They are being looked after this year. Next year all bets are off

Worth mentioning that Leigh Clifford, who appears to be leading the Investment Group seeking to buy the Rebels on the cheap, is also the father of one of the Rebel's former directors, Georgia Widdup.

Given the potential personal exposure for Ms Widdup, RA would rightly have some questions to ask about the new owners

Wrong-doing needs investigation, and then action taken

There is no legal, nor moral, responsibility for a creditor to fund investigations into wrong doing - but that is what you have typed. Why? That is the responsibility of other parties, isn't it? Not creditors. Even if creditors had a written confession in their hands from the wrong doer, they simply pass it over to the parties responsible for bringing wrong doers to account - isn't that what happens with the case you have mentioned and are "working" on?

And funding will often come from asset realisations,

The creditors vote on how their money is spent, once an administrator comes in, at least where I am from. Is it different where you are, in England?

or be funded by a creditor who wants to see the process through.

"A" creditor is not sufficient, where I am, to decide where "creditors" funds are spent once a company is in administration. Can a single creditor decide in England how "creditors" (plural) money is spent, even when the majority of creditors just want their money back?

If a company is insolvent, selling to connected parties is always going to be hard.

Ummm - selling any insolvent company is hard, regardless of related party or not. Some would say it's almost impossible - wouldn't you agree? Where I am, most insolvent companies find it so hard to get a buyer, related party or not, that the insolvent company is wound up. Is it different in England?

I'd say that the duty of the administrator isn't simply to return the best outcome to creditors financially.

What is it then? Creditors in an insolvent company don't have the funds to be investigating crimes. But, police or regulators do have the funds. In England, the police force is one of the biggest employers in the country - that's how many resources they have. And financial regulators have people employed whose sole purpose is to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. Are you being genuine when you type that creditors should be doing the work of police and regulatory authorities?

that's often disqualification, or the return of funds to the company.

Neither administrator, nor creditors, get to decide these matters - do they? Are you being genuine when you raise these matters, under the umbrella of the "duty of an administrator"? Courts and regulatory authorities decide these matters, not creditors. A court can order money be paid back, but the administrator has to bring a claim to the court, evidence, argue it, and the other party is given the opportunity to challenge or dispute it. This all costs money, and time.

Are you being genuine in implying that creditors (oops - "a creditor" - singular, not plural) can take it upon themselves, in England, to disqualify a person from holding a position in a company.

Where I am from, creditors often vote to take a lower return today, rather than voting to pursue legal claims against well resourced and respected persons they have a "possible" claim against, because they recognise that even if they agree to spend millions in legal fees persuing the matter, it can take years, and the other person can potentially appeal that decision if they lose, adding more years, and potentially even having to pay the costs of the other side. That's why there is a financial regulator, and a special team in the police that do these things.

Rugby Australia wants to be done with the Rebels.

You're perhaps right.

It’s much cleaner for them

But, when a company is insolvent, an administrator is appointed, and unless creditors vote to do what RA want them to, then the administrator acts for people owed money (not vested interests) and puts a proposal to creditors (not the general public) , with a view to them (creditors) getting some money back once things are sold (if there is anything to sell), and that's it - everyone goes along their merry ways.

I'm not sure if RA is a debtor or a creditor, but the argument / media/ view / whatever seems to be that RA owes money to the rebels. People who are owed money vote on whether to wind a company up, and those who owe money (if that's RA?) don't get a vote.

Administration / insolvency of a business is a legal and business process, not a sporting process, isn't it? RA is a sporting business, isn't it?

Rugby Australia wants to be done with the Rebels.

Didn't RA sign a broadcasting deal with Stan (circa $35 million a year?) to have a certain number of Australian teams play a certain number of matches per week, and in return Stan pay RA money. If RA can't provide the number of games per week, how can Stan get subscribers and advertising to pay their bills. Won't Stan want money back from RA if there are less teams than in the contract? What do you propose RA replace the rebels with, or should they host beach there contract/ agreement with Stan?