Australian Rugby / RA

[Brumby Runner]

Would depend exactly on what they were incentivising (to use a godawful word I hate) especially if not to see out his contract. And at the value of his contract, why wouldn't he want to see it out anyway? If the financial situation was so bad and the Board was faced with a situation where they were otherwise committed to such a large and embarrassing payment, why wouldn't they just terminate him a month or so early, pay him out and save themselves the incentive. Actually, smells a bit fishy to me.

 

[charlesalan]

Which would be an incentive based on completing his contract if I am right.

Just seems more unlikely that the one year they pay the CEO a large additional payment is the most controversial year in recent history where they have made a substantial loss (outside of the government grant money). Seems hard to believe the board would have approved it if it wasn't contractually obliged.

Yeah, I'd like to hear why the board did approve a half mill payment to him and I'd also like Clyne to elaborate on what were the 'outstanding services to rugby' that Pulver gave.

 

[cyclopath]

Would depend exactly on what they were incentivising (to use a godawful word I hate) especially if not to see out his contract. And at the value of his contract, why wouldn't he want to see it out anyway? If the financial situation was so bad and the Board was faced with a situation where they were otherwise committed to such a large and embarrassing payment, why wouldn't they just terminate him a month or so early, pay him out and save themselves the incentive. Actually, smells a bit fishy to me.

I reckon if there is a contract with an incentive payment based on serving out the full period (and we're guessing), and the board terminated the CEO contract a month before completion, they would want a pretty cast-iron reason that could be easily proved, else there could be yet another legal case. Maybe he wouldn't have bothered since he a) reportedly doesn't need the money and b) seemingly donated a big chunk anyway, but you never know. They might not save anything. We often see CEOs / executive directors et al getting big payouts for early termination. I would think your scenario might be tricky ground for a board to navigate.
But it's all a bit of speculation at the moment.

 

[Braveheart81]

why wouldn't they just terminate him a month or so early, pay him out and save themselves the incentive.

If they terminated him without grounds then presumably the incentive payment would be payable.

It's not like he really needed the money from the RA contract.

His remaining shares in the company he used to be CEO of, Appen are currently worth just shy of $16m. He sold almost $4m of shares at the end of last year. It is fair to say he is minted.

 

[charlesalan]

If they terminated him without grounds then presumably the incentive payment would be payable.

Well he offered his resignation last year if they could find a replacement , so I hardly think he was being involuntarily terminated. And if he was, half a mill for one month left on contract? Please.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

I wouldn't expect tenure to be an incentive. It would most likely relate to a mixture of financial ratios, revenue, sponsorship, participation numbers etc.

 

[charlesalan]

I wouldn't expect tenure to be an incentive. It would most likely relate to a mixture of financial ratios, revenue, sponsorship, participation numbers etc.

the revenues were down and the participation numbers were down and the on field success was down - how much would he have got if they had made a profit and all of those were up?

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

the revenues were down and the participation numbers were down and the on field success was down - how much would he have got if they had made a profit and all of those were up?

Great chat mate, guess you commented before reading the report?

Revenue for example 2017 $149m, 2016 $128m, 2015 $84m, 2014 $103m, 2013 $145m, 2002 $96m

I have no idea what the performance measure were I am just suggesting it was not tenure.

 

[charlesalan]

Great chat mate, guess you commented before reading the report? Revenue for example 2017 $149m, 2016 $128m, 2015 $84m, 2014 $103m, 2013 $96m.

I have no idea what the measure were I am just suggesting it was not tenure.

Oh yeah, I took out the ARDC grant - which is revenue, but is only allowed for specific spending. Not trying to argue with you, just gobsmacked at the payment to Pulver and wonder what the incentive parameters were

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Oh yeah, I took out the ARDC grant - which is revenue, but is only allowed for specific spending. Not trying to argue with you, just gobsmacked at the payment to Pulver and wonder what the incentive parameters were

I edited 2013 number after you responded to which I apologise.

Grants occur all the time and it is not like they magically appear at the end of June. The expenditure is budgeted for.

 

[I like to watch]

Which would be an incentive based on completing his contract if I am right.

Just seems more unlikely that the one year they pay the CEO a large additional payment is the most controversial year in recent history where they have made a substantial loss (outside of the government grant money). Seems hard to believe the board would have approved it if it wasn't contractually obliged.

Buy a magic 8ball,you'd probably have more success asking it about decisions coming out of fort fumble,than applying logic

 

[stoff]

I wouldn't expect tenure to be an incentive. It would most likely relate to a mixture of financial ratios, revenue, sponsorship, participation numbers etc.

