Forrest called ARU’s bluff to save Force

By AAP,

Tagged:
 , ,

317 Have your say

    The Australian Rugby Union’s rejection of billionaire Andrew Forrest’s $50 million offer to save the Western Force was a backflip that came weeks after it told him such a figure would save the club, a Senate inquiry has heard.

    The revelations were made by the mining magnate’s friend, former rugby professional and businessman John Welborn at a Senate hearing into the controversial axing of the Perth-based Force from Super Rugby.

    If Forrest provided the money, the ARU said its board and CEO would also resign, he said.

    Welborn said Forrest had called the ARU’s bluff.

    He and Forrest asked ARU chairman Cameron Clyne what they could to save the Force and were given a list that was supposed to be impossible to meet.

    That was: underwrite the Western Force for the next eight years, fund grassroots rugby by $6 million a year for eight years and compensate the Super Rugby competition by $20 million to cover the costs in keeping the Force.

    The sport was struggling financially as well as on the field in Australia, following a disastrous year for the Super Rugby teams, they were told.

    Welborn said that when Forrest told them he was willing to provide $50 million: “I think they were shocked when Andrew turned up willing to make … the largest philanthropic sporting donation of all time.”

    They were told it was too late and RugbyWA should have got help earlier.

    The sport’s financial problems and justification for dumping the Force were in the “single figure millions”.

    “A very short period of time later a genuine and very committed offer of tens of millions of dollar was completely discounted … with no engagement,” he said.

    “That stunned me from every perspective as a rugby follower also as a fiduciary responsibility from a director’s position.”

    ARU chairman Cameron Clyne had even lectured Forrest on the challenges of running a business with revenue declining, despite the latter’s great success saving his company Fortescue when iron ore prices plunged, he said.

    WA Liberal senator Linda Reynolds said during the hearing that the eastern states were sadly mistaken if they thought West Australian rugby fans would take the Force’s destruction lying down.

    She also grilled former Melbourne Rebels CEO Peter Leahy but he requested the media and public leave when it came to discussing the confidential financial arrangements made when the club was taken over by private owner Andrew Cox in 2015.

    © AAP 2018

    Have Your Say



    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (317)

    • October 12th 2017 @ 8:01am
      Bamboo said | October 12th 2017 @ 8:01am | ! Report

      I’m just going to grab my popcorn and go sit in the corner…..

      • October 13th 2017 @ 7:21am
        Drongo said | October 13th 2017 @ 7:21am | ! Report

        The WA politicians are getting exactly what they want. It’s like a bunch of hungry cats being thrown fish pieces.

    • Roar Guru

      October 12th 2017 @ 8:29am
      Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 8:29am | ! Report

      That was: underwrite the Western Force for the next eight years, fund grassroots rugby by $6 million a year for eight years ($48M) and compensate the Super Rugby competition by $20 million to cover the costs in keeping the Force.

      ….

      Welborn said that when Forrest told them he was willing to provide $50 million: “I think they were shocked when Andrew turned up willing to make … the largest philanthropic sporting donation of all time.”

      So let me get this straight. Somebody tell me if the time line is wrong here.

      The ARU said the figure needed was $68M plus underwriting the Force?

      Forrest came back with $50M to the ARF? i.e. an offer below what they said he needed to provide to save the Force.

      As I said tell me if I have this wrong, but how is that calling their bluff? Meeting their offer would be calling their bluff.

      • October 12th 2017 @ 8:59am
        Ian said | October 12th 2017 @ 8:59am | ! Report

        $50m upfront would easily exceed the present value of $6m over 8 years + $20m (over the same period of time?).

        Yes, the ARU had their bluff called, well and truly.

        As Groucho Marx said “Never send an idiot to do a morons job”….the ARU sent a whole team of idiots!

        • Roar Guru

          October 12th 2017 @ 9:20am
          Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 9:20am | ! Report

          Nowhere has it said it was up front…

          • October 12th 2017 @ 10:21am
            Forceright said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:21am | ! Report

            Is that the best riposte you have TWAS- you need to lift your game or the boys won’t want you anymore. Never heard of a business about to become insolvent turning down $50mill before.

            • Roar Guru

              October 12th 2017 @ 10:29am
              Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:29am | ! Report

              Never heard of a business turning themselves around on the back of a cash injection they can’t use to pay their expenses.

              The offer was not for the ARU to use to cover their shortfalls. It was supposedly for the ARF.

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 10:36am
                PeterK said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:36am | ! Report

                the ARF is for grassroots though which supposedly the ARU was asking funding for , not shute shield and other elite programs

              • Columnist

                October 12th 2017 @ 10:40am
                Brett McKay said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:40am | ! Report

                And it was over five years, I’m quite sure.

              • October 12th 2017 @ 1:38pm
                blindsid3 said | October 12th 2017 @ 1:38pm | ! Report

                Nick Taylor in The West is reporting that Welbourne testified that the “ARU said the Force could be saved if:

                * The Western Force and all the other four Australian Super Rugby sides received equal funding.
                * The Western Force was underwritten for the remaining three years of the broadcasting contract and a further five years.
                * Forrest guaranteed to ensure the Force and RugbyWA would be in a “no loss” position.
                * That $6 million a year for eight years would be pumped into grassroots rugby.
                * That $20 million be provided in compensation to SANZAAR for the retention of the Force.

                and

                If accepted, the ARU board would resign to be replaced by a new board along with a new CEO”

                His testimony was that Forrest went to the meeting prepared to meet the ARUs demands.

                and the clincher…

                Forrest agreed, and the ARU backed down.

                TWAS – accept it…no matter what the price, or benefit to Australian Rugby, the ARU had no intention of reinstating the Force.

              • October 12th 2017 @ 2:14pm
                sittingbison said | October 12th 2017 @ 2:14pm | ! Report

                ^^^^this^^^^

                Didn’t take the shills long to jumpnin with obfuscation and deflection

              • October 12th 2017 @ 2:18pm
                Bakkies said | October 12th 2017 @ 2:18pm | ! Report

                ‘Never heard of a business turning themselves around on the back of a cash injection they can’t use to pay their expenses.’

                I have. It’s called the Melbourne Rebels.

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 2:49pm
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 2:49pm | ! Report

                So this report is incorrect published by the roar is incorrect?

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 4:42pm
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 4:42pm | ! Report

                I suggest you all read the reports you are quoting.

                I’ve looked up the article.

                “I think they were shocked that Andrew turned up willing to make what I assume would have been the largest philanthropic donation of all time and so they knocked him back.

                “I don’t think they had a plan B in terms of accepting that. At no point was there a discussion on those terms.

                “That proposition was never discussed in detail. Mr Forrest did make it clear on three occasions he was prepared to offer $50 million of new capital.

                Welborn has said the ARU said Forrest would need to underwrite the Force, provide $20M and $48M.

                Welborn then says “Mr Forrest did make it clear on three occasions he was prepared to offer $50 million of new capital”.

                This does not contradict what I said. It supports it…

          • October 12th 2017 @ 12:01pm
            Ex force fan said | October 12th 2017 @ 12:01pm | ! Report

            Nowhere did it say if was not upfront.

      • October 12th 2017 @ 9:30am
        RUSerious said | October 12th 2017 @ 9:30am | ! Report

        Your apologist comments for the ARU get weaker with every post.

        • Roar Rookie

          October 12th 2017 @ 9:54am
          Paul D said | October 12th 2017 @ 9:54am | ! Report

          There is nothing factually wrong with what TWAS has stated. Simple maths tells you that $50M, even up front is not the same as $68M with the bulk over 8 years. And lets not forget two key things. One, it was an offer of between $10M-$50M, not straight up $50M. And two, it was for the ARF. not Super Rugby.

          So it wasn’t as much as the ARU stated they needed, and it was conditional on it being spent on areas that were not where the ARU intended to direct the money.

          Irrespective of whether it was right, or wrong, or whatever. He didn’t call their bluff. Calling their bluff would’ve been agreeing to what the ARU asked for unconditionally.

          • October 12th 2017 @ 9:58am
            Fionn said | October 12th 2017 @ 9:58am | ! Report

            It’s so weird that he would low ball them.

            Why would he not just offer the amount they were asking for if he was committed to saving the Force. What is an extra $18 million to Twiggy Forrest?

            • Roar Guru

              October 12th 2017 @ 10:18am
              Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:18am | ! Report

              Based on what Welborn has said Forrest wasn’t willing to do “whatever it takes”.

              He was willing to do what he offered. That was the limitation.

            • October 12th 2017 @ 10:21am
              Dubaikiwi said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:21am | ! Report

              Come on Fionn, if someone asked you to pay a ridiculous amount for a house would you not try to negotiate a better offer.

              • October 12th 2017 @ 10:30am
                Fionn said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:30am | ! Report

                No. Not if I was a billionaire, I loved that house and I was committed to saving it?

                He offered about $50 million, just offer the extra $12 million and save the team, especially when you know thousands of people are counting on you to do so.

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 10:37am
                PeterK said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:37am | ! Report

                Fionn – but the ARU said it was too late not that not enough was offered

              • Roar Rookie

                October 12th 2017 @ 11:44am
                piru said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:44am | ! Report

                I think Welbourne’s summation of it is about right – he’s obviously a bit close to the situation but he is an intelligent man.

                The ARU probably thought the list of ‘requirements’ was never going to be met, in fact probably meant it as a way to show why it would be impossible to save the Force.

                The reasons for all the confusing claims and counter claims are starting to come to light

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 11:47am
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:47am | ! Report

                So the ARU were right that the list of requirements was never going to be met, because they weren’t?

              • Roar Rookie

                October 12th 2017 @ 12:10pm
                piru said | October 12th 2017 @ 12:10pm | ! Report

                They weren’t intended to be, hence the lack of negotiation.

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 12:15pm
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 12:15pm | ! Report

                What’s there to negotiate?

                That was the requirements.

              • Roar Rookie

                October 12th 2017 @ 12:49pm
                piru said | October 12th 2017 @ 12:49pm | ! Report

                Was it though?

                Or was it simply a mission impossible given to the Force?

                They never got the 50 mil and they seem to be functioning still.

              • October 13th 2017 @ 6:35am
                soapit said | October 13th 2017 @ 6:35am | ! Report

                twas i would say the aru’s figure hadnt had much thought put into them originally and were more given indicatively, not as a firm offer. twiggy turned up with $50 to get the ball rolling with discussions about saving them and the aru werent interested.

                can i also ptovide a bit of advice. unless you have specific info to refute what people say here dont run through the comments challenging everyone to back up their own leaps of logic and every single person you think is saying something thats probably wrong. just some friendly advice from someone who enjoys the way you go about your thinking. just take it a little easier for mine. there will always be extreme views and you dont have to try and correct them all. cheers

                ps not so much from what youve said this far down but from previous aricles on this

              • October 13th 2017 @ 7:47am
                Ruckin Oaf said | October 13th 2017 @ 7:47am | ! Report

                Hey Fionn,

                What if you were selling the house in question and the only offer you got was lower than what you wanted.

                Would you:
                a) seek to negotiate to see if the initial offer could be increased or if some common ground could be reached
                or
                b) reject the offer outright knowing that it was the only offer you had and without it the house would become a crumbling ruin.

              • October 13th 2017 @ 7:55am
                Fionn said | October 13th 2017 @ 7:55am | ! Report

                Ruckin Oaf,

                It isn’t really the point, is it? As the article heavily implies that the ARU delivered an Austria-Hungary to Serbia style ultimatum that was designed to be impossible to fulfil to Forrest hoping that Forrest wouldn’t fulfil the terms.

                Even if he had offered what they wanted they may could well have rejected it based on (‘it is too late’).

                That being said, given the amount of money Forrest has, and the amount he offered anyway, I am baffled that he didn’t just offer the full amount and then at least see if they would accept it?

                But hey, what do I know.

              • October 13th 2017 @ 7:55am
                Fionn said | October 13th 2017 @ 7:55am | ! Report

                Ruckin Oaf,

                It isn’t really the point, is it? As the article heavily implies that the ARU delivered an Austria-Hungary to Serbia style ultimatum that was designed to be impossible to fulfil to Forrest hoping that Forrest wouldn’t fulfil the terms.

                Even if he had offered what they wanted they may could well have rejected it based on (‘it is too late’).

                That being said, given the amount of money Forrest has, and the amount he offered anyway, I am baffled that he didn’t just offer the full amount and then at least see if they would accept it?

                But hey, what do I know.

          • October 13th 2017 @ 1:19am
            andrewM said | October 13th 2017 @ 1:19am | ! Report

            $50 million still pales into insignificance when compared to the money the Victorian government was prepared to put on the table

        • Roar Guru

          October 12th 2017 @ 10:15am
          Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:15am | ! Report

          What am I apologizing for?

          Tell me if I have something wrong.

          I’m literally asking, is this a summation of the facts and is my conclusion wrong…

          • Roar Guru

            October 12th 2017 @ 10:28am
            PeterK said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:28am | ! Report

            no it is not a summation since you ignored the aru response.

            It was not – that is insufficient money but that it is too late.

            • Roar Guru

              October 12th 2017 @ 10:34am
              Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:34am | ! Report

              But isn’t it that the lower offer was too late?

              It didn’t include anything to compensate the teams. Due to the timing (too late) 8 teams would now lose a home game each year for the next 3.

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 10:51am
                PeterK said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:51am | ! Report

                no each team could have the same number of home games still

                the new proposed format was 8 teams in other conferences and 8 games home and away within your own.

                With 16 teams you could still have the same number of home and away games just changes who you don’t play.

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 10:53am
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:53am | ! Report

                How does that work with uneven conferences?

                There would be 5, 5 and 6 somewhere.

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 11:07am
                PeterK said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:07am | ! Report

                explained that further down, fairly straightforward with conferences , aust conf teams miss playing more teams in other conferences

              • Roar Rookie

                October 12th 2017 @ 11:46am
                piru said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:46am | ! Report

                How are teams losing games with an extra team?

                That doesn’t make sense

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 11:49am
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:49am | ! Report

                Because going back to 15 teams (5×5) results in 8 homes conference games and 8 away conference games.

                My understanding is that under 16 teams the preferred structure by all was 15 games, meaning an 8/7 split of games.

                I seriously doubt that all parties would agree to change after the issues with the 18 team format, and then agree to a lopsided format just with 15.

          • October 12th 2017 @ 10:31am
            Dubaikiwi said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:31am | ! Report

            Yes you are wrong, your statement was “Forest came back with $50M to the AEF, an offer below what they said he needed to provide to save the Force”
            The $50M is enough to cover all costs in saving the Force, plus recompense the 20M to the ARU and goes someway in funding the countries grass roots.

            • Roar Guru

              October 12th 2017 @ 10:33am
              Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:33am | ! Report

              $50M to the ARF cannot compensate the other 15 Super Rugby teams in any way.

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 10:52am
                PeterK said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:52am | ! Report

                they could have TRIED to renegotiate the draw / actual costs with their partners, they didn’t even try, they couldn’t be bothered.

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 10:53am
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:53am | ! Report

                When they definitively said what was needed they weren’t trying?

              • October 12th 2017 @ 10:59am
                Fionn said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:59am | ! Report

                It seems pretty clear that it was an ultimatum in the same vein as Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum to Serbia in 1914. It was designed to be rejected.

                As it happened, rather like Serbia it seems that Forrest almost agreed to everything in the ultimatum, but not quite. Thus, providing the pretext to cut the Force (rather like the pretext to declare war on Serbia).

                As it happens, do we even know for a fact that there was a legally binding contract to have 15 teams? Would the ARU have been so silly to contractually obligate themselves to cutting a team before they knew 100% that they would have been able to? For all we know there was simply a gentleman’s agreement to cut an Australian team, and that if the ARU had come back and said they weren’t going to do it/couldn’t do it the other SANZAAR partners had no way to do anything about it.

                Am I wrong on anything there?

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 11:09am
                PeterK said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:09am | ! Report

                twas – yes becuas ethey didn’t have this offer in front of them before, now if they were truly interested in trying to make it happen they would have revisited their partners with the new facts i.e the offer and put an alternative in front of them.

                Obviously before they fixated in only 4 teams but the situation could have been turned around except they made zero attempt to do that.

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 11:20am
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:20am | ! Report

                Fionn there is a contractual obligation to maintain a minimum of 15 teams.

                The problem is to change from 15 teams they need to get SA, NZ, SA and Japan to agree.

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 11:26am
                DaniE said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:26am | ! Report

                Can’t see much wrong with what you’ve said there Fionn. The comparison to instigating declaration in 1914 especially.

              • October 12th 2017 @ 11:52am
                Fionn said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:52am | ! Report

                TWAS, you say ‘The problem is to change from 15 teams they need to get SA, NZ, SA and Japan to agree.’

                Do we know this for a fact? I don’t know SANZAAR decision-making process or what was agreed. I don’t think we can know that your statement is correct unless knowing what exactly was agreed.

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 11:55am
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:55am | ! Report

                We know for a fact that everything must be unanimously agreed.

                So they either would need to agree to it now, or needed to have previously agreed.

              • October 12th 2017 @ 12:06pm
                Fionn said | October 12th 2017 @ 12:06pm | ! Report

                But for all we know they previously agreed to move to a MINIMUM of 15 teams but did not agree for a MAXIMUM of 15 teams.

                We’re all fumbling around in the dark here so far as I can see.

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 12:10pm
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 12:10pm | ! Report

                All parties have power of veto over a decision.

                So somewhere to finalize it everybody has to agree.

              • October 12th 2017 @ 12:35pm
                Fionn said | October 12th 2017 @ 12:35pm | ! Report

                The power to veto is only relevant if a decision has been made to have a maximum of 15 teams.

                If the decision was simply to have a minimum of 15 teams then the veto from the other SANZAAR partners means nothing.

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 1:38pm
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 1:38pm | ! Report

                Well how does everybody come to agreement on what the structure of the tournament is going to be then?

              • October 12th 2017 @ 2:19pm
                Fionn said | October 12th 2017 @ 2:19pm | ! Report

                As I said it comes back to what was agreed upon in the first meeting. If all that was agred by all partners agreed that the ARU would try to cut a team and that SARU would try and cut two teams then the ARU wouldn’t be required to renegotiate if they came back and said ‘ah, sorry, we can’t cut the Force’.

                I don’t know what was agreed in the first meeting, and I suspect you don’t either.

              • Roar Rookie

                October 12th 2017 @ 2:26pm
                piru said | October 12th 2017 @ 2:26pm | ! Report

                Actually – it is in fact a minimum number, not a maximum.

                It was posted on the Force forum a couple of weeks ago by a bloke involved (I can’t remember exactly who – but it was linked here)

                The wording was (paraphrasing) “ARU agrees to supply not less than 4 teams”

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 2:51pm
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 2:51pm | ! Report

                But Fionn does that matter?

                Unless the meeting defined a list of agreed structures depending on each circumstance occurring, all parties would need to come back and agree.

                We have 16 teams now right. What’s our format? The format changes from the agreed 15 and everybody needs to agree.

              • October 12th 2017 @ 8:58pm
                Fionn said | October 12th 2017 @ 8:58pm | ! Report

                So, again, it comes back to what was agreed to in March or whenever the SANZAAR meeting was.

                We know that they agreed to a MINIMUM of 15 teams.

                We do not know if they agreed to a maximum.

                If they didn’t agree to a maximum then legally there is no need for the ARU to come back and ask for an agreement on them not cutting a team. They simply say that they can’t cut a team and the others cannot do anything about it.

                Either they go back to the 18 team format or they move to a 16 team format.

                I’d be very, very, very surprised if the ARU agreed to a 15 team format without knowing that they could cut a team. Then again, nothing the ARU does would surprise me at this point.

          • October 12th 2017 @ 1:28pm
            In Brief said | October 12th 2017 @ 1:28pm | ! Report

            In the past you have argued for keeping five teams and have outlined the many reasons why this was the correct option for Australian rugby. I assume your more recent pro ARU posts are just written to garner a response? i.e. I’m pretty sure you don’t even believe what you are writing. It’s good baiting though..

            • Roar Guru

              October 12th 2017 @ 1:39pm
              Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 1:39pm | ! Report

              Five teams is better than four teams.

              Four teams is better than bankruptcy.

              It’s not a complex equation.

              • October 12th 2017 @ 3:46pm
                Bakkies said | October 12th 2017 @ 3:46pm | ! Report

                That’s if you believe the bs about bankruptcy.

              • October 12th 2017 @ 4:43pm
                Ex force fan said | October 12th 2017 @ 4:43pm | ! Report

                The only team that was close to bankruptcy is the Rebels

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 4:55pm
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 4:55pm | ! Report

                Really?

                The NSWRU ended 2016 with a balance of $1.3M. The Force ended $1M in debt. The Reds ended up cash negative also.

                If any of them lost a sponsor they’d be in dire straights.

