Facts:
Part of the $8mill news ltd took out of the game every year went to the storm operations to cover losses
Then when news gave up the storm the NRL agreed to fund them $4.7mill a year on top of the club grant.
Add in each year of club grant they have received since their inception in 1998
So tell me had that many tens of millions,of $'S of NRL money invested in the Storm been worth it or should they have used those millions each year on grassroots etc etc?
You see where I am going with This? The money could have been spent on other things, just as it could now. That $30mill a year, minus tv value of a ninth game could go to gassroots or admin or touch to get the NRL badge on their merch or a multitude of other things, but maybe a second Brisbane club and a Perth club, or second NZ club, would be worth more in the long term?
1) The Storm were in fact on the ARL's list for expansion, prior to SL.That's according to Arthurson.
2) if News Ltd had not been throwing in their share to fund the club, it may well not be here now.Not that I have any time for News.
3) Melbourne is the 2nd largest city population wise and economy wise in the country, and has an economy much more stable than WA.It thus is not affected to the extent WA economy is , which is heavily dependent on the resources industry.
4) The NRL was left with no choice but to continue funding the Storm .To pull the plug after the outlay made , would have burnt their bridges in the 2nd largest city and economy.
5) The grassroots then did not have the competition, from other codes particularly fumble ball in the Northern states, than it does now.The expenditure by the AFL is indication enough.
6) The choice is do you drastically reduce grassroots funding, to finance expansion in the current climate? Or do you take it up to the AFL?
The Oz economy went into a decline in the Sept qtr, that's not a good look. Neither is the unemployment rates for WA.
7)In fact at the time when the decision by the ARL was made to expand prior to SL, the original idea was to increase by only 2 teams.
Arthurson stated words to the effect , bugger it we will increase by 4.And we know the result the poor old Crushers ended up with players well past their prime and has been union players.And the eventual exit.
8)When the NRL was assisting the Storm , they were not having to spend millions to keep the Titans going, nor the Knights. When the GFC hit in 2008 the Titans were on a downhill spiral with their Cof E.
The Tinkler experiment with Newcastle was in the end a disaster.
9) In all your hypotheticals you ignore cost increases for players, the neglect of grassroots (according to the people at the coal face), the digital situation that the AFL in fact already have in place, the threat from other codes such as the NFL/French ru or even the RFU. If you are unable to compete with player payments, you lose
stars.
10) I'm fully aware of merchandise sales, memberships, and no doubt if clubs can secure minimum 20,000 members they are on the way to becoming financially stable.
11) In all the praise for the AFL expanding , they had the money to fund new clubs.The NRL are funding two current clubs. But their clubs lost $93m plus in toto, their expansion clubs part from the Swans are hardly firing on all cylinders.Let alone their players now in revolt over funding, and threatening strike action.
So it does comes down to money, when players want their decent slice of teh action.
You see where I'm coming from?
