Where to for Super Rugby?

[formerflanker]

yep, I took this photo anticipating someone saying that View attachment 9257

Totally off topic for a moment - I took my grandson to watch the game in the General Admission section and the Rebels scored twice right in front of us and the Tahs also obliged with tries very close to our seats. Great day for both of us.

 

[Braveheart81]

I mean when they agreed to it at the SANZAAR meeting. Before the cut to 15 was announced they just said a decision had been made pending stakeholder approval. The ARU (and by extension SANZAAR) clearly didn't dot all its i's and cross all its t's before announcing it was a done deal.

If it turns out the ARU can't cut a team then doesn't that just mean SANZAAR can't cut an Australian team? The recent comments from Steve Tew seem to indicate that is the case.

By the same token, maybe the ARU can't have made a commitment that a team had a definite place in the competition until 2020.

If SANZAAR reaches an agreement that teams are to be cut then potentially an agreement an Australian team has with the ARU doesn't carry much weight.

Hopefully the longer this drags out the more likely it becomes that it is too difficult to cut teams for next season and the restructure for 2018 is 3x6 instead. That is probably wishful thinking though.

 

[wamberal]

One would hope that something constructive is going on behind the iron curtain.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

By the same token, maybe the ARU can't have made a commitment that a team had a definite place in the competition until 2020.

If SANZAAR reaches an agreement that teams are to be cut then potentially an agreement an Australian team has with the ARU doesn't carry much weight.

That depends on the legal perspective from which you are asking the question.
If you assume that Cox knew that the ARU could not vest a 20 year right in him then it gets murkier and murkier.
There are many other permutations depending on the assumptions you make but as i have said before at the moment there is no happy ending for the ARU based on the facts apparently in the public domain because there are inherent inconsistencies between the things they have promised to counter parties at various levels of the structure that is Super Rugby.
Possibly interestingly, I googled SANZAAR to see what i could find out about the formal structure:

1. despite calling itself SANZAAR the copyright reservation on the website is to SANZAR - probably an oversight, although they never changed the domain name;
2. in 2002 NZ vetoed expansion from 12 to 14 teams and SA and AUS threatened to walk. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SANZAAR). If I ever knew that I had forgotten it.

 

[Braveheart81]

7
There are many other permutations depending on the assumptions you make but as i have said before at the moment there is no happy ending for the ARU based on the facts apparently in the public domain because there are inherent inconsistencies between the things they have promised to counter parties at various levels of the structure that is Super Rugby.

This is the only thing we definitely know to be true.

It's such a murky situation because of the way everything is structured.

An agreement that a team has with the ARU regarding their licence could potentially be made null and void by SANZAAR taking one of he licenses away from the ARU (with the ARU's agreement).

 

[Omar Comin']

An agreement that a team has with the ARU regarding their licence could potentially be made null and void by SANZAAR taking one of he licenses away from the ARU (with the ARU's agreement).

Really? I'm not a lawyer or anything but that just strikes me as so inherently dodgy it couldn't possibly stand up. And if somehow that was possible no one would ever sign an agreement with the ARU or SANZAAR ever again.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

This is the only thing we definitely know to be true.

It's such a murky situation because of the way everything is structured.

An agreement that a team has with the ARU regarding their licence could potentially be made null and void by SANZAAR taking one of he licenses away from the ARU (with the ARU's agreement).

a force majeur - I think Omar has hit the nail on the head - as between Rebels and ARU i don't think the latter could say that them consenting to the withdrawal of 1 licence was something beyond their control.
There's room for an argument that by hooking Cox there was an implication/obligation that the ARU would do nothing to hinder him enjoying the license for its full term.

 

[Twoilms]

Really? I'm not a lawyer or anything but that just strikes me as so inherently dodgy it couldn't possibly stand up. And if somehow that was possible no one would ever sign an agreement with the ARU or SANZAAR ever again.

Nothing wrong with that at all. SANZAAR allow a certain number of teams into their competition determined by mutual agreement. Whether a Country has more teams than it does spots allocated is not a responsibility of SANZAAR.

 

[Dan54]

2011 & 2014 titles with 5 Australian teams, this is bunk. NZ rugby has been weak for years at a time in the past.

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!!

 

[Omar Comin']

Nothing wrong with that at all. SANZAAR allow a certain number of teams into their competition determined by mutual agreement. Whether a Country has more teams than it does spots allocated is not a responsibility of SANZAAR.

But you're talking like SANZAAR and the ARU are actually separate things when they're not.

 

[Twoilms]

But you're talking like SANZAAR and the ARU are actually separate things when they're not.

