I remembered hearing that Pulver also took a huge self enforced pay cut upon taking the job, and I went back to the 2013 Annual Report to verify.
In 2012, John O'Neil received $1,291,844 in a cash salary, and $895,495 in incentive payments.
In contrast, for 2013, Pulver received $696,779 in a cash salary, and chose to forego incentive payments. He did the same in 2014, receiving only $735,885 in a cash salary for that year.
Further, it was reported that the salary for 2013 was for 11 months only. Had he received the full annual salary in 2013, it would have been in the ballpark of ~$760k.
The result of all my findings?
Not only did he choose to take approximately 1/3 of what John O'Neill demanded from the company for the same role, his annual salary has fallen even further throughout his time at the company. When you take into account inflation of approx 2.5% p.a. in 2013 and 2014, this reduction becomes even larger in terms of real purchasing power.
Whilst I maintain that ~740k a year is hardly chips, its certainly well below the market rate for a CEO with his track record. He could have received far more at firms that are in a far better state, far easier to manage and with only a smidgen of the criticism that seems to accompany his current job.
After the demise of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, as symbolised within the fall of Nero, Ancient Rome plunged into a state of civil war that was characterised by attempted power grabs in the pursuit of power and all the perks that come with it. It was a period known as the Year of the Four Emperors, and I feel as if that is a name that needs very little explanation.
During this time, Lucius Verginius Rufus, a governor and general loyal to Nero, crushed a revolt lead by Gaius Julius Vindex and following the battle, was proclaimed as Emperor by his troops.
With the ruling regime in a state of disrepair, an army at his back and wind in his sails, Rufus suddenly found himself face to face with an opportunity to put himself in a position of extreme power and to seize everything that he had (probably) ever wanted.
But he didn't. Rufus made the decision that any clear headed man would - he let others play the Imperial game. The Empire seemed to be spiralling out of control, and to take up the position would be akin to diving on a grenade. Not only was the likelihood of successfully restoring order to the Roman Empire within his lifetime quite low, the immense levels of personal risk that coincided with very plausible failure couldn't be reconciled.
My point in all this?
I'm surprised Pulver didn't make the same decision.
He has sacrificed a lot in his position as CEO of the ARU. Monetarily, of course, but also otherwise. He has thrown himself into the public eye, and taken accountability for turning the sinking ship that is Australian Rugby around. He's already received a lot of criticism during his time in the position, and if he is to fail to save a sporting code that is seemingly doomed for failure, he can kiss his reputation goodbye as the angry mob that is Australian Rugby supporters retrieve their pitchforks from Ewen McKenzie's gut and turn them on him.
If you haven't realised, I'm obviously a staunch fan of Pulver. Since coming into the role, he's restructured the operations over in St. Leonards, trimmed the fat (several times), negotiated better deals for the code despite very little to bargain with, transformed development pathways (NRC, u20s, Gold Squads etc) and much, much more. I feel like the extent of his achievements are not often recognized.
That being said, he has been found wanting on a few occasions. For one, the Kurtley Beale / Ewen McKenzie could have been handled with more finesse, but sports administration, and the intricacies of it, are something relatively new to the man. If anything, the gross mistreatment of a stalwart of Australian Rugby (Link) and the character assassination that accompanied it was an indictment on not only the ARU, but the wider rugby public in general.
There's no mistaking it, the game is in a dire state. For all the speculation and criticism I see on here, I also see very little action. We all have a role to play, and if, in 50 years time, the game is exclusively a thing of the past, then I believe we will only have ourselves to blame because, at the end of the day, we, the fans and participants, are the physical manifestation of Australian Rugby. Not Bill Pulver or Michael Cheika or Kurtley Beale or whoever comes after them.
The man is obviously very passionate. I challenge anyone who questions his incentives to visit the section titled as such in the governing bodies annual reports, and then ask yourself, what have you given up recently for Australian Rugby?
Just my 2 cents.
...and his $740,000.
