Brumbies 2016

[mst]

We get really mad when an 'insider' is picked for a role at a rugby team and we want an outsider to bring in fresh insights and views - all fair enough.

BUT, it takes a long time to get familiar with how a place runs, who everyone is, and how the local scene functions. We can't be mad if a local gets picked so they can hit the ground running and get more done from the get go.

It's not just jobs for mates, there's an element of sense to it.

Can I suggest that you may wish to consider some of you comments more carefully. Those who read, listen, watch the news were aware that it was reported that by lunchtime on day one Jones had found some odd transaction and was contacting board members to ask questions.

It really makes a mockery of your above statement; being that he was an outsider. it was a matter of hours, he managed to know who to contact and what he was doing and why; all of which is a pretty good example of hitting the ground running.

 

[amirite]

Can I suggest that you may wish to consider some of you comments more carefully. Those who read, listen, watch the news were aware that it was reported that by lunchtime on day one Jones had found some odd transaction and was contacting board members to ask questions.

It really makes a mockery of your above statement; being that he was an outsider. it was a matter of hours, he managed to know who to contact and what he was doing and why; all of which is a pretty good example of hitting the ground running.

I'm speaking generally about the state of Australian rugby, someone mentioned they don't like insiders being picked, and it was much the same when Stiles and Wessels were picked for coaching roles. This is a general opinion and is pitched as such.

I think you're reading between the lines in the wrong ways and are lashing out in the wrong places.

 

[mst]

I'm speaking generally about the state of Australian rugby, someone mentioned they don't like insiders being picked, and it was much the same when Stiles and Wessels were picked for coaching roles. This is a general opinion and is pitched as such.

I think you're reading between the lines in the wrong ways and are lashing out in the wrong places.

There are threads about the ARU and state of Rugby in general as well as the Reds and Force for such comments. The topic also does not refer to coaches.

I was also making you aware of what most people already know in regarding the speed of which the previous outsider started which was reported nationally.

 

[amirite]

There are threads about the ARU and state of Rugby in general as well as the Reds and Force for such comments. The topic also does not refer to coaches.

I was also making you aware of what most people already know in regarding the speed of which the previous outsider started which was reported nationally.

Mate, I never said anything to the contrary. Take the L.

 

[mst]

I don't think Allaston was well respected at Athletics Australia. Not sure about the other one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are correct Reg. Many well known athletes spoke out against him and wanted him gone. I also believe there were reports of financial issues and a review while he was there but I don't know to what extent.

Thompson seem to have worked a lot with Government funded programs, and there is also this that is not a good look at all especially due to period of service at the Brumbies which is in the midst of the current "ïssues":

General Manager Partnerships and Sales
Australian Rugby Union Ltd.
June 2011 – May 2013 (2 years)Sydney

General Manager
Brumbies Rugby
April 2009 – June 2011 (2 years 3 months)Canberra


A betting man will say it will be Thompson being the insider.

What will be interesting is if the KPMG report surfaces (unsurpressed) and he is mentioned in the report it will not sit well and raise many more questions and we will have the 2.0 version of the current issue but with the media involved.

 

[mst]

FOI information now emerging. Interesting reading, all the usual names popping up.

For those with suspicious minds, if you consider this article in conjunction with the meeting with Pulver, Kennedy and Barr just before Jones was ousted it paints an interesting picture and suggests it was a case of not biting the hand that feeds you; integrity was not s consideration.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act...anhope-for-business-case-20161109-gslnih.html

 

[Brumby Runner]

Keep it coming MST.

 

[mst]

Will do BR. Good to see the CBR Times not letting it go either. Sadly it wont amount to much but its the principle.

My favourite part of the article:

"When the opportunity arose to partner with the University of Canberra, the Brumbies decided to change their long-term plans."

So that must be the partnership the Brumbies currently have with UC - the one where UC owns everything and the Brumbies have pre-paid rent. Strangest partnership I have ever heard of.

Some quick research and maths will let you work out the even at the high-end of the cost spectrum the building cost for the "Amaya Apartments" development would be about $85mil. The last valuation I heard of for the development put it in excess of $110mil. So the worst case is still a chunk of change.

How nice would it be if some developer or company who had a few million to spare after getting lucky with a deal was really generous and helped out the Brumbies to the tune of about $10million worth of sponsorship? Just as a goodwill gesture and to show that Canberra patriotism and support the home team.

 

[mst]

Its really hard not to see the comedic irony in this article.

So Brumbies chairman Robert Kennedy who was central to the decisive and expensive ousting of Jones is about to ask stakeholders to support the changes that were first floated when Jones was in charge at the Brumbies as Jones attempted to unify the club's stakeholders.

There could not possibly be more irony emanating from this!

Its funny when you think about this article. Does it provide an update to aid stability of just confirm what many think that the whole affair was an ego driven power play and personalty issue at a significant cost to the club?

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...ric-constitution-changes-20161116-gsqfts.html

 

[Brumby Runner]

Not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but have the clubs just voted to deprive themselves of the majority say on the Board?

 

[mst]

Nothing would surprise me when to come to the clubs. They voted to wound there own cash cow and committee themselves to about 20yrs of sausages sizzles to make up the difference.

Its hard to tell as the details are missing. From what I understand there were 23 votes; each of the 7 clubs had 2 each and the other 9 were single votes for board members. I believe they have killed off the CEO vote and 2 other positions.

So, the entertaining and absolutely ridiculous part of this is if you think of the key objective you could not have missed the mark in a more spectacular fashion.

