The silence surrounding RugbyWA’s demise

Rob Hill Roar Rookie

225 Have your say

    It is beginning to become apparent to rugby tragics on the west coast of this fine country that the Australian rugby establishment isn’t really on the same page, so I’m testing a theory.

    To count 2017 as an annus horribilis for Western Australia rugby would be an understatement. Despite rosy beginnings and a definite (if slight) upsurge in performance by the professional team, Western Australia just seems to keep getting kicked in the trouser region.

    The SuperRugby season had barely kicked off before there were questions about who was going to be exited, and the field rapidly narrowed to two – but if the general populace in the west is to be believed, there was only ever one.

    We’re not talking about the Rebels or Victorian Rugby Union here; we’re talking about RugbyWA. They fought their way through a season of professional footy, doing pretty well and knocking off the prima donnas, and there was a pretty positive feeling over there.

    There has been legal action, arbitration, appeal and even a Senate inquiry. The relationship between RugbyWA and their parent body moved past speaking terms months ago. It appears now they can’t even inhabit the same room.

    The news broke on Friday that RugbyWA has entered voluntary administration as a result of losses incurred due to the loss of the Force as a money-making arm and the insistence of Rugby Australia that the legal fees (which they are entitled to) be paid in full.

    (Image: Paul Kane/Getty Images)

    I don’t remember a time when a national sporting organisation has undertaken a course of action to the extent that its subsidiary is driven to fiscal oblivion, though I’m happy to be corrected. Surely it behoves Rugby Australia to slice just a little bit off the money, between $15 million and $30 million, that has been used to prop up Victorian rugby to forgive the $1.7 million legal fees owed by RugbyWA.

    However, this is not the basis of my theory. At the time of writing, this story has seen the light of day at the ABC, which, to the best of my knowledge, broke the story; PerthNow, the website of West Australian paper the Sunday Times and the Sydney Morning Herald.

    There’s nothing on Green and Gold Rugby or in the Australian, the Courier Mail, the Canberra Times, the Daily Telegraph – okay, you get where I’m going.

    I understand that the rest of Australian rugby really just wants to move on and put this behind them, but can’t you see that West Australian rugby fans have a little bit of a point?

    Rugby in that state is on the verge of extinction, nearly one-third of our country by land mass is about to have no rugby presence at all, and what is arguably the third-largest player pool will no longer have a governing body.

    I can’t for the life of me fathom why this is not news. I contend that there is a conspiracy to sanitise the news about this farce that is destroying rugby in our great nation. This conspiracy will not be broken until strong editors choose truth over convenience.

    This video is trending right now! Submit your videos for the chance to win a share of $10,000!

    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 (225)

    • November 19th 2017 @ 7:58am
      sheek said | November 19th 2017 @ 7:58am | ! Report


      Fans are fickle, even here on the The Roar. All that matters is that they’re entertained. Matters of serious moral standing get little shift.

      Even The Roar was slow to break the news, then the one article was dominated by one guy correcting everyone else’s (in his opinion) false assumptions.

      I’m also disappointed in the lack of response. This ought to be big news & fans should demand the entire ARU board be replaced.

      But, nothing…..

      At the end of the day, people only care about their own circumstances. We live parallel lives.

      • November 19th 2017 @ 8:43am
        ScottD said | November 19th 2017 @ 8:43am | ! Report

        Thanks for the article and Sheek is right. What rubs salt into the wound is that not only has the parent deliberately pursued a devisive and destructive course of action (which they are entitled but not obliged to do) but they have now claimed no responsibility for the outcome.

        Rugby supporters around the nation should at the least be asking RA what their reconciliation plan is because to the observer there doesn’t appear to be one

      • Roar Guru

        November 19th 2017 @ 5:10pm
        jeznez said | November 19th 2017 @ 5:10pm | ! Report

        Good article Rob. And agree Scott – If Rugby Au, succeed in driving Rugby WA to the wall, what is their plan to run and support rugby in the state?

