T
TOCC
Guest
I have been unreliably informed that CEO's play no part in negotiating broadcast agreements for sporting codes..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Pulverisation of Australian Rugby
- Thread starter Bruce Ross
- Start date
- Status
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
Just taking stock on Pulver.
1. Brought back the NRC - hope it develops further.
2. Reviewed and made changes to eligibility Rules for overseas players.
3. Looked at, but more importantly monitoring the budget.
All decisions may not be liked, could be tweaked, but in my eyes he is looking at various ways to move our game forward - on what we are advised, a shoe string budget.
Still like / love
1. my wish for Australian Rugby (the people the volunteers), and ARU to be be closer together.
2. focus on grass roots, whilst it is hard to tip $$$ into this i don't think it is hard to tip salaried players into the schools.
1. Brought back the NRC - hope it develops further.
2. Reviewed and made changes to eligibility Rules for overseas players.
3. Looked at, but more importantly monitoring the budget.
All decisions may not be liked, could be tweaked, but in my eyes he is looking at various ways to move our game forward - on what we are advised, a shoe string budget.
Still like / love
1. my wish for Australian Rugby (the people the volunteers), and ARU to be be closer together.
2. focus on grass roots, whilst it is hard to tip $$$ into this i don't think it is hard to tip salaried players into the schools.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
One of Pulver's strengths, given what we know of his career background, is in Internet-related commerce.
The next big opportunity for niche sports like ours ("niche" in our media markets, anyway) is pay-for-view. This is an area that he should be able to provide a lot of leadership.
The next big opportunity for niche sports like ours ("niche" in our media markets, anyway) is pay-for-view. This is an area that he should be able to provide a lot of leadership.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
I think on balance he's doing pretty well. Points 1 and 2 above are enough for me to say that.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
Yep - hard to move a big rock, but he is chiselling away and things are happening.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
The elephant in the room is the governance of Whirled Rugby. To a significant extent, no CEO of the ARU is able to control the rule book, or the officiating of the game, unlike the CEOs of the NRL and AFL, who can do whatever they like to tweak their game and their competitions for maximum local appeal.
someone must have the power to change rules in rugby.
Problem is that power is probably in the motherland. Where the only chance those blokes have of winning anything is dull boring penalty fest ridden crap shoots. Funny that Southern Hemisphere nations (NZ in particular) still smash them on a regular basis.
Problem is that power is probably in the motherland. Where the only chance those blokes have of winning anything is dull boring penalty fest ridden crap shoots. Funny that Southern Hemisphere nations (NZ in particular) still smash them on a regular basis.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Typically Barabrian comes along to Champion the personal attack and since you've dispensed with the board rules as a moderator (your 3rd paragraph) I'll play along.
(1) My objection if you have a read has nothing to do with him having to sacrifice his whole salary, as you so transparently take to the absurd. Nor does it have anything to do with "rich people" not being able to be passionate @TOCC. It is purely an objection to using his the example of him forgoing bonus payments as proof that he is indeed passionate. I also questioned what grounds the "bonus" payments would be made on. But then on far too many occasions in modern business such payments are not linked to any real achievement but actually some obscure manipulation of figure that show real losses as profits, such as we see with Banks which have become insolvent paying performance bonuses to managers.
(2) The issue many here have raised is even with paying a salary 3 x or more to what the Prime Minister is paid we have fished from the same small pool of talent, ie the "old boys network". This is easily illustrated by looking at the boards CEO and Chairman since professionalism came about. In such cases paying premium salaries isn't about attracting the cream, as individuals outside the network have little real chance of being selected.
(3) I have no corporate experience at all as I am sure you have been briefed on my actual experience by the Mods who have met me and know my background. For the others I was a public servant of little note for more years than I care to remember, and have run a number of small businesses since leaving that job. What I do know of corporate service (apart from what can be extrapolated from managing any business) I have learned from a few extremely successful people who have held and do hold those positions. Again Barbarian, sarcasm is the lowest form of humour and your use here is designed to play the man and debase the argument rather than engage. If you wish to uphold the rules of the forum you need to actually promote them actively yourself.
(4) The "flood of negativity" in bringing up the Beale matter. Well this is a matter which caused massive damage to the Rugby brand in this country. Your comment is akin to Basil Faulty "don't mention the war". The inescapable fact is that the matter as much as you would like to ignore it, was not handled properly at the time, and as a result continues to impact on the ARU now in an ongoing matter before the court. As for attributing the good work to others, tell me what the good work is. I am assuming you mean the TV contracts? On that score I did actually argue for Pulver with my corporate manager friends and was convinced by them that the achievement was not as great as I had argued for the reasons stated. Don't agree fine, I'm not saying anybody else was responsible for the TV deal, just I have been convinced by those with corporate experience that market forces had a far greater impact than any actions from anybody at the ARU. The good work came in the form of the interactions with the other SANZAR members and with the structuring of the NRC to assure its funding in the near term.
