Where to for Super Rugby?

[Inside Shoulder]

The ARU went into the meeting with RugbyWA & told them the financial cases for the Rebels & essentially why the Force are being cut.

In doing so in their analysis of the Force's financial case they did not take into account the OwnTheForce campaign. They left out a $5 to $15 million dollar figure that the Force have coming to it as part of their evaluation, essentially assuming it is 0.

Well its >0 because I just subscribed to the Own the Force share issue

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Finally, if they did succesfully sue for a financial loss, what was the point. So they gouge some money out of the ARU and it gets pumped into a now defunct organisation. That would be pointless.

Might get a return to shareholders.

 

[BLR]

My guess is that they would seek to file an injunction preventing the ARU from removing them from the competition as they have a legal right to be in it until 2020.

This is what they are going for for my understanding.

The money issues will be sorted by the OwntheForce campaign.

 

[sidelineview]

They won a legal case - decided by a judge.
Jones has got you hoodwinked if you think he influenced the legal outcome.
The real problem for the ARU, I think, is that they may have made inconsistent promises to different people so that my hunch is they're at risk of being successfully sued no matter what they now do.

I dont want to bicker about this; it's off topic to a large dregree but anyone close to the South Sydney camp at the time knows just how influential and helpful Jones was to the cause. It was a monumental battle and subsequent victory.
It couldn't have happened without the help of Jones, Packer, legal people, media personalities, the tireless workers connected to the SS committee and an army of supporters and battlers protesting and marching. It wasn't just about SS and or even rugby league. It ran a lot deeper than that.

This issue is same, same but different. It's still about stuff ups and injustice, perceived or otherwise.

Look at the support and reaction to this in the West. The Force aren't taking it lying down and it's ignited the passion of rugby people all over the country; not just in WA.

Jones will milk this for all its worth to gain ratings but that doesn't mean what he says is BS and that he can't exert a positive influence in this matter.
Is his point about business men raising money irrelevant?

 

[fatprop]

It will be an interesting argument.

1/ We are bleeding cash
2/ We are being propped up by the ARU
3/ There is little evidence that losses will change in the medium term
4/ The ARU don't want to fund you anymore
5/ We want to claim damages for not being allowed to lose money anymore

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It will be an interesting argument.

1/ We are bleeding cash
2/ We are being propped up by the ARU
3/ There is little evidence that losses will change in the medium term
4/ The ARU don't want to fund you anymore
5/ We want to claim damages for not being allowed to lose money anymore

I think you'll find that the case is actually about the "alliance agreement" and what was said and done and possibly what it contains.
On my reading they were promised a spot until 2020 - the ARU may be held to that promise.
So the Force will be shooting for a permanent injunction against ejecting them from the comp until (at least) 2020. However, even if they are losing money and they really want damages they may be able to show that they wold lose less if they kept playing and that's their damage.
So if the Force get a permanent injunction then the ARU has to decide how to live up to its agreement with SANZAAR. If they sack the Rebels there'll be a damages case there and it will be way beyond a complain about a loss of the right to make a loss because of all the money that has presumably been sunk in down there which would not have been spent.
There must be some doubt about the ARU's ability to pay such a damages claim - which I think we all agree is why they chose the force.
This is why I say they have painted themselves into a corner.

 

[Braveheart81]

I wouldnt know one way or the other, however, presumably in order to justify a COO there must be another office of equal standing reporting to the CEO on other issues: other wise its just another layer in the system

I'm told by people who know more than I do that it an organisation the size of the ARU doesn't normally have a CEO and a COO.

There is a CFO (Todd Day).

In terms of corporate hierarchy, having the title of COO generally makes him a more senior employee than the CFO.

Clarke's role could be identical whether you called him the COO, the General Manager or some other made up title. I think the relevance is his position in terms of seniority within the overall organisation.

It doesn't really affect how they structure their reporting obligations internally.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Jones will milk this for all its worth to gain ratings

Really?
Does anyone but us really care? Most people think this is just stupid rich white men stuffing up their inheritance trying to run dad's business.
There's no doubt that Jones is, as you say, "influential".
Using him, however, to get your point across or achieve your ends comes with a heavy price tag and the risk of him ceasing to favour you and deciding that you deserve public ridicule - as he regularly does to pollies who cease to treat him as Lord Muck.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

There is a CFO (Todd Day).

In terms of corporate hierarchy, having the title of COO generally makes him a more senior employee than the CFO.

Clarke's role could be identical whether you called him the COO, the General Manager or some other made up title. I think the relevance is his position in terms of seniority within the overall organisation.

It doesn't really affect how they structure their reporting obligations internally.

Except for duplication if the CEO has no other person directly reporting to him - then there's just another rung in the ladder.
They should appoint a CNOO - Chief Non Operating Officer: he or she would be run off his or her feet

 

[Braveheart81]

Except for duplication if the CEO has no other person directly reporting to him - then there's just another rung in the ladder.
They should appoint a CNOO - Chief Non Operating Officer: he or she would be run off his or her feet

This is based on the assumption that no one reports directly to Pulver except the COO and every other manager reports to Clarke as the COO doesn't it?

I know that isn't true within the ARU.

Anyway, this is really a non-issue that I only brought up because I thought it was strange that someone had an issue with the existence of a job title.

 

[dru]

It's foolish to discount Jones influence irrespective of your opinions of him. The bloke broadcasts in Sydney and Brisbane our two largest rugby provinces and has a massive listener base in both.

