The Australian Rugby Union says financial reasons were behind their decision to cut the Western Force rather than the Melbourne Rebels from the Super Rugby competition.
On a dramatic day, ARU boss Bill Pulver announced he would stand down as soon as a replacement could be found.
Pulver has had to deal with plenty of negative comment after his organisation announced on April 10 one of the local five Super rugby teams would be cut.
“It has been a harrowing process so my sense is it’s a good time for renewal, said Pulver whose five-year term expired next February.
Rugby Union Players’ Association boss Ross Xenos described the decision as the “darkest day in the history of Australian Rugby”.
The announcement came following the result of arbitration involving the ARU and Rugby WA, though neither side wanted to divulge the findings of last week’s two-day hearing
RugbyWA will take out an injunction against the ARU’s decision.
If the Force win a right of appeal, they will take the case to the Supreme Court.
RugbyWA will also consider mounting legal action relating to the circumstances which led it to enter into the ‘Alliance’ agreement last year with the ARU.
Asked why the Force asked were cut rather than the Rebels, Pulver said: “We did an exhaustive analysis, a massive spreadsheet on all the variables that went into this decision.
“Some of them community-based, some of them high-performance based and frankly at the end of the day the best decision for Australian rugby was to remove the Western Force.
“Financially it made the most sense.
Billionaire Andrew Forrest, who on Friday described the ARU’s decision as “retrograde” and “illogical”, has reaffirmed his pledge to do everything within his powers to save the Force.
ARU chairman Cameron Clyne said while the Force had run an enthusiastic and public campaign it would have been wrong to assume there wasn’t the same level of enthusiasm in Melbourne.
“There has been a lot of public support and a lot of genuine financial support from people in Melbourne that have come out,” he said
‘Whilst we do appreciate people like Andrew getting involved it came very late in the piece.
“Part of the issue was the Force were virtually bankrupt and had to be bailed out.”
Clyne said he still expected two to three Australian teams to lose money next year.
Every Australian team lost more than they won in 2017 and for the second-straight year no local side made the semi-finals.
The Rebels won just one game, while the Force never made the finals in 12 attempts.
Clyne felt having four competitive teams would give Australian more bargaining power in having a say over the controversial competition format.
Sam
Guest
Well true, not ground breaking but coming to a head I hope. Ground breaking is the NZ government confirming Barnabas Joyce is a kiwi by descent!
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
They win and injunction while the court considers the appeal. Hardly groundbreaking. Surely that would be the just thing for the court to do as waiting a week to act would have minimal impact to the ARU, should they deny the appeal, and allowing them to act now would have huge impact to the Force should they allow it.
Sam
Guest
Just a bit of poetic licence TWAS! I got my wish, it came through my google alerts just now. The Force injunction was accepted by the NSW Supreme Court. Twiggy is listed on the injunction, set for August 23. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-4787828/Rugby-Western-Force-win-injunction-order-against-decision-axe-team.html As for my "witheringly on the vine" comment, I've become very cynical about the process of choosing a side to "cull" and the transparency of that process.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
But they haven't "conspired" to make the Brumbies safe or take Rebels off the table. They could never choose to remove them. They could choose to offer Cox to purchase the licence, but could not compel him to sell. Not sure how Cox passing on the licence for $1 in a deal where somebody other than the ARU covered the debts is not really in good faith? He has handed control to a community organisation. I'd imagine if he wished he could have got 7 figures from the ARU for the licence. The option to let the Rebels and VRU wither hoping they go broke isn't a realistic option. They need to cut a team now. Waiting for a team to go broke would put them in a horrible bargaining position and could likely see SANZAAR and broadcast partners only agree to cut revenue, knowing the ARU couldn't afford to maintain the Rebels and meet their contractual requirements. Twiggy can bankroll as much as he wants. Courts need to agree to hear the cases for them to cost the ARU too much.
