Where to for Super Rugby?

[Gnostic]

Impressive, huh?

I did say appear...

 

[daz]

Genuine question if my postulated solution and a merger of the Brumbies into the Rebels went through would your divorce from the game occur? .

As long as the newly merged team was Melbourne based, then no, there would be no divorce.

I just want a Melbourne team. If I have to share that team with Canberra, so be it.

 

[Twoilms]

Surely the only way to really reform Australian rugby would be for the powerful state unions to essentially collapse themselves and cede power to the ARU which would need a substantial overhaul in terms of corporate governance etc.

The areas of the game that need the most attention are under the least control by the ARU. They need money with no way of generating it themselves.

There are too many levels of bureaucracy between the top and the bottom.

Super Rugby should be run as a commercial product in itself, not the amalgamation of a 18 different competing interests over 5 different countries. If you want it to be commercially successful it needs to be managed like any other commercial entity. That means being independent from Countries and their interests.

That would alleviate the ARU of the responsibility of dealing with the state unions who would be directly managed by the competition. ARU can then focus on doing shit it should be doing, like funding the game at grassroots etc.

 

[RedsHappy]

If the ARU board had indeed considered the cut of a franchise why wasn't this signalled in the annual reports signed off at that time? This is gross negligence and fraud

Not sure re fraud, I doubt that, but certainly if in early March, 2017 the senior ARU management were off in London actively proposing to and clearly agreeing with SANZAAR to the imminent culling of an Aus Super team, this is highly material to ARU operations, resources, potential media revenues impact etc and thus very likely the shape of its balance sheet post that event.

The key technical point in this context would whether a clear agreement with SANZAAR and the ARU's duly authorised representatives there was reached on this culling matter at that time or soon after vs say more speculative and inconclusive discussions (which subsequently IIRC all the parties have stated that agreement was so reached in London and it was certainly leaked to the media post the meeting in that manner).

If the date of the board approving and importantly 2 directors formally signing off on the 2016 Accounts and audit was after the definitive agreement event noted above (and I think in fact it was) then almost certainly the essentials of that event's declared and agreed-with-SANZAAR ARU policy and its obvious materiality to the ARU should have been somehow referenced in the Annual Report as a 'post balance sheet event' of material significance, even if the wording was couched quite tentatively to avoid total alarm and chaos.

The ARU get-out re the above could well be on say a technicality whereby it was argued that the ARU board itself had not at the Annual Report and audit sign-off date formally approved the culling policy; this is where a land of shades of grey would unfold.

But the bigger question is surely this: who precisely is going to sue or reprimand the ARU for inappropriate Accounts signing? The ARU has no shareholders per se and/or formal rights for outside representative parties for other than the State RUs nominated voting parties. This is partly what is very wrong with the whole set up.

 

[todd4]

Hypothetical question, but how would you merge the Brumbies and Rebels when one of them is privately owned? Overly simplistic but do you GIVE the Brumbies to Cox? Couldn't see that happening so how would it be managed?

 

[swingpass]

^^^^^^^^^^^
no, but he could buy the licence from the ARU and play the team where he likes, I suppose

 

[Braveheart81]

There is the balancing of the information being commercial in confidence and potentially subject to non-disclosure.

The ARU also doesn't have the reporting obligations of a listed entity for example.

It is pretty difficult to determine whether they did anything wrong from a legal standpoint without being privy to all the information.

It would seem that someone would have a snowflake's chance in hell of successfully suing them over the non disclosure in the financial statements.

 

[Gnostic]

@ T4 - no idea, but where there is a will there is a way. Just floating an idea which I see this morning mainstream Journos have also thought about. I leave that up to some of the very experienced management types about the mechanics of how such a deal could work, but surely even with such difficulties it has to be in the easier to do basket than cutting the Force or Rebels is appearing to be and also possibly not as destructive.

 

[BLR]

BLR - I wonder how many of the ARU board, in taking the affirmative decision to cull a Super team, pro-actively asked to see and thus obtained a precise summary of the extant contract agreements with the cullee candidates with particular reference to formal termination rights (or the absence of such rights in 2017).

