Divided rugby league fell 25 years ago – but united has it conquered? by Steve Mascord.

[Canard]

Do you read the shit you say?

You defend OzTam despite it having a representative sample of just 10k households across the country, yet you flat out reject the Gemba Report.

Do you know how Gemba conducted its data?

It's mentioned on p8 of their report on NRL expansion.

*Gemba measures passion on a five-point scale, with those scoring 4 or 5 out of 5 classified as being Fanatical about a particular sport ** Gemba defines casual fans of a sport as those who claim their interest in a sport or league as being 3 out of 5
Source: Gemba Insights Program 2021
​

Here's what Gemba says on their website.

Gemba’s industry-leading Insights Program is the largest of its kind anywhere in the world, delivering proprietary and customised market research across the sport and entertainment landscape.

From consumer passion to celebrity power, from grassroots participation to sponsor recognition, Gemba Insights asks the right questions to discover illuminating answers to help governments, sporting organisations and brands achieve real commercial and operational success.​

You don't have any reasonable excuse to trust OzTam's data over Gemba's research. You just don't want to admit that you're not as smart as you want everyone to think.



You've been exposed as a liar on this board by another member. When the evidence was collected and presented you got all pissy and obnoxious like a sullen teenager because you're too arrogant to admit when you're wrong.

And what "falsehoods" have I spread?

Your modus operandi is to shift the goalposts when you've been proven wrong. It's dishonest for you to sit there and claim the NRL needs nine small clubs in Sydney, despite some of them being unviable and reliant on the grant. When you're confronted with evidence of Sydney clubs fleecing the Broncos, Cowboys, Warriors, Crushers and Reds your response is a flippant "that's their right" and "get over it".

How about you take your own f**ken advice and get over the fact that not everyone wants the NRL to continue propping up nine small clubs while the rest of the country is either ignored or under-represented?

You have the audacity to say a real rugby league fan would support a system that favours Sydney RL to the detriment of the game in Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and New Zealand. Sydney has less than six million people whereas the other markets have a combined population of about 25 million.

What sort of idiot would ignore 25 million people just to cater for a market of 5 million that has never displayed consistently strong levels of support for its sporting events?

No one with a brain would place one notoriously apathetic market above five other markets.

The stupidity of your stance is there are no mainstream sporting leagues outside of Australia that use the ludicrous NRL model. If it was a winning formula it would be replicated elsewhere. Not even the AFL has followed the insular NRL model.



I don't give a f**k who you are.



Gemba say their system is a worldwide leader in its field. We both know you're talking it down because you're biased.



If that were true then professional sporting clubs wouldn’t sack players over scandals that draw bad publicity to their brand. Think of the Israel Folau incident with the ARU. It f**ked the Wallabies' chances of being competitive yet they went through with it because their main sponsor was upset.

There's also proof that where the revenue comes from is highly relevant because it reflects on the brand of the sporting club. Netball Australia recently went to war with their main sponsor over comments that were made 40 years ago by a man who has been dead for 30 years.

Gaming machines and betting agencies cause a great of harm to society. Suicide, domestic violence, criminality, bankruptcy and the breakdown of families.

Is it a good look for clubs to make a fortune off an industy that's linked to social problems that it claims to be trying to resolve?

How can anyone take the Women in League Round and its campaign on depression and suicide seriously when much of its profits are derived from an industry that is linked to domestic violence and suicide?

There's also the matter of criminal organisations using pokies to launder dirty money.

God help a football club if its Leagues Club is linked to dirty money being laundered through its gaming machines by criminals.



But I'm not excluding large parts of their revenue, am I?

If I was you would show just how much money they're making outside of football operations.



One of their sources of revenue is an annual payment of $1.5m over 12 years that's tied to the payment they got for selling their stake in the Woolooware retail project. This is chump change compared to what the larger clubs make from football operations.

Sharks squandered about $10m on refurbishing their Leagues Club in Woolooware to include more pokies, despite investing in retail almost a decade earlier to reduce their reliance on gaming revenue!

So they lost land and relinquished their stake in the retail project that was meant to set them up for life, just to fall back on gaming machines!

You keep on ignoring the loomomg political fallout that's about to hit the gaming industry. Cashless cards with spending limits are the future and will lead to less money going through the pokies.



The bulk of the NRL's revenue is sourced from broadcast rights.



It's primarily generated by large clubs that draw good ratings and attendances.



The clubs haven't fostered development out of kindness. They do it because they want to be in control of all aspects of the game. Shame Richardson tried to introduce a system that would take development out of the clubs' hands and help the game in rural NSW and save a lot of money. The clubs rejected it.



Shoddy spelling and grammar is very unprofessional from some one who has just divulged their name and line of employment.



None of what you said is true.

I challenge you to disprove any of the claims I made about the BRL and Sydney clubs.

I provided evidence to back up my claims. You're running away with your tail between your legs.

