Can your club afford a $6 million salary cap?

[Hanscholo]

Its an interesting question, can Newcastle afford a 6 million cap.

This raises an interesting point that i have been trying to make for some time. The cap is an incentive for clubs to be mediocre, to stand still. Why try and improve your income when you dont have to?

Of all of the clubs in the game Newcastle has suffered most from that type of thinking. The club has stood still for 22 years, largely because we have been able to.

The Club refuses to discuss privatisation further, because they arent broke enough just yet.

Can they afford to pay 6 million? Yes they can, and if that is the kick up the arse they need to start to be a functioning business then im all for it.

 

[Alex28]

Its an interesting question, can Newcastle afford a 6 million cap.

This raises an interesting point that i have been trying to make for some time. The cap is an incentive for clubs to be mediocre, to stand still. Why try and improve your income when you dont have to?

Of all of the clubs in the game Newcastle has suffered most from that type of thinking. The club has stood still for 22 years, largely because we have been able to.

The Club refuses to discuss privatisation further, because they arent broke enough just yet.

Can they afford to pay 6 million? Yes they can, and if that is the kick up the arse they need to start to be a functioning business then im all for it.

Hans - they run the club on very little as it is. I've taken a fair look over the financials over the years and I can assure you without the NRL covering the increase in the salary cap there is no way the club could afford a $6 Million cap without private money being contributed. We've got about as much sponsorship as we are going to get, we don't do things on the football side properly as it is. No way we could just "find" another $2 Million a year. Not a chance.

 

[The Tank]

I've never understood why the Knights aren't one of the biggest and richest clubs in the league. They have an awesome fanbase.

 

[Brutus]

With the grant the clubs would have got from a TV deal that our game deserves then I believe every club could afford the 6 million cap.

 

[chunk]

Tigers certainly couldn't. The positive thing about the Tigers is they don't rely on revenue from poker machines.

Roosters, Dogs, Eels, Dragons are financially stronger simply because they generate money from the Pokies. Is this a good thing?

Some clubs could but this means taking money from other important areas like junior development or generating more revenue from somewhere else.

 

[RedVee]

STG Leagues has definately had a bad couple of years. Lucky they stashed away around $30mill into the bank in preparation for the lean times. The renovations they are doing currently are being funded by current cash flow. Mind you the reno is well overdue and welcomed. The Chinese restaurant is of a good standard and has increased membership applications, esp in the Chinese nationality niche. I believe St G Leagues future to be secure, but it may never again be the financial powerhouse it was in previous eras. (BTW I've been a member for 30 years.)

I love the way people say teams being funded by Leagues Clubs is a bad thing, but then say teams being owned by private individuals or other companies is a good thing.
Do you guys know why the clubs are called 'Leagues Clubs'?
So, if Star City buy the Roosters is that a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[Red Dwarf 1]

Souths:

1. Within top 3 NRL clubs for generating membership revenue over the last 2 years.
2. Grants from South Sydney Leagues Club (re-opening soon) and South Sydney Junior Leagues Club.
3. Personal funding from Crowe and Holmes a Court.
4. One of the most heavily sponsored clubs within the NRL through Holmes a Court’s business dealings plus contacts and Crowe’s distinguished career plus contacts.
5. Considerable merchandise sales.
6. Well-known brand.

Even after all these points, we would still struggle to cope with an extra $2 mil in the raising of the salary cap.

As previously mentioned, only the increased funding from the NRL through the next TV sponsorship deal for 2013 onwards, the relaxation of third party deals, and salary cap dispensation for juniors cultivated within the club, 10 year veterans, and the identifying and nurturing of unknown or discarded young players will we have a system that can support itself financially and, also, reward clubs fairly for their business acumen.

 

[RedVee]

forgot about the $6 mill.
SGI can handle a $6 cap as well as most, ie it would be a real struggle.
The only way forward is for the game to grow and Gallop to be able to deliver on his oft proclaimed aim of the game supplying 100% of the cap value as the clubs annual grant.
But the thing with the cap is that is an upper level, you are free to spend less. But look at Souths under Piggins, they spent under the cap year on year - did it help them?

 

[thomo]

Souths turned a small operating profit last season and with an increased membership should be able to build on that again this season, especially if we can make the semi finals. There is also the possibility of getting a small grant from the new leagues club, although it is likely this won't happen for at least a few years while the leagues club establishes itself.

Despite all this, without an increase in the NRL grant, the highest I could see Souths going would be $4.5m. Crowe and PhaC have said they don't want to be putting any more money in although the Souths fan in Russell does get the better of him sometmes.

 

[thomo]

Do what the AFL do and relax rules on third-party agreements. The positives will outwiegh any perceived negatives.

You just have to amek sure theyre doing the work to eanr it.

This would give Souths a massive advantage in my opinion. You could just see the entire Souths squad popping up in various Russell Crowe movies.