        Just getting crickets on that front and what looks to be coming out about the support of the Rebels just seems atrocious.

        • Roar Guru

          November 19th 2017 @ 5:11pm
          Train Without A Station said | November 19th 2017 @ 5:11pm | ! Report

          They have made public comments about how they have no intention of pushing Rugby WA to be wound up at all.

          • November 19th 2017 @ 5:30pm
            Jules said | November 19th 2017 @ 5:30pm | ! Report

            Rugby WA offered $150,000 short of what Rugby Australia wanted. Let’s not even get into the money the Rebels have received. The fact that after doing what they have done and not even bothering to contact Rugby WA for the last week before this action was taken doesn’t scream we want to take care of WA. I don’t understand why you feel the need to comment on these Force issues you do not care and seem to have no empathy with the West or want to admit any wrong doing by this board what so ever. I stopped reading the Roar a few months ago because of your non stop negative anti Force comments and see nothing has changed so will not be back again so don’t bother responding!

            • Roar Guru

              November 19th 2017 @ 5:37pm
              Train Without A Station said | November 19th 2017 @ 5:37pm | ! Report

              But let me guess, when some people post blatant lies that are pro-Force, that doesn’t bother you at all?

              I haven’t said anything that has been Anti-Force.

              What I have said are comments that oppose the view that the Force are somehow more critical than other teams when in fact we have 5 seemingly poorly run teams.

              Clearly what bothers you is I don’t state blatant lies as fact like some posters have been consistently, so you can’t just say I’m wrong.

              • November 19th 2017 @ 9:06pm
                Rob Hill said | November 19th 2017 @ 9:06pm | ! Report

                What in my article is a blatant lie TWAS?

                I researched it reasonably thoroughly, it’s an opinion piece and the Roar have chosen to publish it.

                You yourself have said the Roar won’t deliberately publish lies since they can be actioned as a result.

                Why are we talking about lies in the first three posts of reaction?

                Secondly, the legal fees requested by the ARU appear to have been about $1.7 Million, Rugby WA said they had offered $150,000 less that was requested that’s only just more than 10%, are you suggesting that dropping the price a further 10%(ish) to stop the bad press of driving your own child into administration is a smart business decision.

                (Actually in writing that the possibility occurred to me that RA might be orchestrating a conspiracy and be confident of no bad press, I guess the Roar might be able to push against that, viva le revolucion!)

              • Roar Guru

                November 19th 2017 @ 9:11pm
                Train Without A Station said | November 19th 2017 @ 9:11pm | ! Report

                I didn’t say anything was (with the exception of noting articles dating back to Friday).

                It was a response to a comment from Jules complaining about my past comments.

          • Roar Guru

            November 20th 2017 @ 10:55am
            Timbo (L) said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:55am | ! Report

            Well if that is the case, why did they pursue the costs?

            There is something called causality. If you shove someone you don’t get to act surprised if they fall over.

            • Roar Guru

              November 20th 2017 @ 11:02am
              Train Without A Station said | November 20th 2017 @ 11:02am | ! Report

              They have stated they are pursuing the high net work individuals who claimed they would support Rugby WA’s legal battle.

              Surely being ordered to pay legal costs is part of the legal battle.

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 12:17pm
                Timbo (L) said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:17pm | ! Report

                The ARU Claimed to support the Force as well, and we saw how that turned out.

                Twiggy offered to support the Force’ss legal challenge, not the ARU’s defense, a distinction with a difference. I guess the Broadcast Rights just got renegotiated.

                Perhaps the ARU should have sought to secure costs from Twiggy prior to the High court challenge.

                Oops – Another Tactical Blunder by the ARU

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 12:21pm
                Train Without A Station said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:21pm | ! Report

                The costs awarded to the ARU are part of that legal challenge.

