This day 25 years ago........

[tri_colours]

Except that you know, the market is massively over-saturated and that's stunting the growth of all the clubs in it, which is having the knock-on effect of meaning that heaps of resources have to be dumped into them through skyrocketing grants to keep them all alive and as stable as possible (not a problem that is restricted to Sydney, but it's amplified in Sydney), that has the extra knock-on effect of stunting the growth of the sport (not just the NRL) in this country as massive amounts of money are flushed down a black hole in propping up a handful of elite clubs instead of being invested into growth.

But yeah apart from that and a handful of other issues, everything is hunky-dory.

Our game currently brings in more money than it ever has. So why is it you think that the people who make the money shouldn't get a larger share of the money? And who are these clubs that are being propped up by this massive amount of money you talk off?

 

[The Great Dane]

Our game currently brings in more money than it ever has. So why is it you think that the people who make the money shouldn't get a larger share of the money? And who are these clubs that are being propped up by this massive amount of money you talk off?

Over $100 million dollars in grants are dumped into the 9 Sydney NRL clubs each year, that is more than the whole of the NSWRL gets and (IIRC) not to far off what the rest of the country gets, and to be clear that is only to support the 9 NRL clubs in Sydney and not very much of that money trickles down below the clubs operations.

Again over $100 million dollars a year!

Now even if we accept that they have earned that money (BTW I don’t accept that, but that is a different argument) the NRL doesn’t need all 9 of the clubs in Sydney to produce that amount of money, and in fact could almost certainly produce more than they currently produce by replacing a few of the clubs in Sydney with new clubs from big advertising markets.
So the NRL are pissing hundreds of millions of dollars into Sydney, while using their lack of cash as an excuse not to expand, when if they cut down on the Sydney clubs and took that money they were using in Sydney to expand then they, and the sport as a whole, would be much better off.

BTW, with the exception of Parramatta, Penrith, Canterbury, and IIRC maybe the Roosters, every Sydney club is totally reliant on those NRL grants to survive (and ones that aren’t would be reliant on leagues club grants if their NRL grants were taken away) ,so they are the clubs being propped up by the NRL. That isn’t necessarily a knock on them as such, because most clubs in the NRL are reliant on grant money, and in the beginning at least pretty much every expansion club would be as well, but the grant money that is being spent propping up those smaller Sydney clubs could be much better spent propping up clubs in places like Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide, etc.

 

[Perth Red]

Nrl spends about 24% of its revenue on the Sydney clubs as opposed to afl spending about 19% on its Melbourne clubs. Afl has 4 basket case Melbourne clubs that require significant extra funding, St Kilda being by far the worse, compared to the other 5 clubs (about $23mill extra between the 4 of them in 2018).

Afl spent around $81mill last year on grants to its 4 expansion clubs (swans being way below the rest). When you think that we would need to spend around $30mill a year for two new clubs it really does make you wonder what we are waiting for!

The best hope for expansion is the existing clubs become stable and ideally profitable, but if we have to wait until then we may be way too late.

 

[tri_colours]

Over $100 million dollars in grants are dumped into the 9 Sydney NRL clubs each year, that is more than the whole of the NSWRL gets and (IIRC) not to far off what the rest of the country gets, and to be clear that is only to support the 9 NRL clubs in Sydney and not very much of that money trickles down below the clubs operations.

Again over $100 million dollars a year!

Now even if we accept that they have earned that money (BTW I don’t accept that, but that is a different argument) the NRL doesn’t need all 9 of the clubs in Sydney to produce that amount of money, and in fact could almost certainly produce more than they currently produce by replacing a few of the clubs in Sydney with new clubs from big advertising markets.
So the NRL are pissing hundreds of millions of dollars into Sydney, while using their lack of cash as an excuse not to expand, when if they cut down on the Sydney clubs and took that money they were using in Sydney to expand then they, and the sport as a whole, would be much better off.

BTW, with the exception of Parramatta, Penrith, Canterbury, and IIRC maybe the Roosters, every Sydney club is totally reliant on those NRL grants to survive (and ones that aren’t would be reliant on leagues club grants if their NRL grants were taken away) ,so they are the clubs being propped up by the NRL. That isn’t necessarily a knock on them as such, because most clubs in the NRL are reliant on grant money, and in the beginning at least pretty much every expansion club would be as well, but the grant money that is being spent propping up those smaller Sydney clubs could be much better spent propping up clubs in places like Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide, etc.

The clubs bring in almost 500m a year.

Again - almost half a billion dollars


The AFL pays a similar grant to there clubs. And on top of that they give there clubs an additional $50 or 60m worth of hand outs annually.

Who are the clubs that are holding the ARLC back and how? A piddling $6m dollars was all Newc, Balmain and the titans got between them. And those clubs are in a different position now. But if clubs fall by the way side they fall by the wayside, i'm sure somebody will take there place.

