Financial fragility of the game

[Perth Red]

But there are lots and lots if other leagues clubs

Take Parramatta & Penrith areas both have LCs at NRL level LCs but also LCs as big or bigger at junior level than NRL level eg Mounties or Blacktown Workers

They all support Junior RL today

It would be Panthers Group who would be paying for the NRL license in order for the Penrith Panthers to play in NRL. Same with Eels, Bulldogs etc. Its a good idea except clubs are skint and self interest would prevent them from agreeing. NRL spent $48mill on State leagues last year, a lot of that could be covered in a licensing agreement from the NRl clubs if they stopped blowing money on sacking coaches and CEO's and became more viable due to less pressure to spend $30mill a year on their operations. It would also then contribute to funding the states to pay for the jnr system so clubs, be it NRL or LC didnt have to carry that cost. If LC not attached to an NRL club wanted to keep funding jnrs in tehor area then great, just more money going to a good outcome.

It would also sort out who is serious about expansion, and create stronger links between NRL clubs and grassroots.

 

[Quicksilver]

"self interest"


hahaha

 

[forby]

So who would pay the licence fees for clubs like Manly, Souths, Gold Coast etc?
Do you reckon the Penn family or Russell would want to fork out another $2 mil each year?

 

[Perth Red]

So who would pay the licence fees for clubs like Manly, Souths, Gold Coast etc?
Do you reckon the Penn family or Russell would want to fork out another $2 mil each year?

It would come out of operating revenue, if the clubs were A) earning more revenue B) not spending every cent they earn in an elusive search for a premiership. In WA its on a bit of a sliding scale so the more revenue the club is earning the higher the license fee they pay. Eagles pay around $6mill a year and Dockers around $4mill.

 

[forby]

Winning a premiership is what it is all about. What is the point otherwise?

 

[Quicksilver]

Winning a premiership is what it is all about. What is the point otherwise?

to pay the NRL, who already get more than enough television revenue to cover operations.


Derrrrrrrrr

 

[siv]

So who would pay the licence fees for clubs like Manly, Souths, Gold Coast etc?
Do you reckon the Penn family or Russell would want to fork out another $2 mil each year?

There is no NRL licence fee

Only for the womens NRL team

 

[Cactus]

There is no NRL licence fee

Only for the womens NRL team

I am outraged. How rascist.

 

[Perth Red]

Winning a premiership is what it is all about. What is the point otherwise?

sustainability, growing your fanbase, growing interest in RL, getting more kids playing the game, increasing fan satisfaction in attending games, the list goes on. And before the smart arse comments, yes of course winning games and the odd premiership are the pinnacle.

 

[Vee]

Winning a premiership is what it is all about. What is the point otherwise?

The game is more important.

As much as small-minded people like yourself can't see it.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Regarding the games digital arm, which still hasn't been decided, though I think V'landys will do a deal with News Corp.
Ironically News have slowly regained control, originally their plan before the super league war was they would broadcast the game whilst the ARL would administer it for them. Took them nearly 25 years to achieve their goal.


In this podcast with Herald Sun (news) football boss Mark Robinson (also on AFL360) he talks about the AFL digital arm and it's future. Starts around 20th minute mark.

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aH...EwiXjaqd7rLpAhUSyDgGHTHsCFgQieUEegQIBxAE&ep=6

 

[taipan]

Regarding the games digital arm, which still hasn't been decided, though I think V'landys will do a deal with News Corp.
Ironically News have slowly regained control, originally their plan before the super league war was they would broadcast the game whilst the ARL would administer it for them. Took them nearly 25 years to achieve their goal.


In this podcast with Herald Sun (news) football boss Mark Robinson (also on AFL360) he talks about the AFL digital arm and it's future. Starts around 20th minute mark.

If he has to do any sort of deal with digital, as long as it's not 9.

 

[TheFrog]

sustainability, growing your fanbase, growing interest in RL, getting more kids playing the game, increasing fan satisfaction in attending games, the list goes on. And before the smart arse comments, yes of course winning games and the odd premiership are the pinnacle.

