charlesalan
Sydney Middleton (9)
Though to be fair, RA absorbed WF sponsorship revenues, so WF net running costs $4,117,000
Those net comparisons are going to be very hard to do. eg Rebs had Vic Gov sponsorship paid through RA as wellThough to be fair, RA absorbed WF sponsorship revenues, so WF net running costs $4,117,000
Super Rugby Funding 2017
$
QLD 5,650,000
NSW 5,650,000
ACT 5,475,000
WF 8,581,000
REBELS 10,200,000
Incentive payment of $500,000 to Mr Pulver on top of $775,000 salary for his 'outstanding' contribution to Rugby
Un F*&king believable
not to mention 3 million spent on re-branding.
imaging what they could have done with 50million..
the annual reportWhere did you get these figures from?
the annual report
Where did you get these figures from?
Can you please point me to where exactly you found this. I can't see it.
Corporate expenses up from 14.6 in 2016 to 17.1 in 2017 more and more money wasted at the top..
$2.8 m in legal costs associated with the reduction of Super Rugby teamsDid they break that number down at all? How much of it was legal fees? $2.5 million is a big jump.
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
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.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.
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.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.
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.
You seem upset about one thing, that's what it meansSince 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