Visit Victoria to Sponsor Netball Australia

Trying2SaveABuck on 31/10/2022 - 14:27
Last edited 31/10/2022 - 17:28

So Dan Andrews ALP has announced that 'Visit Victoria' will be sponsoring Netball Australia after the Hancock controversy.

How do people feel about the Victorian tax payers footing the bill, at a time when Victoria is the most in debt state per-capita

also keeping in mind Victorian Health is in the worst shape it i has been in over 5 decades with waiting lists blowing up and ambulance wait times resulting in people needing urgent care dying…..

with that said there is nothing wrong with supporting Australian sport and the Diamonds do need the money….they will be playing a few more games in Victoria which might give 'some' boost however i am unsure how many people 'attend' Diamonds matches im assuming it would be 10-20k which will bring some money back into the state.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/netball/netball-australia-anno…

this is a follow up from
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/732268

my 2 cents - i personally do not support Victorian tax payers footing the bill, spin it anyway you like this is a waste of tax payer money - i probably would be as fussed if the deal was a more 'reasonable' 5-7m but 15m is simply too expensive and the money could be better used else where.

i would support this if this was going into 'grass roots' netball or grass roots sport mens and/or womens but not a professional outfit that 'had' a sponsor from the private sector for me it is just insulting

Poll Options

  • 149
    I support tax payers bailing out Netball Australia
  • 598
    I do not support Tax payers bailing out Netball Australia
  • 16
    Im unsure
Sports & Outdoors

Related Stores

Visit Melbourne, Victoria
Visit Melbourne, Victoria

Comments

    • AustriaBargain on 31/10/2022 - 23:07
      +5

      Check out The Australian, at last check there were 1,200 salty comments on their article about this.

  • Willy Beamish on 31/10/2022 - 23:18
    +1

    Drop in the bucket of wasted money from the government.

  • Cookiescream on 01/11/2022 - 00:13
    +2

    It does not bother me.

  • p1 ama on 01/11/2022 - 00:49
    +42

    This entire thread is so disingenuous, it's just another example of the toxic press drumming up outrage over something that is (in the scheme of things) absolutely irrelevant and people of a certain political inclination lapping it up because hey, "is Dan, is bad", right?

    (i) "Visit Victoria" is sponsoring the netball team, not the Victorian Government, not the ALP, not Dan Andrews. This has nothing to do with Dan Andrews. Visit Victoria is a statutory authority, not a government department. The way it works is that they are granted a budget which they use to achieve a certain defined outcome. For Visit Victoria, it's probably something like increasing tourism to the state. Based on the Visit Victoria annual report: https://assets-corporate.visitvictoria.com/documents/Visit-V…, their revenue (which yes, they receive from the government as a statutory authority) is $113M, so $15M is a large amount, yes, but not particularly significant in terms of their P&L. To suggest that Dan Andrews or the ALP state government had any say in this decision is nonsense.

    (ii) State tourism bodies have had a history of sponsoring whacky things - including the equivalent NT body sponsoring the Amazing Race, and Visit Victoria sponsoring Masterchef to come down to Apollo Bay, Daylesford and Melbourne. Other "sports" related sponsorships include Golf (Andy Lee produced a series with Visit Victoria touring VIC's golf courses), for instance. Visit Victoria is also responsible for those dining vouchers and other incentives. Whether sponsoring a netball team aligns with Visit Victoria's aims, I don't know, but it's hardly the most whacky sponsorship these state tourism bodies have done. If you've never cared about any of this, and now all of a sudden have found your life's calling and figured out the number one source of government waste, I question your motives.

    (iii) The whole "I wish the money went to healthcare or firies" argument is also completely bogus. The budget is already passed, Visit Victoria have already been allocated their budget, so if $15M wasn't spent on sponsoring a netball team, it would have been spent on some other tourism-related activities, not on hospitals or firies or nurses. There is a separate point around whether tourism bodies should receive the amount of funds they currently do, which I think is a valid argument, but it's not what's being discussed here.

    It's just disappointing to see how blind rage and anger can lead people to such whacko conclusions. Ultimately, this is not about government spending or waste, it is about taking a hot-button issue and putting a "government waste" angle on it to rile people up when the total amount averages to $3 per Victorian. The real test of whether someone is really for stamping out government waste or whether it's just a convenient scapegoat is what exactly they're proposing to stamp out - if it's some random line item that is completely insignificant given the size of the government budget, then it's just an excuse to drum up outrage. If you really had an ideological commitment to stamping out government waste, there would be over 1,000 other categories you would be looking into first.

    • franco cozzo on 01/11/2022 - 01:46

      … is dan is bad

    • Grunntt on 01/11/2022 - 07:58
      +5

      This entire thread is so disingenuous

      Why the hell would a number of people here find the need to give negs to such a thorough and clearly explained post like this one?
      Just can't let the confected outrage be contradicted with facts?

      • Domingo on 01/11/2022 - 08:14
        +4

        How dare you attack people's right to be unjustifiably outraged without knowing any facts and making a whole bunch of assumptions.

        /s

        Mob sentiment and mentality is strong in these forums. Unfortunately, that has also created a scenario where some individuals (not p1 ama) turn into trolls and collect negative votes, potentially deluding themselves into believing that their position is the universally pure view of truth and justice, and everyone else is wrong.

        • Grunntt on 01/11/2022 - 11:08
          +3

          Mob sentiment and mentality is strong in these forums

          Amusing how there are a number posts on here criticising Whirlpool for it's toxicity when this part of OzBargain is pretty much as they claim for Whirlpool.
          I actually think it's easier to get "attacked" here in any thread than on most of the threads on Whirlpool (probably with the exception of 'In the News' but that's easy enough to avoid).

          I have been utilising OzBargain for quite some time and it definitely seems to have become worse for this attitude relatively recently.
          (and before someone points out I've only been a member for a shortish time - I didn't need to register just to access the deals etc. Once I decided to contribute here I registered).

    • jhaley3180 on 01/11/2022 - 09:38
      +3

      Brilliant post….

    • jaffar on 01/11/2022 - 14:09
      +1

      When I first heard the story about Gina walking away from her proposed sponsorship I was in the 'Gina was right' camp. However the more I read about the situation, the more it seemed like the issues where much less dramatic than whatever garbo was being headlined. I still think Gina as a sponsor was completely right to walk away but I couldn't help but wonder why all the intense bashing and piling on. One reason I think is that this story makes you feel a bit superior about yourself if you're in the 'Gina was right' camp because look at those dumb netballers who want payrises who turned down a gigantic sponsorship while in debt. I mean I know that's how I felt when I first read about the story. It also helps that this opinion is seen as an 'unpopular opinion' where lefties are in outrage…when in reality if you ask just about anyone (left, centre, right) they'll respond 'yeah, don't bite the hand that feeds you'. Basically it's a very popular opinion and not some unique view. Instead this story has been platformed as something of a piling on point against 'wokeness', lefties etc. etc. This is what media, various newscorps and social media does - drum up shit and outrage that most real people would have had 0 feelings about in real life. Take this post for example. The poll options are laughable biased if you take a second to think about it.

    • ozhunter on 01/11/2022 - 19:18
      -1

      Governance

      As a company limited by guarantee, Visit Victoria’s sole shareholder is the Premier of Victoria. The Minister for Tourism and Major Events has portfolio responsibility for the company.

      Visit Victoria spearheads this strategy by maintaining Victoria’s edge against competitive counterparts. As a result, Visit Victoria’s leadership team regularly connects with senior government officials, providing advice and updates on future strategic initiatives based on evolving destination campaigns, event acquisition opportunities and industry developments.

      As I said before, if they did it before the Hancock controversy, I doubt anyone would really care. They sponsored the amount that NA rejected from another sponsor just looks like bailout with government funds.

    • lysp on 01/11/2022 - 20:52

      their revenue (which yes, they receive from the government as a statutory authority) is $113M, so $15M is a large amount, yes, but not particularly significant in terms of their P&L.

      Actually it's $15M over 4-5 years. So $3M~ p.a., out of their $113M annual budget.

  • diddy50 on 01/11/2022 - 08:12
    -1

    Whilst it isn't a lot of money. It's the optics that while people suffer and our hospitals are truly stuffed and underfunded, Dan goes and spends this on netball rather than fixing health.

    Election stunt and Backfired, like it should.

    • ThithLord on 01/11/2022 - 11:28

      From P1 Ama above:

      This entire thread is so disingenuous, it's just another example of the toxic press drumming up outrage over something that is (in the scheme of things) absolutely irrelevant and people of a certain political inclination lapping it up because hey, "is Dan, is bad", right?

      (i) "Visit Victoria" is sponsoring the netball team, not the Victorian Government, not the ALP, not Dan Andrews. This has nothing to do with Dan Andrews. Visit Victoria is a statutory authority, not a government department. The way it works is that they are granted a budget which they use to achieve a certain defined outcome. For Visit Victoria, it's probably something like increasing tourism to the state. Based on the Visit Victoria annual report: https://assets-corporate.visitvictoria.com/documents/Visit-V…, their revenue (which yes, they receive from the government as a statutory authority) is $113M, so $15M is a large amount, yes, but not particularly significant in terms of their P&L. To suggest that Dan Andrews or the ALP state government had any say in this decision is nonsense.