The Broncos draw more money from football operations than any either revenue stream. It proves a well run club with a large fanbase can make significantly more from football operations than non-football activities.



And your argument is so stupid it makes me laugh. I went to a Catholic high school when the NSL was around. No one followed it. All of the kids who played soccer followed the EPL on Foxtel and spoke about it everyday. I was the only one who watched the NSL and I didn't even play soccer.

The ethnic-based clubs still exist at state level. They were removed from the national competition because they were a hindrance to the game's growth.

Soccer has never been stronger in Australia. We just had our best ever result at a world cup with a squad that has strong links with the A-League.

The A- League has been in serious decline in all metrics for some time.

TV ratings, crowds and such poor revenue generation that it had to sell its GF for a pittance to NSW.

The onfield sporting performance of the Socceroos doesn't suddenly stop this being fact.

 

[Pneuma]

Just to give you an example

These are the ratings documents from Oztam for NRL Grand Final Week.

- Top 20 Programs (metro)
- Regional Top 20 (note this excludes places like Darwin and some others)
- Multi Channels
- Total TV (a week later)
- Voz (two weeks later) - this is the definitive one.

I just read that. That’s done my head in a bit. So the actual audience for the grand final was just under 2.9 million once all of that is included?

 

[Pneuma]

Just to give you an example

These are the ratings documents from Oztam for NRL Grand Final Week.

- Top 20 Programs (metro)
- Regional Top 20 (note this excludes places like Darwin and some others)
- Multi Channels
- Total TV (a week later)
- Voz (two weeks later) - this is the definitive one.

I just read that. That’s done my head in a bit. So the actual audience for the grand final was just under 2.9 million once all of that included?

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

The A- League has been in serious decline in all metrics for some time.

TV ratings, crowds and such poor revenue generation that it had to sell its GF for a pittance to NSW.

The onfield sporting performance of the Socceroos doesn't suddenly stop this being fact.

None of the problems you're talking about change the fact the A-League in its current state is stronger than the NSL.

 

[bad boy bubby]

Between the potato in Logan and the potato in Perth we have two of the biggest nobs ever to post on any forum in internet history.

Smashed potatoes???

 

[Pneuma]

None of the problems you're talking about change the fact the A-League in its current state is stronger than the NSL.

Potato

 

[Pneuma]

Smashed potatoes???

One can only hope

 

[The_Wookie]

How else do you expect a professional sporting club to pay their players and staff?

Before television was a thing professional sporting clubs generated revenue primarily through gate receipts.

And players werent fully professional before tv was a thing. Most of them had secondary jobs and club benefactors who brown bagged their payments.

The Broncos make more money from sponsorship, corporate hospitality, ticketing and membership than they get from the annual grant. They're living proof that a large fanbase is more lucrative than relying on broadcasters.

Don't take my word for it. Go look at their annual reports in the thread I made about club revenue.

The Broncos are living proof that being protected from competition in the second largest rugby league sporting and market in the country, while simultaneously being backed by the largest media organisation in the country, for 30 years is highly beneficial to commercial outcomes.

 

[Pneuma]

And players werent fully professional before tv was a thing. Most of them had secondary jobs and club benefactors who brown bagged their payments.



The Broncos are living proof that being protected from competition in the second largest rugby league sporting and market in the country, while simultaneously being backed by the largest media organisation in the country, for 30 years is highly beneficial to commercial outcomes.

I was going to write something similar. Of all the clubs to pick to make a point.

 

[bad boy bubby]

And the Donko hates Murdoch, who just happens to own 68% of his second favourite team.

 

[AdelaideSharky]

Between the potato in Logan and the potato in Perth we have two of the biggest nobs ever to post on any forum in internet history.

One of the reasons I hardly ever post anymore.

I kept making the mistake of letting those two fools drag me down to their level.

 

[bad boy bubby]

One of the reasons I hardly ever post anymore.

I kept making the mistake of letting those two fools drag me down to their level.

@Pneuma tell him the answer to that.

 

[The_Wookie]

Do you read the shit you say?

You defend OzTam despite it having a representative sample of just 10k households across the country, yet you flat out reject the Gemba Report.

I didnt defend oztam. I laid out the facts - and that the measurement is a widely accepted standard, including specific facts on how the system measurements are carried out, instead of making up bullshit.

When you and your BRL mates start your own league then you can measure whatever the f**k you want.

Do you know how Gemba conducted its data?

Yes, I widely dissected this on twitter when it was released.

You don't have any reasonable excuse to trust OzTam's data over Gemba's research.

Sure I do, one is an industry standard for decades. The other less so.

You just don't want to admit that you're not as smart as you want everyone to think.

I havent actually said I was smart, but it doesnt take a genius to know this shit.

You've been exposed as a liar on this board by another member. When the evidence was collected and presented you got all pissy and obnoxious like a sullen teenager because you're too arrogant to admit when you're wrong.

