Brumbies 2017

[Hawko]

As I see it, the side would look like :-

1. Sio
2. Fainga'a
3. Alexander
4. Carter
5. Arnold
6. Fardy
7. Alcock
8. Fasikolea / Smiler / Butler
9. Cubelli
10. Jooste
11. Speight
12. Godwin
13. Kuridrani
14. Taliauli
15. Dargaville

16. Ala'alatoa
17. Mann-Rea / McInerny
18. Makin
19. Staniforth
20. Butler / Smiler / Fakosolea
21. Powell
22. Ah Wong / Smith
23. Toua

Maybe missing some X-factor but that is still a solid Super Rugby side.

1. Ala'alatoa is the Wallaby back-up THP. Surely he is first choice prop.
2. Alcock is a good back-up, but is not a starting-quality loosie. Butler is the same.
3. Maybe 6. Staniforth, 7. Alcock, 8. Fardy would be optimum. Still doesn't fill me with optimism. Best Aussie Super lineout though.
4. The elephant in the room is 10. On what I've seen, Jooste will never make it and I can guarantee he is not ready for 2017. There is no one else. No team ever went well in Super Rugby without a top flight 10 and the Brumbies do not have one.
5. I'd agree Dargaville is the best 15, but that says it all. He's probably 12 months away from being ready. Would Larkham pick him over Toua?

That in my view is not a solid Super Rugby side and if injuries strike in specific positions it could be calamitous. On paper, they could easily end up bottom of the conference. Still, that's just on paper.

 

[topgun]

Dargaville at 10?

 

[Viking]

1. Alcock is a good back-up, but is not a starting-quality loosie. Butler is the same.
2. .

I think Butler has proven his worth as a starting quality super xv loosie. No where near Test level but a solid super xv player.

 

[mst]

I think Butler has proven his worth as a starting quality super xv loosie. No where near Test level but a solid super xv player.

Yeah, nah. If your looking for turnover ball I would put Fardy ahead of him comfortably.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I'm with you @mst. I wasn't at all impressed with Jarrad Butler playing 7 even though he got an award for his efforts in 2015. Fardy is more of a turnover winner at the breakdown, and that's not enough for next year imo.

@Hawko : I don't think Fardy has the speed around the ground to play 8. He is our best 6 and that's really where he should turn out. Staniforth's strength in holding the ball runner up to force a turnover maul was impressive, but the rest of his game is essentially lock related.

I still see Allan Ala'alatoa as a LH prop, therefore on the bench behind Sio, at least at the start of the season.

Dargaville has been in and out of the side for a couple of years, and I believe has played a fair bit of No 15 for the Eagles in the JID comp. I think he would be ready if Bernie wants to try him there. My real concern is that I don't think he's got a good kicking game. For someting really different, Jooste at 15 (he has a massive boot - doesn't make his tackles too good though) and Toua at 10. Toua often comes into the backline as an extra 10 and seems to have a passable distribution game as well as the ability to take the line on himself. And if a 15 can be converted to 10, then Bernie would know how.

 

[mst]

@BR - Toua @ 10 both terrifies and excites me and is an intriguing proposition, As for Jooste at 15 its not bad option.

I know i am tempting fate with this suggestions but JJH at 10? I am not sure about the kicking component of his game but the rest might fit.

 

[Viking]

Yeah, nah. If your looking for turnover ball I would put Fardy ahead of him comfortably.

Yeah I agree there, turnovers are his weakest part of the game. But solid all-round elsewhere. Usually exceptional work-rate - so I think that makes him a solid player. Although wouldn't be first picked at 7 if their was a pilfering specialist - depending on your game-plan.

Having Fardy in the same team means it can work well enough

 

[Scrubber2050]

Seb
what is the long term future of the Brums with the financial debacle unfolding.

It seems they have no money , no assets.

 

[mst]

Scrubber - correct with no cash or assets. ARU will have to supplement. Aquis sponsorship is on going until 2018 at minimum (8mill over 6yrs) is the split) and have soften the financial outlays with more community based funding.

