Where to for Super Rugby?

[BLR]

And why don't you think that'll be exactly what will be achieved?

An out of court settlement guaranteeing both the Rebels share of broadcast revenue, and the removal​ of both the Rebels Salary Cap and restrictions on International recruitment are without a doubt the most likely scenario given how cash and asset poor the ARU are, and those are 3 things Cox was and/or has been heavily pushing for since the acquisition.

Okay, if you can make assumptions based on very little I will make my own.

What is to say Imperium will win the case, forcing the ARU to pay $10m to Imperium, and let's say as the ARU is so cash poor they will ask the broadcaster for a forward of future broadcast revenue. That then funnels the money into Imperium and tells the ARU they can have their license back as it was given to him in bad faith. Imperium gets out with a tidy profit and no one could blame them. We go into the season after that with the remaining teams (perhaps the ARU keep the Rebels to save face) getting next to nothing in broadcast revenue for that year and a huge majority of the top players in Australia going overseas as the writing is on the wall.

It is as valid scenario as Cox trying to fake out the ARU.

If removing restrictions were his true intentions would he not clearly state that instead of going instantly for the compensation route?

 

[I like to watch]

Imperium is an $100 million dollar business, the Rebels have more money available to them than any other team, it is up to Cox to use it.

Removing the restrictive caps(restriction of trade?) is what Cox should be looking to achieve, because even if he gets $10 mill or so off the ARU the Rebels will be in the same situation as now. Only enriches Imperium as I assume the Rebels are currently at their cap? What does extra money change?

If, he is awarded damages, and if he didn't wind up the rebels, then every cent and more would be going to keep the Rebels afloat.
Damages are awarded for losses that you can prove are the result of ARU's actions, and that you can quantify.
The Rebels have burnt substantial amount of cash every year since inception.Forecasts are that cash flows post 2020 for all clubs will be challenging.
Add in the reduction of future income due to the ARUs incompetence, it's more than likely that Cox will need to inject plenty of his own cash to keep the joint going in addition to any possible settlement/judgement.

 

[BLR]

I take comfort from the words of Rob Clarke circa June 2015 when he said of Cox and Sidwell: "they are both fine men, both very experienced businessmen, who are well known in the Melbourne marketplace and I think the Rebels are in very safe hands" and "I've known both men a long time, Adnrew is putting his whole company behind this. He has bought 18 companies since he started it and only sold one so he has a reputation as a stayer."

I don't think Rob Clarke is the best character reference considering what has come out about his dealings in this cutting business. Including coming to meet the Force to tell them we are cut, based on false assumptions and not taking into account aspects such as the Own the Force campaign, contracts not yet signed with the Victorian government, all the while officially the ARU were saying it was still to be decided.

 

[Highlander35]

Okay, if you can make assumptions based on very little I will make my own.

What is to say Imperium will win the case, forcing the ARU to pay $10m to Imperium, and let's say as the ARU is so cash poor they will ask the broadcaster for a forward of future broadcast revenue. That then funnels the money into Imperium and tells the ARU they can have their license back as it was given to him in bad faith. Imperium gets out with a tidy profit and no one could blame them. We go into the season after that with the remaining teams (perhaps the ARU keep the Rebels to save face) getting next to nothing in broadcast revenue for that year and a huge majority of the top players in Australia going overseas as the writing is on the wall.

It is as valid scenario as Cox trying to fake out the ARU.

If removing restrictions were his true intentions would he not clearly state that instead of going instantly for the compensation route?

Because cash is the asset that the ARU lack.

And by making very reasonable demands (from a legal and business perspective at least), that your opponent can't fulfill, it gives you maximum bargaining power.

Beyond that, this ongoing saga has now meant that I personally couldn't care less about Australian Rugby outside Victoria goes. It's nepotistic, poorly run, and I feel little to no emotional attachment to it anymore.

If Cox rips the ARU a new one, then abandons ship, I'll abhor him and his businesses for life, but it's nothing that the ARU and the rest of the North East establishment don't deserve.