Im still not wrong and I didnt lie about shit. Just because you got one person to see it your way out of everyone in the discussion doesnt make you right.

And what "falsehoods" have I spread?

1, You are calling clubs unviable when they absolutely are not using cherry picked data to suit your own ends and excluding revenue that doesnt suit your worldview.

2. You were absolutely wrong in the way you claimed Oztam boxes work. Saying "my bad" doesnt change that.

Your modus operandi is to shift the goalposts when you've been proven wrong.

You've yet to prove anything Ive said wrong.

It's dishonest for you to sit there and claim the NRL needs nine small clubs in Sydney, despite some of them being unviable and reliant on the grant.

I never said that the NRL NEEDs nine small clubs. And Ive never ever said they were unviable. So make that number 3 on your bullshit list.

What i have said is that the NRL has clubs in Sydney and a duty to support those clubs under their agreements.

When you're confronted with evidence of Sydney clubs fleecing the Broncos, Cowboys, Warriors, Crushers and Reds your response is a flippant "that's their right" and "get over it".

In fact I never said anything about these 5 clubs. Nor would i, since they get a very similar grant to the others. Its the first time Ive seen the Warriors and Reds in this f**king conversation. Make that number 4 on your bullshit list.

How about you take your own f**ken advice and get over the fact that not everyone wants the NRL to continue propping up nine small clubs while the rest of the country is either ignored or under-represented?

You arent everyone. In fact evidence from this thread suggests you are quite the minority. Or maybe I missed the hordes of posters who agree with you.

And as said before, the Grant is something the league has to provide to ALL clubs, not just the Sydney ones.

You have the audacity to say a real rugby league fan would support a system that favours Sydney RL to the detriment of the game in Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and New Zealand.

Didnt say that at all. If anything I have implied that historical connections to the current competition shouldnt be callously disregarded because you've decided that some categories of revenue are more meaningful than others.

Incidentally, I really would like to see the NRL try and boot a financially viable club out of the league under your rules. It would be over so fast it would make your head spin.

Sydney has less than six million people whereas the other markets have a combined population of about 25 million.

f**k knows what that had to do with anything I said.

What sort of idiot would ignore 25 million people just to cater for a market of 5 million that has never displayed consistently strong levels of support for its sporting events?

Yes please point to where I said any of this.

No one with a brain would place one notoriously apathetic market above five other markets.

No one with a brain would ignore the single largest market for the game in the country.

The stupidity of your stance is there are no mainstream sporting leagues outside of Australia that use the ludicrous NRL model. If it was a winning formula it would be replicated elsewhere. Not even the AFL has followed the insular NRL model.

The AFL model for distribution is worse. It actively gives millions more to some clubs than it does others. In some case, over 10 million dollars more ANNUALLY.

I don't give a f**k who you are.

Well clearly you do or you wouldnt be whining about me posting anonymously.

Gemba say their system is a worldwide leader in its field.

Gemba are highly unlikely to say their system is shit. I would say that they would be biased there.

If that were true then professional sporting clubs wouldn’t sack players over scandals that draw bad publicity to their brand. Think of the Israel Folau incident with the ARU. It f**ked the Wallabies' chances of being competitive yet they went through with it because their main sponsor was upset.

Of course they would, you still stand to lose a major chunk of revenue if you cant appease your sponsors. You still want that revenue. - wherever it comes from.

There's also proof that where the revenue comes from is highly relevant because it reflects on the brand of the sporting club. Netball Australia recently went to war with their main sponsor over comments that were made 40 years ago by a man who has been dead for 30 years.

That certain sponsors are less than desirable is true - but these are exceptions, not the rule.

That doesnt change the fact that a clubs primary purpose is to win matches and premierships, regardless of where the revenue comes from - it doesnt mean they cant pick where that comes from.

Gaming machines and betting agencies cause a great of harm to society. Suicide, domestic violence, criminality, bankruptcy and the breakdown of families.

Is it a good look for clubs to make a fortune off an industy that's linked to social problems that it claims to be trying to resolve?

Then vote in a government that will do something about it. Until then, its a legal form of income that supports rugby league, including numerous local league clubs and development programs.

How can anyone take the Women in League Round and its campaign on depression and suicide seriously when much of its profits are derived from an industry that is linked to domestic violence and suicide?

Its actually pretty easy to take the issue seriously if you get off your high horse for ten seconds.
Also I really hope to see you out there against alcohol sponsorships one day for the same reasons.

There's also the matter of criminal organisations using pokies to launder dirty money.

God help a football club if its Leagues Club is linked to dirty money being laundered through its gaming machines by criminals.

Examples? Or is this hypothetical. An inquiry last year found it to be unlikely.

An inquiry by the NSW Crime Commission published on Wednesday contains an unexpected revelation already being used to undermine its central conclusion.

