ARLC Commission Changes

[Perth Red]

Biggest issue I can see is the ARLC/NRL's inability to balance its books. Its made losses two years in a row and heading for a third year of losses, its spent its savings, its had a significant advance from next years deal and is now saying it might have to take out a loan. All of this on the back of a massive revenue increase over last 5 years. Out of $2billion over last 5 years Todd is saying they didn't factor in a 4 month period with no tv income and its effect on cash flow?

re clubs, if they are to get the $13mill grant, which it sounds like, then club revenue will be in the region of $21-$30mill a year depending on club and its sources of income. They will have no excuse for crying poor from 2018.

Also the loss is a bit of a furphy and is in fact $10.1mill when extra payments to troubled clubs is included. Now the NRL may get this back, or it may not. Also on that point the NRL advanced some of the next Tv deal to clubs this year with intention of recouping it back next year, I wonder if that will happen?

 

[Stormwarrior82]

I'd rather the NRL didn't run a million dollar community program.
I want them to run a football comp.
But if they must, they can pay for it with what's left after paying for the competition and giving the participants of that competition their rightful earnings.

They have no right to tell successful clubs what they should or shouldn't be doing with their money, so allegations of wastage by clubs are not relevant. The clubs are in competition with each other, how they spend their money is part of the off-field game.

Furthermore I have no faith whatsoever in the NRL to suddenly run Rugby League development when the clubs have taken care of this for over 100 years. Allocate fair funding and bugger off.

Nonsense like this is exactly why they can't afford to pay clubs what they promised. This is what Gus means by clubs and players being a secondary consideration.

The Nrl is a lot more than running a footbal comp and that's a good thing. That's why we have successful business leaders on our commission. It's not just about football. We have ex players, ex club Ceos in the Nrl hierarchy. I guess most of it comes down to what a person feels is a reasonable wage (rightful earnings) for a player.

Haha I had to laugh when you said successful clubs. You mean successful club.... broncos? Clubs that get propped up by leagues club and would be bankrupt without them or there rich owners is hardly a sign of success. Yes they are in competition with each other but the majority of them are hardly successful off the park.

Do you feel clubs have been doing a good job developing rugby league? I don't. The decrease in player participation says "HELL NO". Maybe the nrl taking over is what is needed. I don't think the roosters care much about development in country Nsw or development in general.

Maybe the nrl need to monetize the impact of all the off field indiscretions by clubs and players over the current tv deal and add it into the next salary deal. If the nrl can still increase revenue when players and clubs are doing there best to stuff up, that is something.

It's not that they can't pay the clubs what the clubs want, it will just come from an area like grassroots or media.

 

[adamkungl]

The Nrl is a lot more than running a footbal comp and that's a good thing.

Is it? Without making a completely blanket statement, if it doesn't bring fans or money in it's likely pointless fluff.

Haha I had to laugh when you said successful clubs. You mean successful club.... broncos? Clubs that get propped up by leagues club and would be bankrupt without them or there rich owners is hardly a sign of successful.

Clubs spend money that is available. Leagues clubs only exist to fund League teams. They aren't "propped up". If the money wasn't available it wouldn't be spent.

Do you feel clubs have been doing a good job developing rugby league? I don't. The decrease in player participation says "HELL NO". Maybe the nrl taking over is what is needed. I don't think the roosters care much about development in country Nsw or development in general.

Hmm we have 100+ years of RL clubs growing Australian RL into the world's strongest Rugby competition of either code. Participation declines since the shiny new commission starting sticking fingers in pies and suddenly the clubs are incapable of doing the job they've been doing forever.

Jesus christ the logical leaps you have to make to come up with this garbage.

 

[insert.pause]

You're right that there is a lot of vested interest.
A few reasons that it seems it's the clubs leaking is
1. Why would the nrl leak info to a reporter that paints them as the problem?
2. Grants email at apparently 2:45 was addressed to the Ceos. No one else. A photo of the email was shown.
3. A conversation about the salary cap issues between the nrl and clubs that was suppose to be confidential founds it way to the paper.

The leaking of any confidential info is always going to upset someone. No matter how or who leaks, what gets reported and is the normal theme is that it's the Nrls fault.

You referenced a leaked report to clubs from the NRL about players CBA demands, which players were being asked to respond about. The NRL would clearly benefit because it paints the RLPA as being greedy and unreasonable within the financial constraints of the game.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

Leagues clubs exist to fund League teams you goose. The losses are imaginary.
NRL puts out this nonsense and you complain about the players and clubs publicly defending themselves fmd

Nrl puts out what nonsense? Tell me What nonsense? To there detriment they don't wage any media campaign against anyone. The reporters constantly whinge about lack of communication from Nrl. But you just keep making things up to suit your rant.

Exactly... leagues clubs do exist to fund league teams. I was waiting for you to tell me that because I know, you know and most on here know that. It's definitely not reported like that. How do the reporters get information about a clubs losses before the financial report for that year is tabled? $53 mil loss sounds a lot better than a $10 mil loss doesn't it?