Winning games and premierships begets a bigger fanbase. There is no other way. How do you think Souths, Canterbury, Parra and St George got their supporter bases? It is not a guarantee though. You have to have enough people identify with your brand, which explains the comparatively limited followings of Manly and the Roosters, considering the on-field success they've had.

 

[LeagueXIII]

If he has to do any sort of deal with digital, as long as it's not 9.

He's a News Ltd man and sees it as competition to what they want. he thinks it won't survive. Which I think is the same with ours News will take control they have 7yrs to get it right.

Protect their interests.

 

[Perth Red]

Winning games and premierships begets a bigger fanbase. There is no other way. How do you think Souths, Canterbury, Parra and St George got their supporter bases? It is not a guarantee though. You have to have enough people identify with your brand, which explains the comparatively limited followings of Manly and the Roosters, considering the on-field success they've had.

Usually short term. Sharks barely registered an increase when they won, panthers was not sustained, nor Tigers and like you said it hasnt helped Roosters and Manly. In fact Storm are probably the only club to have sssen sustained crowd increase with success on field.
No one wants to watch a team losing every week (looking at you Warriors and Titans!) but when it comes to where to spend your revenue, ploughing most of it into the football operations whilst neglecting business and customer growth is never a great idea.

 

[TheFrog]

Usually short term. Sharks barely registered an increase when they won, panthers was not sustained, nor Tigers and like you said it hasnt helped Roosters and Manly. In fact Storm are probably the only club to have sssen sustained crowd increase with success on field.
No one wants to watch a team losing every week (looking at you Warriors and Titans!) but when it comes to where to spend your revenue, ploughing most of it into the football operations whilst neglecting business and customer growth is never a great idea.

One premiership doesn't cut it. You've got to be at the top for a decade or so, as Parramatta, Canterbury, Dragons and Rabbitohs all were at one time. Not winning the comp necessarily, but a serious threat of winning it. Panthers and Sharks will pick up lots more fans if they can achieve this.

 

[The Great Dane]

Winning games and premierships begets a bigger fanbase. There is no other way.

There're teams across the world that have sucked for years, sometimes they are famous for it, but with the right culture and/or marketing have still grown huge, extremely loyal, fan-bases.

The Chicago Cubs (until 2016), Toronto Maple Leafs, Cleveland Browns, New York Jets, etc, all are famous for long dry spells and extremely passionate fans, and in Europe there are all sorts of sports clubs that are more famous for their fans' displays than their teams' on field performance.

Clubs in Australia are almost universally reliant on the teams performance to sustain their fan-base (the only strong exception I can think of is the Knights), but that is because in most cases clubs in Australia put almost zero effort into anything but the team. You reap what you sow.

 

[LeagueXIII]

They are generally one or two team cities

 

[The Great Dane]

They are generally one or two team cities

I don't agree that the number of clubs in a city is an excuse for clubs putting the bare minimum into marketing, game day experience, and community engagement for years, and beside that many Australian sports clubs are in one or two club cities as well, so your argument doesn't even hold water on that front either, but for sake of argument lets say that I totally agreed with you.

If you over saturated a market with clubs to the point that the clubs can't maintain strong fan-bases because of the amount of competition, and refuse to rectify that problem by moving some of them on, then I've got the same answer as before, you reap what you sow.

 

[Timbo]

There are also massive population differences.

Look at the Cleveland Browns. Cleveland the city may only only be the size of Newcaste but the Browns area is all of north-east Ohio, which includes other cities like Akron, Canton, Toledo and dozens others. Their drawing area actually has a population of more than five million. This is true for basically every American sports team.

It’s easy to get a crowd when you’ve got a fan base bigger than the population of Sydney to yourself.

Also, American sports still have blackout rules. I wonder what the effect on crowds would be here if games weren’t televised into the local market unless sold out?