Where to for Super Rugby?

[Gnostic]

Cannot really lump that on the current admin. Before most of their time.

As I said earlier, the incestuous nature of the board and Chairman and CEO appointments have maintained a structural continuity even though the faces have changed.

 

[dru]

Time to log out of this site and forget about talking rugby for a bit as I find it all a bit depressing at the moment and hard to find any long term silver lining's as the damage that has been done from this farce can't see recovering from quickly.

Dont do that bloke.

I made a committment (failed) to not input here. I nearly got away with it on the quality of your posts.

 

[todd4]

These are the people directly in charge of the fate of rugby in Australia.

I always thought having people like John Eales on the ARU board that I would be able to trust their integrity but even he seems to be party to this deceitful clusterf@rk. Geoff Stooke seems to be the only one who can hold his head up by publicly saying he was not comfortable with the 'process'.
Any board members who earn a good living by 'board sitting' run the risk of having their reputations tarnished by being associated with this amateurish incompetence.

 

[ChargerWA]

What happens if/when the SARU come out and say they've had a rethink and they aren't going to cut 2 teams anymore?

The pig headed ARU will stick to its guns.

 

[lou75]

I always thought having people like John Eales on the ARU board that I would be able to trust their integrity but even he seems to be party to this deceitful clusterf@rk. Geoff Stooke seems to be the only one who can hold his head up by publicly saying he was not comfortable with the 'process'.
Any board members who earn a good living by 'board sitting' run the risk of having their reputations tarnished by being associated with this amateurish incompetence.

Interesting notes to the ARU financial statements "Note 26: (ii) The company used the consultancy services of International Quarterback during the reporting period….Mr John Eales, holds a Directorship with International Quarterback. The value of the transaction … totalled $149,606."
Now when I was studying corporate governance 101 , it was said to be a conflict of interest for one business to award contracts to another business if one person held directorships with both companies.

 

[cyclopath]

Interesting notes to the ARU financial statements "Note 26: (ii) The company used the consultancy services of International Quarterback during the reporting period….Mr John Eales, holds a Directorship with International Quarterback. The value of the transaction … totalled $149,606."
Now when I was studying corporate governance 101 , it was said to be a conflict of interest for one business to award contracts to another business if one person held directorships with both companies.

Unless they're a good bloke. I mean, "one of the boys". I mean.........

 

[Gnostic]

Interesting notes to the ARU financial statements "Note 26: (ii) The company used the consultancy services of International Quarterback during the reporting period….Mr John Eales, holds a Directorship with International Quarterback. The value of the transaction … totalled $149,606."

Now when I was studying corporate governance 101 , it was said to be a conflict of interest for one business to award contracts to another business if one person held directorships with both companies.

I have been told repeatedly by lawyer types if it doesn't break the law it is permissible. Just like a politician's "expenses" just have to form the "rules" such that anything is pretty much permissible and then ensure that information, real information is very hard to get and then can be either muddied up or otherwise obfuscated until at the very end you say, well no rules were broken in any event and people have grown tired of the fight.

 

[Dctarget]

Interesting notes to the ARU financial statements "Note 26: (ii) The company used the consultancy services of International Quarterback during the reporting period….Mr John Eales, holds a Directorship with International Quarterback. The value of the transaction … totalled $149,606."
Now when I was studying corporate governance 101 , it was said to be a conflict of interest for one business to award contracts to another business if one person held directorships with both companies.

Nope it's all good as long as long as Eales disclosed the conflict, was absent from the discussion about whether to use International Quarterback and refrained from voting.
From the fascinating case of Fitzsimmons v R.

 

[MDL07]

Perspective from an NRL Fan:

I had just finished watching Back Page Live so I watched the Super Rugby show which was on after because of all this news about a team getting kicked out. My dad is South African and my brother loves rugby. My dad keeps complaining about the CEO of Australian Rugby and the state of disrepair he has created. He's told me stories about how teams like the Cowboys poach up and coming union players from places like Rockhampton and Emerald so easily.

I know a bit about Union because of my dad but I just cannot understand how Super Rugby's weird conference system works and how rugby is killing itself. From the bit I watched on the show I just didn't understand why they would kick the Force out. By the sound of it they have a lot of support compared to the Rebels which are way behind AFL, soccer and league in Melbourne.

My dad hardly watches rugby anymore. He has turned into a Broncos fan. I have always been a league fan and he has easily converted into a league fan as well. He is a Broncos member and we go and watch Broncos Games regularly. He has only watched one union game in his time in Brisbane - a test match. He complained about how boring the pre Game entertainment and the whole vibe of the crowd compared to Broncos Games.
His Cheetahs are going to get kicked also, he simply doesn't care for rugby that much anymore. I don't know if this is because of the format of the competition or the quality of the game.

This whole fiasco about Super Rugby has caught my eye and it's been interesting reading your perspectives on the issue and the NRL. I thought the NRL was doing pretty bad until I looked into what's going on in union. To me it seems like union is killing itself but that's just my point of view.