              • Roar Rookie

                November 20th 2017 @ 12:26pm
                piru said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:26pm | ! Report

                So it’s pure money grubbing, and to dickens with what it looks like?

                This seems to be the ARU’s biggest problem

                They seem so caught up in what they can and are allowed to do, that they forget they are supposed to be representative of rugby and the related values.

                They are not a business where the only objective is profit

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 12:58pm
                Train Without A Station said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:58pm | ! Report

                Well according to what they have said it’s not the case.

                They are trying to negotiate the parties who claimed to fund the battle will come to the party, otherwise that money has to come out of community rugby funding. They also claim they are only seeking a third of the costs.

                It may be blatant public lies sure, but people’s views are based on not even wanting hear this.

        • November 19th 2017 @ 8:59pm
          Rob Hill said | November 19th 2017 @ 8:59pm | ! Report

          Maybe not deliberately targeted it, but certainly complicit.

      • November 19th 2017 @ 8:58pm
        Rob Hill said | November 19th 2017 @ 8:58pm | ! Report


        You’re right, there has been so little reported in the media about this that my mates are all talking commercial conspiracy.

        As a matter of fact, this article was written as an attempt to prove the point. I dared the Roar to publish it…and they did.

        Read into that what you will.

    • November 19th 2017 @ 9:15am
      concerned supporter said | November 19th 2017 @ 9:15am | ! Report

      Rob Hill,
      While I agree with most you say, you have made mistakes,
      “There’s nothing on Green and Gold Rugby or in the Australian, the Courier Mail, the Canberra Times, the Daily Telegraph – okay, you get where I’m going.”
      I know from comments from Queensland people that there was an article in the Courier Mail, and here is one in the Sydney Daily Telegraph,Friday 17 November 2017,10.14 am
      “ ‘

      • November 19th 2017 @ 9:07pm
        Rob Hill said | November 19th 2017 @ 9:07pm | ! Report

        My apologies, they didn’t turn up in my Internet searches.

        Happy to stand corrected on that point. I won’t comment upon the hearsay, however my apologies to the telegraph

    • November 19th 2017 @ 9:57am
      bert said | November 19th 2017 @ 9:57am | ! Report

      Why is rugby enjoying unprecedented growth in every corner of the world bar here?
      The question is almost rhetorical

      • Roar Guru

        November 19th 2017 @ 2:34pm
        Train Without A Station said | November 19th 2017 @ 2:34pm | ! Report

        AFL & NRL which have had established and multi-state competitions dating back to the 1980s?

    • November 19th 2017 @ 10:21am
      Jules said | November 19th 2017 @ 10:21am | ! Report

      It just devastating all round. What an absolutely crap year for us in the West.. The Australian didn’t even publish anything on the Senate Enquiry report that I saw.. What really gets to me is have The ARU or whatever they are called done any research into the future after this course of action? Did any of their 140 staff say hang on we aren’t closing a branch of a bank this is a sport with psssionate fans, we are the only governing body in Sanzar actually destroying a team. What are the consequences of this? Then looking forward Are Fox going to pay more money in 2021 for less content and a comp which seems to be on the nose.. they have lost a fair few customers in the west so not sure they will be feeling that pleased with what’s happened. Then you have the WA State Government who won’t be bidding for any more tests here. Then there is us fans, I used to get so excited when the Wallabies played now I don’t even care as I feel they are nothing to us any more. Finally sponsors, Is it good for business to be associated with this lot? Fans in the West are actively not supporting these sponsors. So at the end of the day is this further evidence of complete incompetence? Is 6 million saving now worth the results of this action? Was this figure after taking into account memberships, merchandise, match day takings and sponsors from the West? Im just at a loss to understand the actions of a few which have affected so many…

      • November 19th 2017 @ 4:05pm
        Ex Force fan said | November 19th 2017 @ 4:05pm | ! Report

        I am supporting any team that play the Wallabies. Well done ARU for turning your own supporters against their team. I will not spend a cent on anything that have something to do wit Australian rugby and know there are many more like me in the West.

