Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rugbynutter39]

I personally think the best thing would be to keep Super Rugby but reduced number of teams but have under it expanded NRC semi pro long form national domestic competition.

Hopefully in time the semi pro could become pro...but baby steps as not enough commercial appeal at this juncture for a fully fledged 8 team pro national domestic comp.

We got to rebuild....

 

[daz]

?? It's just me. I don't know what others think. Not many mods around this place these days.
And largely, I think thrashwank is apt.

We could ban each other in a murder-suicide forum pact. Something to deliver us to sweet oblivion.

 

[Scooter]

Never expected a detailed discussion of accounting standards in a GAGR forum. Nice work gents.

 

[Scooter]

We could ban each other in a murder-suicide forum pact. Something to deliver us to sweet oblivion.

Daz offering a murder-suicide pact with Cyclopath, does that mean Cyclopath's true identity is Mitch Inman?

 

[cyclopath]

We could ban each other in a murder-suicide forum pact. Something to deliver us to sweet oblivion.

Would there be champagne in Sweet Oblivion? And cheese. Hang on, wi-fi too, we need wi-fi.

 

[cyclopath]

Daz offering a murder-suicide pact with Cyclopath, does that mean Cyclopath's true identity is Mitch Inman?

Daz is In Mitchman.
I am Itch Minman.
We're different, but a bit the same.

 

[James Pettifer]

According to this article the vote was on April 9, remember the announcement was made after the Kings v Force game.

Note the comments from Stooke on the process itself.

Interesting from the article, does Victoria have a member on the ARU board, as it would seem their boy voted for cutting a team. I would be thinking they were so 100% positive the Force were as good as dead even the Vic rep wanted to push it through.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...-over-super-rugby-future-20170410-gvhn41.html

9 members of the board
- Clyne - Chairman - grew up in Penrith, went to Uni Sydney
- Robinson - Deputy Chaiman - Born in Toowoomba, went to Uni Qld, Played for the Brumbies
- Bill Pulver - CEO - Shore school, UNSW
- Elizabeth Broderick - grew up in Caringbah, UNSW
- John Eales - Queensland, Marist Ashgrove, University Queensland, played for Qld
- Pip Marlow - Grew up in NZ, moved to Sydney
- Paul Mclean - Ipswich, Nudgee College and St Edmunds College, played for Qld
- Ann Sherry- born Gympie, Qld, moved to Brisbane, Went to Uni Qld
- Geoffrey Stooke - can't find out where he was born etc but is clearly very much a WA person (650 games with the associates rugby club in perth, chairman of Rugby WA for 23 years). I understand he voted against the motion.

So that is 3 from NSW, 4 from Queensland, 1 from NZ who moved to NSW and one from somewhere else who voted against the motion.

I think I might see some sort of connection here ...

 

[Inside Shoulder]

- Elizabeth Broderick - grew up in Caringbah, UNSW

Married to a Shore OB

 

[lou75]

And much thanks for that reference QH.

Let's just quote precisely what it (for the ARU directors) says, as of March 22, 2017 (my added emphasis) in the 2016 ARU Annual Report:




The above form of declaration - far broader than relating just to formal board decisions and includes reference to 'items', 'events' etc just as it is supposed to under AASB 110 - is essentially required as a test for the applicability or otherwise of accounting standard AASB 110 which I initially referenced earlier in this thread.

This article below appeared on the ARU's own site on March 10, 2017 re SANZAAR's imminent London meeting just a few days later (c. March 18) re the 2018 S18 format's continuity or otherwise:

http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2017/03/10/00/49/sanzaar-meeting-explainer

Then soon after, these type articles were frequent (this one below on March 27, 2017) well before the 'official' Super teams culling announcement on April 10, 2017:

"Western Force set to be axed from competition in Super Rugby revamp"

(This journo inter alia is known to have excellent ARU and other RU contacts.)

