IRL Loss

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not so sure the GB tour thing is such an issue. The IRL are looking for ways to boost revenues, this was an investment, but ultimately not a good one the way it worked out. 

Had it been successful then it would have been an income stream for them. 

The IRL are desperate for assets (remember they wanted to run the Nations Cup, they get no income, they need to have their hands in other things outside of the World Cup. 

If this was a grant, I would agree, but if it was simply a failed investment then the principle is OK. 

Everyone could see that without Australia it was a dud. It's the worst possible investment that I could think of. I'm not against the principle for the likes of Tonga but certainly am for a GB tour doomed to failure.

[Scubby]

Not only did the GB tour flop, it also undermined the brand of a Tier 1 IRL nation in England. 

[Scubby]

8 minutes ago, Damien said:

Everyone could see that without Australia it was a dud. It's the worst possible investment that I could think of. I'm not against the principle for the likes of Tonga but certainly am for a GB tour doomed to failure.

It was complete indulgence of a single deluded individual and, as expected, flopped like a fart.

Also, if the tour was bankrolled by these 3 amigos, why the hell was NZ v GB the bloody curtain raiser to a Tonga v Australia test? Sham.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Scubby said:

In what way could that GB tour have ever made money? No way on earth. The same figurehead conceived at one organisation and then underwrote the risk at another it feels. The difference being the other is the IRL

We know, you hate GB, we get it, but your emotions are making you completely ignore the quote from Damien that talks about the GB Tour and Oceania Cup costs. 

If we are losing money on such an extensive program of internationals then we have an issue, and I don't have an issue with sharing of risk, that feels sensible instead of approaches like 2000 which nearly killed the RFL. 

Setup right, these kind of tournaments can allow the IRL to start to build up a portfolio of partners, something that they haven't been able to do in their whole existence because they don't own any properties outside of the World Cup. 

Sometimes, we should step back and look at the reasons why some things may happen instead of working in angry mode. 

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

Everyone could see that without Australia it was a dud. It's the worst possible investment that I could think of. I'm not against the principle for the likes of Tonga but certainly am for a GB tour doomed to failure.

Was that investment agreed before the schedule was announced? We don't know. And it was for some Oceania Cup costs too. 

Let's look at it another way, had the RLIF invested in the Tri Nations when it was setup by the RFL, Aussies and Kiwis, they would have made money every time and been able to build a stable of partners. 

This may have ended badly (and I have no idea as to whether they will recoup any of this money), but the IRL do need to build up some properties somehow. 

[Scubby]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We know, you hate GB, we get it, but your emotions are making you completely ignore the quote from Damien that talks about the GB Tour and Oceania Cup costs. 

If we are losing money on such an extensive program of internationals then we have an issue, and I don't have an issue with sharing of risk, that feels sensible instead of approaches like 2000 which nearly killed the RFL. 

Setup right, these kind of tournaments can allow the IRL to start to build up a portfolio of partners, something that they haven't been able to do in their whole existence because they don't own any properties outside of the World Cup. 

Sometimes, we should step back and look at the reasons why some things may happen instead of working in angry mode. 

Take out the underwriting of a GB tour and the Oceana Cup probably holds its own for the IRL. Is that not fair comment? GB flew 12,000 miles and played as a curtain raiser FFS.

[Dave T]

Just now, Scubby said:

Take out the underwriting of a GB tour and the Oceana Cup probably holds its own for the IRL. Is that not fair comment?

No. Its something you have made up based 100% on your own bias. 

[Scubby]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

No. Its something you have made up based 100% on your own bias. 

GB or England were not in the Oceana Cup. Even NZ were in the Oceana Cup. Even England would have lost money on this tour made up like that. GB were hovering around like gooseberries it felt and not even headlining one of the games. 

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Was that investment agreed before the schedule was announced? We don't know. And it was for some Oceania Cup costs too. 

Let's look at it another way, had the RLIF invested in the Tri Nations when it was setup by the RFL, Aussies and Kiwis, they would have made money every time and been able to build a stable of partners. 

This may have ended badly (and I have no idea as to whether they will recoup any of this money), but the IRL do need to build up some properties somehow. 

They wouldn't need to and the RFL, Aussies and Kiwis wouldn't let them because it would make them money. I'm sure there was no IRL funding or share of the cancelled Ashes tour because the RFL and NRL didn't feel the need to share the risk. Ditto the 2018 New Zealand tour. The very fact the RFL and NZRL went down this road should have had alarm bells ringing.

This wasn't a tournament building any sort of legacy. It's an awfully odd thing to be investing in in my opinion. 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Scubby said:

GB or England were not in the Oceana Cup. Even NZ were in the Oceana Cup. Even England would have lost money on this tour made up like that. GB were hovering around like gooseberries it felt and not even headlining one of the games. 

OK. What difference does that make? 

And the bigger issue here is if the World no. 3 can't go on a short tour and play 2 games against World no. 2 and 1 against World number 4, before playing in a hotbed like PNG and wash its face, then we are in real trouble and we may as well pack in. 

Maybe the IRL, NZRL and the RFL should have done a far better job between them. That tour would have modest costs in sporting terms. 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

They wouldn't need to and the RFL, Aussies and Kiwis wouldn't let them because it would make them money. I'm sure there was no IRL funding or share of the cancelled Ashes tour because the RFL and NRL didn't feel the need to share the risk. Ditto the 2018 New Zealand tour. The very fact the RFL and NZRL went down this road should have had alarm bells ringing.

This wasn't a tournament building any sort of legacy. It's an awfully odd thing to be investing in in my opinion. 

Without knowing the details, it's hard to comment further, but I'm not against the principle of investing in assets, but you do make some good points above. 