Poker machines in NSW’s sprawling network of licensed clubs, and hotels, aren’t really used to make the financial proceeds of crime appear legitimate – what is known as money laundering. The inquiry was initiated last year in response to media allegations that criminal gangs were using clubs for this purpose.

The reason this doesn’t happen much, according to the inquiry, is not because criminals respect the family atmosphere of suburban clubs. It is because they lack patience. The slots are too slow for your average criminal, the Crime Commission concluded after interviewing several who had served time.

Sydney criminals prefer leagues clubs to Catalina

A Crime Commission inquiry has discovered that drug dealers go to pubs and clubs for recreation rather than to launder money.

www.afr.com

 

[The_Wookie]

But I'm not excluding large parts of their revenue, am I?

If I was you would show just how much money they're making outside of football operations.

Really? Must i pull the reports for Panthers group, Parramatta Leagues, Easts Group, Western Suburbs, Canterbury-Bankstown Leagues and Cronulla-Sutherland to prove that you disregard anything outside football operations. I shouldnt have to pull information that I know you already have. ok then. Lets do this.

Youve effectively excluded 60m in revenue from the Bulldogs out of 88m by using only the revenue generated directly by the NRL club and ignoring the Leagues club, which is its direct subsidary.

With the Sharks you are excluding 3m in pokie revenue. Not a hell of a lot really. - represents 10% of revenue.

For the Eels, you are excluding more than 50% of their revenue, the club is a direct subsidary of the Leagues Club

For the Roosters, you are excluding 50% of the clubs revenue. The District club is the parent entity.

For Panthers its more than 50%..much more. The Leagues club is the parent.

Western Suburbs (Wests Ashfield) - youd have excluded just around half their revenue. This is the parent organisation of Wests Tigers.

One of their sources of revenue is an annual payment of $1.5m over 12 years that's tied to the payment they got for selling their stake in the Woolooware retail project. This is chump change compared to what the larger clubs make from football operations.

Its still revenue. And it doesnt make them unviable. Ive no idea what point you think this makes.

Sharks squandered about $10m on refurbishing their Leagues Club in Woolooware to include more pokies, despite investing in retail almost a decade earlier to reduce their reliance on gaming revenue!

Was that really the reason or do you just think it was? It was done to set them up to be viable for the forseeable future, not to get them off gaming. They seem to have found another way.

So they lost land and relinquished their stake in the retail project that was meant to set them up for life, just to fall back on gaming machines!

Its their business, its legal. They can do what they like as long as its in their constituion and follows NSW and Federal Law.

You keep on ignoring the loomomg political fallout that's about to hit the gaming industry. Cashless cards with spending limits are the future and will lead to less money going through the pokies.

Maybe. Its far from certain to even go ahead given Perrotets own ministers dont necessarily agree with the position and the Nationals in opposition to the policy. Hold the balloons and streamers mate.

The bulk of the NRL's revenue is sourced from broadcast rights.

yes. But thats not exclusively where the money for the clubs comes from. Theres 60 odd million a year in sponsorship, wagering and licensing money, Theres money from finals, tests and origin. Digital revenues.

It's primarily generated by large clubs that draw good ratings and attendances.

Its primarily generated by the number of matches that are shown by Fox - which is not ratings driven.

The clubs haven't fostered development out of kindness. They do it because they want to be in control of all aspects of the game.

But they do carry out development programs.

Shame Richardson tried to introduce a system that would take development out of the clubs' hands and help the game in rural NSW and save a lot of money. The clubs rejected it.

Good for him.

Shoddy spelling and grammar is very unprofessional from some one who has just divulged their name and line of employment.

lol its an internet forum, not a f**king thesis.

None of what you said is true.

Everything in that paragraph is true. Youve repeated that bullshit often enough. Every sydney club is currently viable under Australian fiduciary guidelines.

I challenge you to disprove any of the claims I made about the BRL and Sydney clubs.

Once again - I dont give a shit about the BRL or anything from 30 years ago. I care only about your blatant miscategorisation of current club finance due to selective data use.

I provided evidence to back up my claims. You're running away with your tail between your legs.

I havent run anywhere. And your "evidence" excluded large segments of revenue to come to a completely bullshit point.

The Broncos draw more money from football operations than any either revenue stream. It proves a well run club with a large fanbase can make significantly more from football operations than non-football activities.

It proves well that a club in protected market with massive media backing and one of the best stadiums for league in the country and unopposed for over 30 years can do wonders.

And your argument is so stupid it makes me laugh.

Every post you've made in this thread appears to have been hilarious to almost every other particpant, sooo I guess its laughs all round.

I went to a Catholic high school when the NSL was around. No one followed it. All of the kids who played soccer followed the EPL on Foxtel and spoke about it everyday. I was the only one who watched the NSL and I didn't even play soccer.

Well im sure your localised experience goes for the rest of the country.

The ethnic-based clubs still exist at state level. They were removed from the national competition because they were a hindrance to the game's growth.

