• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Melbourne Rebels 2024

oztimmay

Tony Shaw (54)
Staff member

I love how full of it the RA spin people are.

Breathtaking confidence gotta give 'em that.

So VicGov is playing a timely hand. World Rugby will no doubt watch more closely.

And they've seen the proposal from the consortium. So, no more excuses there.

I saw a snip on codeSports quoting the RA CFO, saying, "Five teams can work, but it will be financially tight" (paraphrased).

I think RA softening the ground here to eat some humble pie and accept the offer.
 

oztimmay

Tony Shaw (54)
Staff member
No more talk of cut, copy, change, slide, dice.
We are stronger than five.
I've believed that since early 2017, my view has not changed.
Invest for success, not drain to doom.
 

Wilson

Phil Kearns (64)
Breathtaking confidence gotta give 'em that.

So VicGov is playing a timely hand. World Rugby will no doubt watch more closely.

And they've seen the proposal from the consortium. So, no more excuses there.

I saw a snip on codeSports quoting the RA CFO, saying, "Five teams can work, but it will be financially tight" (paraphrased).

I think RA softening the ground here to eat some humble pie and accept the offer.
Fair enough for the Victorian government to come in with the stick, but they'll need to offer a carrot as the alternative if they want to get anywhere with it. It doesn't matter too much what RA might miss out on without the Rebels if they're not viable as an ongoing concern - if that can't be shown then there's no path forward that involves keeping them going.
 

Crashy

John Solomon (38)
No more talk of cut, copy, change, slide, dice.
We are stronger than five.
I've believed that since early 2017, my view has not changed.
Invest for success, not drain to doom.
Yep, I am absolutely crystal clear that we produce and have the talent for 5 teams. What we dont have is the $ to keep them away for overseas and Jail Rugby. No doubt in my mind at all.
Think I read somewhere that we have 100 professional (varying degrees) playing rugby around the world - if you split that into Japan, France, England, Italy etc etc you can see how its possible. There lies the challenge. Not sure how we get the mungos to fuck-off but perhaps the Lions tour plus 2 x world cups in Australia this decade may help in some way.
Anyway - a tough nut to crack.
 

KevinO

Geoff Shaw (53)
Fair enough for the Victorian government to come in with the stick, but they'll need to offer a carrot as the alternative if they want to get anywhere with it. It doesn't matter too much what RA might miss out on without the Rebels if they're not viable as an ongoing concern - if that can't be shown then there's no path forward that involves keeping them going.
I think the Vic government offer for the final goes away, then NSW will give a low ball offer for the final that RA can't refuse. Between that offer and 20 000 less tickets for the final. It would hurt the bottom line a lot.
 

oztimmay

Tony Shaw (54)
Staff member
I can't help but think RA would be a lot more keen on the "consortium" if the spokespoerson wasn't one of the former directors, and her father leading.

As an aside, they got a pretty favourable editorial in the Age yesterday as well.

More timely good press for keeping the Rebels. I've observed they've stuck to the fact of the issue, as opposed to a lot of opinion, especially on cutting the Rebels. Nor have I heard anyone on Stan advocating for cutting the Rebels. I can't see Stan would be happy with one less team, especially in a city of 7 million potential customers.
 

Wilson

Phil Kearns (64)
I think the Vic government offer for the final goes away, then NSW will give a low ball offer for the final that RA can't refuse. Between that offer and 20 000 less tickets for the final. It would hurt the bottom line a lot.
Yeah, but that's all just the stick still. Even then it's a one off hit to the bottom line versus the ongoing drain of keeping the Rebels in business for a few years before they collapse again because the model isn't viable, likely leaving RA in a worse place. There's also the reality that the Vic government hasn't been bidding for these events out of the goodness of their heart or to support the Rebels (because it really doesn't help them that much), they've been bidding because it pulls visitors and tourism dollars into the state. From RA/World rugby's perspective they have to ask if the Rebels collapsing really changes that or are they just trying to play hardball/politics here?

If they really want to shift the conversation rather than just be "seen to be doing" they need to come in with some positive incentives to keep the Rebels going as well - financial backing for the side, concrete infrastructure commitments, etc.
 

Strewthcobber

Simon Poidevin (60)
I've observed they've stuck to the fact of the issue,
Not sure about that - if you are talking about the Age. The editorial is pretty much all opinion (as it should be - that's what an editorial is)

Not sure this is exactly "neutral language' given the existing positions held by some in the consortium, and the personal liabilities they currently face.
There is a way forward. The consortium is a credible group that should be given the green light by Rugby Australia to get the Rebels back on a firmer financial footing. If needed, the state government, which until now has been hesitant to intervene, should step in to help bolster the club’s position.

And they seem to be neglecting the "extended legal battle" that would occur if the creditors vote for the proposal as well.
And to make matters worse, if creditors – who are owed a total $23 million – vote against the proposal, Rebels directors could face personal liability of $16.8 million for the club’s losses. That would potentially result in an extended legal battle between the directors, Rugby Australia and creditors.
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
I can't help but think RA would be a lot more keen on the "consortium" if the spokesperson wasn't one of the former directors, and her father leading.

As an aside, they got a pretty favourable editorial in the Age yesterday as well.

The father who was also one of the former directors of BRC...

It all sounds a bit... suss.
 

SouthernX

John Thornett (49)
. Nor have I heard anyone on Stan advocating for cutting the Rebels. I can't see Stan would be happy with one less team, especially in a city of 7 million potential customers.

Steven holies for last few years has been championing retraction.

has never mentioned rebels by name but I have heard him make the case for cutting a team or 2
 

KevinO

Geoff Shaw (53)
Steven holies for last few years has been championing retraction.

has never mentioned rebels by name but I have heard him make the case for cutting a team or 2
He has since his fox days, but this year has not mentioned it. Stan team has probably been told your employer does not want to cut teams, they pay your wage so don't mention it.

I do wonder if RA received two offers the other day, one with four and one with five teams.
 
Top