Brumbies take taxpayers for an extra $720,000

monomania said :

vg said :

My opinion is quite objective.

Lets say, since 1996, the Brumbies has played on average 6 home games a year, with an average crowd of 15,000. That’s 1.26 million bums on seats at Bruce. The grant works out to be 59c a person. Yes, the Brumbies are a business, but a lot of other local businesses rely on what they derive from the Brumbies.

15000 x 6 = 90 000 If you have trouble doing simple arithmetic use a calculator.

Shit, you’ve buckled my argument through your sheer brain power. Mind you your correction has well and truly set the argument alight hasn’t it?

But then again you were wrong, feel free to apologise

Re the above post – I did not say the above quote (in italics), only the line underneath. Someone else said the quote in italics. JB, could you please disable this annoying new attribution feature it is getting quite annoying.

Steady Eddie said :

Is Andrew Barr now Minister for the Brumbies as well?

Gee, that’s one way to get into the dressing rooms!

Disregard this last comment. Your arithmetic is fine its your argument that is faulty. You add up all the bums but not all the money the ACT Government has spent over this time for a fan base of maybe 30 000. An other way of putting it might be $1.5 million divided by six games is $250 000 per game.

vg said :

My opinion is quite objective.

Lets say, since 1996, the Brumbies has played on average 6 home games a year, with an average crowd of 15,000. That’s 1.26 million bums on seats at Bruce. The grant works out to be 59c a person. Yes, the Brumbies are a business, but a lot of other local businesses rely on what they derive from the Brumbies.

15000 x 6 = 90 000 If you have trouble doing simple arithmetic use a calculator.

This is exactly why when I get the all too frequent phone calls at work from local charities asking for money for the “Belconnen drug problem”, the “Canberra hospital humidicrib”, the Circus Quirkus, or whatever other project is going around, I decline and give them the phone number for John. He’s got plenty of money…and I know exactly where he got it from.

If the government can use our money to pay for a football team, bronze statues and other roadside structures, they can certainly afford a few buck for some real needs.

#49 p1, how do you get italics in your post?

I think it depends on which adults you’re watching play. I watched Liverpool beat Arsenal in the FA Cup final a few years ago at Millennium Stadium in Cardiff and that was well worth the price of admission.

I enjoy watching the Brumbies as much as the next person but seriously there are over 18,000 register soccer players in Canberra encompassing both sexes, most of whom are juniors. Somehow I don’t think rugby is even in the same ballpark.

This is because playing soccer can be fun. And watching kids play soccer is fun. But the only thing worse then watching adults play soccer, is having to pay for it.

Why can’t the ACT Labor party sponser the Brumbies seeing that there up $20 Million?

I enjoy watching the Brumbies as much as the next person but seriously there are over 18,000 register soccer players in Canberra encompassing both sexes, most of whom are juniors. Somehow I don’t think rugby is even in the same ballpark.

If the ACT government wanted to help junior sport it’s pretty obvious where the money should go. I’m sure most of those junior soccer players aren’t attending private schools where mommy and daddy can easily pick up the fees for little Johnny’s sport.

johnboy said :

frontrow said :

I also find the accounting methods fundamentally dishonest. If the youth development angle was so important, it wouldn’t be the first thing to go when revenue starts to fall.

Pretty much my feelings on this one too.

+1

I don’t care much for sport, and footballers are all a bunch of wankers anyway (well, all except for the one whose turn it is), but what I noticed as I read the OP is that if it’s for the little tackers, my opinion starts to shift in their favour until I realise what they’re trying to do to me.

That comment from Fagan that it wouldn’t effect players’ salaries says it all: this is media spin, and we’re making our mismanagement look okay by doing it for the kids. Nevermind that we could have made that a higher priority, all the taxpayer money is for the kids!

Idiots.

frontrow said :

I love the Brumbies and I’m happy to keep paying my share of their upkeep through foxtel and entry tickets. I don’t support the government handout because I don’t want to pay, through taxes, for the Raiders or soccer or AFL or any of these other sports that bore me to tears.

I also find the accounting methods fundamentally dishonest. If the youth development angle was so important, it wouldn’t be the first thing to go when revenue starts to fall.

Pretty much my feelings on this one too.

I love the Brumbies and I’m happy to keep paying my share of their upkeep through foxtel and entry tickets. I don’t support the government handout because I don’t want to pay, through taxes, for the Raiders or soccer or AFL or any of these other sports that bore me to tears.

I also find the accounting methods fundamentally dishonest. If the youth development angle was so important, it wouldn’t be the first thing to go when revenue starts to fall.

Correct Johnboy on two counts: 1. Raiders happily call themselves Canberra, it’s time the Government either suggested same to Brumbies or pull the funding plug.