That was the consensus at the time.

Soccer has never been stronger in Australia.

On what basis. The A-leagues ratings have never been lower on FTA tv, and crowds arent going all that well. And while the Socceroos and Matildas rate and draw ok, this is mostly a theatre crowd that vanishes when the next A-league game is on. On Crowds and ratings, the game peaked in 2012.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

And players werent fully professional before tv was a thing. Most of them had secondary jobs and club benefactors who brown bagged their payments.

Players weren't fully professional in 1995. News Ltd forced the ARL to turn professional during the Super League War.

The Broncos are living proof that being protected from competition in the second largest rugby league sporting and market in the country, while simultaneously being backed by the largest media organisation in the country, for 30 years is highly beneficial to commercial outcomes.

NSWRL shielded the Broncos from having a competitor. The only reason they brought the Crushers in was for leverage in their civil war with the Broncos. There were threats from the NSWRL to expel the Broncos from the competition. Of course you won't mrntion any of these facts because you're a biased NSWRL fan.

Why do you think News Ltd back the Broncos and not a small Sydney club?

You always go on about clubs being bigger than the players. If that were true then the Broncos would have been a flop. Their admission into the NSWRL forced long-term BRL fans to accept the competition was dead. People want to watch the best players. The NSWRL clubs raided the BRL throughout the 80s and the latter bankrupted themselves trying to hold onto them because without the stars there was no appeal. If the top 60 tennis players boycotted the Australian Open then crowds would drop and so too would TV ratings. The BRL lost 60 topline players to the NSWRL in 1988.

Newtown were punted and the game was fine. North Sydney were punted and the game became more popular and richer than ever over the next decade. There's no evidence that thousands of fans walked away from the game after the Bears were given the axe. Just bullshit anecdotes from hysterical low IQ rednecks that don't line up TV ratings and attendnances.

The fact is getting rid of small clubs from Sydney made the game stronger in 1983 and 2000.

 

[bad boy bubby]

@The_Wookie forget about the Sharks mate. The docile prick hasn't even registered that our revenue from "our club" came from the Golf Club.
We haven't had a Leagues Club for two years.
And yet we survived, and even prospered.
Wait until the new Leagues Club opens this year. Pokiest haven to exist!

 

[The_Wookie]

Players weren't fully professional in 1995. News Ltd forced the ARL to turn professional during the Super League War.


NSWRL shielded the Broncos from having a competitor. The only reason they brought the Crushers in was for leverage in their civil war with the Broncos. There were threats from the NSWRL to expel the Broncos from the competition. Of course you won't mrntion any of these facts because you're a biased NSWRL fan.

I didnt mention it, because the Crushers havent existed for 26 f**king years.
And as Ive said, I dont care about things not currently relative.

Im not even a fan of the NSWRL lol.

Why do you think News Ltd back the Broncos and not a small Sydney club?

Did they even have the opportunity to?

You always go on about clubs being bigger than the players.

I havent said that all. More bullshit.

I do think that the grant should cover more than player wages. Your average player lasts a 5 or 6 years if they are lucky. Clubs persist.

Newtown were punted and the game was fine. North Sydney were punted and the game became more popular and richer than ever over the next decade.

And that may have been true.

And both clubs were financially destitute. You need an actual reason to evict a club - being "good for the game" wont fly with anyone in authority. If the NRL didnt get rid of the Titans and Newcastle when they had to take both over, no club is going any time soon.

And getting rid of a club when there is so much financial wealth in the NRL now shouldnt be a thing. The NSWRL didnt have the money back in the day. The NRL does now.

There's no evidence that thousands of fans walked away from the game after the Bears were given the axe. Just bullshit anecdotes from hysterical low IQ rednecks that don't line up TV ratings and attendnances.

That disillusioned fans left the game is unavoidable. Norths at least believe that there are plenty of fans out there not supporting a team in the NRL.

“It’s about bringing the fans back into the game. The game has been starved of a lot of Bears fans who are still shattered and don’t have a team they are following."

The fact is getting rid of small clubs from Sydney made the game stronger in 1983 and 2000.

Maybe. But its not a valid reason to get rid of a financially capable club in 2023.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Really? Must i pull the reports for Panthers group, Parramatta Leagues, Easts Group, Western Suburbs, Canterbury-Bankstown Leagues and Cronulla-Sutherland to prove that you disregard anything outside football operations.

There's a good reason I do not value "revenue" generated from non-football operations such as gaming machines when measuring the viability of a sports franchise.

A well run club doesn't need to draw money from sugar daddies, real estate, gaming machines and betting companies if it has a large fanbase willing to spend money on club merchandise, memberships, tickets, sponsorship and corporate hospitality. The Sydney clubs fail miserably on most of these metrics because their fanbases are small. They rely on gaming machine revenue to plug the shortfall caused by having small fanbases.

