Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Ask RiotACT

Sponsored by Ray White Tuggeranong - fresh, fun & professional approach to real estate

University of Canberra the rich kid on the block?

By martin75 - 19 July 2014 23

Is it just me or do others get the impression UC is the rich kid on the block?

For example this week was one of the few weeks they didn’t buy a Canberra sporting team but instead they opened a $16 million sports field. I’m sure next week we will read about their new UC Canberra Hospital.

Why how do they have so much money, especially when their competitors ANU and CIT are telling the world how poor they are?

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
23 Responses to
University of Canberra the rich kid on the block?
1
bd84 2:45 pm
19 Jul 14
#

It’s an illusion. Funded by one off grants and very large amount of loan debt. I don’t think the hospital will be owned by them.

Report this comment

2
alum2600 3:07 pm
19 Jul 14
#

I reckon UC would say they’re in pretty good financial shape, but the Brumbies and ACT government paid for most of the sports building and the ACT will pay for all of the hospital.

ANU gets a millions of dollars from the taxpayer that no other uni gets just for being the ANU and will probably cash in by doubling their fees, so I wouldn’t feel too sorry for them.

Report this comment

3
dungfungus 4:31 pm
19 Jul 14
#

Would I be wrong if I said UC are the first tertiary institution in Australia to sponsor a professional football team?
Funny how they can find the money for professional footballers (just like they do in the USA) yet they whinge about the coalition’s plan to derugulate Australian tertiary insitutions (just as they do in the USA).
Seems to me to be just a hint of hypocrisy here.
Also, when you look at the list of former ACT Labor/Green MLAs and their mates that have positions at CU one can understand why they get so much funding. It’s a bit like that evergreen maxim “the ALP is the political arm of the trade union movement”.

Report this comment

4
JimCharles 8:57 am
20 Jul 14
#

Where UC do seem to be doing well is in partnership building and promotions…the links with sporting teams is ambitious and raises the profile of Canberra.
As alum2600 says, the medical facility will be an ACT building and teaching facility (and their literature is careful not to describe the function as a full “hospital” along the lines of Calvary or Canberra), but UC can call it what they like because there are advertising and profile-raising benefits from the name used…..a good thing to include in your prospectus that you have a hospital on campus.

Report this comment

5
Antagonist 10:55 am
20 Jul 14
#

Yes, it is just you.

Australian Centre on China in the World – current project.
New ANU Chemical Sciences Building – current project.
Restoration of the Buggy Shed at Constable’s Cottage – believed completed.
A 3300 square metre extension to the Crawford School – completed 10/2012.
Jaeger 8 building for the Research School of Earth Sciences – completed 12/2011.
Lena Karmel Lodge (the massive $350m+ accommodation complex for 550+ students on Barry Dr) – completed 2012.

Looks to me like ANU has the money. Lots of it.

Report this comment

6
dungfungus 12:02 pm
20 Jul 14
#

JimCharles said :

Where UC do seem to be doing well is in partnership building and promotions…the links with sporting teams is ambitious and raises the profile of Canberra.
As alum2600 says, the medical facility will be an ACT building and teaching facility (and their literature is careful not to describe the function as a full “hospital” along the lines of Calvary or Canberra), but UC can call it what they like because there are advertising and profile-raising benefits from the name used…..a good thing to include in your prospectus that you have a hospital on campus.

The term “profile-raising” is something that would not be out of place with “visionary” and the other buzz words that our Labor minority government use.
Whom are the target group that will respond to “profile-raising” and what benefits will flow from it?.

Report this comment

7
dungfungus 1:35 pm
20 Jul 14
#

Antagonist said :

Yes, it is just you.

Australian Centre on China in the World – current project.
New ANU Chemical Sciences Building – current project.
Restoration of the Buggy Shed at Constable’s Cottage – believed completed.
A 3300 square metre extension to the Crawford School – completed 10/2012.
Jaeger 8 building for the Research School of Earth Sciences – completed 12/2011.
Lena Karmel Lodge (the massive $350m+ accommodation complex for 550+ students on Barry Dr) – completed 2012.

Looks to me like ANU has the money. Lots of it.

I heard somewhere that the ANU is the biggest residential property owner (after Directorate of Housing) in Canberra.
Do they pay rates on all this real estate? I doubt it.

Report this comment

8
Antagonist 5:37 pm
20 Jul 14
#

dungfungus said :

I heard somewhere that the ANU is the biggest residential property owner (after Directorate of Housing) in Canberra.
Do they pay rates on all this real estate? I doubt it.

Not sure about their rates, but I am pretty sure the accommodation in Lena Karmel House is subsidised by the commonwealth government so that the cost to students is 20% below market rental value. That is quite a subsidy when you are talking about 550 students. And probably more money than ANU would pay in rates for that particular site.