              • October 13th 2017 @ 8:03am
                concerned supporter said | October 13th 2017 @ 8:03am | ! Report

                TWAS.
                You say “If any of them lost a sponsor they’d be in dire straights.”
                Your beloved ARU have lost 2 MAJOR sponsors, Lion Nathan & BMW, together with Buildcorp.
                How many $$$$$ do you think?In the millions?
                The financial future of the ARU at this point in time depends mainly on 2 factors:
                1/ Crowd and Revenue derived from next weeks third Bled. Cup game in Brisbane.
                2/ARU’s remaining sponsors, mainly Qantas pay the ARU their 2018 Sponsorship cheques for 2018, before 31 December 2017,(in advance) in order to stump up the ARU bank balance so that they are SOLVENT as as 31 December 2017.
                TWAS you may remember that last year , the ARU received Deferred Revenue in advance of AUD $ 17,289,000 which kept them alive.

              • October 13th 2017 @ 10:52am
                Bakkies said | October 13th 2017 @ 10:52am | ! Report

                ‘The financial future of the ARU at this point in time depends mainly on 2 factors:
                1/ Crowd and Revenue derived from next weeks third Bled. Cup game in Brisbane.
                2/ARU’s remaining sponsors, mainly Qantas pay the ARU their 2018 Sponsorship cheques for 2018, before 31 December 2017,(in advance) in order to stump up the ARU bank balance so that they are SOLVENT as as 31 December 2017.
                TWAS you may remember that last year , the ARU received Deferred Revenue in advance of AUD $ 17,289,000 which kept them alive.’

                More than 2 factors:
                3/ Stop siphoning money in to unit trusts and black holes
                4/ We need to find out where this 17 million came from especially if it wasn’t the Government’s contribution to fund the new HQ.

        • Roar Pro

          October 12th 2017 @ 6:00pm
          Crazy Horse said | October 12th 2017 @ 6:00pm | ! Report

          It really is annoying. can anyone remember TWAS ever saying anything that deviates from the official EARU line?

          • October 12th 2017 @ 9:21pm
            milan said | October 12th 2017 @ 9:21pm | ! Report

            No you are annoying horsey. I can not remember TWAS talking anything other than common sense.

            Just beacuase you don’t agree with it, does not make it wrong. How many times do I have to tell you that.

      • October 12th 2017 @ 10:12am
        Dubaikiwi said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:12am | ! Report

        So let me get this right, the condition of retaining the Force was that the West was to fund the countries grass roots rugby. Show me one other superclub that has that condition imposed on them and show me that the offer was fair and reciprocal with the Rebels requirement of retainment.
        Given that you cant justify the 100% funding of the countries grass roots, why then would not matching 100% be considered a shortfall, the offer matches the needs of the Western Force and the compensation of the ARU with a still considerable injection towards the grass roots.

        • Roar Guru

          October 12th 2017 @ 10:16am
          Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:16am | ! Report

          Show me any other club that was legally able to be excluded…

          • October 12th 2017 @ 10:23am
            Forceright said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:23am | ! Report

            Show me a club that was illegally INcluded.

            • Roar Guru

              October 12th 2017 @ 10:32am
              Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:32am | ! Report

              Why don’t you show me one…

              • October 12th 2017 @ 8:53pm
                Boof1050 said | October 12th 2017 @ 8:53pm | ! Report

                You show me yours and I’ll show you mine!

              • October 12th 2017 @ 9:10pm
                Forceright said | October 12th 2017 @ 9:10pm | ! Report

                Seems that the Senate is opening up that particular can of worms ATM

          • October 12th 2017 @ 10:33am
            Dubaikiwi said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:33am | ! Report

            So thats your fall back position when you cant answer or justify your statements TWAS.

            • Roar Guru

              October 12th 2017 @ 10:35am
              Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:35am | ! Report

              Yes.

              My fallback position to you saying “show me where this has happened before” is “show me where the same situation existed before”.

          • October 12th 2017 @ 10:52am
            RUSerious said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:52am | ! Report

            But i thought they had a spreadsheet??

            • October 12th 2017 @ 1:24pm
              Bakkies said | October 12th 2017 @ 1:24pm | ! Report

              The spreadsheet or scorecard that is elusive as a Dodo bird?

              • October 12th 2017 @ 5:24pm
                Milan said | October 12th 2017 @ 5:24pm | ! Report

                Bakkies, your brain is as big as a dodo bird.

              • Roar Rookie

                October 12th 2017 @ 5:53pm
                piru said | October 12th 2017 @ 5:53pm | ! Report

                Dodos commonly weighed between 13 and 23 kgs

                The human brain on average approx 1.4 kgs

                So you claim Bakkies’ brain is around ten times the size of normal?

                Weird insult

              • October 12th 2017 @ 11:01pm
                Bakkies said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:01pm | ! Report

                Piru, he reminds me of that fellow Fuss who used to float between tabs and just to annoy other posters.

          • Roar Rookie

            October 12th 2017 @ 11:48am
            piru said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:48am | ! Report

            Show me any other club that was legally able to be excluded

            This is exactly the point

            Why all the obfuscation and talk of ‘maybe the Rebels’ etc?

            Why was Clarke yesterday talking about ‘scorecards’ and other gibberish.

            It was always going to be the Force – that’s the point.

            • Roar Guru

              October 12th 2017 @ 11:50am
              Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:50am | ! Report

              Unless a sale of the Rebels could be reached, resulting in a better financial outcome.

              • October 12th 2017 @ 3:47pm
                Bakkies said | October 12th 2017 @ 3:47pm | ! Report

                Nonsense.

                That has nothing to do with self interest and unit trusts.

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 3:58pm
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 3:58pm | ! Report

                And that has nothing to do with the discussion you’re responding too…

              • October 12th 2017 @ 4:11pm
                scottd said | October 12th 2017 @ 4:11pm | ! Report

                Where was that stated TWAS – or did you just make it up?

              • October 12th 2017 @ 4:35pm
                Bakkies said | October 12th 2017 @ 4:35pm | ! Report

                It has everything to do with the sale of the Rebels and better financial outcomes.

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 5:30pm
                sheek said | October 12th 2017 @ 5:30pm | ! Report

                Actually,

                My view is that the ARU originally wanted to punt the Brumbies, because having a team in the four biggest cities was the optimum position for revenue raising.

                However, the ARU cowered away because they wouldn’t not have been able to handle the derision of culling the most successful professional Aussie province.

                So then it became a “least-worst public relations” scenario where the Force were offered as collateral damage.

                It was easier to wear the rage of culling the Force, rather than the Brumbies, Rebels, or Reds, or Waratahs.

                Don’t think for one moment that ARU acted any other way than what was best for the cowardly board.

              • October 13th 2017 @ 10:18am
                sittingbison said | October 13th 2017 @ 10:18am | ! Report

                The legal advice received in February (from North??) Was the ONLY team that could be cut was the Force, and ONLY if the broadcast deal was renegotiated (to trigger the infamous clause in the alliance agreement)

                TWAS is conveniently forgetting the put option, Rebels were NEVER under the knife, and were repeatedly told so by Clarke

              • October 13th 2017 @ 1:25am
                andrewM said | October 13th 2017 @ 1:25am | ! Report

                $1 vs $50 Million a better financial outcome??

