Brumbies 2016

[mst]

So interesting tweets that tell a story:

I would love to know the questions Bernie has. IMHO this is revealing as to his feelings and his allegiance. I wonder if he will sign his contact or walk?

I wonder how much this has just cost the ARU? I suppose we will have to wait and dig through the annual reports.

IMHO the potential appointment of Roff seem to fit the mould. Its a jobs for the boys scenario, he is in the middle of all of this shit, and he does seem to have a lot of experience in the management of not-for-profits.

I dare say whoever takes on the CEO role should be aware they may be taking hold of the poison chalice and becoming the Boards fall guy when it goes to crap.

 

[JJJ]

I wonder if that ACT chief minister is still happy to pick up some of the tab. With taxpayer money.

 

[mst]

I wonder if that ACT chief minister is still happy to pick up some of the tab. With taxpayer money.

Sponsors money right?

Its an interesting question for the assembly to argue over. UC money is ACT Government money essentially.

On that point, would the dealings (between the Brumbies and UC), on the UC side should have been subject to some pretty strict legislative provisions. The UC is subject to its own legislation governing how the UC operates, and it is also subject to both the ACT Financial Accountability Act and ACT Public Sector Management Act?

 

[louie]

Joe Roff as CEO?
Is he really the best candidate or the most convenient?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Best? Clearly not but he's an old boy so he must be given it

 

[SammyP]

I've been following all of this since the beginning, trying to work out WTF is going on and which side I fall on. Most of it is unclear, but when I woke up this morning I realised something pretty sad.
I don't really care any more.
Don't get me wrong, I love the Brumbies, the team that is. The club as a whole I'm on the fence about.
But after the way they are playing, all the mess off field, I doubt they will be near the finals and its all a bit "oh well, thats this year gone".
I am really pissed off about all the confidentiality crap going on. Something that has affected a club that I am a member of so significantly for the police to be looking at it, to cause major upheaval in what should have been a great season, to cause board room revolt, and we the members aren't allowed to know what it is? That's just bull shit.
Whoever takes over better do something pretty damn special before September or I won't be renewing membership. No way am I going to pay over $1000 to sit through another year in the dark while they ruin the Brumbies even more.

 

[Pfitzy]

One perspective:

CEO: "Hey, I was looking at the books, and there is something fucking wrong here."

Board: "Oh that. Don't worry about it. Taken care of. In the past. Moving right along."

CEO: "Yeah nah. I'm in charge here, arses are on the line. What the fuck happened?"

Board: "Look, its nothing. Just a bit of creative accounting to sort some shit out. We're good. Move on."

CEO: "OK then, you leave me no choice"

[Bunfight ensues. Toys are thrown. Matter dragged into public. EGM. Another EGM. ACT Clubs wonder what the fuck is going on. Everyone outside ACT remembers Canberra exists. Phone calls to St Leonards are made.]


Board: "Here's some money. Shut up and fuck off."

CEO: "OK then but I'm still not hap-"

Board: "JOE! MAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYTE!"

Australian Rugby Fans: "Yep, another old boys circle-jerk"

 

[mst]

No we might see what the real price is for the Brumbies. Now we can see. Another indication that the Board may not be acting in the interests or had the support of the coaches or the players.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...chael-jones-takes-payout-20160430-goj2zm.html

Reds and Force fans must be starting to dream about what could be.

If Larkham does walk, you have to then ask the question about the Fardy and Moore reports. Interesting that it was an email sent within the organisation that led to Pandaram getting hold of the Fardy/Moore news. Would love to know how he got it. Some players found out on the morning of the game, so the email went through the dministrative side not the playing group.

It will also be interesting to see how the remainder of contract negotiations go, given that Jones was responsible for dealing directly with the players with contracting and was successful in getting some big signings, a job which has now fallen to Larkham, who himself may not be happy with things.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I just hope the JID clubs who abandoned Jones at the last minute are happy with the outcome (whatever it is) in relation to the development fund that was meant to be set up from the proceeds of the Griffith sale, but which apparently hasn't eventuated. I suspect the only way matters would have seen the light of day would have been had Jones stayed on.

Feeling very much like a mushroom now.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

If Jones has gone now, does the AFP drop their investigation?

 

[mst]

If Jones has gone now, does the AFP drop their investigation?

As I believe its a PID (Public Interest Disclosure) they can't.
The risk where it will get lost is if they find something but it's not earth shattering, the AFP may choose not refer it to the DPP, or the DPP may chose not to take action because its not in the interests of the public ie costs too much or there won't be a sufficient outcome.
But we don't know if it could fall under the ACT Gvt act, as UC is technically ACT government so is subject to ACT gvt legislation and we don't know if there's any "corporation" issues that ASIC should be looking into.

Eitherway, the AFP results wont be made public so we can fairly assume that that the details will be withheld by the board like everything else unless someone goes down big time.

 

[mst]

.

I love your choice of picture and the irony of it.

This exact picture was used in Canberra Times (Fairfax) article about Roff being drafted in on to the committee of three that ultimately selected and employed Jones!

 

[Gnostic]

I really detest these confidentiality agreements. There have been allegations and rumours of unethical and possibly illegal conduct. How many times does this sort of thing have to happen in Rugby (and business and government) before these idiots start to understand that the wider public are sick and tired of these matters being hidden with clever legal manoeuvring. This sort of behaviour, not just in the initial issues but in the legal covering up of the matters has served to erode the confidence that the public has in the exercise of law and in senior management/government. Do the fools on the Brumbies board believe that sponsors are happy with this sort of transparency in Corporate behaviour (even though many of them do the same themselves)?

