• 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

Omar Comin'

Chilla Wilson (44)
Yeah I suspect they want a team in Melbourne, so there trying to best work out how to do that without signing off on a legal court battle...
Maybe they'll aim to turn the Rebels into a Connacht style development team. RA owned, negotiate with RUPA to remove or significantly reduce the salary minimum for just that team, and try to Moneyball it.
 

Strewthcobber

Andrew Slack (58)
Looks like the salary cap of $5.5 mio is a CBA obligation to a minimum 90% level, while RA funding is $3.9 mio; a $1 mio shortfall if 90% is observed [but they likely spent the full $5.5 mio], leaving them around $1.7 mio a year short on salaries alone?
With noting that the Administrator listed the "player salaries" for the last 3 years to be between $7.2m and $7.5m for each year.

No mention as to taxes on these, or who it was spent on (women, RA top-ups?)
 
Last edited:

Strewthcobber

Andrew Slack (58)
RA top-ups (paid by RA) would be outside the listed wages you would imagine, as they are not debts incurred by the Rebels. I assume women’s would be included however
Isnt that what the whole PAYG claim is about?

RA transfers the $$$ for top-ups to the Rebel's for distributions to the players. RA says it includes enough for PAYG taxes, Rebels just spent all the money given to them without sending any to the ATO
 

LeCheese

Jim Lenehan (48)
Isnt that what the whole PAYG claim is about?

RA transfers the $$$ for top-ups to the Rebel's for distributions to the players. RA says it includes enough for PAYG taxes, Rebels just spent all the money given to them without sending any to the ATO
Actually yes good point, it sounds like that is the case. If that has occurred, hard to imagine the ATO will be in a very forgiving mood with regard to the DPNs
 

Strewthcobber

Andrew Slack (58)
As far as I can tell (and happy to be corrected here) the Rebel's PAYG argument appears to be....

Players are in a tri-party contract. Even though RA gave the Rebels money to pay the taxes for Wallaby duty, the ATO never received any payment.

And RA remains liable for it, even though the Rebels spent that money on something else.
 
Last edited:

Boof1050

Bill Watson (15)
You can't underestimate the amount of fuckwittery shit that Cameron Clyne and Co caused while they were in charge! And more to the point let North and all the other shit board members of the Rebels get away with at the time.
The only way the Rebels could genuinely survive and bring in extra sponsorship etc is to start afresh and keep those blokes well and truly away from the organisation.
I know it's all said with the power of retrospect but RA turned down a (strings attached) offer of financial support from a billionaire in favour of a club that almost immediately began trading insolvent after that decision. Talk about stinkers.
 

oztimmay

Tony Shaw (54)
Staff member
1714346684886.png


Gee I wonder what Dan is thinking on the future of the Rebels...
 

Dctarget

Tim Horan (67)
There is also the matter of the Victorian state government calling in a penalty clause in their participation agreement if the Rebels are excluded for 2025; said to be around $4.5 million.

Further, it is understood that the Victorian government has advised Rugby Australia that, in the absence of a local professional rugby presence provided by the Rebels, it will withdraw from bidding for future Wallabies Test matches, and hosting the World Cup final.

Well fuck
 

oztimmay

Tony Shaw (54)
Staff member
Oh, he's pretty reliable in his quotes. Well connected to the inner sanctum of MRRU dealings.

Based on previous meeting reports, that could cost RA between $65 and $ 75 million in penalties and lost revenue.
 

Steve_Grey

Larry Dwyer (12)
suddenly looking like the Rebels are more within their means than initially thought.
Indeed - and timing is everything based on the RA AGM today.

From a financial perspective the ATO can arrange a repayment schedule if Rebels remain?

Loss of revenue from MCG not insignificant agreed.
 

oztimmay

Tony Shaw (54)
Staff member
The article talks about a 5-year commitment; 2 confirmed in the DoCA and at least another three after that. That's a strong commitment!

With all the talk of penalties and unhappy ATO, Parkesey saved his best right before the AGM tonight. He mentioned a few weeks ago he was sitting on some info - this appears to be it.
 
Last edited:
Top