Australian Rugby / RA

[formerflanker]

What is a 33% increase? Did it go from a 4 person team to 6? Or did it go from 16 to 24?

Good question and I have no answer.
I would prefer our game to run in a way in which questions like these are not needed because of full transparency from RA. Its not as though the size of the media department is commercial-in-confidence.

 

[KOB1987]

WTF does this have to do with RA? Try another thread.

In fairness to BR he was just answering my question, the bulk of the conversation of which was to do with this thread until I asked the question. But fair game I'll answer his return question elsewhere.

 

[Braveheart81]

Agreed, of course it was expenditure multiplied by days, Maybe the pertinent question is what exactly does the rugby code here get for its $333,000 spent on it each day, is that money being spent each day getting a good return.

Flip it around. We generated almost $300k a day in broadcast revenue, ticket sales to test matches and sponsorships. How much money was needed to be spent to generate that revenue?

How do we measure what is a good return? In terms of a financial return the way to maximise that would be to only spend money on revenue generating activities. Clearly that isn't in the game's best interests.

It's an impossible question to answer and it is meaningless to relate it to the daily expenditure of RA.

More pertinent questions would be about whether the following expenses represented good value or generated a good return:

- $3.97m spent on community rugby
- $3.95m allocated to member unions and affiliates

Can the revenue generated by Rugby Australia still be achieved with a substantial reduction in the costs associated with generating that revenue?

How much does the availability of circa 180 professional contracts in Australia through RA and the Super Rugby teams drive the participation and quality of the game at junior and grassroots level?

 

[Braveheart81]

Obviously there needs to be accountability or serious questions asked, but it needs to be compared to ongoing case studies of what is successful. Those that think it’s over blown staff wise, what should the number be? I can tell you now it would be north of 40 people as NFJ mentioned, but does it have to be 120 as reported.

I would guess the 120 employees is full time equivalent staff. At 28 February 2019 per the 2018 financial statements the clue to the number of employees is from the inclusion policy statistics looking at the proportion of women employed by RA.

The numbers were:
Board 3 = 33%
Management 2 = 14%
Other 48 = 33%
Total 53 = 27%

If 53 people = 27% then there were roughly 196 employees at that date. Presumably this includes some number of players (I assume the 7s players at a minimum).

It's impossible to decide how many employees are needed without having a detailed list of every role and what they do exactly.

The NRL supposedly employs around 500 people. That is for revenue of just shy of $580m in 2019.

 

[Adam84]

According to the Australian I blew $400k over the past 4 years and burned through $280/day... despite much of that money going towards, housing, food, utilities, taxes and my Foxtel subscription.

 

[The Nomad]

According to the Australian I blew $400k over the past 4 years and burned through $280/day. despite much of that money going towards, housing, food, utilities, taxes and my Foxtel subscription.

Similar for my household Adam , although I have warned the kids the Foxtel subscription goes if Phil Kearns gets anywhere near the CEO gig for RA.

Wallabies on FTA and use the savings to get to more Reds games ( in whatever format that might be ) .

 

[The Honey Badger]

According to the Australian I blew $400k over the past 4 years and burned through $280/day. despite much of that money going towards, housing, food, utilities, taxes and my Foxtel subscription.

no kids at private school, the number turn really ugly then.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Alan Jones will be off-air at the end of May:

https://i.stuff.co.nz/entertainment...hoved-down-throat-of-jacinda-ardern-to-retire

Will still be writing for News & appearing on Sky, but.

 

[Aurelius]

Interesting report from the Oz today. Raelene Castle hired a couple of broadcast rights consultants to the tune of over a million dollars to drive RA's broadcast strategy. Their plan to basically drive a bidding war between Fox Sports and Optus failed, which obviously precipitated Castle's downfall, but the two consultants are still in the employ of RA.

More evidence of the need for a broad cleanout, you'd think.

 

[Derpus]

Interesting report from the Oz today. Raelene Castle hired a couple of broadcast rights consultants to the tune of over a million dollars to drive RA's broadcast strategy. Their plan to basically drive a bidding war between Fox Sports and Optus failed, which obviously precipitated Castle's downfall, but the two consultants are still in the employ of RA.

More evidence of the need for a broad cleanout, you'd think.

It certainly seemed to be working pre-Covid19. Fox were in a frenzy churning out hatchet jobs trying to put downward pressure on the price. Optus & 10, although distancing themselves now, appeared to be interested. I think Fox's panic is enough evidence to suggest that Optus were at least semi-serious.

A million dollars to do something that is best practice is obviously way too much though.

 

[Pfitzy]

A million dollars to do something that is best practice is obviously way too much though.

If it was a million dollars - and I'm not saying it isn't - and it got an Optus deal worth an extra $5M a year over what Foxtel were offering on a five year deal, then it pays itself back in 73 days (and 2 hours) or roughly 4% of the total period.

