KEY POINTS:
It's idiom time again at the NZRU. And no, that's not a misprint, despite the common belief that rugby's governing body is run by a bunch of idiots.
This week's idiom is "Robbing Peter to pay Paul". An English expression that dates back to 1380, it's used to describe the process of taking something from one area of importance to use somewhere else.
At the NZRU, the literal approximation is bin the non-revenue-producing luxuries to help prop up the national championship.
Just over a week ago the NZRU announced a revenue-distribution package for the provincial unions worth a tick over $6 million.
An expected surplus "in excess of $7.5 million" for 2008 had enabled largesse which included an immediate one-off payment to all 26 unions. A further $2.2 million is to be made available, to use a popular marketing phrase, by redemption.
"We have been successful in managing our costs in 2008 to ensure we have achieved a small operating surplus," chief executive Steve Tew said.
"On top of that, we have had significant gains as a result of the falling New Zealand dollar which will add to our strong reserves position and also makes good on the losses recorded in 2006 and 2007."
Fast forward four days, however, and Tew was painting a completely different picture as the NZRU took the budgetary sword to a whole host of programmes. Maori rugby, women's rugby, community rugby, the Heartland XV and national B competition were the casualties as Tew described the "deliberately cautious approach" to the 2009.
Economic conditions both globally and domestically were expected to worsen, Tew warned. Prudence was the only option.
"While we have benefited from some upside in 2008, we are projecting a loss in 2009 and within that budget we still have significant revenue at risk. As a result, we have taken what we believe to be a sensible approach and have proactively reduced activity while we can manage the impacts rather than have changes forced on us."
All well and good, but what about that $6.1 million handout to the provincial unions? The same unions the NZRU has repeatedly chastised for wasting previous handouts on players' salaries, thus inflating the market, adding to the unsustainability of the national championship.
Sure, this time around, some of the money is dependent on unions restructuring their cost-bases, but the NZRU's actions sail perilously close to a symptom of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different outcome.
Usually in these situations it's Tew who cops most of the flack. That certainly wouldn't be fair this time around. After conducting an extensive review into the costly national championship, Tew and his staff recommended it be scaled down to 12 teams and shortened in duration. Both of those moves would have saved substantial amounts of money.
It was the NZRU board that rejected those recommendations, opting instead to keep 14 teams and expand the competition by two weeks. No longer an unsustainable burden, the continued - and even increased - costs of the competition were now to be viewed as an investment.
That's fine with me. If you're Maori, a woman or a Heartland player hoping for an end of year jolly, then you may disagree. But I believe the NZRU have got their juggling act about right.
Maori rugby is an important part of the game's landscape but it isn't a vital one.
The strong cultural connections between Maori and the Polynesian and Melanesian nations make the Pacific Nations Cup a natural fit for the Maori team.
But that will only work if there is also a junior All Blacks programme running concurrently. This year that wasn't the case, leading to a situation where the only players playing at a high level at the same time as the All Blacks - and as such the natural replacements should injuries occur - had been selected on a racial basis.
That wasn't fair on the players with no Maori ancestry and it wasn't fair on the Maori team itself. Given the rich contribution Maori rugby has made to the game on these shores, the team should never be placed in a situation where its value is questioned.
It's sad the Maori haven't been better accommodated with some less costly fixtures, but the move to reinstate the Junior All Blacks is sound, as are the other cost-cutting measures.
If women's rugby isn't self-sustaining then it has to accept whatever status it is given. That's life. Ditto the Heartlanders.
It's doubtful it will make those affected feel any better, but NZRU headquarters in Wellington hasn't escaped the cost-cutting. Departing staff haven't been replaced, bonuses have been frozen and, as Tew mentioned following this year's AGM, even the complementary fruit bowl has gone.
The NZRU's strategy of hoarding as many pennies as it can until it knows what form the future test and Super Rugby programmes will take - and what revenue streams they will produce - is sensible.
As for the handouts to the provincial unions, the NZRU runs the game for and on behalf of those unions. If they are struggling, it is to a certain extent beholden upon the national body to help them out.
No matter what they do, Tew and his team will cop flack and they usually accept it with good grace. But on this occasion they seem to be treading a fine line fairly nimbly. Circumstances may have sent them down the path of an idiom, but they certainly aren't idiots.
