Melbourne Rebels 2024

[Rebel man]

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.

I understand that they may not be able to prove it. But should RA not be held to account if it was able to be proven true?

 

[Crashy]

After being pecked to death from the outside, the game is now hastening up its demise in Australia by eating itself from the inside.
Oh the fun this game is to support here...

 

[stoff]

The main thing I see here is that it is likely that some litigation funder (as per the DOCA) has seen that there is enough merit in the case to back it.

 

[PhilClinton]

I understand that they may not be able to prove it. But should RA not be held to account if it was able to be proven true?

So many variables that would need to be proven in order to get a proper position on this.

The big one would be if RA knew the Rebels were genuinely insolvent for all that time and it can be proven that they made promises specifically to assist them become financial again and then re-negged on those promises.

The likelihood of the situation having played out like that and even more so the likelihood of that being proved I find doubtful.

I just find the whole wording of the case/the articles I've read to be very wishy washy. Like I get it, if RA went and spent a heap of cash on dinners and travelling during the RWC2023 when it could have been better spent elsewhere, that sucks. But unless there is a specific outline of how they were to be spending that money I don't think it's a legal issue.

 

[Strewthcobber]

From the administrator's report

The Directors have asserted that:
* By virtue of the key agreements discussed at Section 4.1 of this Report and the interdependent relationship between the Company, RA and the SRLM, that each party is part of a national partnership or joint venture (i.e., they are carrying on a joint business);
* The funds and assets of RA and the Company were to be used for the joint undertaking of enabling the Company to remain financially viable and compete in the SRPC; and
* By reason of the above, that RA and the Company are jointly and severally liable for the debts and obligations of the joint relationship or partnership. In particular, RA is jointly and severally liable for any of the Company’s PAYG tax liabilities owed to the ATO relating to tax withheld on the payment of players.

My understanding is RA provided the Rebels with money to pay players and their tax obligations while on Wallaby duty. The Rebels used this money to cover other debts, and didn't pay the ATO the tax liability.

The Rebels position is RA continue to remain liable for the tax payments, even though money had been provided for that purpose, but it wasn't paid to the ATO. RA should remain liable for whatever is owed

 

[LeCheese]

I just find the whole wording of the case/the articles I've read to be very wishy washy.

It's also a very deliberate and punchy attempt to get on the front foot and, at the very least, try and sway the court of public opinion. Every single release since January has been, and has always been followed by a swift return serve from RA rebuking the claims. Regardless of where this goes, it's going to be a shit show

 

[Rebel man]

It's also a very deliberate and punchy attempt to get on the front foot and, at the very least, try and sway the court of public opinion. Every single release since January has been, and has always been followed by a swift return serve from RA rebuking the claims. Regardless of where this goes, it's going to be a shit show

Because RA try and paint the picture they want the public to see. The truth is somewhere in between

 

[The Red Baron]

Well if the court finds its unlawful to exclude them from the comp than it will literally bring them back.

Also we could all pile on the Rebels and their directors for the way the club was run. Yet if the federal court finds that RA’s conduct was unlawful then they should be held to account.

Ok, and what then? Who is going to play for them?

 

[SouthernX]

Ok, and what then? Who is going to play for them?

There was a proposal that RA knocked back. Share a new venue with a ALeague club.

I also think a lot of those 1 year contracted players elsewhere would jump at opportunity to return to Melbourne (should they get reborn)

 

[Mick The Munch]

It's also a very deliberate and punchy attempt to get on the front foot and, at the very least, try and sway the court of public opinion. Every single release since January has been, and has always been followed by a swift return serve from RA rebuking the claims. Regardless of where this goes, it's going to be a shit show

One could argue that RA has been on the front foot in the court of public opinion. It already is a shit show and will get worse.

And will take a long time too, whatever the outcome this will cloud the Lions tour.

*Still don't know who they're playing in Melbourne in the 22nd

 

[The Red Baron]

There was a proposal that RA knocked back. Share a new venue with a ALeague club.

I also think a lot of those 1 year contracted players elsewhere would jump at opportunity to return to Melbourne (should they get reborn)

I'm well aware of the proposal that got knocked on the head, but that was before the Rebels were completely wound up, this is now. So noting that, if the Courts decide to bring the Rebels back, who will play for them? Who will coach them? They'll literally be starting from scratch. I'm not as confident as you are that many of those 1 year contracted players would jump at the chance to come back.

 

[LeCheese]

One could argue that RA has been on the front foot in the court of public opinion. It already is a shit show and will get worse.

I disagree - if memory serves me correctly, all of RA's statements (except the one announcing the rejection of the Tarneit proposal) have been a direct response to one put out by the Rebels. The difference in use of language is also a reasonable indicator of the intent (i.e., the Rebels using more emotive language, as evidenced by today's statement).

This of course isn't surprising, and both Rebels and RA are going to push their own interests - and yes, the disappointing shit show is just beginning.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Ok, and what then? Who is going to play for them?

More importantly, if there is a $30m judgement against RA, who will they play against?

Because RA will be insolvent, there won't be any distributions to Super Rugby teams or member unions and there won't be any pro rugby in this country

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

can these directors go away already?
only harming the game to save their reps. they did a terrible job. the club failed.

 

[Rebel man]

More importantly, if there is a $30m judgement against RA, who will they play against?

Because RA will be insolvent, there won't be any distributions to Super Rugby teams or member unions and there won't be any pro rugby in this country

Who cares? This attitude is ridiculous, you have no rights to take legal action because even if you are vindicated it will hurt the game.

So you believe that if there is enough evidence that the court would see fit to find in favour of the Rebels and award them a $30m settlement the directors should just shut up go away and pay the ATO out of their own pockets?

 

[Slim 293]

And besides, the Rebels' former directors don't really care about the Rebels, or rugby in Victoria anyways...

 

[Rebel man]

And besides, the Rebels' former directors don't really care about the Rebels, or rugby in Victoria anyways...

Yeah and RA has the best interests of Victoria in mind. Good one champ

 

[Braveheart81]

Did you read the statement? It alleges that they were well aware of the financial situation

I'm unsure what that has to do with the Corps Act.

@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

Yeah, if they can prove that they would potentially have a case. That said I would be absolutely stupefied if anyone with enough authority at Rugby Australia had put in writing that they were willing to cover the external debts of the Rebels. I find it very hard to believe that would have happened.

Ultimately here though we're talking about separate entities.

If entity A (Rebels) owes a whole lot of money to the ATO and entity B (RA) owes entity A some money, entity B isn't liable for that debt to the ATO. Now they might still be liable for that debt to entity A.

Rugby Australia were a creditor when the Rebels were dissolved so I find it hard to understand how the Rebels directors are going to prove that there was a debt owing by RA to the Rebels.

 

[Braveheart81]

So you believe that if there is enough evidence that the court would see fit to find in favour of the Rebels and award them a $30m settlement the directors should just shut up go away and pay the ATO out of their own pockets?

I don't think it's going to get anywhere near that far.

From the Rebels' directors perspective they materially improve their position if RA gets advice that defending any significant court action is going to cost them several million and they are unlikely to be able to recover their costs and the most cost effective way forward would be to settle for a couple of million on a no liability basis.

The Rebels directors have very little to lose but plenty to gain. RA loses out of this process regardless of what happens. The reality is going the distance in court and winning is likely to be the second worst financial outcome for them not far behind losing and having to pay some damages.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

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

Not necessarily. I just think it’s personal vendetta and self interest now instead of actually saving the Melbourne Rebels. If they could be rid of them and the debt I think they’d be happy.