Football Operations Salary Cap $7m

[franklin2323]

Only for operations that have a shelf company like Penrith LC to manage the payment of other money. I expect there will be a boom in shelf companies

We don't know how the state based NYC will work. If Roosters use Wyong there is no way NRL can stop them spending what they want on off field staff. Kinda easy really

 

[Perth Red]

So why punish those clubs that can spend that money? Tell all clubs there is no more NRL Money outside grants. They will spend what they can that way. With no NYC next year off field wages already will be cut as less coaches etc

Because at the moment you get the media every year telling the world 80% of clubs are running at massive losses then the clubs blaming the nrl for not giving them enough money.

This way the nrl can turn around and respond that they have put in place structures to ensure club sustainability within the generous grants they get, and if they are still running at massive loss then its their own stupidity.

Like I've said with a grant of $13mill, a salary cap of $10mill and a non playing expenditure cap of $7mill clubs should have no problems being in the black in the future.

 

[siv]

Interested in what costs are outside of the Football Operations and Player Salary Caps

Seems
- centre of excellences are still exempt

What else ?

 

[Perth Red]

administration of the club other than the direct football operations. Ie CEO and Snr management, game day expenses, memberships, administration staff, merchandise costs, legal fees when they stuff up etc. etc.

 

[Life's Good]

So why punish those clubs that can spend that money? Tell all clubs there is no more NRL Money outside grants. They will spend what they can that way. With no NYC next year off field wages already will be cut as less coaches etc

I think $7m is very generous to run a football club when the actual football club(your team, my team) generates bugger all in revenue and primarily receives its money from the NRL/leagues club(if they have one).

As for no NYC, that money should still funnel down to grass roots instead of the NRL.

 

[POPEYE]

I'm happy to see It's A Knockout return in the guise of Ninja Warrior, common sense prevail over cautious bureaucratic mediocrity . . . one day RL might return to survival of the fiittest

 

[franklin2323]

Because at the moment you get the media every year telling the world 80% of clubs are running at massive losses then the clubs blaming the nrl for not giving them enough money.

This way the nrl can turn around and respond that they have put in place structures to ensure club sustainability within the generous grants they get, and if they are still running at massive loss then its their own stupidity.

Like I've said with a grant of $13mill, a salary cap of $10mill and a non playing expenditure cap of $7mill clubs should have no problems being in the black in the future.

The media reports it wrongly though. So that is the reason to bring in a cap then? Though on that. What does a 6pm Friday night game do to help the individual clubs? How about removing farces like that to fix revenue instead

 

[franklin2323]

I think $7m is very generous to run a football club when the actual football club(your team, my team) generates bugger all in revenue and primarily receives its money from the NRL/leagues club(if they have one).

As for no NYC, that money should still funnel down to grass roots instead of the NRL.

It does though. Lets use your Dragons as an example say 40 players in NYC squad. The leftover players go back to play in junior leagues benefits the Illawarra league. Every player must work or learn, the extra welfare officers clubs carry to administer that are still employed and still work with those players. Therefore improving the training habits of that local league also.

 

[Life's Good]

It does though. Lets use your Dragons as an example say 40 players in NYC squad. The leftover players go back to play in junior leagues benefits the Illawarra league. Every player must work or learn, the extra welfare officers clubs carry to administer that are still employed and still work with those players. Therefore improving the training habits of that local league also.

Ok that takes care of that.
Back on the 7m surely that is more than enough to run a football club that generates minimal revenue??
I know I would like to run a business that has no revenue target, gets handouts and still cries poor.

 

[franklin2323]

Ok that takes care of that.
Back on the 7m surely that is more than enough to run a football club that generates minimal revenue??
I know I would like to run a business that has no revenue target, gets handouts and still cries poor.

What if they generate millions though? It is like saying to Coke or Pepsi you need to spend the same as Coles brand cola does.

 

[Life's Good]

What if they generate millions though? It is like saying to Coke or Pepsi you need to spend the same as Coles brand cola does.

