FW: [LTRugby] The 2010 Rugby Canada Financial Statement

Some very interesting and thought provoking comments on our game in Canada

 

---

From: barb&bob gibbons [mailto:pickledpair@shaw.ca]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 2:04 PM
To: Bob Shewchuk; Byron Tucker; 'Chuck Bonsant'; Derek Coke-Kerr; Don Whidden; Jack Morrison; Ken Burrows; 'Lawarence Myer'; Peter Twiss; Rick Rollins; Rick Thompson; Robin Tweedy; Rod Walsh; Ross Boyes; Ryan Thomas; Stan Thorseth; Stuart Cowan; Terry Dunn; Terry MacPherson; 'Terry Romaniuk'; Tim McGee; Tom Shacklady; Tony Bauer; Troy Schnelle; Vic Michalchuk; Wes Slavik; Yvon Ouellette
Subject: FW: [LTRugby] The 2010 Rugby Canada Financial Statement

 

 

 

From: Chris Suvan [mailto:csuvan@norchris.com]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 10:50 AM
To: ltrugby@ltrugby. ca
Subject: [LTRugby] The 2010 Rugby Canada Financial Statement

 

 

The 2010 Rugby Canada Financial Statement and New Post for General Manager Operations and Performance

 

Comments from BC Rugby News

 

[ed. comments below]
posted June 9 2011

2010 Rugby Canada Financials

The Rugby Canada financials for 2010 were put up on the RC website last week and we’ll look at those numbers. I’ve been a critic of the current administration of Rugby Canada, the one created by the Agents of Change about a decade ago. Their vision was to create a more professional administration (read more paid staff) and therefore raise the standard of rugby in the country. Using a top down approach we would generate more revenue, the national team performance would improve and rugby would enjoy a golden era in Canada. That, I assume, was the theory... it didn’t work.

In reality Rugby Canada is on the dole and pretending to be like the Fortune 500 executive (RFU) who lives across the street. We dress like him, act like him and drive the same car but while he’s pulling in a six figure salary we’re cashing our monthly welfare cheque. Then we scratch our head and wonder why we’re getting further in debt and none of our big dreams are coming true. It’s time to stop the charade, ditch the suit, put on some jeans, roll up the sleeves and start to do some honest work from the grassroots up. That’s the vision of Rugby Canada that I would support.

If we want to see what a real professional rugby organization looks like financially then we’ll compare the RFU financials to Rugby Canada’s and analyze where the money comes from and where it goes.

The RFU has 112 million in revenue, RC has 6.6 million. Their big four sources are Tickets 21.3, Broadcasting 24.6, Sponsorship 14.8, Hospitality 27.7. Our big four sources are iRB payments 1.7, Government payments .8, Membership payments 1.4, Rugby Canada generated 1.9 (sponsorship, national teams, domestic competitions, merchandise, other). We have no broadcast revenue because we don’t have a strong product to sell, our ticket sales are minimal because we don’t have many home test matches, we don’t have hospitality revenue because we don’t own a stadium, our sponsorship revenue is 0.4 million (and I’m guessing much of that is “in kind” services and product). RFU has profits of 25.8 million, RC has a profit of 57 thousand dollars. If you factor in money owing to the Churchill Cup, Demand Loans and Deferred Fees we apparently are running at a deficit of 1.3 million according to the balance sheet.

Let’s also take a look at where the money is spent. RFU spends 13% (11.5) on Elite rugby, 20% (17.2) on Community, 18% (15.4) on Admin and 17% (14.5) on their Stadium. RC spends 38% (2.5) on Elite, 10% (.7) on Community, 25% (1.6) on Admin and 12% (.8) on Membership (basically insurance).

Rugby is not professional in Canada, we don’t have a professional administration revenue profile so let’s stop pretending and start growing rugby from the ground up. As I've said many times, 25% admin costs are too high, we need to drastically reduce that figure and spend more on community initiatives. The volunteer community is the real strength of Canadian rugby and that needs to be appreciated, recognized and organized.

Rugby Canada Financials for 2010
RFU Financials for 2010

General Manager - Operations and Performance

Job Posting General Manager

From what I understand this job is to replace Trevor Arnold who is retiring. TA's current job description is Director of Rugby. I have issues with the job description and concerns on how this person will be selected.

Nowhere in Trevor Arnold's job description does it say he's responsible for creating winning rugby programs. His job description on the RC website states: "The Director of Rugby reports to the CEO is responsible for ensuring that Rugby Canada continues to plan and develop in accordance with strategic planning guidelines and agreed upon funding parameters. The Director of Rugby is responsible for and will provide leadership to all Rugby programs and support the on-going endeavors of Rugby Canada staff members to improve the skills and knowledge they require to perform their roles effectively. This person will plan, manage, implement and promote “best practice” and promote a positive image of the sport within and beyond the Rugby community."

So basically follow the guidelines, no matter how flawed, and promote a positive image... and people wonder why winning is secondary in the Rugby Canada culture.

The new job is only a little better, it does mention in one line: "The primary challenge of this position is to improve Canada’s international success and status." But then repeats the same line about positive image: "The successful candidate will plan, manage, implement and promote best practice resulting in a positive image within and beyond the Canadian Rugby community." Bottom line what is more important to you as a member of Canadian rugby, winning or image, substance or style? If you say image, which is what I believe the Rugby Canada directors and staff are primarily interested in, then you shouldn't complain about losing at the international level, just bask in the positive image that they're creating. If you're more interested in winning then you should be concerned as well.

The job description is full of flowery language that is sometimes contradictory and often meandering. Good luck in finding the right person using this job description as a yardstick. Here is a particularly meaningless statement: "The General Manager must possess an understanding and acceptance of as well as support for future international success for the national Rugby teams of both genders." Seriously what does that mean, do you possess an understanding of future international success, do you possess an acceptance of future international success, do you support future international success? Really you'd have to be a moron to answer no to any of those questions and still apply for the job, and we don't need any more people with a knack for the absurd.

Reading through the job description do you feel confident they'll find the right person to turn around Canada's on field performance? It's more likely to attract an academic who has very little understanding about the realities of the job. Here is my addendum to the job description:

You will be responsible and held accountable for the following measurable outcomes:
- you will ensure the Men's U20 team wins the JWRT competition and returns to the top 12 championship
- you will ensure that Canada's Senior men now ranked 15th increase by at least two ranking levels
- you will ensure Canada's men and women 7s teams qualify for the 2016 Olympics
- you will ensure Canada's women maintain a top six ranking
- you will have a four year cycle to accomplish these tasks and will be evaluated every year on your progress

Plain English, measurable outcomes, this is really what we're looking for, positive image comes second.

So who will be selecting this person, hopefully not the person leaving that position. We need people who will be held accountable for the selection. I'd like to see some people from the rugby community on the selection panel. I suspect if Graham Brown is dominant on the selection committee he'll select someone who won't be a threat to his position and is a good follower, someone who can easily be thrown under the bus if there's an outcry for accountability, not really what we need. It seems the people we've selected lately at the national level have been good followers, the good leaders, like Morgan Williams have been removed. It may make for a harmonious office environment but it doesn't do anything to improve Canadian rugby on the field.