            • October 13th 2017 @ 1:58pm
              Bakkies said | October 13th 2017 @ 1:58pm | ! Report

              The ARU has been called back to front the Committee next Monday for a 90 minute session starting at 7:00 pm AEDT. Just bring it.

              On in Canberra Fionn if you wish to head down.

          • Roar Guru

            October 12th 2017 @ 12:15pm
            Timbo (L) said | October 12th 2017 @ 12:15pm | ! Report

            TWAS,

            All Clubs are legally able to be excluded! SANZAAR can dump anyone they want.
            The Force was the one with the perceived least amount of effort to axe.

            According to the ARU, there is more than 1 Criteria.

            Show me any other club that has poor on field Performance and/or is making significant losses.

            Err, Rebels, Warraths and Brumbies Rebels.

            Or are the ARU just Full of it?

            • Roar Guru

              October 12th 2017 @ 12:20pm
              Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 12:20pm | ! Report

              The ARU cannot though.

              For a start there is 5 teams with poor on field performance and poor financial results. When did the Force last report a profit?

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 12:59pm
                Timbo (L) said | October 12th 2017 @ 12:59pm | ! Report

                The Decision to reduce the number of teams is SANZAAR’s
                SANZAAR Have the ability to Axe any team.
                Voids your argument.
                The ARU Chose to handle it themselves, they caked it.

                When did the Rebels last Report a Profit?
                P.S. Be realistic about this. A real business can’t be forgiven debt.
                Which teams are costing the ARU the most Money. Include Bailouts and Topups.

                As far as your Force “Losses” argument is concerned, pointing out someone else s small problem to hide the massive losses of another team does not work here, we can all see through your BS Distraction arguments.

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 1:39pm
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 1:39pm | ! Report

                They haven’t.

                Just like the Force have not in the period the Rebels have been in Super Rugby.

              • Roar Rookie

                October 12th 2017 @ 2:29pm
                piru said | October 12th 2017 @ 2:29pm | ! Report

                Just like the Force have not in the period the Rebels have been in Super Rugby.

                And this is the crux of the disillusion in WA.

                Assume everything else is equal –
                The ARU overreached with the Rebels and the Force paid the consequences

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 2:46pm
                Timbo (L) said | October 12th 2017 @ 2:46pm | ! Report

                So when making a decision on who to Axe…

                On the Financial Viability and Current Performance criterion……. Rebels out.

                Their decision making spreadsheet must have been pretty heavily weighted on the “The Force must go because it is easy”.

                Well, it is going to prove to be much harder, and probably a lot more expensive than they thought.

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 2:52pm
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 2:52pm | ! Report

                You aren’t considering potential purchase cost for Rebels, Wallaby market, Sponsorship markets, TV Ratings and future income on Melbourne vs Perth.

              • October 12th 2017 @ 3:49pm
                Bakkies said | October 12th 2017 @ 3:49pm | ! Report

                ‘You aren’t considering potential purchase cost for Rebels’

                This is for an organisation that was sold for $1 and where did those debts disappear too this time?

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 3:54pm
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 3:54pm | ! Report

                An organisation that had no obligation to sell…

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 5:00pm
                Timbo (L) said | October 12th 2017 @ 5:00pm | ! Report

                Do you have those marketing figures or are you speculating?
                If so, please share the actual comparative numbers.

                I could only get the average viewer number of 54k per home game but it is not broken down state by state. Doesn’t leave much wriggle room for justifying you argument though.

            • October 12th 2017 @ 4:36pm
              Bakkies said | October 12th 2017 @ 4:36pm | ! Report

              If you are willing to believe that.

        • October 12th 2017 @ 10:26am
          Ian said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:26am | ! Report

          The simple fact is that the largest ever philanthropic donation to Australian rugby appears to have been rejected out of hand by the ARU, rather than exploring what could be achieved.

          At the same time, the largest loss-making team was favoured over the least ARU-funded team, when cost savings were claimed to be the intention.

          Australia’s talent pool of professional rugby players has reduced overnight by 20%, while our main competitors (NZ & SA) have reduced theirs by zero.

          These events should be of major concern to genuine, non-partisan Australian rugby supporters.

          Groucho Marx would be spinning in his grave.

          • Roar Guru

            October 12th 2017 @ 10:32am
            Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:32am | ! Report

            At the same time, the largest loss-making team was favoured over the least ARU-funded team, when cost savings were claimed to be the intention.

            Comments like this ignore all other factors.

            What is the TV value of Perth vs Melbourne?

            What is the Wallaby market value of Perth vs Melbourne, etc.?

            • October 12th 2017 @ 11:59am
              Nipper said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:59am | ! Report

              What is the TV value of Perth vs Melbourne? Probably not much more, because nobody is watching the Rebels.

              What is the Wallaby market value of Perth vs Melbourne, etc.? Based on the last Wallaby match in Melbourne, again, not much.

              Melbourne has “potential” value, based on the population. In reality, though, that potential isn’t (and won’t) be realized, as people in Melbourne don’t care about the Rebels nor rugby in general. I’m sure there’s a population of die-hards, but the market potential that got them a franchise in the first place will never be realized.

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 12:02pm
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 12:02pm | ! Report

                What is the TV value of Perth vs Melbourne? Probably not much more, because nobody is watching the Rebels.

                The Force get the lowest ratings due to time zone.

                What is the Wallaby market value of Perth vs Melbourne, etc.? Based on the last Wallaby match in Melbourne, again, not much.

                Is that where you compare a test vs a minnow nation that hasn’t drawn 20k vs a test vs South Africa in a Rugby Championship game?

                Generally Melbourne has drawn better crowds for inferior games.

                England in 2016 and France in 2014 both drew more in Melbourne than South Africa in Perth in 2014.

                New Zealand, South Africa and England are our biggest draw cards in Australia. If Perth can’t even draw more for an SA game than a France game in Melbourne, how is it going to be a stronger market?

              • Roar Guru

                October 13th 2017 @ 11:50am
                Timbo (L) said | October 13th 2017 @ 11:50am | ! Report

                Do you have those ratings?
                Care to share?
                The time zone is easily fixed by having the games earlier, instead of 7pm on a Friday night, how about 1pm on Saturday, that makes it 6pm Jaffa Time.

            • October 12th 2017 @ 1:31pm
              In Brief said | October 12th 2017 @ 1:31pm | ! Report

              That comment is not even credible

      • October 12th 2017 @ 10:29am
        Forceright said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:29am | ! Report

        Seeing as you haven’t personally spoken to the horses mouth how do you know it TWASN’t (see what I did there) offered? What’s a timeline got to to do with the price of eggs? $50 mill was offered & ARU knocked it back.

        • Roar Guru

          October 12th 2017 @ 10:31am
          Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:31am | ! Report

          That’s what I said.

