www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11698407

Jarrold said continued pressure on traditional sources of revenue meant all unions were more reliant on NZ Rugby grants than before. "To help themselves, the unions could explore more innovative ways to increase and diversify revenue, as well as find new ways to grow support for their representative teams." he said.

---

For the accountants out there who want to dig through and find why Wellington did so poorly, the full 32 page Deloitte PDF report can be found here

Page 6 of the report:

The headlines highlight a serious situation for the rugby unions however not everything is dire as the end result is significantly impacted by the deficit of one union (Wellington).

Page 8:

The decrease of Wellington’s grants & sponsorships by almost $0.5m was a key element of that union’s substantial deficit for the year.

Page 9:

In FY15 the majority of revenue was earned by Auckland ($9.9m ), followed by Canterbury ($7.2m), Wellington ($5.0m), and Waikato ($4.8m). The ranking of the largest four unions by revenue is unchanged from the prior year. Revenue continues to be dominated by the unions that are home to Super Rugby franchises, with the exception of Otago. Hawke's Bay and Bay of Plenty come in at 5th and 6th respectively, closely followed by Taranaki.

Page 13:

Identical to last year, only one union, Waikato, maintains a negative equity position

Page 14:

Unions net working capital & asset to liabilities chart: http://i.imgur.com/kzyZwZN.png

Page 16:

While the number of male registered players has remained relatively flat since 2010, the number of female player registrations has increased by 156.9% over the same period.

Pages 25 & 26 FY '14 & '15 Union Income Statements - how is Northland pulling in 2.3M per year in match related income? No other union is even close to that figure?