Melbournes Money

[big country]

News ltd take about $8 million out of the game every year (debt they got from the Super League war). They put some of that money back into the Melbourne Storm. If News Ltd pull out of the Storm and the NRL, they would no longer get that $8 million from the NRL. Therefor, the NRL could just directly give it to the non-News Ltd owned Melbourne Storm.

that's ok then - as long as all the other clubs each get the same $5-$8mil yearly grant as the Storm do from the NRL I'm happy with that ;-)

 

[jargan83]

Does Melbourne actually get any salary cap concessions though? As far as I knew they didn't so that wouldn't affect the playing department

The AFL propped up the Sydney Swans and the Brisbane Bears/Lions for years with funding and salary cap concessions, not to mention the $1 million plus they give to their financially struggling Melbourne clubs, Sydney and Port Adelaide

If Melbourne need to propped up to survive I am all for it. Melbourne is important to a national competition

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

No, every club is under the same salary cap.

 

[Perth Red]

I'd see it gradually reduced over the next few years and the money that is not going to them be used to prime our next growth areas. We should have an expansion fund like the other codes have.

 

[Perth Red]

this is all BS.

over a million sydney-siders watched the 2005 & 2006 AFL GF's because of the Swans participation. since then, it's died in the arse.

the bulk of people within their respective cities will always go back to their main sport. viewing figures for GF's are always spiked due to the event. they may attract some new supporters but it wont ever be a decent amount to make any difference to the clubs financials.

just like the swans and GWS18 will be a loss-making operation and subsidised by the AFL into the future, the Melbourne Storm will always be a loss-making operation and need a an injection of massive funds each year, outside its normal revenue streams and NRL distribution.

and how the majority of people cant see the conflict that is the administrator of a comp also owning a team within it, or heavily subsiding it, is ludicrous. it seems to be the Australian way, whether it be AFL, NRL, A-league, etc. what we have is Australian sport trying to be bigger than what it is able to be ordinarily be, so in order to artificially boost them, they basically have any competitive integrity stripped of them.

It's hardly new business practice that a company will invest in a loss making area as they feel it will eventually bare great rewards. If getting close to a million viewers in Vic for the GF doesn't add value to the next TV deal then nothing will.

 

[big country]

Does Melbourne actually get any salary cap concessions though? As far as I knew they didn't so that wouldn't affect the playing department

The AFL propped up the Sydney Swans and the Brisbane Bears/Lions for years with funding and salary cap concessions, not to mention the $1 million plus they give to their financially struggling Melbourne clubs, Sydney and Port Adelaide

If Melbourne need to propped up to survive I am all for it. Melbourne is important to a national competition

ok this is where I disagree - there should be a level playing field across the board - none of this 'propping up' business - some 100 year old clubs have become extinct because they were not propped up and you cant tell me they were not as important as melbourne

 

[big_matt]

It happens in every code though. Lions and Swans got heavy support in the AFL. More than the Storm do. They got to use a bigger salary cap. Now that is not fair.

This thread is presuming that the Storm are being propped up by the NRL anyway. Sounds like we get roughly 5 million a season. If the NRL gets 750 mill for the next TV deal (which is possible) and 50million of that is because the GF had almost as many victorian viewers as sydney, does that not cover 10 years of payments to the Storm?

It may be 50 million extra, it may not, but it is GUARANTEED that the new tv deal will be priced partly on the GF viewing figures in Vic.

Taking the Storms money away is counter productive. If its doesn't become a national game then the game dies, and all other codes realise this. If you take your 5 mill back each year just cause you don't agree with the Storm and the game ends up being seen as not national, then the tv deals will suffer hugely and the game will be in real trouble as a result.

This sport will live or die by tv money - the turnstiles alone cant support it.

And for those who say Vic viewers only watched the GF - 250k watched our prelim final against the broncos in Melb.

 

[big country]

It happens in every code though. Lions and Swans got heavy support in the AFL. More than the Storm do. They got to use a bigger salary cap. Now that is not fair.

This thread is presuming that the Storm are being propped up by the NRL anyway. Sounds like we get roughly 5 million a season. If the NRL gets 750 mill for the next TV deal (which is possible) and 50million of that is because the GF had almost as many victorian viewers as sydney, does that not cover 10 years of payments to the Storm?

It may be 50 million extra, it may not, but it is GUARANTEED that the new tv deal will be priced partly on the GF viewing figures in Vic.

Taking the Storms money away is counter productive. If its doesn't become a national game then the game dies, and all other codes realise this. If you take your 5 mill back each year just cause you don't agree with the Storm and the game ends up being seen as not national, then the tv deals will suffer hugely and the game will be in real trouble as a result.

This sport will live or die by tv money - the turnstiles alone cant support it.

