Melbourne Rebels 2024

[Rebel man]

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



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.

I appreciate your response. While not seeing any of the evidence and not being a lawyer at all I do believe it would be a difficult case.

I believe the issues with governance run a lot deeper than just the Rebels. My guess with the corporations act is that RA was fully aware they were trading while insolvent. What evidence can they provide? I don’t know. Yet one of the directors is a KC and practices in that area of law. I can’t see him perusing the case if he thought it had no hope at all.

If the rebels lose the case I will be critical of their decision to take action, but until there is a decision on the matter I will stand by their right to take legal action if they feel they have been wronged

 

[Rebel man]

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.

I just don’t like the attitude that if the Rebels directors feel like they have a case. That even if they have the evidence to win that case they shouldn’t be able to take action as it’s bad for the game. If they have been wronged by the game they shouldn’t suffer just to help the other sides stay afloat.

 

[LeCheese]

I believe the issues with governance run a lot deeper than just the Rebels. My guess with the corporations act is that RA was fully aware they were trading while insolvent. What evidence can they provide? I don’t know. Yet one of the directors is a KC and practices in that area of law. I can’t see him perusing the case if he thought it had no hope at all.

On this, and to Braveheart's point, he would understand that settlement could be seen as a very favourable option by RA - so, hypothetically speaking, even if he doesn't believe there's much possibility of a win, the chance of a settlement and recouping some cash for ATO debts could be very attractive. Once again, much to gain and not much to lose - especially if he has some mates doing a bit of pro bono work.

 

[mst]

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?

To what end? How does it help the game in general?

It may not be an ideal situation, not great for the game, but if successful with the damage to the game and future of rugby be worth it?

In some respects I would be tempted to do a part settlement and give the Rebels Directors what they want. Give them the apology their licence back, with the reinstated past conditions, including the old playing condition they play at AAMI park, no funding as they want financial control due to the governance issues, then watch them go tits up all by there own doing. At least it will end it.

 

[Rebel man]

On this, and to Braveheart's point, he would understand that settlement could be seen as a very favourable option by RA - so, hypothetically speaking, even if he doesn't believe there's much possibility of a win, the chance of a settlement and recouping some cash for ATO debts could be very attractive. Once again, much to gain and not much to lose - especially if he has some mates doing a bit of pro bono work.

But for a settlement there still has to be a level of wrong doing that they can prove. Do they have strong enough evidence to win maybe not, but that’s no different to the team on the park play 50 minutes of good rugby and 30 minutes of crap and hope it all works out

 

[Rebel man]

To what end? How does it help the game in general?

It may not be an ideal situation, not great for the game, but if successful with the damage to the game and future of rugby be worth it?

In some respects I would be tempted to do a part settlement and give the Rebels Directors what they want. Give them the apology their licence back, with the reinstated past conditions, including the old playing condition they play at AAMI park, no funding as they want financial control due to the governance issues, then watch them go tits up all by there own doing. At least it will end it.

Because if they are able to prosecute the case why should they be left personally liable for the debt?

 

[LeCheese]

But for a settlement there still has to be a level of wrong doing that they can prove. Do they have strong enough evidence to win maybe not, but that’s no different to the team on the park play 50 minutes of good rugby and 30 minutes of crap and hope it all works out

Someone feel free to correct me, but I don't think that's correct - so long as both parties agree to the settlement terms, it's happy days.

 

[Rebel man]

Someone feel free to correct me, but I don't think that's correct - so long as both parties agree to the settlement terms, it's happy days.

But RA won’t agree if there isn’t a case. If they had done everything by the book we wouldn’t be in this situation

 

[LeCheese]

But RA won’t agree if there isn’t a case. If they had done everything by the book we wouldn’t be in this situation

As Braveheart said, the settlement option is very likely to be cheaper than a dragged-out court battle - as it is for most civil cases - so it could be in their best interest to do so, regardless of whether they think they could win.

 

[Rebel man]

As Braveheart said, the settlement option is very likely to be cheaper than a dragged-out court battle - as it is for most civil cases - so it could be in their best interest to do so, regardless of whether they think they could win.

But for a case to be long and drawn out they have to be able to produce evidence to prosecute their case. If RA was 100% by the book and in the right then they would not take a settlement

 

[LeCheese]

But for a case to be long and drawn out they have to be able to produce evidence to prosecute their case. If RA was 100% by the book and in the right then they would not take a settlement

Unfortunately it is several degrees more complex than that

 

[Rebel man]

Unfortunately it is several degrees more complex than that

The court can award costs against the Rebels if they lose and they see the case baseless.

 

[Derpus]

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.

I don't really get the relevance of this. So RA thought they were about to sign a PE deal which would help smooth things over. That's not grounds upon which to continue trading insolvent.

 

[stoff]

But RA won’t agree if there isn’t a case. If they had done everything by the book we wouldn’t be in this situation

I’ve had plenty of cases where we paid even though we were right (builder, not lawyer). The cost of legals and organisational headspace outweighed a quick settlement.

 

[stoff]

The court can award costs against the Rebels if they lose and they see the case baseless.

Not if baseless, just if they lose. Also costs don’t cover real costs in most cases.

 

[Derpus]

In this case I don't see the point of a settlement unless it's to assist the directors to pay out/avoid their obligations to the ATO. If the Rebels board were serious about their desire to reinstate the Rebels a settlement would not achieve this goal.

Bad operators acting desperately to the further detriment of all the stupid fuckers involved (bar the lawyers).

 

[Rebel man]

Not if baseless, just if they lose. Also costs don’t cover real costs in most cases.

If the case is baseless they will lose the case

 

[Derpus]

If the case is baseless they will lose the case

Your faith in the law is admirable.

 

[Ignoto]

Rebel Man, have you ever stopped for a moment and looked at who you're spending so much time and effort defending?

These ex-directors absolutely destroyed your club and the lives that it touched from contractors, employees, players and fans. It wasn't just a one off oppsie, it was negligence for a number of years.

Who knows if RA have some level of culpability here, but Christ, you are directing all your effort into barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Rob42]

Any idea when this would actually get to court?