FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  SARU reports a R23m loss..

SARU reports a R23m loss..

Started by Denny7 REPLIES313 VIEWS· 26 Mar 2017, 02:20
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
DE
DennyCaptain12,893 posts
26 Mar 2017, 02:20
#1
26 Mar 2017, 02:20#1

SA Rugby on Saturday announced a “satisfactory” operating result for the year ended 31 December 2016, despite reporting a group pre-tax loss of R23.3 million.

The loss was attributable to a decline in sponsorship revenues, but cost savings meant that normal operations were unaffected.


SA Rugby maintained its support to the 14 member unions, which increased by 90% to R336m, principally on the back of increased broadcast income, as group revenues rose 19.9% to R1.2bn (R997m in 2015).


SA Rugby maintained its support to the 14 member unions, which increased by 90% to R336m, principally on the back of increased broadcast income, as group revenues rose 19.9% to R1.2bn (R997m in 2015

Competition costs rose 46% to R155m, while fees for player image rights and insurance increased almost fourfold from R23.5m to R87.3m.

The new arrangement secures the image rights of provincial players on behalf of member unions for their use in marketing and branding campaigns (having previously only related to national players).

The insurance covers all professional players in the country against temporary and catastrophic injuries.

The costs associated with national teams declined 4% to R197m – attributable to performance-related payments – while delivery of sponsors’ rights costs fell 24% to R125m due to a reduction in the size of the portfolio.

“In a very difficult economic environment and considering the many challenges to ensure that we deliver on rugby imperatives, we consider this a satisfactory operating result,” said SA Rugby chief executive Jurie Roux.

“We increased our support to members and the investment in rugby activities.”

However, the loss of R129m in budgeted sponsorship placed pressure on operations.

“Our cash flow was also negatively impacted by the payment of provisional taxes made to SARS against an estimated normal taxation charge of R78.7m.

“The structure of certain foreign broadcasting rights agreements gave rise to an increased taxable income that was expected to be recognised over the duration of the new five-year broadcasting cycle only.”

The significant normal taxation charge, against a pre-tax loss of R23.3m, resulted in an accounting adjustment to reflect a deferred taxation asset of R100.4 million compared to the R14 million of the previous year.

SA Rugby’s investment into grassroots development, women’s rugby, elite player development at junior level and academies was able to continue, however.

Roux warned that 2017 was unlikely to see an easing of pressure on SA Rugby finances.

“Securing and retaining sponsorships is now key for 2017, although we will continue to review our cost base,” he said.

“It is likely to be another challenging year if we are to maintain our current level of support for our members and our other rugby activities.”

The results are scheduled to be approved at the SA Rugby Annual General Meeting in Cape Town on 6 April 2017.

SA Rugby



MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 Mar 2017, 02:33
#2
26 Mar 2017, 02:33#2
Empty stadiums don't attract sponsors...looking at the Cheetahs game today probably 20% of the seats were filled. What brand would want to advertising in that stadium. Super Rugby is over extended and collapsing under it's own weight.
CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
26 Mar 2017, 07:46
#3
26 Mar 2017, 07:46#3
 
Ive been waiting for this.

I am hoping that this is the beginning of SARU's complete collapse. It may be a gradual process that takes place over the next 5 years or so but with the current racial systems in place (coach and player) and the subsequent plummeting to 7th in the world because of it, I'm hoping for further losses across the board.

Another R200M would be great for the coming season.

I would love to see the 20% attendance fall away to small pockets of 5 people spread across an empty stadium. I would love to hear the echo reverberating through out the stadium when the ball is kicked.

As much as they want to force the black player into the mix, there just isn't much support from this race to warrant this approach.






