My club before the Rebs and home stateWho are you guys supporting now?
but I'll be fkn salty for a while yetMy club before the Rebs and home state
Queeeeeennnnssssllaaannndd
Consortium going to court. Confirmed here: https://amp.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/melbourne-rebels-players-called-to-emergency-meeting-at-aami-park-20240530-p5jhul.html
The only people with stakes to fight for are the ex directors. If the Consortium hasn't put forward a reliable bid there's nothing else to push back against.
Who are you guys supporting now?
Qantas got into massive trouble for selling tickets that didn't exist, RA should face the same. They have never said anything to lead you to expect that the Rebels would exist in 2025 so they have sold tickets to a game they knew wouldn't happen.hey I've spent good coin on a Rebels v BIL, what the fuck
They'd argue otherwise on that point, hence why they're going to court.
Who are you guys supporting now?
Qantas got into massive trouble for selling tickets that didn't exist, RA should face the same. They have never said anything to lead you to expect that the Rebels would exist in 2025 so they have sold tickets to a game they knew wouldn't happen.
The argument in the DOCA was that there is a legal basis to have the license to be reinstated as the "company lost its license in unconscionable circumstances" - this is what their legal action will be based on.If I'm wrong I'm wrong. I think RA is probably stretching a little on some of the points made in the press release, but if the consortium is genuinely asking for top up funding over and above the distribution the other sides receive I don't see how that could be considered a viable bid by anyone.
If I'm wrong I'm wrong. I think RA is probably stretching a little on some of the points made in the press release, but if the consortium is genuinely asking for top up funding over and above the distribution the other sides receive I don't see how that could be considered a viable bid by anyone.
Imagine the discovery on these points alone. They will force RA to open the books and see if their underfunding claims are valid.The argument in the DOCA was that there is a legal basis to have the license to be reinstated as the "company lost its license in unconscionable circumstances" - this is what their legal action will be based on.
That's in addition to suing RA for $8m for funding shortfall and PAYG liability
There is also unvalued other claims against RA due to "breaches of the joint venture agreement"
At this stage, and successful action would just reduce the director's ATO DPNs
I wouldn't expect that sort of statement, among the other elements mentioned in the release, is something RA would pull out of their arse - no doubt it's all in the 100-page proposal (which hasn't been made publicly available).I haven't seen the proposal, so I can't comment on whether additional funding is requested. I've never seen in any press release from the consortium where they ask for additional funds above the standard allocations.