Looking at the accounts, I reckon they are being a bit too clever here to make their point
Without knowing what this year's numbers are, it looks like they've added up all of the additional ARU expenses associated with taking over the Rebels and Force - player payments, Matchday and corporate.
They also have additional revenue which doesn't seem to be counted - Matchday, sponsorship etc.
The bet effect is much less than $28m (maybe half that?). Your point does remain...
Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
You may well be right re the large exaggeration involved.
But the core point here is surely this: the highest officer of the ARU made this key statement re Super clubs 'unexpected overspend of $28m' publicly and categorically.
Is it true, or is it not true? A test of organisational integrity and related values is the veracity of the statements it makes in defending or explaining a key decision or policy.
Only within the last year, despite these alleged 'major overspends', the ARU was proclaiming to all comers a strong commitment to 'the national footprint' of 5 Super Rugby teams.
Yet Clyne is now stating that, in truth, internally they knew the whole edifice was financially unsustainable.