Melbourne Rebels 2024

[Rebel man]

Two years after it's alleged they began trading while insolvent?

1 year as the administrators say they may have trading while insolvent from 31/12/2018.

The cost associated to keeping the team interstate during covid is also relevant as it’s unfair for one side to suffer the costs of keeping the game going

 

[Rebel man]

I don’t think it’s as simple as many making it out to be on either side. RA can still be liable for many aspects of the Rebels demise due to the controlling nature they have over the game and all the entities. The Rebels are provided a grant for product supplied via Super Rugby which RA happily negotiate on their behalf. Player contracts need to be cleared by RA, sponsors, competition sanctioned, matches sanctioned etc. there is a whole bunch of areas they help control and therefore have a responsibility through a de facto type relationship. They wouldn’t be able to negotiate a PE deal on the Super Rugby teams behalf if they didn’t have some legal responsibility.

To be honest both parties as bad as each other. Actually think RA will be sweating bricks, no matter how devious the Rebels board might be. There should be financial competence between the two bodies to have checks and balances to prevent where we are at.

Ignorance of the situation can still be considered malpractice.

100% this

 

[Dctarget]

RA did not 'lose' $35 million, it wasn't stolen. They financed a rugby team in Melbourne for 6 years. Don't know why they're bandying about this figure. Not like they can claim it in damages.

 

[Mick The Munch]

RA did not 'lose' $35 million, it wasn't stolen. They financed a rugby team in Melbourne for 6 years. Don't know why they're bandying about this figure. Not like they can claim it in damages.

It is a strange statement isn't it.

 

[Mick The Munch]

“Had RA not been misled or deceived, it would not have provided MRRU with a participation licence and thus not lost in excess of $35 million that was paid to MRRU since at least 1 July 2018.”

Is this referring to participation grants that are provided to all teams?

If so, that’s an incredibly misleading statement. If that’s considered “lost” then all money granted to all Super Rugby teams is “lost”.

 

[Braveheart81]

RA are saying that the MRRU directors misled them and if they had been aware of various things across those years they wouldn't have let the licence continue and thus wouldn't have made any of the payments.

 

[Dctarget]

Anyway this fucking sucks. We can't afford anything right now let alone a huge litigation battle.

 

[fatprop]

Serve being returned

https://www.theroar.com.au/2024/10/10/disappointed-inaccurate-misleading-rugby-australia-slams-rebels-after-being-sued-for-30m-readies-for-battle/

Full Rugby Australia statement

Rugby Australia is disappointed by the Melbourne Rebels Rugby Union Pty Ltd’s inaccurate and misleading comments in the media and rejects the MRRU directors’ ambit claims and attempts to shift blame for their financial mismanagement.
RA reiterates that it has complied with all its contractual obligations to MRRU.
RA is preparing a counterclaim against MRRU and its directors for misleading and deceptive conduct concerning the financial position of MRRU dating back to 2018. Based on that misleading and deceptive conduct, RA granted MRRU a participation licence for the Super Rugby competition and provided associated funding and payments to MRRU.
Had RA not been misled or deceived, it would not have provided MRRU with a participation licence and thus not lost in excess of $35 million that was paid to MRRU since at least 1 July 2018.
RA believes that the MRRU directors were knowingly concerned in and/or aided and abetted MRRU’s misleading and deceptive conduct.
Given the insolvency of MRRU, its directors placed it into voluntary administration on January 29, 2024.
The Administrator reported that MRRU had accumulated almost $23 million in debt prior to entering voluntary administration and noted that MRRU’s directors may have traded while insolvent from 31 December 2018, which is a breach of the Corporations Act.
The Administrator also stated that the reasons for the company’s financial challenges were a history of trading losses, lack of readily available alternative funding sources, an excessive cost structure compared to the underlying revenue base, and insufficient revenue generated from non-RA sources including membership, sponsorship and game day receipts.
RA was notified by the Administrator that the directors of MRRU had received ATO Director Penalty Notices. RA received a garnishee order from the ATO in December 2023. MRRU never informed RA of the Director Penalty Notices.
After MRRU was placed into administration, RA stepped in to fund all operations of the Melbourne Rebels in 2024, paying player and staff wages, and meeting all associated statutory obligations connected with those payments for the entirety of the 2024 Super Rugby Pacific season.
As the national governing body, RA will continue to do what is in the best interests of the game nationally and remains focussed on protecting and promoting rugby across Australia.

 

[JRugby2]

RA did not 'lose' $35 million, it wasn't stolen. They financed a rugby team in Melbourne for 6 years. Don't know why they're bandying about this figure. Not like they can claim it in damages.

They're basically saying that if the Rebs we're honest about their financial state they would've culled them earlier and not wasted the $35M. It's like they are applying the same logic the MRRU directors are with their - "You told us you had cash coming in so we spent it before we had it" argument from their statement.

