Football Operations Salary Cap $7m

[Stormwarrior82]

If the Warriors sign a coach from Australia, more than likely they'll expect more than a 2 year deal to move to NZ. You can get stuck awfully quick, and rather than do something about it, a bad appointment, and they're hard to predict, can leave clubs like us who'd have to pay significant overs or long terms to attract good coaches, can leave us in a real hole. It's likely to keep driving us to hiring duds but then rugby league would keep going down the plug hole in NZ if the Warriors continue to be an abject laughing matter.

The warriors management team are big boys that can make those tough decisions. Your right, a Aussie coach would probably want a longer deal. Well they can always get a kiwi coach? I’m sure there are coaches in NZ. Look for me I think you should let the coach choose the new incoming players that suit the teams direction. Not the other way around. Players should NOT dictate to the coach like they did with Taylor at the tigers. Maybe with this operations salary cap there will be more performance conditions in the contracts for staff (coaches). Players and staff do currently have pretty sweet contract deals compared to Ruthless NFL contracts.

I understand the warriors predicament with coaches but in all honesty that side shouldn’t really need a coach. It is choc full of internationals in key positions. They are a great side and frustrate the sh!t out of most rl fans because of there talent. It seems more a commitment thing than a coach issue. Just my opinion.

 

[Iafeta]

They are a terrible side. What on Gods earth have you been watching? Internationals? They scored a rousing penalty goal against a country that can't even pay its players.

Coaches in NZ? Who, like "I fink da Tongan boys will love going to the marae and sleeping on the ground before da big game David Merkinwell? If Kiwi coaches were the force you are making out they'd be in the NRL. We've had Graeme Lowe who was successful with Manly but other than that we've had bumbling goofs at the Warriors. It's a fact, certain clubs have to pay massive overs. They have to take big risks. Limiting these outlying clubs, and, frankly all clubs to who they can hire is straight up crazy street weird. If you have a great defensive coach as an example, and rah rah can throw whatever they can afford, so coach X can get double the club from kick and giggle, we are also sending top quality professionals on their way to helping other codes.

Still, if I read some of the comments above, if you have a deep pocketed owner I guess they will just use the luxury tax anyway. So the rich can still get richer.

I do genuinely lol that support staff in medical and player welfare are included in this cap. Richie Rich type owners will spend up large on head coaches and then trim the fat in social responsibility areas anyway.

 

[Captain Apollo]

The warriors management team are big boys that can make those tough decisions. Your right, a Aussie coach would probably want a longer deal. Well they can always get a kiwi coach? I’m sure there are coaches in NZ.....

If shorter contracts for coaches do become the norm, a way around it for the NZ Warriors(or any other club for that matter) would be to offer a 1-2 year deal with an optional 1-2 years on it in the club's favour. That way if the coach does need to be gotten rid of, they just don't exercise the option thus saving a payout.

 

[Iafeta]

We could still legit rort and use TPAs though right?

 

[some11]

Can you kiwis keep it in your own forum, you're making me depressed and I don't even support your teams.

 

[AJB1102]

I think its a shit idea to restrict the amount of professionals we can attract to our game. Like @Iafeta rightly points out costs will be cut on those who don't contribute to the on-field performance of players in a measurable way i.e. welfare and to a lesser extent medical staff.

This won't stop CoE's and wrestling coaches. Just potentially inhibit the development of RL players because their clubs now have to employ less staff and/or hire cheaper options.

We've had 1 salary cap for decades that is a laughing stock the game has proven over and over it can't really enforce. The luxury tax seems a cop out.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

They are a terrible side. What on Gods earth have you been watching? Internationals? They scored a rousing penalty goal against a country that can't even pay its players.

Coaches in NZ? Who, like "I fink da Tongan boys will love going to the marae and sleeping on the ground before da big game David Merkinwell? If Kiwi coaches were the force you are making out they'd be in the NRL. We've had Graeme Lowe who was successful with Manly but other than that we've had bumbling goofs at the Warriors. It's a fact, certain clubs have to pay massive overs. They have to take big risks. Limiting these outlying clubs, and, frankly all clubs to who they can hire is straight up crazy street weird. If you have a great defensive coach as an example, and rah rah can throw whatever they can afford, so coach X can get double the club from kick and giggle, we are also sending top quality professionals on their way to helping other codes.

