• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Senate enquiry into Australian Rugby

Status
Not open for further replies.

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
private sporting organisations must be true to their constitution - they can not spend their money how they please. The ARU has failed its key obligations according to its constitution.
The Board is accountable to its stakeholders even nobodies like me but especially a whole state.
The Senate can make recommendations about the incompetence of the ARU management and the failure of the Board to uphold their duties.


The ARU have and will continue to state that if they didn't cut a team they were of the opinion that they would be insolvent within 18 months.

I really can't see the Senate Inquiry going anywhere. The WA Senators in particular will have a crack at the ARU but ultimately that will be it.
 

jimmydubs

Dave Cowper (27)
Given the level of stonewalling going on there may be something to he found in the digging. I suspect it's more than just the ARU choosing the Force because they were easiest to cut.
 

jimmydubs

Dave Cowper (27)
So apparently there were 2 put options for the selling of the Rebels. Each for $1, one to the VRU and one to the ARU and both required ARU approval.

There seems to he a bit of a rabbit hole opening up.
 

jimmydubs

Dave Cowper (27)
The latest on the Senate Hearings:

Senate not impressed with Board and Clyne. Clyne grumpy someone on the board ratted on themselves

https://thewest.com.au/sport/rugby-...ate-axing-before-force-alliance-ng-b88631072z

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...r/news-story/ebc161f2e6f271bb851af54d906560eb (google ARU already in talks to axe team when Force licence taken over)
Read the first Article and tell me there isn't enough juice in there to feed pages of forum speculation on the main board.
There'll be at least a page of BH replying to all and sundry that he doesn't think this will go anywhere.
 

jimmydubs

Dave Cowper (27)
Anyone else slightly annoyed that it appears the millions that went down the rebels black hole weren't lossesthat would fairly be attributed to the Rebels buy instead were siphoned off in management fees to Imperium (more money than staff and player payments combined it is alleged) and propping up insolvent imperium entities?
rebels, Tahs, brums, Force and Reds fans should all be pretty pissed I would've thought?
Anyone got a spin that justifies this?
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
Anyone else slightly annoyed that it appears the millions that went down the rebels black hole weren't lossesthat would fairly be attributed to the Rebels buy instead were siphoned off in management fees to Imperium (more money than staff and player payments combined it is alleged) and propping up insolvent imperium entities?
rebels, Tahs, brums, Force and Reds fans should all be pretty pissed I would've thought?
Anyone got a spin that justifies this?

I've got nothing. The entire board should resign for being stupid.
 

lou75

Ron Walden (29)
Clyne, in his testimony, says of the Cox bid for the Melbourne Rebels that: "It was, at the point in time, a superior bid, and that's why we selected it. You make reference to other bids. Certainly, from what the board saw, there were no other bids that were as attractive as this bid."

Reynolds: "They paid $1, and they were provided with millions of dollars of extra grants, (it was over $6 million) which no other Super Rugby club was getting, and they were spending it on consultancy fees. They were using that money to pay themselves exorbitant fees."

and from Alan Winney: "The Winney Consortium bid to buy the Rebels from the ARU was to pay $100 for the Super Rugby participation licence and the club’s intellectual property. It proposed that the Consortium would then recapitalise the club with $6 million in new equity, to take effect from the handover date. The Consortium advised that all matters up to 31 December 2014 would remain as the responsibility of the ARU and that all matters related to the post 31 December 2014 period would be the responsibly of the buyer. The buyers would absorb the anticipated 2015 losses"

In a nut shell - the ARU chose to sell the Rebels to Cox for $1 and then pay Cox about $6 m to help him run the club instead of accepting Winney's bid to sell him the Rebels for $100 and have Winney pump about $6 m into the club with no hand outs to Winney over the usual Super Rugby grants given to all clubs. That's a $12 m differential to the ARU plus the loss for 2015, say $3m = $15 m differential

Please, please, explain how it was a superior bid, cos I've got nothing
 

Boomer

Alfred Walker (16)
From latest tranche of documents at the Senate inquiry website...

Force board member David Vaux on Cline, Forrest et al.

From: David Vaux
To: Community Affairs, Committee (SEN)
Subject: Senate Affairs Enquiry into the Future of Rugby Union in Australia
Date: Thursday, 19 October 2017 12:45:42 PM
19 October 2017
The Chairman
Community Affairs References Committee
Senator Rachel Siewert
Via email : community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au
Dear Senator,
Senate Community Affairs References Committee
Third Public Hearing for the Future of Rugby Union in Australia
1. My name is David Vaux and I have been a director of RugbyWA (“RWA”) since June
2011.

