James Pettifer
Jim Clark (26)
What were we supposed to do? March in the streets? Storm the barricades?
Well, I would have contributed to Own the Force but I really didn't want to put my own team at any increased risk.
What were we supposed to do? March in the streets? Storm the barricades?
What were we supposed to do? March in the streets? Storm the barricades?
All 5 teams strike. Its happened plenty of.times.in the NFL. Please dont quote the collective bargaining agreement as the reason why they couldn't. The ARU would come to the table and change their tune in quick time.What were we supposed to do? March in the streets? Storm the barricades?
All 5 teams strike. Its happened plenty of.times.in the NFL. Please dont quote the collective bargaining agreement as the reason why they couldn't. The ARU would come to the table and change their tune in quick time.
Its not about one team. So prior to the cut all teams agreed this was a terrible decision, its better to retain 5 teams, RUPA said this isnt the way forward. So if you unite and stand as one where can the ARU go? Bring in replacement players for the 5 teams? That would kill Super Rugby in one season. But they didnt have the guts to do it.When has there been a mass strike in sport over the outcome of one team?
When has there been a mass strike in sport over the outcome of one team?
All 5 teams strike. Its happened plenty of.times.in the NFL. Please dont quote the collective bargaining agreement as the reason why they couldn't. The ARU would come to the table and change their tune in quick time.
The NFL and Major League Baseball have all had lockouts which have cancelled games despite having collective bargaining agreements in place. The teams and players had the power. Heads in the sand.
Bad things happen when good people stand idly by. Never more true in a sporting context.
It wouldn't have resolved anything.. ARU had put pen to paper and agree to cut a team before the teams were informed, the ARU locked themselves Into a binding contract, which was the $80million figure presented to TF to save the Force, it's also why at the EGM the decision to cut a team was supported, again because the contractural obligations the ARU agreed to with SANZAAR presented no alternative.
A strike would have only exacerbated the financial issue further im afraid.
It wouldn't have resolved anything.. ARU had put pen to paper and agree to cut a team before the teams were informed, the ARU locked themselves Into a binding contract, which was the $80million figure presented to TF to save the Force, it's also why at the EGM the decision to cut a team was supported, again because the contractural obligations the ARU agreed to with SANZAAR presented no alternative.
A strike would have only exacerbated the financial issue further im afraid.
The difference between the NBA, NFL lockouts and the Super situation is that the players are facing radically different outcomes in the current situation.
In the US, all players faced a similar fate - a collective bargaining agreement that wasn't to their satisfaction. So a strike was in the interests of the entire player group.
But in Super, while 20% of the player cohort stands to lose everything, the other 80% will actually see their salaries rise. So as much as the 'all for one and one for all' sentiment is noble, I'm not actually sure how many Tahs, Reds, Brumbies and Rebels would actually stand up for something that would see their earnings diminished.
RUPA are not the playing group in this case. RUPA wanted their membership base to be as large as possible, so having the Force in Super Rugby was very much in its interests.
If you were a fringe player at the Brumbies, why would you surrender your earnings to strike for an outcome that would see you potentially on less cash?
.
The difference between the NBA, NFL lockouts and the Super situation is that the players are facing radically different outcomes in the current situation.
In the US, all players faced a similar fate - a collective bargaining agreement that wasn't to their satisfaction. So a strike was in the interests of the entire player group.
But in Super, while 20% of the player cohort stands to lose everything, the other 80% will actually see their salaries rise. So as much as the 'all for one and one for all' sentiment is noble, I'm not actually sure how many Tahs, Reds, Brumbies and Rebels would actually stand up for something that would see their earnings diminished.
RUPA are not the playing group in this case. RUPA wanted their membership base to be as large as possible, so having the Force in Super Rugby was very much in its interests.
If you were a fringe player at the Brumbies, why would you surrender your earnings to strike for an outcome that would see you potentially on less cash?
.
Such major decisions need to take all members along with the process. Do you think all the member unions cannot make intelligent decisions.
I would think this type of decision would and should be taken to the members with all the facts.
Not up to them to act as God for their employers.
How does the expected rise in payments to the remainder sit with supply and demand economics? The demand for players has suddenly reduced by 20%, while the supply of players (all things being equal) increases by 25% over the new market. Just how does that lead to higher payments? Not to mention that the reduced future income expected from any renegotiated TV deal will put further downwards pressure on player payments.