We don't have teams in Adelaide and Perth because the NRL chose small and unviable Sydney clubs with no room to grow over markets that have the potential to create new fans and participants for the game.


What seems to fly over your stubborn head is most of the world's sporting clubs don't have access to gaming machine revenue, yet many of them are significantly richer than any NRL club from Sydney. The reason they're richer is because they have larger fanbases due to not being in over saturated markets. Serbia has 16 soccer clubs in a country that's slightly bigger than Sydney and pull about 5k people to their games. Sydney's clubs will always be small until a few drop back to the NSW Cup.

Why are clubs all around the world able to get by without gaming machine revenue but Sydney's NRL clubs cannot?

It's an honest question that you cannot answer. I've just given you the answer BTW.

The only Sydney club that's done away with pokies is the Rabbitohs, but they're in the fortunate position of having sugar daddies bail them out when they were on death's door.

Roosters were turned around by Politis, but still rely heavily on gaming machine revenue to plug the gaps.

Perth's sporting teams do not have access to gaming machine revenue, yet the West Coast Eagles are the largest and richest sporting club in the country and the Perth Wildcats are the largest and richest club in the NBL, generating attendances that rival Sydney NRL clubs.

I shouldnt have to pull information that I know you already have. ok then. Lets do this.

Youve effectively excluded 60m in revenue from the Bulldogs out of 88m by using only the revenue generated directly by the NRL club and ignoring the Leagues club, which is its direct subsidary.

With the Sharks you are excluding 3m in pokie revenue. Not a hell of a lot really. - represents 10% of revenue.

For the Eels, you are excluding more than 50% of their revenue, the club is a direct subsidary of the Leagues Club

For the Roosters, you are excluding 50% of the clubs revenue. The District club is the parent entity.

For Panthers its more than 50%..much more. The Leagues club is the parent.

Western Suburbs (Wests Ashfield) - youd have excluded just around half their revenue. This is the parent organisation of Wests Tigers.

View attachment 69518
View attachment 69519

View attachment 69520

View attachment 69521

View attachment 69522

So a club is viable if it is able to generate half of its "revenue" from people who have a gambling addiction?

Fleecing money from people with an addiction is disgusting and should be illegal. I question the integrity of anyone who tries to justify this practice.

The irony is most of the people playing the pokies probably don't give a f**k about the football club. They frequent the Leagues Club because it's the closest licenced venue to their house. If the Leagues Clubs got rid of the pokies then the gamblers wouldn't go near them or the football club. Look at what happened to Balmain when they shut their Leagues Club. That's the fate of all Sydney clubs -- bar the Rabbitohs -- when The Greens get their way and have pokies turfed out. It's only a matter of time because younger people vote for The Greens and older people do not. Wait until the older voters are gone and the Greta Thunberg generation are the majority. Labor policy is influenced by The Greens. Inner Brisbane elected three candidates from The Greens at the last election.

Its still revenue. And it doesnt make them unviable. Ive no idea what point you think this makes.

See my responses above.

Was that really the reason or do you just think it was? It was done to set them up to be viable for the forseeable future, not to get them off gaming. They seem to have found another way.

They had no choice but to sell their stake in the retail project because they were in debt to the tune of about $9m. Their survival was on the line. The original plan was to run a retail precinct similar to the shopping centre that generates money for the Redcliffe Dolphins.

Its their business, its legal. They can do what they like as long as its in their constituion and follows NSW and Federal Law.

It's against the court of public opinion, which matters deeply in an industry where brand recognition is vital. Good luck convincing casual fans from the upper class segments of society to get on board with a club from a sport that relies on money from drunks, gamblers and betting companies.

Maybe. Its far from certain to even go ahead given Perrotets own ministers dont necessarily agree with the position and the Nationals in opposition to the policy. Hold the balloons and streamers mate.

See my post above.

yes. But thats not exclusively where the money for the clubs comes from. Theres 60 odd million a year in sponsorship, wagering and licensing money, Theres money from finals, tests and origin. Digital revenues.

NSWRL were against Origin. If they had their way it wouldn't exist and the game would be much smaller. Tests are rarely played because the clubs are against it. We had a final played in front of 12k people at Shark Park because V'landys caved in to the knuckle-draggers. More money could have been generated from playing the game at the SFS.

Its primarily generated by the number of matches that are shown by Fox - which is not ratings driven.

Cool. So replacing Cronulla, Manly and Canterbury with Adelaide, Perth and Wellington won't impact the value of the broadcast rights.

But they do carry out development programs.

And they do a shit job because they ignore half the country. If you're not from Queensland, NSW or NZ then the odds of making it to the NRL are slim.

Everything in that paragraph is true. Youve repeated that bullshit often enough. Every sydney club is currently viable under Australian fiduciary guidelines.

It's more accurate to say all Sydney clubs -- bar the Rabbitohs -- are propped up by drunks and gamblers.

