Daly Cherry-Evans defends 'volatile' NRL questioning

All players contracts are registered by the NRL.

Mate, that's the RA official line, I've read that too. KPMG first wouldn't sign their financials before they enacted this option. I've also written before that this happened at the worst possible time for RA and that's not to say it will fold - nearly impossible.

All good mushi, the surplus I was referring to is both the money players may should have kept aside and the administration would have had allowed for covering competition expenses they wouldn’t be shelling out right now. Clubs are the ones also making the player deals so perhaps they have over capitalised in that department. The players won’t starve. The game will be played again. People will watch the football again. High paid Doctors (specialists), Dentists, ear nose and throat are currently all out of work because they have taken away those roles with elective surgery. The GP is expected to be the first contact point and the Doctors in hospitals will make the call on who lives or dies under pressure if everything goes to pot. The comment about Buffet and co is in response to you bring them into the conversation. I’ll stand by comments about the top 1% being isolated and the big winners especially economically down the track while the rest of us will share the financial cost. It’s why they are where they are. That’s just how the world works many starve while others make profits.

Probably? I very much doubt it. The NRL is not a signatory to contracts which players and clubs sign.

RA announced a $9M deficit on the 2019 year due to the RWC year. That's why I said they had $10M or so in the bank, not $20M or so. Because the 2019 loss at it up. In 2018 they had a surplus, and with normal content they would ahve likely had similar in 2020. KPMG have refused to sign off because of material events outside the reporting period, COVID-19, which affects ongoing solvency for the coming year. There has been reports that RA can remain solvent until the end of June. The trouble started based on your perception because you are looking at a 4 yearly deficit, but not considering it's something that happens every 4 years. Rugby nations need to look at 4 year cycles (3 typical and 1 loss making RWC year) and 12 year cycles (three 4 year cycles and a money spinning Lions tour). Now sure the trouble started a long time ago if you want to say that Rugby isn't wildly successful and if it was it would have been loaded, but at no time in history has rugby in Australia had much more money in the bank than they did prior to 2019. The difference was in this case they were preparing to make a loss in 2019, which is why they focused on saving what they could prior.

You're going to struggle to convince me that in 2022 the NRL will have $25M less expenses than they had in any of the previous 4 years. Realistically they are likely to slowly creep up.

That was the issue: he's a Queenslander - we get OPs as a score or a QCE as a qualification so maybe V'Landys asked him the wrong question :)

Again if the intention was to have it payable, rather than “based on”, annually then that’s a contractual negotiation that, all else being equal, should reduce the amount I put in to reflect the use of the money in the interim. As to what expenses vary, well I imagine all of them. Well for starters didn’t they just push down their wage bill by 25% - that is an expense change? It’s a trite answer but then the question isn’t really sensible. You've got capital investment and project funding which is lumpy and generally once off. The only way that doesn’t vary in a commercial enterprise is if it is set to 0. Businesses also have flexibility for expenses, cost control or cost outs are regular occurrences but that isn’t really the crux. The real issue that has occurred is revenue, not expenses. The game was generating multiple times the “based on X” fund commitments in annual surplus with much underpinned by contracted revenues. I’m imagining their forecasts would have left them with ample room pay, ergo paying it early would be value destroying to the broader game based on the same view. Maybe the RLPA are arguing that this outcome was foreseeable, but then the question is: - Did they advise the players to war chest a years salary in cash or government bonds - Why didn’t they have a payment schedule with penalties embedded if this was a foreseen event

With all due respect, is there a chance that was your peception of what was going on? The NRL did secure a 70% increase on their previous broadcast deal and the RLPA secured a 30% share so more money came into the game and player wages went up. However, it's common knowledge they were spending it just as quick. I'll stand corrected if you can cite something I haven't seen but there's also that chance I may perceive something different to you. You can trade insolvent with money in the bank but RA announced a $9m deficit. KPMG audit RA accounts and they have refused to sign off on their financial statements from last year. RA have enacted a clause that allows them time to trade out of it, as any organisation is afforded, but starting from a deficit with no games to sell... Their trouble started long before the comp was suspended.

Because the NRL probably guarantees their contracts.

It's not financial management i'm talking about. One has talked up their financial position, and is rightly being criticised by the players because it's not very strong at all. The other has made tough decisions to cut costs because of their weak financial position. Care to explain how RA has been trading insolvent? They had $10M or so in the bank and only really lose money from the quarter that has just begun.

Of all your RA comparisons financial management shouldn't be one. The virus may have exposed poor money management within the NRL but RA has been trading insolvent long before the shutdown.

You've presumably got detailed knowledge and understanding of what it's like for the front line. If I were you I'd focus the information flow there as it's where you'll subdue ignorance and panic. The only cause I've got at the moment is trying to correct some of the misguided views on the economic and commercial backdrop because at times like this ignorance breeds panic; panic leads to people doing stupid things; people doing stupid things immediately harms people working in the front lines such as your wife; and, long term encouraging bad economic decisions will put millions of people in the ground and make the issue you have with the 1% magnified .

That's great Rob, you don't have to sympathise. the juxtaposition with your wife's situation - fair enough. It's a broader social question (one you'll get more sympathy targeting nurses I think than doctors) But your other points feel like really strong opinions but not really consistent in logic. You kicked off with why isn't there a surplus -> gets covered > then it is using the jobkeeper allowance + it is all just mismanagement of debt - > covered -> now it's the opposite with the wealthy printing money and feasting on a carcass

They are the ones who demanded the NRL distribute their last attempt at a future fund.

It’s based on X amount a year. They may not have to pay it until the end of the 5 years, but what expense have they paid now that won’t exist in year 5?

Also remember they aren't superannuation payments. If they were players wouldn't get access to them under the same conditions

Not really. If you tell me I owe you X money in 3 years time I don't pay you tomorrow. If that was my plan I'd negotiate a better payment due tomorrow to reflect time value of money and the theoretical returns I could get from my own operations.

That's true but they've really robbed Peter to pay Paul. What expenses are going to be lower in 5 years to enable dropping $25M in there?

The difference is RA haven't trumpeted their income increases and financial position and then failed to even pay their obligations along the way (players retirement fund).