• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Where to for Super Rugby?

Status
Not open for further replies.

half

Dick Tooth (41)
My limited understanding is if you use an arbitrator you essentially agree on the issue be arbitrated that there will being no court case as both sides accept the decision. In theory it is far quicker and less costly than the courts.

Meaning the Force need to come up with new grounds or find a error of law applied by the arbitrator as his decision has been accepted by both parties going into arbitration.


no I think if there is an agreement between the parties to allow appeal, you can do within the parameters.

That would be strange as why would you not go to court in the first place.

My understanding of arbitration is both sides agree to the decision.. its only when an error of law is made by the arbitrator or you have a totally new issue you can go to court.
 
M

Moono75

Guest
I would be concentrating any legal avenues on the ARU being deceptive in their acquisition of the Force IP/Licence with there being a small time frame between the announcement of the acquisition and the announcement of the idea to cut teams from Super Rugby.

Discussions would of been taking place well in advance and the Accenture report into Super Rugby was happening or had been concluded and being considered by the ARU/SANZAAR.

The ARU annual report for 2016 (December) includes in the directors report Note 8 - 'Likely Developments' which references that information on likely developments in the operations of the group and their impact in future financial years have not been included as this disclosure may cause unreasonable prejudice to the group.

Would these disclosures include include information about cutting an Australian team from Super Rugby (a fait accompli)? Given media discussion on this only ramped up in March 2017? Just how long had the ARU been complicit in planing to cut a team.

The ARU Strategic Plan and the language used in it in light of the current developments makes me sick!!! Have a read.
 

Killer

Cyril Towers (30)
That would be strange as why would you not go to court in the first place.

My understanding of arbitration is both sides agree to the decision.. its only when an error of law is made by the arbitrator or you have a totally new issue you can go to court.


My understanding was that a court timing would be some time away. The WF, probably naively not recognising how ruthless Clyne is, went with the much earlier arbitration option for the good of Aus rugby and those directly affected, players and staff.
With the proviso that appeals were allowed.
A big downside of the arbitration is that it was not public therefore the ARU did not have to worry about public perception.
I think in this process we were too nice and inclusive, not really aware what imo a psychopath we were dealing with.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
I would be concentrating any legal avenues on the ARU being deceptive in their acquisition of the Force IP/Licence with there being a small time frame between the announcement of the acquisition and the announcement of the idea to cut teams from Super Rugby.

This would be a whole new action around damages (and may well happen). It has nothing to do with the arbitration where the only question to be answered was whether the ARU could cancel the Force's Super Rugby licence.
 

Shiggins

Simon Poidevin (60)
They started talking about a team being cut 12 months ago. They bought the license in Feb 2016 so I doubt we win that argument

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk
 
B

BLR

Guest

Killer

Cyril Towers (30)
They started talking about a team being cut 12 months ago. They bought the license in Feb 2016 so I doubt we win that argument

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk


Must have evidence.
if it was the case, not saying it is, there will be evidence. Finding it soon could be a problem.
It would be nice if there was a whistle blower out there somewhere.
 

Shiggins

Simon Poidevin (60)
...
16d61f019e88f0e1126fd8522de9e496.jpg


Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk
 

dru

David Wilson (68)
I have no idea. Realistically I'm not sure it is possible and think it has to be reasonably gradual.




I don't know whether any renewal would be radical. I think it would be incredibly slow.

I also don't know that a drastically different power base would be what would emerge. If anything, the traditional "elbow patches" would be the only groups that would survive because they've done it before and are less reliant on external input.


And there is the rub. Same shit different smell. Well not so different as incredibly slow-and-gradually-changing stink. So while we are thinking that we should get behind the ARU, we see that probably there is no effective change likely, we are still locked into the self preservation of NSW/Qld/ARU, and the fishing in the same pond. There is nothing here playing out by following the ARU that provides something slightly worth aspiring to.

A counter view of "burn the place down" is therefore quite intoxicating. Yes emotions may dampen over time, but I just can't see the ARU survival as being more positive than an alternative. Any alternative. For now.
 

Mr Doug

Dick Tooth (41)
Am reading reports the force CEO mark sindeberry is frontrunner for pulvers job. If he gets it does he do a massive about face and help kill off his old club? Would put him in a massive quandry surely.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

bigmac, this may have already been mentioned in this thread, but it was brought up on ABC TV's "Offsiders" last Sunday, that a name being, mentioned as Pulver's replacement is Raelene Castle, CEO of the Bulldogs NRL club. She has resigned from the Bulldogs effective at the end of the NRL season.
Could we accept a CEO who speaks like a Kiwi (although she was born in Wagga Wagga), like Barnaby, has a Kiwi Father, but unlike Barnaby also has a Kiwi Mother?! She does, however, have a good record.
 
B

BLR

Guest
Just saw David Gallop. He looks stressed and tired. Understandable given all the crap going on with FFA and FIFA. Why would anyone want to be a sports administrator?

Money & Power. Pulver has got away with a big wad of cash after effectively destroying an entire state's rugby pathways.
 

jimmydubs

Dave Cowper (27)
The criteria is an obvious error of law. If leave to appeal is granted it will be limited to discussion around that error of law, so limited to whether the arbitrators reasons for thinking so are deemed correct or not. This will not be the show trial many are calling for. It will be technical legal argument in the most part.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How to get said show trial?
I've got a pitchfork is that is a legal requirement.
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Money & Power. Pulver has got away with a big wad of cash after effectively destroying an entire state's rugby pathways.

While $750 K is a huge amount of money for just about anyone, Pulver hardly needs it, given some of his more successful recent investments, so it's hard to see him really being that motivated by ARU money.
I can't speak for the power thing.
Can't argue with the other bit.
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
People often attribute negative motivators to people/leaders who achieve negative results. It would be ridiculous for anybody to think that Bill Pulver came into the CEO role with anything other than the best of intentions for Rugby and he honestly would have thought he had the skills to do the job I would think.

Unlike JON, Pulver has never struck me as an egotist, assured of his deity in all things sports leadership, so the situation Rugby is in would I think be extremely confronting and depressing for him. I don't say this as any excuse making, he has failed utterly at the position, but I also understand that there was unlikely to be any other outcome, and things perhaps could have been worse.

I say that because the true genesis of the crisis is decades in brewing and structures from the aforesaid deity of management a the prime contributor.
Hawker and the insular old boys/girls network of board appointees (all of them) wear the failure of appointing Pulver, a man with a narrow business experience and no sport management experience to a critical position at a time of building crisis. And to compound it they did not instil greater sport management skills, or even specialist skills in the board or other executive positions.
 

TSR

Andrew Slack (58)
And the follow up mistake would be thinking that simply replacing Pulver, or indeed most of all of the board, would in itself, address the underlying issues with the governence of Australian rugby.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top