          Welborn said it was offered in response to what the ARU said was needed…

      • Columnist

        October 12th 2017 @ 10:45am
        Brett McKay said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:45am | ! Report

        TWAS, I’ll happily stand corrected too, but I thought Forrest agreed to underwrite the Force going forward (I think the quote at the time was ‘Running the Force won’t cost the ARU a cent’, AS WELL AS the donation of up to $50M over five years to the ARF.

        So, I suppose, to answer your question, $50M over five years PLUS underwriting the Force would have to be getting very close to $68M in total, but your question is entirely valid.

        And again, I’ll stand corrected on any of this..

        • Roar Guru

          October 12th 2017 @ 10:48am
          Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:48am | ! Report

          I was under the impression that underwriting them was to just cover any losses.

          I could be wrong, but either way days it change it?

          If he offered $50M plus underwriting the Force that was not :

          * providing the $48M over 8 years;
          * providing $20M to compensate teams; and
          * underwriting the Force

          • Roar Guru

            October 12th 2017 @ 11:11am
            PeterK said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:11am | ! Report

            the 20m would not be necessary if the number of home games stays unchanged which is possible since you can vary the number of teams you play per conference and within your own conference.

            Look at last years one where there were 2 conferences of 4 teams and 2 of 5 teams.

            • Roar Guru

              October 12th 2017 @ 11:21am
              Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:21am | ! Report

              Look at last years one where there were 2 conferences of 4 teams and 2 of 5 teams.

              And that was a real success…

              You can’t say this is what happened in 2016 and 2017 so we can do that.

              2016 and 2017 is literally why everybody agreed to change the terms.

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 6:49pm
                PeterK said | October 12th 2017 @ 6:49pm | ! Report

                seriously you can’t compare 3 conferences with 2 with 5 teams and 1 with 6 teams to the farce of the previous

          • Roar Guru

            October 12th 2017 @ 12:19pm
            Timbo (L) said | October 12th 2017 @ 12:19pm | ! Report

            Lets get this clear.
            $20 Mil Compensation is gouging
            Demanding $48 Mil for Grassroots is Extortion.
            Perhaps the Australian Federal Police should have a look into this.

          • October 12th 2017 @ 11:53pm
            rebel said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:53pm | ! Report

            48/8 is 6mil a year. 5 years of this is $30k. Plus the $20k is $50k over 5 years.
            On top of underwriting the Force sounds like he was on track. But seeing as though none of us were present in these meetings everything else is speculation.
            All we know is this whole thing is a mess and doing greater damage to the game in Aus. A lot of people have lost credibility and some people are definitely telling porkies.

            • October 13th 2017 @ 6:49pm
              Hello said | October 13th 2017 @ 6:49pm | ! Report

              This looks likely to me rebel.
              He offerd the money for 5 years (all of the money) but not the 8 that was asked for

        • Roar Rookie

          October 12th 2017 @ 10:49am
          Paul D said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:49am | ! Report

          Based on above, the $68M still required underwriting of the Force. So it cannot be included in the shortfall of the $50M offer as it was part of both side of the ledger, as such is cancelled.

          • Roar Guru

            October 12th 2017 @ 10:51am
            Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:51am | ! Report

            Yeah that is based on what Welborn has said.

            In fact going on Welborn’s quotes it actually doesn’t mention anything about underwriting the Force in the $50M offer.

            • Roar Rookie

              October 12th 2017 @ 11:50am
              piru said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:50am | ! Report

              So just to be clear – we’re blaming Forrest now for only offering $50 million of his own money to cover the ARU?

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 11:57am
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:57am | ! Report

                Nobody is blaming anybody.

                We are saying that it was asked what was needed to be provided by Forrest.

                The ARU communicated what was required.

                Forrest made an offer that did not meet that.

                That’s what it is.

              • Roar Rookie

                October 12th 2017 @ 12:12pm
                piru said | October 12th 2017 @ 12:12pm | ! Report

                So why did they say it was too late, and not too little?

              • October 12th 2017 @ 4:53pm
                Ex force fan said | October 12th 2017 @ 4:53pm | ! Report

                That is where TWAS lost credibility. If the ARU was seriously considered an offer they would have at least tabled it at their Board. The fact that Forrest will pump more of his own money into establishing the IPEC tells me that Forrest was prepared to up his offer if required. Thr ARU was.not prepared to consider an offer.

        • Roar Pro

          October 12th 2017 @ 6:14pm
          Crazy Horse said | October 12th 2017 @ 6:14pm | ! Report

          Correct Brett. There was a lot more said at the hearing than could be covered in a brief newspaper article.

          John Welbourne who was at the Adelaide meeting, said very clearly that Andrew Forrest was prepared to accede to all of the ARU’s demands. He called their bluff and agreed to everything. DeClyne didn’t want to listen.

          Instead of the expected constructive meeting to work through the details of how this funding would be provided DeClyne delivered a two hour rant on how hard it was to run a business with declining revenue. This to a man who had seen the price of his core product, iron ore, from over $150 per tonne to just over $40 per tonne. Who had reduced his cost from over $40 to $12 per tonne and turned FMG around.

          Mr Welbourne’s assessment was that DeClyne didn’t expect Mr Forest to agree to his outrageous demands and had no plan B when he did.

          Joh Welbourne, who is an Investment Banker and CEO of the Water Corporation, also said he believed there were serious corporate governance issues in the ARU.

          • October 12th 2017 @ 9:19pm
            Forceright said | October 12th 2017 @ 9:19pm | ! Report

            Obviously they should have had TWAS at that meeting as he’s extremely knowledgeable on how to run the ARU.

            • Roar Guru

              October 12th 2017 @ 9:56pm
              Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 9:56pm | ! Report

              You are aware that it is everybody who disagrees with me that claims to know how to run the ARU?

              • October 13th 2017 @ 10:22am
                sittingbison said | October 13th 2017 @ 10:22am | ! Report

                But no response to what was actually said by Welborn by someone who was there?

                Good one troll oops shill

              • October 13th 2017 @ 10:24am
                sittingbison said | October 13th 2017 @ 10:24am | ! Report

                No comments about what was actually said by Welborn by someone who was there?

      • October 12th 2017 @ 11:43am
        Exile In Oz said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:43am | ! Report

        50-20 (compensation) = 30
        30/5 (years)=6 per year
        Securing a 5 year program like that would be fantastic. If i could secure my work budget for 5 years I would jump at the chance. Sure he did not meet years 6-8 but that is an unrealistic time frame to run a budget over.
        What the ARU have now is an unsecured budget component and a probable black hole of unknown size. Irrespective of the rugby case the business case for their decision is very weak.

        • Roar Rookie

          October 12th 2017 @ 11:54am
          Paul D said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:54am | ! Report

          Not when the funding is conditional on how it is used. If I offered to give you $100k per year extra to spend on a car, it won’t help you pay the mortgage if it is contingent on you maintaining you current car repayment commitments.

          Sure, you’ll have a nicer car, but it won’t stop the bank taking your house (and eventually the car too).

          • Roar Guru

            October 12th 2017 @ 12:03pm
            Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 12:03pm | ! Report

            Yeah but $50M is a big flashy number.

