Force cut their losses and take Firepower failure on the chin

[NTT]

With the contraversy and bad publicity surrounding the sponsorship, its not hard to see why this decision has been made. I do also realise i have been suggesting recently that the sponsorship may still see out next year which means this decision is a little surprising. But saying that common sense has prevailed. As for responsibility, well, how can the Force be blamed for the collapse of a separate entity.

[tahbar]

Like a lot of people, I've sat back with an open mind and read about the demise of firepower and the impact this is now having on the force and other sports and their families around Australia. Its unfair, ridiculous and damaging to rugby.

But I'm astounded that everyone seems to still blame the smh, their journos and others for beating up on the force for some of their deals and relationships with Firepower. Hasnt it occurred to anyone that this is the role of the media - to highlight problems and to potentially help. Could it be that if people had taken a closer look at firepower earlier, the loss of money to the force may not have occurred? It looks to me like the media have been right all along and if only people had taken them more seriously earlier on.

If anything force supporters should be asking how the force administrators, and the ceo, let this mess occur. Dont you think they take some responsibility for now losing $300 - 700k in sponsorship and potentially losing players because a sponsor appears to be a financial wreck.

If you think its not the forces fault, youre mad and have no business knowledge. I'm sorry, but a super 14 team dealing with a group that purports to have millions is a little more important than a local club doing a deal with the local fuel station. And because its more important, such a thing as due diligence is done. In any commercial deal, each party undertakes due diligence with the other. If you have doubts, you ask for personal guarantees or you dont contract with the organisation that looks to have holes in it or is dodgy. Its commercial sense 101 and pretty obvious to those who have half a business brain.

I'm astounded by stookes comments that he wont pursue firepower or its director, Johnston. Why not? Did the force get a personal guarantee from johnston? What due diligence did the force do? Why did the force place so much importance on their future by dealing with such a hihg risk organisation? All questions stakeholders and sharesholders should ask of any business and their leaders.

So come on force people, stop blaming, growden, smh, former staff and others and start looking in your own backyard. People arent after the force, they just appear to want you to clean up the shop a bit.

Good luck. Lets hope rugby gets through this hic up.

cheers

[Darren]

Wouldn't it have been a CFOs role to do the due diligence in financial matters? The one that was around when all these deals were done got the boot in the end, or quit before the shit hit the fan or something....

[GIGS20]

I thought since it was a third party agreement that the Force werent responsible for the payments to the players.

The money owing to the club on the other hand is a problem.

Furthermore, the got fined for undue interference in the third party contracting process....wouldn't this "pressure to arrange replacement contracts" represent a similar interference?

Of course we'll be allowed to do it because the NSWRU did exactly this in the case of cost-a-Lote didn't they?

I'd say the Firepower money is not the Force's responsibility, it's the player managers'

That means Matty Giteau has to find his own third party deals now!

I've got a fifty to spare!

[Burgs]

You had me until "this is the role of the media - to highlight problems and to potentially help," tahbar.
What a crock.
The role of the media is to report on facts and sell advertising space without having personal vendetta's.

[Thequeerone]

the whole third party thing is a farce - it seems to trip us up all the time - RugbyWa is not allowed to administer them - but we know we need them because we want to retain our players - how do the other franchises do it ?

[travelling_gerry]

How much is a sleeve sponsorship worth?

[NTT]

Companies and partnerships do sometimes have the potential to collapse when the outlook and forecasts of future revenue and growth don't happen as expected. The Firepower collapse while unfortunate for all involved may be one of these cases. Responsibilty for this lies with Tim Johnson as CEO. Responsibilty for the Forces role in the sponsorship lies with the Force administration. The necessary assessments would have been made by a certain former financial officer. The information assessed would have been a prediction more or less as to what sort of situation Firepower would have thought thet would have been in financially in 3 years time based on past performance. If they lost clients unexpectedly or suffered financially another way and the forecasts were ultimately affected then i struggle to see how the force are to blame for Firepower going bankrupt. As a fledgling franchise any sponsorship offers would have been welcomed and needed to get started. If they go bust well shit happens.

[NTT]

Tahbar, im pretty sure no-one round here reads the SMH unless Forced too.

The media is its own beast. The SMH reported on the firepower collapse usually pretty accurately. The thing that gets me though is the way the force is used in such articles. I mean an eyelid would barely be raised if Firepower didn't sponsor the Kings or the Force. It would buried in the financial section. The player agreements are a worry, defininately as if players leave it would affect the development of the team and upset the fans and members. The fact that the players haven't severed ties yet does encourage me that new deals might not be far off, but ive been wrong before ....

[BLR]

Agreed nearthtop. I was thinking about it further and wondered how much potential backers and customers Firepower would have lost because of bad publicity, which was fringing into the excess. I mean, fair enough thier fuel pill wasn't ideal but at least let the company get on with thier job so that they can give it a go, once you expose a wrong it isn't your job to hammer it in until the other party is destroyed, it is to bring it to light and then let the public make thier own decisions.

As the incredibly unbiased Fox News say, 'We report, you decide.'

[.X.]

Its a shame that SMH is unable to do a fair reporting job, ever. The fact is that the SMH is a sponsor of the Waratahs. Any chance that Growden and Co. had to bury the Force and it's associated sponsors was grabbed with glee. Heaven forbid the Chief Rugby Correspondent took the opportunity to support the code as a whole.

[James]

Tahbar administrators make mistakes its a fact of life. How much responsiblility the Force should take for the fall through of Firepower is hard to say since we don't know what went on between O'Meara and Johnston. But haven't the Tahs gone bankrupt twice? At the end of the day so we lose half a mil say- we made half a mil on the last financial year which still keeps us above the red unlike where the Tahs and Reds ended up from that year. Mistake made, hopefully lesson learnt and like you say hopefully garden cleaner in the future. As for players being lost- Cam Shepherd has re-signed and Ryan Cross has re-signed and they had Firepower deals. Giteau chose not to extend his contract at this time but why would he? What harm could be done by waiting a year until his contract actually runs out?

On Stooke- why bother pursuing Firepower? I'm not a legal-ly person but surely the court costs and effort you'd have to go to to get any form of gains would make the task pointless.

I don't know about anyone else but I don't blame Growden/Magnay/Ryle for bringing down Firepower- you have to give them credit for their doggedness. But you can't be serious if you think that those SMH journalists haven't enjoyed sticking the knife into the Force whenever they can. NTT hit the nail on the head- would it be unfair and ridiculous and damaging to rugby if the SMH didn't link it to rugby (the Force) at every opportunity they got?

[travelling_gerry]

Agreed James. A journalist or even rumours can bring a company down. Create enough doubt and creditors start to panic and cash flows dry up.

Take a company here in WA recently where the rumour mill was running hot and they were put into administration and then liquidation. In the end the creditors were paid out PLUS interest and money returned to the family holding company. All due to rumours pressuring them.

[slomo]

a well written piece tahbar, its great to have an open mind, but why should you care if the force is currenty having problems with one of thier sponsors? i think its very admiral that a tahs supporters comes on a predominatley western force supporters web site and questions one of the clubs financial matters, but if the boot was on the other foot i wouldn't give a rats arse about the tahs financial situation, so i fail to see your agenda in this situation........... but the same goes for YOUR SYDNEY KINGS, you know the ones that are finished, unless your mystery cashed up sporting identity comes along and saves your ass, at least the force has the depth of backing to pull themselves of of this tricky firepower situation......enjoy your basketball next season....

[BLR]

You're 100% wrong James.







Giteau's contract doesn't run out next year, it only opens the opportunity to get out of the contract, if anything the contract rolls on for another two years....shame on you.