stoff
Phil Hardcastle (33)
that would be Rex Hunt the fish kissing Aussie rules footballer/commentator. Reg Hunt was the race car driver/car dealer. Yibbida yibbida.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Brumbies 2017
- Thread starter RoffsChoice
- Start date
- Status
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Drove a Maserati as I recall. Saw him in many dices with Lex Davidson in a Ferrari going round Mt Panorama.
Just an aside.
Just an aside.
It was a reference to Reg putting a hook out with some rancid bait for a Brumbies fan to bite onto.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Understand that BH, but surely that was Rex Hunt, not Reg, unless of course RR's surname is also Hunt. In that case, I will pull my head in. But otherwise, I wasn't going to take a bait but just change the subject to something completely unrelated.
Yes, of course it was Rex Hunt. My post was a joke about him "going fishing" for gullible Brumbies fans by posting George Smith in a Reds jersey and Reg is one letter away from Rex.
The joke is getting progressively worse the more I have to explain it...
GoMelbRebels
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Sic 'em Reg!
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
So, those who want a bit of interesting reading see link below.
Key points:
$864,093 loss!
- administration expenses, which jumped by almost $700,000, and employee benefits expenses, which increased by almost $1 million.
The figures indicate that Jones was on track to record a profit for the Brumbies. A conservative estimate based on the available figures suggests Jones may have achieved upwards of a $500,000 profit. That would have been the first profit since 2003!
The Brumbies have just $1.5 million left in cash reserves from the $11.375 million sale of the club's Griffith headquarters.
Merchandise sales almost jumped almost $100,000 - yep that much hated Blue jersey!
And the incestuous nepotism continues! So the $864,093 loss follows back to back deficits of more than $1 million in each of the 2014 and 2015 seasons. The Brumbies reported a record loss of $1.68 million in 2015. But its Ok as the bloke who was on (I believe chairman) the Brumbies' finance and audit committee for the Griffith sale and also for the losses mentioned above was re-elected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kennedy conceded another loss this year (2018) would leave the Brumbies in a precarious financial position.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to worry with the figures released so far (within the last few weeks) indicate memberships are down 33% on last year.
IMHO the reporting in the last 48hrs about the shifting dates of the process to replace Larkham is more about the inability to pay him out and to avoid duplication of wages. So I doubt we will see a new coach anytime soon.
The one nagging question that I have is that when Pulver had the choice to choose who to back, its interesting he did not choose the man who was about to make a profit, rather he decided to back the politician and board member in the middle of all of the financial matters.
Sad times.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...new-board-members-at-agm-20170208-gu825f.html
Key points:
$864,093 loss!
- administration expenses, which jumped by almost $700,000, and employee benefits expenses, which increased by almost $1 million.The figures indicate that Jones was on track to record a profit for the Brumbies. A conservative estimate based on the available figures suggests Jones may have achieved upwards of a $500,000 profit. That would have been the first profit since 2003!
The Brumbies have just $1.5 million left in cash reserves from the $11.375 million sale of the club's Griffith headquarters.
Merchandise sales almost jumped almost $100,000 - yep that much hated Blue jersey!
And the incestuous nepotism continues! So the $864,093 loss follows back to back deficits of more than $1 million in each of the 2014 and 2015 seasons. The Brumbies reported a record loss of $1.68 million in 2015. But its Ok as the bloke who was on (I believe chairman) the Brumbies' finance and audit committee for the Griffith sale and also for the losses mentioned above was re-elected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kennedy conceded another loss this year (2018) would leave the Brumbies in a precarious financial position.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to worry with the figures released so far (within the last few weeks) indicate memberships are down 33% on last year.
IMHO the reporting in the last 48hrs about the shifting dates of the process to replace Larkham is more about the inability to pay him out and to avoid duplication of wages. So I doubt we will see a new coach anytime soon.
The one nagging question that I have is that when Pulver had the choice to choose who to back, its interesting he did not choose the man who was about to make a profit, rather he decided to back the politician and board member in the middle of all of the financial matters.
Sad times.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...new-board-members-at-agm-20170208-gu825f.html
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
Good opportunity for Hamlin. Not bad cover.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...r-tomas-cubellis-absence-20170207-gu7h9b.html
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...r-tomas-cubellis-absence-20170207-gu7h9b.html
Brumby Jack
Steve Williams (59)
Who was the politician?
T
TOCC
Guest
So, those who want a bit of interesting reading see link below.
Key points:
$864,093 loss!
The figures indicate that Jones was on track to record a profit for the Brumbies. A conservative estimate based on the available figures suggests Jones may have achieved upwards of a $500,000 profit. That would have been the first profit since 2003!
The Brumbies have just $1.5 million left in cash reserves from the $11.375 million sale of the club's Griffith headquarters.
Merchandise sales almost jumped almost $100,000 - yep that much hated Blue jersey!
And the incestuous nepotism continues! So the $864,093 loss follows back to back deficits of more than $1 million in each of the 2014 and 2015 seasons. The Brumbies reported a record loss of $1.68 million in 2015. But its Ok as the bloke who was on (I believe chairman) the Brumbies' finance and audit committee for the Griffith sale and also for the losses mentioned above was re-elected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kennedy conceded another loss this year (2018) would leave the Brumbies in a precarious financial position.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to worry with the figures released so far (within the last few weeks) indicate memberships are down 33% on last year.
IMHO the reporting in the last 48hrs about the shifting dates of the process to replace Larkham is more about the inability to pay him out and to avoid duplication of wages. So I doubt we will see a new coach anytime soon.
The one nagging question that I have is that when Pulver had the choice to choose who to back, its interesting he did not choose the man who was about to make a profit, rather he decided to back the politician and board member in the middle of all of the financial matters.