            • Roar Rookie

              October 12th 2017 @ 12:22pm
              piru said | October 12th 2017 @ 12:22pm | ! Report

              Apparently not big enough,

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 2:53pm
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 2:53pm | ! Report

                Big enough to dazzle the eyes of half the people on the roar…

              • October 12th 2017 @ 4:20pm
                Ian said | October 12th 2017 @ 4:20pm | ! Report

                I think TWAS needs to refer to Rule 1 of Holes……stop digging!

                He’s burying himself here….

            • October 12th 2017 @ 4:50pm
              In Brief said | October 12th 2017 @ 4:50pm | ! Report

              The size of the figure was never an issue for the ARU, it was the timing (according to the ARU). So all the speculation on numbers is irrelevant.

              • Roar Pro

                October 12th 2017 @ 6:20pm
                Crazy Horse said | October 12th 2017 @ 6:20pm | ! Report

                Except Twiggy has said publically that he first discussed this with DeClyne and made his “whatever it takes” commitment in April, immediately after the announcement that a team was to be cut.

                Let me say that again. Twiggy says that he offered in person to DeClyne to underwrite the Forest in April, months before it became public knowledge.

              • October 12th 2017 @ 9:22pm
                Forceright said | October 12th 2017 @ 9:22pm | ! Report

                If the timing was an issue then explain why the ARU had agreed that they would negotiate and went to the meeting.

              • October 13th 2017 @ 10:56am
                Bakkies said | October 13th 2017 @ 10:56am | ! Report

                IB and CH on the topic of numbers the Rugby WA response to their questions on notice are up on the hearing website

                http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Futureofrugbyunion/Additional_Documents

            • October 12th 2017 @ 9:20pm
              Forceright said | October 12th 2017 @ 9:20pm | ! Report

              Bigger than $1 last I saw.

          • October 12th 2017 @ 12:28pm
            lobby said | October 12th 2017 @ 12:28pm | ! Report

            Listening to the enquiry yesterday it doesn’t seem the EARU are too bothered on conditions of how funding is used.

            • October 12th 2017 @ 2:53pm
              Alex Forbes said | October 12th 2017 @ 2:53pm | ! Report

              None of it seems important enough for them to remember.

      • October 12th 2017 @ 4:05pm
        scottd said | October 12th 2017 @ 4:05pm | ! Report

        TWASSY, you’re scratching to find your footing here mate. He also offered to underwrite the Forces future costs and that offer wasn’t limited by any number.

        You can’t paint this pig up to look like anything but a pig.

        Absolutely amazing how many of the people that go in front of the Senate Committee can’t seem to quite recollect key facts. A lot of Alzheimers seems to be going around this month.

        • October 12th 2017 @ 4:38pm
          Bakkies said | October 12th 2017 @ 4:38pm | ! Report

          Clarke will be furiously fast at the shredder today so he can play dumb in regards to the questions he has to answer on notice.

    • October 12th 2017 @ 8:41am
      Council said | October 12th 2017 @ 8:41am | ! Report

      Jesus this could get messy.

      I’ll come join ya bamboo. But I’ll bring the beers.

      • October 12th 2017 @ 4:13pm
        scottd said | October 12th 2017 @ 4:13pm | ! Report

        better bring a lot of them as this could take some time 🙂

    • Roar Guru

      October 12th 2017 @ 8:47am
      sheek said | October 12th 2017 @ 8:47am | ! Report

      Oh but please, let’s all forgive & forget.

      I don’t want to be deprived of watching rugby on weekend. What else will I do?

      Stuff the ARU. And stuff anyone willing to forget their treachery against one of their own provinces/states.

      Maintain the rage. Get rid of these people, get rid of the entire board.

      Start afresh!

      • October 12th 2017 @ 9:19am
        Bakkies said | October 12th 2017 @ 9:19am | ! Report

        Sheek it was delicious hearing Clarke, North and Leahy squirm. Looking forward to hearing more about Cox’s $1 deal of the century. I wonder if Cox is a Rangers sevco fan?

      • Roar Pro

        October 12th 2017 @ 6:28pm
        Crazy Horse said | October 12th 2017 @ 6:28pm | ! Report

        You can watch the WA boys demolish yet another NSW team on Saturday. If you get to the ground early you can watch the Dunsbourough Dungbeetles take on their traditonal rivals the Geraldton Tiger Sharks.

        • Roar Pro

          October 12th 2017 @ 7:44pm
          Crazy Horse said | October 12th 2017 @ 7:44pm | ! Report

          Sorry, a bit jet lagged. The Dunsbourough Dungbeetles take on their traditonal rivals the Geraldton Tiger Sharks on the 21st.

          • October 12th 2017 @ 11:06pm
            Bakkies said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:06pm | ! Report

            Go the Dungbeetles. Any word from the Dubbo Kangaroos?

            • October 13th 2017 @ 1:30am
              andrewM said | October 13th 2017 @ 1:30am | ! Report

              Now there’s a NSW team I will support!

        • Roar Guru

          October 12th 2017 @ 9:58pm
          Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 9:58pm | ! Report

          You mean you can watch a team with 18 Super Rugby players demolish another one with 5?

          Wow.

          • October 13th 2017 @ 12:09am
            rebel said | October 13th 2017 @ 12:09am | ! Report

            Doesn’t always work out that way for one team towns.

          • October 13th 2017 @ 10:27am
            sittingbison said | October 13th 2017 @ 10:27am | ! Report

            Awwwwww didums

          • Roar Guru

            October 13th 2017 @ 11:59am
            Timbo (L) said | October 13th 2017 @ 11:59am | ! Report

            So you have an issue with a well coached team with experienced, well drilled players and depth doing well in a competition.

            Perhaps you should complain about the Allblacks for selecting quality, in-form, players to will all the RC games.

            You must be a huge Wallabies fan then. Many of them showed no SR form this year and are a huge burden on the ARU with their gold plated contracts and player top-ups.

            PS,

            Please give us your definition of an SR player?
            Does it include pathways players?
            What about Players that haven’t Played this year.

            Have you applied the same criteron to the opposition team?

            Does anyone really care?

          • October 13th 2017 @ 2:29pm
            Ex force fan said | October 13th 2017 @ 2:29pm | ! Report

            Hell TWAS stop it, you are become more ridiculous with every post.

    • October 12th 2017 @ 9:19am
      LMS said | October 12th 2017 @ 9:19am | ! Report

      This is my favourite bit:

      ARU chairman Cameron Clyne had even lectured Forrest on the challenges of running a business with revenue declining…….

      • October 12th 2017 @ 10:32am
        Forceright said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:32am | ! Report

        Yes, the gallery was highly amused at that comment, just sums up the level the Clyne & the ARU work on.

      • Roar Guru

        October 12th 2017 @ 10:39am
        PeterK said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:39am | ! Report

        and the response should of been – yet you reject a 50m lifeline when you are broke……

        • Roar Guru

          October 12th 2017 @ 12:08pm
          Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 12:08pm | ! Report

          And the response would probably would have been that it came with costs to accept it.