 

[brokendown]

you are not far off the mark!

 

[Rebels3]

I am a little uninformed on this topic but if the rebels get punted would the aru be possibly sued from the vru as well as the rebels? I have no idea on the matter but curious if that'd be a possible situation.

 

[brokendown]

well,there are many lawyers on this site-all with differing opinions,no doubt!

 

[Rebels3]

Btw I will be on the record that any suing is to the detriment of rugby as a whole in this country. It'd just cost everyone money and if an entity does win the relationship between the governing body and that entity would be near on impossible to repair. The relationship would be almost beyond repair, which would lead to no situation prosperous for either party

 

[todd4]

Btw I will be on the record that any suing is to the detriment of rugby as a whole in this country. It'd just cost everyone money and if an entity does win the relationship between the governing body and that entity would be near on impossible to repair. The relationship would be almost beyond repair, which would lead to no situation prosperous for either party

If the Rebels owner sues the ARU and gets a payout he'll just walk away. He will no longer have a relationship with the ARU. Nothing to repair.

 

[Quick Hands]

I wonder if Wayne Smith Would like to take this back.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...u/news-story/d695920a0482a6aaefe1d0c8085179d2

 

[Leo86]

Id assume only the license holder has any rights to sue but also id have no idea, im blue collar spec

 

[Quick Hands]

Incidentally, I heard Clyne on Fox this evening and he sounded like a very capable guy. (In direct contrast to most ARU people we've seen over the years). He's only been running the ARU since January 2016 - he must surely be wondering how anyone could have put themselves into this situation.

 

[kickedmyheight]

Btw I will be on the record that any suing is to the detriment of rugby as a whole in this country. It'd just cost everyone money and if an entity does win the relationship between the governing body and that entity would be near on impossible to repair. The relationship would be almost beyond repair, which would lead to no situation prosperous for either party

I disagree in this case. The ARU needs to be held accountable for the mess they have created and whichever club gets earmarked foe termination has the right to fight for their survival. It would be far worse in my opinion if either club simply rolled over to the ARU under the guise of doing "what is right for rugby as a whole". This would be tantamount to conceding that the ARU has done the right thing in the long run, which is patently not true. It would give the board all the confirmation they need that they have done a good job and their incompetence would be allowed to continue. A legal stoush which eats up all the funds the ARU was planning on saving by cutting a team would further highlight their incompetence in this whole affair and might be enough to trigger a clear out of the board to allow some actually competent administrators to take over. This is the short term pain for long term gain I would like to see as it may just result in an ARU board who actually fight for the good of Australian rugby!

Any legal fight can still be avoided if the ARU grow some balls and reneg on the decision to go to 15 teams.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[amirite]

Grow some balls and reneg on the decision to go to 15 teams.

It's not about 'growing balls', as many have said.

The ARU over leveraged themselves financially, and so they CHOSE to cut a side. When a company is so close to insolvency that it goes through solvency tests, you either have to come up with new revenue streams (any ideas?) or cut expenses. If you do not do this you WILL become insolvent. This would undoubtedly be a worse outcome for Australian rugby than either the Force or Rebels organisation ceasing to exist.

It's not incorrect to say the ARU have shown incompetency to get to this point, that the situation was badly handled, and that it continues to be badly handled.

But, in a vacuum the decision to cut a side makes sense.

I feel disgusting saying that, but it's just plain right.

 

[kickedmyheight]

It's not about 'growing balls', as many have said.

The ARU over leveraged themselves financially, and so they CHOSE to cut a side. When a company is so close to insolvency that it goes through solvency tests, you either have to come up with new revenue streams (any ideas?) or cut expenses. If you do not do this you WILL become insolvent. This would undoubtedly be a worse outcome for Australian rugby than either the Force or Rebels organisation ceasing to exist.

It's not incorrect to say the ARU have shown incompetency to get to this point, that the situation was badly handled, and that it continues to be badly handled.

But, in a vacuum the decision to cut a side makes sense.

I feel disgusting saying that, but it's just plain right.

I understand your argument but respectfully disagree. The decision to cut a side will not over the medium to long term do much at all to keep the ARU solvent. As others have said, if the system is broken you need to fix the system, this decision does nothing to fix the system which brought us to this point. What do they do when it gets back to this point again? Cut another team? There is a very finite amount of times this can work!

Take a look at what the Force have done over the last 6 months since being at the point of insolvency themselves. They have looked at best practice elsewhere and found a way to make it work for them. I don't claim to have a solution to the ARUs problems, but I know that you can't grow by shrinking and the damage they are doing to the game in this country by adopting this strategy will be incredibly hard to overcome in the future.

Personally I would be looking at increasing the number of games played to a 22 round season plus finals. I am not sure if the extra profit this would bring would be eaten up by the extra travel costs, but I think it would be worth exploring. That is in an 18 team comp, three conferences of 6. Play your conference home and away and the other conferences home or away. 6 or 8 team finals series. Happy for the winner of each conference to get a finals berth with all other places decided on merit with the location of all finals determined by points on the table.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk