Arbitration hearing - Western Force v ARU - 31.07.2017

[GIGS20]

And we cut a team because the finances were tight. Geoff, however, was adamant a better reallocation of resources could have seen all 5 teams remain and be viable.

Yep, heard that. However (and let's all remember I'm no high level economist or financier) I reckon the best way to trade out of this current financial difficulty is to STOP GIVING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE TO PEOPLE WHO WON'T PAY IT BACK. I think it's obvious, I might just be more insightful that I give myself credit for.

[Kalahard]

The part that has never been explained to the people is how the ARU got itself in a position, after receiving a bumped up tv deal, and considering the franchises were viable before the bumped up broadcast deal, that it needs to "save" $6 million a year. Yes, they may have squandered the British Lions windfall from 2012 trying to force a rugby team into Melbourne but as Stooke said in his interview that the ARU had in fact increased grassroots funding by $4 million 2 years ago. There is no explanation of how they have forecast that the extra tv revenue dictates that they must spend extra on their franchises. The only real increase in costs is the travel factors and Wallabies topups are starting to skyrocket. The franchises slice of the revenue to operate administration is $1.7 million and salaray cap is $5 million. These base grants were not required to all of a sudden explode beyond forecastible numbers. The franchises still had the same responsibility and revenue around making up the rest regarding sponsors and memberships. So the question still remains, how does an organization squander an extra $30 million a year when their base spending figures would remain almost unchanged? Add in the $5 million for the extra travel and there is $25 million left over to allocate to other projects and areas of Australian rugby. Total cost of running the Franchises has not skyrocketed from $6.7 million a year to $15.7 million a year, so where has the extra broadcast revenue really gone? To keep the $6 million buffer they are chasing, they only realistically only have to spend $24 million of their extra $30 million a year. Its not hard to see that overspending from the ARU has got themselves into a financial mess, the same overspending that has always been there. Stooke said the financials could have been worked through and rectified in other ways, cutting the excessive spending is what he means.

[GIGS20]

You're not seriously suggesting that the ceo be downgraded from first class on his business trips are you?

[Kalahard]

You're not seriously suggesting that the ceo be downgraded from first class on his business trips are you?

No, im more asking the question of how does getting a payrise automatically dictate that you live outside your means. Theres 2 ways to using a payrise, you keep youre expenditure realitively the same and bank the rest or you spend to the hilt and put yourself into more financial pain. As a national body, the business that is responsible for such decisions, to not use common sense and common business practice and operate on the principal of the former, bank the payrise not squander it, is their responsibility to rugby. To be operating on one dollar more than is absolutely necessary is a failure in business management, especially a public interest such as the ARU.

[zed]

No, im more asking the question of how does getting a payrise automatically dictate that you live outside your means. Theres 2 ways to using a payrise, you keep youre expenditure realitively the same and bank the rest or you spend to the hilt and put yourself into more financial pain. As a national body, the business that is responsible for such decisions, to not use common sense and common business practice and operate on the principal of the former, bank the payrise not squander it, is their responsibility to rugby. To be operating on one dollar more than is absolutely necessary is a failure in business management, especially a public interest such as the ARU.

I'm thinking(hoping) GIGS was being facetious!? If Pulver & co have been flying all over the globe first class than that's poor form.

[Kalahard]

Yeah i got that, i just had lots of words in my brain trying to escape ....

The other part that makes no sense is the grassroots investment argument from the ARU. For $6.9 million a year, in WA we have 15000 juniors exposed to pathway from club to the Wallabies. This has now been ripped apart so the ARU can save $6.7 million, we keep the $200 000 a year grassroots funding. The ARU will reinvest $6 million into Qld and NSW. The net increase in rugby players from both those states will not increase by 15 000. The best the ARU can hope for is about 1000 new juniors per state. So to increase their grassroots numbers by 2 or 3000, they are simultaneously cutting off 15000, for a net reduction of 10 - 12000 juniors exposed to the pathways.

To "save" grassroots, the ARU wants to reduce the number of juniors exposed to the pathways. Get your head around that. Really, we know grassroots means that the Shute Shield clubs will get extra money just to poach players from each other.

[GIGS20]

For the record, I'm right on the same page as kala here, the ARU have been guilty of throwing money into any black hole they can find, only to use the lack of available money as their excuse for shitcanning 1/3 of the country, all so they can get back 20% of the money that they CONTINUE TO Waste who here thinks that, if they can waste 30 million a year for zero return in performance, they're capable of wasting 36 million a year with the same increase in productivity.

