Now our Brumby friends… about the name?

johnboy 28 September 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?
Filter
Order
Nambucco Deliria 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 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 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 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 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 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.

dtc dtc 1:42 pm 22 May 09

According to the Chronicle I got the other day, the Brumbies training ground (at Griffith?) is getting $1m plus for re-turfing and landscaping despite the Brumbie players being quoted as saying they thought the turf was pretty good as it is.

Now, I know the oval gets used by many other teams and for ACT Rugby, and probably isn’t perfect. But given the state of ovals around Canberra, especially at schools, what is the justification for spending so much money on an oval that is already one of the best in Canberra. Surely fixing up the dust/mud bowls that most schools now have could be a better use of the funds.

Some might say the Brumbies were a factor in the decision … got to keep them happy. Or, I don’t know, they could fund their own training facilities like other professional teams

(yes, I realise the Brumbies probably hire the oval and thus contribute to the cost, but the point remains)

MrMagoo MrMagoo 1:34 pm 22 May 09

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.

S4anta S4anta 1:30 pm 22 May 09

“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.

SheepGroper SheepGroper 1:28 pm 22 May 09

Shouldn’t the funding be allocated to provide the most benefit to the most people in the region, and wouldn’t the most benefit be to get the maximum people active in some kind of sport? In which case, funding lots of little groups that get subsets of the population getting out and getting fit would be better than keeping a couple of super teams thriving and a lot of the population sedentary?

monomania monomania 1:25 pm 22 May 09

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.

Find a way or lose the funding. What other sponsor spending that kind of money would accept this kind of crap.

MrMagoo MrMagoo 1:12 pm 22 May 09

No you’re right on that score, however, how often do the Brumbies expect the ACT Government and us the taxpayers to prop them up and how often will they threaten to quit Canberra if funding isn’t forthcoming.

My point was, that sport in the ACT is doing it tough with smaller and smaller funding pools and dwindling resources and minor organisations struggle to see the way forward when two or three organisations get all of the money. Sport and Recreation is for everyone not the chosen few.

All any of us ever asks is for an attempt at a level playing field when it comes to funding. We don’t expect millions but some would be nice.

Ko. Ko. 1:06 pm 22 May 09

MrMagoo said :

I participate in Sport for People with a Disability, and we’d love and could run our sport on a tenth of that money for years.

I highly doubt your sport benefits the region financially to the tune of even 1/20th of that money over several years though, which is the point here to be honest.

Ko. Ko. 12:58 pm 22 May 09

More than likely, the ACT Government are willing to stump them up as it’s in their best interests to have a top flight Rugby Union team in the city regardless of the name. f they were to collapse for whatever reason it would lower the chances of international games being played here which is what Stanhope wants more than anything.

I’d prefer my tax dollars went to elite sporting teams rather than more art installations. *shrugs*

MrMagoo MrMagoo 12:58 pm 22 May 09

S4anta said :

johnboy said :

No need for ACT Government funding then!

What a load of sweaty testicles.

They bring in travellers from the areas around the ACT to spend their hard earnt cash at pubs and hotels. The economic spin offs alone from our country neighbours ought be enough to warrant this spending.

No it shouldn’t. Why doe local sports and clubs get less and less so that the Brumbies and Raiders get more and more, just because these two wave the ‘…well if we don’t get funding we’ll move!’ stick at the Government everytime.

I participate in Sport for People with a Disability, and we’d love and could run our sport on a tenth of that money for years.

S4anta S4anta 12:53 pm 22 May 09

johnboy said :

No need for ACT Government funding then!

What a load of sweaty testicles.

They bring in travellers from the areas around the ACT to spend their hard earnt cash at pubs and hotels. The economic spin offs alone from our country neighbours ought be enough to warrant this spending.

willo willo 12:35 pm 22 May 09

no….act brumbies or tell em to pissoff….the pack of self important wankers

caf caf 12:28 pm 22 May 09

Would “Southern Brumbies” be an acceptable compromise?

MrMagoo MrMagoo 11:54 am 22 May 09

Sorry for the typos in my last post. I wrote it in a hurry with a bit of steam up, this issue really gives the the Sh1ts.

MrMagoo MrMagoo 11:52 am 22 May 09

johnboy said :

No need for ACT Government funding then!

Couldn’t agree more Johnboy, if they put their hand out to get cash from the ACT Government, then they shoudl have ACT in their name. I’m sick of clubs trading in their identity in this country. The biggest sporting teams in the world always go by their full name. Manchester United, Real Madrid, Chicago Bulls. None of these internationally recognisable sporting clubs identifies itself by it’s sponsor. If the ACT Brumbies want ACT taxpayer money, then get the naem back on the team, if not, take the Franchise to Melbourne, Western Sydney or Gold Coast and call yourselves whatever you want.

Kudos to the CT, they refuse to paly the game and list all of the Super 14 teams by their full provincial name.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site