Rebel man
John Thornett (49)
One back isn’t going to change the world. All I am saying is we should have waited for the private equity deal to be done before we started spending the money
Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Rightly or wrongly the optics of the deal are relevant and are being perceived negatively.
Rebel man
John Thornett (49)
I don’t think anyone holds it against the kid. It is just irresponsible to spend that level of money on one player when the PE deal hadn’t yet been done.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Isn't it the case that the deal is being funded externally - as with Folau and Pocock etc?
The Ghost of Raelene
Simon Poidevin (60)
Yep it’s not funded via PE that went into the game as a whole.
This money was solely available if a deal could be struck for JS. Not deal, no money, no loss. RA don’t have a right to spend someone else’s money on whatever they like.
This money was solely available if a deal could be struck for JS. Not deal, no money, no loss. RA don’t have a right to spend someone else’s money on whatever they like.
Mick The Munch
Vay Wilson (31)
Let's hope someone kept the emails
www.nine.com.au
RUGBY AUSTRALIA'S FULL STATEMENT ON THE MELBOURNE REBELS
Rugby Australia is disappointed by the Melbourne Rebels Rugby Union Pty Ltd's inaccurate and misleading comments in the media and rejects the MRRU directors' ambit claims and attempts to shift blame for their financial mismanagement.
RA reiterates that it has complied with all its contractual obligations to MRRU.
RA is preparing a counterclaim against MRRU and its directors for misleading and deceptive conduct concerning the financial position of MRRU dating back to 2018.
Based on that misleading and deceptive conduct, RA granted MRRU a participation licence for the Super Rugby competition and provided associated funding and payments to MRRU.
Had RA not been misled or deceived, it would not have provided MRRU with a participation licence and thus not lost in excess of $35 million that was paid to MRRU since at least 1 July 2018.
RA believes that the MRRU directors were knowingly concerned in and/or aided and abetted MRRU's misleading and deceptive conduct.
Given the insolvency of MRRU, its directors placed it into voluntary administration on January 29, 2024.
The Administrator reported that MRRU had accumulated almost $23 million in debt prior to entering voluntary administration and noted that MRRU's directors may have traded while insolvent from 31 December 2018, which is a breach of the Corporations Act.
The Administrator also stated that the reasons for the company's financial challenges were a history of trading losses, lack of readily available alternative funding sources, an excessive cost structure compared to the underlying revenue base, and insufficient revenue generated from non-RA sources including membership, sponsorship and game day receipts.
RA was notified by the Administrator that the directors of MRRU had received ATO Director Penalty Notices.
RA received a garnishee order from the ATO in December 2023. MRRU never informed RA of the Director Penalty Notices.
After MRRU was placed into administration, RA stepped in to fund all operations of the Melbourne Rebels in 2024, paying player and staff wages, and meeting all associated statutory obligations connected with those payments for the entirety of the 2024 Super Rugby Pacific season.
As the national governing body, RA will continue to do what is in the best interests of the game nationally and remains focussed on protecting and promoting rugby across Australia.
-------------
Rugby Australia torches Rebels in bitter $30m dispute
'Misleading and deceptive conduct'
www.nine.com.au
RUGBY AUSTRALIA'S FULL STATEMENT ON THE MELBOURNE REBELS
Rugby Australia is disappointed by the Melbourne Rebels Rugby Union Pty Ltd's inaccurate and misleading comments in the media and rejects the MRRU directors' ambit claims and attempts to shift blame for their financial mismanagement.
RA reiterates that it has complied with all its contractual obligations to MRRU.
RA is preparing a counterclaim against MRRU and its directors for misleading and deceptive conduct concerning the financial position of MRRU dating back to 2018.
Based on that misleading and deceptive conduct, RA granted MRRU a participation licence for the Super Rugby competition and provided associated funding and payments to MRRU.
Had RA not been misled or deceived, it would not have provided MRRU with a participation licence and thus not lost in excess of $35 million that was paid to MRRU since at least 1 July 2018.
RA believes that the MRRU directors were knowingly concerned in and/or aided and abetted MRRU's misleading and deceptive conduct.
Given the insolvency of MRRU, its directors placed it into voluntary administration on January 29, 2024.
The Administrator reported that MRRU had accumulated almost $23 million in debt prior to entering voluntary administration and noted that MRRU's directors may have traded while insolvent from 31 December 2018, which is a breach of the Corporations Act.