          • Roar Rookie

            October 12th 2017 @ 12:33pm
            piru said | October 12th 2017 @ 12:33pm | ! Report

            And the response to that would have been

            “what steps did you take to negotiate a more favourable outcome?”

            • Roar Guru

              October 12th 2017 @ 1:41pm
              Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 1:41pm | ! Report

              Would outlining what was required to reach an agreement (i.e. exactly what Welborn said they were told) be an answer to that?

              • Roar Rookie

                October 12th 2017 @ 2:11pm
                piru said | October 12th 2017 @ 2:11pm | ! Report

                not a satisfactory one

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 2:54pm
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 2:54pm | ! Report

                Really?

                Defining what you need to agree to terms with another party isn’t satisfactory?

                If a more favorable outcome but below what was defined doesn’t resolve the problems (associated costs) then it’s not a feasible outcome.

              • October 12th 2017 @ 3:41pm
                Vissie said | October 12th 2017 @ 3:41pm | ! Report

                My God, you just don’t stop, do you? Don’t you have better things to do with your time??

              • Roar Rookie

                October 12th 2017 @ 3:50pm
                piru said | October 12th 2017 @ 3:50pm | ! Report

                That’s not negotiation TWAS, that’s just restating your position.

                For an organisation to cry poor and simultaneously refuse such a large donation without any discussion does not wash

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 3:55pm
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 3:55pm | ! Report

                Unless there position changes there isn’t much negotiation they can do.

              • October 12th 2017 @ 4:52pm
                In Brief said | October 12th 2017 @ 4:52pm | ! Report

                Just give the Rebels another $30 million – that should help balance the books.

            • October 12th 2017 @ 11:10pm
              Bakkies said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:10pm | ! Report

              ‘“what steps did you take to negotiate a more favourable outcome?”’

              Buy another unit trust. It looks like that Cox’s organisation has a lot of them.

            • Roar Guru

              October 13th 2017 @ 12:09pm
              Timbo (L) said | October 13th 2017 @ 12:09pm | ! Report

              I think we should be fair about the $30 million figure and only quote differential numbers.

              The other SR teams were given $15 Mil in the same period, that is just normal Funds dispersal. So the Rebs got an extra $15 Mil……..

              Still obscene numbers.

              How about the Salary cap workarounds (Topups). Now these are the ridiculous figures.

              What is the point in having a salary cap?

    • Roar Guru

      October 12th 2017 @ 10:27am
      PeterK said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:27am | ! Report

      The point was they dismissed the offer out of hand and didn’t try and negotiate some rearrangements, it seems the ARU had to have it exactly the way they wanted it, no compromise entertained at all.

      This tells me they were not at all interested in retaining the force.

      Also note that the aru didn’t say it was not enough but instead it was too late. So that says even if he offered 70m upfront the answer was no.

      Why is there recompensation of $20m required for retaining the force?
      How does it cost the competition more money for keeping them?

      If it is more matches thats easy to fix you have less games within your conference or play less teams in other conferences.

      • Roar Guru

        October 12th 2017 @ 10:37am
        Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:37am | ! Report

        Why is there recompensation of $20m required for retaining the force?
        How does it cost the competition more money for keeping them?

        Because with the 15 team competition each team had 8 home games.

        16 would need to go to 15 rounds and each team would lose a home game every 2nd year. $20M appears to be to compensate for the loss of 24 home games.

        • Roar Guru

          October 12th 2017 @ 10:56am
          PeterK said | October 12th 2017 @ 10:56am | ! Report

          no you would not have to go to 15 rounds at all.

          That is a fallacy.

          With conferences you can still say how many games you play against the other conferences.

          NZ and SA still could have played 4 / 5 teams in the aust conference and their own teams home and away.

          Aust teams just don’t play every team home and away and not every aust team plays 4 teams in the sa and nz conference. Still the same number of home and away games get played.

          • Roar Guru

            October 12th 2017 @ 11:18am
            Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:18am | ! Report

            If SA and NZ play 10 home conference games each that means they need to play 6 inter conference games.

            So between them, there is 30 games to play.

            If each Aus team has 12 home conference games that means there is 24 to play between NZ and SA as each team would have another 4 games.

            So Aus would have 12 to play vs SA and 12 to play vs NZ.

            Meaning to work NZ would need to play 18 inter conference games vs SA.

            In 2011 with 15 it was 8 (home conference) + 4 + 4 for each team.

            But now with the odd conferences and the home and away home conference format, it will return to that. Except with 16 teams and 1 6 team conference you have no split.

            NZ and SA have to play 30 games between Aus and the other, but Aus has 24 games vs SA and NZ.

            Do SA and NZ play 2 additional home conference games? so they play 2 teams a 3rd time?

            • Roar Guru

              October 13th 2017 @ 8:34am
              PeterK said | October 13th 2017 @ 8:34am | ! Report

              twas – totally wrong.

              6 teams in aust conf, 5 in sa and 5 in nz.

              Every team plays 16 games like they do now.
              NZ and SA teams play 4 games against the other conference and 8 games within i.e a home and away against each team exactly as the proposed format.

              So in the aust conference they need to play 16 x 6 games i.e 96 games.

              The NZ and SA teams take away 40 games (5 teams x 4 games x 2 conferences)

              That leaves 56 games within the aust conference.

              Now if every team played each other home and away that would be 60 games (6 teams x 10 home and away games) so in fact 4 too many games.

              So 4 teams would actually play 9 home and away games and 2 teams play the full 10.

              Not unbalanced at all, easy to understand and very similar to the new format.

        • October 12th 2017 @ 4:54pm
          In Brief said | October 12th 2017 @ 4:54pm | ! Report

          This is so irrelevant. If money was the issue they would have cut the Rebels who were costing the ARU the most money.

          • Roar Guru

            October 12th 2017 @ 4:55pm
            Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 4:55pm | ! Report

            Cutting the Rebels will not recover the money spent up to 2015…

            • October 12th 2017 @ 5:25pm
              scottd said | October 12th 2017 @ 5:25pm | ! Report

              not cutting them will cost a lot more imo but we will see…..

              • Roar Guru

                October 12th 2017 @ 9:59pm
                Train Without A Station said | October 12th 2017 @ 9:59pm | ! Report

                Than cutting them which they cannot legally do, paying court costs, losing, then paying for the outcome with 5 teams?

              • October 13th 2017 @ 10:30am
                sittingbison said | October 13th 2017 @ 10:30am | ! Report

                But…but…but…about 150 comments ago you said they COULD be legally chopped

                You blokes had better get your stories aligned

              • October 12th 2017 @ 11:14pm
                Bakkies said | October 12th 2017 @ 11:14pm | ! Report

                like an extra 6 million

          • October 12th 2017 @ 9:30pm
            Forceright said | October 12th 2017 @ 9:30pm | ! Report

            EXACTLY,

        • Roar Guru

          October 13th 2017 @ 12:12pm
          Timbo (L) said | October 13th 2017 @ 12:12pm | ! Report

          I could probably understand the $20 Mil, there would be a lot of costs in working around the problem.

          As to the $48m, this is just extortion, as it is unrelated to the SR franchise.

    Explore:
    , ,