Merrow
Arch Winning (36)
They’ve been bailing the Rebels out for years
Melbourne Rebels 2024
- Thread starter RugbyReg
- Start date
The Ghost of Raelene
Simon Poidevin (60)
Directors wanting $
I genuinely think that Victorian Rugby and the Rebels are completely secondary in these peoples minds and are being used like a human shield to their egos.
Say they did return as a Rugby Club. How long until the hand is back out and the hot chip stand needs their invoices paid again.
Do they still have the Kia Carnival out back of AAMI Park?
Mick The Munch
Vay Wilson (31)
Stated they're all volunteers
Rebel man
John Thornett (49)
So the fact that RA may have acted unlawfully is fine then. Because for the good of the game in Victoria we should just shut up and take it?
Alex Sharpe
Ward Prentice (10)
What is the crux of the alleged unlawful behaviour? preferential treatment of other unions? Surely RA have the right to invest limited resources in markets (ACT, NSW) that are likely to provide better returns.
The Ghost of Raelene
Simon Poidevin (60)
I agree with the logic here.
Arguments are about to be made as to the benefit of ACT or Vic.....
Rebel man
John Thornett (49)
Read the statement yourself
The Ghost of Raelene
Simon Poidevin (60)
These the volunteers who the ATO notified would be held financially liable for the debts (11.5m that portion). If it's the same Directors then I'd say it's very much about $.
The Rebels directors are trying to avoid being held personally liable for various debts owed by the Rebels to the ATO.
The Ghost of Raelene
Simon Poidevin (60)
"The directors also allege that Rugby Australia is obliged to indemnify the directors for the tax debts accrued by the club and now assigned as personal debts to the directors."
"the Rebels will assert that Rugby Australia has breached various sections of the Corporations Act, has unlawfully oppressed the Rebels and is obliged to indemnify the Rebels for liabilities to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) (as well as other broader employment liabilities) incurred when Rebels players were playing for Rugby Australia teams.”
Question as I don't know the status but were the Rebels under centralisation at all? In my mind if you are you become a Rugby Australia team but if not then you are your'e own entity even though RA licenses you? I really have no idea of that situation. Even though the Reds are doing alright are they just an RA team?
All these arguments seem absolutely spurious to me.
There was no centralisation and the Rebels were a separate legal entity.
Why would RA be obliged to indemnify the directors for tax debts? Does this mean that RA should indemnify every director of every rugby entity in Australia that is under their ultimate umbrella? If Easts Rugby Club stop paying the PAYG withholding and super for their bar staff should Rugby Australia ultimately be on the hook for it?
Also, I don't believe the Rebels stopped paying the player salaries when players were away on Wallaby duty. They just stopped paying the ATO and are now arguing that RA should have been paying those amounts.
Super Rugby players are paid well after the Super Rugby season whether they are playing for the Wallabies or not. Based on the Rebels logic should their club rugby team be paying those salaries in July and August?
As frivilous and vexatious as it all sounds this will still cost RA a lot to defend.
Wallaby Man
Nev Cottrell (35)
I’m far from being a legal mind but I can see a few possibilities here.
- the rebels are gone no matter what the solution is, the losses are unsustainable and insurmountable.
- this might test the existing practices we have. Currently RA expressing it’s an autonomous 3rd party but also acts like it’s the governing power over these entities. I think the court could find it can’t be both.
Currently all contracts need to be certified by RA and all fixtures as well. Which kind of puts them in a controlling body over these entities, therefore they should have their own checks and balances to make sure clubs don’t end up in the strife they are while also providing them as many commercial opportunities as possible (play more games).
Could find a situation where something like dual contracts are abolished and the clubs have complete free rein on the market and RA forced to move the clubs interests to an independent body. Eg. Super Rugby been negotiated and run by the clubs and not the national union, etc.
Be interesting to see
- the rebels are gone no matter what the solution is, the losses are unsustainable and insurmountable.
- this might test the existing practices we have. Currently RA expressing it’s an autonomous 3rd party but also acts like it’s the governing power over these entities. I think the court could find it can’t be both.
