Terms of Reference for a Senate Inquiry into the Future of Rugby Union in Australia

[SPaRTAN]

Maybe...except it was also revealed the ARU were told in April that Forrest was behind them 100%

It would be interesting to get a breakdown of just where the money has gone since reaching Imperiums pockets. Considering Pulver played the confidentiality card over and over about the relationship/contract betwern the ARU and Imperium (who were practically insolvent too) I wonder if the money is being siphoned out under the guise of underwritten loses from Imperium and then distributed out to the ARU board, Cox, Clarke and North for some future pension fund? 17million is alot of money and would ensure a healthy few million each if done properly. Could this be the corruption scandal of the century?

[James]

They meant Forrest was 100% behind the Force. That doesn't necessarily mean he was willing to throw money away to get the ARU out of a bind of their own making.

Think is tbat it confirms there was never really a process. If the Rebels would have been cut if their licence could have been bought, it means they were the cboice. All the rest is lies. Personally, it would have been much easier to hear "We are currently heading toward bankruptcy. Our only obvious solution is to remove a team from competition. We are searching for support from big business to avoid this fate. The two teams on the chopping block are the Rebels and Force. We'd rather cut neither of them, but we will cut whichever is easiest to do so."

It would suck, but at least its straight up.

[Gordy1]

Re the Senate inquiry, from the West Australian:

"he said by the time mining magnate Andrew Forrest tried to stop the Force shutdown, offering the ARU up to $50 million, it was too late.

“It was pretty well over,” Pulver said. “Had Mr Forrest come into this discussion six months ago and effectively funded our purchase of the Melbourne Rebels licence, it may well have been a very different story.”


https://thewest.com.au/sport/rugby-u...-ng-b88606075z


Not really much of a process in deciding which team to axe. Am I reading this correctly? Pulver says if Forrest had stumped up with the money earlier than 4 August when Cox completed the Put Option, then the ARU would have used Forrest's money to buy the Rebels from Cox and then closed the Rebels? Is that what he's saying?

That's definitely what Puller was implying during the senate enquiry. Had someone from the ARU actually come out publicly and stated that at the time, then I'm sure Twiggy could have sorted it then and there. Instead all we got to hear about was from the press in the Eastern States, so nobody knew what to believe. For example, Cox stated that he wouldn't sell to anyone who would shut the Rebels down, didn't he?

Just more examples of the lack of communication, openness and fairness of the ESRU during this whole process.

[Gordy1]

They meant Forrest was 100% behind the Force. That doesn't necessarily mean he was willing to throw money away to get the ARU out of a bind of their own making.

Think is tbat it confirms there was never really a process. If the Rebels would have been cut if their licence could have been bought, it means they were the cboice. All the rest is lies. Personally, it would have been much easier to hear "We are currently heading toward bankruptcy. Our only obvious solution is to remove a team from competition. We are searching for support from big business to avoid this fate. The two teams on the chopping block are the Rebels and Force. We'd rather cut neither of them, but we will cut whichever is easiest to do so."

It would suck, but at least its straight up.

Except the part in bold never seemed to cross their minds. Remove that sentence and you have their exact thought process.

[Tonkar]

Seriously when does Clyne Position become untenable?? They have got to do something here! Surely anyone that walks into Pulver's job is going to be staggered at the level of incompetence!

Jules WHO is even considering taking up the position.. The only person I can see considering it would be be WALTER ( Jeff Dunham's Puppet as he already has the hole in his back for Clyne to put his hand up.....

[chibi]

Well, if they were honest, the ARU would also have endorsed the "Own the Force" campaign, rather than trying to scupper it

[lou]

Instead all we got to hear about was from the press in the Eastern States, so nobody knew what to believe. For example, Cox stated that he wouldn't sell to anyone who would shut the Rebels down, didn't he?

Just more examples of the lack of communication, openness and fairness of the ESRU during this whole process.

Actually he was constrained in who he could sell to - the terms of the Rebels participation agreement define the territory as being for Victoria, so he couldn't sell to Twiggy, he could sell to the ARU but they didn't have the cash - if Twiggy had offered them the cash then, it might have worked - again a PR nightmare, but no worse than now.
Cox saying he wouldn't sell it if it was going to be closed down was his last attempt to claw back an ounce of respectability in this sorry saga - he had run the business into the ground - as we are now hearing and at the last minute he exercised the infamous Put Option to get rid of them because, as he once said, he "is no Harold Mitchell".

[boof1050]

So Lou what's the mail are the Rebels flat broke and putting their hand out again or is the cap gonna be raised especially for them? Also what's the mail on this so called funds being siphoned out the back door? Any scoops big fella?

[lou]

I only have conspiracy theories and I'm full of them

[lou]

Here's another one : with absolutely nothing to back it up : Cox completed the infamous Put Option and now the VRU own the Rebels - where is the working capital coming from ? In other words, on completion, 4 August, the Balance sheet was "clean", but no subscriptions or sponsorships or match day revenues are coming in, so who is funding the show? Also, as Pulver said this week, a trigger to take back the Rebels licence would have been insolvency - so at what point will the generous Victorian benefactors pull the plug and let the Rebels sink or swim? At the moment, the infamous Victorian Government partnership that Pulver referred to but refused to detail (due to confidentiality) has not been signed - it continues to sit in limbo - not so iron clad after all compared with the WA Gov commitment to the Force.