The UC and ACT Government dealing are being kept very quiet but as far I am aware the UC alliance deal is not finalised and wont provide much more than a landlord type arrangement.

Sponsors have put the Brumbies on notice and insisted Jones changes got pushed through and we have already seen changes on the Board and potentially more to come.

Many key members including life members are not happy.

The CEO appointment will be critical and also give us a glimpse of the future. The uncertainty is translate in a increased amount of one years deals and a lot of contracts expire at the the end of 2017.

Critically it we be all about memberships and crowd numbers and I think this will be the biggest indicator. The memberships already include a free game payment to the Brumbies (same price as last years for one less game) but there have already been pre-sale issues.

If they can draw the crowds it will be a major issue and a really dire sign come the end of the season.

The "öther" elephant in the room is the UC Vikings. Its a divisive issue and will needs to be resolved. Jones touted a rebranded NRC team, but the Vikings group were critical in keeping it going financially this year. The Brumbies don't have any money.

Private investment is unlikely as with the Super Rugby format unstable and significant governance and financial issues (its value is quite low; no capital assets and is mainly in its IP) and a small captive market like Canberra, the only type of investor would be the likes of a Mourad Boudjellal (Toulon) or Mohed Altrad (Montpellier) or if we are lucky a Frank Lowey.

All are unlikely so its all about the CEO clearing house (publicly), upping sponsorship's and working out income streams and a half decent on field performance that captures hearts and minds.

The other realisation that need to happen is that the ACT clubs need to understand that the Brumbies supporters help pay the bills for ACT rugby, and a lot of supporters have nothing to do with club rugby.

Brumbies supporters go, Brumbies sponsors will go and ACT rugby will have no funding nor sympathy.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Scrubber - correct with no cash or assets. ARU will have to supplement. Aquis sponsorship is on going until 2018 at minimum (8mill over 6yrs) is the split) and have soften the financial outlays with more community based funding.

The UC and ACT Government dealing are being kept very quiet but as far I am aware the UC alliance deal is not finalised and wont provide much more than a landlord type arrangement.

Sponsors have put the Brumbies on notice and insisted Jones changes got pushed through and we have already seen changes on the Board and potentially more to come.

Many key members including life members are not happy.

The CEO appointment will be critical and also give us a glimpse of the future. The uncertainty is translate in a increased amount of one years deals and a lot of contracts expire at the the end of 2017.

Critically it we be all about memberships and crowd numbers and I think this will be the biggest indicator. The memberships already include a free game payment to the Brumbies (same price as last years for one less game) but there have already been pre-sale issues.

If they can draw the crowds it will be a major issue and a really dire sign come the end of the season.

The "öther" elephant in the room is the UC Vikings. Its a divisive issue and will needs to be resolved. Jones touted a rebranded NRC team, but the Vikings group were critical in keeping it going financially this year. The Brumbies don't have any money.

Private investment is unlikely as with the Super Rugby format unstable and significant governance and financial issues (its value is quite low; no capital assets and is mainly in its IP) and a small captive market like Canberra, the only type of investor would be the likes of a Mourad Boudjellal (Toulon) or Mohed Altrad (Montpellier) or if we are lucky a Frank Lowey.

All are unlikely so its all about the CEO clearing house (publicly), upping sponsorship's and working out income streams and a half decent on field performance that captures hearts and minds.

The other realisation that need to happen is that the ACT clubs need to understand that the Brumbies supporters help pay the bills for ACT rugby, and a lot of supporters have nothing to do with club rugby.

Brumbies supporters go, Brumbies sponsors will go and ACT rugby will have no funding nor sympathy.

The sponsorship deal, if in cash is about $1.4 million per year.

I'm not sure what it costs for a Super team to operate or salary cap etc..

Somebody is going to have to stump the Brumbies to the tune of several million per year for them to remain in the competition, The ARU is not in a position to do it with the support of the Force abd Rebels (I think - they are committed )

Will the Vikings ? Sounds like too much water under the bridge there.