2. Whilst a West Australian, who learnt rugby at school in Perth and played
subsequently at University of WA, I have, since 1981, lived in Sydney. I played with
Sydney University and Waverley Rugby Club until 1995 when I retired from playing.
I have since served on the Sydney University Football Club Foundation.

3. My role as a director of RWA is to be a point of local contact between the ARU
board and executive and the RWA board and executive. I have known members of
the ARU board including Mr Cameron Clyne, Chairman, Mr Bill Pulver, CEO, and
directors Mr John Eales and Mr Brett Robinson for some years.

4. In Mr Clyne’s opening statement, made on public record to the Committee on 16th
October 2017, Mr Clyne makes a number of false assertions.

5. I am compelled to correct Mr Clyne’s evidence, in order that the Committee is not
misled.

6. Mr Clyne’s version of what he said to me on the telephone on Sunday 20th August
2017 which he outlined to the Committee in his opening evidence , detailed below,
is substantially untrue:

Mr Clyne…“It has been falsely claimed during this enquiry that the ARU had made
an offer to reinstate the Western Force if RugbyWA or Mr Forest would pay a sum
of $70m to the ARU. This is a complete misrepresentation of what transpired, both
in my telephone conversation with Mr Vaux and in the meeting with Mr Forest and
his representatives in Adelaide.

There was never a point in either conversation that a specific financial sum was
discussed in relation to reversing the ARU board’s decision to remove the Western
Force. In fact, rather than a specific figure, it was pointed out that financial support
would need to be open ended, as a major element would be compensation for all
teams, and broadcasters, given the inferior nature and higher cost of a 16 team
competition.

When pressed for a figure, I said it would likely exceed $100m, given the
complexity involved, and even then, it was no guarantee our members, SANZAR or
broadcasters would support it. That is the only figure ever raised, and it certainly
was not a commitment, but merely an estimate, and certainly nothing was offered
that came close.”

7. The above statements by Mr Clyne do not accord with what he said to me, my
notes and contemporaneous emails.

8. I have a very clear recollection of our telephone conversation. At the time I was
visiting my daughter on the Sunshine Coast and I had to excuse myself from a small
gathering to take the call from Mr Clyne. I also took some notes of key points. The
following is a summary of my telephone conversation with Mr Clyne and
subsequent events :
a) Mr Clyne called at 2.22pm on Sunday 20 August 2017 and said to me that the
process of determining an Australian team to drop from the Super Rugby
Competition had been very, very difficult for him, and that he was personally
very hurt by media commentary and comments by Andrew Forest about his
role and the ARU’s approach. He had been warned not to do business with Mr
Forest and told not to trust him. However, notwithstanding these feelings, he
had been instructed by his board to make a “Without Prejudice” proposal. He
said that the ARU would retain the Western Force in the Super Rugby
Competition on the following conditions :
(i) Mr Forest would underwrite the Western Force’s financial position for
the remaining 3 years of the Broadcasting Agreements, and an
additional 5 years which would arise from the next cycle of Broadcasting
Agreements;
(ii) The Western Force would receive equal funding from the ARU to the
other 4 Australian Super Rugby teams;
(iii) To compensate the ARU for having to continue to provide an ongoing
$6m contribution to the Western Force, Mr Forest would provide
funding to the ARU for grass roots rugby for $6m a year over the 3 + 5
year period, $48m in total;
(iv) Mr Forest would provide SANZAR compensation for the additional costs
of going from 15 to 16 teams, namely $20m; and
(v) If this proposal was agreed to, then Mr Clyne and the rest of the ARU
board would resign and a new board would appoint the next CEO.
I asked Mr Clyne to clarify why he felt the 8 year period was appropriate. He said
that if the Western Force were to be retained, then it would naturally be a
consequence that they would be retained for the next broadcasting cycle as well. I
queried with Mr Clyne, the commerciality of including the additional 5 years, as it
was highly likely that the structure and funding of the Super Rugby Competition
would be materially different, hence, due to this uncertainty, it was an
unreasonable demand. He was however adamant about the 8 year period.
I informed Mr Clyne that I would present his proposal to representatives of Mr
Forest and also to the RWA Chairman, Mr Tony Howarth. Our call concluded at
2.49pm.
I returned to my gathering and informed them that I needed to be excused to
make some further calls, as I had just been speaking to Mr Clyne, and I wanted to
pass onto my West Australian colleagues details of a proposal he had made. I
expressed hope that a settlement might be possible.