 

[swingpass]

Removing the restrictive caps(restriction of trade?) is what Cox should be looking to achieve,

as H35 said above , this is exactly the outcome he wishes to achieve, from day one his major complaint is that if you want the competition (Super Rugby) to succeed you need the product, he is limited in the players he can buy due to artificial constraints from the ARU. as i've said before, how many locals or spaniards/englishmen/frenchmen as the case may be play for Real Madrid or Tottenham or Toulon RFC or the Washington Redskins, or any number of other sporting teams. the locals love their local team, regardless of its composition. Tomas Cubelli at the Brumbies or Peter Grant at the Force or Jacques Potgeiter when he was at the Tahs are/were equally embraced as any local or australian player. i agree with others if its a privately owned team , then they should get their fair share of TV rights and Wallaby top ups, but no other ARU income, provided they can source and contract whomsoever they choose.

 

[swingpass]

If removing restrictions were his true intentions would he not clearly state that instead of going instantly for the compensation route?

he has and on a number of occasions.

 

[BLR]

he has and on a number of occasions.

But he is saying at the moment that he is going for compensation, anything before that means nothing. Nixon said he wasn't a crook but turned out to be a crook. Peoples minds change, how many times do you see a player say he loves playing for a team and then switches team a few seasons after?

What matters is what he says right now, and at the moment he isn't saying cash or deregulation of the Rebels, he is just saying cash. Making it out like it is some massive plan based on comments made before the point when the ARU said that they were potentially cutting the Rebels is like comparing two different worlds.

 

[swingpass]

well at the moment the threat is a major bargaining point, if he were to win a significant compensation as i posted above he make take concessions in lieu, i don't know, nor dose anybody else and yes your point is a valid one, it is a possibility, but so far no one from Cox, Imperium or the Rebels have suggested its likely (nor would i expect them to). So just more conjecture from all of us here on green and gold.

 

[Highlander35]

But he is saying at the moment that he is going for compensation, anything before that means nothing. Nixon said he wasn't a crook but turned out to be a crook. Peoples minds change, how many times do you see a player say he loves playing for a team and then switches team a few seasons after?

What matters is what he says right now, and at the moment he isn't saying cash or deregulation of the Rebels, he is just saying cash. Making it out like it is some massive plan based on comments made before the point when the ARU said that they were potentially cutting the Rebels is like comparing two different worlds.

Gotcha

Cox is playing 3D Chess to scrounge the ARU of as much cash as possible and then hand back the License, despite numerous statements to players, coaches and media that they won't be let go to be killed off = legitimate and well reasoned theory

Cox is playing 3D Chess to put himself in a strong bargaining position to achieve longstanding goals with respect to how the Rebels are run = Not worth considering, since he'd have come out and weakened his bargaining position already if that was the case.

 

[Runner]

All this is confusing my poor brain.

Contracts have conditions if a party breaches a contract ( in a way not set out in the contract) then one party can sue the other.

Players staff are on contracts what will happen to them?

The Rebels etc will have entered contracts with suppliers, advertisers etc.

What we have here is as pointed out a structure that is made up of many parts with lots of various contracts, handshakes, back room deals etc. I think that a new structure covering the whole of rugby in all its parts needs to emerge from the opportunity arising. Pity there is no Packer like figure to take on the establishment.

And the band played on as the Titanic sank.

 

[lou75]

All this is confusing my poor brain.

Contracts have conditions if a party breaches a contract ( in a way not set out in the contract) then one party can sue the other.

Players staff are on contracts what will happen to them?

The Rebels etc will have entered contracts with suppliers, advertisers etc.

What we have here is as pointed out a structure that is made up of many parts with lots of various contracts, handshakes, back room deals etc. I think that a new structure covering the whole of rugby in all its parts needs to emerge from the opportunity arising. Pity there is no Packer like figure to take on the establishment.