[boof1050]

I only have conspiracy theories and I'm full of them

It won't be long and you'll be a gold member on here.

[sittingbison]

What are Vic AFL, NRL, Soccer. netball, baseball etc going to think about Govt payouts to Rebels?

[SPaRTAN]

So 33 million was spent on the rebels
And only 15 million spent on the Force during the same period, which included the IP takeover.

That included $33 million to the Rebels and just $15 million to the Force, she said. The Rebels also had a $13 million loan written-off by the ARU when businessman Andrew Cox bought the franchise for $1 in 2015 before handing it over to the Victorian Rugby Union this year

So that is 18million dollars AUD more spent on the Melbourne Franchise.

The Rebel crowds and Forc e crowds were similar (Rebels slightly smaller on average) so how could this equate to an 18million dollar disparity? The answer is it simply cannot. Not to mention ACT crowds were lower at times and also didnt need an extra 18million to prop them up.

So sponsors? Well I didnt hear about any huge difference in sponsorship arrangements that could cause a club to need an extra 18mill, the Force were struggling for a few years so if anything I would have thought the Force would have needed money if anything and they managed to work through it.

TV rights? I assume this is just the grant distribution which in itself wasnt even...

In the last three years the Force received the least amount of funding of Australia’s five teams and the Rebels the most, WA Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds told the hearing citing ARU statements.

That included $8.3 million to the Rebels and just over $4 million to the Force last year, she said.

So the Rebels needed 8.3 mill to be propped up, yet the Force managed to survive on less than half that 4mill, what is so much different between these clubs that requires 18million more to survive and 4.3million AUD extra alone last year just to get through another year.

Being Privately owned you would think the books would be under far more scrutiny by the owner and have far better financial management than the ARU, yet it leaked enormous sums of money for no apparent reason.

It is an enormous mystery where all these extra funds went and why they were needed when the clubs statistics werent that much different except Melbourne has more people and thus should be way more successful but isnt. But it is still similar in most departments when it comes to aquiring funds to fuel a super rugby side. The Force is far superior is grassroot development etc we all know this. That is what makes it bizarre because these aspects wouldnt really affect the Rebels capital when it came to aquiring funds.

[Kalahard]

The 100 page report by Colin Smith on the expansion of Super Rugby and how it would cripple the ARUs finances should make for interesting reading. It would certainly back up Clynes quote around the ARU knowing the expansion was unsustainable. While it will bring our beloved Force back, it is heartening to hear and see some of the skeletons exiting the closets.
Not really sure what to make of Greg Harris's comments, one article he is supporting the cull, next one he is criticising it. As a former Force CEO and RUPA CEO, surely he realises the devastation to the players and their families, he is connected to both of the victims here.
The size of the Rebels continuous losses has piqued my interest in a different way today. How did the losses not only continue but stay consistently above $4 million when each of the other franchises always were within a few hundred thousand of being in profit or loss? How can 1 out of 5 similar businesses, same product, same market etc be so out of sync with the financial performance of the 4 comparitive businesses?
It was interesting to also hear Pulver avoid the question of what is Australias share of SANZAAR revenue. The tv deal of $285 million over 5 years was widely trumpeted at the time of signing but the details of the ARUs income share from SANZAAR are "confidential". The tv deal was trumpeted as bringing in $30 million a year in increased revenue. Surely a $30 million increase in income per year would be sufficient to add to existing financing structures in relation to Super Rugby grants to shore up the position of 4 franchises that are only just missing profitability by a few hundred thousands dollars each year? Even if Super Rugby grants went up by $1 million per franchise per year, that still leaves a $25 million per annum surplus from this increase in revenue. How has Melbournes board gotten their financial health so horribly wrong? 4 out 5 of the comparable businesses operate within similar performance indicators and measures delivering the same product. How does one out of the 5 get it so wrong? It is not a one year abberation either, it is consistently performing negatively. Why?
Even if the tv deal includes Wallabies coverage, then grants to the Wallabies would naturally rise. We still have $25 million spare after increasing Super Rugby grants, Wallabies receive an extra $5 million from the increased revenue that still leaves a $20 million surplus from last year unaccounted for and following the same method would result in that $20 million surplus doubling to $40 million by the end of 2017. Yet looking through the analysis of ARU accounts, this anticipated revenue increase is impossible to determine where it went. Then to hear the CEO say he did not know specifically where 55% of their income is spent is confusing.
Hopefully the answers to this and other questions finally get answered.

[sittingbison]

The money...meant for AUSTRALIAN rugby...went to pay off Cox's debts in New Zealand, and into his and Clarke's pockets.

There...I said it. Sue me you cretinous duplicitous thieving wankers, you will have to prove it didn't