Melbourne Rebels 2024

[Slim 293]

There was interested when super rugby was formed of being the third side and when the force got in there was the VRU bid and a private bid that both got rejected

OK, but there was only one realistic option for the third team when the competition was formed... and the Force had the stronger bid for 2006.

 

[DaSchmooze]

Personally I hope the legal action goes ahead and holds RA to account

RA to be held to account but not the directors?

 

[Rebel man]

OK, but there was only one realistic option for the third team when the competition was formed... and the Force had the stronger bid for 2006.

That is subjective. Obviously it was the same opinion shared by the ARU at the time

 

[Rebel man]

RA to be held to account but not the directors?

I have no issue with the ATO going after the directors but equally RA has to be held accountable for the mess that they contributed to

 

[Sully]

RA to be held to account but not the directors?

I'm still not sure what RA is accountable for. But the directors should definitely spend some time behind bars.

 

[DaSchmooze]

I have no issue with the ATO going after the directors but equally RA has to be held accountable for the mess that they contributed to

Agreed - what is RA accountable for her? To the point that somehow it can be proven in a court of law?

 

[Slim 293]

That is subjective. Obviously it was the same opinion shared by the ARU at the time

Is it now?

 

[Rebel man]

Agreed - what is RA accountable for her? To the point that somehow it can be proven in a court of law?

I am not the one prosecuting the case yet if prominent lawyers KC’s who have taken legal action against the game before to ensure the survival in 2017 believe there are grounds to take the matter to court. Well they would be in a better position to judge than you or I

 

[Sully]

Ah yes, lawyers, right up there with politicians and priest on our most trusted lists.

 

[Slim 293]

Ah yes, the KC who is also a former director of the Rebels and liable for millions in unpaid taxes to the ATO...

 

[Wilson]

For those wondering why RA aren't fully supporting it at the moment

The real issue here is the DOCA allows for funding legal action if the ATO doesn't release the directors from their DPNs, even with RA handing back the license. Any money from the legal action (not disappearing into lawyer's yacht funds) will be used to reduce the ATO debt, which in turn reduces the Director's DPNs.

The directors are claiming that they can pursue two claims worth $8m from RA.
* $6m for the funding shortfall and
* $2m for the unpaid Wallaby taxes (the claim here seems to be that RA gave the Rebels the money for it, but as the Rebels used it for other things, RA should have ensured that the taxes were paid, so RA still owes the ATO the taxes.)

RA will be hesitant to make any kind of commitment unless that legal threat, which they have no control over, and remains even if they hand back the license is completely removed - and not just discussed "as a last resort" which is Clifford's current position

This is a big part of it, but the rest is that the consortium doesn't appear to have enough money to support the team through to a period of stability, and if it fails RA will be right back on the hook again with a few more years of losses weighing them down further. Without a solid runway through to at least 2030 it's going to be very difficult for RA to back any move to keep the Rebels going

 

[Strewthcobber]

This is a big part of it, but the rest is that the consortium doesn't appear to have enough money to support the team through to a period of stability, and if it fails RA will be right back on the hook again with a few more years of losses weighing them down further. Without a solid runway through to at least 2030 it's going to be very difficult for RA to back any move to keep the Rebels going

We have no idea how much money they are bringing to the table though do we? Unless we get to see that 100-page document that RA just received.

In the DOCA, they only committed to fund two years of operations

the Investor Group will make available to the Company initial funding (together with a binding commitment to provide additional funding) sufficient to allow MRRU to operate in the ordinary course of business for a period of two years;

Just based on paying back 30% of creditors, the employee entitlements and funding 2 years of ops - what's in the DOCA- they would need near $20m just to get to the end of 2026

 

[Wilson]

We have no idea how much money they are bringing to the table though do we? Unless we get to see that 100-page document that RA just received.

In the DOCA, they only committed to fund two years of operations


Just based on paying back 30% of creditors, the employee entitlements and funding 2 years of ops - what's in the DOCA- they would need near $20m just to get to the end of 2026

All the reporting friendly or otherwise has quoted $21-30 million. My reckoning is the same as yours - that will only cover that 2 year commitment in the DOCA. I expect they'd need something more like $50 million to get to 2030, around double what they appear to have.

