In 2014 the ARU stated that it could be insolvent by April 2015 and if it had not negotiated the new broadcast deals it may well have . Now in 2017 the ARU states that it will be insolvent by 2019 if it has to carry the burden of five franchises.
Hold on a minute. In 2015 the ARU "sold the Rebels to a private investor" now it seems to me that this deal needs to be scrutinised because if the ARU had been able to cut its "extra funding" to the Rebels, then, it may not be in this hole. So how is it that the sale of one franchise costs the ARU 6 or 7 million dollars in EXTRA FUNDING and saves its licence, but the support of another franchise discontinues its licence?