What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

NRL faces major turmoil as clubs threaten breakaway league

siv

First Grade
Messages
6,761
The Titans,Newcastle,West Tigers and Dragons have been funded to the tune of at least $30m in toto.Either to be repaid or clubs sold off.That's $30m not in the NRL kitty.

The ARL had about $25m in the bank just prior to SL.

The football clubs despite increased grants and yes lower grants from leagues' clubs ,are spending far too much in the admin side of the football depts, again many millions over the clubs.Millions that can and should be trimmed back.Give them more they spend it .

If there is one thing for sure NRL clubs at times, are like women at the Boxing Day sales.

Priorities are players must be paid and the best paid accordingly.
Grassroots must be financially supported so it can grow.
Clubs must be held responsible on their football dept expenditure.
Fan base must grow.
When this is achieved then expansion can be put back on the table.

Spending money either wilfully or not having enough to grow the game ,is undermining your very existence.

Clubs can spend what they like above the Salary Cap

But they cant expect the the NRL to fund those activities

Only items might be
- a few admin common allowances (same for all clubs) and with a few stipulations that you need X an Y type representatives
- travel allowance

But we already have things like
- car allowances
- relocation allowances
- education allowances
 

siv

First Grade
Messages
6,761
Actually I see the bigger deal is what do we do with clubs who don't have big LC to support them or a wealthy private investor

Other than goving them a Melbourne style additional $5 mil annual grant. NRL can't do much other than reduce their costs

Eg remove their RG and U20 teams

Problem is they are also removing everyone else's who don't have a funding issue

Maybe a easier answer would be any club that cannot fund a National FG RG and U20s team after getting a travel allowance - should revert to NSW or QLD Cup
 
Messages
11,978
A covert push for John Quayle to become ARLC chair became overt on Thursday morning when multi-media's Matty Johns declared on Triple M radio that the "Canon", after a 20-year absence as boss, should replace John Grant immediately.

When the Herald learnt of the move on Monday to install Quayle for a two-year period, the first three NRL clubs contacted all enthusiastically supported him, but warned of the constitutional roadblock that disqualifies anyone who has held a position in the game in the previous three years from becoming a commissioner.

Advertisement
Quayle is an incumbent director of the Newcastle Knights where he has received lavish praise from both the NRL and the business community for his unpaid labour resurrecting the club in the post-Tinkler era.

However, Quayle's strongest opponent will be his closest friend.

RELATED CONTENT
Quayle and Roosters' chairman, Nick Politis, are "family", owning a Hunter Valley vineyard together, yet they have polar opposite views on where rugby league money should be spent.

The "Canon", whose father was a frugal Anglican clergyman, is a fan of future funds; Nick, a billionaire clever businessman, believes the future is now.

  • SHARE ON FACEBOOK
  • SHARE ON TWITTER
  • PIN TO PINTEREST
1480577221294.jpg

Experience and dignity: John Quayle has the right credentials to become the ARLC chairman. Photo: Marina Neil
The Roosters' chairman, along with the Bulldogs' Ray Dib (who has begun to dress like Nick), and the Storm's Bart Campbell, are strong supporters of clubs receiving 130 per cent of the salary cap, a not surprising position given its inbuilt inflation.

After all, it means that if the players get more, so must the clubs, the reverse of the historic master-slave rugby league relationship where clubs tried to curb player payments.

At the beginning of the Super League war in 1995, Quayle, as NSWRL chief executive, built a nest egg of close to $25 million.

Twenty years later, NRL chief executive Dave Smith proudly proclaimed a $50m profit.

Who knows what the ARLC's future fund is now, but if it's near zero, then a long document – the 2015 NRL Benchmarking, issued to all clubs on March 31 – indicates they are at fault.

Between 2012 and 2015, NRL club revenue from sponsorship, membership, game-day income and merchandising has grown about 2 per cent, equal to inflation.