    • Roar Guru

      November 19th 2017 @ 11:32am
      Timbo (L) said | November 19th 2017 @ 11:32am | ! Report

      I am getting the impression that the Roar a censoring this news as well.

      I had an article on the senate hearing rejected, there were no other articles even going ear the topic..
      The article on the ASIC investigation sank down the list like a stone and comments closed evn though there were 200+ comments and building.

      Th voulentary admin has stayed active, but it is however, bad news about WA, and not information about how shifty the ARU has been. seem to only report half the story, and then the article gets buried.

      It feels very much like conspiracy theory.

      I am not to concerned about Rugby WA going into Administration, it feels a lot like a strategic move,
      It is either a cost saving strategy or it may be lining the ARU to take a hit if the WA government followup on the senate recommendation to launch legal action against the ARU.

      The ARU have already stated that they will pull funding and if they follow through with their bulling tactic, there will be no money anyway. This makes Ruby in wA the AR’s problem that they can and should be judged upon. After all, the current situation is the fallout from a decision that they made, they own the consequence.

      Perth is now Carthage. The earth has been scorched and now the ARU are salting it.

      • Roar Guru

        November 19th 2017 @ 12:42pm
        PeterK said | November 19th 2017 @ 12:42pm | ! Report

        the roar clearly seems to be censoring / limiting the senate hearings

        • Roar Guru

          November 19th 2017 @ 1:10pm
          Train Without A Station said | November 19th 2017 @ 1:10pm | ! Report

          Peter if you want an answer to why, my guess is read the Senate report from start to finish, take note of what submissions they reference and what submissions you’ve heard about that are not at all considered, then look at the comments from some posters about what the senate report has found and I think you might find your answer.

          A tip. They don’t reconcile.

          Specifically focus on the parts where the senate report discusses transactions and anything that posters have claimed as wrong doing.

          • Roar Guru

            November 20th 2017 @ 10:16am
            Timbo (L) said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:16am | ! Report

            So, publish an article on that. Discuss both sides of the argument:

            Of course the report doesn’t reconcile, one of the parties is lying through their backside. It doesn’t mean the findings are wrong, it just means someone perjured themselves.

            I would tell you who it is, but I have no recollection of who testified, or who had a tantrum when their top secret planning prior to the alliance agreement was inked was made public.

            • Roar Guru

              November 20th 2017 @ 10:18am
              Train Without A Station said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:18am | ! Report

              The report doesn’t reconcile with what many people are saying the report says in the comments.

              Why would I publish an article on why I think comments were closed on another article?

              I’m not making a complaint. I’m responding to a comment somebody has made.

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 10:50am
                Timbo (L) said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:50am | ! Report

                I wasn’t suggesting you write an article, I am commenting that none of the staff writers did, and none from the amateurs were published.
                Countering you argument that an article couldn’t be written because it would be slanderous.

                That is of course, unless you believe that the slander is in the hearings and findings compiled by our elected government.

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 10:57am
                Train Without A Station said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:57am | ! Report

                So just get into a he said/she said?

                What is the point of that? The senate report was supposed to determine what was supposedly right.

                It was essentially a witch hunt on the basis they went into it with specific purpose of finding wrong doing which there wasn’t any evidence of before they started.

                I don’t think you’re going to find anybody willing to give much credence to information that with that intention Reynolds chose to omit.

                I don’t know how it’s fair to say the media has failed for not publishing what the senate report didn’t even want to publish in their report.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 11:46am
                Bakkies said | November 20th 2017 @ 11:46am | ! Report

                Your mate Rob Clarke had several questions on notice and only an answer to one of them is up on the Inquiry website.

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 12:27pm
                Timbo (L) said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:27pm | ! Report

                The He Said, She said is contained within the senate hearings and Findings. And is most certainly reportable. It speaks volumes about the deception and lies perpetrated by one of the sides. Someone perjured themselves.