 

[adamkungl]

Nrl puts out what nonsense? Tell me What nonsense? To there detriment they don't wage any media campaign against anyone. The reporters constantly whinge about lack of communication from Nrl. But you just keep making things up to suit your rant.

Exactly... leagues clubs do exist to fund league teams. I was waiting for you to tell me that because I know, you know and most on here know that. It's definitely not reported like that. How do the reporters get information about a clubs losses before the financial report for that year is tabled? $53 mil loss sounds a lot better than a $10 mil loss doesn't it?

Answered your own question.

Answer me this: If clubs lose somewhere in the range of $50million a year, how are they still standing?
Answer is, they dont.

 

[insert.pause]

I'd rather the NRL didn't run a million dollar community program.
I want them to run a football comp.
But if they must, they can pay for it with what's left after paying for the competition and giving the participants of that competition their rightful earnings.

They have no right to tell successful clubs what they should or shouldn't be doing with their money, so allegations of wastage by clubs are not relevant. The clubs are in competition with each other, how they spend their money is part of the off-field game.

Furthermore I have no faith whatsoever in the NRL to suddenly run Rugby League development when the clubs have taken care of this for over 100 years. Allocate fair funding and bugger off.

Nonsense like this is exactly why they can't afford to pay clubs what they promised. This is what Gus means by clubs and players being a secondary consideration.

What do you deem are "rightful earnings"? Obviously it's more than $13m p.a.

 

[insert.pause]

Answered your own question.

Answer me this: If clubs lose somewhere in the range of $50million a year, how are they still standing?
Answer is, they dont.

4 clubs are still standing only because the NRL were forced to bail them out. Coincidentally two of those clubs fell into trouble when the leagues clubs could no longer cover the football clubs losses. It's not sustainable.

 

[Perth Red]

We have had one year of decline in full contact mens regos, other player numbers are up and we want to throw $100mill at a problem that didn't exist prior to last year? Like I said most of that $100mill will be going to the second tier comp clubs and not grass roots anyway. If we were talking about funding a free national insurance scheme, free kits for every team and subsidised regos then I think we would all be overjoyed, but a load of NRl reserve grade clubs getting another half a mill year is hardly going to address something that may or may not be a problem.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

You referenced a leaked report to clubs from the NRL about players CBA demands, which players were being asked to respond about. The NRL would clearly benefit because it paints the RLPA as being greedy and unreasonable within the financial constraints of the game.

It wasn't a leaked report to clubs at all. I referenced a leaked report from the clubs.

The Nrl was negotiating with the Rlpa around the salary cap. The clubs complained that they were being told nothing and sort there own information from the Rlpa and do deals. The Nrl was pissed that the Rlpa and clubs were colluding. The Nrl then had a meeting with the clubs to tell them the situation and the state of play with the Rlpa under confidence. The clubs leaked that information to undermine the nrl. Why would the nrl leak it. It lessens there negotiation power if the clubs were on there side.

 

[adamkungl]

What do you deem are "rightful earnings"? Obviously it's more than $13m p.a.

Why? Haven't the NRL said they can't even fund the 13mil they've promised?

I'm not sure what the exact number is - but it seems fair that it should be in proportion with the game's earnings, since the players and clubs are the people who actually generate that money.

My main concern is the attitude, helped by the NRL, that funding going to the clubs is "handouts" and that players asking for a proportional increase in income in line with the games overall earnings are greedy. The attitude that the NRL has some right to tell clubs how to run their affairs while they themselves leak money.
And the NRL actually ARE leaking money, unlike the majority of the clubs.

Secondary concern is the idea that that fairly young ARLC are experts on all things Rugby League and the clubs that have grown the game for decades are inept.
This ties into debate over whether things like development should be centrally run.

The NRL has no runs on the board - why should we trust them to run grassroots Rugby League from their offices in Moore park? Is it more expensive to do so? Do regions get the attention they need?
What does throwing $100 million at a problem achieve when the people with the actual problem are saying we don't need $100 million we need you to actually listen?

 

[Perth Red]

4 clubs are still standing only because the NRL were forced to bail them out. Coincidentally two of those clubs fell into trouble when the leagues clubs could no longer cover the football clubs losses. It's not sustainable.

TBF if Manly or Souths or Warriors or Storms rich owners walked away then they would probably be unsustainable as well. It seems clubs cant or wont spend within their means, some know their owners will chip in, some know their leagues club will chip in. The clubs in strife are the ones where no one can chip in and they keep spending regardless. Putting the grant up to $13mill means little if the poor revenue clubs continue feeling like they have to keep spending to keep pace with the big revenue clubs. For people who say crowds don't matter, one of the biggest sources of revenue after the NRL grant is attendance and memberships, which also impact merch sales. After that it is corporate support. A lot of clubs have got into strife when they lose a sponsor or two and it leaves a $1million black hole.

I do agree though that they shouldn't report them as losses, that should be reserved for those that have run at a loss with no way of covering it.