2. Every and I mean every other sport, able bodied and for Atheltes with a Disability shudders when they see this, ie. $720,000 less to go round. It’s time for a bit of accountability on this issue.

Mutley – according to Wikipedia, Raiders average home crowds over the past three years have been 11,489 (2006); 11,512 (2007); and 11,913 (2008). Significantly lower than the Brumbies, to be sure, but a fair bit higher than 7000.

Cheers nonetheless.

Justbands, you’re a great one for making massive generalisations about the Brumbies with zero evidence. So far on this page you’ve said that they get twice the attendances of the Raiders, that Union is much bigger than league/AFL outside Australia, and that the Brumbies are the most popular Super 14 team internationally. Got a “source” to back up any of this rubbish?

I can help here, but don’t have the time to google the exact numbers which I’m sure you’ll ask for.
Brumbies get significantly more spectators than the Raiders – prob not twice as much this season, but over the last couple of seasons the Raiders have been getting 7k if you count the ground staff twice.
Union IS much bigger than League and AFL internationally. We’re the only country that play AFL, so that’s an easy one. Also, rugby is played competitively in about a 100 different countries (check the qualification series for the Rugby World Cup), and League in about 5 or 6 – Australia, NZ (as poor cousin to rugby), UK (as poor cousin to soccer and rugby), France (again behind soccer and rugby), PNG (top sport there – the only certainty in PNG is that if you get mugged or killed the rascal will be wearing an NRL jersey) and maybe Fiji (behind 7s rugby and 15s rugby).

Wow – that was a poorly constructed sentence!

justbands said :

> We all know that TV rights are the future of sports revenues, and the fact is that Super Rugby draws very small TV audiences compared to league and AFL. This equals small sponsorship dollars.

Is that actually a fact? Source? Remember that outside of Australia, Rugby has a much bigger TV audience than either League or AFL.

It is a fact. Click here for the ASTRA pay viewing figures for the most recent week. See page 2 for the table of most viewed programmes. The Brumbies game did crack the top 50, but note the top 10 – full of AFL and NRL fixtures. (Note that the Raiders had a bye that week).

Something that might also be of interest is to compare TV ratings when the Brumbies and Raiders are playing at the same time. These are the figures for the week which included Saturday 11 April, when the Raiders played the Sharks and the Brumbies played the Stormers at the same time on Saturday night (5.30pm). Both games were broadcast on Foxtel, simultaneously. The Raiders-Sharks game was the third-most-watched show of the week. Brumbies-Stormers didn’t even make the top 50.

Justbands, you’re a great one for making massive generalisations about the Brumbies with zero evidence. So far on this page you’ve said that they get twice the attendances of the Raiders, that Union is much bigger than league/AFL outside Australia, and that the Brumbies are the most popular Super 14 team internationally. Got a “source” to back up any of this rubbish?

Ok – here is some simple maths. The Govt gave the Brumbies $720K to assist a one off uncontrollable event. The Brumbies average about $1m economic impact to the canberra community from each home game – remember they play NZ and South African teams (not just domestic teams of which there are only 3 of anyway). So even in one season with 7 home games that’s, hmmmm, $7 million to our local economy. Now the Brumbies have been playing since 1996 and even discounting the early days at Manuka with lower crowds and not taking into account home finals and bigger season matches- that’s over $98 million to our local economy. Makes the current $720K being whinged about pretty insignificant huh? Keep bashing the Brumbies and you ruin it for those of us who love our territory, our team and our sport. If you want a whinge – where’s my $900 from K.Rudd? Everybody else I know seemed to get one…..

I’d rather not disclose my source. But it’s bona fide and probably shouldn’t have been telling me things like viewing figures. However whilst we’re about it, from whence do you get the idea that the Brumbies are the most popular team in the S14 internationally?

> We aren’t talking about outside Australia. We’re talking about the Brumbies.

If we’re talking about TV rights as they relate to funding..then yes, we are talking about outside Australia. Rugby has a true international audience….& the most popular team in the Super 14 internationally is The Brumbies.

Your understanding does not equate to fact…that’s not to say it’s not true…but…sources?

justbands said :

> We all know that TV rights are the future of sports revenues, and the fact is that Super Rugby draws very small TV audiences compared to league and AFL. This equals small sponsorship dollars.

Is that actually a fact? Source? Remember that outside of Australia, Rugby has a much bigger TV audience than either League or AFL.

We aren’t talking about outside Australia. We’re talking about the Brumbies. My understanding is that Fox have reported bigger audiences for some of the Toyota Cup Under-20 League matches than S14 games. Whether those rugby matches were played between South African sides in the middle of the night our time I don’t know, but the fact remains that outside of its Patrician heartland, Union is struggling to attract John O’Neill’s beloved ‘hearts and minds’. The Brumbies are just a made for tv franchise (as are any of the NZ or SA teams who have subtly moved away from the traditional areas around which they were originally formed), and as such shouldn’t expect to be bailed out by communities they no longer fully represent. If the ARU think the Brumbies are struggling in Canberra, and the franchise would be better suited moving elsewhere, that’s what will happen.

