The Canberra Cavalry caught between a rock and a hard place over a $130,000 bond

Rick Jackson Some sports bring communities together more than others. Governments should focus on funding community sports and recreational activities, not subsidising professional sports teams.

Christine’s – where do you place 3mil per year for 4 years for a BBL cricket team? (That’s 12mil in case you are wondering)

I would have said that would be subsidizing a professional sports team… wouldn’t you?

This article clearly stated that it isn’t funding or subsidizing – it is simply holding a bond for… that is holding 1% of cricket funding in a just incase bucket.

… I’d say ‘sport brings communities together’ was an awfully convenient tagline when they need votes… now that they have them… well, ‘we have no intention of helping a community unless it fits our agenda’ seems a more appropriate tagline.

Rick Jackson I place it in the “bad ideas” bucket since it’s subsidising a professional sports team.

The article clearly stated that it’s subsidising a professional sports team. In addition to the other money it gives them.

And as also clearly stated in the article, the government can’t do anything for them right now because it’s in caretaker mode due to the election.

Christine’s – I’m not sure

Govt funds them $33,000pa – but then charges $65,000pa for ground hire… my math may be out, but that to me suggests the govt is actually turning a profit not giving money to this ‘bringing the community together’ plan.

As for caretaker –
“a meeting with the ACT Government will now take place after 6 November, once the Assembly returns, but the government has advised this is not something they tend to provide”

Again, putting the numbers together for you –

Cavalry are asking ACT govt to hold a $130,000 bond for them over a 4 year period.

ACT govt are turning a profit of $32,000pa ($128k over four years)

The election tagline was ‘sport brings the community together’ and they plan on spending $12mil on cricket over the same period they are making money from baseball.

If sport brings community together – why wouldn’t you just waive the field hire – or hold the profit from field hire as the bond? That would be cost neutral for the govt and keep to a vote winning slogan…

Good idea or bad idea – fact is ‘sport brings the community together’ isn’t really ringing true now… even when it could be cost neutral for the govt.

Rick Jackson Profit on the sports field hire? Do you think the thing built itself? It cost the government (us taxpayers) millions to build, upgrade, and maintain the stadium. Surely it’s not unreasonable that we charge a professional sports team–a business–to use it.

As I’ve said, I think funding a professional cricket team is a bad idea, as well.

I don’t think either of these proposals has anything to do with bringing the community together. I think they involve the community subsidising businesses that can’t or won’t fund themselves through sales to their customers.

Christine’s – I think you’re missing the point (or you are being deliberately argumentative or obstinate).

You are very fixed in the idea that this is costing the ACT govt money. It is not.

They aren’t funding a team – or subsidizing… there isn’t even a request to do that. The request is to hold money (paid by the team) as a bond rather than putting it with the other 99% to fund cricket.

As for the ‘thing building itself’, the Canberra team won quite a lot of money in Asia, that money was mostly given in for park upgrades… there is also a lot of local volunteer work to bring the park to game day spec… so unlike most other sports (cricket, afl, league, union, soccer) – team profits do go back to the govt to pay for park improvements.

I’m not saying they should be rent free, either.

I am saying, the election slogan was ‘sports brings the community together’ – it is, at best, hypocrisy to use this as a slogan and not hold (a small amount of) monies paid by baseball to ensure baseballs future and to ‘bring communities together’ – especially when committing 12mil over four years for a different code.

Rick Jackson It’s not costing the ACT government money? The money is paid by the team, and the ACT government would just hold it for them? Really? Because that’s not what it says in the article.

“The Cavalry, with an already tight budget, approached the ACT Government to cover the cost of the bond, but the election meant the government was in caretaker mode at the time.”

Do the words “cover the cost of the bond” mean something different than they’re most obvious meaning?

“We have to raise the money if we don’t get government support, and it will come from working capital we had earmarked for new equipment and investment in our junior development program,” Adrian says.

Is Adrian Dard missing the point, or being deliberately obstinate, when he says that if the ACT Government doesn’t pay the bond, the team will have to pay it from money they’d rather spend on other things?

I’ve already agreed that the government shouldn’t be subsidising other professional sports teams, either. It’s not that I think one team or sport should get showered with cash and other teams and sports miss out. I’m not even overly-opposed to the ACT Government helping the team out, like it helps other teams, and even other businesses and industries that have nothing to do with sport, get through a rough patch.

My point is that professional sports teams are businesses, and that while it’s okay to get a little help from the government, at some point they need to be capable of standing on their own. The Cavalry have had nearly 15 years, and apparently still can’t manage that. So how much longer do they expect ACT taxpayers to continue subsidising their yet-to-be-successful business?