9. During the course of the afternoon, I made phone calls to John Welborn, Mr
Forest’s key representative, Mark Sinderberry, CEO of RWA, Tony Howarth,
Chairman RWA and Geoff Stooke, ex-ARU director and adviser to RWA and Mr
Forest.

10. I sent a text to Mr Clyne at 6.04pm saying “Spoken to John who will discuss with
Andrew. Will get back to you as soon as possible. Regards, David”.

11. At 7.39pm that night I received an email from John Welborn confirming details of
the discussion I had with Mr Clyne. A copy of Mr Welborn’s email which is a true
and accurate summary of my conversation with Mr Clyne is set out below.

12. I subsequently was informed that a meeting had been arranged in Adelaide for
Tuesday 22nd August 2017 between Andrew Forest, John Welborn, Geoff Stooke
and from the ARU, Cameron Clyne, John Eales and Brett Robinson.

13. On Tuesday 22nd August 2017 at 7.06am I sent a text to Mr Clyne as follows :
“I truly hope that today’s meeting is successful. In the best interests of Australian
Rugby I’d like to suggest the following. Firstly ask AF to confirm that he will
underwrite the financial security of the WF for the next 3 years and subject to
some
common sense safeguards, also for the next broadcasting cycle. Secondly instead
of
asking for $m to compensate the ARU which will be inflammatory I would simply
thank him for his offer to provide support for Australian rugby and ask him what he
has in mind. This is an unique opportunity to involve a billionaire offering help. If
he
asks for your ideas I suggest you put to him a discrete project such as the creation
of
an Australian Coaching Foundation which could be under the ARU with an
independent board of expert trustees. The mission of the ACF is to become the
global leader in RU coaching. The mandate is to improve coaching at both the
community and elite levels for men and women’s 15’s, 7’s and indigenous rugby
across Australia. The programs would be developed in collaboration with the ARU
and member Unions and associates. The mantra would be that better coaches
make
better players. The ACF would be a very substantial, long term project. Obviously
the costing would need to be determined, but if as part of an agreement to retain
the Force, AF publicly commits to back the project then it will happen. If you feel
you need a minimum $ figure to publicly disclose as part of a settlement I’d ask him
for an amount. I would expect the commitment would be either a lump sum or
over
say 10 years. The establishment of the ACF will save the ARU and the Super Rugby unions
millions and will achieve lasting performance and participation benefits. Yours in
Rugby, David”
I did not receive a reply from Mr Clyne.

14. It was with great dismay that I later heard that the Adelaide meeting was a
complete failure.

15. I subsequently sent a text to Mr Clyne, Mr Eales and Mr Robinson at 9.38pm on
22nd August as follows :
“On Sunday Cameron put to me a proposal for 5 teams to be retained if AF backed
the WF financially and for AF to donate $48m to the ARU and compensation for so
called additional costs for SANZAR. Today you have rejected an Offer which would
have addressed the first two aspects of Cameron’s proposal. The compensation
point is highly debateable. To have turned your backs on AF’s offer is an appalling
mistake. How can you continue to think that 4 teams will somehow return the ARU
and Australian rugby to good health astounds me. To reject a $50m donation from
AF, a proven generous donor, and think that is in the best interests of Australian
rugby is a grave error. Are you sure that you are not now putting your own bias
and
hurt in the way of clear thinking. Please step back and review where things are,
West
Australia will fight on relentlessly. David”

16. Neither Mr Clyne, Mr Eales nor Mr Robinson responded to deny Mr Clyne had
made such an offer on behalf of the ARU or otherwise to correct any of the details
as set out in the above text.

17. I believe that my recollections above are a true and accurate account of the
telephone conversation I had with Mr Clyne and subsequent events.

Yours sincerely,
David Vaux
B.Juris (Hons), LL.B., MBA (London), FAICD
 

Boomer

Alfred Walker (16)
So, Patsy Clyne is upset about being spoken about in a mean way in some tough talking.

Clyne gave a number to save the Force, then barely two days later backed away from it.

