0
Full marks you guys- but why has it been left to you to do this? Where are all the professional journos- Wayne smith Henley Thomas etc do your jobs
No specific breakdown franchise spending before 2014? Back of an envelope stuff!
Got them Ali, all done now (sorry, was out earlier tonight)
If anybody else wants charts and tables in Word, PDF or Jpg, you can find them at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...d%20Charts.zip
C'mon the
I'm not a financial guy, I looked at it and just put the numbers that were there. To create a chart I had to remove the links and the notes.
The spreadsheet is there, anybody who knows more finance that I is welcome to edit it to show the real figure. I'll happily replace the existing chart with a correct one. I think the issue is more with the title, the chard is advertised as being unpaid debts, but it appears to me to be monies out without any statement of monies in. In the notes, there was stuff about debts written off. I suspect, but don't know for sure, that is the actual figure for all monies out. I was also a bit confused at the Force having a zero figure in that table, since the alliance agreement included forgiveness of 3 million or so.
Please, somebody who knows the accurate numbers adjust them and pm me the details I can update the chart pretty quickly.
I started to work on that, and noticing the 13 million odd bucks that is against the rebels in 2014 or so was some amount of loan, some forgiveness of debt and some other stuff, my financial nouse was exhausted.
Ali appears to have a good handle on this. If she makes a table that reflects the accurate figures I can put it into a chart easily.
I would think an overall expenditure by year would be interesting to look at Grant, plus Loan Minus loan repayments received. It would come out as a nice little cumulative chart but still me fair on all the teams, since it would not double dip on the loans received (which I think might be happening in chart 2)
C'mon the
We need to be really careful with the figures in Table 2 as they were hard to glean from the accounts. For example, it wasn't clear to me whether the ACT loan was to the Brumbies or the ACT Union, hence why I qualified it in the notes to the table.
Personally, I think we should only use the charts from Table 1 and Table 3. As I've said, Table 2 may not be 100% accurate so I would prefer not to publish it. Table 4 is really just a hotpotch of figures that are interesting in themselves but not really suitable for drawing any comparisons from so a graph isn't that informative.
I don't want to be forced to defend figures that I am not 100% sure of as that will only weaken the credibility of the other figures.
Is everyone happy with that?
Proudly Western Australian; Proudly supporting Western Australian rugby
GiGs - I'm not sure that the Force were forgiven anything as part of the Alliance. The Force have never been extended any loans by the ARU. As far as I understand it, the money the ARU paid to us under the Agreement was the proceeds of sale of our licence and IP - $3.7million. That money was then used by the Force to clear other debts, not debts to the ARU.
That being so, I believe it is accurate to say the loan amount to the Force is, was and always has been $0.
Proudly Western Australian; Proudly supporting Western Australian rugby
Absolutely agree. Loans are shown on the balance sheet and are carried forward as an asset each year until paid off. The figures are not cumulative year on year. The $13million would have been the total amount outstanding at the time the ARU decided to write it off. From memory, that figure was made up of two amounts - one of around $8million for the period to 2015 and one of around $5million for 2015 itself. I would have to check that to be sure though.
Proudly Western Australian; Proudly supporting Western Australian rugby
So, in essence, Table 2 would be more accurate if it either, only included the amounts written off (ie for the rebels the 13 million, but not the earlier amounts) or only the amounts (which IMHO would be less accurate since some of those amounts might still be in the process of being repaid.
Is that correct? I'd be really keen to get table 2 right and get that information out there, because bad debt hits right to the heart of Clone's 28 Million bucks.
Interesting though that ARU staffing (Table 4) nearly matched the 28 million at one point. John O'Neill also cost the ARU almost as much as the overruns in Super Rugby. It would appear to my limited understanding that there are other cost cutting strategies which might be more effective than losing either the Force or the Rebels.
C'mon the
I think the info in Table 2 is really at the crux of why the Force are a much better financial prospect than the Rebels, so is information that we need to get out there (with qualifications, to make people understand this is just what has managed to be gleaned from the annual reports).
It seems they have pretty much run at a loss for almost every year of their existence, and that is unlikely to change. So surely they are a much bigger risk and financial burden to the ARU