Sam
Guest
I think natural justice/procedural fairness is very much an issue here. Pulver et al sound like they've conspired to make the Brumbies safe and got the Rebels off the table (in a very under handed way) and hung the Force out to dry. I felt queasy after Cox announced the sale after the fact. His actions have certainly not been in good faith but I think he's been played like a banjo at a square dance. If I were Pulver I'd have signed it off and allowed the Rebels and the VRU to wither on the vine for another year or two and lo-and-behold they're gone. As for the Force they should damn well fight it tooth and nail. If Twiggy can bank roll their legal case to the tune of just a Million or two they'll empty the ARU war chest. Rugby union is a basket case in Australia. It needs to hit rock bottom before anything good comes of it.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Any Government action will have zero impact on this other then potential cost. But as the ARU have no written agreements with the government I see any success unlikely. As for other potential legal avenues, why haven't they pursued them already? The longer this goes on, the harder it would be for them to continue if successful. Surely the best action would have been to pursue all 3 at once if they have 2 more avenues to pursue. The fact they have done nothing leads me to believe they are even less confident on their case.
blindsid3
Roar Rookie
From my understanding of the situation (I'm an avid reader), the arbitration only dealt with the definition of the broadcast agreement, and whether there was a new one in place (which the ARU argued) and whether their wasn't (which the Force, supported by all of the SANZAAR statements suggested). There remains a right to appeal that decision and that is being investigated. In addition to the appeal against that decision, any other facet has yet to be explored. From my observations these might include: Deceptive and misleading conduct - in that the ARU seem to have bought the Force with the single minded intent to close them down (RWA case) - Lawsuit from WA Govt over commitments to Rugby before the stadium was upgraded Breach of contract - apparently the alliance agreement states that parties will act "in good faith" more than 50 times. If Stooke's view of the proceedings and reports that Pulver engineered the VRU buyout are solid, then the ARU has not acted in good faith. There may be grounds for legal action there.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Or are you assuming the Force have a number of completely viable legal avenues and they just chose to not pursue them until now?
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
And that issue would be the basis for seeking an injunction...
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Why? When did the ARU ever actually say the decision was made on the basis that the Rebels had better finances than the Force? They said it was based on a number of factors including financial considerations, which is true. That consideration is the retained revenue with less expenses.
Bakkies
Guest
Arbitration is a small matter that was only sought over one issue that the Force have with the ARU.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Can somebody with better legal knowledge than me (perhaps Fionn or Rt) explain the likelihood of an injunction being successful (especially in the interim until the matter is heard) when arbitration has already found a ruling? I guess I'm specifically asking if the Force requested an interim injunction until the matter is heard, would the court consider the result of the arbitration in any way?
Sam
Guest
Can we just get on with injuncting the ARU please? We all know how this going to end. They'll run out of money and reverse their decision and the status quo will ensue. They simply don't have the stones for a fight. Sanzar will hopefully dissolve and we wait for what happens after that.
Train Without A Station
Guest
They didn't knock it back. He offered it after contractual agreements were already made for 2018.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
If they need it surely $6M a year more is better than $4M being paid early...
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
No. It's not. And also to compare to the NZRU it is higher by the same margin as the average wage. Unsurprising as wages are the largest expense.
Jibba Jabba
Roar Guru
They are too f...g dishonest to be honest - caught up in their own lies and deceit...
Boundary Rider
Guest
It must not be about money i see the WA govt has cancelled the agreed $4m bledisloe pre-payment to ARU. There's a big chunk of cash for commumity rugby gone from their spreadsheet. They musnt need it. ARU need to be honest about this and provide transparency on the cull criteria.
Fionn
Guest
The ARUs operating budget is higher than that of France and England?!
Ben
Guest
Exactly right, Sheikh. Knocking back a billionaire's plea to allow him to ensure the Force cost the ARU nothing ain't about $$$. I love the Wallabies and only want the best for our national team and the other provinces, but if RugbyWA and Twiggy sink the entire organisation in attempt to put WA back into an equitable position, I won't be shedding a tear. The EARU will get everything they deserve. Spineless (b)ankers.