And the band played on as the Titanic sank.

Hold the horses back Runner, but not sure the Rebels have many contracts with suppliers - of what? They would have a rental agreement with AAMI, probably a one year with options. I have hardly seen any advertising from the Rebels, so not sure what contracts they have outstanding. Can you elaborate?? The players are probably on contract but the ARU will end up paying them out if it comes to that, however, if the Rebels do close up, then even employees on contract can (in the real world) lose out

 

[RedsHappy]

I am convinced that an element (one of many) in Cox's calculus wrt suing the ARU for damages (and the Rebels certainly have been materially damaged by the ARU's world-class incompetence), is using the suit as indirect leverage to add significant pressure for change in the ARU elite.

And he'd be entirely smart and right to do so.

If we all had personal capital at risk and had to contemplate that a major part of the risk profile negatively affecting that capital was the incompetent, out-of-their-depth ARU board, we'd use all possible levers available to us to attempt to fix that serious, enduring problem.

I'm speculating but Cox's legal suit, if fully pressed and pressed hard for a big $ sum, could well transpire in time to be most effective - perhaps only - means of attaining meaningful ARU board reform.

And without radical reform of the ARU board it's quite clear that Australian rugby is marching headlong into collapse.

 

[Runner]

I am making a set of assumptions ---
1.not in Vic so do they have posters, ads in papers etc.
2.who runs the merchandise contracts?
3. any business related agreements to running the club.
4. etc that I may miss

If your correct about the players losing out / paid out I suspect that many will look to overseas where large numbers of our younger players are already playing.

This is supposed to be a world game. The rest of the world must be laughing themselves sick.

The AFL are just watching in disbelief.

 

[lou75]

I am convinced that an element (one of many) in Cox's calculus wrt suing the ARU for damages (and the Rebels certainly have been materially damaged by the ARU's world-class incompetence), is using the suit as indirect leverage to add significant pressure for change in the ARU elite.

And he'd be entirely smart and right to do so.

If we all had personal capital at risk and had to contemplate that a major part of the risk profile negatively affecting that capital was the incompetent, out-of-their-depth ARU board, we'd use all possible levers available to us to attempt to fix that serious, enduring problem.

I'm speculating but Cox's legal suit, if fully pressed and pressed hard for a big $ sum, could well transpire in time to be most effective - perhaps only - means of attaining meaningful ARU board reform.

And without radical reform of the ARU board it's quite clear that Australian rugby is marching headlong into collapse.

Is Cox threatening to sue the ARU or the individual board members of the ARU? I have heard it whispered that he wants to sue the individual board members Clyne, Robinson, Pulver, Broderick, Eales, Marlow, Mclean, Sherry and Stooke. That being the case, the ARU were pretty keen to come to the party and buy him out with a significant payment to satisfy him and save their hides, but now the government has publicly applied pressure to the ARU they have had to withdraw that offer. Cox still needs to sell, since despite the big talk of his $100m TGIF business supporting ISM, it is not the cash cow that some think it is. His bankers, ANZ have become quite nervous of late and he is being squeezed to satisfy them. Suing the ARU for loss of business over this fiasco may save him, though his own management of the business would have to be investigated : loss of major sponsorship, significant reduction of membership base and reduced match day sales.

 

[Rebels3]

Hold the horses back Runner, but not sure the Rebels have many contracts with suppliers - of what? They would have a rental agreement with AAMI, probably a one year with options. I have hardly seen any advertising from the Rebels, so not sure what contracts they have outstanding. Can you elaborate?? The players are probably on contract but the ARU will end up paying them out if it comes to that, however, if the Rebels do close up, then even employees on contract can (in the real world) lose out

Rebels are in a partnership with dentsu Mitchell as their media agency. From memory the Force use universal McCann. Generally these partnerships are signed up for 1-3 year spans. There'd be lots of contractual obligations like this that we aren't to aware of

 

[RedsHappy]

