Australian Rugby / RA

[Pfitzy]

All those Directors fees and no accountability and no responsibility.

The illusion of governance and oversight.

Modern corporations are like Rugby Laws - they're organically grown measures in response to behaviours. Measures often conflict or are ineffective because the target audience find ways around them, regardless.

 

[wamberal]

The illusion of governance and oversight.

Modern corporations are like Rugby Laws - they're organically grown measures in response to behaviours. Measures often conflict or are ineffective because the target audience find ways around them, regardless.

On the other hand, company directors can do gaol time. From my experience, big companies in particular find it difficult to find qualified and experienced people willing to take on the role, which is actually pretty demanding, and carries significant potential for reputational risk, not to mention other more material penalties.

Not to dispute your assertion, Pfitzy, but as a CPA might I say that governance and oversight might be illusions to you, they are certainly not in the corporate world that I have inhabited.

And given that most of us will rely (or already do) on superannuation investments that are based on varying degrees to the performance of public companies overseen by the practitioners of governance and oversight, I hope you are wrong.

 

[Pfitzy]

On the other hand, company directors can do gaol time.

They can.

On the flip side, I look at the findings of the Banking RC and wonder why more suits aren't occupying a cell.

 

[RedsHappy]

The illusion of governance and oversight.

Modern corporations are like Rugby Laws - they're organically grown measures in response to behaviours. Measures often conflict or are ineffective because the target audience find ways around them, regardless.

Indeed, and as I have had cause to observe here over many years: I cannot think of one instance, not one, when any senior RA or local RA director or CEO or senior local RU person has _ever_ ascribed responsibility and/or accountability to any other such senior person for any unacceptable or incompetence-driven outcome arising from the management or governance of those bodies. And where the list of such outcomes is embarrassingly large and enduring.

Years of blindingly obvious debacles, disasters, chronic ongoing on-field and/or off-field underperformances, confidential pay-offs, financial losses, degrading fan viewership and game attendances, extremely odd financial goings-on in some of the State RUs, etc, etc and not one person is _ever_ in any way held accountable for any of this.

Just take one example: we now find that Pulver, with the RA board's knowledge, incepted a large RA forex currency hedge (why on earth?!) that by now is approximately $7m underwater. On his departure post yet another mini-era of more RA mediocrity and decline, he was awarded a $500,000 cash bonus. The list goes on.

 

[Finsbury Girl]

^ I have a foot in both camps Pfitzy, Wambs. I've worked with both types of boards, ones where they are committed to the role, get involved and go the extra mile to help the organisation and those who are career board members, much like a lot of those who were on the ARU board. These are very clever in that they are extremely careful in how much information they get exposed to and are far more concerned with not rocking the boat and in turn hope to get nominated for other cushy board roles. Oh and they are happy for someone to stump up $$$ to pay their indemnity insurance so that they can enjoy an almost risk free ride.

 

[Quick Hands]

On the other hand, company directors can do gaol time. From my experience, big companies in particular find it difficult to find qualified and experienced people willing to take on the role, which is actually pretty demanding, and carries significant potential for reputational risk, not to mention other more material penalties.

Not to dispute your assertion, Pfitzy, but as a CPA might I say that governance and oversight might be illusions to you, they are certainly not in the corporate world that I have inhabited.

And given that most of us will rely (or already do) on superannuation investments that are based on varying degrees to the performance of public companies overseen by the practitioners of governance and oversight, I hope you are wrong.

I suspect that there would be many directors and board members who are highly diligent and competent, and others less so. Like any other endeavour involving fallible human beings.

 

[Quick Hands]

Indeed, and as I have had cause to observe here over many years: I cannot think of one instance, not one, when any senior RA or local RA director or CEO or senior local RU person has _ever_ ascribed responsibility and/or accountability to any other such senior person for any unacceptable or incompetence-driven outcome arising from the management or governance of those bodies. And where the list of such outcomes is embarrassingly large and enduring.

Years of blindingly obvious debacles, disasters, chronic ongoing on-field and/or off-field underperformances, confidential pay-offs, financial losses, degrading fan viewership and game attendances, extremely odd financial goings-on in some of the State RUs, etc, etc and not one person is _ever_ in any way held accountable for any of this.

Just take one example: we now find that Pulver, with the RA board's knowledge, incepted a large RA forex currency hedge (why on earth?!) that by now is approximately $7m underwater. On his departure post yet another mini-era of more RA mediocrity and decline, he was awarded a $500,000 cash bonus. The list goes on.

Mind blowing, even by ARU/RA standards simply mind blowing.

Another consequence of having a group of cosy insiders, who pick their own replacements running the place.

 

[Adam84]

Just take one example: we now find that Pulver, with the RA board's knowledge, incepted a large RA forex currency hedge (why on earth?!) that by now is approximately $7m underwater. On his departure post yet another mini-era of more RA mediocrity and decline, he was awarded a $500,000 cash bonus. The list goes on.

I feel this one is a bit miseleading, if it’s a forex hedge then I’m assuming they hedged against the AUD rising against the USD as the broadcast right are paid in USD. Given it’s fallen, yes the hedge has lost money, but they are now receiving more from the broadcast rights given the exchange rate. They should still be receiving the same amount at the end of the day given the increased value of broadcast rights paid in USD offsets the loss in the hedge.

So hasn’t the forex hedge done exactly what is was intended to do? For international firms, not hedging on your single largest source of revenue would be incredibly reckless.

 

[Braveheart81]

Or do they actually suffer a real net loss now because the broadcast revenue doesn't get paid but they still have a forex position to close out?

The concept of the currency hedge is sound. They would be insane not to when a major revenue stream is in another currency.

 

[Adam84]

Yes maybe that’s what the issue is, but in that circumstance the hedge isn’t the issue, it’s the loss of broadcast revenue which is, the hedge just exacerbates the issue

 

[KOB1987]

If they were paid in USD then the hedge would have been to buy AUD/USD, it went pretty low during the Covid crisis which is probably when the hedge was marked to market and reported on, it’s now pretty much back to where it was.

 

[Finsbury Girl]

^ yeah cash is king if they did indeed sell dollars forward, who cares they had a known outcome re: AUD proceeds. MTM will be zero on settlement.

 

[I like to watch]

If they were paid in USD then the hedge would have been to buy AUD/USD, it went pretty low during the Covid crisis which is probably when the hedge was marked to market and reported on, it’s now pretty much back to where it was.

Nah, that’s got to be the position as at EOFY.

 

[KOB1987]

Nah, that’s got to be the position as at EOFY.

In which case it would have been a hedge against known future revenue, no doubt the 2020 instalment from Fox. Presumably it was unwound whenever that was paid and probably didn’t even exist when it was reported on. Unless they are completely incompetent down there at RA.

 

[Braveheart81]

Yes maybe that’s what the issue is, but in that circumstance the hedge isn’t the issue, it’s the loss of broadcast revenue which is, the hedge just exacerbates the issue

Absolutely. The underlying point is that if up to 50% of your overall revenue comes from broadcasting rights and those rights are denominated in a foreign currency then you'd be absolutely insane not to hedge against that currency depreciating against your own.

 

[Up the Guts]

Presumably it was unwound whenever that was paid and probably didn’t even exist when it was reported on. Unless they are completely incompetent down there at RA.

If there's one thing I'm prepared to trust RA on, it's vanilla hedging strategies. What's the point in having all the banking connections if you can't direct dial corporate FX?

 

[VassMan]

NRL starts tomorrow and RA haven't even announced domestic 2020 competition yet. So poor, will lose some casual supporters or even maybe some diehards.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I thought I saw something in the press yesterday re: the Force joining the OZ domestic comp.

https://thewest.com.au/sport/wester...DKNMHde43ZLu6s5hzypRHshfDafnUiqK120MPZkZKe8gY (Paywalled unfortunately)

 

[VassMan]

Just got an email from the Force which I guess is very similar to that article. Murphy's Law that I complain and then there is an announcement. Just want some live rugby to watch!

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

The Force also just announced on Facebook that they have accepted an invitation to participate. Excellent!