4
Over the course of recent months, Rebels fans have argued that the Rebels may have lost $30 million but that is ok because the Victorian Government has bailed out the ARU with direct funding of $100 million since 1996. Firstly, Bwahahahahahahaha what a load of bullshit. There is no evidence, proof or sane train of thought that backs up this fantastical statement. The state governments buy events to generate economic activity within their states. Things like tourism, ticket sales tax, food and drink do not provide any revenue to the ARU. These are benefits to the local economy. The majority of ticket money goes back into paying off the stadium. Food and drink revenue goes to private vendors, hotel revenue goes to the hotel and GST revenue goes to the state. Merchandise sales do go to the ARU but $100 million worth is way way off the mark.
So this leaves the question : How has the ARU become $100 million better off through direct funding from the Victorian Government?
If we take into account the purchase fee to the rights of a test match then Victoria, at a fee of $5 million per test, has purchased $100 million worth of rugby matches. The problem is this, so has Perth, NSW host 3 or 4 tests a year for 4 times the investment and Brisbane hosts 2 a year for rights revenue of $200 million. This shows that other states have purchased either the same amount or significantly more. This also shows that these matches would have been played in other states if Victoria hadn't purchased them. This doesn't make the ARU $100 million better off thanks to Victoria. The ARU has earnt more test match revenue from other states.
Seeing as the $5 million purchase fee goes towards paying the players and hospitality suites at the matches, this $100 million is used to cover ARU costs, not handed to the ARU as direct investment as claimed.
This still leaves another major conundrum. What connection does hosting test matches have to the losses accrued by the Melbourne Rebels? Thats an easy answer, absolutely nothing. The viability of Super Rugby is in question not the viability of the Wallabies. The income earnt by the Wallabies goes back to the Wallabies to cover costs. We have all seen the ARU reports. The Wallabies are reported separately from Super Rugby.
The issue is Super Rugby viability. As we have seen through Alisons efforts, the viability of Super Rugby in Australia has been jeopardized by the extra money spent propping up the Rebels. To then try and connect internal state based economic activity to a direct investment into the ARU of $100 million by the Victorian Government is crazy, desperate and false. There never has been any direct cash injection of $100 million made by the Victorian Government. The ARU is not $100 million in the black thanks to any state government.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from this fabrication of an argument is that Rebels fans are liars. And Super Rugby is still unviable thanks to bailing out Melbournes franchise. But hey, i already knew this.