Financial Security

[franklin2323]

On the back of Crowe's comments the other day and a few posters in expansion threads. I will list that NSW clubs aren't going anywhere.

Private ownership: Souths, Manly and Newcastle should be.

League club developments:
Balmain Leagues, Sharks all residental and commercial so covers rental returns.
Panthers have something planned similar if they can get it approved. Westfield's and a couple others are standing in the way.

Here's the link: http://www.penrithcity.nsw.gov.au/index.asp?id=6857

Dragons, Roosters, Bulldogs, Eels have nothing planned but have plenty of sponsorship and support so won't go anywhere.

Not sure about Canberra but if it was bad news something would of came out.

Memberships keep rising as do merchandise sales. Given the ratings rise every year even without new teams we should see an increase with the IC more will flow down to the clubs

 

[Ausguy]

What?

 

[Perth Red]

Most clubs probably need an increase of around $2-3mill on the NRL grant to make them comfortable. Hopefully the next TV deal will be able to deliver that. On the AFL's deal they are able to afford club grants of over $8mill.

As long as the salary cap keeps wages at the lowest common denominator most clubs will keep heads above water.

 

[franklin2323]

What?

People seem to think Sydney teams are going to fall over. I just list why that won't happen there is long term development plans. Short teqm memberships & new tv deal will keep them going

 

[morley101]

Dragons, Roosters, Bulldogs, Eels and Panthers Leagues clubs are the most successful clubs in NSW. I'd rather rely on handouts from these clubs than an aging Hollywood actor.

 

[BunniesMan]

Dragons, Roosters, Bulldogs, Eels and Panthers Leagues clubs are the most successful clubs in NSW. I'd rather rely on handouts from these clubs than an aging Hollywood actor.

We haven't had a "handout" since 2008. We were profitable in 2009. Likely to profitable again in 2010. I'd rather be profitable than rely on anyone, owners OR leagues clubs.

 

[gronkathon]

You rely on sponsors, gate takings and corporate sponsorships you braindead f**king muppet. They come under the heading anyone

 

[Quidgybo]

On the back of Crowe's comments the other day and a few posters in expansion threads. I will list that NSW clubs aren't going anywhere.

Private ownership: Souths, Manly and Newcastle should be.

Specifically on privately owned clubs. A private owner is the most likely to move a club to a new market if he can get better deal. There's a long history of this in American sport. A community or members owned club is hard to move because the members don't want to move it and will resist change even if it means the club dies in place. But if a rich owner (who probably got rich being ruthless in business) can't screw a new stadium out of the local government or finds the market too crowded/unprofitable, and he gets a better deal to move his franchise to somewhere else, then he'll take it.

If the Bears come in on the Central Coast and start squeezing Manly from both sides as the Dragons are doing to Cronulla, then don't be surprised if the private owners of that NRL franchise start thinking the Sunshine Coast looks mighty attractive. Especially if the Queensland government offer them a shiny new Skilled Park style stadium to weigh up against the aging and long neglected Brookvale Oval. Money talks and business men, even in the business of football, don't like losing money when there's an opportunity to play the game while either losing a lot less or profiting a lot more.

Leigh.

 

[BunniesMan]

You rely on sponsors, gate takings and corporate sponsorships you braindead f**king muppet. They come under the heading anyone

As does everyone. But unlike every other Sydney club, we didn't need anything else other than memberships/sponsors to post a profit.

Ok I misspoke using the word "anyone". I meant I'd rather a business be self reliant and earn its own money than rely on arbitrary lump sum payments from whatever source, whether that be private owner or leagues club.

 

[gronkathon]

Tigers used approximatley $8,000. in grants from Leagues clubs last season and our sponsorship suite has grown in value since than. The Bunnies are nothing special in that regard.

Plus a NRL grant is also required for Soufs to post a profit there cum sponge

 

[BunniesMan]

Specifically on privately owned clubs. A private owner is the most likely to move a club to a new market if he can get better deal. There's a long history of this in American sport. A community or members owned club is hard to move because the members don't want to move it and will resist change even if it means the club dies in place. But if a rich owner (who probably got rich being ruthless in business) can't screw a new stadium out of the local government or finds the market too crowded/unprofitable, and he gets a better deal to move his franchise to somewhere else, then he'll take it.