Still, if I read some of the comments above, if you have a deep pocketed owner I guess they will just use the luxury tax anyway. So the rich can still get richer.

I do genuinely lol that support staff in medical and player welfare are included in this cap. Richie Rich type owners will spend up large on head coaches and then trim the fat in social responsibility areas anyway.

You have gone on a bit of a rant and after the way the kiwi teams performed last year I don’t blame you. But you’ve brought up plenty of issues. The nz warriors are a great side on paper. Scheck, Johnson, luke, mannering etc all guns when there on fire. I agree with you that they can’t seem to ever come together as a team though. I think it’s a bit on the coach but also the player.

Sleeping on the ground a few days out from the game?? Big bloody deal. What princesses for complaining.
All clubs have pros and cons in regards to funding, juniors, location etc. all clubs need to work to there strengths. Not whinge about it.
The Luxury tax will be 37% but will no doubt rise similar to afl to 75% if clubs take advantage of it and also have a hard cap. Rich won’t get richer. I can’t see how that even makes sense in this instance.
And the issue over support staff. I don’t see how clubs would not have masseurs, physios, strappers, trainers, waterboys etc the only thing that would change is the amount of them. Don’t really think 10massuers is needed. It’s $5.7mil to look after a team of 25max. If clubs can’t do that well they don’t belong in the comp.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

I think its a shit idea to restrict the amount of professionals we can attract to our game. Like @Iafeta rightly points out costs will be cut on those who don't contribute to the on-field performance of players in a measurable way i.e. welfare and to a lesser extent medical staff.

This won't stop CoE's and wrestling coaches. Just potentially inhibit the development of RL players because their clubs now have to employ less staff and/or hire cheaper options.

We've had 1 salary cap for decades that is a laughing stock the game has proven over and over it can't really enforce. The luxury tax seems a cop out.

Welfare officers won’t be dropped. They can’t. The Nrl has introduced them and are now part of the club. Types of support staff won’t change but the numbers will. Don’t have a problem with that. I have never seen the breakdown of a football dept spending report so it’s hard to understand where the costs go exactly.

 

[AJB1102]

It’s $5.7mil to look after a team of 25max.

Well given they now have 30 man squads I'll call bullshit straight away on that, but to think the staff don't cater for anyone outside the main first grade squad is silly.

Welfare officers won’t be dropped. They can’t. The Nrl has introduced them and are now part of the club. Types of support staff won’t change but the numbers will. Don’t have a problem with that. I have never seen the breakdown of a football dept spending report so it’s hard to understand where the costs go exactly.

You have a child-like confidence in the clubs to do the right thing and the NRL's ability to make sure of it.

I don't know how having less professional support staff can be a good thing that you "don't have a problem with". Would you rather one generic coach spreading his time between 30+ blokes or specialist halves, fullback, defense, offense coaches dedicating their expertise to certain areas of the squad?

A couple years back I seen a remedial massage bloke for an injury and he also worked for an NRL team. He only worked on them at home but mentioned he'd love to work for Storm because they take their people like him with them everywhere. While some club's players wait till they get home and then line up for treatment, other club's player have the staff on hand wherever they are.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

Well given they now have 30 man squads I'll call bullshit straight away on that, but to think the staff don't cater for anyone outside the main first grade squad is silly.

I’m Sorry your right. I forgot they had changed to 30man squads. My point still stands. I will not accept by 2020 when it kicks in that $6mil wouldn’t be enough to run a 30man team.

Coach =$1mil
3xphysios =$250k
4xmassuers =$250k
2xstrappers =$150k
3xwater boys =$100k
1doctor (game day) =$100k
4xtrainers =$500k
10xrandoms =$1mil
Total = $3.35mil
Leaves $2.65mil for facilities/equipment/training etc.
like I said, without a staff list it’s hard to do but most figures used are very reasonable.