They are. For example, the ARU can make a determination on anything to do with Australian rugby without SANZAAR input.

The ARU is a constituent of SANZAAR and so it holds a vote in the organization's decisions plus it has a right of veto.

A useful analogy would be the United Nations Security Council. It's member states are clearly distinct entities, and consensus is required for the UNSC to act. Each member also has right to veto.

Edit: a SANZAAR decision is seperate and caries seperate authority to an ARU decision, though it relies on ARU consent. Basically, the SANZAAR decision supersedes any intervening actions of the ARU.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Really? I'm not a lawyer or anything but that just strikes me as so inherently dodgy it couldn't possibly stand up. And if somehow that was possible no one would ever sign an agreement with the ARU or SANZAAR ever again.

In the commercial world that would not be too dissimilar to what happens on a fairly regular basis.

BHP owns mine X. Engages Contractor Y to do mining operations for certain period. Contractor Y gets Sub-contractor Z to do haulage for a period of 3 years. Cost over runs, delays, low prices etc and BHP reassess operation and terminates contract with Contractor Y. There is a cost but is assessed to be better than continuing as is. Sub-contractor Z's contract is effectively terminated as well.

 

[Braveheart81]

Clearly if the ARU wants to avoid losing a team then they have had the mechanisms the whole way along to stop it from happening.

If they're willing to let a team go (and clearly they have taken that position) then presumably their legal argument relates to SANZAAR being wholly of the opinion that the only way the competition can remain viable into the future ensuring its survival is via a reduction in teams and the ARU as a member of SANZAAR has accepted that and agreed to follow through with that.

But you're talking like SANZAAR and the ARU are actually separate things when they're not.

They are and they aren't. Does an agreement the ARU makes with one of the teams supersede an agreement made by SANZAAR of which the ARU was party to when there is a conflict between the two?

 

[Twoilms]

In the commercial world that would not be too dissimilar to what happens on a fairly regular basis.

BHP owns mine X. Engages Contractor Y to do mining operations for certain period. Contractor Y gets Sub-contractor Z to do haulage for a period of 3 years. Cost over runs, delays, low prices etc and BHP reassess operation and terminates contract with Contractor Y. There is a cost but is assessed to be better than continuing as is. Sub-contractor Z's contract is effectively terminated as well.

Presumably such an outcome would be envisaged by the contract that those various entities enter into. The contract would have a nice neat exit clause.

 

[Killer]

I doubt that SANZAAR would take this route without clear instruction from the ARU behind closed doors

 

[Omar Comin']

They are. For example, the ARU can make a determination on anything to do with Australian rugby without SANZAAR input.

The ARU is a constituent of SANZAAR and so it holds a vote in the organization's decisions plus it has a right of veto.

A useful analogy would be the United Nations Security Council. It's member states are clearly distinct entities, and consensus is required for the UNSC to act. Each member also has right to veto.

But these teams have agreements with the ARU regarding a SANZAAR competition. Either these agreements extend to SANZAAR as a whole by default or the ARU have acted improperly in signing them? The whole reason I say the ARU and SANZAAR are effectively the same thing is because of the right of veto.

I just don't see how SANZAAR is able to cut an Australian team if the ARU has no legal right to cut a team, given the ARU have the right within SANZAAR to say 'sorry turns out we can't do this.'

To use your analogy, it'd be like the UN Security Council agreeing on some form of future action, only for a legal challenge in one of the permanent member countries to rule it illegal for the government to agree to it and thus force that government to use their veto (given this would all be before the actual action was taken).

 

[Sully]

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

 

[Twoilms]

But these teams have agreements with the ARU regarding a SANZAAR competition. Either these agreements extend to SANZAAR as a whole by default or the ARU have acted improperly in signing them? The whole reason I say the ARU and SANZAAR are effectively the same thing is because of the right of veto.

I just don't see how SANZAAR is able to cut an Australian team if the ARU has no legal right to cut a team, given the ARU have the right within SANZAAR to say 'sorry turns out we can't do this.'

To use your analogy, it'd be like the UN Security Council agreeing on some form of future action, only for a legal challenge in one of the permanent member countries to rule it illegal for the government to agree to it and thus force that government to use their veto (given this would all be before the actual action was taken).

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.

 

[Omar Comin']

They are and they aren't. Does an agreement the ARU makes with one of the teams supersede an agreement made by SANZAAR of which the ARU was party to when there is a conflict between the two?

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?

 

[Twoilms]

They are and they aren't. Does an agreement the ARU makes with one of the teams supersede an agreement made by SANZAAR of which the ARU was party to when there is a conflict between the two?

Surely, no.