NRL has "loaned" out $16million in last two years on the 4 problem clubs. It has also loaned out $24million this year to clubs from the 2018- Tv deal advance.

 

[adamkungl]

4 clubs are still standing only because the NRL were forced to bail them out. Coincidentally two of those clubs fell into trouble when the leagues clubs could no longer cover the football clubs losses. It's not sustainable.

Treating the entire club body as inept children due to the actions of a minority.

And the NRLs decisions in how and to what extent they've propped up these clubs is yet another questionable financial decision.

 

[adamkungl]

TBF if Manly or Souths or Warriors or Storms rich owners walked away then they would probably be unsustainable as well. It seems clubs cant or wont spend within their means, some know their owners will chip in, some know their leagues club will chip in. The clubs in strife are the ones where no one can chip in and they keep spending regardless.

Exactly.
No doubt some clubs have been mismanaged recently, this was never in question.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

My understanding is the current issue is going to effect clubs. I'm happy to be told I'm wrong but my understanding is that clubs agreed up to 125-130% of salary cap up $13mil. So if the salary cap starts to go over $10mil the clubs are actually starting to lose out. Now that's fine and dandy for the rich clubs but what about titans, knights, manly. It needs to be fair for everyone.

 

[Perth Red]

Exactly.
No doubt some clubs have been mismanaged recently, this was never in question.

I think clubs run at such tight margins that it only takes a poor season on field or bad weather for crowds to drop, or a player indiscretion and loss of a major sponsor and they are in financial strife. IF they don't just blow the extra $2-3million they will have extra and are sensible with it then these potential downfalls can be avoided, but that is a very big IF!

 

[Perth Red]

My understanding is the current issue is going to effect clubs. I'm happy to be told I'm wrong but my understanding is that clubs agreed up to 125-130% of salary cap up $13mil. So if the salary cap starts to go over $10mil the clubs are actually starting to lose out. Now that's fine and dandy for the rich clubs but what about titans, knights, manly. It needs to be fair for everyone.

It shouldn't go over $10mill, that is a massive jump. My understanding is clubs were offered 130% and figures banded around were $10mill cap-$13mill grant. Then the NRL said it could only afford $11.5mill per club regardless of cap which clubs blew up at, and now we are back to $13million regardless of cap. Current grant and cap are about same so any difference is money in the clubs pocket, it will end up somewhere between $2-3mill in all likelihood which is a hefty boost to a clubs coffers.

 

[insert.pause]

It shouldn't go over $10mill, that is a massive jump. My understanding is clubs were offered 130% and figures banded around were $10mill cap-$13mill grant. Then the NRL said it could only afford $11.5mill per club regardless of cap which clubs blew up at, and now we are back to $13million regardless of cap. Current grant and cap are about same so any difference is money in the clubs pocket, it will end up somewhere between $2-3mill in all likelihood which is a hefty boost to a clubs coffers.

It was originally 130% of cap, plus $1.5m per club annually and 100m pa to 'grassroots'. Once the NRL informed Grant that the game couldn't possibly afford such a deal the NRL pulled the MOU and clubs went after grant, only for Grant to save himself by agreeing to a deal of $13m per club regardless of cap, no extra $1.5m payment and a less for grassroots. So now we have the situation whereby, with some exceptions, the leagues club backed clubs are campaigning for a greater salary cap, namely Dib since the dogs bought up big and are going to be over the cap, while the other privately owned clubs like Melbourne, Brisbane, & poor clubs like Titans etc, that want the additional grant money to invest and/or make their business sustainable. The RLPA met with the clubs aligned to their interests of a higher cap outside of CBA negotiations and behind the back of the NRL.

 

[insert.pause]

Treating the entire club body as inept children due to the actions of a minority.

And the NRLs decisions in how and to what extent they've propped up these clubs is yet another questionable financial decision.

Had the nrl not propped up these clubs there wouldn't be a $2bn rights deal to fight over!

 

[insert.pause]

TBF if Manly or Souths or Warriors or Storms rich owners walked away then they would probably be unsustainable as well. It seems clubs cant or wont spend within their means, some know their owners will chip in, some know their leagues club will chip in. The clubs in strife are the ones where no one can chip in and they keep spending regardless. Putting the grant up to $13mill means little if the poor revenue clubs continue feeling like they have to keep spending to keep pace with the big revenue clubs. For people who say crowds don't matter, one of the biggest sources of revenue after the NRL grant is attendance and memberships, which also impact merch sales. After that it is corporate support. A lot of clubs have got into strife when they lose a sponsor or two and it leaves a $1million black hole.

I do agree though that they shouldn't report them as losses, that should be reserved for those that have run at a loss with no way of covering it.

NRL has "loaned" out $16million in last two years on the 4 problem clubs. It has also loaned out $24million this year to clubs from the 2018- Tv deal advance.

Of course they wouldn't be sustainable, but the point is it's the clubs with the big leagues club backing that want a big cap and less grant because they know they have the leagues club to cover their losses. Until the leagues club runs into problems and suddenly can't, like the dragons.