Bill Pulver won’t be stepping down as ARU CEO following today’s Extraordinary General Meeting, nor will Australian rugby’s governing body be backing away from their decision to cut one Super Rugby team for next season.
Prior to the EGM, Pulver had said he would step down as CEO if asked by the board.
“If everyone in the room stood up on Tuesday and said, ‘Bill, we think it’s time for change now’, I will step down immediately,” Pulver said.
“It’s not an issue of anyone having to push me out.”
However, ARU chairman Cameron Clyne said there wasn’t any discussion about Pulver’s position during the EGM, meaning he won’t be vacating his position at the helm of Australian rugby.
In bad news for the Melbourne Rebels and Western Force, it was agreed at the meeting that the ARU will be continuing with their plan to cut one Australian Super Rugby team for the 2018 season.
“As we’ve said right from the outset, it was a difficult decision but we are here because our on-field performance and financial performance are not where they need to be,” Clyne said.
“We want to see success, and although this has been a difficult process, we believe that this gives us an opportunity to improve that and the majority of members agree.”
However, a motion to facilitate the establishment of a Super Rugby commission was passed at the EGM.
Clyne claimed on April 10 that the ARU hoped to reveal the team that would be making way at the end of this season – one of the Rebels and Force – but the decision has continued to be delayed, in part due to the matter becoming embroiled in legal proceedings from both sides.
“We acknowledge that this process has had an impact on the health of our game, and most importantly on our people including players at the Super Rugby clubs,” Clyne said.
“We are trying to bring this to a conclusion as soon as possible to give everyone in the game the certainty they deserve, though there are some factors out of our control.”
It is still not known when the final decision will be revealed, however the ARU and RugbyWA agreed to move their dispute to arbitration, a process that is expected to begin in the week starting July 31.
UPDATE: The ARU released a statement following the conclusion of the EGM, outlining the resolutions that were proposed and their results.
The Australian Rugby Union (ARU) Board has welcomed support of members as it proceeds with plans to reduce one Super Rugby team from Australia ahead of the 2018 season.
At an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) held at ARU headquarters in Sydney today, three resolutions were put to voting members, as proposed jointly by the Rugby Union Players Association (RUPA) and the Victorian Rugby Union (VRU);
1. The EGM considers that it is in the best interests of Rugby in Australia that Australia maintain its five current teams in the Super Rugby competition until at least the end of the 2020 Super Rugby season.
2. That the Company re-consider its decision to reduce the number of Australian teams playing in the Super Rugby competition.
3. That the Company facilitate a forum of all Voting Members, to be held as soon as practicable and at the costs and expense of the Company, for the purposes of considering the establishment of an Australian Super Rugby Commission which will act as an advisory body to the Company on the future participation of Australian teams in the Super Rugby Competition.
Following a vote of all Voting Members present at the EGM the first and second resolutions were defeated, while the ARU has committed to facilitating a forum to discuss the potential for the establishment of an Australian Super Rugby Commission, as proposed in resolution three.
scottd
Guest
Rebellion The game in Australia is NOT BROKE. If you consider the $13.8 million that has been provided to the Rebels since their inception 7 years ago then the game in Australia would be sitting pretty and the ARU would have had enough funds over the last 5 years to do a bucket more than what have been able to do. I repeat the game is not broke. If the ARU is looking for the right financial decision then they should drop the Rebels, make it an obligation on every remaining Aussie side to play a home game in Melbourne next year (with VRU taking the same share of the profits as it would have if the Rebels existed) and look to work towards a fifth SR team in Melbourne in 5 years. It isn't hard but it does need some balls to do - and that is what is lacking
Crazy Horse
Roar Pro
The ARU will not get one cent of the more than $5 million already in the "Own the Force" account if it is stupid enough to cut the Force.
Crazy Horse
Roar Pro
UWA Rugby was formed in 1929 when funnily enough The University of Western Australia moved to it's permanent home and actually had playing fields. Other clubs are much older. For example Cottesloe was formed in 1893 http://www.cottrugby.com. Perth / Bayswater as it is now known was formed in 1906 http://perthrugby.com.au
Scottd
Guest
How do you support Melbourne being a "more lucrative market"? What load of rubbish ! It has been a money pit - the Rebels have by far the least financially viable franchise. Disaster TWAS!
Scottd
Guest
TWas rugby is as old in WA as Victoria In fact it's similar throughout most states
Crazy Horse
Roar Pro
If the Force are cut my new team will be either a New Zealand or South African one. That's if I can be bothered with Super Rugby at all. There is no way I or most other Sandgropers would support an Eastern States team.
Crazy Horse
Roar Pro
The game on the East Coast may be broke but not in WA. Having repaired the damage done by the Graham/Stiles fiasco we are doing very nicely thank you.
Crazy Horse
Roar Pro
There are 32 clubs including 10 Premier Grade. All the Premier Grade clubs and many of the others have teams from under 6 right through to Premier Grade. The only exception are the clubs in the Western Suburbs where the rich boys generally leave their clubs to play PSA After the under 14s. They usually come back for Colts.
