Where to for Super Rugby?

[Omar Comin']

I suppose you could argue that as the ARU had five teams contracted to play Super Rugby beyond the current year they lacked the capacity to enter into an agreement to have just four.

Though i still think you are looking at the issue incorrectly. The Competition is run by SANZAAR and it has the final say on it's structure. Who the ARU chooses to put forward for the competition is an internal problem and the legalities of agreements within Australia don't extend to and contaminate the SANZAAR agreement.

Yeah that's basically the argument. If it turns out the ARU have no legal right to cut a team next year, then doesn't that also mean SANZAAR have no legal right to cut an Australian team? If none of the teams are willing to merge then what option does SANZAAR have? Surely the ARU would effectively be forced to use their veto to change the decision? Or are there no take backs in a situation like this?

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't know. It seems to me that an agreement with the ARU about a SANZAAR competition is basically an agreement with SANZAAR by extension, because SANZAAR can't do anything without ARU support. How do you get around that?

That will be the tricky thing to work out.

By the same token you could argue that the ARU signing an agreement with a team that their continued existence was guaranteed is null and void because they don't have the power to guarantee that in their own right.

As a JV partner of SANZAAR, I would be surprised if the ARU couldn't argue that they had to acquiesce to a decision for the good of the competition despite that decision breaking an agreement they had with one of their sides.

 

[bedandbreakfast]

If South Africa is trying to get there teams in a northern hemisphere comp why isn't the ARU trying to get one of our teams in the Japanese comp?

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

or just move all 5 teams from Super Rugby to the Japanese comp...

 

[Twoilms]

Yeah that's basically the argument. If it turns out the ARU have no legal right to cut a team next year, then doesn't that also mean SANZAAR have no legal right to cut an Australian team? If none of the teams are willing to merge then what option does SANZAAR have? Surely the ARU would effectively be forced to use their veto to change the decision? Or are there no take backs in a situation like this?

That's probably not a question anyone can answer without first entering into some lengthy litigation. There are all sorts of issues here, jurisdictional, contractual etc.

Though as i have said my suspicion is that SANZAAR can do whatever the fuck it decides to do no matter how inept ARU are.

 

[Quick Hands]

Hey don't get me wrong BLR, the only reason I made the comment was because we had a couple of posters saying they couldn't be bothered watching any Super rugby on weekend, and I was really saying that when Aussie teams were as you rightly pointed out winning or at the top of the pile there seemed to be no complaints about how noone wanted to watch games at midnight, so the main reason i see for the decline in interest this year is the performance of the Aus teams. I in no way was trying to rubbish Aus rugby just pointing out that by people saying they can't be bothered anymore just adds fuel to argument of cutting teams!!

Having 4 or less Australian teams won't make me start watching super rugby again.

SANZAAR could do us a favour and cut all 5 teams.

 

[Omar Comin']

That will be the tricky thing to work out.

By the same token you could argue that the ARU signing an agreement with a team that their continued existence was guaranteed is null and void because they don't have the power to guarantee that in their own right.

As a JV partner of SANZAAR, I would be surprised if the ARU couldn't argue that they had to acquiesce to a decision for the good of the competition despite that decision breaking an agreement they had with one of their sides.

So if you're right about this is there any punishment for entering into an agreement they had no right to enter into?

Even if there isn't any legal punishment the damage to their reputation would be huge. You'd have to be crazy to sign an agreement with the ARU after that.

 

[Dan54]

Having 4 or less Australian teams won't make me start watching super rugby again.

SANZAAR could do us a favour and cut all 5 teams.

No, I wasn't saying it would QH, but I suspect if they were 4 competitive teams a lot more would be watching again! Lets face it when Aus teams were at the top of pile most were happy with the comp, ok maybe not you, but I speaking generally, well if you go back a few years on this site I don't think there were that many wanting it scrapped!

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

or just move all 5 teams from Super Rugby to the Japanese comp.

I've mentioned this on a few occasions but looking to Asia should be looked at as a serious option. Particularly with 2019 rapidly approaching. Our 5 plus the top 5 from the Top League. Played during the Top Leagues traditional window. I think that would provide us with a solid competitive platform to develop with these markets in the post 2019 period.