Sydney is the most valuable advertising real estate in Australia. We lucky enough to own that now we need to add to that not weaken it or water it down


The ARLC are rebuilding there war chest and then they will go from there.

 

[tri_colours]

Nrl spends about 24% of its revenue on the Sydney clubs as opposed to afl spending about 19% on its Melbourne clubs. Afl has 4 basket case Melbourne clubs that require significant extra funding, St Kilda being by far the worse, compared to the other 5 clubs (about $23mill extra between the 4 of them in 2018).

Afl spent around $81mill last year on grants to its 4 expansion clubs (swans being way below the rest). When you think that we would need to spend around $30mill a year for two new clubs it really does make you wonder what we are waiting for!

The best hope for expansion is the existing clubs become stable and ideally profitable, but if we have to wait until then we may be way too late.

GWS and the Suns, including there grant, get over $40m a year. And have been for the last 10 years.

Over the previous contract the ARLC averaged $10m a year.

 

[The Great Dane]

The clubs bring in almost 500m a year.

Again - almost half a billion dollars

And a fifth of that goes to just 9 clubs in Sydney.

The AFL pays a similar grant to there clubs. And on top of that they give there clubs an additional $50 or 60m worth of hand outs annually.

Who are the clubs that are holding the ARLC back and how? A piddling $6m dollars was all Newc, Balmain and the titans got between them. And those clubs are in a different position now. But if clubs fall by the way side they fall by the wayside, i'm sure somebody will take there place.

Well you obviously didn’t read my post. . . Or you are incapable of understanding it...

BTW, Balmain don’t exist in the NRL any more.

Sydney is the most valuable advertising real estate in Australia. We lucky enough to own that now we need to add to that not weaken it or water it down

Sure, but the NRL probably only needs a few clubs to capitalise on that fact, not f**king nine!

The ARLC are rebuilding there war chest and then they will go from there.

By the time they rebuild the “war chest” it’ll be to late, they’ll be a small parochial sport that is restricted to a handful of heartlands that is slowly dying off, just like it is in the UK and just like RU is here.

But cut 5 clubs from Sydney and save $65 million a year. There’s your “war chest”!

 

[Dark Corner]

And a fifth of that goes to just 9 clubs in Sydney.Well you obviously didn’t read my post. . . Or you are incapable of understanding it...

BTW, Balmain don’t exist in the NRL any more. Sure, but the NRL probably only needs a few clubs to capitalise on that fact, not f**king nine!By the time they rebuild the “war chest” it’ll be to late, they’ll be a small parochial sport that is restricted to a handful of heartlands that is slowly dying off, just like it is in the UK and just like RU is here.

But cut 5 clubs from Sydney and save $65 million a year. There’s your “war chest”!

Who would you cut ?

 

[tri_colours]

And a fifth of that goes to just 9 clubs in Sydney.Well you obviously didn’t read my post. . . Or you are incapable of understanding it...

BTW, Balmain don’t exist in the NRL any more. Sure, but the NRL probably only needs a few clubs to capitalise on that fact, not f**king nine!By the time they rebuild the “war chest” it’ll be to late, they’ll be a small parochial sport that is restricted to a handful of heartlands that is slowly dying off, just like it is in the UK and just like RU is here.

But cut 5 clubs from Sydney and save $65 million a year. There’s your “war chest”!

I read your post alright! You seem to have a much higher opinion of it then I do.

And why shouldn't clubs and there players get very good money? It's a brutal game that entertains millions of people.

So if the AFL were to cut 5 Melbourne clubs , and they where to dish up more games like the one we seen today, do you think the AFL would be better off?


It's only been 8 years, but If it is to late then you can blame your mates at SL. because that's who's been holding the game back for the previous 18 years.

 

[Perth Red]

I read your post alright! You seem to have a much higher opinion of it then I do.

And why shouldn't clubs and there players get very good money? It's a brutal game that entertains millions of people.

So if the AFL were to cut 5 Melbourne clubs , and they where to dish up more games like the one we seen today, do you think the AFL would be better off?


It's only been 8 years, but If it is to late then you can blame your mates at SL. because that's who's been holding the game back for the previous 18 years.

In reality both comps would be better off cutting 2-3 failing heartland clubs. AFL could save itself $55mill a year if it cut its three deadwoods out of Melbourne.
NRL $39mill which it could invest in three new areas to grow the game.

 

[tri_colours]

In reality both comps would be better off cutting 2-3 failing heartland clubs. AFL could save itself $55mill a year if it cut its three deadwoods out of Melbourne.
NRL $39mill which it could invest in three new areas to grow the game.

All there clubs are cyclical , like ours. So who would you cut.?

And who would be the three clubs you replace them with? A Suns2? Or would you expect the Networks to pay the same money for a 15 team comp.