Over that period, average profitability has declined by $100,000 per club, per year. While revenue has increased marginally, clubs are making less money because they are not growing their businesses.

In fact, the average loss has blown out from $1.5m in 2012 to $3.5m.

Meanwhile the grant per club from headquarters has increased from $3.85m to $8.2m.

In the same period, payments to players, measured by the salary cap, has increased per club from $5.45m to $7.7m.

Admittedly, there are some payments to players outside the cap but the grant from headquarters has more than doubled, while player income has increased only 40 per cent.

So where has it gone? Hiring staff to sell more sponsorships, memberships and merchandising? Attracting more fans through the gate?

No, the money has gone in football department spending.

And it's a radical uplift – from $1.8m average per club in 2012 to $6.5m now.

No wonder the NRL boffins are looking at a football department spending cap, a mechanism that the AFL has had in place the past few years.

The Bulldogs are squabbling again and it's over football department spending, with coach Des Hasler installing multiple cameras at Belmore Oval to monitor training and chief executive Raelene Castle accused of not reining him in.

It's not as if football department spending correlates with premierships. When the Rabbitohs won in 2013, they were in the bottom four of NRL clubs for expenditure. The 2015 premiers, the Cowboys, were middle of the spending ladder, while the triumphant Sharks had the second-lowest spending.

Nor is it fair to accuse RL Central of wilful spending. Administration costs will increase 6 per cent annually from 2013 to 2017, while revenue will grow from $181m annually to $350m.

Some of the necessary programs would be ignored by clubs. RL Central's budget for education and welfare is $7m and the NRL now has more players with university degrees than the AFL.

Rugby league's pioneer administrator, James Joynton Smith, a very successful businessman, once said."There is no task in business which a man conducts that should be beneath him."

Quayle left rugby league headquarters in 1996 as a peace offering during the Super League war. He then became in charge of amenities at the 2000 Sydney Olympics and later advised Middle Eastern, African and South American countries on how to run major events. Yet he has also cleaned out abandoned wells and planted olive trees at his Hunter home. He has maintained a dignified silence as speculation builds on Grant's future.

Joynton Smith also said: "Dignity resides in the way you do your work – what you bring to it. "Dignity is not confined to the top jobs."

Quayle has had top and bottom jobs and dignity is what the game needs now



http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...he-values-of-john-quayle-20161201-gt1wqw.html
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,500
Clubs can spend what they like above the Salary Cap

But they cant expect the the NRL to fund those activities

Only items might be
- a few admin common allowances (same for all clubs) and with a few stipulations that you need X an Y type representatives
- travel allowance

But we already have things like
- car allowances
- relocation allowances
- education allowances


The expenditure within the football clubs is way over the top.Whether it be by League's club funding,NRL extras.
Its has nothing to do with allowances.
A case in point,Hasler had special cameras installed around the grounds at Belmore Oval for training.It is also to do with all the extra manpower at the football admin and the equipment money wasted.
IOW there is wastage and expenditure that can be reigned in ,as many club are losing money.

Any organisation worth its salt,commercial or sporting ,tightens up on costs and wastage when they are losing money.

All the allowances you mentioned are all legit, no one is arguing their necessary functions.
 

siv

First Grade
Messages
6,761
The expenditure within the football clubs is way over the top.Whether it be by League's club funding,NRL extras.
Its has nothing to do with allowances.
A case in point,Hasler had special cameras installed around the grounds at Belmore Oval for training.It is also to do with all the extra manpower at the football admin and the equipment money wasted.
IOW there is wastage and expenditure that can be reigned in ,as many club are losing money.

Any organisation worth its salt,commercial or sporting ,tightens up on costs and wastage when they are losing money.

All the allowances you mentioned are all legit, no one is arguing their necessary functions.

