• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Melbourne Rebels 2024

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Add to that https://www.theroar.com.au/2024/02/...governing-body-braces-for-economic-headwinds/

If the Rebels prove RA are liable; they might go bust first
‘If the Rebels former directors prove RA are liable’, they just don’t want to be personally liable for $11.6million penalty issued to them by the ATO for failing to pay debts.

These muppets aren’t content with destroying the Rebels through their own sheer incompetence, now they want to take Australian rugby down with them. Wankers.
 
Last edited:

Pone's Mullet

Alex Ross (28)
If the former directors prove RA are liable, they just don’t want to be personally liable for $11.6million debt/penalty owed to the ATO.

These muppets weren’t content with destroying the Rebels, now they want to take Australian rugby down with them. Wankers.
Is that you Phil?
 

stoff

Bill McLean (32)
If the Rebels former directors prove RA are liable, they just don’t want to be personally liable for $11.6million penalty issued to them by the ATO for failing to pay debts.

These muppets aremt content with destroying the Rebels through their own sheer incompetence, now they want to take Australian rugby down with them. Wankers.
If $8m is going to bring RA down I’d be looking at a succession of people out of a certain Sydney boys school ahead of the former directors of the Rebels.
 

Highlander35

Andrew Slack (58)
‘If the Rebels former directors prove RA are liable’, they just don’t want to be personally liable for $11.6million penalty issued to them by the ATO for failing to pay debts.

These muppets aren’t content with destroying the Rebels through their own sheer incompetence, now they want to take Australian rugby down with them. Wankers.

I'll take some of whatever you're smoking friend
 

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
If $8m is going to bring RA down I’d be looking at a succession of people out of a certain Sydney boys school ahead of the former directors of the Rebels.
It wouldn’t be $8million decision though would it..

If these former directors successfully convinced a judge that the RA should be liable for tax payments on super rugby players wages & grants, then the repercussions of that don’t start and end at the Rebels…it’s worth $millions each year across ALL the Aus Super Rugby teams, not to mention backdating.
 

stoff

Bill McLean (32)
It wouldn’t be $8million decision though would it..

If these former directors successfully convinced a judge that the RA should be liable for tax payments on super rugby players wages & grants, then the repercussions of that don’t start and end at the Rebels…it’s worth $millions each year across ALL the Aus Super Rugby teams, not to mention backdating.
And if that is found to be the case it’s the Rebel’s directors’ fault how? Who oversaw the drafting of sloppy contracts? It’s also $2m for that, $6m in underfunding.
 

SouthernX

Peter Johnson (47)
‘If the Rebels former directors prove RA are liable’, they just don’t want to be personally liable for $11.6million penalty issued to them by the ATO for failing to pay debts.

These muppets aren’t content with destroying the Rebels through their own sheer incompetence, now they want to take Australian rugby down with them. Wankers.


The initial pitch forks were directed at these directors.

But when you find out they poured their own money into the club to keep it a float. I’m starting to become sympathetic to the rebels plights.

All the other Aus clubs probably accessing negative gearing/capital gains on their property portfolio. Meanwhile you got a couple of business men running the rebels, no HQ of their own to do depreciating assets tax write offs, interstate players staying in a bilet system with passionate rebels fans.

it’s not a great set of circumstances to be honest.

At the end of the day I don’t care what happens to the rebels board. I care about RA next move.
 

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
The initial pitch forks were directed at these directors.

But when you find out they poured their own money into the club to keep it a float. I’m starting to become sympathetic to the rebels plights.

All the other Aus clubs probably accessing negative gearing/capital gains on their property portfolio. Meanwhile you got a couple of business men running the rebels, no HQ of their own to do depreciating assets tax right offs, interstate players staying in a bilet system with passionate rebels fans.

it’s not a great set of circumstances to be honest.

At the end of the day I don’t care what happens to the rebels board. I care about RA next move.

Been fined a penalty by the ATO to cover the debt they accrued when in charge is hardly ‘pouring their own money in’…. It’s a penalty for incompetence issued by the ATO to stop directors getting away with unpaid debts

One director ‘loaned’ the club money and are now a creditor amongst rest who are seeking their money back.
 

