Melbourne Rebels 2024

[Strewthcobber]

I believe it was a one creditor one vote, not based on the amount owed to creditors. Therefore with each director and related party having a vote equall to the largest creditor, it would appear to be a skewed vote

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

 

[Strewthcobber]

Yes, I would expect that they read the plan within a few hours, this is the biggest decision they have to make right now. So as soon as they received the plan on Sunday I would expect all board members and senior level staff to have it read and be in a meeting to discuss first thing Monday morning.

Well before any meetings with Rebels players take place.

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, who would be doing the same thing)

 

[dru]

It’s the lawyers who are pushing for legal action. They have a better understanding of what has gone on than any of us. I hope they take RA to the cleaners

So you want the Rebels to survive in order to kill the RA and through that the sport itself in Australia? Whatever you thoughts on means, I am confused on your intended ends.

 

[Rebel man]

So you want the Rebels to survive in order to kill the RA and through that the sport itself in Australia? Whatever you thoughts on means, I am confused on your intended ends.

They are only going to take legal action if they get shut down. So if it comes to that, then that’s on RA

 

[LeCheese]

They are only going to take legal action if they get shut down. So if it comes to that, then that’s on RA

Incorrect - the proposal they voted on literally stated that they would be taking legal action against RA if the proposal was successful.

It's only in the last couple of days that Clifford has said 'well actually, we didn't really mean that...'

 

[Rebel man]

Incorrect - the proposal they voted on literally stated that they would be taking legal action against RA if the proposal was successful.

It's only in the last couple of days that Clifford has said 'well actually, we didn't really mean that...'

So they aren’t going to be taking action unless they get shut down.

 

[Tomikin]

So they aren’t going to be taking action unless they get shut down.

They actually said, that they might not.. more a trust us bro... We will think about it if you accept our offer

You are totally off the rails, you seem like someone who'd blame Bunnings if you hit yourself with a hammer..

People say we should have sympathy for the Rebels fans which I do .. but fuck you make it hard

 

[Rebel man]

They actually said, that they might not.. more a trust us bro... We will think about it if you accept our offer

You are totally off the rails, you seem like someone who'd blame Bunnings if you hit yourself with a hammer..

People say we should have sympathy for the Rebels fans which I do .. but fuck you make it hard

They have already had to use to law to ensure the club survived in 17. Why would they trust RA?

Also don’t pretend to be sympathetic be honest you have been dancing on their grave since the reports first came out. At least own it

The deal gives them the right to take action, sure but should they be denied that right?

 

[Adam84]

They are only going to take legal action if they get shut down. So if it comes to that, then that’s on RA

Yeah it has nothing to do with the directors who traded the organisation insolvent for 5 years and racked up $20million in debt

 

[LeCheese]

Also don’t pretend to be sympathetic be honest you have been dancing on their grave since the reports first came out. At least own it

I have not seen a single comment on GAGR celebrating this dire situation - please feel free highlight evidence of the contrary.

Don't conflate attributing (some or all) blame to the Rebels' pisspoor management with celebrating the club's demise...

 

[Tomikin]

They have already had to use to law to ensure the club survived in 17. Why would they trust RA?

Also don’t pretend to be sympathetic be honest you have been dancing on their grave since the reports first came out. At least own it

The deal gives them the right to take action, sure but should they be denied that right?

No, I haven't been dancing on the graves.. I want 5 teams; I actually want more than 5 so we can have more places for players... I want the Rebels to survive I really hope this package saves them..

The only two good things that come from the Rebels dieing...... is

A/* The Rebels' directors are held accountable for running at a 20 million dollar loss,not telling anyone, and not paying their taxes...
B/* I don't have to read you're emotionally reactive rambling bullshit anymore.

 

[Rebel man]

Yeah it has nothing to do with the directors who traded the organisation insolvent for 5 years and racked up $20million in debt

The RA has killed the game here. Simple as that.

Why should anyone in Melbourne care about RA or the Wallabies into 25 if we have no team?

Why support a national team that actively seeks to exclude us from the sport?

RA rejected multiple bids to join the league we had to fight tooth and nail to stay in the comp in 17 and now they want us out again. Despite having funding to get us through to 2030

How was the club meant to make money when we are locked into the worst competition in the Asia Pacific? The only answers ever given for what the directors should have done is not spend on players or grown revenue yet to grow revenue they have to invest into the club.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The RA has killed the game here. Simple as that.

Why should anyone in Melbourne care about RA or the Wallabies into 25 if we have no team?

Why support a national team that actively seeks to exclude us from the sport?

RA rejected multiple bids to join the league we had to fight tooth and nail to stay in the comp in 17 and now they want us out again. Despite having funding to get us through to 2030

How was the club meant to make money when we are locked into the worst competition in the Asia Pacific? The only answers ever given for what the directors should have done is not spend on players or grown revenue yet to grow revenue they have to invest into the club

What are you talking about? What other competition is there in the Asia-Pacific? Without Super Rugby there would be no Rebels to start with.

 

[Slim 293]

RA rejected multiple bids to join the league we had to fight tooth and nail to stay in the comp in 17 and now they want us out again.

Multiple bids?

 

[Slim 293]

And while I'm never in favour of cutting teams... considering what's occurred since then, maybe it would've been better for the Rebels' long term if they had gone in 2017?

 

[Rebel man]

Multiple bids?

Two bids from the VRU but there had been separate private bids to get a team into Melbourne.

 

[Strewthcobber]

As long as any threat of litigation is dropped (which the recent article quoting Leigh Clifford seemed to suggest) why wouldn't RA back the consortium?

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 yacht funds) will be used to reduce the ATO debt, which in turn reduces the Director's DPNs.

The directors are claiming that they can pursue two claims worth $8m from RA.
* $6m for the funding shortfall and
* $2m for the unpaid Wallaby taxes (the claim here seems to be that RA gave the Rebels the money for it, but as the Rebels used it for other things, RA should have ensured that the taxes were paid, so RA still owes the ATO the taxes.)

RA will be hesitant to make any kind of commitment unless that legal threat, which they have no control over, and remains even if they hand back the license is completely removed - and not just discussed "as a last resort" which is Clifford's current position

Business heavyweight Leigh Clifford says new investors are willing to treat legal threats against Rugby Australia as a “last resort option” if they find support for their plan to save the troubled club, and has warned the NRL would expand in Melbourne if the Rebels disappear.

 

[Slim 293]

Two bids from the VRU but there had been separate private bids to get a team into Melbourne.

The expansion of Australian Super Rugby teams occurred twice...

The Rebels got in the second time.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

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 will be used to reduce the ATO debt, which in turn reduces the Director's DPNs.

The directors are claiming that they can pursue two claims worth $8m from RA.
* $6m for the funding shortfall and
* $2m for the unpaid Wallaby taxes (the claim here seems to be that RA gave the Rebels the money for it, but as the Rebels used it for other things, RA should have ensured that the taxes were paid, so RA still owes the ATO the taxes.)

RA will be hesitant to make any kind of commitment unless that legal threat, which they have no control over, and remains even if they hand back the license is completely removed - and not just discussed "as a last resort" which is Clifford's current position

This bit really bothers me. If true then its no surprise RA might be sceptical plans brought to them.

 

[Rebel man]

The expansion of Australian Super Rugby teams occurred twice...

The Rebels got in the second time.

There was interested when super rugby was formed of being the third side and when the force got in there was the VRU bid and a private bid that both got rejected