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...p/news-story/ca4c6d13a93022cc45c43da44119dd8d

And I would link all of this to the RUPA / VRU action which they have given a direction to the ARU to call an EGM in accordance with the ARU's own constitution whereby the ARU need to notify member unions to meet within 21 days but as yet have not advised their member unions of this, instead "waiving" this requirement, like pansy Clyne and DF Pulver can "waive" a requirement that is stated in their own constitution because they don't want to face the member union EGM

 

[lou75]

back to the SANZAAR meeting on weekend of 10th of March - 12 days before the ARU annual accounts were signed off - It is incumbent on the directors who sign off on those accounts to include items / events of material nature - 20% of the professional players to be cut through franchise culling - in those accounts that cover the time frame Jan 1- 31 Dec plus items that occur after balance day but before signing of accounts, of a material nature - which these clearly were. Please explain pansy Clyne why this was not included.

 

[half]

Never expected a detailed discussion of accounting standards in a GAGR forum. Nice work gents.

You are not the only one.

Not sure they pass as well a while since I completed my public practice certificate, but some assumptions being made I am not sure would stand up in court.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

A hint of the changing landscape from Rear Window @ AFR:
"And again, it seems, technology has caught Telstra on its heels. Streaming immigrant Netflix and fledgling local Stan (half-owned by Fairfax Media, our publisher) murdered Foxtel's own (with Seven West Media) foray, Presto. Over-the-top content studios (HBO, Showtime) will further desecrate the value of the cable (and indeed derivative streaming) model as they go direct to customers. Sport codes will do the same, even though their traditional broadcast partners are on their knees. Optus is streaming English Premier League. America's biggest cellular network AT&T is merging with content giant Time Warner. And under the terms of its equity position in Foxtel, Telstra can't produce or distribute its own content, let alone acquire a content producer like, say, Nine Entertainment Co.

Read more: http://www.afr.com/brand/rear-windo...stras-andy-penn-20170522-gwa0n6#ixzz4hqTv8R9S
Follow us: @FinancialReview on Twitter | financialreview on Facebook"

 

[RedsHappy]

^^^^ @IS

The other related piece of data in that same article refers to badly deteriorating financial metrics at Foxtel - rapidly declining earnings and RPU. News Corp writing its Foxtel stake's value down materially etc. Telstra holding its stake at zero value.

I think it's safe to say the ARU has to get Foxtel Super ratings up and fast or it can rationally expect severe down (or even no) bidding from Foxtel at the next round of SANZAAR media deals and/or pressure from Foxtel to cut its SANZAAR cost well before then.

This is before we see how the FTA networks are struggling - rugby is a zillions miles from their priority zone.

Rugby observers here and elsewhere thinking Aus rugby doesn't require radical change and fast (particularly to increase its product quality and media attractiveness) are, like it or not, deluding themselves.

 

[RedsHappy]

9 members of the board
- Clyne - Chairman - grew up in Penrith, went to Uni Sydney
- Robinson - Deputy Chaiman - Born in Toowoomba, went to Uni Qld, Played for the Brumbies
- Bill Pulver - CEO - Shore school, UNSW
- Elizabeth Broderick - grew up in Caringbah, UNSW
- John Eales - Queensland, Marist Ashgrove, University Queensland, played for Qld
- Pip Marlow - Grew up in NZ, moved to Sydney
- Paul Mclean - Ipswich, Nudgee College and St Edmunds College, played for Qld
- Ann Sherry- born Gympie, Qld, moved to Brisbane, Went to Uni Qld
- Geoffrey Stooke - can't find out where he was born etc but is clearly very much a WA person (650 games with the associates rugby club in perth, chairman of Rugby WA for 23 years). I understand he voted against the motion.

So that is 3 from NSW, 4 from Queensland, 1 from NZ who moved to NSW and one from somewhere else who voted against the motion.

I think I might see some sort of connection here .

Just noting again: not a single one of these directors has a senior managerial track record in pro sports administration or strategy, let alone a demonstrably successful track record in that professional management zone.

