Search results

They were warned for the repeated offenses that took place in the 22, not because they were in the 22.

Wilkin won't want to see a replay of that one. Power

He had just warned both teams for doing exactly that offenses. Yellow for repeated offences well deserved.

Can a ball still be in a ruck if it's under the leg of a guy not bound to anyone and with his knee on the ground? Edit - looking at it again, the Rebs hooker never got back onside so fair penalty

Angus Gardner becomes the most capped Super Rugby ref of all time tonight. Great effort. Great servant to the game and may we see many more

I don't think it's any more complicated than 16 tries from 34 starts

All we know is that "the directors and investor group" will provide a funding agreement to the administrator to fund the legal action.

The consortium has only agree to recapitalise the Rebels if both the ATO waive the DPNs and RA give back the license. The directors can waive either of these if they choose, but they won't. If either isn't agreed to, there's no $$$, but the directors would be funded to pursue the legal action...

Our talent ID is so good that we are suppliying 100 players to overseas leagues in addition to our own pro comp. Compared to 10, 20, 30 years ago, there are way fewer unrecognised gems

We have no idea how much money they are bringing to the table though do we? Unless we get to see that 100-page document that RA just received. In the DOCA, they only committed to fund two years of operations Just based on paying back 30% of creditors, the employee entitlements and funding 2...

For those wondering why RA aren't fully supporting it at the moment The real issue here is the DOCA allows for funding legal action if the ATO doesn't release the directors from their DPNs, even with RA handing back the license. Any money from the legal action (not disappearing into lawyer's...

There is no way the board will respond that quickly. The document will be circulated when it's received and they will discsus it at the next board meeting like all other and any other business. Most of RA's board members are basically volunteers with plenty of other commitments (same for VRU...

There were two votes ("majority in number and value") The first is one vote, one creditor, which was a yes The second was votes based on value owed (so primarily ATO), which was a no The tiebreaker was the Administrator, who voted yes

There is no way RA can announce a decision while there is a threat of legal action and the DOCA has a 60 day plan within it. There's still 45 days to play through, with all that that entails

I agree to some extent but this ignores the role SRU have under NSWRU constitution as voting members, including appointing directors. They still have a lot of influence on how things are being run at RA member union level. Maybe this will change with RA control of Tahs

Is Ravi out or rested?

I think the real problem is it might just be crusaders -> other kiwi team > crusaders > other kiwi team without anyone else getting a look in

Good point I think that means a fairly boring Crusaders -> Hurricanes chain then.

Assuming Crusaders started the year with it (?), I think it's gone Crusader, Tahs, Highlanders, Brumbies over the first 4 weeks, and since then Brumbies are 10 weeks in to their defense.

It's a bit hard to do apples v apples, but over the last 3 years the administrator found they had $4.2m from match revenue, membership and merch and $1.7m in match and merch expenses. Is that showing a profit from AAMi? Hard to say especially when they hadn't paid $1m in rent