Clyne lied to the Senators.

West Australia will fight on relentlessly.

You best believe that. FUARU.
 

Boomer

Alfred Walker (16)
Wow..wow! I'm speechless. That's a bombshell. Why isn't it in the news?

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

My sarcasm-o-meter is on the blink. The penalties for contempt of a Senate committee include The Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 provides that a House of Parliament may impose terms of imprisonment or substantial fines for individuals and corporations as a penalty for contempt. To date the Senate has not had occasion to use either of these penalties, preferring an educative and preventative approach. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parlia...e_n_procedures/Senate_Briefs/Brief13#contempt
 

Micheal

Alan Cameron (40)
The things that have come out of this inquiry are mind blowing and, frankly, I don't think they're getting enough coverage on this site.

Ignore the Force logo - I updated that out of solidarity with the Force fans - I've been a Tahs fan my entire life and I think that the Australian rugby public owes it to themselves, more than the Force fans, to follow this up and ensure that the board is properly assessed and disciplined for their actions in this nonsense.

Not taking action will lead to this incompetent and corrupt administration to seep into our own areas of the game and destroy it entirely. The below poem isn't entirely accurate for our current situation, but we shouldn't forget Martin Niemoller's words in this time:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
 

Killer

Cyril Towers (30)
What happens now?
Who tries to find out what really happened and who lied to the enquiry.
Are the board members etc interviewed under oath.
Clyne has some form here based on comments made in the press at a previous Banking Senate enquiry.
Will have to find it unless someone else has it at hand.
 

Killer

Cyril Towers (30)
https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/the-nab-spin-machine-in-overdrive,4199

Here Clyne knowingly misleads the Committee. The NAB never acknowledges a mistake — and is not happy to rectify one if called to account. The same incompetent and corrupt practices continue under Clyne’s watch (or negligence?). It will be business as usual.

Managing the message remains the NAB’s top priority. Clyne’s 29 May performance on 3AW has one online commenter noting astutely:
‘He sells this crap like a used car salesmen selling a car with a blown engine for full price. Conveniently not addressing the most important issues and relentlessly presenting the irrelevant.’
 

ForceFan

Peter Fenwicke (45)
The submission by John Edwards is just as telling about how the Western Force were shafted by the EARU.
The East Coast sycophantic sports media's attitude is one of "move on rugby fans - there's nothing to see here!".

From: John Edwards
Sent: Thursday, 19 October 2017 11:35 AM
To: Community Affairs, Committee (SEN)
Subject: FW: Senate Community Affairs References Committee - Future of Rugby union -
Submission

Senate Committee, Good morning Senators,
On behalf of Rugby WA I would like to provide you with a Rebuttal to certain statements and
responses to questioning made by the Chairman of the ARU Mr Cameron Clyne in his
appearance at the Senate Enquiry on Monday 16th October 2017.

1. In Mr Clyne’s Opening Statement he indicates that the ARU ‘sought to support the Own the Force campaign” in late 2016 and “provided us with a timeline to ensure that these campaigns could be considered prior SANZAAR’s meeting in London in March 2017”. He goes on to state that “Rugby WA were unable to meet these timelines and did not provide documentation when required”. Mr Clyne is attempting to convince the reader and the Committee that this was somehow the start of a formal process by which the ARU would be able to make an informed decision on the future of the composition of Australian Super Rugby teams in the Super Rugby Tournament. This is fundamentally incorrect. It's important to understand that the concept of reducing from 5 to 4 teams was presented to Rugby WA in an informal manner in late 2016 within weeks of signing the Alliance Agreement. We were told that no decision had been made to cut a team or which team would likely be their choice only that the decision if contemplated would most likely be made around the financial stability of the teams in question. There were no terms of Reference or any specific criteria we might be expected to meet. No one recalls that we were given any specific and lifesaving deadline. As this request assumed that the expectation was to stand on our own two feet we responded proactively and on 22nd November 2016 we informed the ARU of our proposal to buy back the License under the provisions of the Alliance Agreement by incorporating a new ownership model in Australian Sport named “Own the Force”. (This letter is attached). The programme was based upon creating a new company and issuing a prospectus for individual “owners” to hold shares in Western Force Owners Limited (WFOL) . The program would bring a fresh previously untapped cash injection into the game and give the community an opportunity to have a say in the running of the Western Force in the Super Rugby Tournament. This concept was initially embraced by the ARU and widely promoted by ARU CEO Bill Pulver as an exciting new model for professional sport. In early 2017 as the reduction of teams from 5 to 4 began to move from concept to intent the ARU’s view took a full turn culminating in Bill Pulver requesting Tony Howarth on 20th March NOT to launch the Prospectus. The Prospectus was issued on 22nd March 2017. The preparation of the Prospectus and the strategy for fan engagement were time consuming complex processes which we undertook diligently. The ARU would later accuse us of “taking too long” to develop a financial solution insinuating that we were somehow unresponsive notwithstanding that at no time did the ARU formally indicate a process was being undertaken or that we were in their sights. The programme gained quick momentum but It’s also worth mentioning that the ARU did their part in slowing down the campaign when on April 10th 2017 they announced the Western Force was in their sights to be culled. Many Investors became hesitant believing the press that we would not survive the cull.

