Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Melbourne Rebels launch lawsuit against Rugby Australia

Rebels players form a huddle in June after their final Super Rugby Pacific match (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

The Melbourne Rebels are seeking “significant damages” from Rugby Australia in a lawsuit launched after the club was dissolved by the governing body. In a claim filed to the Federal Court on Wednesday, the club is seeking a declaration that it can resume control of the Rebels so the team can continue to play in the Super Rugby competition.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The Rebels are a member of Rugby Australia and had a legal expectation that they would not only be treated fairly but that they would be treated equally to other members,” the club said in a statement. “Amongst other things, the Rebels will assert that Rugby Australia has breached various sections of the Corporations Act.”

The club is also seeking that the court order Rugby Australia to open its books for inspection to determine claims it failed funding responsibilities for the Rebels, including when players were representing the Wallabies.

Video Spacer

WATCH: Chasing the Sun Season 2 Trailer | RPTV

The brilliant Chasing the Sun 2, charting the inspiring story of the Springboks at Rugby World Cup 2023, can be watched on RugbyPass TV

Watch now

Video Spacer

WATCH: Chasing the Sun Season 2 Trailer | RPTV

The brilliant Chasing the Sun 2, charting the inspiring story of the Springboks at Rugby World Cup 2023, can be watched on RugbyPass TV

Watch now

In the statement, the club said it believed there had been “unacceptable and unauthorised spending” by Rugby Australia, including during the 2023 Rugby World Cup.

The Rebels claim Rugby Australia executives and directors continued to reassure it, and other teams, that a large private equity deal would provide a financial lifeline to the sport.

“Rugby Australia did secure an $80 million loan facility, but they chose only to provide funding, indemnities or other financial support to the NSW Waratahs and subsequently the ACT Brumbies in preference to the Melbourne Rebels,” the club said.

The Rebels were axed by Rugby Australia in May after entering voluntary administration five months earlier with debts exceeding $23 million. Many players and staff have since joined other clubs. Rugby Australia has been contacted for comment.

ADVERTISEMENT

Related

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

3 Comments
W
Willie 73 days ago

They may win the case against RA but it will not get them back into SR. The competition is better without them.

O
OJohn 73 days ago

The Melbourne Rebels Kings Counsel charges $20,000 to $25,000 a day.


He's no dummy, unlike Rugby Australia board members and staff.


I think Rugby Australia are probably in big, big trouble.

W
Wayneo 73 days ago

They should have listened to SA Rugby back in 2008/2009 when a big spat broke out between SA Rugby and the ARU & NZR after they ganged up to include the Rebels instead of the Kings.


The then president of SA Rugby Brian van Rooyen said something to the effect that the Rebels were not feasible, as had already been proven with the previous inclusion of the Force He also mentioned that SANZAAR would get more broadcast revenue with the Kings, which they in fact did get a few years later when the Kings were included in SR.


Brian van Rooyen was 100% right as to the Rebels feasibility in SR. Just on attendance alone, it ended up taking the Rebels 10 seasons to get the same attendance numbers that the Kings got in just their 3 seasons of SR.

Load More Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 3 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

144 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Return of 30-something brigade provides welcome tonic for Wales Return of 30-something brigade provides welcome tonic for Wales
Search