Is Cox threatening to sue the ARU or the individual board members of the ARU? I have heard it whispered that he wants to sue the individual board members Clyne, Robinson, Pulver, Broderick, Eales, Marlow, Mclean, Sherry and Stooke. That being the case, the ARU were pretty keen to come to the party and buy him out with a significant payment to satisfy him and save their hides, but now the government has publicly applied pressure to the ARU they have had to withdraw that offer. Cox still needs to sell, since despite the big talk of his $100m TGIF business supporting ISM, it is not the cash cow that some think it is. His bankers, ANZ have become quite nervous of late and he is being squeezed to satisfy them. Suing the ARU for loss of business over this fiasco may save him, though his own management of the business would have to be investigated : loss of major sponsorship, significant reduction of membership base and reduced match day sales.

lou, personally I don't know re the highlighted question but a typical and often very successful legal tactic used in big-time, high-profile litigation of this type is to sue the entity and add the directors personally to the suit as defendants. Thus potentially increasing their personal anxiety levels significantly let alone what they fear for their corporate positions.

I have absolutely seen cases where, without public admission, directors that are personally in the litigation firing line call for concessions to compromise in a litigation and to close it down all in a manner they would not if the suit was purely aimed at the corporate entity as defendant. And this too even when the directors were protected to a degree by D&O insurance paid for by the company itself.

 

[Gnostic]

Is Cox threatening to sue the ARU or the individual board members of the ARU? I have heard it whispered that he wants to sue the individual board members Clyne, Robinson, Pulver, Broderick, Eales, Marlow, Mclean, Sherry and Stooke. That being the case, the ARU were pretty keen to come to the party and buy him out with a significant payment to satisfy him and save their hides, but now the government has publicly applied pressure to the ARU they have had to withdraw that offer. Cox still needs to sell, since despite the big talk of his $100m TGIF business supporting ISM, it is not the cash cow that some think it is. His bankers, ANZ have become quite nervous of late and he is being squeezed to satisfy them. Suing the ARU for loss of business over this fiasco may save him, though his own management of the business would have to be investigated : loss of major sponsorship, significant reduction of membership base and reduced match day sales.

From the Constitution:-

16.2 Indemnity
The Company must indemnify, on a full indemnity basis and to the full extent permitted by law, each person to whom this rule 16.2 applies for all losses or liabilities incurred by the person as an officer of the Company or of a related body corporate including, but not limited to, a liability for negligence or for reasonable costs and expenses incurred:
(a) in defending proceedings, whether civil or criminal, in which judgment is given in favour of the person or in which the person is acquitted; or
(b) in connection with an application, in relation to such proceedings, in which the Court grants relief to the person under the Corporations Act.
16.3 Insurance
The Company may, to the extent permitted by law:
(a) purchase and maintain insurance; or
(b) pay or agree to pay a premium for insurance,
for any person to whom this rule 16.3 applies against any liability incurred by the person as an officer or auditor of the Company or of a related body corporate including, but not limited to, a liability for negligence or for reasonable costs and expenses incurred in defending proceedings, whether civil or criminal and whatever their outcome.

So no matter what the outcome even suing the individuals could well just bankrupt the ARU. In which case Section 13 Winding Up becomes important not that there will be any Surplus left to distribute.

 

[lou75]

lou, personally I don't know re the highlighted question but a typical and often very successful legal tactic used in big-time, high-profile litigation of this type is to sue the entity and add the directors personally to the suit as defendants. Thus potentially increasing their personal anxiety levels significantly let alone what they fear for their corporate positions.

I have absolutely seen cases where, without public admission, directors that are personally in the litigation firing line call for concessions to compromise in a litigation and to close it down all in a manner they would not if the suit was purely aimed at the corporate entity as defendant. And this too even when the directors were protected to a degree by D&O insurance paid for by the company itself.

how very interesting

 

[RedsHappy]

how very interesting

+

Cox may have a good case against directors personally if he can show that the damages caused to his entity re Rebels were the direct result of directors (or indeed the whole ARU board) acting with material and reckless negligence in breach of their duties under the Corps Act or dishonest conduct (i.e. they knew or should have known that their public legal claims of 'culling' rights wrt the Rebels in fact did not exist in any form) in the matters relating to how the alleged damages were incepted and continued.

