• 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.
B

BLR

Guest
stoff said:
Because all will be forgiven if the ARU back down. It's positioning, just like the Force's injunction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Didn't they just say they would seek damages even if they aren't cut? That doesn't sound like forgiveness.

Force are seeking and injunction just to play as they were contracted to, not to get money, I don't think seeking damages has come into it.
 
Inside Shoulder

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Poidevinfan said:
To a 3rd party person like me it seems like a fluffybunnyy thing to do sue the ARU for just suggesting they might get the chop.
This decision may yet be played out in the heart of the ARU and Melbourne may have overplayed its hand by boxing the ARU into a corner and taking such an adversarial posture.
Click to expand...
No one but the ARU painted the ARU into a corner.
As I predicted a few pages back: the ARU have made inconsistent representations at various times to various parties.
 
dru

dru

David Wilson (68)
RedsHappy said:
My own view is that the hard-headed answer to that question is (given where Australian rugby realistically is today) probably 3 teams, with 2 in Sydney (one in Western Sydney).
Click to expand...

Just want to lock in this statement while I cogitate. Number of teams is not my issue here.
 
stoff

stoff

Phil Hardcastle (33)
BLR said:
Didn't they just say they would seek damages even if they aren't cut? That doesn't sound like forgiveness.

Force are seeking and injunction just to play as they were contracted to, not to get money, I don't think seeking damages has come into it.
Click to expand...
I imagine it is a position they may give up for a guarantee of survival.

On the other point, both parties are contracted to play, just have taken different routes on how they deal with that legally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
RedsHappy

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
A key statement (extract) of the Rebels overall statement issued tonight (which btw has the flavour of the Rebels' owners wanting to exit their deal with the ARU and in the process set up for a big negotiation re the 'get out' price to be paid to Cox by the ARU).

"MRRU notes, and is very disappointed to hear and read statements that the board and senior management of the ARU did not believe for many years in the 5 team model and did not believe that model was financially viable. MRRU notes that this concern was not conveyed to Imperium Sports Management prior to its acquisition of MRRU despite the full board and management of the ARU having the opportunity to do so."
 
I like to watch

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
RedsHappy said:
^^^^^^ @ KevinO

Yes, a heavy hit is coming.

Must be that the incredibly corporately and legally experienced ARU board is very carefully and competently guiding this whole 'who'll be culled' process.
Click to expand...
Yep, a very heavy hit.
Very unlucky for the ARU!
who would have thought that the Rebels would have read recent statements by the ARU,that they sold a franchise knowing that a 5 team model was unsustainable, and failed to disclose it to them?
So unlucky....

Edit: too slow RH beat me to it.
 
Rebels3

Rebels3

Jim Lenehan (48)
Poidevinfan said:
Explain more, as I don't see the strategy.
Click to expand...

There is no injunction like the force have done yet, however this very strong statement is basically saying 'make a decision, the same decision that we were promised (rightly or wrongly, I am not going to engage in that debate again, both sides have positives and negatives to their case) by people within the ARU. If this isn't sorted asap there will be pending legal action. Not only on the license (if it is revoked or not) but also damages to a brand. The longer you leave it, the more we will pursue.'

It also shows cox isn't going away easily. If they have any proof of a promise from anyone associated with the aru, they could hit them on that front. Also the loss of license and because they own the brand, damages to the brand.

I really, really do not want to see any legal action. A hefty payout, especially someone who can fight you on numerous fronts. This goes for the force as well, could send the game in the country to unrepairable territory. After all they are all entities that are supposed to exist for the greater good of the game, first and foremost. If any damages set the game back so far, then everyone loses.
 
P

Poidevinfan

Bob McCowan (2)
This is a throw away comment but the ARU are going to need balls of steel and clear and level headed thinking to work through this. In my MBA I took a strategy class on non market place strategic management, which basically boiled down to how to lobby with governments, local authorities and the court system to create an environment where you can succeed. I would be calling in a consultant/specialist in that area if they haven't already. There are various frameworks you can use to help clarify the right decision and strategy. A lot of the case studies we did boiled down to winning the public opinion over, they the ARU also definitely need lawyers working overtime now. Sad it has come to this (so legal now). This could take ages.
 
P

Poidevinfan

Bob McCowan (2)
Rebels3 said:
There is no injunction like the force have done yet, however this very strong statement is basically saying 'make a decision, the same decision that we were promised (rightly or wrongly, I am not going to engage in that debate again, both sides have positives and negatives to their case) by people within the ARU. If this isn't sorted asap there will be pending legal action. Not only on the license (if it is revoked or not) but also damages to a brand. The longer you leave it, the more we will pursue.'

It also shows cox isn't going away easily. If they have any proof of a promise from anyone associated with the aru, they could hit them on that front. Also the loss of license and because they own the brand, damages to the brand.

I really, really do not want to see any legal action. A hefty payout, especially someone who can fight you on numerous fronts. This goes for the force as well, could send the game in the country to unrepairable territory. After all they are all entities that are supposed to exist for the greater good of the game, first and foremost. If any damages set the game back so far, then everyone loses.
Click to expand...

Good post.
 
RedsHappy

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
BLR said:
So, if the Force & Rebels are contracted to play, why the hell is the ACT still untouchable?
Click to expand...

No fucker today knows the answer to that (great and good) question.

The smallest city in Australia that today sends c.9,000 crowds to Super games, has booked financial and membership losses for a number of years and further has a major ASIC - potentially criminal - investigation hanging over its head...........

.......is deemed 'fully viable' for Super rugby participation by the ARU and 'will not be cut.'

Our ARU, their mysteries.
 
I like to watch

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
RedsHappy said:
No fucker today knows the answer to that (great and good) question.

The smallest city in Australia that today sends c.9,000 crowds to Super games, has booked financial and membership losses for a number of years and further has a major ASIC - potentially criminal - investigation hanging over its head.....

...is deemed 'fully viable' for Super rugby participation by the ARU and 'will not be cut.'

Our ARU, their mysteries.
Click to expand...
And that's without even considering their style of play.....
 
Quick Hands

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
RedsHappy said:
A key statement (extract) of the Rebels overall statement issued tonight (which btw has the flavour of the Rebels' owners wanting to exit their deal with the ARU and in the process set up for a big negotiation re the 'get out' price to be paid to Cox by the ARU).

"MRRU notes, and is very disappointed to hear and read statements that the board and senior management of the ARU did not believe for many years in the 5 team model and did not believe that model was financially viable. MRRU notes that this concern was not conveyed to Imperium Sports Management prior to its acquisition of MRRU despite the full board and management of the ARU having the opportunity to do so."
Click to expand...

The ARU may be hung by their own petard. Gee, I'm glad that we have internationally renowned lawyers and high flying corporate strategists on the board.
 
lou75

lou75

Ron Walden (29)
Now that the heat of the moment has dissipated here are my thoughts:
1. Melb will be the largest city in Aust in five years time
2. Vic gov plan to invest $20 m into rugby development
3. ACT population of 400000 cannot sustain a super rugby franchise
4. WA may be able fund their operations and if they can they should
5. Big call out to Gina re 4.
6. Cox has halved the memberships, and walkin revenues from 2015 and lost most of his sponsorships $3 m circa - previous management were on track for fiscal sustainability - time to walk the talk Andrew or let someone with real management skills run the show
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top