                But to give a balanced account it was: Multiple witnesses Said, He couldn’t Recall the details. That information is secret and we weren’t expecting you to have that Damning evidence.

                Unless of course you are an ARU apologist and don’t want the public to get an insight as to what actually occurred.

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 12:32pm
                Train Without A Station said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:32pm | ! Report

                If it’s so credible why didn’t the senate include it in the findings?

                Why is all this explosive perjury not mentioned?

                If the person who was pushing the senate enquiry from one side didn’t deem information credible, how would a supposedly independent publication deem it so?

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 12:36pm
                Train Without A Station said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:36pm | ! Report

                You can’t say the senate report needs to be taken as gospel despite it’s flaws that I’ve shown, and then say that information that even if didn’t want to touch is now credible.

                I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure reporting somebody else’s claim that is libel could be deemed libel too.

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 12:40pm
                Train Without A Station said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:40pm | ! Report


                Keep in mind that the republication of someone else’s words can itself be defamatory. In other words, you won’t be immune simply because you are quoting another person making the defamatory statement, even if you properly attribute the statement to it’s source.


                The writer or speaker of a statement can be sued for defamation. In addition, the broadcasting, television or newspaper corporation which publishes the statement; the person or journalist who wrote the material; a person being interviewed; a speaker in a talk-back program; the producer, executive producer or editor; and any other person who contributed in any way to the publication or authorised the making of the statement can also be sued, if their contribution can be identified. For example, you cannot avoid personal liability for defamation by making a statement on the letterhead of an incorporated association.

      • Roar Guru

        November 19th 2017 @ 1:04pm
        Train Without A Station said | November 19th 2017 @ 1:04pm | ! Report

        Where have the ARU stated they’ll pull funding?

        Apparently the ARU would not agree with the terms that Rugby WA forgoes future funding to repay the costs.

        • Roar Guru

          November 19th 2017 @ 1:27pm
          Train Without A Station said | November 19th 2017 @ 1:27pm | ! Report

          “We have specifically rejected a RugbyWA proposal to have their community funding reduced to offset some of this cost, and in fact, plan on increasing its community funding. Ultimately, this is 1.7 million dollars of cost to the game and this legal cost cannot come at the expense of the community game.”

          • November 19th 2017 @ 3:39pm
            rock86 said | November 19th 2017 @ 3:39pm | ! Report

            Yeah this legal cost can’t come at the cost of the whole rugby community, however we’ve been more then happy to blow millions upon millions to Cox for absolutely no benefit to the whole Rugby community, hypocrites.

            • Roar Guru

              November 19th 2017 @ 3:41pm
              Train Without A Station said | November 19th 2017 @ 3:41pm | ! Report

              Who says they’ve been “more than happy to”.

              They gave the Rebels an additional $6M funding in order to encourage a buyer to take on the liability of the Rebels for the future.

              You don’t think it’s possibly a decision they made begrudgingly?

              They are pretty clear in saying they aren’t trying to wind up Rugby WA by chasing this, they are trying to get “high net worth parties” to cover this for Rugby WA and supposedly have been in negotiations.

              • November 19th 2017 @ 10:11pm
                Rock said | November 19th 2017 @ 10:11pm | ! Report

                So if they made that decision begrudgingly TWAS, why not forgive the legal costs? It is only but a fraction the whle Rebels mess has caused.

                Of that’s right, because WA isn’t on the east coast.

                And this is coming from a QLD Rugby member.

              • Roar Guru

                November 19th 2017 @ 10:14pm
                Train Without A Station said | November 19th 2017 @ 10:14pm | ! Report

                According to Bill Pulver, because they are trying to recover the cost from “high net worth individuals” that said they were supporting the legal case.

                Maybe that’s not true. But surely if you want to know, what the ARU are saying would be a starting point to find out.

