Where to for Super Rugby?

[RedsHappy]

Reds Happy

Re your above post pertaining Fox and the broadcast payments.

Fox are no longer anywhere near as desperate for product as they once were.

Not saying your logic is wrong, more they will see more a profit or a loss on Super Rugby today IMO.

Hi half

By no means was I referring to Foxtel alone; the logic set forth applies to them all to varying degrees, and there are many broadcasters involved incl e.g. Sky in the UK.

Foxtel may not be so hungry for 'product' as they were in 2015 however the core fact is they still have to make some very material fixed $s and fixed term $s to SANZAAR and their profits are already under serious pressure from Netflix, Stan, etc.

Foxtel as a business cannot afford to be paying large fixed multi-million $ sums to SANZAAR just to see Aus rugby viewership collapse and rugby-driven subscribers start cancelling subscriptions in serious numbers (and thus Foxtel's predicted advertiser, subscription on on-sale rights income from these sources collapse).

(NB: The assumption above I make is that the broadcasters' fine print with SANZAAR does not permit them to cut say the next year's $ payment if rugby viewership is markedly down. If such fine print exists, the ARU's financial situation is far more perilous than we thought. The ARU has a history of very poor transparency in such matters, so we cannot be sure. For example, when they announced the 'terrific win-win private equity buy-out of the Rebels' they did not then mention either (a) the large $ cash subsidies they had agreed to pay private equity for many years after that deal and (b) worse, what has just transpired recently, that they were somehow financially guaranteeing large Rebels obligations in the event of the private equity ownership collapsing or departing the Rebels business.)

 

[brokendown]

a partner of one of the Force players has just posted on TWF.
the stress that these players(and no doubt some from the rebels and Brumbies)are now under is enormous-many are out of contract at the end of the year and do not know what next year will bring.How the hell are they expected to play decent rugby with this hovering over them?
this situation is a total disgrace and the ARU fiddle while Rome burns

 

[dru]

In the mean in the Republic of South Africa:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39476903

"S&P lowered its credit rating on South African government debt from BBB- to BB+, which makes the debt "non-investment grade" or "speculative", or in the shorthand term, "junk"."

Basic political shenanigans are seeing the world's ratings agencies continue to downgrade SA to the point that, from S&P at any rate, investment should be considered speculative. It's proving chronic, and while most Saffers dont like hearing it from "chicken runners" it is not uncommon to hear Saffers themselves talk about "zim 2.0".

I love Saffer rugby, Bulls are my second team. But seriously, SANZAR has serious issues if they are not considering the stability in SA, irrespective of SARU and the provincial RUs sporting governance.

 

[Quick Hands]

a partner of one of the Force players has just posted on TWF.
the stress that these players(and no doubt some from the rebels and Brumbies)are now under is enormous-many are out of contract at the end of the year and do not know what next year will bring.How the hell are they expected to play decent rugby with this hovering over them?
this situation is a total disgrace and the ARU fiddle while Rome burns

I doubt we've seen incompetence on this scale in the history of professional sport in this country.

 

[brokendown]

I doubt we've seen incompetence on this scale in the history of professional sport in this country.

my post wasn't quoting the TWF poster,by the way(may have looked like that)
yes quick hands,incompetence or shear bloody mindlessness

 

[wamberal]

I doubt we've seen incompetence on this scale in the history of professional sport in this country.

So what would be your list of incompetent events. Assuming that this is the worst, what would be your second most incompetent. Third?

Go as far as you like. There are a lot of examples. Many of them by the ARU, of course. Apparently.

 

[brokendown]

well if you think the ARU are handling this situation with competence you are deluded

 

[Quick Hands]

So what would be your list of incompetent events. Assuming that this is the worst, what would be your second most incompetent. Third?

Go as far as you like. There are a lot of examples. Many of them by the ARU, of course. Apparently.

Events aren't incompetent, people are.

 

[RedsHappy]

So what would be your list of incompetent events. Assuming that this is the worst, what would be your second most incompetent. Third?

Go as far as you like. There are a lot of examples. Many of them by the ARU, of course. Apparently.

Wamberal perhaps you could - with due courtesy to all here no doubt - reverse your subtly lazy tendency to demand others say and justify things (whist you stay quietly on the outer reaches of debate) and thus you yourself please:

- list for us all those competent acts, policies, strategies, outcomes and so on that, in your opinion solely, could on reasonable, objective grounds be classified as 'very competently designed and delivered ARU actions and outcomes that have notably furthered the cause of the rugby code in Australia as it is in 2017'. Why not start your list in late 2003, and end it at today.​

Go on mate, have at it.

You put your chin out for once, versus a regrettable tendency to merely jibe at others' proclamations of passionate concern - often supported with much robust, measurable evidence - regarding the ARU's outputs (or the lack thereof).

One thought: if in indeed, on the basis of your 'inevitable decline' thesis, rugby in Australia is merely pre-destined to disaster and the ARU can more or less only sit on its (competent and well-meaning) hands watching the inexorable code collapsing around its sealed trophy cabinet of glories long gone, then one could reasonably propose that, as a major cost saving measure, the ARU is quickly reduced in head count to a single receptionist (who also deals with mail).

