You promised details. I have no faith in any of the existing members or your group. Any of this could have been done much more smoothly at any time in the last ten years.

Where are the names of these directors. Presumably they will have put forward their names to the existing nominations committee already. I cannot understand why the members have not already taken action such as proposing items for discussion on the AGM agenda or the nomination of directors.

At the end of the day, you are asking me to trust a bunch of people, none of whom have put their names up as directors, none of whom have taken any effective action in ten years in regard to these matters, to do a better job while not specifying what you will actually do.

Your group needs to do much better. There is no solution on the table and your proposals will just bring further division and chaos to the game.

It needs to find a way forward with a new Victorian team. Following on from the farce of the Force, a substantial part of the rugby community will not accept the sinking of the Melbourne Rebels.

If the VA has a sense of humour they will grant the use of the name of Melbourne Rebels, if RA does not own it now, to the new consortium and rename the company Melbourne Rabble (in liquidation)

I cannot believe that RA are that commercially stupid, or that I am so naive as to just write that. Going with five state teams is correct in my view, but probably the best solution is a more complex restructure with the existing five states in a domestic competition, and a reduced number of SR teams is then placed in a SRP competition.

I absolutely agree with you. There is no legal, commercial or rugby necessity to waste the few available dollars to gold plate the sinking Rebels ship, for the sole benefit of Rebels directors.

The long term Crawford proposal was a viable way forward and should be pursued, although I am concerned their interest will evaporate if they cannot bail out the Rebels directors. Maybe they just want to appear to be helpful, and will continue to put a new team in place without wasting money on a bailout.

I agree that there must be a team in Victoria.

Absolutely, except that it has to be commercially viable and in the long term interests of Victorian and Australian rugby. That would be the $30m funding of a long term plan and a new organisation based in the west, as announced by Crawford.

This is a two year plan in the interest of the Rebels directors. The DOCA provides no insurance of long term viability and in fact puts the directors in control if it fails again in two years.

The Rebels must be liquidated and a new Victorian team put in place. I do not have a problem if RA restructures domestic professional and SRP competition, but there must be five teams in five states playing in competitions of equal status.

Designating that only some states play in the 2nd tier is not acceptable to me, commercial and rugby suicide. The Force is a case in point, should never have been excluded and with hindsight we can now see that it was so.

None I think. The big question is how much pressure can the ATO and RA bring on to the syndicate to enter a long term arrangement in the interests of Victorian rugby, rather than a short term one in the interests of the Rebels directors.

The proposal is silent on whether the funding is capital or secured. There is no doubt in my mind that the funding will be secured if this went ahead.

It is also interesting that certain debts will be paid in full such as super and wages. Deed creditors including the ATO will receive a maximum of $0.30 in the dollar. I don’t see how the ATO can publicly justify doing that.

Note that all of the director related debts are “excluded” from distribution but it appears to me they will then remain as liabilities to the company so that they could be recouped at a later date. As the DOCA requires ATO release of the directors, and the RA to agree to a participation agreement enabling funding for litigation against it, the DOCA won’t proceed.

That will mean the company goes into liquidation and the syndicate can negotiate direct with RA. A sudden withdrawal of interest will certainly put their integrity under the microscope. It will then look like a bunch of corporate sweetheart deals, a graveyard where rugby goes to die.

That is the problem TWAS, it is a guarantee for two years only. I wonder if they even have the cheek to advance the funds as a secured creditor so their debts rank first, and control the process, in any further insolvency after the two years expires.

It puts the Rebels straight back into the same position. What happens after that? Players and coaches would be mad not to be taking better offers elsewhere.

As I feared, this is a bail out, not a long term vision for rugby in Victoria.

This is a DOCA proposed by the directors to bail themselves out and has nothing to do with a long term vision for rugby in Victoria. They are banking on a very public game of chicken. RA need to stare them down or appoint their own VA.

If the new syndicate does have the interests of Victorian rugby at heart they will move on after the failure of the DOCA and deal directly with RA to negotiate their own Participation Agreement, which would be the best thing for Victorian and Australian rugby.

This is a disaster for Australian Rugby and again so called business people put their own interests ahead of the game.

First and foremost, as I have repeatedly written, any proposal that requires significant funding to bail out the Rebels directors will not work in the medium to long term. As is clearly set out in this compendium of quotations from the VA report and the Syndicate, this is first and foremost a bail out and I cease to have any faith in this group. Their commitment to provide funding for two years in the normal course of business, if the Participation Agreement is extended, falls very much short of a long term vision for rugby in Victoria.

It is ironic that the proposal is diametrically opposed to that of SOARR; lets keep the same people in place because they are the best people to do something different from what they have been doing.

From the ATO point of view they were always going to have a tightrope to navigate. How to let the Rebels directors off the hook in such a public manner, without undermining their negotiations with every other insolvent debtor in the country?

From a RA perspective. I would be astounded if there is not a clause in the Participation Agreement that requires the Rebels to remain solvent. That has already been breached. The DOCA falls over if RA does not grant the license. They would be mad to do so as the first thing that happens is funding is provided to the directors to commence litigation against RA.

I am dubious at the states’ claims on the $7.6 million each, but if it is valid then RA becomes insolvent. That is probably no bad thing as the whole of the game is probably insolvent on a consolidated basis. It would be good to start again, but apart from the chaos, which could become unmanageable, we may find some pretty ugly land mines amongst the debris.

Watching the Tahs backline this year has provided some of the best rugby on show. I expect the Drua to improve again and the Tahs will need to step up a gear in the tight five. I think they are well capable of that.

Rugby Australia can no longer afford to be just incurring expenses because they do not know what else to do apart from what they did last year, working or not. The smartest place to invest in the last five years has been in the elite women XV game and they have done as little as possible at the slowest possible pace.