      (ii) State tourism bodies have had a history of sponsoring whacky things - including the equivalent NT body sponsoring the Amazing Race, and Visit Victoria sponsoring Masterchef to come down to Apollo Bay, Daylesford and Melbourne. Other "sports" related sponsorships include Golf (Andy Lee produced a series with Visit Victoria touring VIC's golf courses), for instance. Visit Victoria is also responsible for those dining vouchers and other incentives. Whether sponsoring a netball team aligns with Visit Victoria's aims, I don't know, but it's hardly the most whacky sponsorship these state tourism bodies have done. If you've never cared about any of this, and now all of a sudden have found your life's calling and figured out the number one source of government waste, I question your motives.

      (iii) The whole "I wish the money went to healthcare or firies" argument is also completely bogus. The budget is already passed, Visit Victoria have already been allocated their budget, so if $15M wasn't spent on sponsoring a netball team, it would have been spent on some other tourism-related activities, not on hospitals or firies or nurses. There is a separate point around whether tourism bodies should receive the amount of funds they currently do, which I think is a valid argument, but it's not what's being discussed here.

      It's just disappointing to see how blind rage and anger can lead people to such whacko conclusions. Ultimately, this is not about government spending or waste, it is about taking a hot-button issue and putting a "government waste" angle on it to rile people up when the total amount averages to $3 per Victorian. The real test of whether someone is really for stamping out government waste or whether it's just a convenient scapegoat is what exactly they're proposing to stamp out - if it's some random line item that is completely insignificant given the size of the government budget, then it's just an excuse to drum up outrage. If you really had an ideological commitment to stamping out government waste, there would be over 1,000 other categories you would be looking into first.

      Read that, find your closest mirror, stare into it for 5 minutes and contemplate how you are possibly simping for a rage-bait newscorp machine

      • Ughhh on 01/11/2022 - 11:39
        +2

        It's the optics that while people suffer and our hospitals are truly stuffed and underfunded

        Key words is optics. Facts isn't always the same as optics.

        • ThithLord on 01/11/2022 - 11:40
          -1

          Facts don't care about your feelings, bro

          • Ughhh on 01/11/2022 - 11:46

            @ThithLord: I'm sensing a bit of unnecessary attitude here.

            While true, optics sometimes are more powerful than facts, unfortunately. Which is why you have people raging or people polishing turds. Sorry if that reality hurts your feelings.

            • ThithLord on 01/11/2022 - 11:48
              -1

              @Ughhh: Mate, it's the conservatives that are free-flowing their tears about this. It's not the other way around LMAO

              • Ughhh on 01/11/2022 - 11:53

                @ThithLord: Yes, and you realise that's part of optics right?
                Optics isn't about feelings btw…

                • ThithLord on 01/11/2022 - 11:54
                  -1

                  @Ughhh: "Optics" in this sense is purely a buzzword, mate. You repeating it doesn't grant it any gravity whatsoever

                  • Ughhh on 01/11/2022 - 12:55

                    @ThithLord: Optics means how things are perceived by the public mate. One word to represent a sentence. It doesn't lean left or right lol. This post and the outrage is an example of optics vs facts.
                    I'm not sure what you thought it meant.

                    • ThithLord on 01/11/2022 - 12:58
                      -1

                      @Ughhh:

                      Optics means how things are perceived by the public mate

                      So … their feels?

                      • Ughhh on 01/11/2022 - 13:01

                        @ThithLord: There's a difference between feelings and perceive. If you don't understand the difference, there's no point in going further.

              • diddy50 on 01/11/2022 - 12:06

                @ThithLord: Why is it conservative to want government to do their job and fund health care?

                You're funny

                • ThithLord on 01/11/2022 - 12:09
                  +4

                  @diddy50: Because they never, EVER gave two rats about the $600B debt the LNP racked up before COVID even hit Australia's shores.

  • 82norm on 01/11/2022 - 08:14
    +4

    It’s still a boring sport.

    • lysp on 01/11/2022 - 21:06
      +1

      It's in the top 10 participation sports in Australia and top 5 for women. Also in the top 2 team sports.

      Getting young people (esp young girls) involved in sport has better health outcomes for later life.

      AFL is 15th, Union is 32nd, League is 36th.

      • GG57 on 02/11/2022 - 09:07
        +1

        I agree with you, except AFL isn't a sport

      • cerealJay on 03/11/2022 - 01:06
        +1

        Spectator numbers are not great for netball, because it's just netball. Quite a dull sport to watch. $15 million is a stupid amount of money for a sport that hardly anyone cares about. No reason to pay the players that much. They should get second jobs. It's just netball.

        I'm sure it's fun to play, and of course it's popular among school girls because it's easy. But what a waste of $15 million. The private sector would have filled the sponsorship void for the Diamonds. No need for tax payers to have anything to do with it. Dictator Dan made yet another mistake.

        • GG57 on 03/11/2022 - 09:02

          As others have correctly said, the sponsorship is out of the existing Visit Victoria budget. No new tax payer money seems to have been allocated.

          If there is any potential criticism, is should be that Visit Victoria may 'miss out' on some other sponsorship opportunity (because of lack of budget) that may have been of more value to the state.

          • cerealJay on 03/11/2022 - 11:13
            +2

            @GG57: It's the same thing. You're re-arranging words to make it sound like tax payers aren't paying. They are indeed paying. It makes no difference if the money is "new" or not.

            potential criticism

            I prefer kinetic criticism. The ad campaign "What's new in Melbourne" was dull and boring. Whoever is coming up with the strategies is doing a poor job. This video has more than 200,000 views and only 16 likes: https://youtu.be/dCb2Di4RQ-g

            Google censors the number of dislikes, but it's obvious that number would be in the thousands.

            Tax payer funded ANYTHING needs relentless criticism. Otherwise people sit comfortably in those jobs, pumping out generic crap and applauding themselves for it.

            • GG57 on 03/11/2022 - 16:40

              @cerealJay: So, are you being critical of netball, or of Visit Victoria?
              Or both?

  • franco cozzo on 01/11/2022 - 09:07
    -1

    this money would be better spent buying weapons to kill russians for our ukraine heroes!!!! /s

    • Crow K on 01/11/2022 - 09:17

      Now we understand why Pumbaa didn't get his own spinoff show.

  • VXCT on 01/11/2022 - 09:10
    -1

    Although the NSW LNP govt is as as** as any other one I am glad it didn't do the stupid thing like Dan….$15M free taxpayer's money for his failed election campaign. Another reason to not vote NSW Labor…Independent all the way now!

  • Richmond Tigers on 01/11/2022 - 10:18
    +1

    Honestly I wouldn't have minded if Netball died, its an ordinary sport with ridiculous rules, especially around contact and so on. It may have been the only way it could have grown from a "girly" sport into something better.

    No wonder so many girls are taking up AFL, sure the rules there are stupid too but at least not "dainty" stupid.

    • GG57 on 02/11/2022 - 09:09
      +1

      Not many 'girls' are taking up AFL as you state. Actually, there are no females playing AFL.

      • cerealJay on 03/11/2022 - 11:30

        Well it's literally the AFL with a 'W' on the end. Run by the AFL, the acronym is used as a way to describe the game. "To play AFL" is valid.

        • GG57 on 03/11/2022 - 11:41
          +1

          I disagree. AFL is the elite male competition. AFLW is the elite female competition.
          Kids at school, people running around on suburban ovals, having a kick in the backyard, are all playing Australian Rules football.
          Same as other kids play golf, or rugby league, or soccer, not PGA, NRL or EPL.

          • cerealJay on 03/11/2022 - 11:46

            @GG57:

            …having a kick in the backyard, are all playing Australian Rules football.

            "Anyone up for Australian Rules Football in the backyard" said nobody ever.

            • GG57 on 03/11/2022 - 11:57
              +1

              @cerealJay: Ah, I see the problem now, your profile shows you are in Sydney.

              "Anyone up for Australian Rules FootballAFL in the backyard" said nobody ever.

              Most of us call it 'footy', but never AFL.

              • cerealJay on 03/11/2022 - 12:19

                @GG57: The OP was talking about "girls taking up AFL", and you decided to jump on that because, I presume you had nothing better to do.

                Nor do I. So let me clear up your confusion.

                Pro league rules trickle down to school age leagues. All part of the same tree. The OP mentioned "taking up AFL", as a shortcut way to describe girls taking up the sport which is known by the name Australian Rules Football. But technically, there is no equivalent name for the female version of "Australian Rules Football", so people say AFLW. The OP omitted the W, and it doesn't matter. You haven't correct anything, or added anything of value.

                • GG57 on 03/11/2022 - 12:54

                  @cerealJay: The sport is the same (Australian Rules Football); AFL players are elite male players, AFLW players are elite female players. They both play the same sport (but in different leagues / competitions).
                  Just the same as there are lots of people that play golf, or rugby league, or soccer, but only the elite players compete in the PGA, NRL or EPL (but it is the same sport).

                  • cerealJay on 03/11/2022 - 19:33

                    @GG57:

                    The sport is the same (Australian Rules Football)

                    The irony of your comment is the RULES are most certainly not the same between the men's and women's game. Even the ball is a different size.

  • diddy50 on 01/11/2022 - 10:23
    +4

    I'll give you context of $15 million.
    That's 750 knee surgeries for people in pain stuck on the surgery waiting list.

    • ThithLord on 01/11/2022 - 11:29
      +5

      The money came out of an already-designated budget within Visit Victoria.

      Your point is completely irrelevant and invalid.

      • diddy50 on 01/11/2022 - 11:38
        +1

        Quite relevant to the people stuck waiting for surgeries when they see the money being spent paying for netball instead 🤷🏻‍♂️

        • ThithLord on 01/11/2022 - 11:48
          +1

          Completely irrelevant. You conservatives just throw mud against the wall, see what sticks, ay?