If the ARU have provided any money to the Brumbies to pay out Jones I would regard that as being complicit in supporting non-transparency and exposing their whistle-blower support policies as being so much hot air.

 

[mst]

If the ARU have provided any money to the Brumbies to pay out Jones I would regard that as being complicit in supporting non-transparency and exposing their whistle-blower support policies as being so much hot air.

Its a really good and valid point you raise. If there is sufficient reasons to make a disclosure and also enough for the AFP to investigate (and the AFP will don't take on all PID's unless there is sufficient to warrant an investigation) so it begs the question about why the ARU are not insisting that the be some transparency and accountability.

IMHO, with every dollar the ARU has being so valuable to the game overall, you have to ask why they are happy to hand over money without any transparency.

If I was the Shute clubs, or any club for that matter I would want to know why that money should be given to the Brumbies due to incompetent management and at the expense of other parts of the game?

How far would Jones payout if funded, even in part by the ARU, go to funding grass roots or the Shute clubs?

Even a $100k would be massive.

Funniest part of this is that ACT Rugby clubs hold the majority of votes on the board so obviously aren't bother by the missing millions or spending more money that could go to local rugby on ousting Jones. Begs the question if the ARU should be funding rugby in the ACT at all.

 

[Gnostic]

@MST - even if we only consider the amount of the alleged payout it is very significant. But we should also be considering the aspects of the Brumbies deal that brought this whole issue into focus. Transparency around the removal of Jones is only one aspect to be considered. Anybody involved with Australian Rugby has the right and IMO the duty to question these aspects and that can only be done with transparency.

 

[Braveheart81]

If Jones had a case (and presumably he did given how far everything progressed), it's very hard to get rid of him without a payout.

Legal bills for the Brumbies would have racked up very quickly and if they'd lost and had to make a payout to Jones as well as pay his legal bills and their own, the overall cost could have been massive.

Clearly the ARU is ultimately on the hook if the Brumbies can't afford it. I don't know that you can say that the ARU is condoning what is going on if they have to contribute to the payout. Ultimately the ARU has to make a commercial decision if they're forced to get involved. Presumably if that happened they would take some control of the board.

 

[Gnostic]

If Jones had a case (and presumably he did given how far everything progressed), it's very hard to get rid of him without a payout.



Legal bills for the Brumbies would have racked up very quickly and if they'd lost and had to make a payout to Jones as well as pay his legal bills and their own, the overall cost could have been massive.



Clearly the ARU is ultimately on the hook if the Brumbies can't afford it. I don't know that you can say that the ARU is condoning what is going on if they have to contribute to the payout. Ultimately the ARU has to make a commercial decision if they're forced to get involved. Presumably if that happened they would take some control of the board.

They will be tacitly condoning it if they contribute to the payout on the basis of non-disclosure in a matter that appears to all observers to be protecting individuals involved with the Brumbies. There are no winners in this matter, but the Brumbies and Rugby can still lose a lot more.

 

[mst]

Clearly the ARU is ultimately on the hook if the Brumbies can't afford it. I don't know that you can say that the ARU is condoning what is going on if they have to contribute to the payout. Ultimately the ARU has to make a commercial decision if they're forced to get involved. Presumably if that happened they would take some control of the board.

If the ARU refused to fund the payout until the investigation was complete noting the key issue is the financial transactions that have left the Brumbies with financial issues (AKA where the money gone, and potentially millions of it) then its not a commercial decision that is in the interests of Rugby or the game in general. Pursuit of the issue may have lead to a rebalancing of the funding if not recovery, even in part of the monies.

Bottom line is this decision was optional not necessary.

It has been clear that there were insufficient performance or conduct grounds to sack Jones. The sponsors had no issue with him and over the last few weeks, even with the injunction and under siege he was still running the club and doing so competently. Clear evidence that this was a choice, not a necessity and not for commercial reasons, rather political.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Has anyone seen how much the settlement with Patston was from analysis of the ARU financial accounts from last year?
Hardly likely to see how much, if any, the ARU stump up to settle with Jones by examining the 2016 ARU financial records when they are released.

 

[mst]

^^^very true.

So when we then get the news that the kitty has taken a big hit and the ARU is cost cutting again we just have to accept it right?

The sad part of this is the monetary aspect. If you consider what this is all about, it starts with the proceeds of the sale so $9mil+, then goes on to post move to the $4mil+ remaining once all the bills were paid that was going in to a fund for ACT Rugby.

Then that's gone and I would guess this current issue will end up costing close to a $1mil with payouts and legal fees and other associated costs.

So if you consider really the issue is around the use of the remaining $4mil allocated for ACT Rugby, (and the Brumbies having no capital out off the $9mil), the $1mil for the current episode we are talking significant money in the millions at least.

Consider that amount in the context of how much money the ARU have in total.

 

[JJJ]

I wonder if the 500k includes the performance bonuses he was postponing in order to help the issues of Brumbies cashflow.

It's hard to see a way back to credibility for the brumbies club. Joe Roff as CEO isn't it, obviously. Even getting a new board probably wouldn't help, given that it would just be different heads from the same old boys hydra.

Having the ARU taking greater control over what they do is probably the best outcome we can realistically hope for.

One wonders what Pocock makes of all this. Has he tweeted about it? I wouldn't think he'd want to be a long-term part of a club with these sorts of question marks hovering over it. I would also think he'd want some kind of explanation, although he might settle for a private bs one.