Rebel man
John Thornett (49)
Why? Because they were properly fundedAnd the Giants (and Suns) paid their tax bill.
And didn't lie about it....
Why? Because they were properly fundedAnd the Giants (and Suns) paid their tax bill.
And didn't lie about it....
Why? Because they were properly funded
The Suns or Giants would not be able to meet their financial obligations without getting 2.5 times the amount Collingwood gets from their split of the TV rights. Despite generating far less revenue for the game.So, the Rebels’ excuse is that RA don’t have the AFL’s level of funding so they just had to piss away what they had… and not pay taxes?
Seems like a reasonable excuse…
The Suns or Giants would not be able to meet their financial obligations without getting 2.5 times the amount Collingwood gets from their split of the TV rights. Despite generating far less revenue for the game.
It comes down to equality v equity
The Suns or Giants would not be able to meet their financial obligations without getting 2.5 times the amount Collingwood gets from their split of the TV rights. Despite generating far less revenue for the game.
It comes down to equality v equity
So I just read that RA didn't even attend yesterday, voted no via proxy. Shows how poorly that organisation is run, willing to kill rugby in a state that is producing Wallabies with out the balls to attend.
Say what ever you want about Rebels directors, not having a representative from RA at that meeting is completely unacceptable.
lol never did I say they should get the same dollar for dollar. But distributions should be scaledThe AFL's current broadcasting deal is worth $4.5b dollars over 7 years. RA's is $100m over 3 with a 2 year option to extend which was taken making it roughly $166m over 5. Do you see the difference here and how they are able to afford it? Again some of the reasoning here astounds.
didn’t need their debts bailed out, $600k is manageable against their assets, however their ongoing viability if they couldn’t return to profit in coming seasons was the bigger issue.Yet needed their debts bailed out.
lol never did I say they should get the same dollar for dollar. But distributions should be scaled
lol never did I say they should get the same dollar for dollar. But distributions should be scaled
Voting via a proxy or attorney is very, very common. RA would not have been the only one doing so.So I just read that RA didn't even attend yesterday, voted no via proxy. Shows how poorly that organisation is run, willing to kill rugby in a state that is producing Wallabies with out the balls to attend.
Say what ever you want about Rebels directors, not having a representative from RA at that meeting is completely unacceptable.
Yes. This is EXACTLY what happened. The Administrator's report clearly showed the Rebels were getting more money than other teams.It seems like it was already scaled in their favour…
Please tell me who we have been paying so much money to be 2 million over salary cap? Would love to know, last year our biggest name was Hodge? Surely he must have been on a million a year for the Rebels to be 2 million overYes. This is EXACTLY what happened. The Administrator's report clearly showed the Rebels were getting more money than other teams.
AND that they had exceeded the salary cap for at least three years that we know of, by more than $2 million.
Criticise RA, yes - but criticise them for secretly funding a team run by Dodgy Brothers Inc...
Small column by Jamie P in the paper today where he says RA have yet to receive the official operation proposal for the Rebels from the new group.
He believes RA will squash it regardless and name the Rebels too much of a financial liability even with the new directors, relocating etc.
Please tell me who we have been paying so much money to be 2 million over salary cap? Would love to know, last year our biggest name was Hodge? Surely he must have been on a million a year for the Rebels to be 2 million over