The Pulverisation of Australian Rugby

[Pfitzy]

Its a noble goal - leading the debate I mean - but without the facts we're hardly in a position to do so.

The debates on this forum were hardly going to have an impact on the case, and sure as shit aren't going to have an impact on a well-entrenched, politically motivated ARU as an organisation. And some of the content on here was as close-minded as I've seen on such a sensitive issue.

Some people didn't even want to discuss the points of order raised by the agreement under which people are employed by the ARU. They were just willing to take whatever leaked statements each party threw out there and run with that as the truth.

Setting examples is all well and good if you're going to take personal satisfaction out of it, but the basic issue comes down to two parties:

1) People who say Kurtley is guilty as fuck and should be stepped down (they also tend to believe all things bad about rugby to be the NSWRU's influence on the ARU in general).

2) Those that just want to get on with it.

If the whole truth ever got out, or at least the course of events leading up to the shemozzle, many people might have course to look back on some of their comments and quietly shuffle away from that standpoint.

Not that I know the truth, but that is usually how these things work out. Facts are funny things when presented with context, and even funnier without it.

 

[I like to watch]

Well,KB (Kurtley Beale) was guilty as fuck.
He did plead guilty!
That doesn't mean the other parties were not deficient in their handling of the matter.
What I don't understand is that Pulver categorically stated that he believed that KB (Kurtley Beale) should be terminated,yet a month later negotiated a new contract with him.

 

[Braveheart81]

What I don't understand is that Pulver categorically stated that he believed that KB (Kurtley Beale) should be terminated,yet a month later negotiated a new contract with him.

It seemed that part of the position the ARU took into Beale's judicial hearing could not be proven to be true.

There is also no certainty that the ARU is providing any sort of top up. He may just be on a Waratahs contract and the same deal every player has with the ARU that they will get match payments if selected for the Wallabies and a fixed amount on top of that once they play a certain number of tests in a season.

 

[I like to watch]

if he was not on an ARU top up,he would have just signed a contract with the Tahs.
But the ARU announced they had signed him for another year.

 

[Braveheart81]

if he was not on an ARU top up,he would have just signed a contract with the Tahs.
But the ARU announced they had signed him for another year.

If you go through the list of players to "recommit to Australian rugby" in the last couple of years I think you get to a substantially higher number much higher than the ~25 top up contracts they provide.

 

[I like to watch]

How many of them had ARU press releases announcing they had been re signed?

 

[Strewthcobber]

There are also players who are definitely not on ARU topups (eg Liam Gill) who still get the "re-signed with the ARU and Reds" press release.

 

[Braveheart81]

Well McMahon was one of the most recent ones and he doesn't fit any criteria for a top up.

Pretty much whenever a current Wallaby re-signs with their Super Rugby team, the ARU puts out a press release about it saying they've recommited to Australian Rugby.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Isn't the ARU top up thing a bit like the Scholarship/Academy thing?

The numbers of kids/young men who claim (or their parents claim) to be on a scholarship at <insert elite private school> or part of the elite development programme, or in "the academy", or whatever is often significantly less than those who are actually on a scholarship, or ... ... etc.

 

[Slim 293]

if he was not on an ARU top up,he would have just signed a contract with the Tahs.
But the ARU announced they had signed him for another year.

I'm pretty sure all players have to sign a contract with the ARU on top of their Super Rugby team............

But if Beale was on a top up, then all of our best players should pack up for France.................

 

[TOCC]

All super rugby players sign with the ARU regardless of top up, the only ones who mightn't are the foreign marquee players...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

It will be interesting to see how the ARU chooses to defend this.

Trying to avoid paying her anything would result in the airing of a lot of dirty laundry that they probably don't want brought to light, particularly so long after the incident(s).

My bet is that considering they couldn't get it dismissed prior to a hearing, they'll settle.

Employers have a fairly low success rate at Fair Work Australia.

 

[Pfitzy]

Employers have got better things to do than fuck around with court cases, generally speaking. See my prior points about lawyers i.e. their utter shuntliness.

 

[Braveheart81]

Employers have a fairly low success rate at Fair Work Australia.

It's also a damage mitigation scenario. There's no point running a long case and if you lose you end up paying not only your own costs but also the plaintiff's which greatly outweigh the actual amount claimed for the unfair dismissal etc.

Even if you win you run a good chance of never recovering your costs from the plaintiff.

 

[formerflanker]

Isn't the ARU top up thing a bit like the Scholarship/Academy thing?

The numbers of kids/young men who claim (or their parents claim) to be on a scholarship at <insert elite private school> or part of the elite development programme, or in "the academy", or whatever is often significantly less than those who are actually on a scholarship, or . . etc.

A bit like the old days of "I was an All Black trialist."

 

[I like to watch]

It's also a damage mitigation scenario. There's no point running a long case and if you lose you end up paying not only your own costs but also the plaintiff's which greatly outweigh the actual amount claimed for the unfair dismissal etc.

Even if you win you run a good chance of never recovering your costs from the plaintiff.

The SMH article,suggests the opposite doesn't it?
Just quietly how do the ARU give a "sizeable settlement" to her when she left,without a properly drafted release to protect themselves?

 

[Quick Hands]

It's also a damage mitigation scenario. There's no point running a long case and if you lose you end up paying not only your own costs but also the plaintiff's which greatly outweigh the actual amount claimed for the unfair dismissal etc.

Even if you win you run a good chance of never recovering your costs from the plaintiff.

True, but even when employers run cases there it rarely ends well for them.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Employers have got better things to do than fuck around with court cases, generally speaking. See my prior points about lawyers i.e. their utter shuntliness.

Most lawyers are only as truthful as their clients since it is the clients who provide the instructions as to what happened etc.
if you've had a bad experience perhaps you need to look at what the clients were telling their respective lawyers.

 

[Ruggo]

I wan't it to go through the courts. I don't give a shit how ugly it gets. I don't care how bad it may look for the ARU and anybody else. Time for for people to be truly held accountable for their actions rather than any scrambling to polish the turd.

 

[I like to watch]

Interesting article from the forum favourite today.
Sounds like it will get ugly,if @Ruggo gets his way.....

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...-in-life-after-wallabies-20150212-13cw7i.html