Your Nordic neighbours are cashed up. Could we see a "hostile takeover" ? Could the Vikings be the new Brumbies ?

 

[Mr Doug]

I am sure many of you Brumbies fans will be interested to know that I have just sent "Cousin Sammy", (Sam Carter) a congratulatory text message to wish him luck as he flies out tomorrow with The Barbarians! He's not good enough to make Cheika's Wallabies squad, but good enough to play with an elite group of world Rugby players!! ......Go Sammy!!

 

[mst]

The sponsorship deal, if in cash is about $1.4 million per year.

I'm not sure what it costs for a Super team to operate or salary cap etc..

Somebody is going to have to stump the Brumbies to the tune of several million per year for them to remain in the competition, The ARU is not in a position to do it with the support of the Force abd Rebels (I think - they are committed )

Will the Vikings ? Sounds like too much water under the bridge there.

Your Nordic neighbours are cashed up. Could we see a "hostile takeover" ? Could the Vikings be the new Brumbies ?

Salary cap is about $4.5 million plus a $500,000 allowance for third-party payments.I don't think EPS or development is in that cost nor if you call in EPS for injury cover which after 4 games (IIRC) get additional payments.

So add in coaches back-end staff etc so another $1mil then operating costs you have to be looking at $8mil+ plus a season.

Of interest in the recent media report have shifted to naming 2 teams that may go. The Rebel are no longer on the chopping block and I bet it was because their current owner (I have seen reports of recent meetings) would have wanted a guarantee from the ARU or most likely would have pulled out immediately and the ARU would have 3 clubs to fund.

Vikings (who are on the inside with the Brumbies board) is an interesting conundrum all round and is possible (as tax right off) but unlikely. The Vikings group are looking at ways to consolidate as revenue is down and income steams are changing. They tried unsuccessfully to offload their golf course (community opposition) for development and have floated an option of selling Viking park for development (units etc) and establish a new "Vikings park MkII" out the back of Tuggeranong. The idea is to sure up finances.

So they have money but its limited so Brumbies investment may not get to go ahead. It wouldn't be hostile either so that's another issue (we have had enough mates rates nepotism BS!). It could also be at the expense of other community sporting groups support so it could lead to political issues as well for the Vikings Group. If they did make a move the already divided ACT rugby landscape (you are either with Vikings or against it) its could further upset the ACT club rugby who may see it as another Vikings power play .

The preferred option would be someone like Aquis but IMHO the key issue is about the details. (I would love to see the Rebels deal details as i think i know where the several Million a year the ARU kick in go).

What is it you buying? When Super Rugby clubs were established they ended up being the "state union managers" and admin centres. So the ARU now have a problem as the business models are no good.

Even with Millions to burn, why would I want to buy the Brumbies? So aside from the financial issue (no assets etc), its not just about the Brumbies as what I make out of it is supposed be hand over to ACT Rugby. What - hand over any ROI or profits? This on top of performing the Admin etc. Now the board, why would I want to deal with a board made up of people outside of my investment.

You can see where this is going and its IMHO the dirty secret and real issue that Pulver and the ARU don't know what to do about.

Companies like Aquis could and may buy in to the Brumbies if the business model was different. EG: Buy the Brumbies a home with HP centre say somewhere like near Weston and add a small club, accommodation, and lever off the Cycling, MTB, and equestrian centre and tie up with the A-League and AIS. It adds up to sports tourism, (those that play the sports and those that play in the Aquis house) that can be marketed via the Brumbies. But not under the current ARU model.

 

[TOCC]

There's nothing stopping the Brumbies board from separating the Brumbies & ACT Rugby allowing private ownership/investment in the Super Rugby club whilst still keeping the grassroots part of the game separate. Waratahs have positioned themselves that way and that's how the Rebels/Vic Rugby operate.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

There's nothing stopping the Brumbies board from separating the Brumbies & ACT Rugby allowing private ownership/investment in the Super Rugby club whilst still keeping the grassroots part of the game separate. Waratahs have positioned themselves that way and that's how the Rebels/Vic Rugby operate.

