There's a lot to sort through here.
I feel like funding disagreements are expected and could be resolved if both sides were willing to compromise, but the spanner in the works is the power plays the clubs are trying to make.
Obviously they feel like they should have more of a say on the commission itself. In their view, the 'Independent' in Independent Commission means from News/outside corporate interests, not independent from the game itself.
I would lean towards agreeing with them that they should have some say on the commission. The core of my view is the clubs are more important to the game than the NRL admin are. In order of importance
1) The sport itself. Without this there is nothing, obviously.
2) The clubs and players. They bring in the fans and money.
3) The administration. It is their job to ensure 1 and 2 are healthy.
As for funding, the best we have to go on is the NRLs 2015 annual report.
They had an $18 mil loss and are projecting losses for 2 more years despite record revenue.
I can't say if he speaks for the clubs position as a whole, but Gould claims they are not seeking a larger slice of the pie but are alarmed at the administrative wastage that has allowed the NRL to suffer losses despite making more money than ever. Of course, this is ignoring the fact that a reason for this is due to Newcastle, Gold Coast, St George and Wests all requiring unexpected financial assistance from the NRL. The clubs are unwilling to invest in an insurance fund.
The basic funding breakdown is:
204mil broadcast revenue
129mil non-broadcast revenue
334mil total
-128mil NRL spending
=206mil available for Clubs, States, Development (grassroots)
-162mil clubs
-28mil states
-27mil development/grassroots
The money given out to clubs, states, and grassroots in 2015 exceeded the available revenue by $12mil.
Taking into account the Knights Titans and Affiliated states ownerships this becomes $18mil.
Look up the annual report for the finer details of it if you're interested.
So the picture the NRL seems to be painting by the way it structures this report is that the game should be funded by the broadcast revenue, and the administration funded by the non-broadcast revenue. This way, the losses can be put down to NRL giving the game more than their fair share.
Obviously the clubs disagree with this split, and see the NRL as wasting a significant chunk of the $128mil they spent in administrative costs.
The split is fairly arbitrary to me, I'm no expert obviously but you could just as easily argue that 'Development' should come under the NRLs expenditure rather than being grouped with the clubs funding.
Then you can point to something like the bunker as a colossal waste of money.
Breaking down further, the clubs receive 162mil (126 participation grant 36 'other' ???) of 334mil total revenue. (48%). Not sure what 'other' covers but it is a significant chunk which rose by $11mil from 2014-15.
The participation grant is $7.8mil each, which is
2.3% of the total revenue
119% of the salary cap ($6.55mil)
The NRL spends almost as much on itself ($128 mil) as it gives all 16 clubs combined.
The "Administration costs" alone are $23mil which is in the range of what it costs to run an NRL team.
What conclusions can be drawn from any of this?
For everyone criticising the clubs, I personally would find it difficult to say they are not more deserving of a large chunk of the money than the NRL administration.
The clubs position, I think, is that money to fund them and the grassroots should come at the cost of the NRLs 'slice', I do not believe they want to take money away from grassroots, rather the opposite.
For 130% of salary cap the total participation grant would increase by$20-30mil a year depending on the cap.
The broadcast revenue is set to be somewhere in the range of 360mil a year.
Allocating to the clubs $160mil participation grant would leave 200mil.
If the states and grassroots received double what they do now that would still leave around 90mil for the NRL to piss away, NOT INCLUDING the growing non-broadcast revenue which currently stands at $129mil.
Are the NRL planning to spend close to $100mil MORE than their current running costs of $128 mil?? If this is the case then I fully support the clubs position.
Blaming 'poor performing clubs' is not sensible. If they received what they ask, and given the above I'm not sure how you can say they shouldn't, they wouldn't be poorly performing.
