Brumbies take taxpayers for an extra $720,000

johnboy 26 June 2009 66

[First filed: May 21, 2009 @ 14:31]

The ABC brings word that on top of a regular $1 million a year of taxpayer love the Brumbies have hooked in for an extra $720,000 following International Sporting Clothing going titsup.

    Brumbies chief executive Andrew Fagan says the shortfall would not have affected player payments but would have reduced the money spent on junior development.

    “It would have had a long-term impact on those community programs,” he said.

    “Given the nature of it being an eleventh-hour collapse of a major sponsor of ours, the Government didn’t want that long term impact on the community.

    “So they were happy to provide us with this one-off grant – some of which is a loan.”

“Happy” eh?

UPDATE: The ABC reports what the exact package, which has now gone through, was:

    The $720,000 package will be made up of $300,000 in special assistance alongside a $170,000 loan and $250,000 in pay roll tax relief.

The Canberra Times notes that the Raiders now want to know where their special package is seeing they’re here more and aren’t ashamed to be associated with the city. But if we’re doing this for the youth development where’s the money for swimming? Hockey? Volleyball? Netball? Badminton? Basketball? Lacrosse? Floorball? Orienteering? Athletics? Gymnastics? Martial arts? Water polo? Cricket? Boules? Rock climbing? Cycling? Skiing? Paintball? Billiards? Ballroom dancing? Tent pegging? Fly fishing? Ultimate frisbee? Cheerleading? Tampolining? Kite fighting? Rogaining? Canoeing? Polo? Squash? Luge? Boxing?


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
66 Responses to Brumbies take taxpayers for an extra $720,000
Filter
Order
2604 2604 9:56 pm 28 Jun 09

vg said :

Great logic Einstein.

‘Seniors’ Rugby means grade rugby. What you play when you’re too old/too good for juniors. You know….1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th grade

Don’t confuse Seniors with Veterans

I worked with someone who was 41 and played “Seniors” Rugby for Royals. Not masters or veterans or whatever you want to call it.

Precious hair-splitting aside, I don’t think senior or masters comps should receive gov’t funding to aid their administration.

astrojax astrojax 1:37 pm 28 Jun 09

sorry frontrow – i misunderstood and retract my comment (i misread that you are happy to pay, but not for the things you don’t like – but didn’t see the varied payment methods!) bad me… ; )

monomania monomania 12:42 am 28 Jun 09

vg in typical nasty fashion said:

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

Your attempt to turn $720 000 into 59 cents per bum on seat over 14 years is hardly a work of intellectual genius.

Of course up to 2006 the Brumbies claim total crowds of 1 344 463 so it is likely that the aggregate crowd has now reached about 1.7 million, somewhat higher than your poor guess of 1.26 million. Your 59 cents would be just as meaningless as the actual figure of 44 cents/bum.

Why am I not surprised your figures might be erratic.

monomania monomania 12:25 am 28 Jun 09

vg said :

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.

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

Your attempt to turn $720 000 into 59 cents per bum on seat over 14 years is hardly a work of intellectual genius.

Of course up to 2006 the Brumbies claim total crowds of 1 344 463 so it is likely that the aggregate crowd has reached near to 1.7 million. Your 59 cents would be just as meaningless as the actual figure of 44 cents/bum.

Why am I not surprised your figures might be erratic.

frontrow frontrow 5:00 pm 27 Jun 09

I don’t understand what you are trying to say astrojax. I thought I was fairly clear in my objection to government payments for the Brumbies.

astrojax astrojax 4:31 pm 27 Jun 09

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.

you may not want to pay through taxes for things that bore you to tears, but don’t expect those who are bored to tears by your brumbies should fork out for them… or don’t complain when people other than you and your ‘tastes’ are catered to…

agree wholeheartedly re the youth development issue, though

Trunking symbols Trunking symbols 3:45 pm 27 Jun 09

Actually, in the rugby codes any player not playing first grade is referred to as a junior. The word has nothing to do with the age of the player.

vg vg 2:06 pm 27 Jun 09

2604 said :

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.

I agree 100%, frontrow.

Andrew Fagan isn’t talking about “youth”, he’s talking about “community”. Reading between the lines, that means senior rugby competitions as well as junior.

IMO there is nothing wrong with junior sport being funded by government, given the need to get kids healthy and active at a young age. Those habits can last a lifetime. But if 40-year-old builders want to run around playing rugby they should do it at their own expense.

Great logic Einstein.

‘Seniors’ Rugby means grade rugby. What you play when you’re too old/too good for juniors. You know….1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th grade

Don’t confuse Seniors with Veterans

Steady Eddie Steady Eddie 11:44 am 27 Jun 09

Steady Eddie said :

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.

Apparently I *did* say the quote way back in May. Sorry for not realising that a thread almost two months old had been rehashed. I’d still like to see the attribution feature nuked. When you have xxx said: repeated three or four times before a quote it gets very annoying.

2604 2604 10:12 pm 26 Jun 09

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.

I agree 100%, frontrow.

Andrew Fagan isn’t talking about “youth”, he’s talking about “community”. Reading between the lines, that means senior rugby competitions as well as junior.

IMO there is nothing wrong with junior sport being funded by government, given the need to get kids healthy and active at a young age. Those habits can last a lifetime. But if 40-year-old builders want to run around playing rugby they should do it at their own expense.

vg vg 9:46 pm 26 Jun 09

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

Steady Eddie Steady Eddie 5:34 pm 26 Jun 09

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 Steady Eddie 5:32 pm 26 Jun 09

Steady Eddie said :

Is Andrew Barr now Minister for the Brumbies as well?

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

monomania monomania 5:25 pm 26 Jun 09

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.

monomania monomania 5:16 pm 26 Jun 09

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.

Brindabella Brindabella 4:53 pm 26 Jun 09

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.

Joshua Joshua 4:03 pm 26 Jun 09

#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.

p1 p1 3:32 pm 26 Jun 09

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.

Joker Joker 3:22 pm 26 Jun 09

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

Joshua Joshua 1:46 pm 26 Jun 09

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.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site