Rebels 2018

[lou75]

No it was this clause that sunk them:

Term means the period commencing on the Commencement Date and ending on the expiry date of the last of the SANZAR Broadcast Agreements (being 31 December 2020) or, subject to clause 2.4, if the last of the SANZAR Broadcast Agreements is terminated or renegotiated earlier as a result of the renegotiation of the commercial terms of a broadcast arrangement, such earlier date.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

if the last of the SANZAR Broadcast Agreements is terminated or renegotiated earlier = Broadcasting Rights Agreement is terminated or the payment of any material amount to the Joint Venture under such a Rights Agreement is reduced, suspended, altered --------these both refer to the Broadcast Agreement being terminated or renegotiated - and this is a trigger for the ARU to cut a license IMHO

 

[stoff]

if the last of the SANZAR Broadcast Agreements is terminated or renegotiated earlier = Broadcasting Rights Agreement is terminated or the payment of any material amount to the Joint Venture under such a Rights Agreement is reduced, suspended, altered --------these both refer to the Broadcast Agreement being terminated or renegotiated - and this is a trigger for the ARU to cut a license IMHO

The legal argument is here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2017/1174.html, but the point is that the force are gone because the last broadcast deal was renegotiated, not terminated. If the current agreement was terminated I would agree with you, but it wasn’t. In the case of the participation agreement (which I have never seen any terms of online to date, so am assuming your source is reliable), as opposed to the Alliance Agreement, the renegotiation must be detrimental to the ARU’s ability to continue in the competition, which it wasn’t.

Edit: also if it was the case the Force legal team who had previously operated under this arrangement would have been trumpeting this from the rooftops.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lou75]

I was only pointing out that the ARU chose to axe the Force, but could have axed any one of the clubs - I'm not sure that the Force legal team could have used this clause to save itself

 

[BLR]

Whatever the case, you will probably find coming out of the senate enquiry Imperium had a put option to give the Rebels to the ARU but the ARU let it be passed onto the VRU for whatever reasons eg. to protect the boys. So agreements or not there is a strong possibility the ARU had every right to cut the Rebels but didn't. At the very least the ARU could have blocked the transfer of the license to the VRU as even the VRU said the ARU agreed to it.

 

[Highlander35]

The debt free put option to the ARU, 100% exists but would the put option have not been voluntary on behalf of Imperium rather than something the ARU can force.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[stoff]

I was only pointing out that the ARU chose to axe the Force, but could have axed any one of the clubs - I'm not sure that the Force legal team could have used this clause to save itself

But based on what you quoted the ARU couldn’t axe anyone unless the broadcast agreement was terminated (not renegotiated), or it was renegotiated with payments reduced to a point the ARU felt it could not continue. As the broadcast deal was renegotiated for the same money, neither of these triggers occurred.

At the end of the day, a perhaps naively trusting Force/WARU management negotiated a shit deal and are now gone because of it.

The put option may have required ARU approval, but we don’t know what the terms around that approval were. The ARU may have been bound to approve it. Maybe they weren’t. Maybe it is the huge conspiracy the force claim it is. Maybe it’s not. Ironically the outcome from the heavily WA centric senate inquiry could be the removal of some of the more questionable characters from the board of the VRU/Rebels.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[amirite]

Whatever the case, you will probably find coming out of the senate enquiry Imperium had a put option to give the Rebels to the ARU but the ARU let it be passed onto the VRU for whatever reasons eg. to protect the boys. So agreements or not there is a strong possibility the ARU had every right to cut the Rebels but didn't. At the very least the ARU could have blocked the transfer of the license to the VRU as even the VRU said the ARU agreed to it.

Out of interest, what are you basing this on?

The deal to transfer to the VRU was based on a 3rd party paying out the debt (rumoured to be the Vic Government).

I doubt the 3rd party (whoever they are) comes on board if the license is being transferred just to be cut.

 

[Boof1050]

Ironically the outcome from the heavily WA centric senate inquiry could be the removal of some of the more questionable characters from the board of the VRU/Rebels.

Stoff for your guys sake I hope they do get cleaned out. We got dealt a shifty blow but we're lucky because we at least have another potentially bigger opportunity to play pro rugby potentially without the constraints of the shifty bastards who canned us. You fellas on the other hand if you stick with the same honchos come 2020 or earlier are going to be where we are now. And I don't think Twiggy would be too keen at bailing the boys out!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

 

[lou75]

actually, Boof, the ARU is obligated to field four teams now, so the money tap will continue to pour into the Rebels coffers and the new Board with North and Gray will be able to direct their CEO Stephenson - who is being advised by Rob Clarke - how to direct that money - maybe some more consultancy fees / management fees / legal fees oh what fun to be had if you are inside the MRRU tent

 

[amirite]

Ironically the outcome from the heavily WA centric senate inquiry could be the removal of some of the more questionable characters from the board of the VRU/Rebels.