That'd be a very difficult split for the Brumbies, the overlap of roles between Community Rugby and Super Rugby operations is huge.

 

[amirite]

and that's how the Rebels/Vic Rugby operate.

Whilst this has its advantages, I can tell you that when two codependent organisations become separate and their goals don't align anymore there's issues.

Lets say there's some excellent coach you want to coach your Super 20s and you also want to give him a 'community development role', so he's a full timer. When those two organisations are separate, suddenly you can't do that.

That's not to mention admin double ups.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Salary cap is about $4.5 million plus a $500,000 allowance for third-party payments.I don't think EPS or development is in that cost nor if you call in EPS for injury cover which after 4 games (IIRC) get additional payments.

So add in coaches back-end staff etc so another $1mil then operating costs you have to be looking at $8mil+ plus a season.

The Tahs spent $14.7m on professional rugby expenses in their premiership season. There was also $3m in corporate expenses and another $1.5m in licenscing fees back to the NSWRU, for a total of $19.2m

The Reds run the pros and the QRU together and have expenses of close to $25m

That gives you some idea of the cost to run a super rugby campaign.

The ARU basically funds the salary cap - the rest is up to the teams to find - which does seem to be a big problem for them at the moment

 

[Scrubber2050]

Salary cap is about $4.5 million plus a $500,000 allowance for third-party payments.I don't think EPS or development is in that cost nor if you call in EPS for injury cover which after 4 games (IIRC) get additional payments.

So add in coaches back-end staff etc so another $1mil then operating costs you have to be looking at $8mil+ plus a season.

Of interest in the recent media report have shifted to naming 2 teams that may go. The Rebel are no longer on the chopping block and I bet it was because their current owner (I have seen reports of recent meetings) would have wanted a guarantee from the ARU or most likely would have pulled out immediately and the ARU would have 3 clubs to fund.

Vikings (who are on the inside with the Brumbies board) is an interesting conundrum all round and is possible (as tax right off) but unlikely. The Vikings group are looking at ways to consolidate as revenue is down and income steams are changing. They tried unsuccessfully to offload their golf course (community opposition) for development and have floated an option of selling Viking park for development (units etc) and establish a new "Vikings park MkII" out the back of Tuggeranong. The idea is to sure up finances.

So they have money but its limited so Brumbies investment may not get to go ahead. It wouldn't be hostile either so that's another issue (we have had enough mates rates nepotism BS!). It could also be at the expense of other community sporting groups support so it could lead to political issues as well for the Vikings Group. If they did make a move the already divided ACT rugby landscape (you are either with Vikings or against it) its could further upset the ACT club rugby who may see it as another Vikings power play .

The preferred option would be someone like Aquis but IMHO the key issue is about the details. (I would love to see the Rebels deal details as i think i know where the several Million a year the ARU kick in go).

What is it you buying? When Super Rugby clubs were established they ended up being the "state union managers" and admin centres. So the ARU now have a problem as the business models are no good.

Even with Millions to burn, why would I want to buy the Brumbies? So aside from the financial issue (no assets etc), its not just about the Brumbies as what I make out of it is supposed be hand over to ACT Rugby. What - hand over any ROI or profits? This on top of performing the Admin etc. Now the board, why would I want to deal with a board made up of people outside of my investment.

You can see where this is going and its IMHO the dirty secret and real issue that Pulver and the ARU don't know what to do about.

Companies like Aquis could and may buy in to the Brumbies if the business model was different. EG: Buy the Brumbies a home with HP centre say somewhere like near Weston and add a small club, accommodation, and lever off the Cycling, MTB, and equestrian centre and tie up with the A-League and AIS. It adds up to sports tourism, (those that play the sports and those that play in the Aquis house) that can be marketed via the Brumbies. But not under the current ARU model.

Thanks for the detailed insight.

From other posters it appears that it costs a squillion to run a super franchise. If the Brums cannot edge their way out of real financial hardship with private ownership (of some capacity) and the ARU cannot stump them to the tune of many millions per year a very unsavory result is possible.