And for those who say Vic viewers only watched the GF - 250k watched our prelim final against the broncos in Melb.

the sport is custom made for tv - it sells itself. I dont think you could attribute viewership increase and subsequent TV deals to just one game - you would think that after 4 successive grand finals that an entire state would finally twig on anyway.I'd be interested to see next year if a weekend storm game manages to replace a re-run of the brady bunch in melbourne;-)

 

[ozjet1]

It's hardly new business practice that a company will invest in a loss making area as they feel it will eventually bare great rewards. If getting close to a million viewers in Vic for the GF doesn't add value to the next TV deal then nothing will.

and in the sporting arena, it's basically exclusive to australia.

sporting comps, are basically 'not-for-profit'. they generally do not distribute to shareholders..........everything they make, they invest back into the competition or the sport..............unless its news ltd.

furthermore, the investment many stakeholders have.....the fans in particular...........is to see the team they're associated with win premierships. what's the point of putting emotional investment into a team and sport when the 2-3 teams owned by a parent or subsidiary of the administrator are more often than not, making PF's & GF's or winning them. Cowboys in 2005 were still wholly owned by News, Broncos are majority owned by a subsidiary of news, and the Storm are wholly-owned by News.

integrity in appearance is non-existant. the australian sporting public is dumb tho.

 

[big_matt]

I think its pretty much accepted though that if there had never been a club in Melbourne, you would have got about 100k victorians watching the GF this year rather than 700k. Despite the fact that we dont get the biggest crowds, just having a league team in Melb has grown the general interest in the game in Vic. 250k tv viewers in Melb wouldnt watch a prelim final vs the broncos if there was no interest in the storm.

 

[big_matt]

and in the sporting arena, it's basically exclusive to australia.

sporting comps, are basically 'not-for-profit'. they generally do not distribute to shareholders..........everything they make, they invest back into the competition or the sport..............unless its news ltd.

furthermore, the investment many stakeholders have.....the fans in particular...........is to see the team they're associated with win premierships. what's the point of putting emotional investment into a team and sport when the 2-3 teams owned by a parent or subsidiary of the administrator are more often than not, making PF's & GF's or winning them. Cowboys in 2005 were still wholly owned by News, Broncos are majority owned by a subsidiary of news, and the Storm are wholly-owned by News.

integrity in appearance is non-existant. the australian sporting public is dumb tho.

I think its more that the Storm and Broncos are well run clubs that brings GF success, rather than being owned by News Ltd. Ownership of the Cowboys by News Ltd didn't result in them suddenly winning grand finals.

Any team (lets say the dragons for example) could have recruited folau, inglis, slater etc and could have hired bellamy as coach. Being owned by news ltd didn't give us these individuals.

Teams having to be financially supported in any code will always be a problem in Aus cause its such a small market and tv deals demand national sports.

 

[big country]

I think its pretty much accepted though that if there had never been a club in Melbourne, you would have got about 100k victorians watching the GF this year rather than 700k. Despite the fact that we dont get the biggest crowds, just having a league team in Melb has grown the general interest in the game in Vic. 250k tv viewers in Melb wouldnt watch a prelim final vs the broncos if there was no interest in the storm.

i think it's also accepted that if melb were not in the Gf you would have got around 300 (the 'K' was left out on purpose) Melb viewers watching the grand final

 

[big_matt]

i think it's also accepted that if melb were not in the Gf you would have got around 300 (the 'K' was left out on purpose) Melb viewers watching the grand final

I think the 05 grand final got about 80k viewers in Melb (before storm dominance last 4 years) so why it would have been reduced to 300 people if we didnt make the GF I'm not too sure.

 

[Gippsy]

They aren't being given any advantages other clubs don't have.

Every club has had the chance to recruit the players + coaching staff they have.

Melbourne are doing things better than other clubs, it's as simple as that.

Rather than tearing Melbourne down, people should be demanding their clubs lift to try and match what Melbourne are achieving.

Disagree. At last count Melbourne had 8 Internationals & 2 SOO players in their starting 13. How many other teams have that? They have been overly strong in playing strength for about 5 years and all the stars have recently signed long term contracts. Isn't the salary cap designed to stop this happening? For some reason the salary cap doesn't affect the Storms playing roster, like it does other teams.

Before Storm entered the comp it was considered unfair that the Broncos had easy access to virtually all the young playing talent in QLD. Melbourne have changed that by being able to recruit the best young players from QLD over the last 6-7 years. How? These young players weren't prepared to cross the border to NSW but are now happy to move to Victoria? Obviously additional incentives are available to entice these young players, but a salary cap also applies to U20's to prevent stockpiling of young players. Once again, the U20 salary cap doesn't seem to stop the Storm.

