Australian Rugby / RA

[KOB1987]

Journo in the Oz has managed to wring out two articles in the same day addressing the financial doom of RA. Can’t get past the paywall to read them

They are both by Jessica Halloran and they both pretty much have the same detail. It looks like a pretty obvious slur campaign and are claiming a net debt of $20m, therefore saying it’s insolvent.

 

[KOB1987]

KOB, it is definitely a changing of the guard.

Possibly by virtue of the fact there will be less Waratahs and more Brumbies in the team. But if you want to beat your chest about that go for it.

Bar Hanigan who was picked too soon, and Folau who was terminated for other reasons, all of those players you mention were at the end of their careers. If you want to nit pick about their shortcomings at that stage rather than commend them for their service, then go for it too.

Let’s see how good a selector you are, give me your 10 most influential players for the Wallabies this World Cup cycle. I’ll jot them down and see how you look in a few years time.

 

[formerflanker]

There are some pretty competent people involved in club rugby.

+1

 

[RugbyFuture]

There are some pretty competent people involved in club rugby. How much first-hand knowledge do you have, and of which clubs?

first three years of the NRC with the sydney clubs, dealing with the launch of the rams, then the stars and working closely with those working in the rays setup too.

My biggest highlight was when a senior official Eastwood told me (half asian who grew up in eastwood) that Eastwood rugby club survived because it was the last place the white people in the suburb could come to because they kept the asians out.

 

[Adam84]

At this point in time, my preference would almost be for World Rugby to withhold the $16million loan and instead let RA fall into insolvency, use that $16million as seed money for RA 2.0

 

[KOB1987]

At this point in time, my preference would almost be for World Rugby to withhold the $16million loan and instead let RA fall into insolvency, use that $16million as seed money for RA 2.0

I am not opposed to that scenario either. I did see one comment though that said she (Halloran) didn't account for $14m of deferred revenue which brings them back in the black.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Possibly by virtue of the fact there will be less Waratahs and more Brumbies in the team. But if you want to beat your chest about that go for it.

Bar Hanigan who was picked too soon, and Folau who was terminated for other reasons, all of those players you mention were at the end of their careers. If you want to nit pick about their shortcomings at that stage rather than commend them for their service, then go for it too.

Let’s see how good a selector you are, give me your 10 most influential players for the Wallabies this World Cup cycle. I’ll jot them down and see how you look in a few years time.

KOB, you really are a stickler for anyone in light blue. Where we differ is that those you say were near the end of their careers, I say were beyond the end and only the continued ineptness of our national coach kept them in the squad/team.

Right at the moment, it is impossible to say what test rugby will look like over the next year or two, so you've really asked for an impossible task. Who knows if some or many of the likely stars will even be playing rugby in three years time, or if they're playing overseas whether they will be eligible for the Wallabies. With those caveats, the likely prospects (ie leaving aside the most established players currently) imo are:

Props - HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes);
Hooker - Folau Fainga'a;
Lock - Darcy Swain;
Backrow - Valetini, McReight, Wright, Wilson, Harris;
No9 - Fines;
No 10 - Lolesio;
Outside Backs - Tom Wright, Hunter Paisami, Jordan Petaia, Jack Maddocks.

There're 14 names for you. I expect most of them will establish themselves in the Wallabies sooner rather than later, and that will see a distinct improvement over the performances of the past 4 years. Incidentally, that comprises 6 Brumbies, 5 Reds and 3 Waratahs. No Rebels. Can you say that that is an uneven balance biassed towards the Brumbies given form over the past couple of years?

Now, in return, you might like to participate in your challenge too. Who are your most likely influential players over the RWC cycle?

 

[hoggy]

Its behind a paywall, but a couple of articles in the Australian (pretty much the whole back-page, not bad for a sport falling of a cliff).

But anyway a couple of pretty sobering items financially, in 2018 the RA spent $333,000 a day.

legal fees from the Folau case, yet to be paid over $1 million

$19 Million spent on corporate as opposed to $4 Million spent on Community Rugby

You just shake your head.

 

[Rebels3]

Its behind a paywall, but a couple of articles in the Australian (pretty much the whole back-page, not bad for a sport falling of a cliff).

But anyway a couple of pretty sobering items financially, in 2018 the RA spent $333,000 a day.

legal fees from the Folau case, yet to be paid over $1 million

You just shake your head.

That does sound like a lot but my question is, what’s it in comparison to? Is this normal for a business of this size? What portion of this is the wallaby top up players and game fees? How much of this is the money sent to the states?

To the average Joe that’s a lot of money but I have no comprehension of what it should look like because I haven’t seen any comparisons of what a similar business that’s successful spends. Is the issue not what the expenditure is but the revenue generated from it?

It’s a shame this is played out in the open because I’m not sure if I should be outraged or is it just something used to cause outrage as it’s fairly normal?

 

[wamberal]

Outrage sells clicks. Sane, measured, reasoned reporting does not.

 

[formerflanker]

I am not opposed to that scenario either. I did see one comment though that said she (Halloran) didn't account for $14m of deferred revenue which brings them back in the black.

The whole mess is so murky that I could legitimately conclude that the "$14m deferred revenue" is the expected $14m from World Rugby, dated back to the 2019 World Cup revenue.
So this week's cheque is already spent.

 

[hoggy]

Outrage sells clicks. Sane, measured, reasoned reporting does not.

Agreed, and rugby is on the front page, inside back and pretty much the whole back page, so an agenda yep, but you can shove a dozen salt tablets with your coffee its still pretty ugly reading.

 

[formerflanker]

Outrage sells clicks. Sane, measured, reasoned reporting does not.

Whilst I fully agree with that sentiment, I don't see RA offering alternative points of view. There is no fightback against the "outrage" reporting of Halloran. No transparent, complex and full explanations of RAs financial position.
Even Halloran has to make assumptions as to the line items of expenditure as the report she has seen does not go into detail. RAs annual reports never have, If I remember correctly.
With an organisational structure that included a 33% increase in the media department under Raelene, spreading a counter story should be easy.
But only if you have the ammunition.

 

[Rebels3]

Whilst I fully agree with that sentiment, I don't see RA offering alternative points of view. There is no fightback against the "outrage" reporting of Halloran. No transparent, complex and full explanations of RAs financial position.
Even Halloran has to make assumptions as to the line items of expenditure as the report she has seen does not go into detail. RAs annual reports never have, If I remember correctly.
With an organisational structure that included a 33% increase in the media department under Raelene, spreading a counter story should be easy.
But only if you have the ammunition.

What is a 33% increase? Did it go from a 4 person team to 6? Or did it go from 16 to 24?

 

[cyclopath]

KOB, you really are a stickler for anyone in light blue. Where we differ is that those you say were near the end of their careers, I say were beyond the end and only the continued ineptness of our national coach kept them in the squad/team.

Right at the moment, it is impossible to say what test rugby will look like over the next year or two, so you've really asked for an impossible task. Who knows if some or many of the likely stars will even be playing rugby in three years time, or if they're playing overseas whether they will be eligible for the Wallabies. With those caveats, the likely prospects (ie leaving aside the most established players currently) imo are:

Props - HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes);
Hooker - Folau Fainga'a;
Lock - Darcy Swain;
Backrow - Valetini, McReight, Wright, Wilson, Harris;
No9 - Fines;
No 10 - Lolesio;
Outside Backs - Tom Wright, Hunter Paisami, Jordan Petaia, Jack Maddocks.

There're 14 names for you. I expect most of them will establish themselves in the Wallabies sooner rather than later, and that will see a distinct improvement over the performances of the past 4 years. Incidentally, that comprises 6 Brumbies, 5 Reds and 3 Waratahs. No Rebels. Can you say that that is an uneven balance biassed towards the Brumbies given form over the past couple of years?

Now, in return, you might like to participate in your challenge too. Who are your most likely influential players over the RWC cycle?

WTF does this have to do with RA? Try another thread.

 

[Derpus]

Robinson reporting that RA are still a going concern.

 

[Braveheart81]

But anyway a couple of pretty sobering items financially, in 2018 the RA spent $333,000 a day.

This is completely nonsensical garbage.

Much like the Daily Telegraph article stating that "Rugby Australia has blown over $500m in the last four years."

This is literally just dividing the annual expenditure of the organisation by 365 or adding up all the expenses for 4 years for whichever meaningless metric you're trying to create.

The larger the organisation, the more dramatic these figures look which just goes to prove their pointlessness.

How much should RA spend a day? Should we try and shrink rugby in Australia so this number decreases?

How do we provide more money for community rugby? It wouldn't seem likely to come via shrinking the organisation.

 

[hoggy]

This is completely nonsensical garbage.

Much like the Daily Telegraph article stating that "Rugby Australia has blown over $500m in the last four years."

This is literally just dividing the annual expenditure of the organisation by 365 or adding up all the expenses for 4 years for whichever meaningless metric you're trying to create.

The larger the organisation, the more dramatic these figures look which just goes to prove their pointlessness.

How much should RA spend a day? Should we try and shrink rugby in Australia so this number decreases?

How do we provide more money for community rugby? It wouldn't seem likely to come via shrinking the organisation.

Agreed, of course it was expenditure multiplied by days, Maybe the pertinent question is what exactly does the rugby code here get for its $333,000 spent on it each day, is that money being spent each day getting a good return.

 

[Rebels3]

This is completely nonsensical garbage.

Much like the Daily Telegraph article stating that "Rugby Australia has blown over $500m in the last four years."

This is literally just dividing the annual expenditure of the organisation by 365 or adding up all the expenses for 4 years for whichever meaningless metric you're trying to create.

The larger the organisation, the more dramatic these figures look which just goes to prove their pointlessness.

How much should RA spend a day? Should we try and shrink rugby in Australia so this number decreases?

How do we provide more money for community rugby? It wouldn't seem likely to come via shrinking the organisation.

Obviously there needs to be accountability or serious questions asked, but it needs to be compared to ongoing case studies of what is successful. Those that think it’s over blown staff wise, what should the number be? I can tell you now it would be north of 40 people as NFJ mentioned, but does it have to be 120 as reported. I have been lucky enough to be around some sport and rec organizations NBL is one which actually have a rather small employee base, but they also don’t run basketball in the country just the league, the same guy also owns the league and a few teams that play in it, so he uses resources from other businesses to limit his expenditure. For instance his receptionist is the same person for about 4/5 of his other businesses etc. 40 people would be roughly what your local fitness first would employ, safe to say RA are a little bigger than that.

This is where I would like the reporting to work towards.

 

[Rebels3]

Agreed, of course it was expenditure multiplied by days, Maybe the pertinent question is what exactly does the rugby code here get for its $333,000 spent on it each day, is that money being spent each day getting a good return.

Perfect questions to be asked