ASIC is not pursuing the matter, presumably because the money was repaid. Note 19 of the financial statements in the annual report admits: "Over the past two financial years, funds from the Club were made available to, or on behalf of, Andrew Gee who, at the time, was a director of the Club. The amounts involved totalled $298,000. Those payments occurred without appropriate supporting documentation, without first obtaining member approval and without board approval. The full amount of $298,000 was repaid to the Club prior to the end of the financial year. The Club subsequently notified ASIC that there may, in the circumstances, be a reasonable basis to suspect that these transactions breached the Corporations Act. ASIC has since notified the Club that they will not be taking any further action." Leagueland is left wondering how the Broncos survived a salary cap bullet, while speculating that Gee, who resigned over the matter and refused to answer questions from the NRL, took one for the club. Questions remain: (i) where did the money go? (ii) why is ASIC not interested? (iii) why are any of the BLC board who presided over the mess still in their positions? (iv) who repaid the $300K? The NRL has not taken action because there is no evidence the Broncos Football Club contravened the Corporations Act or the ASX Listing Rules.

Former chief operating officer Jim Doyle has indicated the NRL will not register Gee should he seek to hold a post such as football manager under his old mentor, coach Wayne Bennett. It is strange, however, why ASIC apparently doesn't intend pursing it. Perhaps the strategy of BLC having the money repaid has worked. Ultimately, there is no damage. Nobody lost money, so ASIC can move on. But this does not satisfy clubs like the Storm, Bulldogs, Titans, Warriors and Raiders who have lost premierships, points, players and payments from sponsors, as well as paid massive fines, as a result of salary cap breaches (some still contested). Surely BLC and Gee are in a precarious position under the Corporations Act and with ASIC. The Corporations Act requires an auditor to report to ASIC (within 28 days) where it has reasonable ground to suspect a significant contravention of the Corporations Act . Note 19 in the annual report suggests the BLC auditor informed ASIC. The real question is how it was characterised or explained to ASIC. This is relevant because the auditor with the obligation to report to ASIC (Pitcher Partners) is the same auditor that, during previous audits, has missed the (unapproved) funds flowing out to Gee in prior years. By the company's own admission these payments were not approved by the board or members, yet they were missed by the auditor as well. The money just vanished but as mysteriously as that happened, it was returned. No harm, no foul.

Gee was a director of Broncos Leagues Club and an employee of the football club. The Corporations Act provides for criminal sanctions where a director recklessly or intentionally acts dishonestly or uses their position directly or indirectly to gain an advantage for themselves. Based on what appears to have occurred - and what is now confirmed in BLC's audited financial statements - Andrew Gee would have some explaining to do, which probably explains why not talking to the NRL was the lesser of two evils he was facing. In the same way as the Russians believe the story on their 2018 World Cup bid is dead, so do the Broncos. But in terms of BLC, there is still a fair bit of explaining to do - not to the NRL but to ASIC, their members and the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing.