Rebels 2017

[ChargerWA]

I'm smiling too, because I read that as totally positioning for a payout.

But the ironic thing is that it seems they have written agreement with both the Force due to our bailout last year and with the Rebels due to the ownership agreement. Do they have the same written agreement with any of the 3 "safe" teams?

 

[Shiggins]

Can't you rebel mob just bow out and do what's best for Aussie rugby.

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

 

[GoMelbRebels]

Ah, no. Kinda evident in our name.

 

[Highlander35]

Can't you rebel mob just bow out and do what's best for Aussie rugby.

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

No thanks.

Happy for your blokes to take the moral victory though.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Shiggins]

Hahaha it's good to have a joke about it

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

 

[BLR]

Ah, no. Kinda evident in our name.

You know what would be reaaaaally rebellious. If you rebelled against the whole notion of Super Rugby.

 

[mst]

So the statement asserts that cutting the Rebels (any other franchise?) is unconstitutional but doesn't anywhere I can see give detail of how or in which aspects such a move is unconstitutional. Can anyone elaborate?

The situation grew even murkier yesterday when club officials brought to light the section of the ARU constitution that governs who is entitled to vote as a member of the company and the procedure for expelling a member.
Under section 3.2 (a) of the ARU constitution, the voting members comprise the state and territory rugby unions, the Super Rugby licensees and the Rugby Union Players Association. At present, the Rebels are a voting member but the Force, having been taken over by the ARU, are not.
But it is section 3.2 (d) that is giving some comfort to the Melbourne team as the ARU moves to axe one of its Super Rugby teams: “The Company may expel or suspend a Voting Member by a resolution passed at a general meeting of the company by a unanimous vote of all voting members, other than the Voting Member proposed to be expelled …”
In the event that the ARU wished to expel the Rebels, the Victorian Rugby Union, which is also a member, would surely vote against it. And given that the constitution requires a unanimous vote, theoretically the ballot would be defeated.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...s/news-story/279fc79746c1d03ab465d1bbb0f1c826

 

[Brumby Runner]

Thanks MST. So, if I've got it right, it's not intrinsically unconstitutional so much as probably very unlikely under the constitution that the Rebels will be cut.

In relation to the financial loss claims, it would seem to me that any amount the Rebels owners might seek for the confession that a five-franchise system wasn't sustainable would be discounted to account for all the top up and supplementary funds provided by the ARU over the years. Might be hard to actually make a substantial claim in this regard.

The value of the license probably has been eroded by the poor processes leading to a reduction in the franchises, but it would also probably have been eroded by the poor performances of the franchise over the period in question.

In no way do I support the way the ARU have conducted itself in this matter, nor do I agree that a franchise necessarily needs to be cut, but I am not altogether convinced the ARU will be facing huge compensation payouts in the event the Rebels are the organisation to get the chop.

Just my thoughts on the statement that came out yesterday.

 

[swingpass]

i think there are two seperate issues. firstly the one concerning whether the ARU can cut or chop any entity without a unanimous vote. the Rebels/VRU advice is it cant, see story in Australian on Thursday.

secondly it possible/highly likely that the ARU, in selling the licence to Imperium, have contravened the Trade Practices act. ( not absolving Cox from doing due diligence by the way )

i'm still not convinced that these proceedings are to save the Rebels or merely improve Cox's buyout position.

as i have said before, the ARU will be pragmatic and make the choice that costs them the least amount of money, nothing to do with merit or rugby.
i remain hopeful i'll have a team to support next year and even more hopeful a new coach.

 

[blues recovery]

Thanks MST. So, if I've got it right, it's not intrinsically unconstitutional so much as probably very unlikely under the constitution that the Rebels will be cut.

In relation to the financial loss claims, it would seem to me that any amount the Rebels owners might seek for the confession that a five-franchise system wasn't sustainable would be discounted to account for all the top up and supplementary funds provided by the ARU over the years. Might be hard to actually make a substantial claim in this regard.

The value of the license probably has been eroded by the poor processes leading to a reduction in the franchises, but it would also probably have been eroded by the poor performances of the franchise over the period in question.

In no way do I support the way the ARU have conducted itself in this matter, nor do I agree that a franchise necessarily needs to be cut, but I am not altogether convinced the ARU will be facing huge compensation payouts in the event the Rebels are the organisation to get the chop.

Just my thoughts on the statement that came out yesterday.

Your talking about losses that were incurred under different ownership structures.
In my view the current owner will be able to argue that but for the incompetence of ARU and SAANZAR he was well on the way to establishing a viable business . Let alone that the ARU now make the amazing statement that they have held the belief for sometime that 5 teams wasn't sustainable.
Ok thanks I must have been out of the room when that was mentioned during purchase of the licence discussions .
Knowing some of the legal brains involved around the Rebels reckon they will be having a field day .

 

[blues recovery]

[quote="swingpass, post: 922999, member: 9060
i'm still not convinced that these proceedings are to save the Rebels or merely improve Cox's buyout position.

as i have said before, the ARU will be pragmatic and make the choice that costs them the least amount of money, nothing to do with merit or rugby.
i remain hopeful i'll have a team to support next year and even more hopeful a new coach.[/quote]
I admit I have believed all along Cox was just positioning himself for the best departure outcome however the fact that he now goes to lengths of thanking various politicians for their support and talks about the broader Rugby community has me undertaking a wee rethink .
Wouldn't be great for your business rep if you use the political support just to get the best payout figure .

