USARFU losses undermine strategy

USARFU lost $226,000 in the fiscal year ended June 2009, on the heels of losing $645,000 in fiscal 2008.

The result deals another blow to the 'Eagles first' strategy of chairman Kevin Roberts and chief executive Nigel Melville. Brought in three years ago to professionalize the union's leadership, the pair have been unable to convert unprecedented International Rugby Board grants, sponsorship windfalls, and record dues intakes into a sturdier balance sheet.

The second half of the project, recasting the domestic game in an effort to develop 'pathways' for Americans to better prepare for international competition, has been equally discouraging. The longstanding Inter-Territorial Tournament and the new-fangled North American 4 have each been all but abandoned, while a much-touted competitions review has been delayed and the USA has posted a horrendous 6-24 record.

Almost half of calendar 2009's $8.1 million turnover will go to national teams, 'high performance' programs, or event expenses, according to financial documents which the union circulated last week. Yet the largest revenue categories are sponsorship, led by the National Guard's underwriting college rugby, and players dues, which are heavily dependent on college and high school players.

In addition to the obvious disconnect between the grassroots supplying the money and elite rugby spending it, sponsorship and dues are fragile. The union is expecting a reduced National Guard pact in fiscal 2010, while much of 2008's loss was attributed to a $368,000 dues shortfall caused by the change to a September to August cycle. (Last month, the union again brought the cycle forward, to an August to July time frame.)

In other words, the odds are lengthening against the bet that test rugby can throw off a surplus to be invested back into what Europeans call 'community rugby'.

The 2006-09 performance of Roberts and Melville's Eagle-first approach could be at the center of this Saturday's joint meeting of USARFU's board and congress in Dallas, where the latter group should be able to drill down into 'financial summary' documents for 2008 and 2009 which Boulder circulated last week.

The documents represent the clearest available connection between strategy and results, as the union's audited 2008 tax return (filed on a calendar basis) is not yet available. But the preface confusingly blends fiscal 2010 projections and fiscal 2009 results with projected calendar 2009 line items, and so far from being self-explanatory, looks in part to be marketing future prospects rather than assessing past results.

Comments

[wrt]

Here's how the Congress/Board meeting will work.

First, the Board will tightly control the meeting agenda. They will talk at Congress most of the day in scripted presentations, because of the presentations vagueness there will be little to question or comment upon.

Several members of Congress will act as protectors to the current administration, not allowing those Congress members who want some answer from getting any.

Instead of this meeting being a healthy performance review it will turn into an Amway marketing meeting.

It will take a very determined Congress to hold this administration accountable for the past THREE YEARS!

[Old Board]

My question is how did Bill Middleton get another term on the Board?

1) He hasn't raised any donation funds.
2) He has raised any sponsorship funds.
3) He has zero expertise in coaching, refereeing or local administration.
4) He hasn't authored any major plans to advance American rugby.
5) The one thing he has put his name on is the HS eligibility rules which have derailed our objective of official school status.

How can this be the performance of a Board member and they get reelected? If Congress can't vote off the Board this type of performance, then there is no need to have a Congress.

[South Rugby]

Three stinking years of this.

These boys knew it all when they came in. Didn't need any help from anybody. Didn't need Congress or even a word from anyone that went before them. They knew it all and had it wired. They were pros.

Three years later and with more free IRB money than the combined 30 years before...and this is what we got. The historically poorest Eagles record along with money losing administrative practices.

This is what an arrogant Board and a $275,000 CEO gets us?

[Patriot]

How un-American can we get ? Our union has been hijacked and we are left with nothing more than what we are entitled to be told ?

That is not how things work in our Country. Our forefathers took a stand a long time ago against taxation without representation. Geez - that sounds awfully familiar now doesn't it ?

The Board has taken our dues (and millions from the IRB) and handsomely paid our CEO, Eagle Men's Head Coaches, and reimbursed themselves at all time high levels.

Meanwhile we are continually being told to not ask questions, not expect more, to be quiet and only speak when spoken to.

Doesn't sound like America to me.

[Save our Union]

A suggestion to those on the Congress.....

Your mission is to proceed to Dallas.
Pick up Kevin Roberts path in Dallas, follow it and learn what you can along the way. When you find Roberts, infiltrate his team by whatever means available and terminate the his command.

Terminate Kevin Roberts?

Terminate with extreme prejudice.

You understand Captain that this mission does not exist, nor will it ever exist.

[college rugby]

It is true that I have made up my mind that Nigel Melville and Kevin Roberts should be removed from their respective positions of CEO and Chairman.

However, they should get their day in court. If they haven't, as I believe performed up to standard, they should be thanked and shown the door. If their performance is satisfactory they should remain in their positions.

Will Congress do this simple task? It has been three years, if there is no evaluation now, when?

[Suwoop]

Lets bang Cali iz active Cali iz active

CaaRiiiiiiiiPPP!!!!

[I speak like the Queen!]

We have these funny talkers running the show heavily supported with IRB funds because Arnot and the congress dropped the ball in a big way and the whole operation had to be rescued. The organization that rescued it - the IRB - put their people in place and are calling the shots. It is not like these guys took it from the USA rugby public, we pissed it away with poor membership and oversight. Reap what you sow SUCKERS!

[Concerned Rugby Fan]

"I speak like the Queen" is correct. I have seen more progress in USA Rugby in the last couple of years than in the previous 35 years all put together.

[Sam Adams]

Concerned Rugby Fan,
where is the data to support your comment. What progress?

[Such As?]

CRR, what is the progress and how have you gauged it...what is your frame of reference?

[that's not my name]

If the loss showing is 240k, then it's worse.

Have all the coaches/managers been paid in full for their out of pocket during this touring season?

Lots of questions . . .

[greedy pricks]

Those expenses won't be paid after Kooga wins the lawsuit and owns the rugby union, because this administration broke the contract they were working and performing under.

[Craig]

this same post keeps coming up, how much money are we talking about with Kooga?

[kr]

middle six figures, before damages. all USAR management self-imposed.

[Norris Elliott]

There are a number of posts concerning a lack of confidence in the. The Congress can, per the bylaws, give a no confidence vote with respect to the Board and the Chairman of the organization. However, such a vote has no teeth, i.e., it has no substantive effect.

If there is a true concern as to how Board members including the Chairman are performing their job, then the Congress needs to seek to remove the individuals “for cause”. Section 5.7 of the By-Laws of USA Rugby provides for the removal of directors. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the sitting Congress members would petition/recommend that an individual be removed and then 2/3rds of Congress must vote to remove. To remove for cause, it must be shown that a director failed to carry out his duties or responsibilities as a director. Included in this is any action, or inaction, that materially and adversely affects or may affect the organization.

If there is a disagreement with how the organization is being run or if there is a difference of opinion on monies are being spent, this would not be considered a basis for “cause”. Additionally, the Congress would have to be able to show how an action or inaction “materially and adversely affects” or “may affect” the organization. In other words, they would have to show that USA Rugby was harmed or injured in some manner.

Possible examples that may, or may not, be considered “cause” could include:

1. Stating that the Board and the organization would bring a sum certain amount of dollars into the organization by the end of the calendar year and then not bringing in that amount. The harm would be that the organization would then have to use reserve dollars to meet expenses.
2. Stating that the Board would raise the profile of the national championships and then showing that attendance at the championships has decreased and the costs involved in holding those championships have not been offset. The harm in this would be difficult to prove because it is difficult to distinguish how the organization is injured or made less.
3. Stating that the organization would achieve NCAA recognition of the women’s college game and this not occurring. The harm is that the women’s teams would still be underfunded on college campuses and would not have separate and distinct playing/practice facilities. The additional hard could be that by not getting NCAA recognition, the organization is still financially responsible for putting on championships which is a depletion of limited resources.
4. There has not been an improvement in the product with respect to the men’s and women’s national 15s teams. The Board, i.e., the Chairman specifically stated that the Board would be working hard to get this accomplished. The men’s ranking has not improved and they have not been successful on the pitch. The women’s ranking has remained constant but that have not been successful on the pitch. The harm is that without a successful product to sell, advertising, sponsorship, and endowment dollars are not coming into the organization. This forces monies that might be spent on other teams or activities to be spent on the teams in order to meet basic costs.
5. The goals of the strategic plan have not been achieved. A new competition model that best suits rugby in America has not been put into place. A consistent high performance system to develop men’s and women’s rugby has not occurred. There has not been a significant raise in the revenues (hard dollars and not value in kind “dollars”) that would allow for investment in all USA Rugby programs (grass roots and national teams). Rugby has not become a professional sport with full-time athletes, coaches, and administrators. With financial losses over the past two years, revenue has not been generated to secure the future. Although there has been an increase in numbers of participants, the number of referees being developed has remained constant or even stagnant, and there is a question as to whether referees are being retained. (It is noted that one of the top ranked referees in the country recently quit due, in part, to his frustration with the administrative structure of the organization.) An effective insurance program has not been established to meet the needs of members including national team players.

These are all areas that could be looked at to see whether there is sufficient cause to remove any of the Board members.

It should be further noted that based on the By-Laws, if the Congress would vote out the Board in its entirety, there is nothing in place that could step in and take its place in the short term. New Board members would need to be recruited and approved by the Congress and this process could take a number of months. This is not to say that Board members should not be removed; however, if there is a removal, then a replacement for that person needs to occur and this would not happen overnight.

There is one other thing that has not been discussed- that is the “nuclear” option. If there are enough members who are dissatisfied, they could petition the US Olympic Committee and seek to have the national organization decertified. This is a huge step and there has to be serious problems for this to occur. Again mere disagreement, without evidence, of how the organization is being run would not be enough to have the organization decertified and a new organization put into place.

[hot towels and respirators]

Concerned Rugby Fan is using the BOD's cutting edge statistical model: Boulder Analysis Derivative for Growth And Structure.

AKA, the BAD GAS model, is a cutting edge tactic used by policy makers. It is a smokescreen of vaporized bullshit particulates which infiltrate blood brain barrier.

Some members of Congress have acquired an immunity, say that it smells of "corynthian leather"... "eventually I became fond of the taste"...

Concerned Rugby Fan, like many others, can't get enough of this stuff, makes them feel important.
Kind of like a dog rolling around in a mess.