Dave Wessels

[Alison]

Ali, At the time in March 2016, we did not even consider the risk of SANZAAR reducing the number of teams. Super 18 had only had 1 year in existence, back then who, on our side would even have thought to ask such a question?

Personally, I agree with your allegation that some moves were afoot, and we are still desperately searching for that "smoking gun". If we can get our hands on an e-mail or letter implicating the ARU in considering or even discussing dropping a team prior to March 2016, we have the evidence necessary to go for the jugular.

Totally agree Hansie. In no way could you have foreseen any change to the comp format as far back as March 2016. Likewise it would never have entered your heads that the ARU were up to something - and nor should it have. You knew they had committed to 5 teams for the current cycle (2016-2020) so you had no reason whatsoever to distrust them.

They have behaved despicably and I desperately hope we don't have to rely on karma to bring them to account. Although.....!

[Bakkies]

Ali, At the time in March 2016, we did not even consider the risk of SANZAAR reducing the number of teams. Super 18 had only had 1 year in existence, back then who, on our side would even have thought to ask such a question?

Personally, I agree with your allegation that some moves were afoot, and we are still desperately searching for that "smoking gun". If we can get our hands on an e-mail or letter implicating the ARU in considering or even discussing dropping a team prior to March 2016, we have the evidence necessary to go for the jugular.

The ARU called in Accenture in March 2016 to examine all of the books from each Super Rugby team. Did they end examining the Force books and were the Reds and Rebels examined? This is important as neither the Reds and Rebels have had their finances questioned by the ARU to the point that the Force have (and you could say the Brumbies too).

ARU calls in consultants Accenture to examine the books of Super Rugby franchises
Share via Email
Share on Google Plus
Post on facebook wall
Share on twitter
Post to Linkedin
Share on Reddit
Concerns are mounting about the financial health of the Australian Super Rugby franchises.
Concerns are mounting about the financial health of the Australian Super Rugby franchises. Mark Metcalfe

Share on twitter
by John Stensholt
Worried about the financial performance of the local Super Rugby franchises, the Australian Rugby Union has employed consultants Accenture to closely examine the operations of the five Australian clubs.

Each of the teams – the NSW Waratahs, Queensland Reds, Western Force, ACT Brumbies and Melbourne Rebels – recorded financial losses in 2015, and concern is mounting the extended Super Rugby competition could still cause financial problems for the teams, despite the influx of new broadcast money.

The Australian Financial Review has been told staff from Accenture, an ARU sponsor, have visited all of the Australian teams in recent weeks, and have examined their financial records, staff structures and strategic plans.

Sources played down the possibility of the ARU seeking a takeover of the five teams, as was mooted several years ago under a plan whereby the teams would effectively have been controlled under a centralised model similar to that in New Zealand and South Africa.

But the governing body could look for areas where at least some back-office operations could be shared across the franchises, such as ticketing, membership and financial reporting roles. Accenture is understood to have been asked to find cost-savings at each of the five clubs.

The move comes despite the ARU beginning a new five-year $285 million broadcast contract in the season that recently started, a deal that will see more money flow to each of the franchises.

But there are concerns crowds and sponsors are still difficult to attract for the five franchises, especially for matches against teams from New Zealand and South Africa and the new sides from Argentina and Japan.

Some commentators have described the extended 18-team structure as being difficult to understand, while a mid-year break for a schedule of international test matches will see some Super Rugby clubs go more than a month without any home matches.

The ARU has already bought the intellectual property rights of the Western Force, including their Super Rugby licence, in a deal believed to be worth $800,000 to help the Perth franchise deal with financial difficulty. Melbourne Rebels are now privately owned but the other four are controlled by their respective state bodies.



Read more: http://www.afr.com/business/sport/ar...#ixzz4uOsest1b
Follow us: @FinancialReview on Twitter | financialreview on Facebook

[Alison]

They key point for me would be 'at what stage in your negotiations did they first mention the Alliance Agreement approach?'

And don't forget they were bleeding money like nobody's business on the Rebels, so maybe they'd been thinking about sinking our ship for quite a while to save some dosh but just didn't have the legal means to do it. So us putting up our hands for help and then the SANZAAR discussions coming along shortly afterwards may have meant all their Christmases came at once.

We need to subpoena the SANZAAR minutes. Check the dates of the SANZAAR meetings in 2016. And get our hands on the assessment SANZAAR did over that nine-month period that was mentioned in the ARU Sept 2017 document.

Anyone know anyone in the SAS or MI6??!!