My understanding as when such vote was taken by the board that it was implied pretty heavily that the Force were the one to be cut, there was an abstaining vote (perhaps Victoria or RUPA) so perhaps the other board members thought at the time as long as it didn't affect them it wasn't an issue.

Rumours being as well the ARU were talking about cutting a team (Force) around about the exact same time they were entering the Alliance agreement with the Force. So I would put this situation as the ARU entered the Alliance thinking that they could simply wind them up but some smart cookie at RugbyWA added the guarantee until 2020. And the ARU either didn't read the agreement properly or knew about it then forgot. Perhaps the fact the wheels had been in motion for so long internally the board members were caught to much in the intrigue of it all to do due diligence.

I remember hearing way back when (there was only a couple of articles about it so may be false) that the ARU had offered RUPA the dropping of top ups to rise the overall salary cap for their support so perhaps the abstaining party was Victoria. (It's all bloody murky)

 

[RedsHappy]

There is the balancing of the information being commercial in confidence and potentially subject to non-disclosure.

The ARU also doesn't have the reporting obligations of a listed entity for example.

It is pretty difficult to determine whether they did anything wrong from a legal standpoint without being privy to all the information.

It would seem that someone would have a snowflake's chance in hell of successfully suing them over the non disclosure in the financial statements.

The precise issue is whether an accounting GAAP standard such as AASB 110 re post balance sheet events - which is a strict standard that auditors and boards must comply with and that is not moderated for commercial in confidence matters per se - applies to the particular type of accounts that the ARU uses for its entities and then further uses to publicly communicate to its community in its Annual Report.

Re commercial in confidence as a practical matter re the culling agreement with SANZAAR - haha - both SANZAAR and the ARU leaked very soon after the London meeting that it was highly likely the Force would be culled sometime post that London meeting, the news was all over the place.

 

[Slim 293]

Hypothetical question, but how would you merge the Brumbies and Rebels when one of them is privately owned? Overly simplistic but do you GIVE the Brumbies to Cox? Couldn't see that happening so how would it be managed?

It was mentioned in a Canberra Times article, but for a 'merger' to happen it would require the members of the ACT & Southern NSW, which include the Canberra clubs, to vote on it............ which they're not going to do.

 

[daz]

Overly simplistic but do you GIVE the Brumbies to Cox? Couldn't see that happening so how would it be managed?

If the ARU don't have the cash to stump up in the Cox lawsuit, perhaps he might end up owning every team in the Oz conference as payment in lieu.

Re-brand Super Rugby to Coxy-Ball.

 

[todd4]

If the ARU don't have the cash to stump up in the Cox lawsuit, perhaps he might end up owning every team in the Oz conference as payment in lieu.

Re-brand Super Rugby to Coxy-Ball.

A Cox n' ball comp will certainly catch the publics attention.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

The precise issue is whether an accounting GAAP standard such as AASB 110 re post balance sheet events - which is strict standard that auditors and boards must comply with and that is not moderated for commercial in confidence matters per se - applies to the particular type of accounts that the ARU uses for its entities and then further uses to publicly communicate to its community in its Annual Report.

Re commercial in confidence as a practical matter re the culling agreement with SANZAAR - haha - both SANZAAR and the ARU leaked very soon after the London meeting that it was highly likely the Force would be culled sometime post that London meeting, the news was all over the place.

The ARU financials are prepared under AASB 1039 - Concise Financial Reports.

They're required to follow this paragraph relating to AASB 110:

31 The following items shall be disclosed:
(b) in respect of each event occurring after the reporting date that does not relate to conditions existing at the reporting date, the information required by paragraph 21 of AASB 110 Events after the Reporting Period; and

AASB 110:

Non-adjusting events after the reporting period
21 If non-adjusting events after the reporting period are material, non-disclosure could influence the economic decisions that users make on the basis of the financial statements. Accordingly, an entity shall disclose the following for each material category of non-adjusting event after the reporting period: (a) the nature of the event; and (b) an estimate of its financial effect, or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made.

In terms of commercial in confidence, I meant that if they had discussed internally that it could happen then that would not be something they would need to disclose.