              • November 19th 2017 @ 10:50pm
                Tonkar1962 said | November 19th 2017 @ 10:50pm | ! Report

                They gave cox 6 million to take on a liability. . Why did they just not close the liability down at that point all the ARU have done is screwed rugby in Australia

              • Roar Guru

                November 19th 2017 @ 11:02pm
                Train Without A Station said | November 19th 2017 @ 11:02pm | ! Report

                We don’t know for certain.

                Potentially because removing the Rebels may have reduced revenue by more than they saved.

                When they were introduced they increased Australia’s TV share by 20% which was a $5M gain at the time. If carrying them for 2015 and then cutting them for 2016 had the same impact, it would have cost the ARU $11M a year.

                But that’s an assumption.

                What is not an assumption is that SANZAAR were pushing expansion and wanted more teams. It’s very likely cutting a team could have impacted negotiations for the new TV deal which they were heavily relying on.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 11:53pm
                In brief said | November 20th 2017 @ 11:53pm | ! Report

                11 million in 2016 would have been a saving on the $30 million the Rebels lost the ARU.

              • November 21st 2017 @ 7:02am
                Train Without A Station said | November 21st 2017 @ 7:02am | ! Report

                $11M a year.

                And the senate report concluded it was around half of $28M.

                Closer to around $2M a year. The majority of which attributed to the Mitchell consortium.

              • November 21st 2017 @ 11:49am
                AndyS said | November 21st 2017 @ 11:49am | ! Report

                Steady on TWAS, not like you to call out the ARU like that! I mean, if each team was worth $11M a year, and they’ve said getting rid of the Force will only save them $6M at best, they’d have to be a bunch of drunken monkeys managing using a magic eight ball…

              • Roar Guru

                November 21st 2017 @ 12:33pm
                Train Without A Station said | November 21st 2017 @ 12:33pm | ! Report

                $2M a year.

                I was errr, just using roman numerals…

                But what the senate enquiry concluded works out to be about $2M per year that they have spent on the Rebels in the past. But that’s not any indication of future obligations.

                Either way an important factor is that even if the Rebels cost $2M per year extra for eternity, that may still be the best option depending on key factors (TV value and Wallaby test value/interest).

                It’s entirely possible they may not too mind you.

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 10:24am
                Timbo (L) said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:24am | ! Report

                Sounds a lot like extortion.

                The ARU’s alleged legal costs are disproportionate to what it should cost. If they were so confident that they weren’t doing something shifty, the defense would have been easy and could have been done by a first year law student. $1.7 mil is a lot of cash for 2×1 week hearings. It isn’t as though their lawyers are Imperium.

                Why should Twiggy be on the hook?
                As many have argued, he didn’t step up until too late, why should he carry the liability for previous actions?

              • November 20th 2017 @ 10:35am
                Bakkies said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:35am | ! Report

                ‘They gave the Rebels an additional $6M funding in order to encourage a buyer to take on the liability of the Rebels for the future.’

                Which ended up costing the RA more money as they sold the Rabble to a man who didn’t have the means to prop it up.

                You bang on about extra revenue the Rabble created. Guess what that is gone and despite being privately owned the Rabble received more RA funding than the other unions.

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 10:43am
                Train Without A Station said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:43am | ! Report

                On what basis do you have to say they are more than it should cost?

                They well may be, but not because some bloke on the internet decides it sounds too high.

                If Forrest said he was funding the legal case, he should fund the costs that Rugby WA incur as a result of the legal case. That’s the only reason why he should.

                What other costs is he funding? Everybody was saying Rugby WA’s work was done pro bono. With the exception of travel costs, what money needed to be spent?

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 10:59am
                PeterK said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:59am | ! Report

                Timbo – For federal and higher courts you have to be represented by a barrister

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 1:05pm
                Timbo (L) said | November 20th 2017 @ 1:05pm | ! Report

                Court hearing went for 6 hours.

