Where to for Super Rugby?

[BLR]

I am a Rebels supporter. Even I can say there's no clearly correct choice between the Rebels and the Force.

If you're not objective enough to say that, and I'm not saying you're not, then I don't really respect your opinion.

Incorrect assumptions like the Own the Force campaign not being taken into account when assessing the Forces viability. As well as assuming that the Force will stay exactly how they are now re-license/money wise, which is clearly not the case from early statements regarding the campaign.

 

[Slim 293]

To quote Alan on himself, "When I coached Australia........"

Jones had his regularly weekly opinion wank piece on Sunrise this morning where he was asked about how the AFL should handle racial abuse.........

Not once, but twice, he begun an answer with "When I coached Australia..........."

Apparently racism in sport didn't exist when he coached.

 

[Ballboy]

What about we dump all the NZ reams ,, we cant beat them anyway ( though i love the rugby they play ) then teams like the Rebels might win a game occasionally and bring back fans , problem solved

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'm confused why you'd think this.

COO is a very common position within any moderately sized company and larger.

They are almost always the second most senior executive position within a company.

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

 

[sidelineview]

Yer right there, Mick, and the other Jones isn't much better. Why the rugby media give either of 'em any oxygen puzzles me.

Jones might be a sanctimonious, self-serving, attention-seeking, annoying prick but he carries a big stick and can make things happen.
He didn't give Clyne a fair go in his interview but there's no doubting the ARU have to be accountable concerning this mess. At least Clyne fronts up to face the music on behalf of the ARU, so full marks for that.

Jones was very instrumental in securing South Sydney a legal win over News Corp and getting them back into the comp after the Super League war.
A lot of people thought he was a prick then as well, but he was a very helpful and influential prick to the people of South Sydney and rugby league and helped to right a wrong then.

 

[amirite]

Incorrect assumptions like the Own the Force campaign not being taken into account when assessing the Forces viability. As well as assuming that the Force will stay exactly how they are now re-license/money wise, which is clearly not the case from early statements regarding the campaign.

Sorry mate, I've read your post a couple of times and I can't work out if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Jones might be a sanctimonious, self-serving, attention-seeking, annoying prick but he carries a big stick and can make things happen.
He didn't give Clyne a fair go in his interview but there's no doubting the ARU have to be accountable concerning this mess. At least Clyne fronts up to face the music on behalf of the ARU, so full marks for that.

Jones was very instrumental in securing South Sydney a legal win over News Corp and getting them back into the comp after the Super League war.
A lot of people thought he was a prick then as well, but he was a very helpful and influential prick to the people of South Sydney and rugby league and helped to right a wrong then.

You worry me: "might be"?
What role did Jones play in a "legal win"?
He is a bully of the first order. Bullying was part of his coaching style and once a player could not be bullied any longer he was goooorne

 

[KOB1987]

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

Pfffft. How's he meant to be in the corporate box schmoozing sponsors and Shore families if he's assigned the task of operating the business as well?

 

[sidelineview]

You worry me: "might be"?
What role did Jones play in a "legal win"?
He is a bully of the first order. Bullying was part of his coaching style and once a player could not be bullied any longer he was goooorne

Think what you like about him but he carries a lot of clout.
In fact him, and others involved in the media at the time like Ray Martin and Andrew Denton helped to educate people about the real issue and what was happening at that time. It was basically a rort.

But enough about that; this issue has the same smell of injustice about it.

Yes, he was very influential in getting South Sydney back into the comp.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Pulver needs to kept on a very tight leash. Clyne needs to take control (which it appears that he has) and let BP do the filing and take the minutes.

Are the directors of the ARU still volunteering to forgo their pay like they were the last couple of years?

Is Clyne doing this for free at the moment?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Yes, he was very influential in getting South Sydney back into the comp.

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.

 

[Quick Hands]

I'm confused why you'd think this.

COO is a very common position within any moderately sized company and larger.

They are almost always the second most senior executive position within a company.

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.

 

[whitefalcon]

With a 20% reduction in Australian teams, is the thought that the ARU/SANZAR will increase the size of the squads by 20% to "rehome" those players from the team(s) who are cut?

Or will there simply be 20% fewer spots next year?

 

[Quick Hands]

Are the directors of the ARU still volunteering to forgo their pay like they were the last couple of years?

Is Clyne doing this for free at the moment?

I'm not sure. Is there anything in the Annual Report about Chariman or Director fees/salaries?

As the chariman, would he be in a different category to the directors? He would seem to have a lot more responsibility.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I'm not sure. Is there anything in the Annual Report about Chariman or Director fees/salaries?

As the chariman, would he be in a different category to the directors? He would seem to have a lot more responsibility.

They stopped reporting the directors remuneration in 2015 I think

In 2014 they elected to forgo 100% of their salary - and that might still be the case?
Chairman was on $40k and directors on $20k before that

 

[KiwiM]

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.

Not to derail but did Souths actually win the case? They got reinstated but I thought legally the High Court backed the initial judgement that rejected Souths legal claim.

 

[RedsHappy]

I largely agree.

To frame it a bit differently, getting rid of the team is not an incompetent act in isolation, but everything that led to this point probably was. This was all forecasted.

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.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Not to derail but did Souths actually win the case? They got reinstated but I thought legally the High Court backed the initial judgement that rejected Souths legal claim.

Correct, but as i recall it the full federal court reversed the primary judge and let them back in and they were already back in by the time the High Court reversed the full court - by which time I think the organising authority decided to let sleeping dogs lie.

 

[BLR]

Sorry mate, I've read your post a couple of times and I can't work out if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.

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.

While doing that they based the loss of the Rebels having affect on the Bledisloe & Lions matches, despite NO contracts being entered into at this point.

 

[Twoilms]

Regarding the potential legal claim, what are the quantifiable damages and what is the remedy?

If the Force were losing money hand over fist they can't claim damages for a basic breach of contract. The remedy would presumably be for loss of future income, of which there would not be any.

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. If that is the case, what would that mean for the competition next year, particularly given how long litigation like this would take we could very well enter 2018 not even knowing what team has been cut, or if that team has been cut successfully.

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.