          • diddy50 on 01/11/2022 - 12:04
            +2

            @ThithLord: I'm not a conservative, but is that meant to be an insult? Lol okay 😘

    • shroomish on 01/11/2022 - 11:30
      +1

      Given the amount of publicity its got Dan got well more than he paid for. Clever move. 15 million wont magic up more surgeons in an instant so its a dumb equivalency.

    • p1 ama on 01/11/2022 - 16:18
      +9

      That's 750 knee surgeries for people in pain stuck on the surgery waiting list.

      There's three issues with this argument:

      (i) The $15M is coming out of Visit Victoria's budget, not the Department of Health's budget. In other words, if it were not spent on this, it would not have been spent on knee surgeries anyway. The decision is not "netball or knee surgeries", it's "netball or other tourism incentives".

      (ii) The issue with the surgery waiting list is not because we cannot afford the knee surgeries, but rather, because of various bottlenecks, which broadly are due to us not having enough orthopedic surgeons. There is not and has never been an issue with us affording to fund knee surgeries.

      (iii) If you were genuinely concerned about government waste and the need to prioritise spending, you would start at the top and work down - i.e. you start with the largest and most wasteful buckets of spend. If you've never crusaded against anything to do with government spending in the past and all of a sudden have a bleeding heart for those needing knee surgeries, I question your motives. For reference, the VIC government budget is around $90B, so if you're after savings, I'm sure you can find much bigger examples of waste.

  • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2022 - 10:45
    -1

    Sins of Hancock > Sins of Commonwealth

  • trapper on 01/11/2022 - 12:02
    -1

    Wouldn't it be absolutely comical if they turned down this sponsorship too lol

  • gar519 on 01/11/2022 - 12:55
    +1

    It is $15M over 4 years. The money comes from Visit Victoria budget, so not new money.
    The old furphy of " it should have been spent on ambulances etc.." is nonsense. You often need to spend money, to generate money, to get even more ambulances.
    Post Covid, more visitors, means more employment and getting money into people's pockets.

  • us3rnam3tak3n on 01/11/2022 - 13:16
    +3

    It seems like the premise of "tax payers bailing out netball" is flawed. If I'm not mistaken this is just a reallocation of funds already committed to advertising tourism in Victoria. The timing is quite astute as well given the media coverage they will get more bang for their buck.

    • gromit on 02/11/2022 - 17:17

      I think what you will inevitably see is simply an increase in budget for victoria tourism. So no it isn't flawed to say it is tax payers bailing them out, this was tax payer money earmarked for increasing tourism and should have been spent in a way to maximise the return to the tax payers not as a slush fund for pet projects.

      • us3rnam3tak3n on 02/11/2022 - 18:20
        -1

        A quick bit of searching online reveals a fluctuating expenditure over the last decade between 55 and 129 million so it will be hard to ascertain if this sponsorship has any impact. Tourism typically brings in around 15 billion, suggesting the promotion is money well spent.

  • 2expensive on 01/11/2022 - 13:43
    +3

    It only took 15m over 4 years to say f.u. to Gina? Bargain of the decade imo.

  • Ononono on 01/11/2022 - 15:12
    +6

    It's insignificant and usually no-one would pay attention, but Gina was the previous sponsor so they've turned it into another cheap culture war bullshit. That's all the "media" does in this country, get people outraged over tiny, insignificant things so they don't pay attention to the real problems.

  • dowhatuwant2 on 01/11/2022 - 15:29
    +4

    Dan Andrews is a (profanity)

  • PerthMan96 on 01/11/2022 - 16:04
    -1

    cant they spend $15 Million on research to help people with CFS ( Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) instead of spending this money on people who are most fit and healthy

    • kanmen on 01/11/2022 - 18:06

      Nah but bro haven't you read this thread I'd rather the money be spent on hospitals, on ambulances, extended hospital waiting times, on paramedics, on firefighters, on nurses, on Ukraine, on congestion, on paying off our debt, on teachers, instead of CFS

  • The Wololo Wombat on 01/11/2022 - 18:07
    +5

    How do people keep rewarding these decisions with votes?!?

    • p1 ama on 01/11/2022 - 19:00

      This decision is not even attributable to the state government, but even if it were, if your vote is swayed by a $15M netball sponsorship then you are a bloody moron.

      • The Wololo Wombat on 01/11/2022 - 19:01
        +3

        My vote would be swayed by a 15M netball sponsorship. I guess I'm a moron.

        • p1 ama on 01/11/2022 - 19:06
          -2

          Yup, truly - out of all the important issues state governments are responsible for that have a direct impact on the lives of millions of people - infrastructure, healthcare, education, social services, what it comes down to is a $15M netball sponsorship, 0.01% of the state budget. You are the problem.