                Even at $100,000 per hour, it doesn’t even get close to 1.7 mil.


                Are you saying that I have no insight as to the costs of a legal battle?

                Believe it or not, Some guys on the internet are skilled professionals with insights to things.

                Since you are the expert,
                What is the average costs of this sort of challenge.

                My calcs came up with roughly $450k, which strangely is very close to the number offered by Rugby WA. Are you prepared to say they don’t know what they are talking about?

                Take off the rose coloured glasses for a moment. This is a shakedown.

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 1:07pm
                Train Without A Station said | November 20th 2017 @ 1:07pm | ! Report

                So they just turn up to court on the day of the matter and that’s the sum of the laywers’ involvement?

                And people are saying Rugby WA, who were supported by pro bono help incurred costs of $600k.

                So the ARU have paid full costs for their legal support and it should cost less than Rugby WA’s which was supposedly pro bono?

              • November 20th 2017 @ 1:18pm
                concerned supporter said | November 20th 2017 @ 1:18pm | ! Report

                I am on your side,
                Litigation Firm Partners charge between $500 – $700 per hour
                Senior/ Junior Counsels, a lot more, but they vary a lot.Same with Barristers.
                But it is not only the 8 hours in court, it is all the prior preparation hours which come into account., I would imagine much more than 8 hours.
                The Law Society/ Legal services Commissioner can tax the Legal Costs charged.

        • November 20th 2017 @ 9:41am
          Johnno said | November 20th 2017 @ 9:41am | ! Report

          Train can you admit it, Rugby Australia care more about the Melbourne market than the Perth market as in there view it is more comemcially viable and it will play favourites and put it’s resources into areas it sees as higher market value to them. Peth and WA just isn’t a priority for Rugby Australia let’s be honest. They are allowed to have that view but lets be honest that it is there view.

          • Roar Guru

            November 20th 2017 @ 10:13am
            Train Without A Station said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:13am | ! Report

            You can’t say that because it disregards factors like legally WA was the only option without a negotiating a sale of Melbourne.

            It’s quite possible absolutely.

            But that leads to the point, why is that an issue.

            It’s professional sport. If they don’t favour the market they consider more commerically viable, they aren’t doing their job properly.

            • November 20th 2017 @ 10:38am
              Bakkies said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:38am | ! Report

              ‘It’s professional sport. If they don’t favour the market they consider more commerically viable, they aren’t doing their job properly.’

              It isn’t more commercially viable it is a money drain down a blackhole. If it wasn’t for News Limited who were able to sustain the millions the Storm lost each year they would have been out the gap.

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 10:59am
                Train Without A Station said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:59am | ! Report

                The Rebels is not the entirety of the market.

                If they lose $2M a year on the Rebels, which is basically what it has cost the ARU I believe, but Melbourne is worth $3M a year more than Perth then it is not a black hole.

                It’s no good the Force being a bit better off financially if Perth is less valuable than it would save the ARU.

                It’s not just the Force vs the Rebels. It’s the value of Perth vs Melbourne.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 11:24am
                Bakkies said | November 20th 2017 @ 11:24am | ! Report

                ‘ Melbourne is worth $3M a year more than Perth then it is not a black hole.’

                That’s fine if the 3 million a year doesn’t result in losses far more than 3 million a year.

        • Roar Guru

          November 20th 2017 @ 10:09am
          Timbo (L) said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:09am | ! Report

          It was a threat made publicly when the injunction was first lodged in April. – Withdraw or you will get no funding next year.

          Makes sense to hit Twiggy up for the cash, you cant pay out of funding they were never going to give anyway. A smart move from the ARU but Twiggy and Rugby WA saw that one coming and countered.

          • Roar Guru

            November 20th 2017 @ 10:16am
            Train Without A Station said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:16am | ! Report

            Where was it made?

            Because they are specifically stating that they intend to increase the funding.


            Are you saying that’s a blatant lie?

