Terms of Reference for a Senate Inquiry into the Future of Rugby Union in Australia

[UAUdiver1959]

The BIDCO consortium estimated the Rebels losses to be $3m per annum, as the losses were I would assume when Alan Winney ran the show.


"The ARU counter offer to the Consortium was an outcome that was over $4.5 million worse in 2015 and a further $1million p.a. worse in the 2016-20 period compared to the deal that had been put on the table by the Consortium. It would have meant that the Rebels would burn the full $6 million in new equity well before the end of 2015. Given the ARU position, and its unwillingness to negotiate on key terms, the Consortium withdrew from these negotiations on 25 July 2014."


In 2014/15 with Rob Clarke as the ARU appointed Melbourne Rebels CEO and the ARU effectively running the Rebels after Alan Winney gave back the keys, those annual losses 'EXPLODED' by another $4.5m to $7.5m in 2015 and were forecast to increase into the future.

Something is really wrong here. A respected businessman runs the Rebels the best he can and it runs at a $3m a year loss so he walks away. The ARU take over and it immediately starts to increase its losses by as much as $7.5m in 2015.

I really hope that other people can see this, incompetent or corrupt or both. This is why Alan Winney wanted the world to see his offer and for others to see that the ARU rejected this....much the way that they rejected Twiggy.

[Bakkies]

The ARU would have got 99 more dollars for the cost of the licence and IP

[jackster]

The BIDCO consortium estimated the Rebels losses to be $3m per annum, as the losses were I would assume when Alan Winney ran the show.


"The ARU counter offer to the Consortium was an outcome that was over $4.5 million worse in 2015 and a further $1million p.a. worse in the 2016-20 period compared to the deal that had been put on the table by the Consortium. It would have meant that the Rebels would burn the full $6 million in new equity well before the end of 2015. Given the ARU position, and its unwillingness to negotiate on key terms, the Consortium withdrew from these negotiations on 25 July 2014."


In 2014/15 with Rob Clarke as the ARU appointed Melbourne Rebels CEO and the ARU effectively running the Rebels after Alan Winney gave back the keys, those annual losses 'EXPLODED' by another $4.5m to $7.5m in 2015 and were forecast to increase into the future.

Something is really wrong here. A respected businessman runs the Rebels the best he can and it runs at a $3m a year loss so he walks away. The ARU take over and it immediately starts to increase its losses by as much as $7.5m in 2015.

I really hope that other people can see this, incompetent or corrupt or both. This is why Alan Winney wanted the world to see his offer and for others to see that the ARU rejected this....much the way that they rejected Twiggy.

No, when Winney and co were in the first consortium, it ran up bigger losses than that ($3m per year)- see Alison's figures , and Gary Gray was in charge of writing the cheques - but Winney and ARU agreed that it would be about $3 m loss in 2015. The question is, why did the ARU forgive $13 m to them on the sale, since as per Alison's figures, $8.75 m in loans plus $4.25 m?? But this was not all loss, this was clearing creditors - as per Senator Reynolds statements in Hansard., So why??? WHY??? WHY?????

[UAUdiver1959]

Good article about private ownership of the Rebels circa 2013. The article starts off, "The Australian Rugby Union's experiment with private ownership of a Super Rugby franchise in Melbourne has come to an end with the foundation shareholders of the Rebels giving up their stakes."

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/un...627-2oyy9.html


It goes on "Current ARU chief executive Bill Pulver would not label the privatisation experiment a failure, but conceded the previous ARU administration under O'Neill had been lucky to find investors to fund the club when it ''arguably'' should have supplied the cash itself." with another ludicrous statement that Rob Clarke would make the Rebels profitable within 5yrs.

[jackster]

Dont forget also, Rob Clarke was still on the Rebels Board until 1 May 2015, so he was right up there on both sides of negotiations - the entity being sold and the entity arranging the sale - somewhat incredulously he stated he was one of a team!!! cough cough

[Bakkies]

Jack of all trades master of none is Clarke.

[andrewM]

Was thinking about a little visit while in Sydney

I still have some presents left over for them

[shasta]

"Mr Pulver, you stated at the enquiry that you could not discuss details of the Winney Consortium bid as it was confidential information. It was not. What do you say to that"

"I can't recall."

"It's recorded in the Hansard transcript".

"What I mean is I can't recall Mr Winney's bid; let alone whether it was confidential. Actually, who is this Mr Winney anyway? Does he like honey? Maybe Rob Clarke knows him. He knows lots of people."

[shasta]

You can dress up as a Iron Mountain worker

Or dress up as Blind Freddie and run around the building shouting "I can see what youse are up to!!"

[FingerTips]

Let’s hope they both drown in it while serving time in Albury prison

Reminds me of a quote which Bill Lockyer, California's attorney general, made about Ken Lay of Enron, around the time of the Californian energy crisis in 2001:
"I'd love to personally escort Lay to an eight-by-ten cell that he could share with a tattooed dude who says 'Hi, my name is Spike, honey.'"

(Eichenwald, Conspiracy of Fools, p.455)

[jackster]

Reminds me of a quote which Bill Lockyer, California's attorney general, made about Ken Lay of Enron, around the time of the Californian energy crisis in 2001:
"I'd love to personally escort Lay to an eight-by-ten cell that he could share with a tattooed dude who says 'Hi, my name is Spike, honey.'"

(Eichenwald, Conspiracy of Fools, p.455)

lets play mummy and daddys

[sittingbison]

jackster you can include in those opaque deals the "grounds for hire" with the Tahrds where as far as we know the investigation is STILL underway (now at presumably the bottom of Sydney Harbour) ,
***, and the first sale of the Rebels from the first private owners back to the ARU (where huge debts had been accumulated and guess what...forgiven). And also (first I heard about it) a $1.6m loan to the Brumbies that was not repaid mentioned I think in submission 15?

But strangely, what was never kept opaque were dealings with the Force, such as the Kanaar fine, Firepower fiasco etc.

*** ahhhh I forgot to include the "loan" from Nick-Farr Jones to Jim Williams, taken from government funding for indigenous development. Nick apparently thought that in "indigenous development" meant paying for aboriginal Williams' mortgage

[Bakkies]

lets play mummy and daddys

Ship of fools is an appropriate song for the ARU

[jackster]

Now on pages 31- 32 of the Hansard transcript with the interview with Mr Clarke, Senator Reynolds is asking about the deal, whether Mr Clarke negotiated the terms of the agreement or whether it was Mr Pulver or someone else to which, Mr Clarke says, "no, I didn't." So he would have us believe that as COO of the ARU and Director of the target company, the Melbourne Rebels, he had no part in the negotiations of the agreement and that Mr Pulver and Mr Todd Day did all of the negotiation with Imperium Group on the terms of the contract. I don't think so Mr Clarke

[Markos2012]

Ship of fools is an appropriate song for the ARU

I thought so too, though now I think that suits the Rebels better “there gonna beg tomorrow”.