Lastly to respond to your direct playing of the man, regards to my posting history of the forum. I have at least told the truth as I saw it instead of carefully crafting a false superficial on-line personality to achieve quasi popularity. The issue you have Barabrian for all your derision of me and my contributions to the Forum over a long time, (many here will recall the "Nostradamus" comments you made of me) I have at least been proved right by time, with regard to many subjects I have posted about, not least being the Tahs under Hickey and Foley. You on the other hand have nothing but a staunch supporter of the status quo throughout, regardless of who is in charge, evidence or what they do. When you have anything to say that is remotely critical it is prefaced by the usual get out clause. In the long run genuine critique, without an agenda achieves better outcomes than blind supporters.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
Pulver is not on 3x Abbott's Salary.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...litical-future-are-secure-20140521-38oe5.html
Abbot earns $503,000. This does not consider his $377,000 a year pension. I'd imagine due to this that figure of $503, likely excludes Super, so we are really comparing around $550,000 to $735,000.
That does not consider any fringe benefits either. I'd imagine the role of Prime Minister likely has more non-monetary benefits.
I'm not sure how the Pension works, but just assuming he takes home $377,000 for 20 years, then that surely has to be included as part of his remuneration as Prime Minister. Assuming he is a one term Prime Minister let's include that $7M over the 4 years.
Then add in his City office for life, etc.
Details of the "Life Gold Pass" can be found here.
http://www.maps.finance.gov.au/enti...state/docs/Entitlements_Summary_Ministers.pdf
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...litical-future-are-secure-20140521-38oe5.html
Abbot earns $503,000. This does not consider his $377,000 a year pension. I'd imagine due to this that figure of $503, likely excludes Super, so we are really comparing around $550,000 to $735,000.
That does not consider any fringe benefits either. I'd imagine the role of Prime Minister likely has more non-monetary benefits.
I'm not sure how the Pension works, but just assuming he takes home $377,000 for 20 years, then that surely has to be included as part of his remuneration as Prime Minister. Assuming he is a one term Prime Minister let's include that $7M over the 4 years.
Then add in his City office for life, etc.
Details of the "Life Gold Pass" can be found here.
http://www.maps.finance.gov.au/enti...state/docs/Entitlements_Summary_Ministers.pdf
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
And here:
http://www.news.com.au/finance/mone...ting-us-millions/story-e6frfmd9-1225945641593
Just a few points.
"Each former PM is entitled to at least two staff, including a senior private secretary, and the annual wages bill of each is nearly $300,000."
"However, new figures have come to light revealing that in the seven months after leaving office, Mr Howard spent $109,892 on limousine services, evenly split between the government Comcar service and private hire cars."
"Mr Howard's office rental was the highest at $13,853 a month, closely followed by former PM Malcolm Fraser, whose 101 Collins St office in Melbourne costs taxpayers $12,122 a month."
"The former PMs also have their home and mobile phone bills paid by taxpayers, as well as unlimited allowances for publications, a private self-drive car, and air fares for them and their spouse."
If we want to compare salaries, don't forget these which form part of the total package.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/mone...ting-us-millions/story-e6frfmd9-1225945641593
Just a few points.
"Each former PM is entitled to at least two staff, including a senior private secretary, and the annual wages bill of each is nearly $300,000."
"However, new figures have come to light revealing that in the seven months after leaving office, Mr Howard spent $109,892 on limousine services, evenly split between the government Comcar service and private hire cars."
"Mr Howard's office rental was the highest at $13,853 a month, closely followed by former PM Malcolm Fraser, whose 101 Collins St office in Melbourne costs taxpayers $12,122 a month."
"The former PMs also have their home and mobile phone bills paid by taxpayers, as well as unlimited allowances for publications, a private self-drive car, and air fares for them and their spouse."
If we want to compare salaries, don't forget these which form part of the total package.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
Who cares how his salary compares to the mad monk.
The relevant comparison is he is on 1/3 of what JON extorted from the joint in his final year.
His package is about par for the size of the business,and it's profiability.
I was a critic of his appointment,and of some of his strategies since.
But undeniably the implementation of the NRC & JGC are positives for the game.
These initiatives have no value however,if his policies towards the grassroots,negatively impacts on numbers before participants graduate to these programs.
The relevant comparison is he is on 1/3 of what JON extorted from the joint in his final year.
His package is about par for the size of the business,and it's profiability.
I was a critic of his appointment,and of some of his strategies since.
But undeniably the implementation of the NRC & JGC are positives for the game.
These initiatives have no value however,if his policies towards the grassroots,negatively impacts on numbers before participants graduate to these programs.
HighPlainsDrifter
Jimmy Flynn (14)
Am I dreaming .. We seem to be getting increased press coverage for the Super 15 vs previous years in FTA news & radio reports ...has Bill Pulverised his marketing dept into action (and I mean about the games not the indiscretions)?
formerflanker
Ken Catchpole (46)
He may give you a few chances: Australian Rugby Union Chief Executive John O’Neil issues defamation proceedings after (Alan) Jones publicly attacked him on 14 occasions."
Bagpipe
Frank Row (1)
For grass roots. Many people have private health insurance for themselves and their sons playing the game already. Yet people have to pay extra fees for a second round of insurance. Makes no sense.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Except that the ARU insurance is not for medical expenses its for defined serious/catastrophic injury, as I understand it.
T
TOCC
Guest
So one is CTP and the other is comprehensive?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
A portion of your insurance goes to medical expense reimbursements but its a relatively small amount of coverage (max $3000?) and only for non-medicare stuff. That coverage is a duty of care that the ARU has.
I'd imagine most of what your paying is going to be for public liability insurance for the game and the club you are part of.
http://www.gowgatessport.com.au/rugby/?page_id=5
- Status