Report this comment

9
chewy14 10:11 am
21 Jul 14
#

dungfungus said :

Would I be wrong if I said UC are the first tertiary institution in Australia to sponsor a professional football team?
Funny how they can find the money for professional footballers (just like they do in the USA) yet they whinge about the coalition’s plan to derugulate Australian tertiary insitutions (just as they do in the USA).
Seems to me to be just a hint of hypocrisy here.
Also, when you look at the list of former ACT Labor/Green MLAs and their mates that have positions at CU one can understand why they get so much funding. It’s a bit like that evergreen maxim “the ALP is the political arm of the trade union movement”.

I don’t think UC actually have given the Brumbies much cash, I think their sponsorship is more “in kind” providing them with a base of operations after the move from Griffith.

Report this comment

10
dungfungus 11:04 am
21 Jul 14
#

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

Would I be wrong if I said UC are the first tertiary institution in Australia to sponsor a professional football team?
Funny how they can find the money for professional footballers (just like they do in the USA) yet they whinge about the coalition’s plan to derugulate Australian tertiary insitutions (just as they do in the USA).
Seems to me to be just a hint of hypocrisy here.
Also, when you look at the list of former ACT Labor/Green MLAs and their mates that have positions at CU one can understand why they get so much funding. It’s a bit like that evergreen maxim “the ALP is the political arm of the trade union movement”.

I don’t think UC actually have given the Brumbies much cash, I think their sponsorship is more “in kind” providing them with a base of operations after the move from Griffith.

From the media release in 2012 when the sponsorship was announced:
“Neither the Brumbies nor the university would disclose the sponsorship value, but it is believed to be similar to the $1 million a season Chinese technology company Huawei had pledged last year”.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/university-of-canberra-joins-forces-with-brumbies-20120131-1qqig.html#ixzz383nOFySd
Since then, some courses were going to be dropped to allow the sponsorship to be continued as a result of the previous federal governmnet cutting funding to universities. I don’t know where this ended up.
Also, the mysterious CBR has become a sponsor. This could be an indirect source of funding from the ACT Government.
In kind indeed!

Report this comment

11
chewy14 2:07 pm
21 Jul 14
#

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

Would I be wrong if I said UC are the first tertiary institution in Australia to sponsor a professional football team?
Funny how they can find the money for professional footballers (just like they do in the USA) yet they whinge about the coalition’s plan to derugulate Australian tertiary insitutions (just as they do in the USA).
Seems to me to be just a hint of hypocrisy here.
Also, when you look at the list of former ACT Labor/Green MLAs and their mates that have positions at CU one can understand why they get so much funding. It’s a bit like that evergreen maxim “the ALP is the political arm of the trade union movement”.

I don’t think UC actually have given the Brumbies much cash, I think their sponsorship is more “in kind” providing them with a base of operations after the move from Griffith.

From the media release in 2012 when the sponsorship was announced:
“Neither the Brumbies nor the university would disclose the sponsorship value, but it is believed to be similar to the $1 million a season Chinese technology company Huawei had pledged last year”.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/university-of-canberra-joins-forces-with-brumbies-20120131-1qqig.html#ixzz383nOFySd
Since then, some courses were going to be dropped to allow the sponsorship to be continued as a result of the previous federal governmnet cutting funding to universities. I don’t know where this ended up.
Also, the mysterious CBR has become a sponsor. This could be an indirect source of funding from the ACT Government.
In kind indeed!

Key word in that statement being “value”, not cash. Have you got anything better?

Since then they’ve also done the deal for the construction of the high performance sports hub at UC which each party paid $5 mill towards (i think).

Have you got any proof that the sponsorship has affected the courses offered or standards? Seems like you’re just engaging in idle speculation because you don’t like the deal (which you don’t actually know the details of).

Report this comment

12
dungfungus 3:03 pm
21 Jul 14
#

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

Would I be wrong if I said UC are the first tertiary institution in Australia to sponsor a professional football team?
Funny how they can find the money for professional footballers (just like they do in the USA) yet they whinge about the coalition’s plan to derugulate Australian tertiary insitutions (just as they do in the USA).
Seems to me to be just a hint of hypocrisy here.
Also, when you look at the list of former ACT Labor/Green MLAs and their mates that have positions at CU one can understand why they get so much funding. It’s a bit like that evergreen maxim “the ALP is the political arm of the trade union movement”.

I don’t think UC actually have given the Brumbies much cash, I think their sponsorship is more “in kind” providing them with a base of operations after the move from Griffith.

From the media release in 2012 when the sponsorship was announced:
“Neither the Brumbies nor the university would disclose the sponsorship value, but it is believed to be similar to the $1 million a season Chinese technology company Huawei had pledged last year”.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/university-of-canberra-joins-forces-with-brumbies-20120131-1qqig.html#ixzz383nOFySd
Since then, some courses were going to be dropped to allow the sponsorship to be continued as a result of the previous federal governmnet cutting funding to universities. I don’t know where this ended up.
Also, the mysterious CBR has become a sponsor. This could be an indirect source of funding from the ACT Government.
In kind indeed!

Key word in that statement being “value”, not cash. Have you got anything better?

Since then they’ve also done the deal for the construction of the high performance sports hub at UC which each party paid $5 mill towards (i think).

