• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Australian Rugby / RA

TSR

TSR

Mark Ella (57)
Finsbury Girl said:
Er no it isn't.

They should be able to answer any question around going concern in a worst case scenario RIGHT NOW. End of.

If they cannot then it is further proof of sheer incompetence.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure if I’m interrupting your post correctly, but nobody knows what ‘worst case’ looks like here - unless you just mean that worst case is everyone could end up bankrupt and everyone out of a job.

There are a hell of a lot of people grappling with this in terms of business planning and I am yet to come across one who has any confidence as to what this means for their business.
 
TSR

TSR

Mark Ella (57)
formerflanker said:
Another criticism I have of RA is its long term agenda of paying over the odds salaries for the CEO.
If newspaper reports are any guide, RC started in Jan 2018 on $760,000 p.a. and until Tuesday was on $840,000.
It seems the Board assessed her each year as "meeting or exceeding KPIs" and gave her a 5% increase.
RA paid an excessive amount for what the CEO actually achieves, unfortunately in line with all other professional sports in Australia.
Yes, Olympic/NRL/AFL leaders get paid big sums too, but RA didn't have to follow that pathway.

For that amount of money, RC should have spent time informing RUPA of RA's full financial position, but she didn't.
Click to expand...
How much do you think they should have paid, and are you confident they would have found strong candidates in that pay bracket?

I haven’t looked at this in depth - but if I take your point that her salary is in line with other sports then they paid the going rate.
 
Micheal

Micheal

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
formerflanker said:
Another criticism I have of RA is its long term agenda of paying over the odds salaries for the CEO.
If newspaper reports are any guide, RC started in Jan 2018 on $760,000 p.a. and until Tuesday was on $840,000.
It seems the Board assessed her each year as "meeting or exceeding KPIs" and gave her a 5% increase.
RA paid an excessive amount for what the CEO actually achieves, unfortunately in line with all other professional sports in Australia.
Yes, Olympic/NRL/AFL leaders get paid big sums too, but RA didn't have to follow that pathway.

For that amount of money, RC should have spent time informing RUPA of RA's full financial position, but she didn't.
Click to expand...

To add to the conversation -- what type of salary would you offer her or any other potential CEO of RA? As a general ball-park?
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Finsbury Girl said:
Er no it isn't.

They should be able to answer any question around going concern in a worst case scenario RIGHT NOW. End of.

If they cannot then it is further proof of sheer incompetence.
Click to expand...


It isn't just a case of slapping a statement in the financial statements that if the COVID-19 disruption is really bad then the entity will cease being a going concern and then the auditor signs off on it.

There are lots of considerations in both the preparation of the financials in terms of events after period end and whether they are adjusting events or just require disclosures plus extra consideration for auditors.

AASB and AUASB released joint guidance for financial statement preparers and auditors just two weeks ago regarding COVID-19 guidance and considerations.

You also need to consider that there isn't a single auditor in the country who has dealt with this situation before. In signing off an audit report they provide assurance. That's the whole point. There are massive considerations around that assurance with their firms and their PI insurers.

This is far more of an auditor issue than the entity preparing their financial statements (RA).
 
Adam84

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
RebelYell said:
She cost the code $4 million by not inserting a clause in Israel's contract preventing him from what he did. FACT.

She turned down a broadcast deal which was singificantly greater than market value, regardless as to what has happened in the world since then. FACT

She allowed a Wallabies Head Coach to continue in a role and develop poisonous factions within her employ despite him failing to achieve acceptable results, leading to a splintered playing group and Board. FACT

She has not stood up for Australia sufficiently at a SANZAAR or World Rugby level, leading to losing the WRWC bid, and seeing the Super Rugby competition continue to move towards a model which is unpalatable for the Australian franchises commercially. FACT

She has consistently performed poorly in a media context, and has shown an inability to communicate clearly, develop genuine relationships in the press and be a positive representative of the game. FACT

There are bucketloads of FACTS for why she has performed poorly, and if you retrace this thread you will see plenty of examples. People who like and support her are unlikely to change their minds, ditto people who don't, however the suggestion that so many of us only want her fired due to her gender is completely incorrect. She is extremely unfortunate in what she inherited from Bill Pulver, and in the current pandemic, but that doesn't make her immune from critique.