Yes but Des can do this beacause he has a big LC behind him to fund it

If he didn't have this a CFO would not have signed the cheque

Just like Penrith did the same with their new training facilities

You will never stop their LC or private investors spending money

The trick with investments is not to rush them and do them within your financial means. And leverage other opportunities
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,500
Yes but Des can do this beacause he has a big LC behind him to fund it

If he didn't have this a CFO would not have signed the cheque

Just like Penrith did the same with their new training facilities

You will never stop their LC or private investors spending money

The trick with investments is not to rush them and do them within your financial means. And leverage other opportunities


That's OK when the money is around.But Leagues clubs are not going to be able to continue dishing out large sums to football clubs ,as their profits fall, and especially as football clubs continue to lose money .
I remember St George was the Taj Mahal handing out money to the Dragons hand over fist,now they are struggling to support the team.Ditto the Sharks.

Look there is wastage within football clubs ,especially if the figure of up to $5m is correct.

The point I am trying to make, if clubs are screaming out they need the 130%,they need to justify on an expenditure basis, not on shopping sprees
I'm not suggesting NRL clubs live off the smell of an oil rag, just responsible use of money in the football depts.Then they are in a better position to justify X amount for grants.

Grant stuffed this up with his initial 130% undertaking.He should have known fully, grassroots is screaming out for funding here in the bush and regionals and Interstate.

Imagine where we would be if Gallop had flogged the prior TV deals at market value, not on a pre conceived price set by News Ltd and ch9 of course.
$500m over 6 years =$83m pa, compared to the fumbler $780m over 5 years=$156m pa.

We were behind the 8 ball from day one.No wonder we have been a basket case at times.
To this very day, whenever I see Gallop's dial on TV,I have nightmares on his negotiation skills.
 

Knight76

Juniors
Messages
2,045
Reap the whirlwind NRL admin. You put in place a salary cap that allows clubs to spend whatever they like on players through shady TPA's. Money spent by a club is money spent, let's not pretend TPA's are all above board and that clubs aren't paying some of these TPA's themselves.

Clubs are now spending well above their means all in the chase for glory, over spending the cap means that money isn't there for administration of the club and all other club spending. This pushes the overall spend up and now clubs are demanding 130% of the salary cap to help them out.

If granted this, how much of this additional 30% is going to go on player payments and not club admin costs.
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
15,552
The Titans,Newcastle,West Tigers and Dragons have been funded to the tune of at least $30m in toto.Either to be repaid or clubs sold off.That's $30m not in the NRL kitty.

.

According to an article in the SMH today, the Tigers still owe $3M approx...

Not an insignificant sum by any means, but just putting it out there as people might see your comment above and assume its much more...

It is understood the Dragons still owe the NRL about $6 million while the Tigers' loan is about half of that, but still a significant burden to carry.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ey-to-john-grants-future-20161130-gt1dk2.html
 

siv

First Grade
Messages
6,761
Reap the whirlwind NRL admin. You put in place a salary cap that allows clubs to spend whatever they like on players through shady TPA's. Money spent by a club is money spent, let's not pretend TPA's are all above board and that clubs aren't paying some of these TPA's themselves.

Clubs are now spending well above their means all in the chase for glory, over spending the cap means that money isn't there for administration of the club and all other club spending. This pushes the overall spend up and now clubs are demanding 130% of the salary cap to help them out.

If granted this, how much of this additional 30% is going to go on player payments and not club admin costs.

At the end of the day how a club spends is money not a issue

NRL sets guidelines for what must be setup for it grants/allowances to be paid

Clubs earn $15 to $25 mil revenue

There are lots of other revenue streams that make this up
- sponsorship
- merchandise
- gate takings
- corporate events
- memberships
- LC grants
Not just the $7 mil NRL Grant. Even a 130% NRL grant won't cover everything

Clubs can't directly pay or guarantee TPA's so I don't see that as a issue here as it can't form part of a FC cost structure
 

siv

First Grade
Messages
6,761
That's OK when the money is around.But Leagues clubs are not going to be able to continue dishing out large sums to football clubs ,as their profits fall, and especially as football clubs continue to lose money .
I remember St George was the Taj Mahal handing out money to the Dragons hand over fist,now they are struggling to support the team.Ditto the Sharks.