            • November 20th 2017 @ 10:39am
              Bakkies said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:39am | ! Report

              No one apart from the Rabble can trust and believe what they say.

            • Roar Guru

              November 20th 2017 @ 10:59am
              Timbo (L) said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:59am | ! Report

              One of the 2 statements is a lie, both were made by the ARU, who quite frankly don’t have a lot of credibility at the moment.

              The change of heart for the funding came after the negotiations..

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 11:01am
                Train Without A Station said | November 20th 2017 @ 11:01am | ! Report

                Except nobody has a record of the first statement.

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 1:10pm
                Timbo (L) said | November 20th 2017 @ 1:10pm | ! Report

                A poor argument,
                Just because you didn’t read it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 1:14pm
                Train Without A Station said | November 20th 2017 @ 1:14pm | ! Report

                Well post a link.

                I’ve showed a record of what I claim to happen.

                You’re saying “take my word”.

    • November 19th 2017 @ 12:26pm
      Rugbyfan in WA said | November 19th 2017 @ 12:26pm | ! Report

      The sad thing is that Rugby in WA might not recover after this. A lot of club players i know are starting to have kids and are talking about stearing their kids away from playing rugby. Sure they made some mistakes but in recent years RugbyWA and The Force has done a superb job with the limited resources they have tobuild up the grass roots but this year might be to big a kick for the sport to get back up. We are still yet to hear any leadership from RugbyAU and nobody truely knows the full story but the silence from the national body is discouraging people from the permanently.

      • Roar Guru

        November 19th 2017 @ 1:15pm
        Train Without A Station said | November 19th 2017 @ 1:15pm | ! Report

        That is very true. Both that it is the worst part of this and that it’s possible.

        But what would be worse is if all states go broke and never recover.

        I think your last sentence is pretty fair also.

        • November 19th 2017 @ 4:08pm
          Ex Force fan said | November 19th 2017 @ 4:08pm | ! Report

          TWAS that for all states to go but is bull and you know it. Cutting the Force will not help the ARU anyway to stem the tide in the states they have been losing out against AFL.

          • Roar Guru

            November 19th 2017 @ 4:11pm
            Train Without A Station said | November 19th 2017 @ 4:11pm | ! Report

            It’s supposed to help them save money.

            Which it most certainly will.

            • November 20th 2017 @ 2:25am
              Ex force fan said | November 20th 2017 @ 2:25am | ! Report

              At the rate the ARU is spending 2018 “savings” on extended squads.and blowing salary caps and $800k+ pay packages not much saving, if any, will realise. The ARU are now more than ever dependent on a few players as they have less to pick from. Another shot in the foot from your mates Pulver and Clyne!

              • November 20th 2017 @ 6:52am
                Train Without A Station said | November 20th 2017 @ 6:52am | ! Report

                No squad is bigger than 2017 at this stage…

                The Rebels have 6 less players signed and have to sign 1 more Hooker…

            • November 20th 2017 @ 11:58pm
              In brief said | November 20th 2017 @ 11:58pm | ! Report

              No it won’t.
              It will and has already cost them money. The ARU would be financially better off if they had cut the Rebels, not given the Rebels $30 million and instead accepted Forrest’s funding offer and kept the Force.

              • November 21st 2017 @ 7:03am
                Train Without A Station said | November 21st 2017 @ 7:03am | ! Report

                They have not according to the senate report.

                Around half of the $28M.

              • November 23rd 2017 @ 9:15am
                Bakkies said | November 23rd 2017 @ 9:15am | ! Report

                TWAS not according to Peter Leahy who was still on the VRU board when he made his testimony.

      • Roar Guru

        November 20th 2017 @ 10:27am
        Timbo (L) said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:27am | ! Report

        I don’t think it will make that much of a difference.

        The Juniors will be thrilled about not having to give the ARU 40% of the club fees per season ($90 ea).

    , , ,