Someone needs to fix the situation very very quickly

 

[mst]

Sorry, my figures were a barebones “guesstimate” of running a Super Rugby team, not including all the peripherals. Monkeyboy’s comments re; splitting the Brumbies and ACTRU are spot on (I suspect it is similar in WA). Amirite highlights other key issuers including if you do split them. Cost duplication and alignment being massive issues especially for the ARU. It also lead to other question like who runs the NRC team noting they had Super Rugby players in them but are licenced separately. Also who props up the grassroots and develops pathways? (I believe this is where we are lacking a domestic completion (level) where this should all be sitting).

It interesting to consider the Tahs and Red’s figures. The Red’ figures are from a down year and over QLD rugby where the Tahs are on the upswing and based off a different model where the Super Rugby licence is effectively subleased to the Tahs. If you further look at the Tahs deal you may find its heavily influenced by the NSWRU and less of an out and out business. Cutting the Tahs away to private management (cut out NSWRU and all ties) would be interesting to watch!

It would be interesting to get a number cruncher to compare the models and structures of the Super Rugby clubs O/S to ours in Australia.

Extending on my investment comments you can see the tie in this morning with Alibaba being reported as throwing $100mil at rugby in China and opportunities it could present Aquis for those interested in rugby as a spectator, investor etc, and utilising the Brumbies to market hospitality, games (and associated entertainment) HP facilities and development opportunities (Players, coaches, supports staff etc) etc etc. The latter could provide Aussie rugby, or the Brumbies with a new income stream .

If you consider Monkeyboys comments you start to realise that the recent Brumbies saga actually involved the ACTRU just as much and their actions have effectively painted themselves in to corner and highlighted the ARU how dangerous their current business models are. I sometimes wonders if Pulver regrets which side he backed as he had the chance to smash the model, clear the decks and reinvent how Super Rugby clubs operate at no cost to the ARU.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Sorry, my figures were a barebones “guesstimate” of running a Super Rugby team, not including all the peripherals. Monkeyboy’s comments re; splitting the Brumbies and ACTRU are spot on (I suspect it is similar in WA). Amirite highlights other key issuers including if you do split them. Cost duplication and alignment being massive issues especially for the ARU. It also lead to other question like who runs the NRC team noting they had Super Rugby players in them but are licenced separately. Also who props up the grassroots and develops pathways? (I believe this is where we are lacking a domestic completion (level) where this should all be sitting).

It interesting to consider the Tahs and Red’s figures. The Red’ figures are from a down year and over QLD rugby where the Tahs are on the upswing and based off a different model where the Super Rugby licence is effectively subleased to the Tahs. If you further look at the Tahs deal you may find its heavily influenced by the NSWRU and less of an out and out business. Cutting the Tahs away to private management (cut out NSWRU and all ties) would be interesting to watch!

It would be interesting to get a number cruncher to compare the models and structures of the Super Rugby clubs O/S to ours in Australia.

Extending on my investment comments you can see the tie in this morning with Alibaba being reported as throwing $100mil at rugby in China and opportunities it could present Aquis for those interested in rugby as a spectator, investor etc, and utilising the Brumbies to market hospitality, games (and associated entertainment) HP facilities and development opportunities (Players, coaches, supports staff etc) etc etc. The latter could provide Aussie rugby, or the Brumbies with a new income stream .

If you consider Monkeyboys comments you start to realise that the recent Brumbies saga actually involved the ACTRU just as much and their actions have effectively painted themselves in to corner and highlighted the ARU how dangerous their current business models are. I sometimes wonders if Pulver regrets which side he backed as he had the chance to smash the model, clear the decks and reinvent how Super Rugby clubs operate at no cost to the ARU.

MST
Thanks again.

Mate leave our Chinese brethren alone - we have more in Queensland and they are great Queenslanders

Thanks again

Scrubber Chen

 

[Strewthcobber]

Any ideas why the Brumbies/ACTRU don't publish their annual report and financial statements?