Will Cooper play for the Reds in 2013?
- Thread starter No4918
- Start date
- Status
Joe Blow
John Hipwell (52)
If the Reds are smart they will have a contingency plan in place. If nothing else QC (Quade Cooper) has shown himself to be unreliable and without doubt unstable with his decision making.
His manager will throw some clown in the ring with him and it will be a dominant victory. Quadie will then be easily convinced that he will be the next Sugar Ray Leonard.
It sounds as though he has quietly given his assurance to the Reds for next year but any number of things could happen to stop that from happening. Not least of which could be the ARU turning their backs on him completely if he tries another one of his special negotiation tactics when they sit down at the bargaining table in Feb.
His manager will throw some clown in the ring with him and it will be a dominant victory. Quadie will then be easily convinced that he will be the next Sugar Ray Leonard.
It sounds as though he has quietly given his assurance to the Reds for next year but any number of things could happen to stop that from happening. Not least of which could be the ARU turning their backs on him completely if he tries another one of his special negotiation tactics when they sit down at the bargaining table in Feb.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
swingpass if Quade signs a new contract with the Reds that does not include an ARU top-up, the ARU will ratify it. No question. Apart from the public backlash from QLD'ers and probably quite a few other franchise supporters there is the issue of discrimination. It would be hard to mount a compelling case to refuse him the ability to play for the Reds if they are happy to have him.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Have you been told they will ratify it or is that what you think would happen?
By discrimination do you mean that it is anti competitive or do you mean that he is being discriminated against on a basis covered by Anti Discrimination legislation?
If you mean the former then I think a case for the ARU not ratifying such an agreement could be made: since the ARU in part, at least, supply the money that would go to pay QC (Quade Cooper) and since their charter is the National game they could argue that they have a legitimate interest in who the Reds spend the ARU's money on.
This is allied to an argument someone else put up about the ARU's position amounting to a restraint of trade.
Entities are allowed to agree to restraints on their freedom to trade.
There is no black and white prohibition.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
I disagree. If he feels that the ARU contract is an insult and he can wait until after his fight to sign a Reds only one without the ARU then that's what I'd do.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
My post is pure speculation Inside Shoulder I haven't been told anything! 
As for the discrimination bit I was more referring to the constitution, no actually it's just the vibe.
Discrimination probably wasn't the right word. Basically I mean that the ARU wouldn't stop Quade playing for the Reds only, if that's what him and the Reds want. How could they? If they refuse to ratify the contract then I reckon they would be smashed in the media and the public backlash against them from Reds fans would be huge. And for what? What would they gain by refusing him? And on what grounds would they refuse him, particularly as it doesn't cost them a cent.
It was just the vibe.
As for the discrimination bit I was more referring to the constitution, no actually it's just the vibe.Discrimination probably wasn't the right word. Basically I mean that the ARU wouldn't stop Quade playing for the Reds only, if that's what him and the Reds want. How could they? If they refuse to ratify the contract then I reckon they would be smashed in the media and the public backlash against them from Reds fans would be huge. And for what? What would they gain by refusing him? And on what grounds would they refuse him, particularly as it doesn't cost them a cent.
It was just the vibe.
He will have to sign some sort of ARU contract at some point if he wants to continue playing Super Rugby. If he's an Australian eligible player he needs to come to terms with the ARU as to what he would be paid if he gets selected for the Wallabies.
The system doesn't work on the basis that someone has a contract discussion with the ARU when they are being selected to play for the Wallabies.
I also don't believe there are any grounds to say that he is not making himself available for the Wallabies. If that happened it would certainly be an issue that hasn't been dealt with before in the ARU/Super Rugby to my knowledge. The ARU might decide he needs to be a marquee player if that is the case.
The system doesn't work on the basis that someone has a contract discussion with the ARU when they are being selected to play for the Wallabies.
I also don't believe there are any grounds to say that he is not making himself available for the Wallabies. If that happened it would certainly be an issue that hasn't been dealt with before in the ARU/Super Rugby to my knowledge. The ARU might decide he needs to be a marquee player if that is the case.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
My post is pure speculation Inside Shoulder I haven't been told anything!
Discrimination probably wasn't the right word. Basically I mean that the ARU wouldn't stop Quade playing for the Reds only, if that's what him and the Reds want. How could they? If they refuse to ratify the contract then I reckon they would be smashed in the media and the public backlash against them from Reds fans would be huge. And for what? What would they gain by refusing him? And on what grounds would they refuse him, particularly as it doesn't cost them a cent.
It was just the vibe.
I agree that the ARU wont push it.
I am surprised at how many people think he will play for the Reds, but then i said I didn't think he would.
I now think that its impossible to tell which way he's going to jump and that trying to analyse it rationally is probably not the right way to work it out since no one is acting rationally.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Do you know if you can have a marquee player who is elligible under IRB rules to play for Oz???
I was discussing this very point with a workmate.
I have no idea. I doubt it has been considered before.
I think he will sign with the ARU the day after the fight and be eligible for the Reds. I think the sticking point in the initial negotiations was that the ARU wouldn't let him fight or have a sabbatical. He has decided not to sign with the ARU so he can partake in the fight/hoax/circus and then after the fact he can sign with them. He will still be eligible to play for the Wallabies, it just depends on if the coach will select him.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
Jets, if that was the case why would they not announce that they were hoping to re sign/reb commence negotiations after the "fight"?
That would have made more sense than to bag the crap out of the ARU, and state that communications had totally broken down.
(hint for next time Khoder...communications will always break down if you screen their calls and make announcements that exclude the other party)
That would have made more sense than to bag the crap out of the ARU, and state that communications had totally broken down.
(hint for next time Khoder...communications will always break down if you screen their calls and make announcements that exclude the other party)
- Status