 

[nathanbrown'sghost]

This would give Souths a massive advantage in my opinion. You could just see the entire Souths squad popping up in various Russell Crowe movies.

lol worse still... 30 odd foot of grunt reforms with the south sydney pack on backing vocals

 

[nz eagle]

I dont think many clubs could, I think Manly would struggle - without getting all the additional funds from the private owners.

In reality the cap will not go up to 6 million until the new broadcast rights have been decided, and then we should get the bulk of this money from the tv rights share to clubs.

 

[Goddo]

So you are busy giving me a lecture about how I don't know what I'm talking about, yet you are changing what you'd do on the run once I pointed out your grand plan was pointless.

Well done champ.

You do know having to come up with another $2 Million a year would mean your club renovations don't happen in the future right? What I do know is the club was in massive amounts of trouble last year, and they wouldn't be the first licenced club to spend money on renovations in the hope of increasing turnover and profit.

EDIT - for the record, the Licenced Club lost about a Million dollars last year whilst giving the football club $4.5 Million. The year before the licenced club lost $1.4 Million whilst giving the football club $4.1 Million. Clearly you guys will have no troubles at all coming up with another $2 Million!

Dopey, I have advocated a marque player elsewhere on this forum. Just because I didn't mention it in this instance as it wasn't being discussed doesn't discount my point that the comp is severly lacking depth. 30 man squads are the way to go in future. Raise the cap, increase the squads, bring in a marque player... is that so hard to understand?

I am aware that the cash that has gone to the redevelopment would not be there if we were funding a $6m cap. Some of the funds currently spent on coaching staff would have to be trimmed too. If we ran a coaching staff like the Sharks we could do it.

If you read a bit more about the Leagues club, you will find the pokies tax has bitten harder than expected, and the club is in the process of changing its financial model. They have a plan, and the future looks good.

But the Dragons have revenue sources outside the Leagues club. We have very big corporate support. But what I said stands. The Dragons (with 2 leagues clubs, huge corporate sponsors) could finance a $6m cap, at a pinch.

As you are a Knights fan, I pity your clubs dire financial state. From what I can tell, they are struggling with the current cap. All the best for the future.

 

[Alex28]

Dopey, I have advocated a marque player elsewhere on this forum. Just because I didn't mention it in this instance as it wasn't being discussed doesn't discount my point that the comp is severly lacking depth. 30 man squads are the way to go in future. Raise the cap, increase the squads, bring in a marque player... is that so hard to understand?

Dude...I shouldn't have to read through all of your posts to get your point of view. I don't care what you said in other posts on this forum. All you said initially was this:

Any big increase in the salary cap should also see an increase to say 30 players in the main squad. This would see players better paid, and an improvement in depth. Requires more TV money to go to the clubs though.

Nothing about marque players at all. All you said is you wanted to increase the numbers covered under an increased salary cap - which doesn't fix anything at all. Only then did you go and change your opinion.

How about you focus less on name calling and more on discussion.

 

[TheRam]

Of cause 99% of clubs can, it's just that the NRL's rules and amateurism doesn't allow for it. Bring on the IC please before it is too late. Last week was the beginning of the end if something doesn't change real quick.

 

[Mr Angry]

6M x 16 = $96 Million p.a.

I would think the TV contract alone covers this.

 

[RufusRex]

what a stupid question ... this will do nothing to stop salary cap cheats ...

clubs will spend to the limit of their caps then the unscrupulous ones will spend more to get/keep the better players.

 

[The Tank]

Where does the NRL spend the other 100 mill... grassroots and admin is obvious but is that 100 mill worth?

 

[Goddo]

Dude...I shouldn't have to read through all of your posts to get your point of view. I don't care what you said in other posts on this forum. All you said initially was this:


Nothing about marque players at all. All you said is you wanted to increase the numbers covered under an increased salary cap - which doesn't fix anything at all. Only then did you go and change your opinion.

How about you focus less on name calling and more on discussion.

It does help fix the lack of depth in the NRL, which is what I was talking about. Selective quoting I see. Have fun with that.

I stand by what I said. We need to increase the cap and increase the number of players in a squad. I am sorry I didn't complete my opinion here by saying the solution for those with $1m price tags is an increase in the salary cap coupled with a marque system, or they can fk off to yawnion.

What is the point in simply raising the cap if it simply lines the pockets of the richest players? We need rules (like increasing the size of squads) to make it effective.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

At the moment, there arent many clubs that could do it. But if the League told clubs that the cap will be raised (obviously they cant do that until the TV contract is done), then im sure most clubs would be able to raise the extra dosh.

But the problem with that is, some clubs wouldnt be able to.
Then we have a few clubs that are uncompetitive, then
they are getting less from sponsors and then
They could eventually fold
Which in turn will see less games on TV
Which equals less TV $$$
And then a lower salary cap.

So right now, the priorty needs to be on getting our clubs stronger. The first priority needs to be the club grant covering the salary cap. Then if theres any extra money left over, we either look at increasing that grant more for a higher salary cap or we can look at expansion (only looking at teams that will in turn increase the TV deal and then inturn increase the club grant)