          FWIW, I think it's equally moronic to vote for a party because of a $15M netball sponsorship as it is to vote against a party because of a $15M netball sponsorship, so I'm not just being a hack, I just is truly astounding that this is how people think.

          • The Wololo Wombat on 01/11/2022 - 19:15
            +2

            @p1 ama: Well, that's only if you think the issue is isolated to the sponsorship. This is public money used for (essentially) an ideological purpose. It's irresponsible at best, and corruption at worst. Using public funds for virtue signalling will lead to disaster…

            • p1 ama on 01/11/2022 - 19:36
              -2

              @The Wololo Wombat: What do you mean by ideological purpose? Is sponsorship of other sports, e.g. tennis, F1, AFL also ideological?

              On the topic of "virtue signalling", what virtues are being signalled?

              • The Wololo Wombat on 01/11/2022 - 19:56
                +3

                @p1 ama: As I understand it, Netball Australia rejected sponsorship for ideological reasons. While I think that reason is utterly ridiculous, I have no problems - they are not the government or any other entity that I contribute to - in some sense, I commend them for actually being prepared to wear the cost for the decision.

                Except… they did not wear the consequence of their decision (loss of funding, future in jeopardy)… the Government, using our money, decided to support them… the branch of the Government responsible (Tourism Australia) is signalling they agree with the stand that Netball Australia took… because… hey, what's 15M to the GOVERNMENT? Nothing?

                You're right it is 'nothing'… a mere 15M… but it's not the role of Government to take a stand for these kinds of issues. Netball Australia should be made to lie in the bed they made for themselves… or, collectively, individual people (or other private companies) should donate to support them… It is NOT the Government's role to bail private organisations out for their ideologically motivated decisions - that's the same as FORCING all Australians to donate… and I bloody don't want to donate. We can't support a Government that does this… one time… no consequence… 50 times… we have a major issue. I'll vote them out for the one time, so it doesn't become a 50 time… that's how democracy thrives - when we stand up to (now) small acts of injustice & corruption we ensure we don't have BIG acts of injustice and corruption.

                • lysp on 01/11/2022 - 21:12
                  +2

                  @The Wololo Wombat: So you're upset they found another sponsor?

                  The government is making a business decision.

                  For this sponsorship, they get an advertising campaign, they get tourism dollars (hotels, restaurants), they get top games played locally and not in another state. They spend money, which makes the state money in return.

                  Their $113M p.a budget is put into a number of campaigns, get $36.5B of spending in return and help pay for $320,000 jobs. That spending is in Victoria and not other states.

                • p1 ama on 01/11/2022 - 23:32
                  +3

                  @The Wololo Wombat:

                  As I understand it, Netball Australia rejected sponsorship for ideological reasons. While I think that reason is utterly ridiculous, I have no problems - they are not the government or any other entity that I contribute to - in some sense, I commend them for actually being prepared to wear the cost for the decision.

                  Yes, completely agree with you on this one.

                  Except… they did not wear the consequence of their decision (loss of funding, future in jeopardy)…

                  They did though, they made their decision without the forward knowledge that they would receive another sponsor (whether that sponsor was the government or some other entity).

                  the Government, using our money, decided to support them… the branch of the Government responsible (Tourism Australia) is signalling they agree with the stand that Netball Australia took… because… hey, what's 15M to the GOVERNMENT? Nothing?

                  Except the government is not sponsoring them, Visit Victoria is. There are a number of reasons why Visit Victoria could be sponsoring a netball team, including the fact that it may bring business revenue, increase tourism to Victoria…etc. It is not necessarily ideological.

                  You're right it is 'nothing'… a mere 15M… but it's not the role of Government to take a stand for these kinds of issues.

                  The government isn't taking a stand, Visit Victoria have chosen to use their budget to sponsor the netball team, just as they sponsor a large number of other sporting events.

                  It is NOT the Government's role to bail private organisations out for their ideologically motivated decisions - that's the same as FORCING all Australians to donate… and I bloody don't want to donate. We can't support a Government that does this… one time… no consequence… 50 times… we have a major issue. I'll vote them out for the one time, so it doesn't become a 50 time… that's how democracy thrives - when we stand up to (now) small acts of injustice & corruption we ensure we don't have BIG acts of injustice and corruption.

                  Well you're not being forced to donate anyway because you don't even live in VIC.

                  Be honest with yourself - how much of this is driven by your own political leanings of "my side good, other side bad"? It just sounds like you've reached a particular conclusion based on your pre-existing political leanings (i.e. "virtue signalling netball", make them pay, left-wing government…etc.) and just shaping the narrative to fit your view.

                  • The Wololo Wombat on 04/11/2022 - 14:56

                    @p1 ama: You're right - my interpretation of this event is certainly shaped on the axioms of my pre-existing political ideas.

                    There is a narrative… but I'm only 'shaping the narrative' if the axioms are wrong. In isolation, the event we are discussing is benign… but noting (certainly nothing political) should be interpreted in isolation.

