Where to for Super Rugby?

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^^ SARU will never agree to a full round robin, for starters. After being a Conference sceptic initially I'm now a fan as it keeps more teams in the playoff race for longer. I just don't think they should all automatically get a home QF, seedings for that should be strictly by matches won, table points, etc.

 

[daz]

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

Makes one wistfully recall the days when a QC (Quade Cooper) or Robbie Deans thread went over 100 pages; that was considered over the top.

This current exercise is thrash-wanking of Olympian standard.

 

[Brumby Runner]

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

For the massive sum of $1?

 

[James Pettifer]

For the massive sum of $1?

At that price, I'll take all five thanks ....

 

[Braveheart81]

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.

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

Take them to court then. Sue the auditor and the ARU for signing off on a set of financial statements you believe are materially incorrect.

Based on my experience I don't think the potential cut of a team in 2018 would be considered material to the ARU financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2016.

It would be most unusual that a bunch of potential events with consequences that aren't readily quantifiable (and most specifically relate to entities other than the ARU) would be spelt out as a post balance sheet date event in a set of financial statements.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Well, it may be a shit attitude, but its mine to have.

I don't blame the Force, or any club, for kicking and screaming to be made safe. Having said that, I think the NSW and Qld rugby people have had it all their own way for far too long, and suddenly you are sympathetic to the expansion teams and think the ARU need a smack? Appreciate the condescending support. You call me insular, when the majority of rugby "supporters" in Qld and NSW insist that during this "process" we are THE HEARTLAND?

It HAS to be the Force or the Rebels, according to you good folk. God forbid we consider the Reds or the Tahs. Don't merge with the Brumbies either; they once won a title.

As long as rugby is seen as a sport belonging to NSW and Qld, which it is, regardless of what you might like to think, please don't fucking talk to me about insular.

But be that as it may, I'm not sure you have fully understood my position; if the Rebels go, I couldn't care less if the code sinks or swims in this country.

How's that for a shit attitude?

I have a lot of sympathy for this point of view. If the Force go, I'll still love rugby as a sport (and support my club) but I couldn't really care less what happens to the rest of it. Why would I? A governing body that won't support the game in my home state is unlikely get any support from me in return.

 

[Quick Hands]

Take them to court then. Sue the auditor and the ARU for signing off on a set of financial statements you believe are materially incorrect.

Based on my experience I don't think the potential cut of a team in 2018 would be considered material to the ARU financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2016.

It would be most unusual that a bunch of potential events with consequences that aren't readily quantifiable (and most specifically relate to entities other than the ARU) would be spelt out as a post balance sheet date event in a set of financial statements.

I'll bow to your and Reds Happy's knowledge of matters to do with auditing standards, but I've seen many organisations which have "notes" attached to their financial statements indicating matters which may impact on the future financial position of the organisation or significantly impact upon the business.

EDIT: See page 5 of the ARU financial report which appears after page 49 of the annual report.

It has a sub-heading "Events Subsequent to Reporting Date"
http://issuu.com/australianrugbyunion/docs/high_res_copy_of_annual_report_-_op?e=24291087/48091789

 

[Braveheart81]

I'll bow to your and Reds Happy's knowledge of matters to do with auditing standards, but I've seen many organisations which have "notes" attached to their financial statements indicating matters which may impact on the future financial position of the organisation or significantly impact upon the business.

EDIT: See page 5 of the ARU financial report which appears after page 49 of the annual report.

It has a sub-heading "Events Subsequent to Reporting Date"
http://issuu.com/australianrugbyunion/docs/high_res_copy_of_annual_report_-_op?e=24291087/48091789

Yes, and I think you'd be hard pressed to make a legal argument that the events which happened between 1 January 2017 and the signing of the financial statements on 22 March 2017 would require them to disclose otherwise and as such the directors and/or auditors are in breach of their duties.

 

[Strewthcobber]

When was the board meeting at which Geoff Stooke voted agaisnt the proposal?

