0
The answers to Rugby WA's questions on notice are here
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_...onal_Documents
transcript from the other day is up also.
"12 Years a Supporter" starring the #SeaOfBlue
Bloody hell! How tiny are those projected losses for 2016 and 2017 compared to the figure of $28 MILLION that the MRRU had in accumulated LOSSES at 1 Jan 2015 DESPITE having received loans from the ARU totalling $8.75 MILLION.
Did the MRRU make such a professional job as RWA did in putting its case for assistance to the ARU? While Clarke was in charge I'd be surprised if he even made a phone call to the ARU; he'd have just carried on spending, knowing that they had that "written undertaking" from the ARU that enabled the independent auditor to be satisfied the company was a 'going concern'.
Where, EXACTLY, did all of the $MILLIONS the ARU pumped into the MRRU go? It sure as hell made no difference to the on field performance which was their whole business!!
Now, all of THAT, makes me even more angry!!!
Proudly Western Australian; Proudly supporting Western Australian rugby
One could easily think and the basic 'follow the money' principle would lead a normal rational person (or senator) to think that the ARU or certain people with positions of power within the ARU used the MRRU, from inception, to syphon literally millions of dollars out of the ARU coffers into various types of 'unit trusts'. Just saying......
apropos of ARU obfuscation, the shills TWAS went spastic on that roar thread last night, never seen anything like it....and I was a moderator on cycling news forum during Lance, Wiggo, Dawg, Sky et Al
The long sobs of autumn's violins wound my heart with a monotonous languor
Note that when he gets backed into a corner a new sock puppet appears supporting his position. Must be a sad world he lives in.
You've got to ask yourself though, more fool him for posting such nonsense or more fool us who respond and legitimize the troll with the lies?
We know Twiggy met every demand made by the ARU and as pointed out, the $68 million offered wasn't rejected for being not enough it was rejected as being too late even though it was $48 million above what the ARU settled on. The figure that should be being rightfully questioned is why it would need $20 million for the ARU to buy the Rebels for $1 and tell SANZAAR the Force are in, Rebels are out. There is no need to compensate SANZAAR for changing the fixtures to say Force instead of Rebels, the only possible extra costs would be in travel costs and that change would be nowhere near $19 999 999. So why demand such a sum?
The ARU claims they needed to save $6 million a year. Twiggy offered them $6 million a year. The ARU claims Super Rugby costs have blown out to unsustainable levels, Twiggy offered them a loss free venture yet they chose to keep the franchise that cost the most and is expected to continue to perform the worst financially. Why ignore a better offer that props up the balance sheet aswell as maintains a debt free franchise? Why even make fraudulent demands of Twiggy if you are trying to prove an ego driven point rather than rectify this 'oblivion' the ARU is supposedly facing? Where has the extra $30 million broadcast revenue gone? This all contradicts the ARUs responsibilities to the game of rugby under its own constitution.
I have got as far as Clarke's opening statement. Found it interesting that among all North's equivocation, legalese sidestepping and selective amnesia around the crucial question of who physically handed him a copy of "The agreement" he had a long enough moment of clarity to preference his eventual "answer" with.....
" Knowing Mr Clarke, he usually attends without papers".
Then we have Clarke in the final sentence of his opening remarks, where he is refuting Mark Sinderberry's conclusion that he was the one who handed over the document.........
I very rarely carry documents, and I certainly do not recall carrying any documents into the meeting with Tim North and Neil Hay on 12 April. However, I do recall that pile of documents that was on the table was being discussed in some detail, but I was not responsible for bringing them to the meeting"
Amazing innit, that high profile professionals can have so many memory blanks but both spookily make the same point so specifically on the crucial question. Perhaps the ARU could engage Mulder & Scully as consultants so they can find out what has happened at all these meetings they can't recall.
"The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David
Let's not forget, trading an 18 million dollar windfall for a 68 million dollar windfall in the bargain.
Let alone that the 68 million would barely cover the costs of the rebels over 10 years and the 20 million from the Vic Government was payment for 10 years worth of international matches (so approx 2 Million a year)
C'mon the