Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

Rugby Australia statement: Melbourne Rebels' administration

Rebels' Darby Lancaster in action on April 13 (Photo by Josh Chadwick/Getty Images)

Rugby Australia have issued a statement after the administrator for the financially stricken Melbourne Rebels recommended creditors accept a proposed deal to save the club, adding it may have been trading while insolvent for the last five years.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Rebels went into voluntary administration in January with Rugby Australia taking over their competition licence and covering player and staff payments until the end of this season.

RA is still working through a decision on whether to wind it up, but PwC administrator Stephen Longley has recommended in a report that creditors accept a proposal from directors to save the club, who this weekend play away at the Crusaders.

Video Spacer

Nemani Nadolo on his peak and once being considered “too big”

Former Fijian winger Nemani Nadolo chats to Liam Heagney about when he reached his peak and how he was actually at one stage considered too big to play rugby.

Video Spacer

Nemani Nadolo on his peak and once being considered “too big”

Former Fijian winger Nemani Nadolo chats to Liam Heagney about when he reached his peak and how he was actually at one stage considered too big to play rugby.

Rebels directors have proposed a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) which would guarantee employees 100 per cent of their entitlements, but leave unsecured creditors with as little as 15 cents to the dollar. The deal will be put to creditors, which includes RA, at a meeting on May 3.

A statement read: “Rugby Australia acknowledges the findings of the administrator’s report regarding Melbourne Rebels Rugby Union Pty Ltd issued to the company’s creditors.

Fixture
Super Rugby Pacific
Crusaders
39 - 0
Full-time
Rebels
All Stats and Data

“RA continues to solely fund and operate the Melbourne Rebels Club and its teams to ensure participation in the 2024 competitions. We have done so since the company was placed into voluntary administration by its former board of directors in January.

“For clarity, RA remains a creditor of the MRRU. We also welcome the positive news that MRRU employees are to receive full payment of their entitlements under the proposed deed of company arrangement.

ADVERTISEMENT

“RA notes the public statement made by the former directors of MRRU in response to the administrator’s report. The administrator has not made comment on the strength of the claims of the former directors of MRRU and has attributed no value to those claims.

“The administrator’s report suggests that MRRU and its former directors have been trading whilst insolvent since at least 2018. Given the seriousness of the conduct of the MRRU directors, the administrator has made a report to ASIC.

“RA notes section 7.2 of the report specifically states that MRRU’s financial difficulties are not due to RA’s lack of funding, but rather MRRU’s trading losses, lack of alternative funding, excessive costs and insufficient non-RA revenues.

“RA has complied with all its contractual obligations to MRRU. This includes the payment of all funding (which is subject to an agreement signed under authority by two MRRU directors on behalf of the MRRU board) and also paying all applicable PAYG amounts to MRRU, who misused these funds and did not pay them to the ATO, which was the intended purpose.

ADVERTISEMENT

“RA maintains that the true financial state of MRRU has not been disclosed to RA for some time – it was only once the company defaulted on its payment plan with the ATO last December that RA was made aware of the full state of the MRRU situation.

“In addition, RA has not been advised by the former MRRU directors that they are subject to director penalty notices from the ATO. Despite multiple requests from RA, the MRRU directors have failed to provide any viable proposal or business plan regarding the future of the Melbourne Rebels.

Related

“Contrary to the former directors’ statement, RA met with the former directors at their request in March to discuss a potential resolution. Despite RA’s request for a proposal, no fully-formed proposal was provided by the group.

“RA remains committed to rugby in Victoria, and will continue to actively consult with relevant stakeholders, as well as our legal and financial advisors regarding next steps. We will confirm our position on the future of the Melbourne Rebels Club in due course.”

After releasing its report in midweek, Longley said the directors’ deal was preferable to liquidation given litigation costs could leave creditors with as little as nine cents. “I’m of the view that the likely return to creditors under the proposed deed will provide a materially better outcome for creditors than a winding up,” it wrote.

The club’s liabilities were detailed in the report, with unsecured creditors and related parties claiming nearly $22million out of total claims of more than $23m. The unsecured creditors include the Australian Taxation Office, which is claiming more than $11m, and the Melbourne and Olympic Parks Trust ($1.14m) which runs the Rebels’ home ground, AAMI Park.

The report revealed in the last three calendar years, the Rebels incurred operating losses of $5.7m (2023), $5.3m (2022) and $5m (2021).

“My preliminary view is that the company may have traded whilst insolvent from December 31, 2018, and that it is likely that all debts that remain unpaid were incurred which could result in an insolvent trading claim exceeding $16.8m,” Longley concluded in its report.

