If you think that giant development only buys them time then good luck to you. They get a couple of real fat cheques, ongoing retail rental income from the shopping centre and all the associated benefits to trade in the leagues club of it essentially being relocated to a modern shopping centre with 2 thousand people living next door. While it alone won't make them the richest club getting around, because their sponsorship revenue will always be disadvantaged, they are at a huge advantage over every other club in that they have decent sized income coming from a source no other club has. If management of the sharks can't make them strong with those advantages they deserve to be turfed.
You really don't have a clue.
$35-$50m profit conservative estimates.This may increase if approval given for additional 200 units.
$1m pa rental income on retail development.
Extra custom via a refurbished League's club.With a couple of thousand residents a stones throw on other other side of the ground.
No rental on ground,owned by club.
Football club would have broken even this year (despite coming last) and ,despite not having a major sponsor,but ASADA legal costs cut that out.And liitle reliance on poker machine revenue.
More members than Canberra ,West Tigers,Titans.4,000 registered junior players.
Your really need to check before making rash statements.
I can't be bothered breaking down the numbers for you right now (as it'd probably take an hour or so to do), but basically with the current growth rates of the NRL and the amount it costs to run a team growing significantly they'll be struggling to break even again in roughly a decade if they don't increase their income streams.
In saying that there's nothing stopping them from growing on their current position and becoming financially stable long term, In fact I'm sure that's what they're trying to do (the aforementioned proposed additional 200 units is a good start) and I've no reason to believe that they can't succeed in that endeavor.
I just don't like how everybody is treating this development as the Sharks saving grace just because Buzz (the most agenda driven 'journalist' I've ever encountered) said it was, as it's not the case, they still have lots of work to do to get to that point.
And anyway my main point was that even if they do become financially sustainable does that really mean that they should be exempt from rationalization talks? I don't think so!
BTW Frank Discussion they're not the only club to use real estate to supplement their income and/or support their football operations, the Raiders survive on their real estate portfolio and have done so for a decade or so now, and I'd be very surprised if other clubs weren't going down the same route.