Its pretty standard for CEOs and other executives and officers to have a bonus structure designed to secure their tenure - known as a golden handcuff. It may have been designed purely to secure tenure. It may have been incentive based. Pulver was at the helm when the current tv deal was negotiated wasn’t he?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Inside Shoulder]

. Seems hard to believe the board would have approved it if it wasn't contractually obliged.

No one could ever accuse you of not giving people the benefit of the doubt or a lack of optimism.

 

[jimmydubs]

I am speculating but it was a five year contract that he served out in full. He was paid $500,000 in the final year of the contract but no other extra payments in any other year.

Senate submissions include full financials for 2011-2016
2016: $775,000 salary + $0 incentive (page 33, note 26i)
2015: $775,000 salary + $230,000 incentive
2014: $735,885 salary + $0 incentive - (but +$76k fringe benefits) note states he was eligible for incentive payment but chose to forego it.
2013: $696,779 salary (13 months) + $0 incentive - note states he was eligible for incentive payment but chose to forego it
2012: $1,291,844 salary + $895,945 incentive (JON)
2011: $762,500 salary + $180,000 incentive (JON)
2010: $737,500 salary + $385,000 incentive (JON)

Seems this is a yearly thing based on some undisclosed KPIs being met. I'm guessing they fucked off all together or greatly reduced any golden handshake for 5 years of hardship after the JON uproar getting 2 mill in his final year; but i could be wrong.

Maybe the only KPI big bill met last year was surviving till the end OR maybe he just met all his targets which was a '75% made up scorecard pish' that they spout in the annual report. I guess we will never know the breakdown/reasoning of the 500k

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Its pretty standard for CEOs and other executives and officers to have a bonus structure designed to secure their tenure - known as a golden handcuff. It may have been designed purely to secure tenure. It may have been incentive based. Pulver was at the helm when the current tv deal was negotiated wasn’t he? .

But his tenure didn't end in 2017.

 

[barbarian]

That 2012 JON figure boggles the mind. Imagine what the game could have done with just half that cash.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

That 2012 JON figure boggles the mind. Imagine what the game could have done with just half that cash.

Boggles is an understatement

 

[cyclopath]

That 2012 JON figure boggles the mind. Imagine what the game could have done with just half that cash.

The boggling started in 2010 and just got bogglier. Well, it probably started before those figures, but you know what I mean.
There's nearly $ 4.3 million in 3 yrs there.

 

[I like to watch]

That 2012 JON figure boggles the mind. Imagine what the game could have done with just half that cash.

For a shortened final year!
JON bailed early, after working p/t for most of his final year.
They should have used the gormless members of the board that year as tackling bags.....

 

[Quick Hands]

Some highlights/lowlights revealed in the attached article:

First, RA is a top-heavy organisation; second, it is dangerously addicted to broadcast revenue; third, it is locked into a Super Rugby competition that is beginning to look like a burden; and fourth, the grassroots is still living on crumbs.

In fact, if you gave the money RA spends on Folau and Quade Cooper to community rugby, it would increase grassroots spending by more than 20 per cent, overnight.

In 2017, RA spent $12m on ‘‘Super Rugby team costs’’, $27m on ‘‘Super Rugby funding’’ and $25m on ‘‘player payments and RUPA costs.’’ That’s a total of $64m.
However, it’s total broadcast take – by far the No.1 source of revenue – only amounted to $61m.
It gets worse. Much worse. RA also threw $1.3m to the ‘‘SANZAAR office,’’ spent another $8m on ‘‘High Performance and National Teams’’ and another $4m on ‘‘Marketing and Media’’.
There’s more. Rugby Australia also spent $17m on ‘‘Corporate’’ costs, described in the RA report as ‘‘all costs associated with the administration, legal, compliance . . . of running the business.’’
In other words, executive salaries and the like.
This report shows that people at the top of the business - players and administrators - are doing very nicely, thank you. Meanwhile, those are the bottom are not.
Separately, the costs associated with Super Rugby are beginning to look outrageous when you consider how the competition has alienated supporters in recent years.
At its current rate of spending, RA will spend $195m on ‘‘Super Rugby team costs’’ and ‘‘Super Rugby funding’’ over the next five years.
What makes those outlays particularly worrying is that RA already received a boost in broadcast revenue from the last TV deal.
Therefore, the capacity or desire from broadcasters, in Australia or overseas, to pump in enough money to generate a similar uplift in the next deal is limited.
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...e-gamble-is-falling-flat-20180413-p4z9es.html