Melbourne Rebels will kick off pre-season preparations with a clash against Jake White’s Japanese powerhouse club Toyota as new coach Dave Wessels puts his stamp on the Super Rugby strugglers.
The Rebels are wiping the slate clean after surviving the off-season cull and bringing in Wessels from the Western Force, who were axed from the down-sized competition.
They are still in talks to bring former Force players Adam Coleman, Billy Meakes and Matt Philip to Melbourne.
With Wessels taking charge full-time this week, the Melbourne players – apart from their Wallabies – will head to Japan for the match on November 12 which is part of a larger plan to make inroads into the Asian market.
A mentor for Wessels, fellow South African White coached the Springboks to the 2007 World Cup title while he also had a two-year stint at the Brumbies.
One of the key men driving the change at the Rebels is Harvard-educated Melbourne businessman Paul Docherty, who co-founded a revolutionary 3D medical printing company.
“It’s an opportunity to expand our commercial horizons in Asia, which is something we’re looking at,” said deputy chairman Docherty.
“We hope to be building a state centre of excellence that will be a real attraction for the Asian region and for players and clubs to be affiliated with our club so we’re dipping our toe in the water.”
Docherty said that with the Victorian Rugby Union taking over ownership and Wessels replacing Tony McGahan, it represented a fresh start.
They wanted to change the perception that they could only survive on Rugby Australia hand-outs and deserved their place in the competition.
They also hope to take advantage of the Victorian government’s deal announced last week to bring six Wallabies Test matches over eight years to Melbourne, starting with a match against Ireland in 2018.
“I’m sensing there’s this feeling that things are changing and as is always the case when your national team’s performing, everyone starts to lift their shoulders a little bit,” Docherty said.
“We’re in a very fortunate position and the Rebels need to take responsibility that we’re contributing in a material way to the rest of Australian rugby.”
Docherty said there was “nothing like winning” and acknowledged that after only one victory last season, there was plenty of upside.
“We’re coming off a pretty low base and there’s a whole load of reasons for that but I’m very confident we’ll have a much more successful season than we had last year.”
sittingbison
Guest
"you can claim just about anything" Something you paid shills do on a daily basis
John R
Roar Guru
We aren't mates. oh... oh no. I'm quitting this website. The biggest try hard on the internet just shut me down http://aussiememes.com.au/media/created/jv622y.jpg
Train Without A Station
Guest
What have I claimed to have occurred that I can't prove?
Bakkies
Guest
TWAS that is rich considering you have nothing to back up your pro Rebels and ARU agenda which they have tried to protect by using lies in confidence.
Train Without A Station
Guest
And they all receive more than the revenue they generate... All 5 are overfunded...
Train Without A Station
Guest
You say that. What you mean is you are unwilling to support your claims.
Bakkies
Guest
'No Super Rugby side has been underfunded. They are all funded more than the TV revenue they generate as it is.' Are you for real? It's on record that the Brumbies and Force received less than other sides and the Rebels obviously the most. Brumbies and Force were put on the chopping due to ARU and Rebels mismanagement.
Train Without A Station
Guest
Why should I research anything? I'm not making claims. The burden of proof is on those people making claims. I say the evidence doesn't exist. I cannot prove that with evidence, because if I'm right, there is no evidence. He is saying it does exist. If so all he has to do is copy and paste some text. A lot of avoiding by somebody who is so adamant it exists...
Train Without A Station
Guest
Why do I have to do research? I'm not claiming something as fact. If you cannot provide evidence to support a claim, it's just that, a claim. Why should I do research to try and prove your point? Actually I did it. It says I'm right. See how that works? Without supporting it, you can just claim anything...
sittingbison
Guest
Go and do your own research, maybe read up on what's being revealed at the senate enquiry. But you won't will you, paid ARU shill
sittingbison
Guest
Go and do your own research, maybe read up on what's being revealed at the senate enquiry. But you won't will you, paid ARU shill
Bakkies
Guest
No need to be like that TWAS, I know it is that time where you are waiting to receive the employee of the month. Said it so many times that I am not here to be your Harvard reference system and I am going by what's out there. It is ok to admit that you are tied to lies in confidence or you can't remember.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
But that is practices by Cox and co we are talking about. If Cox has siphoned of funds and left the Rebels coughing from payment to payment, that's horrible. But ultimately unless whichever financial and legal firms did the due diligence uncovered past examples of this and the ARU ignored it and sold it to him anyway they can hardly be blamed for making a bad decision with what they knew at the time. It's easy for old axe grinder to sit here in 2017 and say what was best in 2014 with all the knowledge of now. As for the Winney sale, as I pointed out, Winney wasn't perfect from his record. And then there's the fact there is no mention of him assuming debt, or sale conditions (If Winney chose to sell). Why didn't Winney include that information that would help accurately compare the options?
piru
Roar Rookie
Of course but when they are acknowledging some payments from the ARU and then noting others as 'special parties' - you have to ask why. Then add in the "we're not disclosing this because people will think we're useless" and the $6mill consultancy fees (although we may have cleared that up - was it for the new logo?) And yes, why was Winney rejected only for a much worse deal to be taken? It just doesn't add up
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
No it's not. As I pointed out about example of factors that's not considered. No Super Rugby side has been underfunded. They are all funded more than the TV revenue they generate as it is.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
No. You have no argument. You just have "I says!". If it's so easy to find then quote it. Quite simply, put up, or shut up.
Bakkies
Guest
I don't need to strengthen my argument and I am not your mate. The information is all there or be put out in testimony. It's not my fault you can't find it. It is not rocket science to know where NZ and Aust. company records are kept.
Bakkies
Guest
'They need to if the person who prepared the submission wants it to be taken seriously as an analysis, not a one sided kicking contest.' It is a one sided kicking contest because you mates so far haven't been credible, Pulver and Leahy had to go in camera so we don't know what was said (what we do know is that Leahy was in there for about 45 mins), 30 million has been chewed up by one team, where the money went and they are wanting to know why other sides were underfunded.
Bakkies
Guest
'Rugby loves talking of foreign markets and so called pots of gold, but wouldn’t they be slightly better off conquering Melbourne first.' Reminds me of Saracens Global Network. While swimming in enormous debt and moving to a 10,000 seat facility in Barnet in north London they went out and started this Global Network. Concentrate on your own fan base and financial issues first.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
The biggest question Piru is why didn't they sell to the Winney consortium? Were they holding out for a better offer but then needed to just offload it when one wasn't sourced? They didn't sell until the next year after all. Were they concerned about the Winney consortium? In hindsight it's easy to say that Cox did wrong. Unless there was evidence of this in his business elsewhere at the time it's hard to know. But the Winney consortium weren't the perfect bid. Winney was heavily involved in the original private ownership of the Rebels that handed them back to the VRU weighed down with debt. What were the conditions of the Winney consortium bid? Cox couldn't sell the Rebels to anybody but the ARU unless it was debt free. Unless you can say the Winney consortium agreed to the same conditions, you can't say selling to them wasn't a huge risk. Imagine if they handed the Rebels back to the VRU again with more debt than before? All of these submissions tell one side of the story, from the point of view of a scorned party. Whilst some other axe grinders may not be intelligent enough, I know you are intelligent enough to acknowledge what parts of the story aren't shown, and be aware that there may be a reason why they are omitted.