Look there is wastage within football clubs ,especially if the figure of up to $5m is correct.

The point I am trying to make, if clubs are screaming out they need the 130%,they need to justify on an expenditure basis, not on shopping sprees
I'm not suggesting NRL clubs live off the smell of an oil rag, just responsible use of money in the football depts.Then they are in a better position to justify X amount for grants.

Grant stuffed this up with his initial 130% undertaking.He should have known fully, grassroots is screaming out for funding here in the bush and regionals and Interstate.

Imagine where we would be if Gallop had flogged the prior TV deals at market value, not on a pre conceived price set by News Ltd and ch9 of course.
$500m over 6 years =$83m pa, compared to the fumbler $780m over 5 years=$156m pa.

We were behind the 8 ball from day one.No wonder we have been a basket case at times.
To this very day, whenever I see Gallop's dial on TV,I have nightmares on his negotiation skills.

Few points here

St Merge were impacted by a St George LC that was struggling. But that wasn't something that happened overnight. Its been a steady decline. Something that they should have anticipated. But they shouldn't be expecting the NRL to fill the void

Clubs aren't crying out for 130% of salary cap - you will find they really want $20mil on todays $7 mil salary cap

If they can find money they will find a way to spend it

Eg the CC Mariners charge every junior $70 just to register in their district while they create a Taj Mahal at Tuggerah. Something we don't do in RL

And finally on Grants 130% promise. The clubs chose to not sign the agreement. So the ARLC took it off the table.
 

Stormwarrior82

Juniors
Messages
1,036
I feel a review of clubs reporting is needed. Currently clubs by there nature have no benefit of showing a yearly profit. (Bar Broncs who have shareholders, and surprise they have a profit.)

Now clubs who are run by leagues clubs are now all run at arms distance. Now that's fine...they've been Doing it for a fair while now.
But most keep these details hidden amongst the larger leagues club financials or simply don't publically report it. And here is the issue. The spending doesn't get audited or at least to the public.

Now panthers are one of very few that have reported 2015 financials. They had a Nrl club revenue of approx $25mil down $1 mil from 2014. $7.5+ mil was the Nrl Grant and $4.5 mil of interest and other related income. $12mil was revenue from gate, merchandise, catering etc.
They made a loss of $1.92 mil last year. (So spent $27mil.)
Now would it be wise to spend more than that for the 2016 year? Well yes they have. Reported to be over $5 mil loss. They have said there fine with that due to the cost of C of E and their grassroots program. Well then don't complain you are not given enough?

The Penrith leagues club revenue was $127 mil. The same leagues club that uses the Nrls brand, marketing and profits off the back of that and yet didn't give any Grant to the Nrl panthers club. This is also the issue.

Most clubs are doing this. Now I'm not trying to bash Penrith, they seem the only ones will to be transparent. It seems the more money the clubs get from the Nrl the less money they get from their leagues clubs. Is that fair?

When it's reported in the media of all the Sydney clubs are suffering a $35+mil loss the Nrl admin gets the blame. Why is that when a club chooses to spend that money. Work that out.

Private ownership is different but the same. They normally just care more about the football. Spend more on football deptartments or a just happy to write off a business loss on there tax return.

Neither system helps promote Profitable clubs.

Clubs don't like being told what to spend "there" money on and I can accept that. But when it comes to the Nrl Grant money there has to be KPIs.

I feel happier if every year the salary cap was covered and the extra agreed Grant money was then given to each club upon them putting a business case forward.
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,500
Few points here

St Merge were impacted by a St George LC that was struggling. But that wasn't something that happened overnight. Its been a steady decline. Something that they should have anticipated. But they shouldn't be expecting the NRL to fill the void

Clubs aren't crying out for 130% of salary cap - you will find they really want $20mil on todays $7 mil salary cap

If they can find money they will find a way to spend it

Eg the CC Mariners charge every junior $70 just to register in their district while they create a Taj Mahal at Tuggerah. Something we don't do in RL

And finally on Grants 130% promise. The clubs chose to not sign the agreement. So the ARLC took it off the table.