FWIW, I too am pleased with some of the coaching appointments and the progress in elite development (Schoolboys, Junior Wallabies), as well as the development of Super W.
Click to expand...


no, in FACT these aren't facts, most of these are simply the opinion of someone stated as a fact because they believe them to be true.
 
Derpus

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
I dont get it... Every other code has cut as much or more - literally millions of people are out of a job. Its almost as if the virus isn't a thing and we arent all literally locked in our homes right now?
 
Finsbury Girl

Finsbury Girl

Trevor Allan (34)
TSR said:
I’m not sure if I’m interrupting your post correctly, but nobody knows what ‘worst case’ looks like here - unless you just mean that worst case is everyone could end up bankrupt and everyone out of a job.



There are a hell of a lot of people grappling with this in terms of business planning and I am yet to come across one who has any confidence as to what this means for their business.
Click to expand...


There is a worst case - they get zero income over the next 12 months. The going concern question is a simple one to address.

The directors are the ones who make that call - the auditor will either agree or disagree with that view.

Either way, it is certainly reasonable to infer that 1) in the worst case scenario the ARU cannot be considered to be a going concern and 2) due to this they are scrambling to come up a reasonable scenarios that shows it is a going concern in order to assuage the auditors fears.
 
TSR

TSR

Mark Ella (57)
Finsbury Girl said:
There is a worst case - they get zero income over the next 12 months. The going concern question is a simple one to address.

The directors are the ones who make that call - the auditor will either agree or disagree with that view.

Either way, it is certainly reasonable to infer that 1) in the worst case scenario the ARU cannot be considered to be a going concern and 2) due to this they are scrambling to come up a reasonable scenarios that shows it is a going concern in order to assuage the auditors fears.
Click to expand...
Okay - we aren’t even close in our thinking here so I’m just going to let it go.
 
Dan54

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
I like to watch

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
formerflanker said:
Another criticism I have of RA is its long term agenda of paying over the odds salaries for the CEO.
If newspaper reports are any guide, RC started in Jan 2018 on $760,000 p.a. and until Tuesday was on $840,000.
It seems the Board assessed her each year as "meeting or exceeding KPIs" and gave her a 5% increase.
RA paid an excessive amount for what the CEO actually achieves, unfortunately in line with all other professional sports in Australia.
Yes, Olympic/NRL/AFL leaders get paid big sums too, but RA didn't have to follow that pathway.

For that amount of money, RC should have spent time informing RUPA of RA's full financial position, but she didn't.
Click to expand...

That's the market rate, that position is not overpaid.
You might well be justified in suggesting she's not up to the job.
But to be fair,she is in control at a time when anyone would struggle to do well in all aspects.

However, given poor financial results
Poor participation
Poor crowds
Poor tv ratings
Poor onfield results
How does she give herself a 72% mark (apparently in latest AR)
What the fuck are they measuring?
And that's on the board,not her.
 
RebelYell

RebelYell

Arch Winning (36)
Sully said:
I don't know about the rest of the mods but I'm pretty close to banning a few guys permanently.
Click to expand...


Sorry, you're considering banning people who dare to hold Raelene, the executive and the Board accountable and want to share their opinions? Isn't that the entire purpose of a forum?
 
Slim 293

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
RebelYell said:
I try not to bite too often on here, but this is spreading incorrect information.

RUPA/the players are able to make exceptions to this clause if the alternative is that the player is not going to be offered a contract, and it has been widely reported that JOC (James O'Connor), Karmichael & Kurtley have all had contracts negotiated under these conditions
Click to expand...


These were clauses that were agreed to by JOC (James O'Connor) and KHunt.........

RA could not force a social media clause upon Folau.

Obviously they could've not offered him a contract, but then just imagine the fallout from that ridiculous scenario.........

But Folau still had to abide by the code of conduct, for which he failed to do and was terminated on several breaches of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top