• 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.

Rebels 2017

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brumby Runner

Brumby Runner

David Wilson (68)
So to an outsider it appears that the remarkable "Coxy" has vacated the scene for $1. How precisely does that align with the alleged $10m damages he was supposed to have the ARU by the short and curlies for?
 
B

BLR

Guest
Tell me again why a transfer to the VRU makes them safer then before?

Cox is no longer in the way. And without making multiple assumptions the ARU haven't given any indication a VRU held Rebels are safe, so does that not take any legal recourse away from the Rebels and make them MORE vulnerable?

Now, I have read most of this thread and there is a load of speculation but what is solid that makes this a better option than Cox being stubborn and simply not selling out?
 
lou75

lou75

Ron Walden (29)
BLR said:
Tell me again why a transfer to the VRU makes them safer then before?

Cox is no longer in the way. And without making multiple assumptions the ARU haven't given any indication a VRU held Rebels are safe, so does that not take any legal recourse away from the Rebels and make them MORE vulnerable?

Now, I have read most of this thread and there is a load of speculation but what is solid that makes this a better option than Cox being stubborn and simply not selling out?
Click to expand...
The ARU cannot simply strip a franchise of its license - at one stage Cox thought he could sell it, but he needed ARU approval for this and since they wanted to shed a franchise they did not come to the party. The put option is quite different, it simply required him to have the company debt free and then exercise the Put option (The one the ARU wrote into the original contract when they sold it to him for $1).
SO the Rebels are as safe as the Tahs, the Reds and the Brumbies.
Will Cox pursue legal claims - probably not.
 
Highlander35

Highlander35

Andrew Slack (58)
Brumby Runner said:
It has been so over the last two or three pages HL, or at least that is my interpretation of the comments.
Click to expand...

From an admittedly biased perspective, I've felt the discussion is more about IF it was going to happen, if it was able to happen, and any potential long term gains being run once again by the State body.

As for safety, well, without knowing the details of the deal, I can't say one way or the other, but I have no idea.

My gut feel however is that while it's not the most positive outcome (being Cox standing firm) it's a reasonably positive one nonetheless: if it was simply a matter of the Rebels being cut, I imagine some sort of arrangement involving the ARU both taking on the Rebels debt themselves, and paying Cox off with a fee of reasonably negligible size would have eventuated.
 
B

BLR

Guest
lou75 said:
SO the Rebels are as safe as the Tahs, the Reds and the Brumbies.
Will Cox pursue legal claims - probably not.
Click to expand...

The reason why I bring it up as I remember when some of the posters on this forum (me included admittedly) theorised why couldn't a merger or Brumbies cut occur, the Brumbies fans indicated the fact that they had already been told they were safe meant that they couldn't be stripped without an almightly legal battle. The implication being if they hadn't ruled out any of the teams and Cox & the Force had put up the fights the other three would have been far easier options, however unlikely.

The Tahs, Reds and Brumbies have this safety net, the Force & VRU-Rebels do not. There is a difference there between the Rebels & the other three as they have no OFFICIAL indication they are safe as of yet. (Rebels unofficially been told they are safe unofficially many times so far)
 
stoff

stoff

Bill McLean (32)
Who are the owners of the Tahs, Reds and Brumbies licences?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Killer

Killer

Cyril Towers (30)
BLR said:
The reason why I bring it up as I remember when some of the posters on this forum (me included admittedly) theorised why couldn't a merger or Brumbies cut occur, the Brumbies fans indicated the fact that they had already been told they were safe meant that they couldn't be stripped without an almightly legal battle. The implication being if they hadn't ruled out any of the teams and Cox & the Force had put up the fights the other three would have been far easier options, however unlikely.

The Tahs, Reds and Brumbies have this safety net, the Force & VRU-Rebels do not. There is a difference there between the Rebels & the other three as they have no OFFICIAL indication they are safe as of yet. (Rebels unofficially been told they are safe unofficially many times so far)
Click to expand...


I have been out to training so it may have been covered.
Are the Rebs still privately owned?
Is that why Cox is still involved?
You wouldn't think they would do this if it didnt make them stronger?
I thought their strength was in them being privately owned as he could not be forced to sell.
It must be better and hopefully we can all stick it up the ARU.
 
FiveStarStu

FiveStarStu

Bill McLean (32)
BLR said:
The reason why I bring it up as I remember when some of the posters on this forum (me included admittedly) theorised why couldn't a merger or Brumbies cut occur, the Brumbies fans indicated the fact that they had already been told they were safe meant that they couldn't be stripped without an almightly legal battle. The implication being if they hadn't ruled out any of the teams and Cox & the Force had put up the fights the other three would have been far easier options, however unlikely.



The Tahs, Reds and Brumbies have this safety net, the Force & VRU-Rebels do not. There is a difference there between the Rebels & the other three as they have no OFFICIAL indication they are safe as of yet. (Rebels unofficially been told they are safe unofficially many times so far)
Click to expand...


The Brumbies' safety also came from their ownership structure. Any change to their licence require the approval of their member unions, which made both a cut and a merger unlikely.

This does make the Rebels safer compared to under Cox, if only because the VRU selling the licence to the ARU would be an act of stupidity so big rugby here would deserve to fail.

Of course, it's not the ARU saying 'our bad you're off the hook' but it's as good as safe as we can hope to get.
 
FiveStarStu

FiveStarStu

Bill McLean (32)
Killer said:
I have been out to training so it may have been covered.

Are the Rebs still privately owned?
Click to expand...

Yes - Melbourne Rebels RU is now 100% privately owned by the VRU.


Killer said:
Is that why Cox is still involved?
Click to expand...

Not in itself, but may be a part of the deal.

Killer said:
You wouldn't think they would do this if it didnt make them stronger? I thought their strength was in them being privately owned as he could not be forced to sell.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and it still is. The Rebels have the same protections their private ownership afforded yesterday. Just that their beneficial owner has changed to one who has an unmatched interest in keeping the Rebels alive.

Killer said:
It must be better and hopefully we can all stick it up the ARU.
Click to expand...

Here's hoping you guys win next week and we go on as five.
 
B

BLR

Guest
FiveStarStu said:
The Brumbies' safety also came from their ownership structure. Any change to their licence require the approval of their member unions, which made both a cut and a merger unlikely.

This does make the Rebels safer compared to under Cox, if only because the VRU selling the licence to the ARU would be an act of stupidity so big rugby here would deserve to fail.

Of course, it's not the ARU saying 'our bad you're off the hook' but it's as good as safe as we can hope to get.
Click to expand...

So, to sum up, because Cox presumably paid off the debt on the Rebels he could transfer it for $1 WITHOUT ARU approval, screwing over the ARU more than before?

How bad could the contract writers for the ARU get to put this clause in & was Cox saving face worth millions of dollars debt as opposed to a payout from the ARU?

This whole situation continuously makes little logical sense to me. Let's burn it down and start again.
 
Strewthcobber

Strewthcobber

Andrew Slack (58)
lou75 said:
The ARU cannot simply strip a franchise of its license - at one stage Cox thought he could sell it, but he needed ARU approval for this and since they wanted to shed a franchise they did not come to the party. The put option is quite different, it simply required him to have the company debt free and then exercise the Put option (The one the ARU wrote into the original contract when they sold it to him for $1).
SO the Rebels are as safe as the Tahs, the Reds and the Brumbies.
Will Cox pursue legal claims - probably not.
Click to expand...
Im pretty sure I read somewhere that the basis for the legal action was the ARU impacting on the Imperium/Rebels ability to attract sponsorship for the 2018 season, so no losses now that he's sold, so probably no legal action.

Will be interesting to see who stumped up the couple of million dollars to clear the debt

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
 
Brumby Jack

Brumby Jack

Steve Williams (59)
Staff member
ARU just sent out a release saying they have heard from a third party of the change but have not been informed of the change officially from the Rebels, as per their obligation under the participation deed.
 
GoMelbRebels

GoMelbRebels

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Brumby Jack said:
ARU just sent out a release saying they have heard from a third party of the change but have not been informed of the change officially from the Rebels, as per their obligation under the participation deed.
Click to expand...
That's what they want you to think. The third party was probably Tim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top