Source?
It has been reported everywhere as the NRL that lost the money. If you take out what they pumped into the knights and titans it was 12m btw.
One paragraph from the Australian, cant post a link off my phone. I typed the below out so there might be an error but the figures are correct.
"Operating expenditure rose $19 million to $127 million, including a $12 million increase for event, game and sponsorship expenses to $71 million. Administration costs rose about $2 million to $23 million and the 16 clubs received $219 million in distributions, up $26 million"
How did our admin costs go from 2m to 23m?? Same as the operating expenditure?
They still have the 50m sustainability fund untouched and it will remain so but they are bringing 50m forward from the new deal to cover this.
Apologies - it would seem the first article I read had the ARL Commission incorrectly noted as the entity running at that loss.
But looking at the Australian article you mentioned it does say its the NRL that incurred the loss.
When I read the first article and then went looking for Financial Statements for the NRL for 2015 and found none, I thought that it could not be the NRL as surely if they announced a loss like that, the documents proving evidence would be available.
Obviously not, and more fool me.
What does confuse me about one article is that they state:
The result was a $39 million less than the $20 million surplus the previous year, with financial details released by the NRL showing the governing body lost $12.5 million in the year ended October 31, 2015, despite revenue of $334 million.
Then in the same article further down say:
There was $49.6 million surplus in 2014. Losses are forecast for the next two seasons.
Read more:
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...m-after-blowout-20160210-gmq60n#ixzz40rz0Hvuz
The $49.6 million surplus was in 2013. The surplus in 2014 was $49.9 million.
So where this $20 million surplus the article refers to has come from I have no idea.
Little wonder it is confusing!!