You have a child-like confidence in the clubs to do the right thing and the NRL's ability to make sure of it.

I don't know how having less professional support staff can be a good thing that you "don't have a problem with". Would you rather one generic coach spreading his time between 30+ blokes or specialist halves, fullback, defense, offense coaches dedicating their expertise to certain areas of the squad?

A couple years back I seen a remedial massage bloke for an injury and he also worked for an NRL team. He only worked on them at home but mentioned he'd love to work for Storm because they take their people like him with them everywhere. While some club's players wait till they get home and then line up for treatment, other club's player have the staff on hand wherever they are.

Child-like confidence in clubs? Haha have you read any of my posts? I don’t hold club in high regard at all. But I do believe in common sense. I had read that the Nrl passed the cost of the well-being officer onto the club during the latest club funding deal. Either way clubs would be dragged through the mud if another player takes there life without a wellbeing officer on the books. Clubs are stupid but not that stupid are they?

 

[franklin2323]

Teams will just send staff to feeder teams and get them in on game day. This is impossible to police

 

[AJB1102]

I’m Sorry your right. I forgot they had changed to 30man squads. My point still stands. I will not accept by 2020 when it kicks in that $6mil wouldn’t be enough to run a 30man team.

Coach =$1mil
3xphysios =$250k
4xmassuers =$250k
2xstrappers =$150k
3xwater boys =$100k
1doctor (game day) =$100k
4xtrainers =$500k
10xrandoms =$1mil
Total = $3.35mil
Leaves $2.65mil for facilities/equipment/training etc.
like I said, without a staff list it’s hard to do but most figures used are very reasonable.

As you say we dunno who is on staff for how much so it is impossible to know if $5.7M is or isn't enough. Given I read a few clubs would apparently look to up their spending now its probably plenty. I guess as long as we're not artificially pricing RL clubs out of contention for getting the best people in and the FO cap rises accordingly it shouldn't have much impact.

Child-like confidence in clubs? Haha have you read any of my posts? I don’t hold club in high regard at all. But I do believe in common sense. I had read that the Nrl passed the cost of the well-being officer onto the club during the latest club funding deal. Either way clubs would be dragged through the mud if another player takes there life without a wellbeing officer on the books. Clubs are stupid but not that stupid are they?

I get all that. But footy clubs are silly and the want of success can become too much and they make dumb decision just for this year. Then they double down. They end up f**ked. Thats why we have player salary cap, now FO salary cap, all to stop 'em getting in over their heads.

And yes I do think they could be that stupid. It wouldn't be an in your face stupid it would be a small cut back here and a small cut back there to make the most of that cap.

To "cap" something is to limit it. I don't think limiting our game from attracting professionals to increase the skills, fitness and abilities of our players is in the best interest of the players or the game.

If a club has the money to pay the best coach/physio/medic in his field but can't due to FO salary cap that is a disgrace.

 

[Iafeta]

You have gone on a bit of a rant and after the way the kiwi teams performed last year I don’t blame you. But you’ve brought up plenty of issues. The nz warriors are a great side on paper. Scheck, Johnson, luke, mannering etc all guns when there on fire. I agree with you that they can’t seem to ever come together as a team though. I think it’s a bit on the coach but also the player.

Sleeping on the ground a few days out from the game?? Big bloody deal. What princesses for complaining.
All clubs have pros and cons in regards to funding, juniors, location etc. all clubs need to work to there strengths. Not whinge about it.
The Luxury tax will be 37% but will no doubt rise similar to afl to 75% if clubs take advantage of it and also have a hard cap. Rich won’t get richer. I can’t see how that even makes sense in this instance.
And the issue over support staff. I don’t see how clubs would not have masseurs, physios, strappers, trainers, waterboys etc the only thing that would change is the amount of them. Don’t really think 10massuers is needed. It’s $5.7mil to look after a team of 25max. If clubs can’t do that well they don’t belong in the comp.

