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.
No theres not a good reason. Period. You dont get to decide something is viable if your excluding half its revenues. Thats just flat out dishonest.
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.
And thats perfectly legal to do so. Your personal tastes not withstanding.
Any well run club these days will also be diversifying away from pure football revenues. AFL clubs are into Leisure Centres, Child Care, Sports Training Colleges, Netball Clubs, Pokies Venues, Real estate, and other things. The AFL itself owns half of Champion Data and a 56,000 seat multipurpose sports stadium
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.
Clubs are viable. Period.
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.
What you persistently ignore that in actual fact, the clubs are viable. And the rest of the f**king world doesnt matter.
Why are clubs all around the world able to get by without gaming machine revenue but Sydney's NRL clubs cannot?
I dont care. And plenty of those clubs have legal revenue streams outside of the game itself.
It's an honest question that you cannot answer. I've just given you the answer BTW.
No you havent.
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.
Thats what private ownership is for.
Roosters were turned around by Politis, but still rely heavily on gaming machine revenue to plug the gaps.
Good for them, its literally what Leagues Clubs are designed to do.
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.
That has everything to do with their stadium deals being unequalled by anywhere else in the country, and being able to charge a fortune for highly in demand memberships. With 2 clubs in a city approaching the size of Brisbane and no real competition. See also: Broncos.
So a club is viable if it is able to generate half of its "revenue" from people who have a gambling addiction?
According to their accountants, thats what the bottom lines read.
Fleecing money from people with an addiction is disgusting and should be illegal.
But its not.
I question the integrity of anyone who tries to justify this practice.
I dont give a damn what you question at this point. Its evident you have some moral objection to perfectly legal revenue streams and wish to foist in on the rest of us.
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.
Doest matter if they do. the Club benefits.
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.
And if they use the money to get debt free and use the remainder to buy profit generating assets, it serves the same purpose.
It's against the court of public opinion,
Your opinion, let alone the Greens, isnt the court of anything.
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.
They havent had any real trouble getting them on board.
Cool. So replacing Cronulla, Manly and Canterbury with Adelaide, Perth and Wellington won't impact the value of the broadcast rights.
Sure. If you think subscriptions wont suffer by dumping 3 teams from the NRL in favour of teams in some of the areas with the lowest Foxtel penetration in the country, with minimal support for the game, let alone the NRL.
Youd be preparing for a long and lengthy legal battle that will pretty much ruin a season or two since thered be no validity in getting rid of teams, so panel shows would do a roaring trade.
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.
That is going to change in Victoria at least with the Storm and VRL on the same page now.
It's more accurate to say all Sydney clubs -- bar the Rabbitohs -- are propped up by drunks and gamblers.
No thats your interpretation, the facts - without embellishments - as stated in audited accounts say the clubs are viable.
Revenue from gaming machines isn't sustainable and is reliant on the laws and social trends remaining in place.
Almost everything is reliant on laws. Crypto sponsors, Gambling and betting, alcohol, soft drinks, fast food, they can all fall to regulation at any time.
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.
hmm which Sydney clubs exactly are doing this.
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.
thats not really the point im making. The Broncos havent had real competition - and they should have after theyd won a premiership or two, while enjoying support from a massive media corporation.
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.
If your facts there are anything like your facts here, Id suggest their dislike is somewhat deserved.