2. He then indicates that there were subsequent opportunities to present our “best possible business case” but claimed that we represented only “promises” and not “binding commitments”. This would indicate that the proposals put forward by the Rebels prior to that date were “Binding Commitments” when we know they were not. I submit 2 documents dated 28th July 2017 where we issue a position paper in relation to our proposed buy back of the Force and a letter to the ARU dated 4th August responding to the ARU ‘s letter of 2nd August ( not provided as received in Confidence) responding
negatively to our position paper. Its worth noting that even at this very late stage the ARU had still not provided any terms of reference or shared in any detail their own internal analysis relating to their decision to cut the Force over any other possible alternatives. The ARU completely discredited our proposed solutions to self-funding on the basis that some elements of our submission were in final stages though not yet converted. In stark contrast they seemed to bank promises from the Victorian submissions that if they have been formalised were done so after the Force received formal notification of the cancellation of our participation.

3. Mr Clyne also refers to undertakings from “prominent Western Australians, including Mr Howarth and Mr Forrest and six or seven others” in terms of covering legal fees. Mr Clyne goes on to state that “as of today, this undertaking has not been fulfilled”. Mr Clyne should be reminded that this particular undertaking was made in relation to the Supreme Court of Western Australia proceedings and Mr Clyne should know full well that this matter was settled between the Parties and a small amount was actually paid by the ARU to RugbyWA in satisfaction of Rugby WA’s costs.

4. Later in the dialogue with the Senators he states that the Own the Force forecast and the extension of the Road Safety Sponsorship were given “full credit” in their evaluation. We know that this was not the case in Clarke and Day’s presentation to the Rugby WA Board on April 10th 2017 where our Own the Force and Road Safety Sponsorship contributions were specifically omitted from their evaluations. What has not surfaced during the enquiry is that the ARU presented to RWA a fait e complete summarised from the now infamous “Spreadsheet” (aka Do Do Bird) that determined that the Force presented the largest financial risk to the ARU. They produced a number of financial scenarios and amazingly in one of the scenarios presented where the Force was axed in 2018, the Rebels failed financially and folded in 2019 and the ARU were left with clean-up costs of the Rebels we still did not match up to the Rebels “very robust” case. The question remains that on the 9th April they identified to the public/press that the Rebels were also a candidate for removal. They met with us on the 10th April . One wonders what was being presented to the Victorians from the “Spreadsheet” on the 10th-12th April by Bill Pulver and Cameron Clyne in Melbourne . If they presented the same analysis then surely the Rebels were safe. Was this entire exercise just a charade? Were we the only team ever in the cross hairs?

5. He indicates that they would not have “bailed us out “ for $4mm if they intended to cut us from the competition. We have 2 comments around this statement. We had asked for a Loan /advance on payments from the ARU which was commonly granted to other Super Rugby Clubs in previous times and in fact may have been facilitated for the Reds in 2017 after our Alliance was signed. The ARU elected their preference for an Alliance and then loudly proclaimed the signing of the Alliance as a watershed moment confirming Super Rugby in the West was here to stay. Technically we had signed an Alliance and a Sale and Purchase Agreement . The asset that was the Western Force, had a value and was sold to the ARU and we always anticipated that under the Alliance Agreement provisions we would purchase the asset back from the ARU for market value at a time that suited both parties . The term “Bailout” began to be used by the ARU and picked up by the Press only when the dark clouds appeared and we were targeted for extinction. It is now consistently referred to as a “Bailout” and not a new exciting Alliance Agreement.
Secondly the ARU had a contractual obligation to provide 5 Australian Super Rugby teams in the Super Rugby tournament in 2016 when the Alliance was signed and in 2017 before the Tournament was reduced from 18 to 15 teams for the 2018-2020 conclusion years. They could have facilitated this by assisting the Western Force with an arms- length loan but chose the Alliance model in preference. There was never an option for them to abandon the Force in 2016 and that came only when they had secured their preferred 4 team solution.