I'm aware of the time fact re the Dragon's Leagues Club.Which reinforces my point,a LC can be wealthy over the years and due to change of demographics,financials in the economy and other pastimes can gradually become less profitable.

I agree the Dragons should not expect the NRL to fill the void.The situation is you let a team drop by the wayside ,which has the tradition and fanbase of support ,that support goes elsewhere and rest assured its rarely to another team.

The clubs are crying out for an undertaking ,which in hindsight should have been better thought out by the offeror.
Grant had the right to take it off the table,but part of the offer was that the clubs fork out money each year to a fund ,to prop up any club who failed.

If it was just the 130% ATT ,and no other requirements to affect the bottom line, they may well have accepted then.The Chairmen at these clubs are hardly guys who lack business nous.
Grant himself admitted his stuff up.The QRL boss Betros,stated he stuffed up.

In the commercial and sporting world there is never enough money, due to competition, wanting to expand ,growing grassroots and winning the big one.

I do believe clubs such as the Titans,Penrith with their centres of excellence.The Sharks with long term plans for their stadium and no doubt other clubs are getting off their backsides preparing and paying for the future.Manly is another one.

And if there was no SL war, CC may well have had the Bears servicing the area as well as North Sydney.

The biggest problem has been clubs for many decades ,being financially propped up by League's Clubs(poker machine profits).The increase in taxation on pokies thanks to Egan in the past, made then and continues to do, a dent in their profits.

Every year our code ,shoots itself in the foot, from the top to the bottom.And we wonder why we stand still.
 

Von Hipper

Juniors
Messages
178
I feel a review of clubs reporting is needed. Currently clubs by there nature have no benefit of showing a yearly profit. (Bar Broncs who have shareholders, and surprise they have a profit.)

Now clubs who are run by leagues clubs are now all run at arms distance. Now that's fine...they've been Doing it for a fair while now.
But most keep these details hidden amongst the larger leagues club financials or simply don't publically report it. And here is the issue. The spending doesn't get audited or at least to the public.

Now panthers are one of very few that have reported 2015 financials. They had a Nrl club revenue of approx $25mil down $1 mil from 2014. $7.5+ mil was the Nrl Grant and $4.5 mil of interest and other related income. $12mil was revenue from gate, merchandise, catering etc.
They made a loss of $1.92 mil last year. (So spent $27mil.)
Now would it be wise to spend more than that for the 2016 year? Well yes they have. Reported to be over $5 mil loss. They have said there fine with that due to the cost of C of E and their grassroots program. Well then don't complain you are not given enough?

The Penrith leagues club revenue was $127 mil. The same leagues club that uses the Nrls brand, marketing and profits off the back of that and yet didn't give any Grant to the Nrl panthers club. This is also the issue.

Most clubs are doing this. Now I'm not trying to bash Penrith, they seem the only ones will to be transparent. It seems the more money the clubs get from the Nrl the less money they get from their leagues clubs. Is that fair?

When it's reported in the media of all the Sydney clubs are suffering a $35+mil loss the Nrl admin gets the blame. Why is that when a club chooses to spend that money. Work that out.

Private ownership is different but the same. They normally just care more about the football. Spend more on football deptartments or a just happy to write off a business loss on there tax return.

Neither system helps promote Profitable clubs.

Clubs don't like being told what to spend "there" money on and I can accept that. But when it comes to the Nrl Grant money there has to be KPIs.

I feel happier if every year the salary cap was covered and the extra agreed Grant money was then given to each club upon them putting a business case forward.

Previously I said look at the broncos. They have shareholders and they turn a profit. I think the answer is to change up how the grant is satisfactorily handled. Thats why I have suggested my distribution fund, and you have your own take; so Im not saying my way is 100% 'the' way.