If the Bears come in on the Central Coast and start squeezing Manly from both sides as the Dragons are doing to Cronulla, then don't be surprised if the private owners of that NRL franchise start thinking the Sunshine Coast looks mighty attractive. Especially if the Queensland government offer them a shiny new Skilled Park style stadium to weigh up against the aging and long neglected Brookvale Oval. Money talks and business men, even in the business of football, don't like losing money when there's an opportunity to play the game while either losing a lot less or profiting a lot more.

Leigh.

There's a difference between private ownership and private ownership for profit. Tinkler and Crowe/HaC went into/will go into their investment without wanting to turn it into a money making investment. There's a thousand ways rich men can make money in a far easier way than RL club ownership. If someone buys a RL club, he's not doing it get a financial return on his investment, he's doing it to help his club.

Tinkler and Crowe/Hac all have/will have poured millions into their clubs with out expecting to fill their pockets one day. They've done it for the club, the fans, and to hopefully see success on the field one day.

That's why all the anti-privatisation people are idiots. They can't differentiate between a Tinkler/Crowe style of private owner and some kind of evil corporation that is trying to take over everything in it's sight.

 

[Quidgybo]

That's why all the anti-privatisation people are idiots. They can't differentiate between a Tinkler/Crowe style of private owner and some kind of evil corporation that is trying to take over everything in it's sight.

But what about the eco hot water company Quantum that just bought Delmege's Manly stake? Are they in it for the love of the game or are they just an evil corporation?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-and-powerbroker/story-e6frexnr-1225954660957

You see it's not just the football lover who buys the club that you need to worry about but who they on sell it to a few years later. Now I know Souths have some condition that allows the members to buy the club back if Crowe decides to sell but that doesn't seem to be the case for Manly...

Leigh.

 

[soc123_au]

I meant I'd rather a business be self reliant and earn its own money than rely on arbitrary lump sum payments from whatever source, whether that be private owner or leagues club.

Arbitrary: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

Payments from Leagues clubs are not arbitrary. Quite the opposite, without the football club the leagues club doesnt exist. Sponsorship on the other hand..... Unless the sponsor believes the cost of the sponsorship will be outweighed by potential profit to their organisation, well that would be arbitrary.

In a true business sence for a club to be truly profitable it would need to do so on the back of gate takings, memberships, food & beverage sales & merchandise. Along with payments due from TV rights.

How mant successful companys do you know of that are "sponsored"

 

[Doug2234]

If the Bears come in on the Central Coast and start squeezing Manly from both sides as the Dragons are doing to Cronulla, then don't be surprised if the private owners of that NRL franchise start thinking the Sunshine Coast looks mighty attractive. Especially if the Queensland government offer them a shiny new Skilled Park style stadium to weigh up against the aging and long neglected Brookvale Oval. Money talks and business men, even in the business of football, don't like losing money when there's an opportunity to play the game while either losing a lot less or profiting a lot more.

Bit like Souffs giving up there territory to play out of ANZ Stadium at Homebush.. I understand.

 

[BDGS]

Bit like Souffs giving up there territory to play out of ANZ Stadium at Homebush.. I understand.

relocation and playing down the road are two very different things.

 

[BunniesMan]

Bit like Souffs giving up there territory to play out of ANZ Stadium at Homebush.. I understand.

We didn't give up our territory...it's still our territory. We just did the same thing the Bulldogs and in part, the Eels and Tigers. We made the correct business decision and our crowds have grown from 13k to over 17k since we moved to ANZ. We make a considerable amount of money from that deal.

And I bet you any money that within 20 years every Sydney club is playing in ANZ or SFS. We will go down as pioneers for this.

And when we're in the finals we don't have to give the middle finger to willing paying customers because we're stubborn fools...like a certain club.

relocation and playing down the road are two very different things.