Related

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

2 Comments
N
Nickers 209 days ago

Farcical, to what end would someone want to pay to keep this thing going.

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
'Passionate reunion of France and New Zealand shows Fabien Galthie is wrong to rest his stars'

Ok, managed to read the full article..

... New Zealand’s has only 14 and the professional season is all over within four months. In France, club governance is the responsibility of an independent organisation [the Ligue Nationale de Rugby or LNR] which is entirely separate from the host union [the Fédération Française de Rugby or FFR]. Down south New Zealand Rugby runs the provincial and the national game.

That is the National Provincial Championship, a competition of 14 representative union based teams run through the SH international window and only semi professional (paid only during it's running). It is run by NZR and goes for two and a half months.


Super Rugby is a competition involving 12 fully professional teams, of which 5 are of New Zealand eligibility, and another joint administered team of Pacific Island eligibility, with NZR involvement. It was a 18 week competition this year, so involved (randomly chosen I believe) extra return fixtures (2 or 3 home and away derbys), and is run by Super Rugby Pacific's own independent Board (or organisation). The teams may or may not be independently run and owned (note, this does not necessarily mean what you think of as 'privately owned').


LNR was setup by FFR and the French Government to administer the professional game in France. In New Zealand, the Players Association and Super Rugby franchises agreed last month to not setup their own governance structure for professional rugby and re-aligned themselves with New Zealand Rugby. They had been proposing to do something like the English model, I'm not sure how closely that would have been aligned to the French system but it did not sound like it would have French union executive representation on it like the LNR does.

In the shaky isles the professional pyramid tapers to a point with the almighty All Blacks. In France the feeling for country is no more important than the sense of fierce local identity spawned at myriad clubs concentrated in the southwest. Progress is achieved by a nonchalant shrug and the wide sweep of nuanced negotiation, rather than driven from the top by a single intense focus.

Yes, it is pretty much a 'representative' selection system at every level, but these union's are having to fight for their existence against the regime that is NZR, and are currently going through their own battle, just as France has recently as I understand it. A single focus, ala the French game, might not be the best outcome for rugby as a whole.


For pure theatre, it is a wonderful article so far. I prefer 'Ntamack New Zealand 2022' though.

The young Crusader still struggles to solve the puzzle posed by the shorter, more compact tight-heads at this level but he had no problem at all with Colombe.

It was interesting to listen to Manny during an interview on Maul or Nothing, he citied that after a bit of banter with the All Black's he no longer wanted one of their jersey's after the game. One of those talks was an eye to eye chat with Tamaiti Williams, there appear to be nothing between the lock and prop, just a lot of give and take. I thought TW angled in and caused Taylor to pop a few times, and that NZ were lucky to be rewarded.

f you have a forward of 6ft 8ins and 145kg, and he is not at all disturbed by a dysfunctional set-piece, you are in business.

He talked about the clarity of the leadership that helped alleviate any need for anxiety at the predicaments unfolding before him. The same cannot be said for New Zealand when they had 5 minutes left to retrieve a match winning penalty, I don't believe. Did the team in black have much of a plan at any point in the game? I don't really call an autonomous 10 vehicle they had as innovative. I think Razor needs to go back to the dealer and get a new game driver on that one.

Vaa’i is no match for his power on the ground. Even in reverse, Meafou is like a tractor motoring backwards in low gear, trampling all in its path.

Vaa'i actually stops him in his tracks. He gets what could have been a dubious 'tackle' on him?

A high-level offence will often try to identify and exploit big forwards who can be slower to reload, and therefore vulnerable to two quick plays run at them consecutively.

Yes he was just standing on his haunches wasn't he? He mentioned that in the interview, saying that not only did you just get up and back into the line to find the opposition was already set and running at you they also hit harder than anything he'd experienced in the Top 14. He was referring to New Zealands ultra-physical, burst-based Super style of course, which he was more than a bit surprised about. I don't blame him for being caught out.


He still sent the obstruction back to the repair yard though!

What wouldn’t the New Zealand rugby public give to see the likes of Mauvaka and Meafou up front..

Common now Nick, don't go there! Meafou showed his Toulouse shirt and promptly got his citizenship, New Zealand can't have him, surely?!?


As I have said before with these subjects, really enjoy your enthusiasm for their contribution on the field and I'd love to see more of their shapes running out for Vern Cotter and the like styled teams.

287 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Why Freddy Douglas has played for Scotland before Edinburgh Why Freddy Douglas has played for Scotland before Edinburgh
Search