Crazy Horse
Roar Pro
Under 16s is an age group that the club teams are decimated by schools rugby which the PSA insists on playing at the same time. To get a try picture of WA Junior Rugby you need to add Club Rugby to three seperate schools competitions.
scottd
Guest
Thanks TWAS, I was aware of the accounting figures as i have made a point to look at both the WARU/Force accounts and the VRU & Rebels accounts where they were available. It's not the accounts that are the issue mate its your narrow interpretation of what they actually mean. There is a difference between cash and profit and the real issue here is the underlying factors involved in an operating profit/loss which your analysis hasn't considered or recognised. This is partly because the public accounts need to be read in conjunction with certain business factors that are poorly described in the accounts (and why that is could be a whole separate discussion). In very simple and overly general terms the easiest way to measure performance in this case is to take the 'bailout money" (not my preferred term). Over their life the Rebels have been "bailed out" $13.8m and have been reported as incurring a $2m "operating loss" last year. Since then they have lost a major sponsor and have had worse crowds and worse results (last year was their best ever result with 7 wins). Only a fool would say that anything better is expected over the 2017 and 2018 years unless they get some seriously major funding in the door or have some seriously better on field outcomes that result in substantially better gate receipts (and 2017 is already over from that perspective so it won't happen). Compare that with the Force who were "bailed out" to the tune of $4.7 m of which $2m was directly attributable to their one off stadium move and where the costs were worn in 2013/14 (mostly). In 2017 they have two new sponsorship deals, one of which is the major sponsor for 3 years plus an extension if requested (at Force's election) and this was reported as the largest major sponsorship deal of any franchise in Australia ($1.5m per annum x years). My understanding from the club is that they are looking at a "profit" for 2017 (which more correctly should be an operating profit I am thinking) which makes them one of maybe 2 or at best 3? who will. Easy to see that 2018 and 2019 is likely to be financially positive for the Force if 2017 is. A recent news report used the figure of $4.7m being annually funded to each franchise from the ARU. I actually thought it was $5m but in any event that will be the total saving from cutting one franchise. So 4 franchises will get to share this "massive" saving of $4.7m per annum. So we have at best a $1.2 M per franchise improvement that comes about by cutting a team. Certainly better than nothing from the ARU perspective but nowhere near enough to get the Rebels from losing $2m (minimum) per annum to a positive position. You would have to be very silly to think that the Rebels owners aren't going to try to persuade the ARU that they are deserving of financial assistance if they continue making further losses. And they will have a strong case, because if the ARU doesn't help out then the Rebels owner will threaten closure and the total pot of money to the ARU will drop by 25% - since there is no way the broadcaster or the other SANZAR countries will agree to ARU having the same pot as now with only 3 teams. So I agree with you that you need to look at FUTURE profitability but look at it properly from a real world business perspective not just plucking individual "convenient numbers" from data sources without thinking through their context and real meaning. This comes back to preparing a proper "Business Case" which the ARU has yet to deliver (since their early version has had holes shot through). I for one look forward to having a proper business case made public that considers ALL the business factors not just a few convenient numbers quoted out of context in order to justify the easy but poorly thought through decisions that the ARU has made to date.
Mickyo
Guest
You were wrong, there are only 6 under 16 teams not 9. You were also wrong about 32 born and bred Sandgropers playing for the Force, another claim that is patently wrong.
Paul D
Roar Rookie
"For the record I notice neither of you had a problem with me including the Fiji test in Melbourne’s numbers" Because as I said from the very beginning I'm not taking as side or making a comparison between Melbourne and Perth. I was looking solely at Perth A League to Perth Super Rugby in response to CH's claim that Rugby drew far bigger numbers. Which is doesn't.
piru
Roar Rookie
I don't know why people bring them up, I'd think the less said about attendances the better this year. I just can't resist an opportunity to knock up a spreadsheet
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
You may be right. I think discussing attendances in 2017 is pretty pointless anyway. The conversation is basically "Hey we're less unsustainable than you are!"
piru
Roar Rookie
Numbers are probably irrelevant as far as the Rebs are concerned, as only 2 of 7 attendances are listed, unless they are somewhere else
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Great! Show's the interest is there. It's just down because of the Rebels poor season! On a serious note I had a loo back to last time Fiji played. It drew 15,438 to Canberra. The Brumbies' season average was actually 15,257 for 2010.
piru
Roar Rookie
Apparently under 16s are the only grade that matter - conveniently the age you traditionally start losing players to jobs, girls etc Funny that he's ignored all the other grades, several of which have two divisions to accommodate the numbers - and it seems he's only looking at metro, because the kids in Geraldton and Kalgoorlie travel down to Perth every week don't they?
piru
Roar Rookie
They weren't listed But then neither are most of the Rebels home games, which was why I used the test in the first place for the record that game drags the rugby numbers up around 1000
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Well if that's the case then where's the Pindan Premier Grade? Sport vs Sport after all. Obviously women's leagues are considered 2nd tier so hardly a relevant comparison. Maybe the Wallabies vs Fiji isn't. I think it is, but it could be fair to say it isn't, considering Fiji have never drawn greater than Super Rugby crowds of the time in the past.
piru
Roar Rookie
Come on Piru. It’s unfair to compare a W-League game to Super Rugby the same as an A-League game. We aren’t going to use Wallaroos tests for comparisons are we? I would have if they were listed, I thought we were talking sport vs sport. I took the last 3 games of each sport as 'recent' but that wasn't correct, I was 'cherrypicking'. I use the entire year of stats and that's also not correct, now it's 'not apples with apples' (tbh I didn't even notice it was W-League, I just filtered for soccer) For the record I notice neither of you had a problem with me including the Fiji test in Melbourne's numbers