Sad times.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...new-board-members-at-agm-20170208-gu825f.html
A key figure you left out is that the grant from the ARU increased by $2.6million for 2016. That's $2.6million more then they had in 2014 and 2015.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Hey TOCC what's the point? Would it have been not fiscally responsible to have relied on the increased ARU grant to have budgeted for a surplus?
T
TOCC
Guest
I assumed an additional $2.6million grant would be relevant to a discussion about budgets and financial health
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
Only one has met with Pulver and coincidentally is linked to the Griffith sale.
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
Ah TOCC. Gold Star my friend! Very good point but we will have to wait and see the figures if they are ever made public.
By the time the TV deal was settled (late Dec 2015) and the ARU worked out how much extra the clubs would receive, a budget most likely would have been in place without accounting for the $2.6mil as it would have been indicative at best. That budget for 2016 was expected to yield a small profit and Pulver confirmed that. So you may be correct that the $2.6 was a bonus and in addition to the budget which then opens up more questions about the reported loss.
IMHO I think the $2.6 was used as bonus cash to fund “things” as I am suspicious after a $800K loss the cash reserves seem to be about the same as the previous year.
By the time the TV deal was settled (late Dec 2015) and the ARU worked out how much extra the clubs would receive, a budget most likely would have been in place without accounting for the $2.6mil as it would have been indicative at best. That budget for 2016 was expected to yield a small profit and Pulver confirmed that. So you may be correct that the $2.6 was a bonus and in addition to the budget which then opens up more questions about the reported loss.
IMHO I think the $2.6 was used as bonus cash to fund “things” as I am suspicious after a $800K loss the cash reserves seem to be about the same as the previous year.
T
TOCC
Guest
dru
Tim Horan (67)
In these times of consistent talk of reducing Aus teams I really hope that the Brumbies sort out their shit. Surely, surely they just must do better - and for crying out loud, I'm not really talking about rugby here.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
I think it would require a massive clusterfuck by the Brumbies both on and off the field this year to be even considered for the axe............
On the field they set to be headed for a fairly average season, but should still hopefully finish above the Force and Rebels (who still can't attract a jersey sponsor) at least......... we just pray that the search for a new head coach goes beyond Belconnen..........
Off the field things are looking up with new management, a big overseas sponsorship deal and talk of pushing into the Asian market...........
The Force are still most at risk, but I honestly don't believe we'll see any of the Australian teams cut - we need all 5, but we just need them to do better.
On the field they set to be headed for a fairly average season, but should still hopefully finish above the Force and Rebels (who still can't attract a jersey sponsor) at least......... we just pray that the search for a new head coach goes beyond Belconnen..........
Off the field things are looking up with new management, a big overseas sponsorship deal and talk of pushing into the Asian market...........
The Force are still most at risk, but I honestly don't believe we'll see any of the Australian teams cut - we need all 5, but we just need them to do better.
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
I really hope you are right Slim. As I said above, the sponsorship deal is 1 year (as far as I am aware) so 2018 will be critical as $1.5mil cash wont go far.
I wonder if the NRC team will now be looked at as a necessary cost saving?
IMHO purely from a business prospective the Brumbies are now the team to be cut if there was one to be cut.
With a small market, diminishing support, no assets, no large sponsor deals beyond 2018, little debt and a track record of continuing losses which indicates they are unsustainable in their current market its a clean easy cut and allows for relocation of the licence with minimal impact. The Western Sydney relocation idea would be hard to argue against as history, sentiment and emotion dont pay the bills.
The Force have a multi-year big dollar sponsor, larger market, assets and a market that would benefit from further investment. They also have a key strategic geographical location for both time zone (TV) and travel convince.
I wonder if the NRC team will now be looked at as a necessary cost saving?
IMHO purely from a business prospective the Brumbies are now the team to be cut if there was one to be cut.
With a small market, diminishing support, no assets, no large sponsor deals beyond 2018, little debt and a track record of continuing losses which indicates they are unsustainable in their current market its a clean easy cut and allows for relocation of the licence with minimal impact. The Western Sydney relocation idea would be hard to argue against as history, sentiment and emotion dont pay the bills.
The Force have a multi-year big dollar sponsor, larger market, assets and a market that would benefit from further investment. They also have a key strategic geographical location for both time zone (TV) and travel convince.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
I reckon the ARU could find the cash to prop up the Brumbies for a year or two,until they get their mojo back.
Sacking them & starting a western Sydney franchise will undoubtedly require more funds,even in the best case scenario.
Worst case could literally send the ARU broke.
Pulver seems to be risk adverse, so that's good for the Brumbies.
Sacking them & starting a western Sydney franchise will undoubtedly require more funds,even in the best case scenario.
Worst case could literally send the ARU broke.
Pulver seems to be risk adverse, so that's good for the Brumbies.
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
I agree with the ARU being risk adverse. The problem is as Dru nailed in his comments above, in a small market the Brumbies have to be doing better and more efficient than the rest - and they simply haven't been able to with the current management.
They are safe for the immediate future as the ARU need them to maintain the current TV deal.
I sometimes wonder if floating the playing of games in Western Sydney is what got Jones knifed.
With only 5000-6000 members atm its a small market to cut away from.
IMHO it will be hard for the ARU to resit relocation if a private investor made an offer contingent on relocation to a bigger market. The risk then is moved from the ARU in part and the gamble would be worth taking.
They are safe for the immediate future as the ARU need them to maintain the current TV deal.
I sometimes wonder if floating the playing of games in Western Sydney is what got Jones knifed.
With only 5000-6000 members atm its a small market to cut away from.
IMHO it will be hard for the ARU to resit relocation if a private investor made an offer contingent on relocation to a bigger market. The risk then is moved from the ARU in part and the gamble would be worth taking.
- Status