Until the board votes it's just a 'likely development"

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[RedsHappy]

When was the board meeting at which Geoff Stooke voted agaisnt the proposal?

Until the board votes it's just a 'likely development"

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

That's not correct in terms of the relevant standard (which must be read carefully and with the multiple worked examples that accompany it) but no more to discuss here.

 

[BLR]

When was the board meeting at which Geoff Stooke voted agaisnt the proposal?

Until the board votes it's just a 'likely development"

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

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

 

[RedsHappy]

Take them to court then. Sue the auditor and the ARU for signing off on a set of financial statements you believe are materially incorrect.

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.

 

[stoff]

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

No, no board members are from Victoria. No conspiracy there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BLR]

No, no board members are from Victoria. No conspiracy there.

Wasn't Clarke forced out for conspiracy related activities?

 

[lou75]

Wasn't Clarke forced out for conspiracy related activities?

Well he had his paw in so many pots , I'd say yes

 

[cyclopath]

Makes one wistfully recall the days when a QC (Quade Cooper) or Robbie Deans thread went over 100 pages; that was considered over the top.

This current exercise is thrash-wanking of Olympian standard.

Whenever I hear "thrashwank" I'm somehow reminded of naza. 'Tis the perfect epithet for this thread.

 

[RedsHappy]

I'll bow to your and Reds Happy's knowledge of matters to do with auditing standards, but I've seen many organisations which have "notes" attached to their financial statements indicating matters which may impact on the future financial position of the organisation or significantly impact upon the business.

EDIT: See page 5 of the ARU financial report which appears after page 49 of the annual report.

It has a sub-heading "Events Subsequent to Reporting Date"
http://issuu.com/australianrugbyunion/docs/high_res_copy_of_annual_report_-_op?e=24291087/48091789

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:

Events subsequent to reporting date

In the interval between the end of the financial year and the date of this report, no item, no transaction or event of a material and unusual nature has arisen, in the opinion of the Directors of the Company, to affect significantly the operations of the Company, the results of those operations, or the state of affairs of the Company in future financial years.

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

 

[BLR]

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.)

The problem is, despite it most likely being intentionally leaked to the media to potentially make the whole process easier when it was eventually announced, the only way this could be proved is if the journo names sources and times. And even then there would be quite a bit of deniability.

I don't think Jamie Pandaram being the ARU shill he is, will give up his sources firstly, and I don't know if anything other than documents from his sources saying the Force were due to be cut will do. Unless Pulver has a secret email server somewhere.

 

[RedsHappy]

Whenever I hear "thrashwank" I'm somehow reminded of naza. 'Tis the perfect epithet for this thread.

The mods seem 'a bit down' on this excellent thread. As if it's affecting climate change or something psychically important to work-life balances.

How's about kicking off the counter-type thread as they used to be here, some ideas:

ARU Positivity Thread

Super Rugby: Looking Towards a Great 2018 for Aus Rugby Teams

ARU Directors Shouldn't be Vilified (Doing Their Best)

New Skills and Disciplines Appearing in Australian Rugby 2017

How a 0-4 Test Thrashing v England Will Never Happen Again

What I'm Most Proud About in Australian Rugby

The above could lift the crazy ambiance here that worries you, perhaps?

 

[cyclopath]

The mods seem 'a bit down' on this excellent thread. As if it's affecting climate change or something psychically important to work-life balances.

How's about kicking off the counter-type thread as they used to be here, some ideas:

ARU Positivity Thread

Super Rugby: Looking Towards a Great 2018 for Aus Rugby Teams

ARU Directors Shouldn't be Vilified (Doing Their Best)

New Skills and Disciplines Appearing in Australian Rugby 2017

How a 0-4 Test Thrashing v England Will Never Happen Again

What I'm Most Proud About in Australian Rugby

The above could lift the crazy ambiance here that worries you, perhaps?

?? 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.