 
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 Mar 2017, 08:56
#4
26 Mar 2017, 08:56#4
As per normal the clueless Mozart has got it wrong.   Why did ABSA withdraw its sponsorship of Springbok Rugby?   Because of political pressure as a result of quota selection deficiency.
However, the main expense of R339 million was on subsidizing the 14 union teams - there should be no more than 8 such teams.    Forget about the rural union teams such as the SWD, Boland, Border, etc.   These teams should become part of the bigger adjoining unions.   There is no support base for them - even from a player or spectator point of view.   Cut that costs down and you will see an improvement in the SARU finances.
In the event of 8 unions the ownership should pass to private sector investors and that would reduce the player costs massively.   The teams fielded would be stronger and the attendance will inevitably improve.   The lesser number of Unions remains the key though.   
Spectator attendance is really not the issue and neither is the simplistic empty top story of Mozart.   How do you get 50 000 people to a game week after week because of the fact that the WC soccer stadia has all got more or less that number of seats - that include the Bloemfontein stadium?    He of course does not realize that stupidity and rush to use it.   What an idiot.       

 
PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
26 Mar 2017, 09:03
#5
26 Mar 2017, 09:03#5
 So it's not like the R13m to get rid of the twat would have made a big difference  :)
MA
MachiavelliClub Pro323 posts
26 Mar 2017, 09:54
#6
26 Mar 2017, 09:54#6
 When one analyses the business (you should have detailed financials and management accounts - so we simply speculate) you may find that the loss can be attributed to many factors.  Whilst it is easy for SARU to simply name the bigger "culprit" they are being very disingenuous in their transparency of the situation.
The previous knob of the place was a clueless deployment and Alexander is no better with a string of failed businesses behind him, his track record is not one which should give anyone hope of a success.
SARU waste a lot of funds on lavish parties and "awards" and other bullsh!t where management benefit and in many cases the "organisers and suppliers" are somehow connected to the management.
A case in point is the continuous employment of Jurie Roux who has a sword hanging over his head for a couple of million "misappropriated" funds.  Funny how that case is sort of buried, because too many "big names" will be implicated.  There is no difference between SARU management and the rest of the ANC asset strippers and self enrichment mob.
Players are contracted and paid a salary because they have a Springbok contract.  Some never even play a decent game because they are injured in provincial games.  The whole contracting and remuneration scheme needs a big overhaul.
Corrupt unions and union officials are seldom brought to book (Twatson) yet money is pumped into those unions which become bottomless pits.  But, it is a money-for-votes scheme to keep the corrupt in their big paying positions. Wakefield like Watson is a perfect failure!  Astronomical amounts are paid for office space, simply because the building belongs to a "friend".  
Coaches and players alike should have a decent but not astronomical remuneration package and should be paid additional for performance.  Currently they are paid massive salaries come win or lose. 
Not enough id done to get supporters to stadiums - Freestate had 15,000 spectators for yesterday's game.  Even Toyota is considering their involvement.
Who still remembers the old SAUK (SABC) tactic which seemed to work at the time:  No televised game in a radius of XXX kilometers from the stadium.
There are many cost savings that can be implemented.  However SARU suffers the same cancer as the current government.  To be honest, it will not get better soon, if ever.


CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 Mar 2017, 11:50
#7
26 Mar 2017, 11:50#7
 Machiavelli
A top class analysis - but I think that with private investors coming in things can improve.   I also think the number of provincial unions should be reduced and the costs attached to the provinces cut drastically.  
The pay packages include too many sub-standard players who do not make the Springbok or even provincial sides and if they do flop badly.   So a player audit on merit performance is to my mind an essential to get the real players better packages and keep them in SA.  
I agree about getting rid of the shady characters from SARU - but we have a Zuma-orientated security set-up and the NPA is nowadays so questionable in their political games - that nothing can be expected from them.  The rule now seems to be to protect the crooks in Government and SARU and the crooks reign supreme.          
TH
TheTraditionalistPro4,003 posts
26 Mar 2017, 12:49
#8
26 Mar 2017, 12:49#8
 The analysis is off target.

Toyota wants to sell cars, not full stadiums. Full stadiums wont keep Toyota in.

The strategy, unheard of, of depriving people from the possibility of watching games at home shows the extent of the excellent men's spirit.

Most important: SA players are driven by a sellsword mentality. They wont stay at home. Contrary to AR, a country that has one of the strongest currencies in the world, the declining rand will see to that.

The question of professional rugby in SA is larger than that.
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news