov, I assume the Force will go down that path as well, should the appeal fail.

So there are likely to be two processes to follow. For the Force, you have to hope that a) The arbitrator got it wrong, or b) The ARU was willfully misleading or working under false pretenses, or perhaps c) Both. Regardless of what is being said in the media, we really don't know what is claimable in court.

I guess we will find out soon enough though!

 

[farva]

The benefit of it going to court is that a lot of information will be made public. Particularly I hope around the processes the ARU went down to assess which franchise to remove.

 

[Forceright]

I get that, and there sure are lots of contradictory stories floating around, but the arbitrator would surely have had a set of guidelines to test the veracity of both claimants, and those guidelines would be a few levels above the good old-fashioned pub test.



Clearly, they/he/she found something that tipped the balance in favour of the ARU. What that was, I have no idea.



I/We have to assume that the arbitrator was a neutral party, so in effect, this appeal is based on a point of law disagreement with the arbitrators decision.



A court case against the ARU, by the Force, for false claims, incorrect data, misleading financials, etc, is a whole other thing. With TF's deep pockets and the support of the WA Gov, I assume the Force will go down that path as well, should the appeal fail.



So there are likely to be two processes to follow. For the Force, you have to hope that a) The arbitrator got it wrong, or b) The ARU was willfully misleading or working under false pretenses, or perhaps c) Both. Regardless of what is being said in the media, we really don't know what is claimable in court.



I guess we will find out soon enough though!

Good points - I'm especially liking the 'arbitrator got it wrong' and if the ARU did present misleadings or nondisclosure of details, which it appears the Force did not know about/not informed of either- who can say? Would prefer the case to be heard in WA tho.

 

[Killer]

I get that, and there sure are lots of contradictory stories floating around, but the arbitrator would surely have had a set of guidelines to test the veracity of both claimants, and those guidelines would be a few levels above the good old-fashioned pub test.

Clearly, they/he/she found something that tipped the balance in favour of the ARU. What that was, I have no idea.

I/We have to assume that the arbitrator was a neutral party, so in effect, this appeal is based on a point of law disagreement with the arbitrators decision.

A court case against the ARU, by the Force, for false claims, incorrect data, misleading financials, etc, is a whole other thing. With TF's deep pockets and the support of the WA Gov, I assume the Force will go down that path as well, should the appeal fail.

So there are likely to be two processes to follow. For the Force, you have to hope that a) The arbitrator got it wrong, or b) The ARU was willfully misleading or working under false pretenses, or perhaps c) Both. Regardless of what is being said in the media, we really don't know what is claimable in court.

I guess we will find out soon enough though!

From what I have gathered the Judge thought there had been sufficient changes to the original agreement to be able to call it a new agreement. For mine that is a subjective finding. Especially when sanzaar themselves called it the same agreement in their presser about intended changes to the format of the comp, which I am not sure was shown to the Judge? but I'm a layman.

 

[Jon]

From what I have gathered the Judge thought there had been sufficient changes to the original agreement to be able to call it a new agreement. For mine that is a subjective finding. Especially when sanzaar themselves called it the same agreement in their presser about intended changes to the format of the comp, which I am not sure was shown to the Judge? but I'm a layman.

This is exactly where I got confused as well.
My experiences have showed me that you can sign variation after variation to a contract (as that's what this "broadcast agreement is") and it's still the same contract.

You can make almost whatever changes you want to the contract as long as they are done via a variation.

Given the amount of stakeholders involved in staging and broadcasting Super Rugby, you have to think the path of least resistance is a variation to the contract as opposed to a new one - and indeed the SANZAAR announcement said this specifically.

If this is the case - ARU/SANZAAR should immediately upload the signed and dated PDF on contract version 2.0, and then RWA will launch legal avenue #2 which is the "in good faith" argument.

otherwise we're operating under 1.1 - which is still the same contract and the arbitrator got it wrong.

 

[Killer]

as a layman I agree totally, hopefully we will soon have those ARU reps without integrity on the stand. Otherwise known as, imo, lying fucks

 

[Shiggins]

Guys I think it would be a fairy tail if we survived now.

What would happen if we did and then the Aru would have to say ok. Rebels are gone. Wouldn't the rebels have the same as argument as us

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

 

[Killer]

Guys I think it would be a fairy tail if we survived now.

What would happen if we did and then the Aru would have to say ok. Rebels are gone. Wouldn't the rebels have the same as argument as us

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

No they have no relationship. It will just be a case where they have 5 teams and can't get rid of any. Then Clyne will also resign and we can then move forward with better leadership.

 

[Jon]

Guys I think it would be a fairy tail if we survived now.

What would happen if we did and then the Aru would have to say ok. Rebels are gone. Wouldn't the rebels have the same as argument as us

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

Yeah I dont have a lot of hope we're going to get reinstated. But am happy and vindictive enough to see the Earth nice and scorched in our wake. ESPECIALLY considering that the spirit are part of the same alliance agreement & licence as well. Which makes this decision go to just another level of stupidity.

I still think it's bullshit that we're even in a situation where we have to cut a team at all. Especially as we're ultimately doing it as the consequences of another union's actions.

 

[BLR]

Guys I think it would be a fairy tail if we survived now.

Contact Netflix and sell them the movie rights, all money to be put into a fence around WA to keep the ARU from getting into our business again.

 

[Shiggins]

Contact Netflix and sell them the movie rights, all money to be put into a fence around WA to keep the ARU from getting into our business again.

If it happens it would make a hell of a movie. Even the last game of the season and hodgo. It's all Hollywood stuff

I see the rock playing hodgo. Nah maybe walberg hahaha

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

 

[Killer]

Yeah I dont have a lot of hope we're going to get reinstated. But am happy to see the Earth nice and scorched in our wake.

I still think it's bullshit that we're even in a situation where we have to cut a team at all. Especially as we're ultimately doing it as the consequences of another union's actions.

To get this appeal heard is the crux I think, if we can do so there is a good chance, compared to other options, to get a good outcome. I think everyone including the ARU were surprised how it went so it must have been close? therefore with more evidence and a different judge in an open court the outcome could be very different.
In my entire life no one has ever accused me of being glass half empty.

 

[Moono75]

You would think that if the terms of broadcast agreement were sufficiently changed as claimed by the ARU as to constituting a new broadcast agreement then there was an obligation for them "in good faith" to renegotiate the alliance agreement with the Force, or at least give them the opportunity to buy back their licence.

At what point does a so called Alliance turn into a Fait Accompli!

 

[Killer]

You would think that if the terms of broadcast agreement were sufficiently changed as claimed by the ARU as to constituting a new broadcast agreement then there was an obligation for them "in good faith" to renegotiate the alliance agreement with the Force, or at least give them the opportunity to buy back their licence.

At what point does a so called Alliance turn into a Fait Accompli!

yes I agree, if the agreement does not have details for every possible occurrence then surely we have to look at the intent. Also look at what the people who made the original b/cast agreement call it and the associated points made by Jon above.
I think we got out manoeuvred last time by a probable small point, enough to sway the balance in fav of the ARU.