He's a dragons fan though. He's inherently an idiot. He thinks moving less than 30 minutes down the road...and in the same city, is a relocation.

 

[soc123_au]

There's a difference between private ownership and private ownership for profit. Tinkler and Crowe/HaC went into/will go into their investment without wanting to turn it into a money making investment. There's a thousand ways rich men can make money in a far easier way than RL club ownership. If someone buys a RL club, he's not doing it get a financial return on his investment, he's doing it to help his club.

Tinkler and Crowe/Hac all have/will have poured millions into their clubs with out expecting to fill their pockets one day. They've done it for the club, the fans, and to hopefully see success on the field one day.

That's why all the anti-privatisation people are idiots. They can't differentiate between a Tinkler/Crowe style of private owner and some kind of evil corporation that is trying to take over everything in it's sight.

I agree with what you have written here, it also proves Souths isnt really profitable. Rusty/PAC & Tinkler if the Knights deal goes through will be less rich than if they had not gotten involved with owning footy clubs. I can only assume that somewhere on their tax returns will be a loss based on the relevant club.

Lets just imagine you have a business, you sell your house & dump 500k into it as a directors loan. The business at the end of the year shows a 200k profit. Looks nice on paper but the terd has really lost 300k.

Good on Rusty, PAC & Tinkler digging into their pockets to support what they love. It certainly saved Souths & will do the same for the Knights, but please stop telling us that Souths is the best managed club around. They are lucky to have a rich, high profile benefactor, end of story.

 

[BunniesMan]

I agree with what you have written here, it also proves Souths isnt really profitable. Rusty/PAC & Tinkler if the Knights deal goes through will be less rich than if they had not gotten involved with owning footy clubs. I can only assume that somewhere on their tax returns will be a loss based on the relevant club.

Lets just imagine you have a business, you sell your house & dump 500k into it as a directors loan. The business at the end of the year shows a 200k profit. Looks nice on paper but the terd has really lost 300k.

Good on Rusty, PAC & Tinkler digging into their pockets to support what they love. It certainly saved Souths & will do the same for the Knights, but please stop telling us that Souths is the best managed club around. They are lucky to have a rich, high profile benefactor, end of story.

You don't understand how profits work. You don't post a profit if your owner had to put in their personal money to balance your books. Which is what Crowe did before 2009. But in 2009 we posted an actual profit...meaning without an owner putting in his money.

2010 will most probably be the same story. And I've heard the Star city sponsorship is worth signficantly more than our previous major sponsor, plus with an increase in the NRL grant likely to happen from 2013, we should continue to make profits for the forseeable future. Profits that get reinvested into the club to further improve our facilities/increase our front office etc etc.

 

[soc123_au]

You don't understand how profits work. You don't post a profit if your owner had to put in their person money to balance your books. Which is what Crowe did before 2009. But in 2009 we posted an actual profit...meaning without an owner putting in his money.

You stated in your OP that Rusty/Tinkler are happy to pump in the cash without doing it to make a profit (& fair enough). I am just saying that that money isnt "income" in the sence of determining profitability.

I understand how profits work, If in 2009 your actual running costs were less than your actual income then yes you made a profit. As long as Rustys wallet stayed in his back pocket. If that was the case I stand corrected.

 

[BunniesMan]

You stated in your OP that Rusty/Tinkler are happy to pump in the cash without doing it to make a profit (& fair enough). I am just saying that that money isnt "income" in the sence of determining profitability.

I understand how profits work, If in 2009 your actual running costs were less than your actual income then yes you made a profit. As long as Rustys wallet stayed in his back pocket. If that was the case I stand corrected.

I agree. We posted losses in the 2 years before 09 (huge ones at that) and Crowe/HaC signed the check to balance our books. That doesn't mean we broke even, it just means we had our debts paid for the year.

In 2007 and 2008 that was the case. In 2009 we posted a real life actual profit, meaning without getting money from Crowe to make it that way. If we did get money from the owners that year it wouldn't have been called a "profit".