Stoff for your guys sake I hope they do get cleaned out. We got dealt a shifty blow but we're lucky because we at least have another potentially bigger opportunity to play pro rugby potentially without the constraints of the shifty bastards who canned us. You fellas on the other hand if you stick with the same honchos come 2020 or earlier are going to be where we are now. And I don't think Twiggy would be too keen at bailing the boys out!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, most of the board are from Harlequins, but other than that I've never found them to be that shifty.

These board members have all been genuine club volunteers, and are very recognisable faces around the grounds.

At the end of the day, if the ARU had their fingers all over Vic rugby there wouldn't have been a Force because that license would've found a way into Victorian hands. It didn't, because WA's bid was better all those years ago, and rightfully so.

Unfortunately, in 2017 the ARU saw a need to get rid of a team (and the financial numbers do stack up, rugby is over leveraged) and the Force got the flick due to the structure of license ownership and the fact that the ARU very much answer to Fox Sports (who see WA games consistently underperform in ratings).

We need to stop fishing for grand conspiracy when there was very likely only incompetence (which a creative spin-person could pitch as 'over-optimism'). It was a sad day, still is, but people are getting trapped in revisionist history and bold heresy.

My money is little to nothing comes from this enquiry, other than some people looking silly. It's certainly the likely outcome.

 

[GoMelbRebels]

So, how good is the Rebels squad looking for 2018?! Sorry, I started talking about Rugby.

 

[amirite]

So, how good is the Rebels squad looking for 2018?! Sorry, I started talking about Rugby.

I don't like that attitude - forums are places for discussion. Don't stilt it.

On your point, very interesting to see Ainsley and Faulkner pack down in the same Wallaby front row yesterday. Obviously there was method in the Rebels' madness of signing both of them.

 

[GoMelbRebels]

I don't like that attitude - forums are places for discussion. Don't stilt it.

On your point, very interesting to see Ainsley and Faulkner pack down in the same Wallaby front row yesterday. Obviously there was method in the Rebels' madness of signing both of them.

My point was it was stilted already. Well, I felt it was.

 

[lou75]

Well, most of the board are from Harlequins, but other than that I've never found them to be that shifty.

These board members have all been genuine club volunteers, and are very recognisable faces around the grounds.

At the end of the day, if the ARU had their fingers all over Vic rugby there wouldn't have been a Force because that license would've found a way into Victorian hands. It didn't, because WA's bid was better all those years ago, and rightfully so.

Unfortunately, in 2017 the ARU saw a need to get rid of a team (and the financial numbers do stack up, rugby is over leveraged) and the Force got the flick due to the structure of license ownership and the fact that the ARU very much answer to Fox Sports (who see WA games consistently underperform in ratings).

We need to stop fishing for grand conspiracy when there was very likely only incompetence (which a creative spin-person could pitch as 'over-optimism'). It was a sad day, still is, but people are getting trapped in revisionist history and bold heresy.

My money is little to nothing comes from this enquiry, other than some people looking silly. It's certainly the likely outcome.

I refer to the VRU/Rebels Boards, and I am not necessarily saying they are shifty, what I am saying is that these same folk were in charge of selling the MRRU to Cox and his group of companies and that did not end so well - apparently no due diligence - secret payments to him (can't think why they would approve this ) with no performance hurdles (according to Senator Reynolds) and now these same folk are back steering things again. I think that is a major concern with regards to good management, strategy, leadership and governance

 

[TOCC]

Who sold the Rebels to Cox, the VRU or the ARU?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[lou75]

The ARU were in effective control of the MRRU and drove the sale. The VRU actually owned the MRRU and signed off on the deal

 

[Tex]

I don't like that attitude - forums are places for discussion. Don't stilt it.

On your point, very interesting to see Ainsley and Faulkner pack down in the same Wallaby front row yesterday. Obviously there was method in the Rebels' madness of signing both of them.

Forums are places that for discussion, so in that spirit may I recommend there be a very specific thread for the various axe-grinders, naysayers, conspiracy theorists and genuine corporate governance nerds to air their laundry in, rather than in the single thread for discussion about the Rebels team in the 2018 competition.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[GoMelbRebels]

Forums are places that for discussion, so in that spirit may I recommend there be a very specific thread for the various axe-grinders, naysayers, conspiracy theorists and genuine corporate governance nerds to air their laundry in, rather than in the single thread for discussion about the Rebels team in the 2018 competition.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

You articulated that much better than I.

 

[lou75]

WA Parliament should probably be holding its own inquiry rather than an entity that's involved at arm's length, at best.

Like I said, inquiries into government services with far greater staffing and support fade into insignificance, as will this one.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

well tex, you didnt seem to mind making a comment re the inquiry before

 

[GoMelbRebels]

I thought Luke Jones had a very strong game for the Baa Baa’s. Would not mind one bit if he came home to Melbourne.