Backlash over Parramatta Council’s partnership deal with Eels continues

A western Sydney council’s decision to ink a partnership deal, reportedly worth up to $2.4m with the Parramatta Eels, isn’t over amid outrage over the use of ratepayers’ cash.

A United Services Union truck objects to Parramatta Council’s partnership with the Eels.

Parramatta Council and the Eels have hit back at criticism over a decision to ink a partnership deal worth up to $2.4m – amid outrage over the use of ratepayers’ cash.

The council voted in support of the partnership during a confidential meeting on December 11, with those in favour saying it would offer “exceptional benefits” to the community.

The United Services Union objected to the council’s partnership with the rugby league club and bore prominent messages slamming the decision on trucks driving around the CBD.

A total of $383,500 was committed for the first year and will go towards scholarships for western Sydney women, 18 clinics and school holiday camps for children including specific programs for young people from culturally diverse backgrounds.

Player appearances were also sought for events, while the council logo will appear on the NRLW team’s jersey.

Shortly after the meeting, the riled-up union hit the streets with huge displays on trucks showing photos of the councillors who supported the decision with the headline: “Why are these councillors paying $2.4m to the Eels?

The United Services Union’s mobile advertising campaign slamming Parramatta Council’s partnership with the Eels.

More prominent signage said: ‘$2.4m to sponsor a footy team!!!”

The message urged the public to tell the council “no” and stated how 200 local council jobs were vacant, $2.7m was needed to repair footpaths and more than 100 storm pits needed to be repaired.

However, the council ordered the union to remove its mobile advertising on December 21 after it saying the $2.4m partnership was inaccurate.

The Eels and the council have stressed how $383,500 was for 2024 and it would be reviewed for 2025 and 2026.

But independent councillor Kellie Darley, who voted against the partnership, has lodged a rescission motion requesting the council cancel it.

The United Services Union is furious Parramatta Council struck a $2.4m partnership deal with the Parramatta Eels.

It is expected to be discussed again in a closed session of the council’s first meeting of the year on February 12.

“On top of being entirely out of touch with community expectations, it was shoved through as a late report on the last meeting of the year with no time to properly debate it – and all behind closed doors,’’ Cr Darley said. “Our community deserves better.’’

Parramatta Mayor Pierre Esber maintained his objection to the deal.

“No one loves rugby league more than me,’’ he said. “I have no issue supporting the Eels … but $383,000 could be used to upgrade the female toilet blocks in the LGA.”

But independent councillor Lorraine Wearne backed the partnership and said the council’s $383,500 would be reviewed after 12 months.

“The $2.4m is a furphy,’’ she said.

“Council spends a lot of money because it’s good for the city and the people of the city. This is about promoting the city. It’s about exposure so the people now see council is involved with its most iconic team.’’

She said the funding would not compromise the council’s budget for expenses such as maintenance.

Our Local Community councillor Michelle Garrard said the deal “is really in the best interest of the community”.

Funding would support scholarships for women’s rugby league. Parramatta Eels front rower Madeline Jones. Picture: Facebook

A council spokesman said: “The partnership has no impact on staff jobs which continue to be funded in accordance with the council’s adopted budget and long-term financial plan.’’

Local Government Minister Ron Hoenig said he could understand the mixed reaction the decision sparked.

“Councils are democratically elected independent statutory authorities and are responsible for their own actions, but I can understand why there’s been a mixed response to this decision made by the council,’’ he said.

“Councillors are ultimately accountable to their communities for where and how residents’ money is spent and should always ensure it is appropriately directed towards meeting the needs of the community.”

The union was contacted for comment.