• 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

Jimmyjam

Darby Loudon (17)
Rebel fans, (and I count myself as one btw) should be directing their anger at the directors who totally own this disaster. Rebels have been funded by RA no differently to all the other Super Rugby outfits. Instead of being transparent and owning the problem, they lied, cooked the books and were just praying that a PE event would produce enough cash that would allow RA to bail them out of their own hole. If the DOCA goes through to allow the rebels to continue, I'll be very happy.... so long as the negligent directors don't get bailed out or allowed to suck more cash out of RA via legal action. They made their bed...
 

JRugby2

Allen Oxlade (6)
I find it hard to believe the RA would consider Melbourne as a host of the RWC final, just shows exactly how the short term money grab wholly encompasses the code.
The highlight of rugby worldwide every four years given to a city that 90% of the population wouldn't give a f----k about and two days after the final probably wouldn't even remember the result.

Yes the Rebels should survive in a sustainable domestic competition in a model proven to work, but alas!!!

Rugby may get its extra $million but at what cost, you wonder how the game got to this stage, well this gives you a pretty big clue.
So many people will just travel for it - events like this it doesn't matter if the host city are mad for the sport or not, you'd be stupid not to capitalise on it (either as the seller or buyer)
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Are we forgetting that RA voting for the DOCA is, unless there’s been something I’ve missed, a vote for legal action being brought against them? Who in their right mind would do that?

This is the crux of it.

If the legal threats were taken off the table then I'd guess RA would vote for the DOCA immediately.

As it stands they would be voting for the Rebels former directors receiving funding to launch legal action against Rugby Australia which regardless of their merits would still be costly to defend.

It would be absolute insanity for RA to vote for it. I understand how upset Rebels fans are but the former directors of the Rebels haven't really given RA a viable choice here other than to vote for liquidation.
 

Pone's Mullet

Alex Ross (28)
Are we forgetting that RA voting for the DOCA is, unless there’s been something I’ve missed, a vote for legal action being brought against them? Who in their right mind would do that?
I wonder whether this is a negotiation point for "The Consortium" (sounds like a John Wick movie) -i.e. they drop the legal action if the license gets handed over.
 

LeCheese

Peter Johnson (47)
I wonder whether this is a negotiation point for "The Consortium" (sounds like a John Wick movie) -i.e. they drop the legal action if the license gets handed over.
Someone will be able to correct me, but I believe the DOCA is voted for as it is presented, and there isn’t really much room for negotiation.
 

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
I find it hard to believe the RA would consider Melbourne as a host of the RWC final, just shows exactly how the short term money grab wholly encompasses the code.
The highlight of rugby worldwide every four years given to a city that 90% of the population wouldn't give a f----k about and two days after the final probably wouldn't even remember the result.

Yes the Rebels should survive in a sustainable domestic competition in a model proven to work, but alas!!!

Rugby may get its extra $million but at what cost, you wonder how the game got to this stage, well this gives you a pretty big clue.

Does it really make a difference if the game is hosted in Sydney or Melbourne? Sure, there will be a shift in local media coverage and local awareness, but you can still only have a limited number of people attend.

Rugby fans are going to travel interstate for an RWC GF, and ticket availability will mean 99.9% of Sydney would be denied the opportunity to attend anyway. As a rugby fan in Brisbane, it makes an SFA difference whether it's hosted in Sydney or Melbourne. The biggest issue is the design of the stadium; MCG is poor for rectangular sports, although Homebush is garbage also. At least there are more tickets available for MCG then there are Hombush.

If Australia had a proper 70k rectangular stadium, I would agree 100%
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
I find it hard to believe the RA would consider Melbourne as a host of the RWC final, just shows exactly how the short term money grab wholly encompasses the code.
The highlight of rugby worldwide every four years given to a city that 90% of the population wouldn't give a f----k about and two days after the final probably wouldn't even remember the result.

Yes the Rebels should survive in a sustainable domestic competition in a model proven to work, but alas!!!