Christine’s Comments semi-professional.

Christine’s Comments people who have medical issues that prevent them from participating in community sports would probably beg to differ. Ditto people who don’t have kids playing those sports.

Pro and semi-to sports bring communities together.

Yuri Shukost Semi-professional? Does that refer to the business structure of the corporate entities involved, or the talent and abilities of the participants?

Yuri Shukost I’m not sure what you mean. Do people with medical issues that prevent them from participating in community sports participate in professional sports instead? That doesn’t seem to be the case from what I’ve seen. If anything, they’re more discriminatory.

Community sports and other forms of recreation aren’t limited to kids teams.

Lots of things bring communities together. That doesn’t mean that the government can and should fund them all.

The cafe at my local shops brings people in our community together. It’s a wonderful spot run by great people. It’s also a business. They provide a service, and people pay them for that service. How much of the price of my coffee should you (and everybody else) be paying for? I think you shouldn’t have to pay for any of it. I can pay for my own coffee.

Christine’s Comments 🙄no. They are fans of those sports and come together with other fans. Enjoy your healthy privileged and blinkered existence.

Yuri Shukost I do, thanks. I hope you do, too.

People with medical issues that prevent them from participating in community sports can also be fans and come together with other fans of community sports. That’s participating, too.

And in many cases, they can do it without needing to pay for a ticket. I know there’s a pretty big price range, but the VIP seats at a Cavalry game sell for over $100, don’t they? Surely that’s a sign of a privileged existence, too.

Christine’s Comments if you’re paying for a corporate box, you’re not doing it for the community spirit. You’re doing it to network.

I’ve been invited to those a number of times and the people there aren’t watching the game. It really is a soulless experience, but the nibblies are wonderful especially on the balcony where you’re closer to the real fans.

Yuri Shukost Maybe they should get rid of those boxes then, so there would be more and better seats for the “real fans”.

But still, even the general admission seats require a payment. At the end of the day, fans, real or not, are customers. Because it’s a business. And because its customers aren’t spending enough to cover all the costs, that business is asking the government (aka the taxpayers, aka the community) to make up the difference.

Christine’s Comments corporate boxes bring in a tonne of revenue and help teams stay in the black. So, while I don’t think much of them, they are financially necessary.

They need more “customers” to attend. I think they’ve been having a losing season, which isn’t an incentive for casual fans to attend.

Yuri Shukost Apparently not enough revenue to pay the bills, which is why they ask for government subsidies.

Yes, they need more customers to attend, buy merch, and maybe, as you mentioned in another comment thread, participate in a GoFundMe to raise the money they need.

There are tens of thousands of businesses in this city. It’s just not realistic to expect taxpayers to hold up every one of them that has difficulty bringing in enough revenue to cover its expenses.

Christine’s Comments are you serious? It means that the players and coaching staff get paid, but the players need additional employment to make ends meet.

Management, in most cases, is full time. Amateur sports can usually get away with volunteers running the back office.

Yuri Shukost Oh, you call that semi-professional? It seems more appropriate to call it low-paying part-time work. Common among the tens of thousands of businesses in the city. And again, it’s not realistic or appropriate to expect taxpayers to subsidise them all.

I wonder how that “additional employment” part works for people from other countries. I’m pretty sure working another job would be in violation of the terms of their temporary visas.

Christine’s Comments so you would have no problem if that local cafe that you like so much folded because it was going through a temporary bad period?

Yuri Shukost I think it can be reasonable for the government to help businesses are going through a temporary rough patch. But that’s not what’s going on with the Cavalry. They get money from the government every year. And have been the entire time they’ve been in business. Presumably even before they started playing, given that they made a deal with the government to spend $millions to upgrade the stadium for them. And now they want more.

So you would have no problem paying for part of every coffee I buy at that cafe in perpetuity? And every other customer’s coffee, too? At every cafe in Canberra? Even though many of the customers can easily afford the coffee (and great nibbles, too), and some of them don’t even really care and are just there to network?

Christine’s Comments apples and oranges. Your cafe gives enjoyment to a limited clientele. Sports teams cross the divide. He’ll, your cafe could go under and I wouldn’t even notice.

Yuri Shukost The same is true for a professional sports team. Limited clientele, and many of them constantly asking the government for money. Especially teams that play games that doesn’t have much of a fan base in Australia generally and Canberra specifically.

I’m originally from the US, I like baseball, and I’ve been living in Canberra for 6 years and had no idea there was a pro baseball team here. If the Cavalry go under, the money the government’s been giving them can go to more inclusive, grassroots community sports and recreational activities. Or maybe even to feeding or housing people.