 

[ChargerWA]

The situation grew even murkier yesterday when club officials brought to light the section of the ARU constitution that governs who is entitled to vote as a member of the company and the procedure for expelling a member.
Under section 3.2 (a) of the ARU constitution, the voting members comprise the state and territory rugby unions, the Super Rugby licensees and the Rugby Union Players Association. At present, the Rebels are a voting member but the Force, having been taken over by the ARU, are not.
But it is section 3.2 (d) that is giving some comfort to the Melbourne team as the ARU moves to axe one of its Super Rugby teams: “The Company may expel or suspend a Voting Member by a resolution passed at a general meeting of the company by a unanimous vote of all voting members, other than the Voting Member proposed to be expelled …”
In the event that the ARU wished to expel the Rebels, the Victorian Rugby Union, which is also a member, would surely vote against it. And given that the constitution requires a unanimous vote, theoretically the ballot would be defeated.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...s/news-story/279fc79746c1d03ab465d1bbb0f1c826

But with that in mind, the ARU would have to get everyone to unanimously agree to expel the WARU before they try to expel the Force, because surely the WARU would do the same as the VRU. It would put the other vote holders in an uncomfortable position to have to get rid of a member union to be rid of that states super license.

 

[GoMelbRebels]

[quote="swingpass, post: 922999, member: 9060
i'm still not convinced that these proceedings are to save the Rebels or merely improve Cox's buyout position.

as i have said before, the ARU will be pragmatic and make the choice that costs them the least amount of money, nothing to do with merit or rugby.
i remain hopeful i'll have a team to support next year and even more hopeful a new coach.

I admit I have believed all along Cox was just positioning himself for the best departure outcome however the fact that he now goes to lengths of thanking various politicians for their support and talks about the broader Rugby community has me undertaking a wee rethink .
Wouldn't be great for your business rep if you use the political support just to get the best payout figure .[/quote]
It's also very likely Cox is very much out to save the Rebels but like any good business man he is putting in contingency plans if the ARU decide to drop us.

 

[swingpass]

But with that in mind, the ARU would have to get everyone to unanimously agree to expel the WARU before they try to expel the Force, because surely the WARU would do the same as the VRU. It would put the other vote holders in an uncomfortable position to have to get rid of a member union to be rid of that states super license.

different situation, the ARU are not expelling either the WARU or VRU, as an entity within the ARU company, the Force no longer exist because the ARU "own" them, the Rebels exist as their own entity. so in effect to cull the Force is constitutionally easier, the ARU already have rights to the licence.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Please enlighten me as to just how the situation for the Rebels and the Force is constitutionally different. It seems to me that the ARU has the constitutional power to withdraw a license, but that action must have the unanimous support of all voting parties. In the absence of anyone quoting the particular section of the constitution that debars the ARU specifically from cutting the Rebels, I believe both franchises are in essentially the same boat. And it would only take either the VRU or the WARU, who both have voting rights, to put a spanner in the works.

 

[mst]

the voting members comprise the state and territory rugby unions, the Super Rugby licensees and the Rugby Union Players Association.

IMHO RUPA may be the key to all of this and the thorn in the ARU's side.

I wonder if Cox and the Force can get on the same page (although I believe the motivations are different) and play the long game and consider an injunction against the ARU to hold off scrutiny until the end of the season. The grounds of that until the conclusion of the season their cases are only snapshots and potentially unrepresentative could be sufficient. The financials are linked to performance and that could be turned based on the back-half of a seasons performances.

I must say that I am a little suspicious of Cox's position but he would be foolish not be pushing the business angle that the ARU have now damaged the product they sold him to a level that now is unrecoverable in the short term and needs compensation regardless or a payout. This could leave the ARU two franchises they own.

One thing that this has done for the ARU has killed off the idea of private ownership and investment (from outside of the game that is - not the usual nepotism stuff). Who would want to trust or deal with the ARU after this?

 

[KevinO]

Please enlighten me as to just how the situation for the Rebels and the Force is constitutionally different. It seems to me that the ARU has the constitutional power to withdraw a license, but that action must have the unanimous support of all voting parties. In the absence of anyone quoting the particular section of the constitution that debars the ARU specifically from cutting the Rebels, I believe both franchises are in essentially the same boat. And it would only take either the VRU or the WARU, who both have voting rights, to put a spanner in the works.

The Rebels and VRU have a vote. So as long as they are in agreement to keep the Rebels the ARU can't get over the line.

There is only one vote in the west and that can be excluded, one vote is allowed to be removed.

So while they both have votes, the Rebels/VRU actually have two votes so will always have one counted.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

[Brumby Runner]

The Rebels and VRU have a vote. So as long as they are in agreement to keep the Rebels the ARU can't get over the line.

There is only one vote in the west and that can be excluded, one vote is allowed to be removed.

So while they both have votes, the Rebels/VRU actually have two votes so will always have one counted.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

Thank you KO. So it really doesn't need to be a unanimous vote at all? Silly to apparently use the term in the constitution?

 

[KevinO]

Thank you KO. So it really doesn't need to be a unanimous vote at all? Silly to apparently use the term in the constitution?

It does of all the remaining voting party. So you can remove the Rebels from the vote but not both the Rebels and VRU. So you will never get unanimous vote for Melbourne. The RUPA can also play a key role. Say the Rebels, VRU, RUPA all vote for the Force to remain as well the ARU is screwed.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

[KevinO]

And RUPA is against the removal of any team so dont know how the ARU plans on getting anything done

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk