The Awful Truth About The ARU's Financial Position
- Thread starter Scott Allen
- Start date
- Status
The Rebels result is part of the consolidated figures for the entirety of 2015.
$5m was loaned to the Rebels to keep them afloat and then forgiven as part of the sale agreement. Effectively the ARU has taken the Rebels off the balance sheet and won't have an increased liability for the team going forward.
I'm not sure what the alternative was. Continue to own the team and hope they miraculously start making money in 2016?
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Interesting to read the notes to the financial statement.
The world cup cost the ARU about $18m in 2015 (loss of broadcasting and net matchday rev and expenses)
No test match naming sponsor (maybe due to the truncated season) was $3m and lost gov sponsorship for 5 fewer tests was another $4m (!)
This is balanced by $19m grant from WR (World Rugby) for participating in the wc
The world cup cost the ARU about $18m in 2015 (loss of broadcasting and net matchday rev and expenses)
No test match naming sponsor (maybe due to the truncated season) was $3m and lost gov sponsorship for 5 fewer tests was another $4m (!)
This is balanced by $19m grant from WR (World Rugby) for participating in the wc
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Big $3.5m cut in corporate as well
Teh Other Dave
Alan Cameron (40)
The 1992-2003 Wallabies were outstanding (except when Smith took the reins). Having said that the 2004-2015 All Blacks were one of the winningest test teams of all time. What was their overall test win ratio during that period? I'd hazard a guess and say that only their old enemy (SA) took more tests off 'em in that period.
Teh Other Dave
Alan Cameron (40)
I was gonna say, the corporate dollar took a big hit as well. If the Wallabies can keep clear of the 'basket case' tag, we might reclaim some corporate coin after last year's RWC.
Edit: a bit less ambiguous
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Correct:
All Blacks 2004-15
v all opposition 137/ 157 (87.89%).
http://stats.espnscrum.com/statsgur...anval1=span;team=8;template=results;type=team
v South Africa 19/ 28 (67.85%)
v Australia 28/ 36 (80.55%)
18 losses: 9 v SA, 6 v Australia, 2 v France & 1 v England.
http://stats.espnscrum.com/statsgur...=8;template=results;type=team;view=opposition
lou75
Ron Walden (29)
If the ARU has taken the Rebels off the Balance Sheet then how have they accounted for the $4.5 million that they are still to pay the Rebels? The total of $6 million plus 'secret payments' included a balloon payment in 2015 which reduced to a trail over five years. This payment is not conditional on losses incurred by the Rebels, just a payment to them with nothing in return. The liability for 2016,17,18,+ 19 remains.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Not while serious questions are being asked about governance. The ARU has overseen (by being the big boss of five funded provinces) of which
1) has had 90% of its board changed since the start of the season after they had to sack their recently appointed coach, that most knew on the quiet had too many friends on the board.
2) has some very serious criminal investigation ongoing directly relted to governance, enough said.
3) has had to bail out another province that has never made the finals or looked like doing so after a decade and has retained at best a static supporter base.
4) bailed out, then loaned cash to, then sold for nothing (actually effectively gave the new owners $6M by forgiving the aforementioned loan). So effectively they have bailed out the Rebels once, then loaned them cash all on top of the annual grant money.
Not surprised that Corporates are steering clear of that, it might be catching, or worse somebody might look at their books.
Can you shed more information on this?
The extra $5m loan to the Rebels that was forgiven when they were 'sold' at the end of 2015 FY was part of the $25m Super Rugby expense line.
Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
I assume it will be listed in current (2016) and non current (the rest)liabilities
Payments will be expensed,in the year they are paid.
Teh Other Dave
Alan Cameron (40)
Cheers WOB.
Having just said all of that, we really failed at some key junctures in the decade from 2003. To be honest, the 2007 world cup failure seems to be the lesser of the lot in hindsight.
But still, it could be so much worse - despite all the doom and gloom of finance and our poor Super Rugby showing this year, at least it's not the predictable set of six churned out week-in, week-out in the NRL. When a sport's biggest headline is a guy not even playing in the NRL (or the NFL), you know it's jumped the shark (while he pisses in his mouth - geddit???).
Having just said all of that, we really failed at some key junctures in the decade from 2003. To be honest, the 2007 world cup failure seems to be the lesser of the lot in hindsight.
But still, it could be so much worse - despite all the doom and gloom of finance and our poor Super Rugby showing this year, at least it's not the predictable set of six churned out week-in, week-out in the NRL. When a sport's biggest headline is a guy not even playing in the NRL (or the NFL), you know it's jumped the shark (while he pisses in his mouth - geddit???).
lou75
Ron Walden (29)
That would be my understanding too
lou75
Ron Walden (29)
Well I've had a look at the Financial Report and the notes identify two things:
1. $5m forgiven loan to Melbourne Rebels
2. Super Rugby Grants increased by $1.4 m due to increased financial support provided for MRRU
This last one I imagine is the first part of the payment to Mr Cox with a further $5m or so coming over the next four years. Only thing is, this does not appear in the Current or Non Current Liabilities which I would have thought it should.
Teh Other Dave
Alan Cameron (40)
It's all covered in AASB 5
All of these items have been included in current year expenditure and form part of the $25.2m as per notes 2 and 3.
I don't think you can read anything from the financials suggesting there are further additional payments to the Rebels to come outside of the normal Super Rugby grants.
I was wondering if you'd read that as part of something else to do with the sale of the Rebels.
Not surprised that Corporates are steering clear of that, it might be catching, or worse somebody might look at their books.
Most of the reduction in sponsorship comes from the reduction in home test matches (and indeed test matches where sponsors can be involved) due to the RWC.
The World Cup result has provided a great opportunity for these to increase and indeed the ARU has had some new sponsors come on board.
I tend to think these overall results are pretty good for a RWC year.
The reduction in overhead expenses at HQ over the last few years has been substantial and I feel like the ARU is being much better run from a financial perspective than it has been previously.
Much of this of course was out of necessity but at least it has happened.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I don't even know what that is, but I'll like it
- Status