Not to put too fine a point on it, but the ARU wrote the contract in 2015 that included the put option, so they ought to know its terms and conditions - that being $1 payment and Cox relinquished the company to the VRU debt free.
Printable View
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the ARU wrote the contract in 2015 that included the put option, so they ought to know its terms and conditions - that being $1 payment and Cox relinquished the company to the VRU debt free.
All cool from that point Lou. Just a couple of question and this is based on previous financials so a lot of surmising. How are they debt free and if so who paid the debt down?Quote:
Originally Posted by lou
I do hope we are successful with arbitration because they are going to get more desperate to cut us (if that's possible as it's always been us on the chopping block) if Rebels are now untouchable!! I hope we know tmr, sick of this now just want to start looking forward to next season.. Can't imagine the effect on the team, staff and their loved ones!!
We’re led to believe that the arbitration finding will be made public this week and with some reporting it could be as early as tomorrow. To my knowledge there have been no leaks as to what the findings will be so does anyone know where the news will break first, will it be a press release from Rugby WA?
Daily Telegraph for sure, probably via Twitter, about an hour before ARU release "official" news.
my sources tell me that Cox did not put his hand in his pocket for one cent. He did however bend the arm of some of his board members and apparently they have funded the debt so that it was debt free.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandgroperrugby
Attachment 4974Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman
Can someone enlighten me about the involvement of Tim North QC may of had when the ARU decided to meet the legal action created by Rugby WA & the Western Force. I just would like some clarification simply because of his senior positions being held with the VRU, may in someway cause a conflict of interest. Its only an observation without any prejudice but I would like to know the answer.
This is only from my observations of the man : His position is pro rugby in particular Victorian Rugby - he is the President of VRU and he would never do anything that would harm rugby in this state. As far as any other state, in words or actions I do not think he has made any negative contribution to their rugby program and in fact, he is a 'keep five alive' man as far as I know.
I think the rebels stronger as five argument wouldn't have happened without the backing of the vru so I'd say Lou is on the money there.
I wonder what has contributed to this difference, Sinders seems to be pretty convinced that 4 is the way to go, could it be that the hatchet men's PowerPoint was really convincing and not shown in Victoria?
Bill Pulver went to Victoria I assume his contribution was to get on the piss and bet big at crown using his expense account.
How else is he going to get the ARU out of the budget black hole they're in?Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGS20
It's not like there is anyone else within the ARU with brains, imagination or even basic fiscal sense.
Geoff stooke
Not directly, but the collateral damage to Australian Rugby caused by his relentless pursuit of propping up Victorian Rugby has resulted in the ARU now being in such financial peril we are now cutting a franchise, have no money for grassroots development, or any other development program to be properly funded, other states being dragged into a who what where when battle over why the Rebels were propped up to the exclusive detriment of other states abilities to compete on a level playing field, has been central to the negotiations that has seen 2 private owners bail out of Victorian rugby leaving them currently on the hook for underwriting losses in a company they have no means to sustain other than to continue the handouts without ramifications strategy, was the brains behind the EGM that resulted in the franchises being forced to vote in favour of cutting a franchise, is now central in another potential legal battle over whether the put option negates the Participation Deed, was central to negotiations with the ARU on which Force players the Rebels automatically received when his former CEO had thought he had the legal right to cut the Force, has been central to the drop off in corporate support from sponsors as no sane business wants to be throwing more money into the black hole which is the Rebels financials, overseen the Rebels performance and attendances drop off significantly, has had 7 seasons to turn the Rebels into a viable organization but has not come close resulting in the aforementioned financial peril rugby is now in.Quote:
Originally Posted by lou
So, yeah, Tim North is "great" for Victorian Rugby but as a businessman and a strategist, he is not good for Victorian rugby, or Australian Rugby for that matter. He has been central to our current financial perils, like it or not.
Thanks guys appreciate your points of view.
In addition, if the Rebels had not stood back on their heels and watched as the Force and rugby community fought the cull, all the while Cox is stating 'emphatically' (haha) he will never give up the Rebels (what a joke). Maybe if the VRU had taken some earlier responsibility immediately instead of leaving it this long to drag out in the court with the Force and ARU? I'm just not very impressed with the behavior of MRRU, where the Force jumped into proaction, the Rebels all curled up in a ball and waited for the Messiah, so I personally don't feel they deserve any sympathy whatsoever.