[Alison]

They need the extra $$ to pay for the new ARU HQ building??

[sittingbison]

This organisation needs to be shut down, just like soccer did.

[zed]

This organisation needs to be shut down, just like soccer did.

What's the story on that?

[zed]

They need the extra $$ to pay for the new ARU HQ building??

That was $20 million funding from the government. Again are these chumps not answerable to anyone? No-one at the government concerned they've chucked millions at a organisation run with a high degree of ineptitude.

[WF2404]

What's the story on that?

"In 2003, following Australia's failure to qualify for the 2002 FIFA World Cup, allegations of fraud and mismanagement were leveled at Soccer Australia by elements within the Australian Press including the ABC.

Soccer Australia commissioned an independent inquiry known as the Crawford Report as a result of the Australian Government's threat to withdraw funding to the sport. The Australian Government could not interfere as any political interference would have constituted a breach of FIFA Statutes. The findings of the report were critically analysed by the board of Soccer Australia who believed that the recommendations contained therein were not capable of being implemented. The report recommended, among other things, the reconstitution of the governing body with an interim board headed by prominent businessman Frank Lowy. Some three months after Lowy's appointment Soccer Australia was placed into liquidation and Australia Soccer Association (ASA) was created without encompassing the Crawford Report recommendations and effectively disenfranchising all parties who had an interest in Soccer Australia. The Australian Government provided approximately $15 million to the ASA.

On 1 January 2005 ASA renamed itself to Football Federation Australia (FFA), aligning with the general international usage of the word "football", in preference to "soccer", and to also distance itself from the failings of the old Soccer Australia. It coined the phrase "old soccer, new football" to emphasise this."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footba...tion_Australia

Sounds like a plan!! :-)

[zed]

"In 2003, following Australia's failure to qualify for the 2002 FIFA World Cup, allegations of fraud and mismanagement were leveled at Soccer Australia by elements within the Australian Press including the ABC.

Soccer Australia commissioned an independent inquiry known as the Crawford Report as a result of the Australian Government's threat to withdraw funding to the sport. The Australian Government could not interfere as any political interference would have constituted a breach of FIFA Statutes. The findings of the report were critically analysed by the board of Soccer Australia who believed that the recommendations contained therein were not capable of being implemented. The report recommended, among other things, the reconstitution of the governing body with an interim board headed by prominent businessman Frank Lowy. Some three months after Lowy's appointment Soccer Australia was placed into liquidation and Australia Soccer Association (ASA) was created without encompassing the Crawford Report recommendations and effectively disenfranchising all parties who had an interest in Soccer Australia. The Australian Government provided approximately $15 million to the ASA.

On 1 January 2005 ASA renamed itself to Football Federation Australia (FFA), aligning with the general international usage of the word "football", in preference to "soccer", and to also distance itself from the failings of the old Soccer Australia. It coined the phrase "old soccer, new football" to emphasise this."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footba...tion_Australia

Sounds like a plan!! :-)

Well if we go down, lets do our level best at bringing them down with us. Is there a difference between bad decision making that costs an organisation millions and mismanagement? A private company can do what the fuck what they want with their $$, but an organisation accepting millions from the government, surely the government have a vested interest in how this organisation is managed. Or are Pulver & co free to do what they want?

[sittingbison]

As it stands, with the AUSTRALIAN Rugby Union hijacked and run by NSW and QLD, they are free to do what they want

[Kalahard]

Just a reminder for those not banned from GAGR that the right of appeal was negotiated as part of agreeing to arbitration.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/wes...1dfb30331b2db6


THE Western Force legal battle for Super Rugby survival has taken a new twist with the club agreeing to arbitration.

The Force say they are not backing down from their fight against the ARU that is trying to cut a side from the competition but they want to bring it to an early end for their players, staff and supporters.

The arbitration hearing, surrounded by a cloak of confidentiality, will be held in the first week of August in Sydney and a decision could be announced that week.

However if the fight had been left in the WA Supreme Court it would not have been heard until September at the earliest.

The club took the decision to move to arbitration on Tuesday night ahead of yesterday’s hearing scheduled for the Supreme Court.

The appointment of the arbitrator has to be agreed by both sides and there is an avenue for appeal after a decision has been handed down.

The RugbyWA board said fast tracking the resolution was the best way forward.