charlesalan
Sydney Middleton (9)
Though to be fair, RA absorbed WF sponsorship revenues, so WF net running costs $4,117,000
Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
Those net comparisons are going to be very hard to do. eg Rebs had Vic Gov sponsorship paid through RA as well
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
GaffaCHinO
Peter Sullivan (51)
We need to remember that Western Force figure takes into account all the running cost of the club including staff salaries and legal costs. What it does not factor is the revenue received from Western Force sponsorship. So when all is said and done the actual payment to the Force the running of the team as per the other teams is about 4.2 million.... once again the Rebels are well in front but hey who needs 502 million when you have a 3 million dollar hole in your budget. Seriously Clyne needs to go.
charlesalan
Sydney Middleton (9)
the annual report
GaffaCHinO
Peter Sullivan (51)
I believe it was reported at the time of the announcement however i cant find it ion my brief search. Tha number may have include the move to the new office and i may be wrong in my anger either way it was an unnecessary move which come at a high cost at a time they were crying poor.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Some things that I couldn't help but notice:
Match day revenues down $7.6 million
Sponsorship revenue up $4.40 million (this is largely money from Force sponsors)
Super rugby expenses up by $4.1 million (largely due to running the Force)
Player costs up $6.9 million
Reduction of $3.2 million to community rugby
Increase of $2.3 million on "high performance teams"
ARDC (new HQ) fully funded by state and federal government so seems irrelevant to profit/loss
Overall the ARU/RA lost $3.786 million
Most if not all of the states also lost money; such as NSWRU which in 2016 (the last annual report available), they posted a $262,611 profit, but this included a licence fee of $1.1 million from Waratahs Ltd. Waratahs Ltd posted a $24,380 loss for the year and as at 2016 had an accumulated operating loss of $285,286. Available evidence suggests that 2017 will be a much worse year financially for NSWRU than 2016 (they took the Waratahs back, so the $1.1 million licence fee won't be coming)
Red ink everywhere, and seemingly no end in sight.
Match day revenues down $7.6 million
Sponsorship revenue up $4.40 million (this is largely money from Force sponsors)
Super rugby expenses up by $4.1 million (largely due to running the Force)
Player costs up $6.9 million
Reduction of $3.2 million to community rugby
Increase of $2.3 million on "high performance teams"
ARDC (new HQ) fully funded by state and federal government so seems irrelevant to profit/loss
Overall the ARU/RA lost $3.786 million
Most if not all of the states also lost money; such as NSWRU which in 2016 (the last annual report available), they posted a $262,611 profit, but this included a licence fee of $1.1 million from Waratahs Ltd. Waratahs Ltd posted a $24,380 loss for the year and as at 2016 had an accumulated operating loss of $285,286. Available evidence suggests that 2017 will be a much worse year financially for NSWRU than 2016 (they took the Waratahs back, so the $1.1 million licence fee won't be coming)
Red ink everywhere, and seemingly no end in sight.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
I can't see anything in the Annual Report about it.
The closest I can find is an increase in salaries for staff to support HPU teams of $0.5m but there is nothing that would suggest that relates to Pulver.
Seems like a baseless accusation.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Seems like a baseless accusation.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
charlesalan
Sydney Middleton (9)
Let's ask Mr Clyne or Ms Castle for clarification - oh wait, the report came out so late in the day, they have gone home now. We will have to ask them tomorrow.
GaffaCHinO
Peter Sullivan (51)
Corporate expenses up from 14.6 in 2016 to 17.1 in 2017 more and more money wasted at the top......
Did they break that number down at all? How much of it was legal fees? $2.5 million is a big jump.
charlesalan
Sydney Middleton (9)
$2.8 m in legal costs associated with the reduction of Super Rugby teams
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
On the available evidence, we simply don't know.
He might have been paid a bonus, he might have just been paid out part of his contract or he might have received nothing. In the absence of evidence it's unfair to comment.
I'm not even sure that such a payment (if it even existed) would be included as a special item or just included in wages/salaries.
charlesalan
Sydney Middleton (9)
Hey Manly supporter, it's kind of weird that this is what gets your goat - not the loss, not the axing of the WF, but the facts (yes, facts) and that you can't see where this has been reported in your copy of the annual report.
There's plenty of concerning things in the financial statements but accepting things that would be incredibly controversial and downright bad as fact helps no one.
Let's talk about actual information in the financials, not things you decided to make up.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Since you like talking about facts, maybe you missed the fact that last year I spent almost the whole year criticising the axing of the Force and the process that led to it.
I'm not sure what you even mean by the gets your got comment. I made the quite simple observation that in the absence of evidence it was unfair to make a comment either for or against what was being asserted. Seeing that you are obviously so perceptive and far better at reading annual reports and financial statements than I am, please refer me to the page number in either the annual report or the financial statement which reveals what, if anything was paid to Bill Pulver.
You see, the exact page number would be a fact whereas your comment is basically an ignorant generalisation favoured by the intellectually challenged.
charlesalan
Sydney Middleton (9)
You seem upset about one thing, that's what it means
Maybe just stick to playing the ball (i.e. the facts of the topic) rather than the man (having a pretty baseless go at someone making a fairly innocuous statement).
Cheers.