> We all know that TV rights are the future of sports revenues, and the fact is that Super Rugby draws very small TV audiences compared to league and AFL. This equals small sponsorship dollars.

Is that actually a fact? Source? Remember that outside of Australia, Rugby has a much bigger TV audience than either League or AFL.

vg said :

Add revenue to the ACT derived from the Brumbies through other means over the 14 seasons, not to mention the international brand (and they are Canberra’s only internationally recognised sporting team), the tourism $ they have brought to the ACT etc etc etc.

This comment is particularly ironic given that the “brand” is no longer the ACT Brumbies – it is just the Brumbies, no connection with Canberra or the ACT at all.

In any case, I’m with Johnboy – the point of this thread is to discuss how the Brumbies are getting bailed out by the taxpayer, not to debate league vs union. IMO the Brumbies situation raises a much bigger question, namely how the already limited sponsorship dollars in Union will be further stretched by the expanded Super 15 comp. We all know that TV rights are the future of sports revenues, and the fact is that Super Rugby draws very small TV audiences compared to league and AFL. This equals small sponsorship dollars.

vg said :

Define poor. Saying they take money twice is also naive

The last time no Australian team made the S14 Finals the Wallabies won the Bledisloe 3-0. Robbie Deans would be over the moon that his squad has nothing more before test season.

I see no problem, other than less than objective opinions by sports haters

The definition of poor is simple – in a business where winning trophies equals success, failure to even progress to the knockout stages of the only competition they enter is poor performance. Even someone as worldly as you, VG, must understand that.

bugger. johnboy can you delete extra post.

“So what people seem to be suggesting is that $720,000 is not a wide investment in the Brumbies.

Very, very naive.”

Perhaps you could explain to us naive “sports haters” why it would be a wise investment…. and while you’re about it you could also explain why questioning the wisdom of the investment is so naive.

“So what people seem to be suggesting is that $720,000 is not a wide investment in the Brumbies.

Very, very naive.”

Perhaps you could explain to us naive “sports haters” why it would be a wise investment…. and while you’re about it you could also explain why questioning the wisdom of the investment is so niave.

My opinion is quite objective.

Lets say, since 1996, the Brumbies has played on average 6 home games a year, with an average crowd of 15,000. That’s 1.26 million bums on seats at Bruce. The grant works out to be 59c a person. Yes, the Brumbies are a business, but a lot of other local businesses rely on what they derive from the Brumbies.

Add revenue to the ACT derived from the Brumbies through other means over the 14 seasons, not to mention the international brand (and they are Canberra’s only internationally recognised sporting team), the tourism $ they have brought to the ACT etc etc etc.

I think the grant is quite reasonable, based on nothing more than objective economics.

People thinking the Brumbies have been ‘poor’ since the last title they won clearly wouldn’t know Rugby from a hole in the ground. You want to talk underperformers in Aussie rugby look to warmer climes.

If $750K fills a temporary hole then so be it. No doubt the govt had the option to say no. This one is a no brainer

So, are less than objective opinions by sports lovers ok?

Sounds like a monorail to me.

Define poor. Saying they take money twice is also naive

The last time no Australian team made the S14 Finals the Wallabies won the Bledisloe 3-0. Robbie Deans would be over the moon that his squad has nothing more before test season.

I see no problem, other than less than objective opinions by sports haters

I think the problem, VG, is that the Brumbies seem happy to take our money twice – through the gate and through the government. Which, when you consider how poor they’ve been since David Nucifora was sacked, seems a bit rich. Either they are a going concern, in which case yes, they should go to the bank for a loan like any other business would,or they aren’t.in which case the franchise should move elsewhere where conditions are more favourable.

So what people seem to be suggesting is that $720,000 is not a wide investment in the Brumbies.

Very, very naive.

But of course lets be subjective purely because it s a sporting team. I mean what have the Brumbies contributed since ’96?

#23 – my thoughts exactly when I heard this on the radio this morning. Why does the ACT Govt feel the need to be the Brumbies banker? Go to the bank and get a loan on commercial terms like every other business would need to.

This isn’t a huge amount of money, but it’s a total waste of (borrowed) funds. If the Brumbies are commercially viable but need a cash injection they should take out a loan like other businesses do. If they’re not viable with their current business model they should start looking to cut costs.

Mr Evil said :

So, if ISC has gone belly up – who’ll be making the Brumbies jerseys from now on?

Kooga- They’re doing the Wallabies gear and word is that they’ll do more of the Aussie teams.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25384984-5007190,00.html

What happens if Fox finally get bored of nobody watching S14 on the telly and refuse John O’Neill’s ludicrous S15 scheme?

Meanwhile funding cuts to all other smaller Canberra sporting groups are made or even abolished.

#3 and #5

Fair enough if the money is going to a good cause.

My take was that the club had a shortfall of money and the first thing they cut is junior development/ community programs and that the players payments won’t be cut. I didn’t realise that the money for each came from different sources.

Heaven forbid the ARU or Brumbies/players make some cuts so the juniors aren’t shafted.

Still, the mayor has the disease. What Hussein does, Kev747 does, as does the mayor.

The public purse seems to be personal aggrandisement.

Meanwhile, the council treasurer bleats about a lack of dosh from the Feds. Maybe some review of discretional expenditure would help.

So, if ISC has gone belly up – who’ll be making the Brumbies jerseys from now on?

motleychick said :

> I’m probably just being mean about the Brumbies cos I hate Union. :s

It’s called RUGBY!

& that’s ok…I hate league. Well…I guess it’s ok, for a watered down version of the real thing. 😉

Hahaha righto!! UNION (lol sorry had to do it) is for footy players who aren’t skilled enough to play League. :p

Hey, I agree. It actually takes a lot of skill to be able to climb through a window to join in a gangbang!

Not really the place to debate the comparative merits of the rival codes.

> Hahaha righto!! UNION (lol sorry had to do it) is for footy players who aren’t skilled enough to play League. :p

Skills in league? League is Rugby with the skills taken out…lineouts, scrums, rucks, mauls….all gone. Just run, pass (well, sometimes), tackle…that’s it. Boring. Anyway… 🙂

The Raiders are getting 12000 a game? I was thinking they were getting more like 6 or 7 thousand.

> I’m probably just being mean about the Brumbies cos I hate Union. :s

It’s called RUGBY!

& that’s ok…I hate league. Well…I guess it’s ok, for a watered down version of the real thing. 😉

Hahaha righto!! UNION (lol sorry had to do it) is for footy players who aren’t skilled enough to play League. :p

Yeah, 25,000 dounds a little high. The games I managed to get to this season were in the high teens.

> I’m probably just being mean about the Brumbies cos I hate Union. :s

It’s called RUGBY!

& that’s ok…I hate league. Well…I guess it’s ok, for a watered down version of the real thing. 😉

justbands said :

> The Brunbies are only beloved if they are winning. If they are losing everyone just starts following the Faiders.

The Brumbies haven’t won the comp for some years (or even been in the finals). They’re still getting average crowds that are twice that of The Raiders….mind you, the Raiders have been REALLY bad! 🙂

The Brumbies are averaging 25000 now?
That’s as likely as the Raiders making the finals this year.

I think Monday night was a perfect example of how much the Raiders suck. Haha. I’m probably just being mean about the Brumbies cos I hate Union. :s

Apologies for the spelling mistake in my first post.

> The Brunbies are only beloved if they are winning. If they are losing everyone just starts following the Faiders.

The Brumbies haven’t won the comp for some years (or even been in the finals). They’re still getting average crowds that are twice that of The Raiders….mind you, the Raiders have been REALLY bad! 🙂

If the Brumbies are so beloved (as I believe they are), how on earth has this situation arisen?

The Brunbies are only beloved if they are winning. If they are losing everyone just starts following the Faiders.

Is Andrew Barr now Minister for the Brumbies as well?

My reading of the OP is that the money would be used to cover shortfalls in community programmes. I’m guessing that’s rugby for school kids and junior development. Encouraging our youngsters to play sport, be active and perhaps most importantly – not playing league – sounds like a worthy investment of the Governmnts meagre resources.

> I’m upset that we’re already giving $1 million. I ask, how much of THAT is paying for players’ payments?

See my previous post. The answer is “none”.

> If our dear leaders cannot afford to pay for public sculptures why should we pay for a bunch of footballers with the public purse.

Player payments are covered directly by broadcasting money through the ARU. This shortfall would have meant less money to go around for the ACT Junior Rugby Union. So, we’re not “paying for a bunch of footballers” at all, we’re just ensuring the healthy survival of the junior comp here in Canberra.

Given those facts…it’s a pretty misleading headline there too johnboy, very “A Current Affair”.

Bread and circuses.

If the Brumbies are so beloved (as I believe they are), how on earth has this situation arisen?

I’m upset that we’re already giving $1 million. I ask, how much of THAT is paying for players’ payments?

If our dear leaders cannot afford to pay for public sculptures why should we pay for a bunch of footballers with the public purse.

“shortfall would not have affected player payments”

God forbid that the players may have to take a paycut like so many other Australians are at present.