The clubs don't generate the money though or at least nowhere near enough to justify operating expenses of $7m.

 

[franklin2323]

The clubs don't generate the money though or at least nowhere near enough to justify operating expenses of $7m.

Sharks have funded those apartments, Panthers a $25 academy the list goes on. The boards can be trusted to make those decisions but not how much money they spend on caoching staff? Seems strange we say lets run clubs like a business but then stop them doing it properly

 

[POPEYE]

Might help clubs if the interchange was reduced to 4, having to have a million bucks on the bench doesn't help . . . then again, you'd have to employ football management smart enough to train long minute players

 

[Life's Good]

Sharks have funded those apartments, Panthers a $25 academy the list goes on. The boards can be trusted to make those decisions but not how much money they spend on caoching staff? Seems strange we say lets run clubs like a business but then stop them doing it properly

I get what you are saying and I agree that better run clubs shouldn't be handicapped in how they run their operation but it comes back to my original point that unless something is done to curb the spending then it will only be the strong clubs who survive.
Of course the argument then comes to relocate clubs or bring in new clubs to replace them but they would then need funding to prop them up until they were able to stand on their own 2 feet.

 

[POPEYE]

I think we all want clubs that survive to be strong, methinks that rationing the best players between too many teams is not the answer. If the NRL won't do all it can to ensure clubs are allowed to seek out, train and keep talent the only answer is to reduce the number of clubs . . . we need to make supply far more important than demand

 

[Perth Red]

Sharks have funded those apartments, Panthers a $25 academy the list goes on. The boards can be trusted to make those decisions but not how much money they spend on caoching staff? Seems strange we say lets run clubs like a business but then stop them doing it properly

Because most of them can't be trusted. It's a unique business where arms races are inevitable as the soul measure of success is performance on the field. How many clubs make a profit or at te very least break even? Titans, Wests, Knights, Dragons all in hock to the nrl and quite likely would be gone if they had been left to sink or swim. NRL has a responsibility to deliver a 16 team competition, this is just another security blanket to that happening.

 

[taipan]

If this means the football dept is limited in expenditure ,in order to save some of the clubs from themselves ,I see no problem.
I look at clubs who have spent up big in the football dept such as the Dogs,and then look at the results.My response meh!!!
The code needs 16 financially stable clubs, we have had enough whiteanting,cap cheating, drug sniffing, off field stuffing around, to last a lifetime.I'm fed up with the bad publicity,the only way to make people forget is to have stability and players who are responsible, then perhaps more non committed people may actually attend games.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Because most of them can't be trusted. It's a unique business where arms races are inevitable as the soul measure of success is performance on the field. How many clubs make a profit or at te very least break even? Titans, Wests, Knights, Dragons all in hock to the nrl and quite likely would be gone if they had been left to sink or swim. NRL has a responsibility to deliver a 16 team competition, this is just another security blanket to that happening.

This is pretty spot on...

The clubs cry poor and demand more money from the NRL. Then when they get the money, they match it in new costs and demand more.

I want the ARLC to go to the clubs and say that, if they need to come in and bail a club out, they will save the club but absolutely gut the management. If the same group want to retake control of the club, the ARLC can attach an assload of previsions to the new licence deal.

I think the first thing the ARLC needs to do is take ownership of all IP and lease it to clubs for free, so if a group goes broke the name stays with the next group to come in...

 

[siv]

I think $7m is very generous to run a football club when the actual football club(your team, my team) generates bugger all in revenue and primarily receives its money from the NRL/leagues club(if they have one).

As for no NYC, that money should still funnel down to grass roots instead of the NRL.

NYC costs have just shifted from $300k to pay 25 u20 players to paying 6 elite juniors. I think it will $50k minmum wage

 

[siv]

Might help clubs if the interchange was reduced to 4, having to have a million bucks on the bench doesn't help . . . then again, you'd have to employ football management smart enough to train long minute players

All bench players should play 40 min of reggies

We aren't the NFL where we should sit a squad of 23 on the sideline