I don't know whether they only invested in the double headers Oceania games or the whole tournament. As ever we dont get told any details, so we don't know whether all income was pooled, or whether the RFL did OK with a BBC deal and their own sponsorship deals. 

I agree questions should be asked, but I'm happy (and supportive) of the IRL going for investments like this. 

[Scubby]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

OK. What difference does that make? 

And the bigger issue here is if the World no. 3 can't go on a short tour and play 2 games against World no. 2 and 1 against World number 4, before playing in a hotbed like PNG and wash its face, then we are in real trouble and we may as well pack in. 

Maybe the IRL, NZRL and the RFL should have done a far better job between them. That tour would have modest costs in sporting terms. 

That GB were gate crashing an existing tournament and were not sold as the headline act. GB v Tonga basically added as a warm up to Tonga v Australia and NZ v GB (in NZ) played as a curtain raiser to the Kangaroos (who were not even involved in the 3-way company). 

[Pulga]

I've posted this in a new seperate thread (my mistake).

 

"The RLIF has since advanced A$2.9m of its A$3.4m assets as financial support to the UK company.

The Australian company has charged £108,000 in interest on this support in 2020."

Originally I thought it was very strange the RLIF still exists at all but when I tweeted at Troy Grant he said that the RLIF is in existence so they can hold money in Australia for ease of use there.

I then asked why the IRL would owe interest on a loan to itself. He didn't answer. I mentioned the question again today and he attempted some weak character assassination, didn't answer the question and blocked me.

I guess I am being antagonistic but I find it strange. I thought it was a fair question

[Damien]

Asking for transparency certainly isn't unreasonable. The fact that so many on this thread were already asking the same question shows that.

[Pulga]

13 minutes ago, Damien said:

Asking for transparency certainly isn't unreasonable. The fact that so many on this thread were already asking the same question shows that.

His eventual reaction shocked me tbh.

[Damien]

13 minutes ago, Pulga said:

His eventual reaction shocked me tbh.

Yeah it's odd. He doesn't come across like that in the interviews I've heard but obviously there is a big PR element in those. This is even more so when in interviews he has repeatedly talked about the need to get governance right and the mess that he inherited on that front.

All he really needed to do was give a stock reply, such as it's normal accounting practice, rather than getting defensive.

[Pulga]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

Yeah it's odd. He doesn't come across like that in the interviews I've heard but obviously there is a big PR element in those. This is even more so when in interviews he has repeatedly talked about the need to get governance right and the mess that he inherited on that front.

All he really needed to do was give a stock reply, such as it's normal accounting practice, rather than getting defensive.

Yeah, I don't know one way or another really. It could well be standard practice.

I've been smelling something fishy for a while though. 

[The Rocket]

8 minutes ago, Pulga said:

His eventual reaction shocked me tbh.

Admittedly I talked him up when he came on the scene with his League background and him being mates with V`landy`s I thought he might have had a bit of the can-do mentality.

Just to double check afterwards I asked my sister who had worked with him when he was in politics what he was like, she told me he was a complete duffer and really not that good. That was a worry, looks like you`ve witnessed a bit of that yourself. That response of his and I`m assuming you were polite, was childish and unnecessary.

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, Pulga said:

Yeah, I don't know one way or another really. It could well be standard practice.

I've been smelling something fishy for a while though. 

I don't either but it seems like a typical answer you could give regardless. Again though I'm not convinced by his RLIF answer either and it goes back to questions about the entire setup.

[gingerjon]

31 minutes ago, Pulga said:

It could well be standard practice.

I made this point earlier. We really could do with someone who knows how these things work and whether what is being said really matches the numbers, the flow of money and the balance sheet. And, ultimately, whether there's anything to be worried about - either from a dodgy POV or because the cupboard is bare.

Because the RL reporters who've given it a go have all utterly failed to do anything like that.

[dealwithit]

1 hour ago, Pulga said:

I've posted this in a new seperate thread (my mistake).

 

"The RLIF has since advanced A$2.9m of its A$3.4m assets as financial support to the UK company.

The Australian company has charged £108,000 in interest on this support in 2020."

Originally I thought it was very strange the RLIF still exists at all but when I tweeted at Troy Grant he said that the RLIF is in existence so they can hold money in Australia for ease of use there.

I then asked why the IRL would owe interest on a loan to itself. He didn't answer. I mentioned the question again today and he attempted some weak character assassination, didn't answer the question and blocked me.

I guess I am being antagonistic but I find it strange. I thought it was a fair question

He may not have answered because he didn’t know. But let me shed some light… in Australia the accounting standards changed recently. To avoid the RLIF company from being wound up it would need to show it is a commercial operation and not simply a trust holding assets. Therefore, it needs to charge interest at the going rate. 
If you want to read more I suggest googling TAHE and NSW Government. 

[Pulga]

2 minutes ago, dealwithit said:

He may not have answered because he didn’t know. But let me shed some light… in Australia the accounting standards changed recently. To avoid the RLIF company from being wound up it would need to show it is a commercial operation and not simply a trust holding assets. Therefore, it needs to charge interest at the going rate. 
If you want to read more I suggest googling TAHE and NSW Government. 

Good info mate but sad it couldn't have just come directly from Grant.

We've had words previously so he's probably not taking my questions in good faith. 

 

[Pulga]

On 13/05/2022 at 07:23, idrewthehaggis said:

The reality is that as RL is a medium sized sport, if you are a sports journalist then you have a curious if ambiguous relationship with the Game. 

In essence, you can rock the boat, but if you do so too vigorously then you might find yourself looking up from the sea onto the Good Ship RL sailing off in the distance.

I doubt our distinguished hosts will comment, but they know this is so.

 

 

This is basically it from my experience. Those with a voice don't want to rock the boat in fear of losing access to people like Troy Grant.

That's one of the reasons I ask him direct on Twitter.