Melbourne Rebels 2024

[Tomthumb]

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

The same plonkers that buggered up the Commonwealth games bid?

 

[PhilClinton]

So now that RA have launched a counter suit, does that mean they’re telling the truth?

If we use Rebel Man logic, anyone confident enough to take someone to court must have a strong case.

But they can’t both be right, can they?

 

[Rebel man]

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

Their argument has holes in it. If the earliest possible date given of the Rebels being insolvent is 31/12/18 how could RA cancel their license and ceased payments to them from 01/07/18? Do they own a Time Machine?

 

[JRugby2]

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.

Not even close with this one

 

[LeCheese]

Their argument has holes in it. If the earliest possible date given of the Rebels being insolvent is 31/12/18 how could RA cancel their license and ceased payments to them from 01/07/18? Do they own a Time Machine?

It isn't a coincidence that 01/07/18 is the start of the first new financial year since the Rebels Directors were given the keys. It makes the approximations a tad easier. As per RA's statement, the implication is that MRRU was deceptive from inception, not that they were insolvent from 01/07.

 

[Rebel man]

It isn't a coincidence that 01/07/18 is the start of the first new financial year since the Rebels Directors were given the keys. It makes the approximations a tad easier. As per RA's statement, the implication is that MRRU was deceptive from inception, not that they were insolvent from 01/07.

Yet the grounds they gave for not making those payments were around solvency. So how could they stop payments 6 months before they became insolvent?

 

[LeCheese]

Yet the grounds they gave for not making those payments were around solvency. So how could they stop payments 6 months before they became insolvent?

No - the stated grounds pertain to misleading and deceptive conduct, without which RA would not have granted MRRU the license and, therefore, never have paid them the stated amount of ~$35m.

 

[Rebel man]

So now that RA have launched a counter suit, does that mean they’re telling the truth?

If we use Rebel Man logic, anyone confident enough to take someone to court must have a strong case.

But they can’t both be right, can they?

All I said is we can’t blindly accept RA’s versions of events. But it was funny that this time yesterday launching legal action was proof the the Rebels directors didn’t have the best interest of Victorian rugby, the Rebels or Australian money at heart. So is RA’s own legal action then proof that they don’t act with the best interests of Australian rugby at heart?

 

[Rebel man]

No - the stated grounds pertain to misleading and deceptive conduct, without which RA would not have granted MRRU the license and, therefore, never have paid them the stated amount of ~$35m.

Around the clubs solvency. If they were insolvent for another 6 months than by claiming they were at that point in time they were not misleading RA. RA just wants to add the extra year to the legal action so they can seek 35m and not 30m it’s just one up man ship

 

[drewprint]

All I said is we can’t blindly accept RA’s versions of events. But it was funny that this time yesterday launching legal action was proof the the Rebels directors didn’t have the best interest of Victorian rugby, the Rebels or Australian money at heart. So is RA’s own legal action then proof that they don’t act with the best interests of Australian rugby at heart?

You're totally right. If RA had the best interests of Australian rugby at heart, they wouldn't defend themselves and countersue. They'd roll over, bankrupt the game, and pay a small fortune to those absolutely inept fucking dunces that make up the Rebels leadership team and help them dodge their obligations to the ATO.

 

[drewprint]

This will all head to a settlement of some kind. With zero admission of guilt from either party. But free and easy cash for the Rebels directors, which is the exact outcome they want here anyway.

 

[LeCheese]

Around the clubs solvency. If they were insolvent for another 6 months than by claiming they were at that point in time they were not misleading RA. RA just wants to add the extra year to the legal action so they can seek 35m and not 30m it’s just one up man ship

Incorrect again - they are not claiming they were insolvent an additional 6mo, RA are claiming the MRRU were misleading and deceptive regarding their ability to remain solvent.

 

[Rebel man]

You're totally right. If RA had the best interests of Australian rugby at heart, they wouldn't defend themselves and countersue. They'd roll over, bankrupt the game, and pay a small fortune to those absolutely inept fucking dunces that make up the Rebels leadership team and help them dodge their obligations to the ATO.

lol there is a difference between defending themselves and bringing about legal action

 

[Rebel man]

Incorrect again - they are not claiming they were insolvent an additional 6mo, RA are claiming the MRRU were misleading and deceptive regarding their ability to remain solvent.

So they told them they were solvent when they were. That’s pretty misleading

 

[LeCheese]

So they told them they were solvent when they were. That’s pretty misleading

Sigh... Yet again, no. I'm sure the exact conduct will come out in the wash, but it could be anything relating to how the MRRU presented their business plan, cash flow, financial records, debts and loans, etc.

 

[Rob42]

I'm sure the exact conduct will come out in the wash...

The most frustrating part of all this is that much money will be burned, and no, we'll never hear the full story, because as mentioned, there will be a settlement before anyone needs to prove their case.

 

[stoff]

That’s from a long time agree we prevented from recruiting from the existing franchises. It was a botch by RA - they should have learnt from well run organisations on how to do it.

 

[stoff]

Except it's probably going to cost you millions of dollars to properly defend it.

RA could be the best run organisation in the world and defending this legal action is still going to cost them a lot of money.

Motion 1 will be security of costs.

 

[SouthernX]

Probably can point back to the rebels demise the moment the South Africans dropped out of super rugby and foxsports wanting nothing to do with our super rugby anymore.

newscorp have always been hands on approach with the leagues they support. They propped up broncos and storm and back in the day there would have been a commercial interest having super rugby team in Melbourne.

I don’t think Stan channel 9 really cares about growing our game. We are constantly playing second fiddle to the NRL. So when foxsports left and we got dudded on our tv contract they really didn’t want to be involved in the heavy lifting like Foxsports was and so RA has had to pivot with this idea of winding up the rebels

 

[LeCheese]

The most frustrating part of all this is that much money will be burned, and no, we'll never hear the full story, because as mentioned, there will be a settlement before anyone needs to prove their case.

Agreed, but even still, I'd say it's pretty likely a few rugby journos might be getting a couple of exclusives from anonymous sources airing the other party's dirty laundry.