BuffaloRules
Coach
- Messages
- 15,564
Nah, dont google it...I don't care if you believe it or not.
You are full of shyte gimp...
Nah, dont google it...I don't care if you believe it or not.
I don't think its necessarily about a number, its about the fact that in rushing through a funding deal last year so Grant could escape the pressure from newscorp he screwed up and effectively aligned the interests of the games two biggest stakeholder groups, the players & the clubs. Now all future CBA's could cripple the codes finances. It's easy to look at it with a hypothetical salary cap and conclude the game can afford it, but with these license agreements being for perpetuity the ARLC will be forced to deal with an aligned lobby group of players & clubs for all future CBA negotiations, by granting this funding deal they are effectively legislating their bargaining position away.
I enjoy nfl but the reason why it's a thriving sport and business isn't down to its attacking attractiveness.
There's lessons for the nrl to learn from nfl but ole t boob is barking up the wrong tree.
End of day, as much as I think Gould is a self opinionated self serving tool most of the time, he does have a point.
On $500mill annual revenue the NRL should be able to afford:
$200mill to clubs
$100mill to grass roots
$200mill to administer NRL and grow the game, pay for touch link up, rep payments etc and put some aside for rainy days
The ARLC should be transparent on admin costs of running RL and have a set target % of income to keep the reigns on snr management who like to throw money around like confetti.
I don't think its necessarily about a number, its about the fact that in rushing through a funding deal last year so Grant could escape the pressure from newscorp he screwed up and effectively aligned the interests of the games two biggest stakeholder groups, the players & the clubs. Now all future CBA's could cripple the codes finances. It's easy to look at it with a hypothetical salary cap and conclude the game can afford it, but with these license agreements being for perpetuity the ARLC will be forced to deal with an aligned lobby group of players & clubs for all future CBA negotiations, by granting this funding deal they are effectively legislating their bargaining position away. And for that Grant should be removed. I have never understood the association between what the players earn and what funding the clubs require beyond the salary cap to remain sustainable, the two are not linked in my mind. A far better funding model would be to grant both players & clubs a percentage of the games revenue, negotiated individually. Clubs could still receive millions above the cap annually but its not linked with what the players earn.
Yeh the ARLC stuffed up big time 12 months ago on offering something that could prove an unsustainable model into the future. I still get the sense the real play here is the clubs wanting to change the constitutional make up of the commission before they get locked into a perpetual licsense and lose their 5 yearLy threat of breaking away as a bargaining tool. The funding issue is just the bullet the clubs have been handed to push this through. Watch them agree to less funding in return for more influence on the commission.
T-boob still going on about NFL rule changes in a thread about NRL funding disagreements, good to see nothing's changed in the last week
http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/evolution-of-the-nfl-rules/No..just post the link you worthless gimp...
You are the one making this outlandish claim
Got a point? Do you really think any sport in the world (apart from union) wants to minimise entertainment?"The NFL rules committee stated bluntly: "Each game should provide a maximum of entertainment insofar as it can be controlled by the rules and officials" The entertainment value of the game it added, could be measured by "the number pf plays per game of a type that will be pleasing to the audience" ": Evolution of the NFL Rules NFL Football Operations.
who gives two f**ks about NFL?
boring as bat shit
Got a point? Do you really think any sport in the world (apart from union) wants to minimise entertainment?
There's quite a few questions re revenue and funding that the media should be asking imo.
1. Why does Telstra get naming rights to NRL for effectively free whilst Toyota pay $10mill a year for afl ones?
2. Why did the NRL lose over $6mill on events last year?
3. Why did we see a turn around from $21.8mill surplus to $12.5mill loss in one year despite a non tv revenue increase of $10.2mill?
I was talking like a sport like the NFL, which shares out their tv revenue out amongst the franchises to the tune of $226m each against a salary cap of about $155m
Most of the big european actually give 90% of tv revenue straight back to the top flight clubs. While the big super clubs like man u & real madrid spend over that ( because of no salary cap plus money from the euro comps) most clubs pay their entire wages out of that tv money. Nba are the same, their record tv deal is getting shared around the league so the players get their share.
Gee you can talk some uninformed rubbish...
How is the NFL competing against College Football? They deliberately do not schedule games on Saturdays because they want College Football to dominate TV on Saturdays during the regular season Sept - December so they can earn enough TV money to stand on their own two feet.... The NFL don't even schedule games on Friday nights as this is when High School football is played...