 

[Twoilms]

I've mentioned this on a few occasions but looking to Asia should be looked at as a serious option. Particularly with 2019 rapidly approaching. Our 5 plus the top 5 from the Top League. Played during the Top Leagues traditional window. I think that would provide us with a solid competitive platform to develop with these markets in the post 2019 period.

Because it would be as un-competitive as Super Rugby is now, and therefore shit.

 

[Braveheart81]

So if you're right about this is there any punishment for entering into an agreement they had no right to enter into?

Even if there isn't any legal punishment the damage to their reputation would be huge. You'd have to be crazy to sign an agreement with the ARU after that.

I don't think anyone knows what the outcome is going to be.

If the ARU/SANZAAR proceeds to cutting an Australian team, clearly the ARU are going to make whatever arguments they can to make it happen and mitigate any damages or compensation they have to pay.

The reputational damage has largely already happened I think.

Agreements will be signed with the ARU in the future because parties will need to sign them. It's not like there is another organisation they can sign an agreement with instead if they want to contract with rugby in Australia.

 

[Omar Comin']

Agreements will be signed with the ARU in the future because parties will need to sign them. It's not like there is another organisation they can sign an agreement with instead if they want to contract with rugby in Australia.

Why would anyone want to contract with rugby in Australia after they demonstrate that agreements with the ARU are meaningless?

Imagine the ARU/SANZAAR can cut the Rebels without having to buy them out. The chances of attracting future private investment in Super Rugby now plummets.

If they can cut the Force then they'll never be able to get the states to agree to centralisation, because the Force did and then they got cut.

On the other hand, if the ARU and SANZAAR by default are forced to keep 5 Australian teams this would almost certainly result in a new board and CEO. The reputational damage will then be to the individuals involved, not necessarily the future ARU. The integrity of agreements signed by the ARU will be maintained.

 

[Twoilms]

^^^^
Most of that is damage to their reputation and as BH as pointed out it has already been inflicted.

Their integrity will be equally as compromised with all other members of SANZAAR which would be a worse outcome imo.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Because it would be as un-competitive as Super Rugby is now, and therefore shit.

I'm not so sure about that. The Japanese teams have the resources to recruit fairly competitive sides if they so choose. The Sunwolves don't because their goal is to benefit the national team by exposing and qualifying as many Japan eligible players as possible. But with say 5 teamss instead of just one they could recruit internationals and provide higher level exposure to locals mich easier.

 

[Quick Hands]

No, I wasn't saying it would QH, but I suspect if they were 4 competitive teams a lot more would be watching again! Lets face it when Aus teams were at the top of pile most were happy with the comp, ok maybe not you, but I speaking generally, well if you go back a few years on this site I don't think there were that many wanting it scrapped!

It's not so much the results. I've stuck with the Waratahs through the Hickey/Foley era and all manner of NSWRU madness.

The competition itself is broken and Australia dropping a team is unlikely to fix the core issue. What works in Australian sport is a national competition where the public can engage with the teams on a weekly basis. We've now had 20 years or so of super rugby as a professional sport in Australia and the game has never been in a worse state.

15,000 people went to watch the Waratahs play (and win) on Sunday in Sydney. 15 years ago you would have attracted at least double that for an Aussie derby. Crowds have been down in Sydney pretty much since halfway through the Hickey/Foley era. Even the year we won, the crowds weren't great except for the final.

If in the context of professional sport something isn't working maybe the time has come to look at other ways of doing things. Either our SANZAAR partners aren't really interested in or sympathetic to the challenges that the game faces in Australia or maybe the ARU have been completely inept in communicating those challenges or probably both, but as it stands super rugby is actually harming the game in Australia rather than helping it.

 

[Braveheart81]

Why would anyone want to contract with rugby in Australia after they demonstrate that agreements with the ARU are meaningless?

Imagine the ARU/SANZAAR can cut the Rebels without having to buy them out. The chances of attracting future private investment in Super Rugby now plummets.

If they can cut the Force then they'll never be able to get the states to agree to centralisation, because the Force did and then they got cut.

On the other hand, if the ARU and SANZAAR by default are forced to keep 5 Australian teams this would almost certainly result in a new board and CEO. The reputational damage will then be to the individuals involved, not necessarily the future ARU. The integrity of agreements signed by the ARU will be maintained.

Because they are another RU wanting to play test rugby against the Wallabies.