The Administrator also stated that the reasons for the company's financial challenges were a history of trading losses, lack of readily available alternative funding sources, an excessive cost structure compared to the underlying revenue base, and insufficient revenue generated from non-RA sources including membership, sponsorship and game day receipts.
RA was notified by the Administrator that the directors of MRRU had received ATO Director Penalty Notices.
RA received a garnishee order from the ATO in December 2023. MRRU never informed RA of the Director Penalty Notices.
After MRRU was placed into administration, RA stepped in to fund all operations of the Melbourne Rebels in 2024, paying player and staff wages, and meeting all associated statutory obligations connected with those payments for the entirety of the 2024 Super Rugby Pacific season.
As the national governing body, RA will continue to do what is in the best interests of the game nationally and remains focussed on protecting and promoting rugby across Australia.
-------------
Tomikin
David Codey (61)
The Ghost of Raelene
Simon Poidevin (60)
This signing was expected and known.
Didn't I read that RA has signed up 23/25 of them or something like that? Didn't read into it so could be a pair of socks as payment but we should be giving RA some acknowledgement of a good job if correct.
We will never keep them all, never have. There will also be a number of these kids who don't have professional future in Rugby.
Didn't I read that RA has signed up 23/25 of them or something like that? Didn't read into it so could be a pair of socks as payment but we should be giving RA some acknowledgement of a good job if correct.
We will never keep them all, never have. There will also be a number of these kids who don't have professional future in Rugby.
Dctarget
Tim Horan (67)
How quick is Maya! Watching the highlights now and they look very well drilled. It's nice playing teams our level.Sad days when the most we get about the Wallaroos winning a tournament is a short blurb in Mondays news
Merrow
Arch Winning (36)
Think they’ll rise further under Jo. She’s creating real depth. How good is Tala Moleka going? Makes a huge difference with her kicking
PhilClinton
Mark Loane (55)
Not sure where to post this but seems like the Frenchies don't like our 20-minute red card suggestion.
www.espn.com.au
France rugby to oppose 20-minute red card plans
French authorities are joining forces with players to oppose plans by World Rugby to change its regulations with the introduction of a 20-minute red card, saying it poses a health risk.
www.espn.com.au
Tomthumb
Chilla Wilson (44)
They only seem to want to pick a 2nd string National team anyway, so not sure why it bothers themNot sure where to post this but seems like the Frenchies don't like our 20-minute red card suggestion.
France rugby to oppose 20-minute red card plans
French authorities are joining forces with players to oppose plans by World Rugby to change its regulations with the introduction of a 20-minute red card, saying it poses a health risk.
Their statement is (like most of the others against the trial) all over the place.
So they haven't got enough red card data to make an informed decision from the trials that have happened so far? That's why you now have a larger trial! The fact that the trials so far haven't provided any evidence to support their concerns is a clear reason to expand the trial.
They have no evidence that this is the case but are against the expansion of the trial on the basis that they think this is a risk? This to me falls into the same sort of ludicrous, slippery slope arguments as we had a few years ago when making what people considered "rugby incidents" or "tackles gone slightly wrong" potential red cards would lead to the game turning into touch football.
So they haven't got enough red card data to make an informed decision from the trials that have happened so far? That's why you now have a larger trial! The fact that the trials so far haven't provided any evidence to support their concerns is a clear reason to expand the trial.
They have no evidence that this is the case but are against the expansion of the trial on the basis that they think this is a risk? This to me falls into the same sort of ludicrous, slippery slope arguments as we had a few years ago when making what people considered "rugby incidents" or "tackles gone slightly wrong" potential red cards would lead to the game turning into touch football.
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
And it goes directly against at least one of the reasons that Nigel Owen stated for why he was against it - that it didn't seem to change player behaviour.
PhilClinton
Mark Loane (55)
As noted by a few people, their arguments are totally all over the shop.
One of the main points they raise is they believe players will be encouraged to be violent or more aggressive because they know their team is only going to be impacted for 20mins.
To me, that is nonsensical because it doesn't factor in the suspension the player receives due to foul play, which isn't changing.
In terms of why they really care about it, who knows.
JRugby2
Ted Thorn (20)
Has anyone looked at their recent win percentage with an opposition red card vs without one (I haven't, pure speculation)
JRugby2
Ted Thorn (20)
You'd have to hope there would be some consequence for sending down B-sides to Australia and next year to NZ on their recent tours.
Although on the other hand, I'm unsure how that would impact us - especially with the emergence of NZ and RSA tours from 2026, a full strength French tour to Aus would surely have appeal.