Doubtless there will be those on the Dunedin City Council and elsewhere to whom it makes complete sense, but to others, including those ratepayers already angered by and deeply opposed to the council's backing of the new Forsyth Barr Stadium, this week's revelations of a restructured Highlanders rugby board on which will sit a council-appointed director can only have come as a surprise.
It will serve to reinforce the view of some - already widely expressed - that the ratepayer is subsidising the sport of rugby in the city not only at a cost to his or her pocket, but to the detriment of other activities.
And, further, it will surely add fuel to the cry heard loudly hereabouts, and championed on the national stage by Act New Zealand party leader Rodney Hide, that councils are straying far too widely from their core business.
The details of the saga of the council-backed and part-ratepayer funded Forsyth Barr Stadium have been widely disseminated.
More recently has come news of the purchase by the council of Carisbrook in a deal widely seen as a bail-out of a financially moribund Otago Rugby Football Union.
The purchase price for the ground, the car park and a few union-owned houses is understood to amount to $7 million, and is thought to encompass the ORFU's $2 million debt to the council.
The latest chapter in this intertwined tale is the DCC's part in a major restructuring of the Highlanders franchise by the New Zealand Rugby Union.
Under the deal struck this week, the Highlanders will receive financial underwriting for two years from the NZRU and its board is to be reconstituted.
Formerly, that board comprised three independent NZRU-appointed directors and four provincial appointees, traditionally two from Otago, and one each from North Otago and Southland.
Under the new arrangement, the provincial appointees will drop to three, the NZRU will retain its three and the seventh director will be appointed by the DCC.
It is not known yet whether this director will be a councillor, although that has not been ruled out.
Dunedin City Council chief executive Jim Harland has defended the move saying it is "entirely appropriate", adding that the DCC had an active interest in having a successful rugby franchise in the South.
"The majority of the revenue in the new stadium will come from professional rugby, and the Highlanders are the vehicle for that," he said.
"Having an influence at director level will assist the council to ensure its tenant is as successful as it can be."
Put another way, the council is rightly protecting its investment, and staving off the inevitable criticism - were it not thus involved in the franchise - that it has committed vast amounts of ratepayer funds to a venture over whose primary revenue streams it has no influence.
Indeed, it might be said that once the funds were committed to the stadium, it was inevitable that the DCC should become involved to some extent with its major tenant.
Nor, it seems, is this particularly unusual.
The arrangement has been likened to Dunedin councillors being appointed to a wide variety of boards, and for example, the appointment of trustees to the Edgar Centre.
A spokesman for Local Government New Zealand said this week it was common for councillors to take on such directorships and the situation was "above board".
This will come as scant consolation to those who feel strongly that the DCC has exceeded its brief.
Nor does it address questions that loom disquietingly in the wings.
What should happen if the South were to lose the Highlanders franchise? The possibility is minimised by some, including the NZRU, but this is not an entirely absurd notion.
The Highlanders have not returned a profit since 2006.
Falling attendances and on-field results have underscored a loss of enthusiasm and support for the once buoyant southern franchise.
Rugby today dances to the tune of its television paymasters - whence a greater portion of its revenue comes - and should the Highlanders' fortunes get sucked into the vortex of a ratings tailspin, the future could be bleak.
International media corporations are not known for their sentimental beneficence towards poorly performing "assets".
While it could be argued the council's involvement will help secure the franchise's future long-term here, the prospect will do nothing to assuage the concerns of those who, with some force, suggest that ratepayer funds should be put exclusively towards providing a city's basic amenities.
Nor will it impress those who might allow for some discretionary deployment of such funds - but only in rock-solid investments, or community-wide cultural or social assets.
Whether professional rugby represents such an investment, many will undoubtedly question.