So objective:

"The changes would lead to a higher calibre board which would then lead to a better performance of the organisation."

Jones had been trying to implement board changes to appoint more professional directors instead of the current system, which is made up of a wide range of appointments.

So they have reduced the amount of external "professional" board members and given the clubs, who most likely do not have the required skill set or business acumen,and with a differing agenda and mandate more power in the board room.

One step further from the professional corporate management the Brumbies need to survive IMHO.

 

[mst]

A picture is worth a thousand words. Confidence inspiring ain't it!

Ah, yes, the power pair of 2011 - the worst ever year for the Brumbies. Who else could be more eminently qualified.

Whats the odd both are get an honourable mention in the KPMG manuscript?

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...ef-executive-on-thursday-20161123-gsvkdr.html

Out with the new and back in with the old.

Just one person with an ounce of proven private enterprise corporate knowledge was too much to ask?

I don't see this inspiring confidence in the Brumbies supporters for the foreseeable future. The key thing the Brumbies needed to do was ditch the nepotism / "jobs for mates club" tag and image; missed it spectacularly.

 

[Brumby Jack]

Maybe give it a chance, MST. A bit negative there.

 

[Brumby Runner]

BJ, MST has really bought into the issues affecting the Brumbies over the past year or two, and has been the main voice, not the only one, keeping the issues under some sort of scrutiny on this site, so I am happy for him to express his thoughts on matters, whether they appear to be negative or otherwise. I don't know how accurate his observations will prove to be, but it's not necessarily a good look to be bringing back someone who has history with the club at a time when some of the issues might have been unfolding.

Here's hoping though that it proves to be a step in the right direction.

 

[mst]

BJ, I am more than happy to be proven wrong, But the facts, reality and irony can’t be avoided. Correct me if I am wrong.

• One of the key issues with the Brumbies is the public perception is that the board is a mates club who are keeping everything in house like a “mates club”. So much so the dismissal of the Jones there is still no apparent “actual’ reason other than a personality clash with Board members and their mates. The fact the club was finally moving in the black financially for the first time in recent history was irrelevant in their decision making.
• Until Jones, every CEO or Chairman since about 2005 has been incapable of preventing the Brumbies running at a loss.
• Does the new CEO possess a successful record of running entities such as the Brumbies organisation or bring any significant private corporate knowledge? I would assume these would be essential pre-requisite skills noting the struggles that rugby and other sports is going through in this county? Or is this a case of potential well-credentialed candidates not wanting to go near the poison chalice under the current board? By the reports in the public domain, there are no non-local credentialed candidates mentioned or linked to the job. – why? A mere coincidence?
• From memory the period around 2010-2011 was provided some of the worst on field performances and was the time period some of the poorest, questionable and damaging financial matter transpired in Brumbies history and poorest of field performance also transpired which have led to their financial issue currently.
• ACT rugby clubs voted themselves out of potential funding by supporting the payout of Jones to the tune of near $800K. How many raffles and sausage sizzles is that? Why did my membership money get spent to fund the exercising of board members egos and why does grass root rugby (mum, dad and kids) now suffer due to the board’s decision? Where is the transparency and accountability?
• Why did the Board jeopardise sponsorships and the financial future of the Brumbies over a personality issue? We all work with people we don’t like – what was the issue?
• Do the Brumbies board really think this is over? The media and true supporters will not let this go without the real answers!

Btw – have you seen the TV commercial.?

So go back about 12 months in the Wallabies thread and people were discussing the wallabies advertising campaign. The key message was supporters are over the poetic BS deep voiced words, the iconic crap, the irrelevant slow dramatic nature BS and would like something contemporary and relevant.

So the Brumbies – they need a new image, it a new era, new bunch of fresh young faces, the Club and team needs support, one of their stalwarts and Brumbies Family is literally having the fight of their life.

Really? Horses in fog with more clique iconic images and voices over than you can bare? FFS – it not that hard. Is it a horse add or a Rugby add? What does it say, what does it inspire, what is new, different or captivating?

Out of touch. So again, this year’s mantra – out with the new and in with the old!

 

[wamberal]

As a general proposition, advertising is not for current supporters, it is for potential supporters.


Maybe it pisses you off. So what? It is not directed at you, it is directed at people who do not pay much attention to our code in an effort to intrigue them enough to have a look.

 

[mst]

I appreciate what your saying but the issue is it really won't appeal to anyone but current supporters, and for the current supporters, as far as intrigue; location, cinematography and geography is what jumps out. Very little about the sport, game or team.

New fresh faces and the opportunity to market to the 20-35 age group to develop the supporter base. So what do they do with the fresh young faces? Mix iconic historical folklore imagery with poetic words.

So considering a lot of the current supporters are disenchanted and want new and fresh it another miss.

 

[wamberal]

I dunno. I am not an advertising man. But one has to assume that somebody, somewhere, knows what they are doing.

 

[mst]

^^^I had similar sentiments when the Brumbies were selling the Griffith HQ. Learned my lesson with Brumbies and assumption.

 

[mst]

So some positives but as predicted but "the issue" is not going to go away, It appears the new appointment may have unintentionally (predictably ) drawn more attention to it and may re-motivate and encourage more scrutiny.

Thomson was the Brumbies' general manager in 2011 when the sale of the Griffith land was completed.

"I saw nothing untoward in terms of the sale and I wasn't involved with the move to UC so I don't really know about that," Thomson said.

WTF - Gitueu? Love the guy but hell no please!

I am also worried that the motive behind this article is the membership numbers are down.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...s-super-rugby-axe-hovers-20161125-gsxcnm.html