He is also a master manipulator of the media, seen most recently through the Link/Beale/Patston saga. He got what he wanted. You might argue the depth of his actual influence but not that the result was what he pushed for.

He also has relationships with Papworth and Dwyer and probably Begg.

He also has influence over many of the junior Sydney sporting journo's and the community of ex-Wallabies.

No doubt he can be a bully in interviews, no doubt his opinions are often considered extreme. He does however have influence.

 

[fatprop]

It's foolish to discount Jones inflence irrespective of your opinions of him. The bloke broadcasts in Sydney and Brisbane our two largest rugby provinces and has a massive listener base in both.

He is also a master manipulator of the media, seen most recently through the Link/Beale/Patston saga. He got what he wanted. You might argue the depth of his actual influence but not that the result was what he pushed for.

He also has relationships with Papworth and Dwyer and probably Begg.

He also has influence over many of the junior Sydney sporting journo's and the community of ex-Wallabies.

No doubt he can be a bully in interviews, no doubt his opinions are often considered extreme. He does however have influence.

But Jones wants no Super Rugby

 

[sidelineview]

Really?
Does anyone but us really care? Most people think this is just stupid rich white men stuffing up their inheritance trying to run dad's business.
There's no doubt that Jones is, as you say, "influential".
Using him, however, to get your point across or achieve your ends comes with a heavy price tag and the risk of him ceasing to favour you and deciding that you deserve public ridicule - as he regularly does to pollies who cease to treat him as Lord Muck.

He's another person who is outraged by what is happening and is disillusioned with the state of rugby in this country in general. In particular, the neglect of the grassroots of the game.

Another in a long list of people; former players etc etc. Supporters of the game who want to see it healthy again.

He just happens to be an influential media personality who a lot of people cant cop.

The more disgruntled people who jump on the bandwagon to shake up the powers to be with a view to improving the state of Australian rugby, the better.

 

[Rebels3]

I'v tried to stay away from this thread today. But after reading some comments, jeez we are turning into a paranoid bunch, that reads into everything and anything.

We talk about a sudden wave of support, but the sad thing is 8,000 people turned up on Sunday and the Rebels crowd a few weeks earlier wasn't much better.

I think most of us need to take a back seat until more firm information is said. We are all starting to believe our own gospel or some of the non factual comments said on here.

Get back to your work, families, friends, gym routines whatever for a day of two and let things play out in real time.

 

[Blue]

It's foolish to discount Jones inflence irrespective of your opinions of him. The bloke broadcasts in Sydney and Brisbane our two largest rugby provinces and has a massive listener base in both.

He is also a master manipulator of the media, seen most recently through the Link/Beale/Patston saga. He got what he wanted. You might argue the depth of his actual influence but not that the result was what he pushed for.

He also has relationships with Papworth and Dwyer and probably Begg.

He also has influence over many of the junior Sydney sporting journo's and the community of ex-Wallabies.

No doubt he can be a bully in interviews, no doubt his opinions are often considered extreme. He does however have influence.

By the same token it says something about one's character if people like Jones upset you, i.e. populists.

He is every bit as entertaining as some of the ABC commentators. Lots of noise for those who want the noise.

 

[Blue]

I'v tried to stay away from this thread today. But after reading some comments, jeez we are turning into a paranoid bunch, that reads into everything and anything.

We talk about a sudden wave of support, but the sad thing is 8,000 people turned up on Sunday and the Rebels crowd a few weeks earlier wasn't much better.

I think most of us need to take a back seat until more firm information is said. We are all starting to believe our own gospel or some of the non factual comments said on here.

Get back to your work, families, friends, gym routines whatever for a day of two and let things play out in real time.

Nobody's getting hurt.

So all's good.

We're just doing the interweb forum thing. Happens all over the thing everyday, all day.

You don't have to participate.

 

[Blue]

But Jones wants no Super Rugby

Ever the contrarian.

 

[Quick Hands]

No. But THE big issue facing the ARU is categorically NOT that of 'is it a good idea or not to drop 1 Super team' but rather

'How the fuck are we going to fix the badly deteriorating commercial, financial and game outcome problems of the other 4 Super teams?'

IMO, not nearly enough discussion - or clear policy direction from the ARU (if they have it) - is focussed upon the survival-related issues of the remaining 4, versus the issue of the dispensed with 1.

My take on it, based to a large extent on what Clyne said last night, is that he agrees with you.

My strong suspicion is that he arrived in January 2016 and after a very short time he's realised the extent of the chaos and dysfunction in regards strategic decision making, and the commercial and financial issues.

He must surely wonder how any organisation could have got themselves into this situation.

 

[Quick Hands]

It will be an interesting argument.

1/ We are bleeding cash
2/ We are being propped up by the ARU
3/ There is little evidence that losses will change in the medium term
4/ The ARU don't want to fund you anymore
5/ We want to claim damages for not being allowed to lose money anymore

Judging from what Mark Sinderbury and their President have said over the past couple of days, they are putting in/have put in place structures to arrest the loss-making and turn a profit.

I'm not saying that is right or wrong, but I understand that is their position.

 

[Rebels3]

Nobody's getting hurt.

So all's good.

We're just doing the interweb forum thing. Happens all over the thing everyday, all day.

You don't have to participate.

I understand what you are saying, however i believe people are getting hurt. There is a spiral of negative disillusionment, some more than justified, some amplified through ones own doing.