[GIGS20]

Reading through the hansard records, I found on titbit that intrigued me. Sanzaar appear to be headquartered in Australia, and therefore their records should be available for inclusion into the inquiry.

Nsa might not be needed

[Bakkies]

They are headquartered or hung drawn and quartered in Sydney.

[shasta]

Totally agree Hansie. In no way could you have foreseen any change to the comp format as far back as March 2016. Likewise it would never have entered your heads that the ARU were up to something - and nor should it have. You knew they had committed to 5 teams for the current cycle (2016-2020) so you had no reason whatsoever to distrust them.

If you look at the converse of that logic, the question would be....If you had no idea that a reduction of teams in Super Rugby was being contemplated; why would you want to add clauses to the draft of an alliance agreement which then enabled you to kill off your alliance "partner" if such an event occurred?"

[sittingbison]

... concern is mounting the extended Super Rugby competition could still cause financial problems for the teams, despite the influx of new broadcast money...a new five-year $285 million broadcast contract in the season that recently started, a deal that will see more money flow to each of the franchises....

So one year after signing the biggest deal in history, the ARU are claiming they face bankruptcy. Yet one year BEFORE signing said deal, in fact 2015 the worst ever financial year due to less tests (and not winning their bet at the RWC Final - always bet on black ) they forgave the Cox $13m in debt and GAVE him $6m to save his bacon over in Un Zud

nothing to see here, move along

[SteveWA]

Plus there's the small matter of the false declaration on the 2016 annual report.

[sittingbison]

All this is moot

The question that should REALLY be asked is how did one side of the "alliance" immediately start looking for ways to axe their "partner" (the legal advice), enter negotiation with a foreign agency to axe their "partner" (SANZAAR), sign a new broadcast deal excluding their "partner" (Fox), and tell a privately owned - but not privately funded - non-partner (Cox) they were cutting their "partner", all the while failing to inform said "partner" that they were doing any of these things and preparing to knife them in the back

Makes the Red Wedding look like Ken and Barbies

[DazloT]

I doubt anyone would trust them now.

I think it will be a cautionary tale used in Sports Management schools from now one. Never trust the parent body.

Which could be a real shame as sports, through their nature of participation, grow through collaboration and not by treating them as a business and lawyers paradise.

[Alison]

If you look at the converse of that logic, the question would be....If you had no idea that a reduction of teams in Super Rugby was being contemplated; why would you want to add clauses to the draft of an alliance agreement which then enabled you to kill off your alliance "partner" if such an event occurred?"

Good point Shasta.

[Alison]

So one year after signing the biggest deal in history, the ARU are claiming they face bankruptcy. Yet one year BEFORE signing said deal, in fact 2015 the worst ever financial year due to less tests (and not winning their bet at the RWC Final - always bet on black ) they forgave the Cox $13m in debt and GAVE him $6m to save his bacon over in Un Zud

nothing to see here, move along

A point I have made in my Senate submission SB!

[GIGS20]

If you look at the converse of that logic, the question would be....If you had no idea that a reduction of teams in Super Rugby was being contemplated; why would you want to add clauses

At the time, I thought it was to get geerob off the story that the Force were being moved to western sydney

[chrisk]

The question that should REALLY be asked is how did one side of the "alliance" immediately start looking for ways to axe their "partner" (the legal advice), enter negotiation with a foreign agency to axe their "partner" (SANZAAR), sign a new broadcast deal excluding their "partner" (Fox), and tell a privately owned - but not privately funded - non-partner (Cox) they were cutting their "partner", all the while failing to inform said "partner" that they were doing any of these things and preparing to knife them in the back

This is really the biggie as far as I can see. The ARU actively sought out Foxtel to see if they could negotiate terms to undermine the Alliance Agreement. That is not acting in good faith.
The ARU's argument is that they had to remove a team for financial reasons, but with all these figures coming out now that doesn't seem valid. If they really were in financial trouble there's no mention of what other cost saving measures they considered, besides making plans to remove the Force, so the financial argument doesn't hold.

[JPR]

This is really the biggie as far as I can see. The ARU actively sought out Foxtel to see if they could negotiate terms to undermine the Alliance Agreement. That is not acting in good faith.
The ARU's argument is that they had to remove a team for financial reasons, but with all these figures coming out now that doesn't seem valid. If they really were in financial trouble there's no mention of what other cost saving measures they considered, besides making plans to remove the Force, so the financial argument doesn't hold.

Bill Pulver at the senate enquiry made a big statement that the ARU are totally debt free.