Gould fires off some more shots
The NRL announced last week that it could not afford the $13m a year per club funding model that was agreed to prior to Christmas last year.
The NRL claims it has a $60m black hole in its finances. The NRL declared that it could only afford the lesser amount of $11.5m per club, and promised to reimburse the clubs in year 2023, out of the first year of the NEXT broadcast rights deal.
So, we haven't commenced the new broadcast rights deal which is due in 2018, but the NRL now needs to borrow from the future broadcast deal, in 2023.
Just hold onto that thought for a moment.
Honestly, I could write a book on this stuff. I cannot even scratch the surface of these issues in a column of this type. But I will try to make a couple of key points.
This is the second time the NRL has reneged on a deal with its primary stakeholders. Through strategically placed media stories, the NRL has tried to deflect attention away from their own financial mismanagement and sell to the public the notion that our NRL clubs are poorly run, losing a lot of money, and are being greedy in demanding a funding package the game cannot afford.
Similarly, the Player's Association (RLPA) has been slammed by NRL management over their recent salary claims in the new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiations.
http://wwos.nine.com.au/2017/05/23/17/21/nrl-power-rankings-round-11
According to the NRL, it appears everyone in the game is being irresponsible and greedy, EXCEPT the Commission and the NRL Administration.
The NRL claims it cannot afford the demands of the players and the clubs.
Now, here's the point.
The question should not be WHETHER the NRL can afford the requests of the RLPA and the clubs.
The question should be WHY CAN'T the game afford to pay this amount to the people who actually put on the show, the players and the clubs, given the fact the game has raised new record revenue levels every year for the past decade?
Where has all the money been spent? Has it been spent wisely? Or has a large proportion of it been wasted?
Why is the game needing to source loan funding from banks to meet its requirements?
Surely the first three priorities the game needs to fund would be -
- The current day players who actually provide the entertainment and who sacrifice so much else in their lives to put their bodies through this most demanding of physical and emotional endeavours.
- The current 16 NRL clubs who actually develop and care for these players, as well as being the frontline interaction point for the game's fans. The fans cheer for the players and the clubs. They don't cheer for the NRL.
- The third most important area of investment would be the development of our future players. Who will be the stars of the future? Who is best to cater for and develop grassroots participation, interact with junior leagues and regional areas? Again, I maintain this should come back to the responsibility of the NRL clubs, but that's a discussion for another day.
These are the FIRST three things we need to get right. The players, the clubs, and the future of both. Otherwise, there is no NRL.
That doesn't mean that ALL the money should be given to the players and the clubs. Far from it. Nor are the players and the clubs demanding ALL of the money. Again, far from it.
But my point is that the players and clubs should be the FIRST point of consideration. At the moment, the players and clubs are the LAST point of consideration. The NRL is saying the clubs and players can only get what's left over, after they have spent all the money on other things.
Trust me when I say, the NRL has overspent on all these other things. The increase in size of the NRL administration has been irresponsible. The wastage at head office has been horrendous.
When the NRL sells itself to broadcasters, governments, sponsors and fans, what is it actually selling?
It is selling the game's popularity.
It's selling the fact that so many millions of people are drawn to this game as either participants, performers, fans, members, spectators or TV viewers.
Why are people drawn to this game?
Because of the emotions this game inspires.
The spirit of competition, the childhood memories of playing and/or watching the game, the physicality, the speed and skill of the players, the atmosphere, the drama, the hero worship, the colours and logos of your favourite team, as well as the history and the rivalry your team has with other teams.
This is the product. This is what sells.
Therefore, the players and clubs should be the first to benefit from whatever money the game raises.
Once these areas have been suitably funded, we can then see what we have left to secure the future of the game, to market and sell its popularity, invest in making our game accessible and easy to watch on all media platforms, expand the game's horizons, expand the NRL footprint, expand the game's footprint, assist the development of international competition, assist the needs of struggling communities, and hopefully represent our game as the foremost platform for governments, corporates and charities to raise awareness and reach the people they need to reach.
Now, back to the funding package.
The figure of $13m being paid to the clubs came from a basic model of clubs receiving 130% of the salary cap. The proposal was $10m to the players, and an additional $3m to the clubs to help fund the running of their businesses.
16 clubs each receiving $13m equals $208m in total club funding.
Depending on who you listen to, it's argued that the NRL will raise anywhere from $400m to $700m in revenue every year for the next five years.
For the sake of the argument, let's go with the lowest prediction, even though it falls well short of reality.
If the game only raises $400m in revenue each year, that would leave $192m a year to run the game, invest in its future, and save some money for a rainy day.
On the more likely figure of $500m revenue per year, that would leave $292m per year to run the game.
If we can't run rugby league in this country for that amount of money, then quite frankly we have the wrong people in charge.
The NRL claims this is not enough. The major problem is that in the past, the NRL has borrowed money from our present. Now they are claiming that for them to meet the demands of the present, the game needs to borrow from the future (and as we now know, the banks).
We now also have clubs voting to reduce the player’s salary cap to as low as $9m, so the clubs can pocket more of the $13m funding package for themselves.
I can understand that line of thinking. I can understand the financial pressures that come with running a cluband trying to keep it competitive on the playing field, but financially solvent for the owners or members off the field, depending on how your clubs ownership is structured.
Our game and our NRL clubs are also competing with rival codes in their individual areas. Running a competitive football club that represents our code in the manner it should be portrayed is indeed costly.
The simple solution would be to have a flexible salary cap, with a minimum and maximum spend.
Clubs should be given the option to spend a minimum of, say $9m, or a maximum of $10m on its NRL roster.
Some will argue that the salary cap should be level for all clubs. That's rubbish. The salary cap is not level now. We can all see the effects of some clubs being able to raise well over a $1m in third party player sponsorships as against those who can't.
Quite simply, the clubs and game should provide more transparency regarding the total spend on its player roster. That way the fans understand what their club is up against.
Tell the fans if you are running a $9m or $10m salary cap. Tell them if a club has players with $1m in total third party sponsorships as against other clubs with far less amounts. Just the total amounts will suffice. No need for individual player salaries or sponsorships.
In other thoughts -
Personally I think 30 players in the top roster is too many. I think 26 is plenty.
Every NRL club should be compelled to run a player development system, again with a minimum and maximum spend.
Every NRL club should have to adopt a regional or country league area to nurture the game.
Every NRL club should be compelled to run schools and junior league programs in its own area.
The size and cost of the NRL Central administration needs to significantly reduced. All the key programs and drivers of our game need to be decentralised away from a head office approach, and be implemented through the NRL clubs, or the state and national team brands.
Our game has gone completely the other way. The NRL thinks it is everything in the game and that the clubs are merely suppliers of a product.
It is now approaching June 2017.
We still don't have a salary cap or funding package for season 2018, even though every club has been trying to plan and budget for 2018 since about 2014/15. That's how far ahead clubs need to plan.
We still only have four of our 16 NRL clubs on contract for season 2018!!
I ask you one simple question:
Is this the way to run a professional sporting code?
Read more at
http://wwos.nine.com.au/2017/05/26/...ns-governance-of-the-game#dKV6QvA2fPRHDuef.99