I am lead to believe the corporate support for the Storm is comparable to a lot of the NSW clubs, yet they still make a loss of between $5-$6million per year. Can you imagine the losses they would have if they weren't succesful?

Everything points towards them spending more on players than other clubs, that's not a level playing field, and these accusations will continue as long as their owner continues to run the competition they play in.

 

[big country]

my point is that if Melb had a croquet team in a grand final you would get half a mil melburnians watching - it doesn't mean the next croquet tv deal will be worth millions more just because of the viewership of 1 game

 

[big_matt]

my point is that if Melb had a croquet team in a grand final you would get half a mil melburnians watching - it doesn't mean the next croquet tv deal will be worth millions more just because of the viewership of 1 game

You've got a point, but in a game run by TV they would be mad to ignore the potential market they have just seen if they can try and grow the game in Vic.

 

[big country]

You've got a point, but in a game run by TV they would be mad to ignore the potential market they have just seen if they can try and grow the game in Vic.

exactly - and unless it's a semi or grand final (and unless melbourne is in it) they still market the product at 11pm - I can guarantee this will be the case next year during normal weekend rounds

 

[elbusto]

my point is that if Melb had a croquet team in a grand final you would get half a mil melburnians watching - it doesn't mean the next croquet tv deal will be worth millions more just because of the viewership of 1 game

Do not agree - the growth in interest in Rugby League in Victoria continues year by year.Long way to go but its working. One of the reasons we have been able to reestablish League in Tassie this year is the Storm and the local interest in them.

In the long term Rugby League must have a true National presence. The AFL is not throwing all that money at QLD and Sydney for nothing.

The 'Stop the World I want to get off' view will only see League die. Your either in it or forget it.

 

[big_matt]

Disagree. At last count Melbourne had 8 Internationals & 2 SOO players in their starting 13. How many other teams have that? They have been overly strong in playing strength for about 5 years and all the stars have recently signed long term contracts. Isn't the salary cap designed to stop this happening? For some reason the salary cap doesn't affect the Storms playing roster, like it does other teams.

Before Storm entered the comp it was considered unfair that the Broncos had easy access to virtually all the young playing talent in QLD. Melbourne have changed that by being able to recruit the best young players from QLD over the last 6-7 years. How? These young players weren't prepared to cross the border to NSW but are now happy to move to Victoria? Obviously additional incentives are available to entice these young players, but a salary cap also applies to U20's to prevent stockpiling of young players. Once again, the U20 salary cap doesn't seem to stop the Storm.

I am lead to believe the corporate support for the Storm is comparable to a lot of the NSW clubs, yet they still make a loss of between $5-$6million per year. Can you imagine the losses they would have if they weren't succesful?

Everything points towards them spending more on players than other clubs, that's not a level playing field, and these accusations will continue as long as their owner continues to run the competition they play in.

Are you accusing the Storm of breaking salary cap rules for both its first grade team and toyota cup? With the NSW bias, this would have been exposed in a flash if it were true.

What makes you say we pay more than other teams? It's not our fault the Roosters want to pay useless Mason the same as we pay Cam Smith. Half our team would be close to minimum wage (Tolman, Tandy, Finch, Neilsen, Anderson, Hinchcliffe) and the others are paid well. We just choose not to overpay for overhyped average players like other teams.

I would also point out that many of our SOO players were unknowns when they joined us. So we didn't sign them up at SOO rates.

It really is our grapes though. we're the best so therefore we must be cheating.

 

[Butters]

Disagree. At last count Melbourne had 8 Internationals & 2 SOO players in their starting 13. How many other teams have that? They have been overly strong in playing strength for about 5 years and all the stars have recently signed long term contracts. Isn't the salary cap designed to stop this happening? For some reason the salary cap doesn't affect the Storms playing roster, like it does other teams.

Before Storm entered the comp it was considered unfair that the Broncos had easy access to virtually all the young playing talent in QLD. Melbourne have changed that by being able to recruit the best young players from QLD over the last 6-7 years. How? These young players weren't prepared to cross the border to NSW but are now happy to move to Victoria? Obviously additional incentives are available to entice these young players, but a salary cap also applies to U20's to prevent stockpiling of young players. Once again, the U20 salary cap doesn't seem to stop the Storm.

I am lead to believe the corporate support for the Storm is comparable to a lot of the NSW clubs, yet they still make a loss of between $5-$6million per year. Can you imagine the losses they would have if they weren't succesful?

Everything points towards them spending more on players than other clubs, that's not a level playing field, and these accusations will continue as long as their owner continues to run the competition they play in.

Mate you're a f**king idiot. Do you have any idea how many players Melbourne have lost since 2006?

Try comparing their 06 side to 09, they're completely different teams.