Have you got any proof that the sponsorship has affected the courses offered or standards? Seems like you’re just engaging in idle speculation because you don’t like the deal (which you don’t actually know the details of).

It would appear that you are unsure of the details as well. In fact, the actual cash amount has not been revealed.
I also said I was unsure how the language courses that were threatened ended up.
I suggest you read the following:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/tertiary-education/uni-of-canberra-urged-to-drop-brumbies-20130716-2q1m5.html
While your at it, do you want to deny that CBR Canberra (owned 100% by the ACT Government) doesn’t fund the Brumbies?
You’re right about one thing though and this is “no, I don’t like the deal”.

Report this comment

13
chewy14 3:36 pm
21 Jul 14
#

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

Would I be wrong if I said UC are the first tertiary institution in Australia to sponsor a professional football team?
Funny how they can find the money for professional footballers (just like they do in the USA) yet they whinge about the coalition’s plan to derugulate Australian tertiary insitutions (just as they do in the USA).
Seems to me to be just a hint of hypocrisy here.
Also, when you look at the list of former ACT Labor/Green MLAs and their mates that have positions at CU one can understand why they get so much funding. It’s a bit like that evergreen maxim “the ALP is the political arm of the trade union movement”.

I don’t think UC actually have given the Brumbies much cash, I think their sponsorship is more “in kind” providing them with a base of operations after the move from Griffith.

From the media release in 2012 when the sponsorship was announced:
“Neither the Brumbies nor the university would disclose the sponsorship value, but it is believed to be similar to the $1 million a season Chinese technology company Huawei had pledged last year”.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/university-of-canberra-joins-forces-with-brumbies-20120131-1qqig.html#ixzz383nOFySd
Since then, some courses were going to be dropped to allow the sponsorship to be continued as a result of the previous federal governmnet cutting funding to universities. I don’t know where this ended up.
Also, the mysterious CBR has become a sponsor. This could be an indirect source of funding from the ACT Government.
In kind indeed!

Key word in that statement being “value”, not cash. Have you got anything better?

Since then they’ve also done the deal for the construction of the high performance sports hub at UC which each party paid $5 mill towards (i think).

Have you got any proof that the sponsorship has affected the courses offered or standards? Seems like you’re just engaging in idle speculation because you don’t like the deal (which you don’t actually know the details of).

It would appear that you are unsure of the details as well. In fact, the actual cash amount has not been revealed.
I also said I was unsure how the language courses that were threatened ended up.
I suggest you read the following:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/tertiary-education/uni-of-canberra-urged-to-drop-brumbies-20130716-2q1m5.html
While your at it, do you want to deny that CBR Canberra (owned 100% by the ACT Government) doesn’t fund the Brumbies?
You’re right about one thing though and this is “no, I don’t like the deal”.

Dungfungus using a claim from a union in support of his argument. Well I never.

No, I don’t know the dollar amounts which is why I’m not claiming that I know UC’s position or any detrimental effect of their sponsorship. And neither do you.

As for CBR, do you really find it surprising that the Canberra brand would utilise a major sporting team to push themselves? Note I’m not saying that CBR is a good use of government money in the first place, but this makes perfect sense from a branding perspective.

Report this comment

14
watto23 4:03 pm
21 Jul 14
#

dungfungus said :

JimCharles said :

Where UC do seem to be doing well is in partnership building and promotions…the links with sporting teams is ambitious and raises the profile of Canberra.
As alum2600 says, the medical facility will be an ACT building and teaching facility (and their literature is careful not to describe the function as a full “hospital” along the lines of Calvary or Canberra), but UC can call it what they like because there are advertising and profile-raising benefits from the name used…..a good thing to include in your prospectus that you have a hospital on campus.

The term “profile-raising” is something that would not be out of place with “visionary” and the other buzz words that our Labor minority government use.
Whom are the target group that will respond to “profile-raising” and what benefits will flow from it?.

Easy, full fee paying international students. Its a big industry in Australia and helps pay for the education of Australians.

Report this comment

15
dungfungus 4:49 pm
21 Jul 14
#

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

JimCharles said :

Where UC do seem to be doing well is in partnership building and promotions…the links with sporting teams is ambitious and raises the profile of Canberra.
As alum2600 says, the medical facility will be an ACT building and teaching facility (and their literature is careful not to describe the function as a full “hospital” along the lines of Calvary or Canberra), but UC can call it what they like because there are advertising and profile-raising benefits from the name used…..a good thing to include in your prospectus that you have a hospital on campus.

The term “profile-raising” is something that would not be out of place with “visionary” and the other buzz words that our Labor minority government use.
Whom are the target group that will respond to “profile-raising” and what benefits will flow from it?.

Easy, full fee paying international students. Its a big industry in Australia and helps pay for the education of Australians.

But everyone is saying now that our universities will be globally uncompetitive because of the coalition’s plan to derugulate tertiary education fees so your spin is academic because there won’t be any more full fee paying international students coming to Canberra to bask in the University of Canberra’s profile-raising.

Report this comment

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site