Once again - I dont give a shit about the BRL or anything from 30 years ago. I care only about your blatant miscategorisation of current club finance due to selective data use.

Revenue from gaming machines isn't sustainable and is reliant on the laws and social trends remaining in place.

I havent run anywhere. And your "evidence" excluded large segments of revenue to come to a completely bullshit point.

I made my point. Ironically, Sydney clubs are trying to wean themselves off pokies because they see the writing on the wall, even if you cannot.

It proves well that a club in protected market with massive media backing and one of the best stadiums for league in the country and unopposed for over 30 years can do wonders.

So you're saying the Broncos are successful because the Brisbane RL market hasn't been over saturated for 30 years. Congratulations. Maybe you'll eventually put two and two together to see why I am an advocate for rationalising Sydney.

Every post you've made in this thread appears to have been hilarious to almost every other particpant, sooo I guess its laughs all

The people who laugh at my posts think the next team should be from PNG and based in Cairns, despite PNG have a GDP per capita of less than $3,000US and just 15% of its population connected to electricity. They also think the Bears should play a few games in Perth but still be a North Sydney team playing out of a dilapidated cricket ground. They also think the All Blacks will die if we put a second team in New Zealand. Don't take my word for it. Go to the Expansion forum and see the shit they say. They hate me and @Perth Red because we use facts to refute their pro-NSWRL 1980s nostalgia driven fantasies.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

I didnt mention it, because the Crushers havent existed for 26 f**king years.
And as Ive said, I dont care about things not currently relative.

Don't be obtuse. You brought up the "monopoly" Brisbane Broncos have allegedly held for 30 years to explain why they don't need pokies to stay afloat. The fact the Crushers entered the competition 28 years ago and left it 26 years ago refutes your claim that Brisbane have held a monopoly over the city for 30 years. Crushers drew more than 20k fans to their games in 1995, so it wasn't all one way traffic.

You know, for some one who says he doesn't care about what happened 30 years ago and is only interested in present day affairs, you sure like to bring up events from 30 years ago when it's convenient.

If you only care about what's happening today then don't say the Broncos are what they are today because of things that may or may not have happened 30 years ago.

Earlier today you brought up the NSL and formation of the A-League in 2005. That was 17 years ago. Hardly current, is it?

Here's your exact comment.

My argument is that the soccer lost its ethnic rooted soul in 2005 to create plastic franchises - you know like they did in Queensland for the ARL/NRL, and in doing so lost thousands of supporters who still follow the EPL and European leagues but dont give a stuff about the A-league.

Im not even a fan of the NSWRL lol.

Your regressive stance favours the NSWRL model to the detriment of the game.

I havent said that all. More bullshit.



I do think that the grant should cover more than player wages. Your average player lasts a 5 or 6 years if they are lucky. Clubs persist.

Congratulations, you've just contradicted yourself. Not for the first time either. You've argued this point before. I couldn't be bothered going back to find it.


If you're going to claim you never said clubs are bigger than the players then don't try to justify wasting money on clubs because the average career is "6 years" whereas "clubs persist".

And that may have been true.

And both clubs were financially destitute. You need an actual reason to evict a club - being "good for the game" wont fly with anyone in authority. If the NRL didnt get rid of the Titans and Newcastle when they had to take both over, no club is going any time soon.

Greenberg asked Cronulla to explain why they shouldn't be relocated when they were in debt a couple of years after their premiership success. It was around this time that they relinquished their stake in the Woolooware retail development to pay off their debts and expand their Leagues Club so they could make more money from gaming.

And getting rid of a club when there is so much financial wealth in the NRL now shouldnt be a thing. The NSWRL didnt have the money back in the day. The NRL does now.

The talent pool is drying up and the NRL needs teams in Adelaide and Perth to have a national reach. Only solution is rationalisation because there's not enough players to fund 19 teams without impacting quality of games.

That disillusioned fans left the game is unavoidable. Norths at least believe that there are plenty of fans out there not supporting a team in the NRL.

“It’s about bringing the fans back into the game. The game has been starved of a lot of Bears fans who are still shattered and don’t have a team they are following."

Dickson will not allow the Bears to be sold to a Perth consortium and wants to play just 6 to 8 games in Perth, with the rest at NSO. He's also floating the idea of playing all around NSW as "The Bears" and has changed the club's logo to reflect this brand change.

The club claims to have hundreds of thousands of fans, yet their attendances in the 90s weren't great and many of the people who attended those games are now dead. Go talk to long-time Bears fans like The Great Dane. He'll get you up to date on the situation.

Maybe. But its not a valid reason to get rid of a financially capable club in 2023.

Fleecing money from people with a gambling addiction to get by doesn't make a club viable.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

I didnt defend oztam. I laid out the facts - and that the measurement is a widely accepted standard, including specific facts on how the system measurements are carried out, instead of making up bullshit.