The rest is gravy.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

News claims to have had RA's books leaked to them:

"Financial fallout of Israel Folau saga revealed as Rugby Australia figures leaked"

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12331395

TLDR: Payments to players & RUPA increased by $4Mn, attributed to Folau payout (implied to be $2Mn on RA's part) plus first year of Hooper's new contract plus cost of getting White back from UK. Corporate expenses up by $3.8Mn allegedly due to legal costs associated with the Folau matter & hiring of PR firm Bastion Reputation Management. Also states that RA owes creditors $20Mn. Interestingly also says total expenditure only increased by $5Mn so $2.8Mn must have been clawed back elsewhere.

 

[Ignoto]

Interesting report from the Oz today. Raelene Castle hired a couple of broadcast rights consultants to the tune of over a million dollars to drive RA's broadcast strategy. Their plan to basically drive a bidding war between Fox Sports and Optus failed, which obviously precipitated Castle's downfall, but the two consultants are still in the employ of RA.

More evidence of the need for a broad cleanout, you'd think.

Rugby Australia last year paid close to $1m to broadcast rights strategists,

The Australian can reveal Mattiske and Tange have been paid by RA for nearly two years and a source confirmed they had collected well over $1m.

So what is it, close to $1m or well over $1m?

But now its, $1m over 2 years for 2 blokes?

 

[Aurelius]

So what is it, close to $1m or well over $1m?

But now its, $1m over 2 years for 2 blokes?

The really interesting question for me is what are they up to now, especially as RA has to really trim the fat from somewhere.

I think this situation calls for the Bobs.

 

[Rebels3]

The questions I want to know about the private consultants hired are;

1) is $1m a usual rate for a business to hire someone to negotiate a broadcast deal? Maybe it’s cheap, maybe they paid overs? $1m to us is a lot but in the professional world it isn’t. For instance if you get a 5yr $280m deal for it, that’s 1/280 of a fraction of the sale. But then again if they lose money on the previous deal was it worth it?
2) do you actually need to hire someone? Are there people with relevant skills or more importantly networks already in the system that could of been used?
3) what were the findings of their research?

Until I have a comprehension of this, I don’t think it’s worth been positive or outraged about it. Given Covid it’s impossible to decide if it was a waste or not, the market has been disrupted too much.

 

[Froggy]

I don't know whether we got value or not, but the constant hiring of consultants in business, sport, government or anything at all really gets under my skin.
Just as an example. our local council has (as do all other councils) a team of planners, all with university degrees and on six figure salaries. But the moment anything requires more than reading the LEP and seeing if a Development Application complies, they get in a firm of consultants. And as to the upmarket hustlers who charge governments hundreds of millions to model the usage a new motorway or tunnel, and then get it wrong by magnitudes of more than 50%, they should be bloody charged with an offence!

 

[KOB1987]

When I first read it in the paper (iPad) this morning I was a little bit outraged and starting penning a RA sledge here, basically along the lines of that’s what I thought Castle and Clowne were meant to be doing. But then as I wrote and read it occurred to be that’s it’s perfectly reasonable to employ people (permanent, contract, or otherwise) to perform a crucial role like this, given the proportion of revenue it was expected to generate. I make no judgement as to whether they were going to be successful or not. There are obviously significant issues with RA’s finances but this isn’t one of them.

I’ve been liking a lot of Jessica Hallorans stuff, but she’s like a bull at a gate and getting a bit tiring with her attacks TBH.

 

[Derpus]

I don't know whether we got value or not, but the constant hiring of consultants in business, sport, government or anything at all really gets under my skin.
Just as an example. our local council has (as do all other councils) a team of planners, all with university degrees and on six figure salaries. But the moment anything requires more than reading the LEP and seeing if a Development Application complies, they get in a firm of consultants. And as to the upmarket hustlers who charge governments hundreds of millions to model the usage a new motorway or tunnel, and then get it wrong by magnitudes of more than 50%, they should be bloody charged with an offence!

What's your LGA out of interest? used to deal with a fair few of them and i share your opinion.

It is largely a symptom of the 'small government' political ideology i reckon. Be seen to cut public jobs to reduce costs while still needing their expertise. They then end up procuring often the exact same people to do the same job at three or four times the cost.

It's hard to blame the consultants when the government is so willing.

 

[Finsbury Girl]

Waste of dough bringing back a journeyman in White. Especially when there are 3 fine and able halfbacks already here and all them ahead in terms of ability far, far ahead in terms of longevity.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I don't know whether we got value or not, but the constant hiring of consultants in business, sport, government or anything at all really gets under my skin.
Just as an example. our local council has (as do all other councils) a team of planners, all with university degrees and on six figure salaries. But the moment anything requires more than reading the LEP and seeing if a Development Application complies, they get in a firm of consultants. And as to the upmarket hustlers who charge governments hundreds of millions to model the usage a new motorway or tunnel, and then get it wrong by magnitudes of more than 50%, they should be bloody charged with an offence!

I work in consulting and I totally hear what you're saying. If you've highly paid people in your business already and you still hire consultants to help them then sometimes you have to wonder what you're paying them for! I've been on both sides of this equation and there have been times where I've just shook my head at the incompetence on one side and the high-level hand waving of no value on the other.