Skip to content Skip to main navigation


1 May 2018: Daily flights Canberra
to Singapore and the world

Now our Brumby friends… about the name?

By johnboy - 22 May 2009 26

The Canberra Times reports that Jon Stanhope, fresh from giving them over half a mil just for being so gosh darned cute, is gently suggesting to the Brumbies that they might want to consider re-instating the “ACT” in their name.

Brumbies boss Andrew Fagan, having already banked the cheque, is notso hotso on the idea:

    Mr Fagan said the geographical and sponsorship reach of the Brumbies went far beyond Canberra and returning ACT to their name ”was not something we intend on revisiting”.

    ”But we are working with the Government to look at ways we can incorporate greater visual representation of Canberra at our games and on our playing jerseys,” he said.

Perhaps the broader “geographical and sponsorship” area would like to cough up the cash next time?

Should ACT taxpayers fund a team that's too ashamed of us to include ACT in their name?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

In other happier news the Brumbies have announced that George Smith has been named the Super 14 Australian player of the series for an astonishing fourth year running.

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
26 Responses to
Now our Brumby friends… about the name?
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Nambucco Deliria 3:35 pm 25 May 09

Gundaroo Jack, you’re right – they do have to raise the money. And if they don’t well, that’s just the way of the world. The Brumbies, or the Raiders, or whatever the A-League bid is calling itself, don’t have a god-given access to the public purse when times are tough. I’m seeing a lot of posts about how much cash the Brumbies franchise (and remember it’s just that – a franchise, moveable at the whim of the ARU) generates for the region as a result of playing its home games in Canberra – maybe they should look at increasing their slice of that pie before taling the public’s money.

As an adjunct – what a lot of ‘newbies’ joining in this discussion…

monomania 9:51 pm 24 May 09

S4anta said :

A majority of this money will go to ensuring that the local junior and senior comps stay afloat and do not lose funding from the collapse of a sponsor of the games flagship in the area.

Before there was the Brumbies there was senior and junior Rugby Union played it Canberra so why should Rugby in the ACT be dependent on Brumbies funding.

GundarooJack 4:46 pm 22 May 09

Hello ! Does anybody out there understand sport or do we all have to read dribble about “boo hoo it’s not fair”, or “give me the money”. I have never read anywhere the Brumbies are ashamed of being from the ACT. Naming rights are exactly that – NAMING RIGHTS. If you dont want the Brumbies to get naming rights fees from sponsors – do you want the govt to pay more ? or for us to pay more for membership or mercahndise ? No thanks. They have to raise the money somehow ! Remember they dont have the licenced club network the raiders have. Johnboy – whats next on your Brumbies bashing list? The Brumbies moving to the Gold Coast? Heaven forbid if Melbourne is the 15th franchise and the Brumbies bashers can’t use that old chestnut anymore.

MrMagoo 4:18 pm 22 May 09

OK fair enough, if they say that is where the money is going. But surely your development budget isn’t beholdent to the money you get from your jersey supplier. Development of local Rugby isn’t a line on a sponsorship agreement its encumbant on the Brumbies to undertake regardless of the financial position.

S4anta 3:19 pm 22 May 09

MrMagoo said :

S4anta said :

“Sport and Recreation is for everyone not the chosen few”

A majority of this money will go to ensuring that the local junior and senior comps stay afloat and do not lose funding from the collapse of a sponsor of the games flagship in the area.

Well that’s the spin they’ve put on it anyway. Sorry I’m not buying. The Brumbies first role should be the development of local rugby and that shouldn’t be contingent on funding from the jersey provider.

It is. The Brumibes are the flagship of the ACTRU. Without the Brumbies being at the top of tree alot of the rugby player coming thorugh the ACT system would be still playing for the Reds, or worse the pooftahs

dvaey 1:55 pm 22 May 09

While I dont mean to bring up a contentious issue in this topic, part of me wonders how much of this missing money, is due to loss of income in the clubs/pokies due to non-smoking. Ive seen a figure somewhere that clubs have lost approx 20% of their income due to lack of smokers pumping their pensions into the pokies. Is this a case of regulation coming back to cost the government cold hard cash? I also wonder, if the brumbies are struggling for cash, how must the loss of income affected junior rugby? I presume when the board sits down and realises the loss of income, they’ll start cutting the non money-making parts, such as junior sport in favour of the higher profile Brumbies and ACT rugby.

On the flip-side, with the failure of The Comets, The Raiders and The Cannons over previous years, maybe theyre just looking for any remaining ACT sports to throw some budgeted money at.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site