Wilson

David Codey (61)
And if that is found to be the case it’s the Rebel’s directors’ fault how? Who oversaw the drafting of sloppy contracts? It’s also $2m for that, $6m in underfunding.
No, it would be RAs fault if the contracting was to blame. The underfunding seems a strange argument given the bulk of it was by agreement (or at least that's what was reported at the time and since), so it seems like clutching at straws.

The bigger problem for the rebels here is that this play will be the most pyrrhic of victories at best - the rebels can't survive without RA and a successful play here would put significant strain on RA while the rebels would still be in significant debt. At that point RA would likely little choice but to contract and cancel the rebels licence, something that would be well within their power if the rebels were still in financial strife. Even if they managed to clear the debt I don't think the current super licenses are guaranteed beyond the current tv deal so it could see the rebels licence just expire.

That's what makes this look like the directors looking to cover themselves financially more than save the club.
 

SouthernX

Peter Johnson (47)
Been fined a penalty by the ATO to cover the debt they accrued when in charge is hardly ‘pouring their own money in’…. It’s a penalty for incompetence issued by the ATO to stop directors getting away with unpaid debts

One director ‘loaned’ the club money and are now a creditor amongst rest who are seeking their money back.

I said I’m sympathetic to the rebels plight/not the rebels boards plight. It’s not great circumstances when someone on the board has to write a cheque to keep the proverbial lights on.
 

Pone's Mullet

Alex Ross (28)
No, it would be RAs fault if the contracting was to blame. The underfunding seems a strange argument given the bulk of it was by agreement (or at least that's what was reported at the time and since), so it seems like clutching at straws.

The bigger problem for the rebels here is that this play will be the most pyrrhic of victories at best - the rebels can't survive without RA and a successful play here would put significant strain on RA while the rebels would still be in significant debt. At that point RA would likely little choice but to contract and cancel the rebels licence, something that would be well within their power if the rebels were still in financial strife. Even if they managed to clear the debt I don't think the current super licenses are guaranteed beyond the current tv deal so it could see the rebels licence just expire.

That's what makes this look like the directors looking to cover themselves financially more than save the club.
This flip side to that coin is that the Rebels board, who have been promised almost 40% of their debt would have been covered, should then just roll over?
 

Ignoto

John Thornett (49)
additional $2 million to cover the cost of Rebels’ player wages while they were on Wallabies duties

I don't understand this. Surely theres separate contracts where RA pay the Wallabies their part of the salary and not, the Rebels pay their Wallabies and then seek reimbursement from RA?

Otherwise for that amount of money and how little Wallabies were from the Rebels, either RA hasn't paid for years or the Rebels are running a pretty weird argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru

Rebel man

Peter Johnson (47)
My old club / Frankston/ Southern Districts didnt field a senior side last year - they are trying to get 1 up and running this year so dont know how that vibrancy is going with established teams failing to run senior sides
I thought they were Seaford before Southern?
 

Rebel man

Peter Johnson (47)
These people. Rugby fans living breathing working paying taxes in Victoria. Rugby Union fans happy to go to a Bled or a RWC but don't support the Rebels. Surely easiest latent population to convert and a shame that Rebels didn't manage it.

Sometimes I think a Kiwi Melbourne would have more success than the Rebels.
That’s also one thing that hurts with being in Super Rugby so many Kiwis and South Africans support their old team as they were also in the comp
 

Rebel man

Peter Johnson (47)
That's why an Aus comp would work, Melbourne would have more fans if there team wasn't up against kiwi teams for the simple fact that the massive kiwi population won't support a side against there own sides. They all want the Rebels here so once in a while they get to see the side they still support from home play in Melbourne, but won't get behind a Aussie side against any kiwi sides.
100% so many kiwis in Melbourne that I meet working all support a Melbourne side but love their kiwi team then it also becomes about super rugby being a glorified nationals trial. Meaning they are more interested in other kiwi teams
 
Top