Rugby may get its extra $million but at what cost, you wonder how the game got to this stage, well this gives you a pretty big clue.

Weird take.

The Rugby World Cup Final is going to sell out wherever it is played and will be filled with a combination of die hard rugby fans and fans of pinnacle type events.
 

Slayer!

Allen Oxlade (6)
Not quite that simple, aside from calling the Vic governments bluff (and the potential for change in government to change the picture) there are still governments in WA, NSW and QLD bidding for these events to varying degrees. Yes they'll lose out on some money if Victoria stops bidding, but it won't be anywhere near all of it.
Who says they lose out on money? Not having a Bledisloe in Melbourne may lose a million or so on ticket revenue, but if Queensland is paying an extra million or so?
 

Strewthcobber

Andrew Slack (58)
Are we forgetting that RA voting for the DOCA is, unless there’s been something I’ve missed, a vote for legal action being brought against them? Who in their right mind would do that?
Just for clarity - there could be legal action against RA whether the DOCA is agreed to or not.

If it's not, then the liquidator has the option to pursue it if they think they are likely to get money out of it (although they wouldn't be funded)

The directors are much more likely to face legal consequences if the DOCA is not agree to - in fact the ATO has to drop the DPNs as a pre-requisit of the DOCA, and a liquidator can move forward with a claim under "trading while insolvent"
 
Last edited:

Strewthcobber

Andrew Slack (58)
If the DOCA goes through to allow the rebels to continue, I'll be very happy.... so long as the negligent directors don't get bailed out or allowed to suck more cash out of RA via legal action. They made their bed...
If the DOCA goes through that means the ATO has released the Directors from their DPNs, so face no personal liability from the ATO, and only a liquidator can move forward with a claim of trading while insolvent, so they would not face any personal liability from that either.

The Directors would also regain control of the Rebels, and be funded to commence legal action against RA.
 

oztimmay

Geoff Shaw (53)
Staff member
If the DOCA goes through that means the ATO has released the Directors from their DPNs, so face no personal liability from the ATO, and only a liquidator can move forward with a claim of trading while insolvent, so they would not face any personal liability from that either.

The Directors would also regain control of the Rebels, and be funded to commence legal action against RA.

I don't think that control extends to holding the participation licence. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 

oztimmay

Geoff Shaw (53)
Staff member
I'd love to understand the legal scenario where a court (federal likely) can direct RA to hand back the participation agreement, e.g. unconscionable conduct.
 

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
Not sure what Tarneit is, if not a reset & streamline. Let the Rebels reset then as the Reds have done. Every time the Reds came close to shuttering, RA didn’t step in and try and stop their survival.

Obviously I don’t condone the board and trading insolvent, I’m just fighting for the existence of my team.

No RA didn’t step in and stop them because QRU were transparent with them.

Tarneit may be a reset but you can’t blame RA for wanting to ensure there’s long term viability to it (and transparency) as opposed to a bit of up front cash.
 

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
The Tarneit proposal, at a surface level, doesn't seem to address the underlying cash flow issue; if anything, it will magnify those issues through the loss of corporate support and matchday income that comes with shifting from the CBD to the outer suburbs. Even with $20million capital raising from investors, surely they don't want this just used to pay off debts, I'm curious where's the value-add proposition in their investment?

When you also consider that one of the main people driving the Tarneit proposal is also the father of one of the directors currently liable for ATO debt held against the Rebels, the whole proposal smells a bit off.
 

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
The Tarneit proposal, at a surface level, doesn't seem to address the underlying cash flow issue; if anything, it will magnify those issues through the loss of corporate support and matchday income that comes with shifting from the CBD to the outer suburbs. Even with $20million capital raising from investors, surely they don't want this just used to pay off debts, I'm curious where's the value-add proposition in their investment?

When you also consider that one of the main people driving the Tarneit proposal is also the father of one of the directors currently liable for ATO debt held against the Rebels, the whole proposal smells a bit off.
Can't get people to a match in the centre of the 'sporting capital of Australia'..? lets take it to an empty field in the countryside!
 
Top