• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Australian Rugby / RA

GaffaCHinO

Peter Sullivan (51)
Super Rugby Funding 2017
$
QLD 5,650,000
NSW 5,650,000
ACT 5,475,000
WF 8,581,000
REBELS 10,200,000

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.
 

GaffaCHinO

Peter Sullivan (51)
Where did you get these figures from?

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.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
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
 

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.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
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

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)
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.
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.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
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)
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.

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)
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.
You seem upset about one thing, that's what it means
 
Top