Castle: Bledisloe is our priority

This is just a stepping stone and filler to get to nzrfu forRC. Her heart is not in it.

The Rebels were saved by their own circumstances, not the circumstances of another team. If anything knowing the Force was able to be cut may have hurt the Rebels. If the perception was that the Force had a strong case, Cox could hold out for more money to purchase his licence thinking the ARU needed to do so. Knowing they didn't have to purchase the Rebels licence reduced it's value really.

Oh please give us a break from WA moaning. This isn't a Force article. The priority is to win the Bledisloe not cobble together Kiwis and South Africans so Perth can have a team with more keyboard fans then those at the stadium.

And just as an aside, the alternative situations may be hypothetical, but the preparedness to consider and pursue them isn't. That they are prepared to actively investigate alternatives would be very pertinent information in negotiating a contract. A bit like getting engaged to marry...would you consider it important to know that your fiancee was continuing to troll all the singles bar and go out on dates, or would that be an irrelevance?

Of course knowing in black and white that the ARU can cut the Force reduced the treat that the Rebels will be cut. So the Rebels only need to stay alive and wait until the Force is cut. It definitely made the Force's fight for survival harder. Although there was two parties the ARU representatives lied (no surprise) the other "forgot" who gave it to him. No accountability at ARU (again no surprise). A reputable organization will honour their undertakings. The ARU/RA is clearly not such an organization. Cameron lift your game.

It is part of a broader narrative - WA is sick of being treated as second hand citizens on GST, jobs, rugby, etc. Whoever stand up for WA will win the election. So my family's 5 votes is a drop in a big ocean of change.

How was the Force’s position weakened? How did Tim North knowing the details of their alliance agreement, negatively impact the Force’s position? How is it difficult to prove? If only two parties have the information you’re already halfway there. What’s difficult to prove is damages incurred in many cases. Such as your Alliance Agreement example.

Would the entire Force average attendance make up enough people to be a majority in one seat of parliament?

It is difficult to prove a breach of confidentiality even when it is obvious. A skilled negotiator will do there homework and will have a good understanding of the terms major recent deals were done even if he/she was not a party to that agreement. Here is good recent and relevant example: Someone gave a copy of the strictly confidential ARU-WA Rugby Alliance Agreement to Tim North the president of the VRU which weakened the WA Rugby's position. All ARU officials that were present at this meeting with North denied that they gave Tim North the agreement and Tim North suffered from temporary amnesia as he could not remember who gave him the document. What we therefore must believe is that the document found its way into Tim North's hands from the ARU offices in Sydney on its own - a modern day miracle or that they are just covering the leak. The latter is more likely. A confidential email was leaked to seven news that shown that Bill Pulver discussed the deal to transfer the Rebels license from businessman Andrew Cox to the VRU in June 2016 that made a mockery of Pulver's claim that he was blindsided when the news of the sale leaked. It is naïve to think that you can operate in secret in the modern era. You can just as well be transparent in your dealings with others....as it is only those that have a reason to hide that are operating in secret like the ARU/RA.

You mean funny relative to, say, Whakapapa...? ;)

And that entirely puts to one side the question of the state of the game by then, the level of support and the ability of RA to properly resource and run the competition. They have been very loud about the perilous financial state of the game, borderline trading insolvent apparently. That would definitely raise red flags in negotiating most contracts, unless fully underwritten and bonded by a third party...

Stuff it. Wallabies will win the Bledisloe this year. You heard it here first

Not how it will work. The pools and draws are not determined until the year before, it is not a raffle nine years out. There is no way the present RA would risk the Wallabies being stranded on the other side of the country, and probably not the ABs either. Relative to when the WA gov't would have to make a commitment, the actual tourism value and quality of the matches that may be offered in 2027 would be the very essence of taken on trust.

Hmm.. I wouldn't say they trust them so much as they know what to expect. Reminds me of Samuel L Jackson in Jackie Brown "No you can't trust Melanie, but you can trust Melanie to be Melanie"

What uncertainties would they be? They would agree to pool games based on which tiers the teams are chosen for it from, and which finals. For example it may be 2nd vs ASIA 2 as a fixture they select. The uncertainty is related to factors that may determine how much of a draw it is, but won't be known until after both parties are locked in anyway.

Indeed, and any contracts that would be written around the RWC would be subject to similar (in reality, far greater) uncertainties. So how RA has reacted in the past to changes in circumstance will inevitably colour any contracts written in the future. Certainly with parties affected by those previous contracts, but probably with anyone - do you think the Rebels or Brumbies would sign the same Alliance agreement unchanged, and if not, why not?

The negotiating parties will. They aren't trying to hide it from the party they agreed with. They are trying to hide it from that parties competitors... If it was a great deal of course they would have wanted to. Because they would have wanted other states to see a higher price than they had paid in the past and hopefully drive their prices up. But just as likely the Vic Government would have wanted that kept confidential, to try and keep future market value down.

Are you really that naïve to think that the terms of any major multi party negotiation will be kept secret? Especially when they settled for much less than what was expected! The negotiating parties may not be able to quote figures or disclose their sources but they will act with the knowledge of what was previously accepted regardless of the confidentiality provision. Commercial sales contracts also have these clauses however skilled negotiators also find a way to find out. The reason this deal is not disclosed is to avoid publicity and public scrutiny. If this was a good deal they will splashed the details all over the papers and media. Also we now know that the ARU/RA has form when it comes to negotiating bad deal to prop up the Rebels.

But all that you say is based on the ARU knowing they could maintain income, and knowing parties would agree to changing their contracts almost a year before they found out they could... Discussing hypothetical options (hypothetical because without SANZAAR and broadcaster agreement - they are nothing) and actually deciding on options are two entirely different things.

Trust them to deliver what they say they'll deliver. Not to say one thing, then claim circumstances have forced them to do something else. To try and avoid such circumstances, not create them. To deliver on the intent of a contract, especially one written a long time in advance, even if circumstances do change. To minimise harm when variations are unavoidable. To genuinely negotiate in good faith and disclose circumstances that might be pertinent to the contract being made. That sort of stuff. My work revolves around contracts, some of which are pre-defined. But even identical contracts will be signed with some companies and not others. Generally based on how they have managed past contracts and the relationships they represent.