Just one thing, in respect to sleeping on the floor, it was on a marae with a squad that is more and more Polynesian heritage by the year. The sleeping environment was uncomfortable to the point the support staff up and left. All peak performance training will always advocate that physical conditioning relies very heavily on good recovery via sleep. It was pre World Cup, not preseason where a month before your first game you may do a SAS type survival of the fittest scenario. Anyhow, there's a report out now on it and it's very obvious how bad that coach is. If he's the national head coach and therefore I assume in the eyes of the NZRL the best NZ coach, it does invalidate the idea that there are a plethora of qualified NRL coaches over there.

Agree entirely with @AJB1102 , support staff are there to cultivate talent. It is beyond me why you'd ever want to limit that. Particularly with the way it's structured, I genuinely have concerns on the lack of priority that welfare and medical staff appointments will get. And with the likes of CTE becoming significant legal risks, as well as the unfortunate suicides that have torn families apart recently, I can't advocate that.

 

[Diesel]

Todd, what a f**king mess. Resign

 

[Twizzle]

NRL: Rugby League boss Todd Greenberg defends $3.7 million loss
By AAP
5 hours ago

TODAY: NRL clubs handed early Christmas present
FShareTTweetBEmail
The NRL has posted a $3.7 million loss for 2017 but is optimistic of returning to the black with a profit of close to $40 million this year.

After revealing the governing body's financial results on Thursday, CEO Todd Greenberg brushed off accusations the game was broke, predicting a big surplus next year as the game's new five-year $1.8 billion broadcast deal kicks in in season 2018.

He pointed out the game had recorded an average $10.5 million surplus over the 2013-2017 broadcast deal and because television revenues are paid at a flat rate each year, profits needed to be viewed over the course of a broadcast cycle.

Greenberg said the result was better than forecast after slashing $2 million from administration costs and increases in non-broacast revenue ($147.9 million up from $144.2 million).

"Next year we'll see the game return to a strong surplus position at the first year of a five-year broadcast cycle," Greenberg said.

"When I see certain headlines and media commentary about the game being broke, that couldn't be further from the truth.

"We've made great commitments to clubs and great commitments to players, states and the grassroots. The game is being very well managed financially and the distributions are bigger and better than ever."

He said he expected to post a profit close to $40 million next year and for profits to average $7.5 million over 2018-2022.

He said surplusses would not be as big this cycle after agreeing to a record club-funding agreement which is designed to shore up clubs long-term.

The NRL was forced to bail out Newcastle and the Gold Coast over the last four years after they went broke and Greenberg said the governing body was no longer in a position to prop up struggling franchises.

As part of the club funding package, the NRL has established a distressed club fund, which all 16 clubs are required to sink money into each year.

Over the next five years, that fund will grow to $15 million and any club which runs into financial trouble will be propped up out of that.

"It won't happen. And the reason it won't happen is it can't happen because we don't have money put aside to prop a club up," Greenberg said.

"So when we pay an amount to all the clubs, what they're going to do is pay back an amount each on an annual basis and it goes into a fund.

"That's their insurance fund. If one of them falls over, they can apply to that fund to help them. We won't be helping them because we don't have money in the centre to prop the clubs up again."

THE NRL'S 2017 FINANCIAL RESULTS BY THE NUMBERS

* $3.7 million loss - down from $2.6 million loss is 2016

* $10.5 million surplus over the course of five-year broadcast agreement

* Broadcast revenue $206.2 million, down $100,000.

* Non-broadcast revenue up $3.7 million to $147.9 million

* Football department spend up 3 per cent ($700,000) to $20.1 million

* Integrity unit and salary cap spend $3.7 million - up from $3.2 million in 2016 and $500,000 in 2012

* Community and welfare spend down from $16.9 million to $16.4 million

* $2 million in savings on administration costs, down to $19.6 million

* 2 per cent reduction in investment in clubs ($156.9 million)

* Increased investment in states ($32.8 million, up 8 per cent) and development ($33 million, up 12 per cent)

https://wwos.nine.com.au/2018/02/08/21/02/greenberg-defends-nrl-s-3-7-million-loss?ocid=social-wwos

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

pfft, when you know your revenue is going to jump un buy $200mil next year, i dont think a $3mil deficit is too bad.