So much around any potential success or sustainability flows from them being able to present a case that they will be around long term, from player contracting to broadcast negotiations that clarity is vital. I don't think them limping through 2 years to collapse again is something RA can afford to support.

 

[SouthernX]

I'm still not sure what RA is accountable for. But the directors should definitely spend some time behind bars.

that’s a bit extreme Sully

Why they going behind bars? If you can’t pay your taxes - most ppl go bankrupt they don’t go to prison.

 

[Tex]

What was the deficit run up by the Tahs?

I'm not a bean counter so maybe someone can explain how some debts are different to others?

 

[Braveheart81]

What was the deficit run up by the Tahs?

I'm not a bean counter so maybe someone can explain how some debts are different to others?

$0 based on the Waratahs 2023 financials.

They lost money in 2023 but ownership of the Waratahs was transferred to Rugby Australia on the basis that they were unlikely to survive through the 2024 season not that they had debts they couldn't pay from 2023.

 

[LeCheese]

that’s a bit extreme Sully

Why they going behind bars? If you can’t pay your taxes - most ppl go bankrupt they don’t go to prison.

Directors that are found guilty of insolvent trading may be subject to civil penalties, personal liability proceedings and criminal charges.

The civil penalties include:

• Fines of up to $200,000

The personal liabilities include:

• Personal compensation proceedings being brought against the director by ASIC, a Liquidator or creditor

Personal compensation payments are potentially unlimited. This may result in the director declaring personal bankruptcy.

The criminal charges include:

• A fine of up to 2,000 penalty units (currently valued at $550,000); and/or
• Imprisonment for up to 5 years

If the consequences of insolvent trading cause a director to declare bankruptcy, or if you are found guilty of the criminal offence of insolvent trading, you may also be disqualified. Disqualification prevents you from continuing as a director or managing another company for a period of up to 5 years.

 

[Adam84]

For those wondering why RA aren't fully supporting it at the moment

The real issue here is the DOCA allows for funding legal action if the ATO doesn't release the directors from their DPNs, even with RA handing back the license. Any money from the legal action (not disappearing into lawyer's yacht funds) will be used to reduce the ATO debt, which in turn reduces the Director's DPNs.

The directors are claiming that they can pursue two claims worth $8m from RA.
* $6m for the funding shortfall and
* $2m for the unpaid Wallaby taxes (the claim here seems to be that RA gave the Rebels the money for it, but as the Rebels used it for other things, RA should have ensured that the taxes were paid, so RA still owes the ATO the taxes.)

RA will be hesitant to make any kind of commitment unless that legal threat, which they have no control over, and remains even if they hand back the license is completely removed - and not just discussed "as a last resort" which is Clifford's current position

They're receiving 'strategic guidance' from Paul fucken Docherty and the same Directors who are fighting to have their own personal liability waived; why should anyone be surprised, including Clifford's own daughter.

 

[dru]

They're receiving 'strategic guidance' from Paul fucken Docherty and the same Directors who are fighting to have their own personal liability waived; why should anyone be surprised, including Clifford's own daughter.

I suspect legal shenanigans/kid-ology to bully RA into thinking an expensive defence was at least going to be required - thereby starting the bargaining process by dropping something that has little value in the first instance. Unfortunately for Melbourne rugby fans these directors may simply have demonstrated themselves to be people that the RA just does not want to do business with.

The RA has little kudos imo but I don't begrudge a policy of caution with any new Super Rugby license in Melbourne.

Rebels need to reassess their relationship with RA and show themselves to be trustworthy.

 

[Adam84]

If the new consortium was completely independent of the existing directors and board members, I might have faith; as it stands, they've demonstrated themselves incapable of governing the organisation responsibly... Yes, I get they're dealt a shit hand, but they doubled down on that with some woeful governance, including some concerning practices when it comes to operating insolvent, lack of accountability of funds, redirecting funding grants from their intended purposes and failing to play employee superannuation.