Roar Guru
Joined November 2016
4.5k
Views
2
Published
5.6k
Comments
Location: Western Australia ----------------------- Rugby team: Western Force ----------------------- AFL team: Dockers
Published
Comments
There has been a lot of talk in the past week about what Fremantle should and should not be doing vis a vis trades…
I was lucky enough to attend the inaugural game of World Series Rugby last night between the new Western Force and Fiji A (Warriors).…
I think we all do but it should be paid by the Rebels directors not RA.
UPDATE: RA say they were blindsided over Rebels' finances, reject private consortium claim as administrator backs club's survival
They often do. I believe they prefer to allow companies to try to trade out of difficulty rather than be the one to push them over the edge. Clearly it doesn’t always work out.
UPDATE: RA say they were blindsided over Rebels' finances, reject private consortium claim as administrator backs club's survival
RA needs to hold the licence. It’s the only thing potentially worth anything. Why would they sell it to a group that include the people that have been found to have traded while insolvent and have been implicated in potential improper dealings while directors?
Hold the licence and lease the rights to operate under it to the new consortium for two years. Then also put conditions such as the funding for Rebels is to be fully underwritten with personal guarantees from the proposers and none of the Rebels directors can be involved and finally that all annual accounts are audited and provided to RA.
UPDATE: RA say they were blindsided over Rebels' finances, reject private consortium claim as administrator backs club's survival
Couldn’t RA hold the licence and Rebels still operate? Just like NSW and (dare I say it) the Force in 2017.
UPDATE: RA say they were blindsided over Rebels' finances, reject private consortium claim as administrator backs club's survival
If the directors are guilty of trading while insolvent, and also guilty of making improper payments while insolvent that would be grounds for being barred from acting as a director for up to 10 yrs. Or worse potentially. If the same directors are part of the “rescue” package, then RA would not want to engage with them. I think those directors have no option but to drop out of the bid. That would be the honourable and proper thing to do if they genuinely want the bid to succeed. Based on the report, they are now officially a boat anchor on saving the Rebels.
UPDATE: RA say they were blindsided over Rebels' finances, reject private consortium claim as administrator backs club's survival
It does. The difference here I feel is that allowing the Administrators to do their job isn’t a bad thing. It’s what happens next that we should watch closely
UPDATE: RA say they were blindsided over Rebels' finances, reject private consortium claim as administrator backs club's survival
I am sure their will be some people that grasp at straws here but the report is pretty damning of the Rebels directors and even if the DOCA is approved and RA support the plan, that doesn’t mean the directors won’t be prosecuted.
UPDATE: RA say they were blindsided over Rebels' finances, reject private consortium claim as administrator backs club's survival
True mate, but I’m not sure that RA was wrong here. I think they have let the Administrator work their way through the facts without any pressure from the Directors saying “we are in discussions with RA so you need to change your report”. Now the report is out and the facts are on the table, I think RA is likely to be more open to a discussion. The issue for the Rebels directors and the Proposers is that now they aren’t operating from a position of any strength.
UPDATE: RA say they were blindsided over Rebels' finances, reject private consortium claim as administrator backs club's survival
Yes, there is a degree of self preservation here by Directors and their public statement is really just bluff and bluster. The directors will be prosecuted for a failure to perform their fiduciary duties unless RA help out and no amount of claiming is was “someone else’s fault” changes the “trading while insolvent and improper transfer of funds” issues. They are both prosecutable.
Having said that, RA needs to help find a path forward here.
UPDATE: RA say they were blindsided over Rebels' finances, reject private consortium claim as administrator backs club's survival
Well that is just a staggering finding wrt the directors behaviour. Trading while insolvent for 3 years and also improper related party transactions with directors is about as bad as it gets. Not to mention the fact that admin and player costs/salaries appear to have boomed while revenue (outside the RA issue) went down. Now we see the real truth behind the B*S. I agree with comments above that the tax office wouldn’t be pleased to be asked to take a haircut in those circumstances.
However, it is clear that a legal bunfight isn’t in anyones interest even if the directors do deserve a big slapping.
Personally if I was RA I would support the Administrators recommendation and the DOCA, but keep hold of the license itself while requiring directors guarantees, access to all financial docs every quarter and a host of other very tight controls in relation to the financial performance of the new costs to be incurred by the new franchise over the next 2 years that they have asked for. Review it after that. I think that deals with Herberts points about not throwing RA’s money at it and still supports rugby.
UPDATE: RA say they were blindsided over Rebels' finances, reject private consortium claim as administrator backs club's survival
I think there would be plenty of well qualified people, the question is why they would want to take on the job? Let’s face it, it’s a pretty thankless task. No matter what you did , people would still be baying for your blood.
'Easy to throw stones': RA chairman hits back at mudslingers' 'hypocrisy' after calls for AGM board cleanout
At 196 cm he’s a bit small to be a truly influential international lock so really he’s a good SR lock or an international 6. Hard to see him being a dominant international in either position. I hope he stays but whatever he does, good luck to him.
Wallabies in danger of losing Hanigan to ambitious French club just as forward enters his prime
You might add Carter to that since he played 80 mins on Saturday.
If Australia is looking for big men, let's not neglect the old and the fat
Bayle Kuenzle. He can play positions 10 to 15 ????
And he’s not a bad goal kicker
'It's disappointing': Petaia's Super season over - and it could end his Reds career
He has been talked up on his “potential” but lets not forget he is also a seriously competent player.
'It's disappointing': Petaia's Super season over - and it could end his Reds career
I think easiest to delete the nominations committee and allow the states, RUPA and the board itself to nominate prospective board members. Then let the state unions as the peak bodies representing the members in each state, to vote on the nominees.
'Definition of madness': Rugby reform must start with total cleanout of RA board - and this should happen next
I think Russ’s point is that Phil Waugh is no longer on the board but is the CEO and that he seems ok in that role provided he doesn’t get a board vote.
'Definition of madness': Rugby reform must start with total cleanout of RA board - and this should happen next
Ready to put your body on the line for your country, Ben. That’s the true ANZAC spirit mate… 😂
If Australia is looking for big men, let's not neglect the old and the fat
Thanks Jez.
'Definition of madness': Rugby reform must start with total cleanout of RA board - and this should happen next
Yes, agreed.
'Definition of madness': Rugby reform must start with total cleanout of RA board - and this should happen next
To be honest, I’m not sure what he is talking about. There seems to be a disconnect. But I am certain there are plenty of people who have a connection with the game who are competent.
'Definition of madness': Rugby reform must start with total cleanout of RA board - and this should happen next
No but it does demonstrate an interest in the game.
'Definition of madness': Rugby reform must start with total cleanout of RA board - and this should happen next
I think that it’s not a bad thing to have people on the RA board who can at least demonstrate some sort of historical link with rugby. For example, I played, or my brother played. Or my son/daughter/sister/mother/great aunty Betsy. Or, I have been a member of the Western Force/Rebels etc for 10 years. Something/Anything would be enough for me. There is of course an argument that having some non rugby people on the board is also necessary.
But really, I am asking Russ what HE means by that.
'Definition of madness': Rugby reform must start with total cleanout of RA board - and this should happen next
Yep, and those of us that questioned it were told “It’s ok, nothing to see here.”
UPDATE: RA say they were blindsided over Rebels' finances, reject private consortium claim as administrator backs club's survival