 

[Dctarget]

They're basically saying that if the Rebs we're honest about their financial state they would've culled them earlier and not wasted the $35M. It's like they are applying the same logic the MRRU directors are with their - "You told us you had cash coming in so we spent it before we had it" argument from their statement.

RA's claim is nonsensical. They're just trying to throw big figures around. I agree that the MR board are fuckwits and should be held liable but this $35 million is fanciful and spurious.

 

[Mick The Munch]

They're basically saying that if the Rebs we're honest about their financial state they would've culled them earlier and not wasted the $35M. It's like they are applying the same logic the MRRU directors are with their - "You told us you had cash coming in so we spent it before we had it" argument from their statement.

If I remember right, they DID want to cull the Rebels, but there was something in the constitution that meant they couldn't.

 

[oztimmay]

RA's claim is nonsensical. They're just trying to throw big figures around. I agree that the MR board are fuckwits and should be held liable but this $35 million is fanciful and spurious.

The numbers have a bit of a dick measuring vibe about them. Oh look, mine is bigger than yours....

 

[Strewthcobber]

If I remember right, they DID want to cull the Rebels, but there was something in the constitution that meant they couldn't.

The VRU owned the licence at the time (sold back to them for $1), and hence RA couldn't axe one of their voting members. (The Force's licence was owned by RA)

When the Rebels brought the administrators in the licence reverted to RA, so they could weild the axe this time

 

[JRugby2]

RA's claim is nonsensical. They're just trying to throw big figures around. I agree that the MR board are fuckwits and should be held liable but this $35 million is fanciful and spurious.

Why? To me the claim fairly simple logic of if the Rebels are honest about their financial situation, RA wouldn't grant them a licence and therefore not the money on them.

No idea about the actual figure but the logic is the same whether its $35m or a dollar.

 

[Dctarget]

Why? To me the claim fairly simple logic of if the Rebels are honest about their financial situation, RA wouldn't grant them a licence and therefore not the money on them.

No idea about the actual figure but the logic is the same whether its $35m or a dollar.

If I didn't move to France I wouldn't have spent $10,000 on croissants.

The money was exchanged for a service being the Melbourne Rebels (whether that's a good investment is moot). RA knowingly and willingly parted with their money with no expectation of it back, it was a payment. The $23 million in debt is a better argument, if it's now been sprung on RA unawares by MRRU who misled and said they had no debt.

 

[Mick The Munch]

It's interesting re reading the MRRU statement - sounds very much like they have the Vic Govt support AND the consortium support in place.

Assuming the the MRRU lawyers wouldn't had to have a very tight case to be able to even mention those names, they must have some damning evidence

 

[Wilson]

RA did not 'lose' $35 million, it wasn't stolen. They financed a rugby team in Melbourne for 6 years. Don't know why they're bandying about this figure. Not like they can claim it in damages.

It might be part of it, but $35 million is a lot more than the participation grants over the period in question. That was somewhere between 21.2 and 26.8 million, depending on whether or not a grant was paid for 2024 and whether or not the 2020 grant was at the old 5.6 million or the new 3.9 million.

 

[Mick The Munch]

If I didn't move to France I wouldn't have spent $10,000 on croissants.

The money was exchanged for a service being the Melbourne Rebels (whether that's a good investment is moot). RA knowingly and willingly parted with their money with no expectation of it back, it was a payment. The $23 million in debt is a better argument, if it's now been sprung on RA unawares by MRRU who misled and said they had no debt.

Agree - did they get any money back from WA when they were loss making, or Tahs and Brumbies now, no?

 

[Tomthumb]

If I didn't move to France I wouldn't have spent $10,000 on croissants.

The money was exchanged for a service being the Melbourne Rebels (whether that's a good investment is moot). RA knowingly and willingly parted with their money with no expectation of it back, it was a payment. The $23 million in debt is a better argument, if it's now been sprung on RA unawares by MRRU who misled and said they had no debt

No, their argument is the money was only given due to misleading and inaccurate figures given to them from the Rebels

Maybe the least applicable analogy I’ve ever seen

 

[LeCheese]

It's interesting re reading the MRRU statement - sounds very much like they have the Vic Govt support AND the consortium support in place.

Assuming the the MRRU lawyers wouldn't had to have a very tight case to be able to even mention those names, they must have some damning evidence

Ehh I'm less sure - it's been worded very carefully to be able to be interpreted that way, but also provides no actual assurances of continued support. The Vic Govt mentions relate to historical support, while the backing of the consortium is somewhat added as a qualifier.

I have little doubt that both parties would be supportive of the Rebels return, however (the consortium especially so, seeing the Tarneit master plan seems a bit dead in the water as it stands...).