 

[Braveheart81]

FFS. Never did I entertain any notion re this matter to justify this idle facetiousness. It surely won't win the argument at hand.

I discussed the matter with a poster who raised IMO a very legitimate point as to why the decision to cull a full Super should not have been in some way mentioned in the ARU 2016 Annual Report, as a post event etc.

As a courtesy to that query and out my own interest, I went into this and noted the various evidentiary and other tests needed for this to apply and then mentioned the the applicable GAAP AASB standard number.

I noted there would be shades of grey in such matters, etc.

Moreover, a chronic lack of transparency and an arrogant attitude toward the broader rugby community has been a hallmark of the ARU for long periods, so I would be shocked if they even considered the need to brief their unsuspecting auditors re such a matter, let alone decide if indeed AASB 110 applied.

Yes, I was being facetious.

I also addressed the matter the poster raised.

I was trying to add a practical element to the discussion that despite there being an accounting standard about subsequent events and a mention of there being no subsequent events, I think the position the ARU took in their financials is a very normal one and the auditor would have agreed with it.

I would predict that if the ARU went to the auditor and said that there were some discussions around restructure of the Super Rugby competition and an Australian team could well be cut but it wasn't certain which one and it wouldn't be happening until the 2018 competition and there was no way to reasonably predict the outcomes of that eventuality, the auditor would have told them it shouldn't be disclosed as a event subsequent to the balancing date.

The financial statements are designed to give a clear picture of the situation at 31 December 2016. I'd argue that a brief mention of potential events impacting the 2018 Super Rugby competition (which is not the ARU's primary revenue stream) would muddy the waters rather than providing a clearer picture.

 

[Lee Enfield]

9 members of the board
- Clyne - Chairman - grew up in Penrith, went to Uni Sydney
- Robinson - Deputy Chaiman - Born in Toowoomba, went to Uni Qld, Played for the Brumbies
- Bill Pulver - CEO - Shore school, UNSW
- Elizabeth Broderick - grew up in Caringbah, UNSW
- John Eales - Queensland, Marist Ashgrove, University Queensland, played for Qld
- Pip Marlow - Grew up in NZ, moved to Sydney
- Paul Mclean - Ipswich, Nudgee College and St Edmunds College, played for Qld
- Ann Sherry- born Gympie, Qld, moved to Brisbane, Went to Uni Qld
- Geoffrey Stooke - can't find out where he was born etc but is clearly very much a WA person (650 games with the associates rugby club in perth, chairman of Rugby WA for 23 years). I understand he voted against the motion.

So that is 3 from NSW, 4 from Queensland, 1 from NZ who moved to NSW and one from somewhere else who voted against the motion.

I think I might see some sort of connection here .

We can rule out the board as the problem, they have gender equality which means the ARU cannot be run any better. Maybe it could be run a bit better, by increasing diversity through ethnic and sexual preference quotas.

 

[RedsHappy]

Yes, I was being facetious.

I also addressed the matter the poster raised.

I was trying to add a practical element to the discussion that despite there being an accounting standard about subsequent events and a mention of there being no subsequent events, I think the position the ARU took in their financials is a very normal one and the auditor would have agreed with it.

I would predict that if the ARU went to the auditor and said that there were some discussions around restructure of the Super Rugby competition and an Australian team could well be cut but it wasn't certain which one and it wouldn't be happening until the 2018 competition and there was no way to reasonably predict the outcomes of that eventuality, the auditor would have told them it shouldn't be disclosed as a event subsequent to the balancing date.

The financial statements are designed to give a clear picture of the situation at 31 December 2016. I'd argue that a brief mention of potential events impacting the 2018 Super Rugby competition (which is not the ARU's primary revenue stream) would muddy the waters rather than providing a clearer picture.

Of course, I disagree. I posted above what the ARU actually declared to the public and their stakeholders (as this is meant to mean something as an act of truth) and what is known to have been essentially agreed by their senior officers pre March 22.