6. He states that “a Rugby WA Director” breached the Alliance Agreement by “putting that out on public websites” . At no time did any Director breach Confidentiality provisions defined in the Alliance Agreement relating to contents of the Agreement. He goes on to say that “The Alliance Agreement was made public by Rugby WA” .The fact that we had an Alliance Agreement was in the public forum. The ARU was happy to broadcast this . If in this statement he is attempting to state that we released a copy then this is certainly untrue . Its rather ironic that we later found out about the release of the FULL Alliance Agreement to a 3rd Party (Mr North) by the officers of the ARU . He offered up the evidence of a claim of breach by RWA so perhaps the Senator should ask for copies of this proof.

7. Throughout the hearing he continued to refer to Rugby WA as “bankrupt” and
“Insolvent”. This is incorrect and puts the RWA Directors reputations at risk as if this were
the case we would have declared the business as such.

I am happy to submit this submission on a “Named Basis”.
Kind Regards
John Edwards
Vice Chairman RugbyWA
 

ForceFan

Peter Fenwicke (45)
For completeness, it's worth also adding David Vaux's second short submission:

20 October 2017
The Chairman
Community Affairs References Committee
Senator Rachel Siewert
Via email : community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au
Dear Senator,
Senate Community Affairs References Committee
Third Public Hearing for the Future of Rugby Union in Australia

Unfortunately I must again write to you to correct a statement made by Mr Clyne,
Chairman of the ARU, to the Senate Enquiry on 16th October 2017.

1. Mr Clyne referred to a RugbyWA director being involved in the preparation of a report by Saltbush Capital where he said “In fact, the most recent of those strategic reviews, which was done by Saltbush Capital, actually had a Rugby WA director on it and specifically called for going to four teams”.

2. I am the RugbyWA director to whom Mr Clyne is referring. I was asked by Saltbush Capital to assist them in their Financial and Organisation Review of the ARU. My position as a director of RugbyWA was disclosed to the ARU, prior to any involvement with the Saltbush Capital Review, and my participation was welcomed.

3. Our Review was presented to the ARU board on, or about, 18th April 2013. A key finding of the Review was that “Super Rugby is not financially viable in its current form”, and we recommended to “Establish an ARU Super Rugby Taskforce now to develop a commercially viable competition for 2016”.
There was no commentary in the Review about reducing the Australian teams from
5 to 4.

4. Mr Clyne’s comment above is simply false and misleading.

Yours sincerely,
David Vaux

"What a piece of work is man...."

Perhaps some G&Gers may start to understand why some of us in the West are still angry about how the Western Australia lost it's professional rugby team.
GO THE PERTH FORCE & THE IPRC!!!
 

Killer

Cyril Towers (30)
give Clyne a polygraph test, imo it would be smoking as it got close to him before they even hooked him up!
 

Micheal

Alan Cameron (40)
Also while we're at it: this EARU nonsense is utter bullshit.

I live in the Eastern States. I have nothing to do with this - stop tarring us all with the same brush. I'm actually very sympathetic to the cause but combative attitudes from Western Australian against Eastern Australian fans only does your cause a disservice and will serve to turn fringe-sympathizers against your cause. In the modern world the very last thing we need is more identity politics where peoples opinion are driven by labels and name-tags. Whilst we're slamming the ARU for being incompetent it'd be best to rise above such pettiness ourselves.

The Australian Rugby Union are to blame here, not the Eastern States. The decision just so happened to favour and preserve the Eastern States. That in itself doesn't shift agency nor responsibility.
 

Killer

Cyril Towers (30)
I think a lot of the rhetoric is not directed at individuals but mainly at those who have voting rights.
Emotion at the injustice may cause people to strike out at times.
Also the further you are from the seat of power the greater the bias against you.
WA has suffered a long time over these types of issues that are not even seen let alone spoken about on the Eastern seaboard.
But understand your point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top