 

[Perth Red]

They are a terrible side. What on Gods earth have you been watching? Internationals? They scored a rousing penalty goal against a country that can't even pay its players.

Coaches in NZ? Who, like "I fink da Tongan boys will love going to the marae and sleeping on the ground before da big game David Merkinwell? If Kiwi coaches were the force you are making out they'd be in the NRL. We've had Graeme Lowe who was successful with Manly but other than that we've had bumbling goofs at the Warriors. It's a fact, certain clubs have to pay massive overs. They have to take big risks. Limiting these outlying clubs, and, frankly all clubs to who they can hire is straight up crazy street weird. If you have a great defensive coach as an example, and rah rah can throw whatever they can afford, so coach X can get double the club from kick and giggle, we are also sending top quality professionals on their way to helping other codes.

Still, if I read some of the comments above, if you have a deep pocketed owner I guess they will just use the luxury tax anyway. So the rich can still get richer.

I do genuinely lol that support staff in medical and player welfare are included in this cap. Richie Rich type owners will spend up large on head coaches and then trim the fat in social responsibility areas anyway.

Maybe if Warriors got off their ar5es and built ,what should be, a massive membership base, they'd have the revenue for this not to be an issue?

 

[Perth Red]

As you say we dunno who is on staff for how much so it is impossible to know if $5.7M is or isn't enough. Given I read a few clubs would apparently look to up their spending now its probably plenty. I guess as long as we're not artificially pricing RL clubs out of contention for getting the best people in and the FO cap rises accordingly it shouldn't have much impact.




I get all that. But footy clubs are silly and the want of success can become too much and they make dumb decision just for this year. Then they double down. They end up f**ked. Thats why we have player salary cap, now FO salary cap, all to stop 'em getting in over their heads.

And yes I do think they could be that stupid. It wouldn't be an in your face stupid it would be a small cut back here and a small cut back there to make the most of that cap.

To "cap" something is to limit it. I don't think limiting our game from attracting professionals to increase the skills, fitness and abilities of our players is in the best interest of the players or the game.

If a club has the money to pay the best coach/physio/medic in his field but can't due to FO salary cap that is a disgrace.

It is if it stops said clubs going broke. Sure its a managing down rather than leading up approach but given the clubs consistent inability to manage their budgets you cant blame the NRl for drawing a line in the sand around spending. Annual media stories of clubs going broke and some clubs actually going broke and having to be taken over by NRL is extremely damaging for the NRL's brand and market confidence.

 

[Perth Red]

pfft, when you know your revenue is going to jump un buy $200mil next year, i dont think a $3mil deficit is too bad.

Not per se but it has been a trend for 3 of the 5 years of this deal to be losing money, and what he doesn't mention is that the budgeted surplus from this 5 year deal that were supposed to be put away for a rainy day that some of was put aside in the first 2 years of this existing deal have also been spent, as well as a loan needed this year to deal with lack of cash. Over the last 3 years the NRL has gone through money like toilet paper!

2013 $45.3mill surplus
2014 $21.8mill surplus
2015 $8.1mill loss
2016 $2.6mill loss
2017 $3.7mill loss

 

[AJB1102]

It is if it stops said clubs going broke. Sure its a managing down rather than leading up approach but given the clubs consistent inability to manage their budgets you cant blame the NRl for drawing a line in the sand around spending. Annual media stories of clubs going broke and some clubs actually going broke and having to be taken over by NRL is extremely damaging for the NRL's brand and market confidence.

Yeah I get that, I pretty much said the same about clubs being silly and breaking bank to gamble on immediate success and winding up f**ked when it doesn't come off as hoped.

Todd said today though that there won't be bail outs. I'm okay with that. If a footy club manages to go bust in the next 5yrs they have no excuses and probably shouldn't be there.