The women cannot progress much further and faster while on only playing five games. Next year it must increase to a full home and away competition with ten rounds. The current status quo is based on the position five years ago when it might have been difficult for many players to play ten to twelve games. For at least two seasons they are strangling player development.

It is a world cup year so Wallaroo preparation demands more games, which could be possibly spread over the full men SRP competition rounds. The likely good performance of the 7s at the Olympics provides some great promotional opportunity which cannot be wasted as in previous Olympic years.

Investment is required now to start promoting the 7s games at the Olympics and develop a mid-season recruitment and participation plan to run straight off the back of the Olympics. Administrations across the country will complain they don’t have the resources during the playing season and they will do something at the season end, then delay until the summer school holidays and then we are in next year pre-season and it is too late.

At some point we have to stop talking and start doing. Following on from the Olympic 7s several of the players have put their enthusiasm on public record for playing XV at the 2025 world cup. The home 2029 RWC will be a huge draw for them as well. Great promotion of the 7s will drag hearts and minds on to the 2025 SARW competition.

A full Super W with NZ teams needs to be on the cards as well. This will have to be delayed as long as we impose such severe limitations on our women getting sufficient match experience and the stamina for a long season in place.

… and many more millions on many more issues. I suppose it depends on whether anything ever gets beyond, thought bubbles, water coolers, or press releases.

Things do change MJ but remember Schmidt was not necessarily committed to coaching post RWC. He has family issues which is why he only agreed to two years.

It now occurs to me that RA must have replacements ready to go, just out of respect for Joe. Imagine having to say, sorry Joe we don’t have a plan, so do you want to let down your players or your family? I cannot express 100% confidence on this.

Where the board chooses to invest, and how much, still controls the performance and impact of Horne and Nucifora, who we must remember is only a consultant.

Certainly not from a rugby sense, or in fact knowing exactly what needs to be done. Thinking they can write a few letters and talk to a few newspapers to force RA to even talk to them is naive.

Don’t start me on why RA are not knocking on their doors asking them what to do next.

I believe the association of clubs founded by Marks is still alive. If they had driven that hard over the last five years they would have a magnificent platform.

This is a good solid coaching team but lets face it there are not that many Australian coaches ready. Schmidt is gone in eighteen months so you would like to see some transparency over RA plans for coaching development sooner rather than later.

The Ross Tulloch group SOARR are a naive bunch shovelling a lot of hot air BUT I will bet someone else’s house on them being able to come up with a decent first cut of a national coaching and development plan ready to kick off on 1 July.

Herbert and Waugh should have the board they want by the end of the month, and it will be pretty disappointing if they don’t come up with something themselves by 1 July. More than 60 days after the AGM, plus all of the thinking time they have had for the last four years.

Great to point out some of the really exciting talents appearing in the system but I do think it is wrong to talk about negativity as being cynicism directed at the players’ obvious talents.

I suspect I am only seeing the tip of the icebergs when I say “I see rugby has become a highly technical game with significant preparation involved in analysing individual opponents’ strengths, weaknesses and likely actions and reactions”. Opponents are proving much more difficult when these players meet teams for the second and third times.

This is where the negativity comes in about rugby in Australia. What is holding these players back from rising above the next challenge. The flaws and gaps in the development of players and coaches are obvious and well known. This is where the negativity is.

A system was in place and created the foundation of the golden era from 1983 to 2003. It was dismantled and … nothing. Three decades on and still crickets on this.

Footnote. Ran into a very astute rugby man on Friday before the Waratahs. We talked about Mark Nawaqanatawase, Dylan Pietsch, Suaalii and Jorgenson but he signed off with who cares, Darby Lancaster will leave them for dead. Seemed like a wild statement but it turned out he has been watching for a while.

OK so Tate felt the force of a forearm and reacted on the basis that it was intentional. While that might turn it into a form of provocation by proxy I then agree with you and Ken that there is more to it. For me, it is hard to ignore the Lonergan tackle which started from being unable to bring the man down. All is not right there, I think I used the word petulance somewhere else.

Great outcome for the Hurricanes

It was a straight arm fend to the chest and the carrier then gripped the jumper on the fend which rode up over Tate’s left shoulder so that later in the tackle his forearm was against Tate’s throat or face as the carrier fell.

Forearm to the neck with force, it is not.

Rubbing faces and pushing heads into the ground is a blight on the game, but you can’t whistle up every breakdown. Putting up with it is apparently a basic requirement, possibly included in the contract as a working condition.

😢 had to be careful, half of them were bigger than me, and the other half, meaner.

Provocation? Upset at missing the tackle? Makes me double down on my view of the tackle on Lonergan. There is an element of petulance there which is not a good thing in a player with too many weaknesses in his game.

Failing to avoid a fend is a provocation while a forward breaking out of the ruck close to the line long before the ball and tackling the half back is not? That is a professional foul with calculated short term and long term consequences.

I don’t believe Canham’s tackle could be judged as provocation, it is an absolute joke to claim Tate was provoked. It was an intentional hit caused by the frustration of being beaten in the tackle and casts a further cloud over his unintentional tackle of Lonergan.

The Fijian’s entire sojourn on the field was “they had it coming”. I hope Byrne has been working hard on discipline over the bye. At home against the undefeated competition leaders. A great opportunity for a win that could easily be squandered in an emotional boil over.

Seriously? A head butt in rugby nowadays is usually two inches of movement, sometimes just being a miss on trying to push foreheads together in some ancient front row mating ritual. A long time since I have seen the real deal in professional rugby. Add the late hit on Carter Gordon and the manhandling of Louwrens and six weeks should have been considered lenient.