You and I have fortunately disagreed on just about everything for years here. You have, until recently, generally been a trenchant defender or justifier of the majority of the elements constituting the institutional status quo at the core of Australian rugby and many of the parties controlling it, and for most of the time I have posted here I have held and explained a near opposite perspective.

That's fine and dandy. Time will tell (if it has not already) who is on, as they say in the US, 'the right side of history'.

The issue for me re the accounting standards matter was never one of 'suing someone', that was a total red herring on your part. The root issue for me (and I sense some others here that showed interest) was one of what might be termed 'the tracking of the ARU board's integrity index over time'.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I would predict that if the ARU went to the auditor and said that there were some discussions around restructure of the Super Rugby competition and an Australian team could well be cut but it wasn't certain which one and it wouldn't be happening until the 2018 competition and there was no way to reasonably predict the outcomes of that eventuality, the auditor would have told them it shouldn't be disclosed as a event subsequent to the balancing date.

BH, I have a little uneasiness with your contention in this respect. Surely, if the postulation that they couldn't reasonably foresee the outcomes is anywhere near the mark, then it would have been premature and a position that couldn't be substantiated to have undertaken to cull a side at the March SANZAAR meeting? Even the ARU with its seeming incompetencies would have been convinced of a positive outcome before they committed to that action?

 

[Braveheart81]

Of course, I disagree. I posted above what the ARU actually declared to the public and their stakeholders (as this is meant to mean something as an act of truth) and what is known to have been essentially agreed by their senior officers pre March 22.

You and I have fortunately disagreed on just about everything for years here. You have, until recently, generally been a trenchant defender or justifier of the majority of the elements constituting the institutional status quo at the core of Australian rugby and many of the parties controlling it, and for most of the time I have posted here I have held and explained a near opposite perspective.

That's fine and dandy. Time will tell (if it has not already) who is on, as they say in the US, 'the right side of history'.

The issue for me re the accounting standards matter was never one of 'suing someone', that was a total red herring on your part. The root issue for me (and I sense some others here that showed interest) was one of what might be termed 'the tracking of the ARU board's integrity index over time'.

We definitely disagree on a lot of things. I would say I generally try to be a pragmatist and whilst there are many things wrong with the ARU (and everything to do with rugby), I also don't believe there are easy fixes just by hiring some different people.

I think you can pick holes in just about everything if you're close enough to it and the sentiments we echo here about rugby are repeated across just about every sport.

My take on the accounting standards and disclosures is that how they read and how they are applied in practice across all industries would raise eyebrows for a lot of people. The concept of materiality and the fact that a set of financial statements could be wrong by millions of dollars and that is considered immaterial would also bewilder most people (and quite reasonably so).

It certainly makes me uneasy to be considered a staunch defender of the ARU because I certainly don't feel that way. In comparing the current ARU with the Exec/Board across the time the game has been professional they do some things better and some things worse. I think this is sadly just normal.

Anyway, I hope you continue to challenge my point of view and statements I make as I do yours. Healthy debate from different perspectives is what makes this forum good.

BH, I have a little uneasiness with your contention in this respect. Surely, if the postulation that they couldn't reasonably foresee the outcomes is anywhere near the mark, then it would have been premature and a position that couldn't be substantiated to have undertaken to cull a side at the March SANZAAR meeting? Even the ARU with its seeming incompetencies would have been convinced of a positive outcome before they committed to that action?

In terms of putting numbers in a set of financial statements as a future event, yes it would be impossible to predict. We're not talking about putting financial modelling with a range of outcomes in a note to the financial statements.

The common sort of example of a subsequent event that would be disclosed is "two months after balance date, our major manufacturing plant burnt down in a fire." You would know the cost of the lost asset, the potential insurance payout, and could reasonably predict the revenue loss due to the disruption.

 

[wamberal]

Maybe the ARU are in a blind panic. From all the signs, anybody who is not pooping their pants about the future of the game does not understand what is happening.

Drowning men (and women) clutching at straws.