I doubt the potential cutting of an Australian Super Rugby team would be deemed material from the perspective of the ARU's financial statements to require disclosure in financial statements signed off on 22 March 2017.

 

[The torpedo]

A Cox n' ball comp will certainly catch the publics attention.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

It would certainly be a hard competition

 

[RedsHappy]

The ARU financials are prepared under AASB 1039 - Concise Financial Reports.

They're required to follow this paragraph relating to AASB 110:

31 The following items shall be disclosed:
(b) in respect of each event occurring after the reporting date that does not relate to conditions existing at the reporting date, the information required by paragraph 21 of AASB 110 Events after the Reporting Period; and

AASB 110:

Non-adjusting events after the reporting period
21 If non-adjusting events after the reporting period are material, non-disclosure could influence the economic decisions that users make on the basis of the financial statements. Accordingly, an entity shall disclose the following for each material category of non-adjusting event after the reporting period: (a) the nature of the event; and (b) an estimate of its financial effect, or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made.

In terms of commercial in confidence, I meant that if they had discussed internally that it could happen then that would not be something they would need to disclose.


I doubt the potential cutting of an Australian Super Rugby team would be deemed material from the perspective of the ARU's financial statements to require disclosure in financial statements signed off on 22 March 2017.

You're not serious are you, and after reading AASB 110 which you helpfully quote from above?

(Just btw IIRC the London meeting was around March 8 or so, 2 weeks prior to March 22 as you note above as the Accounts sign-off date.)

The materiality of a potential cull of Super 1 team could quite objectively be described and anticipated as potentially very significant to the ARU's operations and financial performance:

- critically, remember all the media leaks re 'the broadcasters might not agree to the same annual $ payments' being openly argued (media leaks and otherwise) from SANZAAR and the ARU as one reason the SANZAAR culling announcement had to be delayed until mid-April, this in itself as an exposure could be highly material to the ARU's cash flow and solvency;

- the risk of damages claims and/or litigation for them (esp re Cox and the Rebels as they held long-term licenses)

- creditor and staff pay outs

- withdrawls of immediate actual or material contingent Govt cash funding support in that State etc.

- etc.

Since the infamous culling announcement many of the above very material cost and risk factors to the ARU and its core operations have come to light in hard reality, so my list above is by no means theoretical and it is by no means complete.

 

[lou75]

I doubt the potential cutting of an Australian Super Rugby team would be deemed material from the perspective of the ARU's financial statements to require disclosure in financial statements signed off on 22 March 2017.

Sorry, I can't accept this as genuine - we've just spent 300 pages discussing its materiality since then

 

[Joe King]

Steve Tew:

"We're using time up. I don't think we're running out of time yet," Tew said. "Sanzaar management are carrying on with business as usual in regards to preparing draws for a variety of scenarios. We're not sitting on our hands.

"It becomes very difficult for venues to be secured and bookings made on airplanes much past September. That's the date people are talking about being a logistical problem but we'd be hopeful we'd get through this well inside that problem date."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...g-super-rugby--18-team-competition-now-likely

It sounds to me like there wouldn't be too much trouble from the other SANZAAR partners if the ARU decided they had to keep all 5 teams until 2020. In fact, it sounds like they're preparing for it just in case!

How would a 3x6 model work? Would it be play home and away with your own conference (10 games each) + games against 3 teams from the other 2 conferences (6 games)?

Or would they look to increase the international component with home and away against only 3-4 of the other teams in your own conference?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^ logically you'd go 10 x derby & 6 x inter-conference matches but I guess it depends on how pissed off with ARU the other SANZAAR partners are, derby matches being ARU's "must have" & neither SARU nor NZRU being such a big fan of them.............

 

[gel]

We should definitely have 3 conferences. This appears to be what drives Aussies crazy with delight.

Each team plays *every* team once throughout the whole season for 17 rounds. Following year the home/away is switched. The conferences don't matter at this point.

The top 6 teams on points go through to the semis. The conferences don't matter at this point.

And (this is the tricky part) the leaders of each of the three conferences get to say they topped their respective conferences in their marketing material for the following year. That is the extent that the conferences should play. the Australian rugby union execs and boards can beat off about those bragging rights.