You're defending the authenticity of OzTam and saying Gemba is unreliable, despite many companies around the world hiring them to conduct research on their behalf due to their strong reputation.

Sure I do, one is an industry standard for decades. The other less so.

They both survey people to find out what they watch and like. Gemba actually asks people to rate their support for the things they're surveying.

Im still not wrong and I didnt lie about shit. Just because you got one person to see it your way out of everyone in the discussion doesnt make you right.

You accused me of holding a position despite me stating the opposite on numerous occasions. My comments and your comment were quoted to prove you put words in my mouth. Just accept you were caught in a lie and stop trying to weasel your way out when you're wrong. The only reason you get support is because the bulk of posters in this thread are nostalgic NSWRL fans who yearn for a return to the old days and see you as a defender of their backwards beliefs.

You were absolutely wrong in the way you claimed Oztam boxes work. Saying "my bad" doesnt change that.

"My bad" is a euphenism for "I got it wrong". Something you'll never bring yourself to admit when you've been caught out.

You've yet to prove anything Ive said wrong.

Yes I have. You're just too stubborn to admit when you're wrong.

I never said that the NRL NEEDs nine small clubs. And Ive never ever said they were unviable. So make that number 3 on your bullshit list.

What i have said is that the NRL has clubs in Sydney and a duty to support those clubs under their agreements.

You tried to justify Sydney retaining its nine clubs by pointing out that it is the largest market, which is a stupid reason as Melbourne is set to become the largest city in the 2030s.

The NRL's "duty" is only codified in a contract until 2027. Contracts don't mean shit these days. Super League went ahead in 1997 despite ARL having a contract in place until 2000. Clubs will jump ship and create a new league if some one with more money is willing to fund it.

In fact I never said anything about these 5 clubs. Nor would i, since they get a very similar grant to the others. Its the first time Ive seen the Warriors and Reds in this f**king conversation. Make that number 4 on your bullshit list.

I've mentioned the stipulations heaped on the expansion clubs in 1995. That included the Reds and Warriors.

You arent everyone. In fact evidence from this thread suggests you are quite the minority. Or maybe I missed the hordes of posters who agree with you.

This thread is full of baby boomer from Sydney who yearn for a return to the NSWRL days of the 1980s. Their outlook on expansion is based around bringing back "The Bears". Go see their comments in the Expansion forum.

And as said before, the Grant is something the league has to provide to ALL clubs, not just the Sydney ones.

Sydney clubs benefit from it the most and they hold the balance of power on the ARLC.

Didnt say that at all. If anything I have implied that historical connections to the current competition shouldnt be callously disregarded because you've decided that some categories of revenue are more meaningful than others.

Incidentally, I really would like to see the NRL try and boot a financially viable club out of the league under your rules. It would be over so fast it would make your head spin.

They could have done it a few months ago when the clubs refused to sign the licencing agreement and threatened to form their own competition. V'landys is an insular New South Welshman who only cares about the long-term survival of the NSWRL clubs. One day we'll have a chairman who isn't as insular as V'landys.

No one with a brain would ignore the single largest market for the game in the country.

How is removing the three weakest teams from Sydney ignoring the largest market?

It would still have six clubs, which is more than enough to cover it from east to west and north to south.

Using your logic every other sport is ignoring Sydney by not having nine teams in it. The AFL not having nine teams in Sydney hasn't prevented the Swans from becoming the largest and most profitable sports club in the market.

The AFL model for distribution is worse. It actively gives millions more to some clubs than it does others. In some case, over 10 million dollars more ANNUALLY.

The AFL's variable funding scheme fosters development of the game in new territories and provides them with an extra $200m over what the NRL gets with its limited footprint. They can afford to spend $50m on Gold Coast and GWS when they have an extra $200m to spend. That still leaves them with plenty of money left over to fund development in Queensland and NSW. It also costs more to run a fumbleball club due to the squads being bigger in number.

That certain sponsors are less than desirable is true - but these are exceptions, not the rule.

Betting companies have their logos plastered on so many jerseys and run so many ads on Ch9 and Fox League it drives me mad. Plenty of people complain about the relentless betting ads they see during the football.

That doesnt change the fact that a clubs primary purpose is to win matches and premierships, regardless of where the revenue comes from - it doesnt mean they cant pick where that comes from.

Sydney clubs have a massive advantage as they travel the least. It's hardly fair on the interstate clubs and Warriors, who often have to pay overs to get a player to leave Sydney.

Then vote in a government that will do something about it. Until then, its a legal form of income that supports rugby league, including numerous local league clubs and development programs.

What percentage of gaming machine revenue goes to community football?

Its actually pretty easy to take the issue seriously if you get off your high horse for ten seconds.
Also I really hope to see you out there against alcohol sponsorships one day for the same reasons.

I'd be happy to see alcohol banned from sponsoring sport. It's as bad as the tobacco industry.