If I were an ARU director there appear prima facie to be solid grounds by which directors should today feel very unsettled re Cox's definitive statement that he would be pursuing, and soon, a material damages claim vs the ARU.

The type of directors on the ARU board are all extremely conscious of their 'reputations' and a potentially successful legal suit against them involving allegations of inappropriate or negligent directors' conduct would be one invoking the gravest concern for them.

Prima facie, it would appear as though Pulver and Clyne are highly exposed if indeed it is the truth that the ARU stated that the Rebels could be readily culled under legal means that in fact never existed and did not then exist at the time of that declaration.

In law this is a potentially very serious exposure for them as directors and, as above, that exposure could flow to and contaminate all ARU directors in certain circumstances especially if the whole board explicitly pre-endorsed the Clyne-Pulver culling statements of April 10.

 

[Joe King]

@

Liam Napier states that Australia cant sustain 5 competitve teams long term. This is a logical conclusion for a Kiwi journalist who has fed on the ARU presentation that actually says we are better off with three teams.

But I dont accept this as proven. It is correct insofar as, with the ARU as is, with the (lack of) pathways from grass root for players and coaches, and with the lack of promotion. But in this case Many actually doubt we can maintain 3. Or 2. Or anything. We are on a slippery slope, a slope we had somehow dodged. Untill the "cut a team" pushed us over.

I like Tew. This article once again shows a sensible head on a solid pair of shoulders. He is kind of bound to take on board Clyne and Pulver and their ARU assessment. But it imo provides false input.

Here are some things I would like Tew to take on board:
x it isnt simply 18 teams killing Soup, it is also the 4 conference system, and a draw that is either intentionally bizarre or drawn up in an Asylum.
x Australia needs a National footprint to survive. If SANZAR wants Australia involved in Soup it needs to find a mechanism for this.
x I'm happy to concede that within the current Soup setup and the ARU systems we couldnt manage a piss up in a brewery, let alone 5 competitive teams. BUT right now it may be necessary to play out "stronger as five". Until 2020. Trying to cut mid-season was an horrendous decission (which btw Tew shares culpability).

So, let's recognise the actual issues, without the ARU Salvadore Dali-esque filter, and seeing many Ausie fans almost longing for ARU to plunge off the abyss - in order for WRU/NZRU to fix it - (to me) both ludicrous and demeaning.

I think in this period of "commercial rationalisation" that other fundamentals should be considered across the SANZAR nations.
x NZ rugby $ is maxed out. At peak rugby.
x SA rugby $ is almost maxed out. Almost at peak rugby. By which I mean that there is penty of room to expand fan numbers, but that those numbers will increase in lower economic areas. This is happening against a deteriating national economy. So Rugby $ is more or les at peak, and there is considerable risk to the downside.
x Within the current Aus paradigm we are post-peak in rugby $ terms. Failing in a competitive market. But a change in paradigm opens massive opportunity. Rugby saturation is minimal. We only need to earn a few percentage points against our competition and the potential $ increase is huge. I'm going to call this the way I see it. Compared to SA and NZ, Australia is an economic juggernaut, a behemoth among minnows. An economy that invests heavily in sport. The opportunity is huge if we have the leadership and product to go after it. All the product requires imho is pathways and sensible management.

We dont need to "defeat" soccer, Aussie Rules and League. We just need to muscle in on a bit of turf.

SANZAR cant do much without a vibrant engaged ARU. But they should by now have reached the point of harsh language - understanding our real issues UNFILTERED by the muppets in the ARU.

And that's the key. With a bit of creativity, SANZAAR could solve the issue for Oz rugby, which would be good for everybody else.