Because they want to have a professional rugby team in whatever competition Australia is part of and in order to do that they have to sign an agreement with the ARU.

If the only reason no Australian team gets cut is because the ARU can't legally do so, I don't think that would give anyone greater confidence doing business deals with the ARU. They have already been shown to be inept. The fact that they want to cut a team despite having an agreement with the teams they want to cut is pretty damaging to their integrity.

I certainly think they would have to buy the Rebels out if that was the final decision.

With turnover in senior management and the board, and lack of confidence in dealing with the current administration is likely to diminish as it is replaced.

 

[kiap]

Not sure if already posted.

But no surprises here!

Proposed ARU meeting canned as Super Rugby saga rumbles on​

​

May 24, 2017​

by Vince Rugari, AAP​

​

THE Australian Rugby Union’s proposed ‘informal’ meeting to outline plans to cut a Super Rugby team won’t happen.​

​

And it paves the way for a possible board challenge in the middle of the June Test window.​

​

The governing body was willing to meet with anxious players and state unions this week to shed light on how it intends to shut down either the Western Force or Melbourne Rebels, amid a drawn-out process and legal battles involving both franchises.​

​

It’s understood that meeting will not go ahead, largely because of scheduling issues.​

​

… That means a special general meeting of the ARU, which was triggered last Wednesday by the Victorian Rugby Union and Rugby Union Players’ Association, will proceed next month.​

​

… While RUPA did not call for the meeting with the intention of challenging the ARU’s leadership — simply seeking more details on what is happening behind the scenes — there could be a push for a board spill or a vote of no confidence if other voting members are not satisfied with what they hear …​

​

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/p...n/news-story/268d3967ad714494192bc5be11960bf0​

 

[Highlander35]

Not sure if already posted.

But no surprises here!

Proposed ARU meeting canned as Super Rugby saga rumbles on​

​

 

[Strewthcobber]

So less than 4 years after the governance changes were adopted and a fully independent board introduced by the ARU they are facing an EGM and possible board spill.

Probably not what the Arbib review was anticipating......

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

Not sure if already posted.

But no surprises here!

Proposed ARU meeting canned as Super Rugby saga rumbles on​

​

May 24, 2017​

by Vince Rugari, AAP​

​

THE Australian Rugby Union’s proposed ‘informal’ meeting to outline plans to cut a Super Rugby team won’t happen.​

​

And it paves the way for a possible board challenge in the middle of the June Test window.​

​

The governing body was willing to meet with anxious players and state unions this week to shed light on how it intends to shut down either the Western Force or Melbourne Rebels, amid a drawn-out process and legal battles involving both franchises.​

​

It’s understood that meeting will not go ahead, largely because of scheduling issues.​

​

… That means a special general meeting of the ARU, which was triggered last Wednesday by the Victorian Rugby Union and Rugby Union Players’ Association, will proceed next month.​

​

… While RUPA did not call for the meeting with the intention of challenging the ARU’s leadership — simply seeking more details on what is happening behind the scenes — there could be a push for a board spill or a vote of no confidence if other voting members are not satisfied with what they hear …​

​

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/p...n/news-story/268d3967ad714494192bc5be11960bf0​

Bring. It. On.

This is what I'm hoping for (metaphically of course)

 

[Dan54]

It's not so much the results. I've stuck with the Waratahs through the Hickey/Foley era and all manner of NSWRU madness.



15,000 people went to watch the Waratahs play (and win) on Sunday in Sydney. 15 years ago you would have attracted at least double that for an Aussie derby. Crowds have been down in Sydney pretty much since halfway through the Hickey/Foley era. Even the year we won, the crowds weren't great except for the final.

I understand your point QH, and I am no way trying to criticise you or your reasoning, as you say only 15000 went to watch Tahs and Rebels play on sunday, and perhaps if at least one of the teams was in the top 10 of the comp there may of been more, as you say 15 years ago there would of been twice as many, in basically the same comp, only the Tahs then were probably a top 5-6 team. Unfortunately instead you had the feeling you were watching a couple of fairly mediocre teams give it there best shot. Also if my memory serves me correctly 15 years ago the Aussie teams were playing good skilful rugby. I not saying super rugby doesn't have big problems, but if Aussie teams played better, I think a lot of the problems wouldn't appear as big as they do now!