And with the Lions , GWS, Freemantle and Suns still in the comp, your just going to have an even greater percentage of lopsided matches. I'm sure the networks would be pleased about that also.

 

[Perth Red]

All there clubs are cyclical , like ours. So who would you cut.?

And who would be the three clubs you replace them with? A Suns2? Or would you expect the Networks to pay the same money for a 15 team comp.

And with the Lions , GWS, Freemantle and Suns still in the comp, your just going to have an even greater percentage of lopsided matches. I'm sure the networks would be pleased about that also.

Bring in Tasmania or perth 3 to make up 156.
I suspect the tv deal loss of a game would be less than the savings made so a net gain. It’s not really that cyclical when you look at the club grants the afl has laid out over last 5 years. Bulldogs, St kilda, Nth Melbourne and melbourne have been consistently the neediest recipients by a long way in Melbourne.

 

[taipan]

Because they’re clubs have supported it, not opposed it. They’ve been able to grow because the clubs accept a variable grant system, largely because they are successfully run, unlike most nrl clubs.

Not to mention their first expansion was based on relocation out of the over crowded market lol

LOL
Their code absolutely dominates their city(Melbourne),the other codes' following pales into comparison.They also completely dominate the media, the business community and even Government.It doesn't happen in Sydney.

You think the Storm received anywhere near the Vic media attention in the 99 G/F ,as the Gnats did last week?
It's a hell of a lot easier to run an organisation when you are so dominant, in the market place as Telstra was ages ago.
Of course the AFL clubs accept the system ,they don't have other codes making big inroads.It's akin to the mafia running South Chicago.

Please !! If the Swans hadn't been in financial sh*t ,I doubt they would have been relocated.They nearly went down the tube 3 times, and the SL war gave them a huge fillip.And off course as the Sydney media does, they fawn over the Sydney AFL clubs, you need to get out a bit.The amount of fawning the last week for GWS was cringeworthy.
You live almost a hemisphere away, you have zero idea, of what the Sydney media does with respect to other codes, including the home of "rugby league"(oops) channel 9.

Sydney market is far more flexible, flick clubs, fans will not follow other clubs.That has been shown with Rabbits and Norths.That means less fans/ less eyeballs in the biggest commercial market in the country.

 

[tri_colours]

Bring in Tasmania or perth 3 to make up 156.
I suspect the tv deal loss of a game would be less than the savings made so a net gain. It’s not really that cyclical when you look at the club grants the afl has laid out over last 5 years. Bulldogs, St kilda, Nth Melbourne and melbourne have been consistently the neediest recipients by a long way in Melbourne.

They have shown no real interest in regional Tasmania. They would sooner spend $100's of millions of dollars trying to crack the Sydney and Brisbane markets, I wonder why that is??

 

[Perth Red]

LOL
Their code absolutely dominates their city(Melbourne),the other codes' following pales into comparison.They also completely dominate the media, the business community and even Government.It doesn't happen in Sydney.

You think the Storm received anywhere near the Vic media attention in the 99 G/F ,as the Gnats did last week?
It's a hell of a lot easier to run an organisation when you are so dominant, in the market place as Telstra was ages ago.
Of course the AFL clubs accept the system ,they don't have other codes making big inroads.It's akin to the mafia running South Chicago.

Please !! If the Swans hadn't been in financial sh*t ,I doubt they would have been relocated.They nearly went down the tube 3 times, and the SL war gave them a huge fillip.And off course as the Sydney media does, they fawn over the Sydney AFL clubs, you need to get out a bit.The amount of fawning the last week for GWS was cringeworthy.
You live almost a hemisphere away, you have zero idea, of what the Sydney media does with respect to other codes, including the home of "rugby league"(oops) channel 9.

Sydney market is far more flexible, flick clubs, fans will not follow other clubs.That has been shown with Rabbits and Norths.That means less fans/ less eyeballs in the biggest commercial market in the country.

Sounds like a lot of excuses and victim mentality lol. If Sydney’s so sht it’s time we moved on and started investing more in other cities.

 

[taipan]

Sounds like a lot of excuses and victim mentality lol. If Sydney’s so sht it’s time we moved on and started investing more in other cities.

Sounds exactly like the facts and your complete lack of Sydney experience.

 

[mongoose]

The NRL would need to have a more crowd friendly schedule if it wants to take some of the grant money back from clubs. It can't force clubs to play Thursday night, friday 6pm to get more TV money then not give it back the clubs the NRL is disadvantaging.

 

[Perth Red]

The NRL would need to have a more crowd friendly schedule if it wants to take some of the grant money back from clubs. It can't force clubs to play Thursday night, friday 6pm to get more TV money then not give it back the clubs the NRL is disadvantaging.

Hopefully the nrl continues to grow its non media revenue then it can afford reasonable club grants and to control tv so it gets best outcomes for the committed fans who actively support the clubs.