Currently all contracts need to be certified by RA and all fixtures as well. Which kind of puts them in a controlling body over these entities, therefore they should have their own checks and balances to make sure clubs don’t end up in the strife they are while also providing them as many commercial opportunities as possible (play more games).
Could find a situation where something like dual contracts are abolished and the clubs have complete free rein on the market and RA forced to move the clubs interests to an independent body. Eg. Super Rugby been negotiated and run by the clubs and not the national union, etc.
Be interesting to see
Rebel man
John Thornett (49)
So allegations of breaking corporations act don’t mate now it is a former Tah in the gun. As long as NSW is okay we can ignore any governance issues.
If there is evidence to support the claims then there are serious issues stemming from RA and they should be held accountable.
Firstly, there's zero details as yet on what they're accusing in relation to the Corps Act.
Secondly, this is a civil court. I am entirely unsure how the Rebels being able to show that Rugby Australia breached a section of the Corps Act relates to whether or not they could cancel the Rebels' licence. I'm also entirely unsure what relevance that would have on the debts the Rebels (and now their former directors) owed to the ATO.
The Ghost of Raelene
Simon Poidevin (60)
“Every dollar spent on lawyers is money not spent on rugby and the community game,” Mr Herbert said. “There’s only so many times you can continue to be threatened without pushing back the claims against the directors. They continued to take money whilst they were allegedly trading insolvent.
“We are not interested in taking money out of the game to pay people’s personal debts from tax penalty notices.”
30th May - Not from a Tah
Rebel man
John Thornett (49)
Did you read the statement? It alleges that they were well aware of the financial situation
“The Melbourne Rebels Directors, all unpaid volunteers, will be providing the court extensive documentation demonstrating that Rugby Australia was aware of the financial situation of the Rebels at all times.
There is also extensive evidence of Rugby Australia executives and Directors continuing to reassure the Rebels (and other clubs) that a large private equity deal was imminent and would provide a financial lifeline to Rugby in Australia.”
If they knew about the financial situation and the debt to the ATO and they still reassured them that it would be okay and they would bail them out then a reasonable person would say the Rugby Australia should in some capacity be liable for the debt.
Rebel man
John Thornett (49)
Yet you will claim anyone that believes the Rebels directors as biased while any one who blindly accepts RA’s version of events aren’t biased
Rebel man
John Thornett (49)
@Braveheart81 what I am interested to hear from your point of view. If the Rebels directors are able to prove in the Federal Court that RA was fully aware of the financial situation and they have evidence that they reassured them that everything would be okay and that they would bail them out when the PE deal gets done. Then what course of action should the directors take now? Should they just run up the white flag and pay the debt themselves? Obviously at the time nothing stopped them from blowing the whistle themselves and alerting the regulators.
Now obviously the court may find against them
I feel if the claims are proven at the very least they should both be liable for the debt
Now obviously the court may find against them
I feel if the claims are proven at the very least they should both be liable for the debt
Last edited:
PhilClinton
Tony Shaw (54)
Is there any record or background of a situation where RA required 'authorisation' to spend funds?
If this case is built around the alleged misuse of monies from the PE deal, I wonder if there was ever a binding outline of how the funds were going to be spent and divvied up between the grassroots, Super Rugby franchises, RA marketing etc. Based on what I know about the way RA has been run, I doubt they would have bound themselves to an agreement like that.
No doubt if RA went around telling the Rebels the funds would be used to assist them get out of debt and that never happened, it sucks and those guys suck. But unless its clear and obvious there were promises made or even as far as agreements made and RA never delivered, I can't see how this case has legs.
If this case is built around the alleged misuse of monies from the PE deal, I wonder if there was ever a binding outline of how the funds were going to be spent and divvied up between the grassroots, Super Rugby franchises, RA marketing etc. Based on what I know about the way RA has been run, I doubt they would have bound themselves to an agreement like that.
No doubt if RA went around telling the Rebels the funds would be used to assist them get out of debt and that never happened, it sucks and those guys suck. But unless its clear and obvious there were promises made or even as far as agreements made and RA never delivered, I can't see how this case has legs.