                    So, really this is a discussion of the axioms themselves - we have different starting points - what are yours? How did you come to them? What evidence is there to support them? I certainly have strong, logical, historical reasons for the axioms I've used to shape my interpretation of this event. I hold these view skeptically - I'm sure some of them are (at least in part) wrong… (I'm always updating my worldview) but until I have evidence to change my worldview… why would I?

  • Herbse on 01/11/2022 - 18:21
    +7
    • It's coming out of the tourism budget to attract people to the state.
    • It's money already budgeted to tourism and not taking money away from other sources.
    • It's not the first game they've sponsored, the same thing is done for the tennis, and completely normal to happen in the name of tourism.

    But yea, How could Dan let this happen..

  • Cheapsize on 01/11/2022 - 20:04
    +4

    The question is framed "bail" out… Why?
    It's not a bail out.
    Its coming from an existing budget, it's a sponsorship and we scored events and endorsement from it.
    Makes no sense to me.

    • 91rs on 01/11/2022 - 22:33
      +1

      Bail out as if NA didn't secure large amounts of funding via sponsorship it would have struggled to continue operating in the coming year(s)?

      All the articles I read ran something along the lines of "The withdrawal of a sponsorship lifeline from mining giant Hancock Prospecting to Netball Australia, means the financial viability of the sport is at risk" - ABC

      • Cheapsize on 01/11/2022 - 23:34
        +2

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout

        This is not a bail out.

        "Netball Australia chief executive Kelly Ryan said Visit Victoria was one of many potential sponsors that reached out after the deal with the mining giant fell through and they worked “really quickly to create this partnership opportunity”, which she added was “unlike any that we’ve done before”."
        Source: Sydney morning herald

        Specifically, a independent public agency chose to sponsor using it's already allocated funding in return for advertising, branding and games played in Victoria. AND increased coordination between govt and the sport from grassroots to elite level.

        We don't know what other parties wanted sponsorship. We can potentially assume it probably would have been at less than 15 million? Definitely couldn't offer the coordination or government link and access to better training facilities offered.

        Netball Australia said it was about pushing the game at grassroots level and improving the sport overall.

  • IdBuyThat4aDollar on 01/11/2022 - 20:08
    -1

    I think money could be better spent, but then again I'm pretty sure Visit Victoria sponsored Ben Simmons in 2018/2019, and this will probably get a better return than that did lol

  • Thom81 on 01/11/2022 - 20:49
    +5

    Your poll is invalid. It's not a bail out. Can't remember people getting this up in arms about government money going to any other sport. And if we're talking about government wasting our money there is a heck of a lot more to get fired up about. The feds paid out $283 million dollars in job keeper payments to companies who actually increased their profit margins during the covid pandemic. I can't think of what the point of difference might be for the netballers? Anyone?

  • RefusdClassification on 01/11/2022 - 22:17
    +4

    Adult sport should be self funding. Professional sport doesn't help the destitute, it doesn't produce anything of value. The 2032 Olympic Games will be an egregious waste of money, and the ALP are the ones responsible. Money that could help the poor is instead squandered on elite sport.

  • 91rs on 01/11/2022 - 22:27
    +2

    It's a shame, it reinforces that kind of BS callout make someone else the bad guy (or girl) behaviour over something unrelated to the actual person or situation with the expectation that someone else will come in and save the day throwing away millions of dollars to a private entity in the process, very entitled and she thinks she's done something right because of it.

    I don't care where the budget was allocated, there is so much mismanagement and waste of taxpayers money (especially in VIC) it hardly matters these days but its still something I don't think should have happened.

    But as someone who lives in VIC, all it's got to offer are some crap sports and gambling if we're honest so they're trying to grab hold of anything they can.

    The real issue is that it's not a financially viable sport either due to the sport or due to the lack of attendance and crowds supporting it.

    • Domingo on 01/11/2022 - 23:11
      +3

      If you think all Victoria has to offer is sport and gambling then you really need to change the places you're looking.

      We had a trip to Healesville last weekend full of bushwalks/exploring and trying out small restaurants, which was an awesome way to unwind for a few days.

    • MessyG on 02/11/2022 - 13:06
      +2

      I think it's a great investment. If you think netball is a crap sport, you have no idea how popular it is and you're just telling the world you're one of those people who centres themselves in everything. I don't play netball, I sure as hell don't watch Australian mens basketball (choosing this as not as popular as football), but I can see investment in both is a good thing for the community and for tourism. Calling it a crap sport just seems self-centred and immature imo.

      Reinvestment of my taxes into the community is good investment. Investment of my taxes into subsidising multibillion dollar companies with ever rising profits while wages don't move - not so much.

  • quick-dry on 02/11/2022 - 01:06

    I think it would be interesting to have a "RemindMe" in a few years to see what (if any) tourism changes there have been to see the earn on that money.