Christine’s Comments aaaand we go back to the original request which was to guarantee funds to ensure the viability of the team. Also, they’re semi-pro (did we forget that) and what the heck is a more inclusive sport? Good grief, are we talking racially mixed and disabled LGBQ+ 🐳s that can play table tennis? That “inclusive” word seems to get trotted out a lot. 🤣

Yuri Shukost I don’t know why you seem to think “semi-pro” makes a difference. They get paid. It’s a business. And it relies on taxpayer funding to stay in business.

Racially mixed? It wouldn’t hurt, especially given baseball’s long history of white supremacist racism and racial segregation. And yeah, welcoming LGBTQIA+ players wouldn’t be a bad thing, either. But mostly I was referring to the fact that they exclude women. I suppose one reason why the word “inclusive” gets used a lot these days is because it’s, unfortunately, still so necessary to point out organisations that aren’t.

Christine’s Comments this is a waste of my time.

Yuri Shukost Apparently it’s too much for a professional sports team to expect its funding needs to be covered by its own fans and supporters.

Christine’s Comments So if you actually read the article, this money is not being diverted from essential services like food and shelter. Instead, it’s being allocated as a bond, a financial safety net rather than an outright expense.

The team is not requesting the funds to purchase equipment or support general operations. Instead, the $130,000 would serve as a bond, meaning it would only be tapped into if the team faced a financial collapse. It’s a measure to ensure stability rather than an ongoing subsidy or “handout” from taxpayer money.

Since no cash is directly changing hands under normal circumstances, the immediate impact on taxpayers is negligible. The funds wouldn’t contribute to the team’s daily expenses or operations, so taxpayers are not, in effect, paying to “keep them going.” This approach allows the team to plan and invest in other areas, such as developing junior players, which supports the community long-term.

Also, your argument does not consider how local sports teams contribute to community morale, providing opportunities for youth, and stimulating local businesses. Supporting this team could offer indirect benefits to the community that, while different from essentials like food or shelter, add value to the area’s social and economic wellbeing.

Finally, through this solution, the team can continue investing in junior programs. This serves the community by engaging youth in sports, which can promote physical and mental well-being, discipline, and teamwork. This investment could offset the need for other community spending on youth programs.

Essentially, the arrangement minimizes taxpayer burden while offering indirect community benefits, particularly if the team remains stable and contributes to the local culture and economy.

Matthew Percy I won’t do you the discourtesy of assuming you didn’t read my comment before replying, so it seems that you’re purposefully trying to be insulting and misrepresenting what I said.

I didn’t say or suggest that the money the team wants the government to provide is being diverted from essential services like food and shelter. I’m sure it would come from whatever money is allocated for subsidising sports and other recreational activities.

The fact remains, however, that money that is being held as a bond in case a sports team collapses is money that can’t be used for other things. Like providing food or shelter to those in need. Or providing funding for community sports and recreation programs instead of subsidising a business.

And while you insist that taxpayers aren’t paying to keep the team going, the fact is that this $130,000 is in addition to the other taxpayer money the team receives. $33,000, according to the article. And $millions to build, upgrade, and maintain the stadium where the team plays. I guess that doesn’t really count, either.

And of course it’s not just the government funding that results in members of the community subsidising the team, possibly without even realising they’re doing it. That’s also true of corporate sponsorships. It’s the customers who pay.

And maybe they’re fine with knowing that a portion of the price of a beer or a meal, or the bill from the electrician went to subsidise a professional baseball team, but when the University of Canberra says it’s cutting 200 staff while still sponsoring a professional baseball team, that might (and I think should) raise some eyebrows.

My argument actually does consider how local sports teams might add value to the city’s social and economic wellbeing. One difficulty is that those things are hard to quantify, and nobody seems much inclined to try.

Participation in youth sports can definitely promote physical and mental wellbeing, discipline, teamwork, and other positive values. It can also cause or promote physical and mental harm, racism, misogyny, homophobia, bullying, abuse, etc. And it often it seems preferable to assume the former and ignore, downplay, dismiss, or conceal the latter. So sure, maybe it’s an investment that could offset the need for other community spending on youth programs. Or maybe it’s not. Maybe it actually adds to the costs. How could we know if nobody’s even trying to measure it?

Matthew Percy
I’m not sure if you’re familiar with Christine’s Comments aka Christine Stevens. You can’t have the government giving money to any sporting community. The mere suggestion will bring her wrath.

Litz Nik Sporting communities, yes. Professional sports teams and leagues? Not so much.

Of course it depends on the sport and the community, too. Not all are equally beneficial to the community, or equally deserving of public support.

Phil Durbin except the FIFO GWS Giants.

Phil Durbin Noooooooo money! 🤣