This decisive cost-down measure would at least permit legally due redundancy payments to be dispensed to the large number of players thrust out of a job when the inevitable final cataclysm arrives, once and forever.

 

[brokendown]

anyway,I shall grasp at the straw that the ARU are commited to 5 Aussie teams but dont want to state that position until after the SARU decide if SA sides will be axed

 

[Quick Hands]

my post wasn't quoting the TWF poster,by the way(may have looked like that)
yes quick hands,incompetence or shear bloody mindlessness

Exactly, because all this could be stopped tomorrow with one short statement from the ARU.

"The ARU announces that it will not agree to a reduction in the number of Australian super rugby franchises. All 5 franchises will continue in their current form"

Two sentences is all it would take - remembering that they have power of veto over any SANZAAR decision.

What we have is the ongoing non-decision. Hoping that the SA government will intervene and prevent the SARU from chopping the Kings, thereby allowing the SARU to vote to maintain the status quo. Once that occurs the ARU can then say, well SA aren't going to reduce the number of teams, so neither will we.

That's the most benign interpretation that I can place on events to date.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Ongoing non-decision is the best description I've yet seen, QH.

 

[Forcefield]

I wondered if the ARU were planning on bidding for an upcoming world cup and need the political capital gained by seemingly agreeing to go along with things (in the knowledge that SA are likely to stonewall it). The promise of hosting a RWC and the enormous amount of money that would bring in is the only possible motivation that I could think of to justify this clusterfuck.

 

[Ulrich]

The Cheetahs have hit back at Joel Stranksy's comments that they should be axed. Quite an interesting read.

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/SuperRugby/cheetahs-hit-back-at-stransky-comments-20170404

 

[lou75]

Hi half

The ARU has a history of very poor transparency in such matters, so we cannot be sure. For example, when they announced the 'terrific win-win private equity buy-out of the Rebels' they did not then mention either (a) the large $ cash subsidies they had agreed to pay private equity for many years after that deal and (b) worse, what has just transpired recently, that they were somehow financially guaranteeing large Rebels obligations in the event of the private equity ownership collapsing or departing the Rebels business.)

According to the financial reports, in 2015 they made a post sale payment of $1.4m to "increased financial support provided for MRRU" and this year, they provided $2.6m to the Rebels as part of "special funding as part of the external sale agreement".
In the first instance, they did not reveal the details of these post sale payments;
Secondly, it beggars belief that the ARU just decided to give the privately owned franchise $2.6 m without a contractual obligation, yet no such obligation has been noted in the 2015 accounts;
Thirdly, there is no mention in the 2016 annual reports of any further obligation for "special funding" to the MRRU going forward
Finally, one can only presumably KPMG, the big accounting mob who sign off on these reports is ok with that too, unless Pulver has forgotten to show them the contract of sale, but one would think that Clyne would be all over that contract as his reputation is on the line too.

 

[stoff]

According to the financial reports, in 2015 they made a post sale payment of $1.4m to "increased financial support provided for MRRU" and this year, they provided $2.6m to the Rebels as part of "special funding as part of the external sale agreement".
In the first instance, they did not reveal the details of these post sale payments;
Secondly, it beggars belief that the ARU just decided to give the privately owned franchise $2.6 m without a contractual obligation, yet no such obligation has been noted in the 2015 accounts;
Thirdly, there is no mention in the 2016 annual reports of any further obligation for "special funding" to the MRRU going forward
Finally, one can only presumably KPMG, the big accounting mob who sign off on these reports is ok with that too, unless Pulver has forgotten to show them the contract of sale, but one would think that Clyne would be all over that contract as his reputation is on the line too.

Do you have a link for 2016? I haven't seen them published yet.

Not sure what you are getting at around the 2015 accounts. They report the payment to the Rebels in 2015. 2016 transactions are reported in 2016. A close parallel would be the tv deal - 2016 tv revenue is not reported in 2015 unless it was prepaid. Having been audited by top tier accounting firms, I am pretty confident KPMG would have been all over this.

I think your real issue is the lack of transparency over the Rebels sale. Understandable from a fans perspective, but I'm pretty sure Imperium would not have been happy having the deal out in the public sphere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NTT]

Here we go again with the Rebels sale crap.

 

[lou75]

Do you have a link for 2016? I haven't seen them published yet.

Not sure what you are getting at around the 2015 accounts. They report the payment to the Rebels in 2015. 2016 transactions are reported in 2016. A close parallel would be the tv deal - 2016 tv revenue is not reported in 2015 unless it was prepaid. Having been audited by top tier accounting firms, I am pretty confident KPMG would have been all over this.

I think your real issue is the lack of transparency over the Rebels sale. Understandable from a fans perspective, but I'm pretty sure Imperium would not have been happy having the deal out in the public sphere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

and a lack of accountability

 

[Slim 293]

Here we go again with the Rebels sale crap.

Fake news. Sad.

 

[NTT]

Fake news. Sad.

It is fake news and sad that it keeps being brought up i agree. Such a minor thing as getting in lieu funding confused with supplementary funding is bogging down another thread.