Force to ARU: See you in arbitration

Unfortunately you cannot merge the Brumbies due to its ownership structure with each of the domestic ACT clubs owning a slice of it with voting rights. In an ideal world the most simplest option is to merge Rebels and Brumbies. I have no problems with arbitration as it is the quickest option to start the process in saving the Force. Their legal team would have negotiated certain conditions with it.

The arbitration process will not decide whether the Road Safety Western Force stays in the Super Rugby competition, the case will decide whether the Alliance Agreement is legally binding until the end of the 2020 season. If this can be done earlier with Arbitration if will provide some level of certainty. Where transparency is required is in the decision on the team to axe and the criteria used to make that decision. There must be a clear explanation as the process has been manipulated with teams giving assurances along the way long before a decision is made. Also the Force has delivered this year: 5 players in the Wallaby training group (Ainslie joined as well), 3 in the start-up Wallaby team, 5 WA woman in the Wallaroos squad, etc. The Force outperformed the Rebels in every dimension that you can mention as your criteria for choosing to axe the Force. I will be outraged if a decision is made to axe the Force and no clear explanation is given. The answer that it was easier to axe the Force than the Rebels will not fly in the West and should not for rugby public with a sense of justice.

You know why the ACTRU exists right?

Not necessarily. It's basically their only option to avoid extinction. I'd imagine they'd agree to the arbitration though as a speedy resolution is best for them if they are still around in 2018 though.

I imagine that's right. No decision has been made to cull any particular team so there is no justiciable issue in that regard.

Merge Sydney with Canberra for heavens sake. Brumbies get poor turn outs at games and no growth chance. It is pure logic.

Lawyers always think they can win - but generally speaking they're wrong 50% of the time!

I would have thought it is more that success or otherwise is equally likely as in would be in court. My reading of it is that the arbitration is solely interested in the basis for the injunction - is the alliance agreement still binding or not? It is unlikely to look at anything goes else with respect to the rights/wrongs of the subsequent decision.

As Crazy Horse pointed out there are some very strong legal minds in and around the Force camp, they must think they can win

The Rugby WA (Force) legal team is headed by the former Chief Justice of WA. One would assume he believes there is a high probability of success in arbitration or wouldn't be going down that route.

Arbitration is not mediation. Mediation the parties can compromise. Arbitration still involves an aribitrator essentially acting as judge. Appeal is to the Supreme Court but on improperly applied point of law. Theoretically there is no appeal if you don't like the decision. The advantage is speed of decision. If you don't want a speedy decision then it is not for you. It doesn't always save costs. It just means that you spend the costs of a trial in a three month period instead of a three year period. This a win or lose situation for the Force. If they win they stay in but if they lose they die. Lets hope they have the strategy right because an alternative was to drag out the Court action and try get to the next super season. The Court would likely favour the status quo of not killing off the Force until after the matter is decided. The parties are always free to negotiate without public posturing outside of arbitration but have a third party chairing the proceedings and telling everyone to pull their heads in can help.

I don't think that the arbitration would be helped by transparency. There are as many conflicting points of view as there are Roarers!! if you don't believe me, write an article and watch how people stray off the topic to plug their own points of view. This is one of those situations that demand the ability to have frankness and explore 'left field" solutions.

Yes that would be a distinct advantage of it (speaking about ADR generally). It is also a MUCH quicker and cheaper way of resolving a dispute which does not involve tricky issues of legal interpretation or evidence. ADR is rarely a bad idea, put it that way.

Reading between the lines, and correct me if I have this wrong, this might allow some proper discussions (as opposed to public posturing and worrying about what the papers say).

RT, I imagine it will only be the substance of those particular arbitration discussions which will be behind closed doors and confidential. (And the statement that it will have much the same status as a court hearing is only sort of correct ...) It's not an unusual thing, it's standard practice in alternative dispute resolution since it encourages the parties to be full and frank in the discussion without prejudice to their rights. If it came to pass that the ARU subsequently made a decision to cull the Force, I doubt it would prevent them from publicly stating the reasons for that decision (for eg) nor would it prevent the Force stating the arguments it laid out in support of their position. All in all, if the arbitration can resolve it, that will be far better for all stakeholders.

"...... but will enable the ARU and Rugby WA to avoid public scrutiny over the talks... " ... Very transparent I see for all stakeholders ... I see Good O' then...

Two key points not mentioned in article: 1) both parties must agree to the arbitrator 2) decision can be appealed to Supreme Court