    I guess one positive take is that if the oney wasn't advertising by being emblazoned across the players, it would've likely funnelled into some massive advertising/marketing company to pay directly for ad spend - rather than having many "ads" shown incidentally for free when they're logos on players. (It's shame we can't see A/B testing to figure out if that was a better return, or had any influence over some other advertising of the state).

    On a completely self-serving note that I'm sure plenty of us in self-funded niche sports think when looking at this money - just 10% of that money would've paid for my whole team's world championships campaigns for 15 years.

  • DingoBilly on 02/11/2022 - 12:05
    +2

    As others have said, your poll is misleading. It's not a bailout when it is genuinely bringing in tourism and eyes to Victoria.

    Unfortunate biased poll.

  • MessyG on 02/11/2022 - 13:02
    +1

    The mental gymnastics between this and Gina Rinehart thread is. incredible. There was pre-allocated money in the budget. It brings in tourism dollars from overseas. The demographic here may not realise how popular netball is both here and worldwide. None of this affects any of you here but suddenly we have a forum full of experts on netball and womens sport sponsorship…

    Then again, I remember the consensus about the Nintendo Switch on here before it was released was that it would be a flop when blind freddy could see it was going to be huge - and the arguments used were also incredible. I feel like screenshotting these threads for posterity!

  • RolandWaites on 02/11/2022 - 13:16
    +4

    It's only "bailing out" if you consider adverts on commercial TV from Tourism Victoria to be "bailing out" that network.

    (It's not)

  • shruglord on 02/11/2022 - 14:23
    +3

    I thought nothing could be worse than left wing snowflakes, but right wing snow flakes sure do set a new bar for rejection of reality and outright illogical hypocrisy.

  • Randolph Duke on 02/11/2022 - 15:42
    +6

    Government at all levels spends hundreds of millions on sport in this country - no idea why this one is upsetting so many people, particularly when it's securing more events in the state, which is Visit Victoria's remit.

    OK, I lied - it's not hard to work out why people are upset. 1) Dan 2) Women 3) "Anti-wokeness"

  • MarsTitan on 02/11/2022 - 16:19
    +2

    Dan will be remembered as the best premier of Victoria in about 20 years.

    • jaimex2 on 02/11/2022 - 23:00
      -1

      True. Roughly about the time the debt will be paid off after minimal spending and tax hiking to pay it off.

  • goatofwisdom on 02/11/2022 - 19:03
    +4

    Where's the option for "I'm fine with Visit Victoria spending some their marketing budget on this" ?

    It's not a bailout, it's a marketing investment.
    It's already garnered a heap of free press too, so probably a smart investment too.

  • cashews on 02/11/2022 - 22:21
    +6

    I see the culture wars have successfully taken off in Australia. I spoke to two guys today, who were absolutely seething and frothing at the mouth about this decision. They also threw in a couple of racist comments about the player at the center of the story.

    I can't understand what would drive grown adults to turn red and spit hatred about a deal which sees 3.75m spent from a 27.5m annual marketing budget.

    I'd hate to see Australia become as divided as the US, but at the current rate, it's going to happen soon.

    • 91rs on 03/11/2022 - 09:02
      +2

      It's well under way, don't think there is any stopping it at this rate.
      Thanks covid (point where I really saw people turn very harshly), thanks media who are fueling basically all of this who have zero accountability.

  • tessel on 03/11/2022 - 06:34
    -1

    Wow, Reddit thinks ozbargain is a bunch of right wing crazy mofos based on our previous threads.

  • taoz on 03/11/2022 - 10:01

    This is more political move by Labor in VIC.
    Yes im happy they are sponsoring sport.
    But why have they done it after all this media on Gina.
    They would have had ample opportunity to sponsor earlier in the year, its been well known Netball was needing finance for some time.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 03/11/2022 - 10:11
    -1

    80% of people have voted no, but these days we ignore the majority in favour of pandering to the ever increasing demands of the minority.

    • GG57 on 03/11/2022 - 10:27

      80% of people who voted in this forum on OzB.
      I agree that the number is high, but how many of those are actually residents of Victoria? How many have incorrectly assumed, when voting, that the state government created this as new expenditure (and not from an existing budget allocation)? How many incorrectly assumed, when voting, that the $15m was an immediate spend (and not spread over 4 - 5 years)?

      The only real poll is the one on 26 November. Imagine the mess we would be in if every single government decision, at all levels of government, had to go through some popularity poll.

      • OzzyOzbourne on 03/11/2022 - 11:28
        +1

        …or even considered what was in the public interest

    • cashews on 03/11/2022 - 13:03
      +3

      The poll itself is flawed with loaded questions.

  • taitems on 03/11/2022 - 11:08
    +2

    Gee, not a loaded question at all.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join