Rebels3
Jim Lenehan (48)
'If' true and the government is to get heavily involved, i believe it will be game set and match for who will be the team to remain. Especially with the government involved.
Rebels 2017
- Thread starter Highlander35
- Start date
- Status
'If' true and the government is to get heavily involved, i believe it will be game set and match for who will be the team to remain. Especially with the government involved.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
Return of the Axemen falls into place with that as well.
One very valid criticism of Imperium for mine is the relative lack of investment in Club Rugby, and their contingent in the NRC. While it's only my perspective, I have felt that the average of age of non-Super players selected in the Rising side has trended younger and younger each year: and as such, used as a vehicle for Rebels recruitment and youth development rather than a competition in and of itself, as well as a reward for strong performers in the Shield.
Axemen seem like another Olive Branch set up to bring the Victorian Government into the system, being that vehicle for reward and development of Victorian Coaches and players, that the Rebels aren't interested in recruiting, or Club players that aren't interested in pursuing a fully pro career.
One very valid criticism of Imperium for mine is the relative lack of investment in Club Rugby, and their contingent in the NRC. While it's only my perspective, I have felt that the average of age of non-Super players selected in the Rising side has trended younger and younger each year: and as such, used as a vehicle for Rebels recruitment and youth development rather than a competition in and of itself, as well as a reward for strong performers in the Shield.
Axemen seem like another Olive Branch set up to bring the Victorian Government into the system, being that vehicle for reward and development of Victorian Coaches and players, that the Rebels aren't interested in recruiting, or Club players that aren't interested in pursuing a fully pro career.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
...the Melbourne Rebels’ future looks pretty secure...
...Our spies tell us negotiations are well advanced between Cox’s Imperium group, the ARU and the Victorian Government about shifting the licence back to the VRU.
...the businessman is apparently open to exiting the financially-draining sports ownership game if a deal can be struck with the VRU, who are backed by the government....
...The ARU would have to approve but we’re told they back the proposal because it would involve Imperium dropping litigation against the ARU for damages of them being caught up in the Super Rugby axe saga.
Tex
Greg Davis (50)
Gracias. Mates, I don't give a fig about who owns it as long as we come through this with a viable team.
In terms of governance alignment and better linkages with club-land there are many things to like about a VRU and Victorian Government consortium. Both sides of politics would be on board, as sports management and hosting major events seems to be the sole olive branch in the partisan games played out of Spring St.
In terms of governance alignment and better linkages with club-land there are many things to like about a VRU and Victorian Government consortium. Both sides of politics would be on board, as sports management and hosting major events seems to be the sole olive branch in the partisan games played out of Spring St.
amirite
Chilla Wilson (44)
In 2014 it was run so well, lots of connection and great online content. That's the year they obviously backed Sefa in. I believe Imperium was running the show then.
Then they stopped. The effort was probably not deemed worthy of the reward.
GoMelbRebels
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Imperium didn't take over until mid-2015?
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
Yeah, that was the timeline I had in my head. Excellent integration at all levels in 2014, then a clear separation between Imperium backed Projects (Super Rugby, U20s and Rising as Rebels Development) and non-professional Victorian Rugby.
Tex
Greg Davis (50)
The biggest what-if, for me, was if they'd passed on Cipriani and O'Connor. Spurned the glitzy lights and committed to a proper club build, centred on culture and with a recruitment strategy that factored in a Sydney Swans-esque 'no dickheads' policy.
Spent the big bucks on community engagement and development, rather than billboards, free tickets and wanker 5/8s.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
I am confused. A large part of this thread, and about half the Future for Super Rugby thread has been about how the Rebels were safe from the cut because they were privately owned, and now the story seems to be that they are safe because they will soon be VRU/Vic Govt owned. Which is the true situation?
For those putting their faith in the postulated Government ownership model, I think there could be thin ice around if the whole shebang isn't providing an economic benefit for the State.
For those putting their faith in the postulated Government ownership model, I think there could be thin ice around if the whole shebang isn't providing an economic benefit for the State.
D
daz
Guest
Gotta be honest lads, I'm with Tex on this; I don't give a rats who owns us and what secret arrangement shit is happening in the background.
I just want to turn up and watch my team play on the weekend every year, and while I was pretty confident Cox wouldn't throw us under the bus, being active in 2018 is looking very likely indeed.
If all this is true, Cox has played it beautifully. He exits with cash, and the team remains.
I just want to turn up and watch my team play on the weekend every year, and while I was pretty confident Cox wouldn't throw us under the bus, being active in 2018 is looking very likely indeed.
If all this is true, Cox has played it beautifully. He exits with cash, and the team remains.
amirite
Chilla Wilson (44)
Yeah it's weird, probably just spinning a yarn.
I'm interested in what happened to the Bob Dwyer/Rocky Elsom led 'consortium'.
Anyway, a positive story is a positive story. Much like Daz, any outcome involving existing is a positive one.
Tex
Greg Davis (50)
The Swans spent a couple of decades in Sydney before they adopted that no-dickheads policy.
You know, I've got a massive sweet spot for Capper. He's so far beyond the stratosphere of sanity it's actually endearing. A genuine no holds barred loon.
swingpass
Peter Sullivan (51)
i hate to quote myself but from an earlier post regarding the dropping of mediation. part of a package deal and as Daz posted, perhaps a win/win for him and the Rebels
"^^^^^ or as a "quid pro quo" for the ARU's "your'e safe, provided you don't rock the boat" versus "kick up a stink and your'e gone and we will see you in court"
like everyone else i'm just guessing, but why would the ARU hide the statement in the bottom of another press release ?"
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Or, maybe, he exits with little cash but is saved the very large, very high risk new $ investment he knows would certainly be required to rebuild the Rebels so as to have any chance of a financially stabilising on-field and business success by (say) 2020. The negative cash flow needing to be financed would last through at least 3 years and the ARU subsidy is tapering off every year now.
I have long argued here that those sobering forward financial requirements realities were very likely to bring Cox to either (a) searching for a late 2017 exit scenario or (b) legally manoeuvring to force the ARU to provide a far higher level of (for him) risk mitigating cash subsidy every year from 2018 and for many years to come thereafter.
- Status