They may want to consider the 1st year at 130% and the 3rd, or some such. But overall I think a fund that returns near that amount over time to the clubs who actually need it/lets some others get ahead, and others still be a better operation to get them up to the median line, is better.

They need to rank clubs better and adjust accordingly at how easily the distribution is accessed above a certain amount. I'm sure they kind of do this in a way right now, but it could be official(/ish) to give clubs a direction.

I think reporting profits of at least 1 dollar, or losing minimal amounts is what they should be aiming for.

As a league they need to put the petty grievances aside and pick a course and as you rightly say, its got to be toward profitability

Because today Gould says its not Grant, as such, who is the problem. Of course nearly everyone here has probably thought that, I know I have always considered it to be the case.


Penrith Panthers supremo Phil Gould warns removing John Grant won't solve NRL funding feud

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...t-solve-nrl-funding-feud-20161201-gt2cck.html

"The reason the clubs have taken the stance against the commission chairman John Grant is because that is their only option," Gould said. "It's not personal against John, it's just where the constitution is at the moment and where the rights of the clubs can be most expressed is to vote and remove the chairman."

Gould from the radio/via news ltd: "I’m not sure (getting rid of Grant) solves the problem,” Gould said. “Once John is removed, the clubs have no power under the constitution to appoint his replacement.

“If the money’s not there, the money’s not there.


“So I guess John is paying the penalty for whatever has led to this particular situation.”
 
Messages
14,816
Previously I said look at the broncos. They have shareholders and they turn a profit. I think the answer is to change up how the grant is satisfactorily handled. Thats why I have suggested my distribution fund, and you have your own take; so Im not saying my way is 100% 'the' way.

They may want to consider the 1st year at 130% and the 3rd, or some such. But overall I think a fund that returns near that amount over time to the clubs who actually need it/lets some others get ahead, and others still be a better operation to get them up to the median line, is better.

They need to rank clubs better and adjust accordingly at how easily the distribution is accessed above a certain amount. I'm sure they kind of do this in a way right now, but it could be official(/ish) to give clubs a direction.

I think reporting profits of at least 1 dollar, or losing minimal amounts is what they should be aiming for.

As a league they need to put the petty grievances aside and pick a course and as you rightly say, its got to be toward profitability

Because today Gould says its not Grant, as such, who is the problem. Of course nearly everyone here has probably thought that, I know I have always considered it to be the case.


Penrith Panthers supremo Phil Gould warns removing John Grant won't solve NRL funding feud

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...t-solve-nrl-funding-feud-20161201-gt2cck.html

"The reason the clubs have taken the stance against the commission chairman John Grant is because that is their only option," Gould said. "It's not personal against John, it's just where the constitution is at the moment and where the rights of the clubs can be most expressed is to vote and remove the chairman."

Gould from the radio/via news ltd: "I’m not sure (getting rid of Grant) solves the problem,” Gould said. “Once John is removed, the clubs have no power under the constitution to appoint his replacement.

“If the money’s not there, the money’s not there.


“So I guess John is paying the penalty for whatever has led to this particular situation.”
The solution to the NRL funding problem is for clubs to have proper business plans in place not something written on the back of a cigarette box which appears what some have at the moment.
 

siv

First Grade
Messages
6,761
The solution to the NRL funding problem is for clubs to have proper business plans in place not something written on the back of a cigarette box which appears what some have at the moment.

I agree

But we have some who think they should spend big money like the Dogs or Parramatta

But don't the capability to match their LC grants

Just remember if you give all clubs 30% or $3mil more each

All this does to less wealth clubs helps them break even

But for clubs like the Dogs - it becomes $3 mil extra to buy something new like more cameras for Des etc etc

As they will still get their LC revenue when they want it

In fact by removing RG and U20s costs they can spend another $3 mil on something even newer
 

Latest posts

Top