NRL faces major turmoil as clubs threaten breakaway league

[taipan]

I have said it all along, a compromise has to be reached.Salary cap,% above,grassroots.Dragging this on till next year mid or later, is asking for trouble.

That it can be only done robbing Peter to pay Paul is hardly surprising .Put all the NRL money cards out on the table for public display. Show us where savings can be made.

Trouble is the Telecrap is famous for getting it wrong.And rarely admitting it.

If in fact there are any "turncoats" ,it would have to be either the NSWRL,the Dragons or the Balmain Tigers(part of there WT),the latter two with financial debt to the NRL.

If the salary cap is $8m,we are putting our star players out looking at alternatives.The last thing the code needs.

There will be no SL 2.That is putting the NRL on the executioner's block.I doubt many fans would wear it, after all the sh*t last time.

The salary cap must be established first,then the add ons or offs ensue.

Rugby league knows how to have revolutions and insurrections, they are experts and we the fans have no control over it.Brilliant.

 

[Von Hipper]

I couldn't be f**ked reading what you said but I'm certain you need to learn to summarize.

Often less is more.

Other than my previous post of course you should know you have a point. No sense me being too curt over text that I can sometimes be

 

[Canard]

Does anyone think that a salary cap on off field spending can ever be seriously enforced? And would realise any real world savings? We can't police the one we have now.

Imagine a team being stripped of competition points because they paid to much for physiotherapy or player counselling?

It's one of those "great in theory" suggestions for mine.

 

[Perth Red]

I wonder if they would feel the same if the NRL cut their funding to pay for the clubs demands? Such a conflict of interest the nswrl have.


NSWRL CEO Dave Trodden has explained why his organisation has a similar view to the clubs on the issue of funding from the ARL Commission.

“I think one of the things nobody should lose sight of, and we certainly don’t lose sight of, is that virtually all the funding within the game is generated by the clubs,” Trodden says.

“Through media rights, through everything that is associated with the commercial side of the game, and I think we have an understanding of the reality which is unless the clubs are strong and unless we have a really strong and vibrant NRL competition then we don’t have the commercial benefits the game has seen over the last 10 or 15 years.

“So having a strong club network and well funded club network actually delivers funding resources for everyone else in the game, the QRL included, the NSWRL included, the CRL and the ARLC included as well.

“It’s a fundamental philosophical view about how the game best needs to be funded in order to generate rewards for everyone.”

http://rugbyleagueweek.com.au/nswrl...41064865934753&adbpl=fb&adbpr=110919635615955

 

[Perth Red]

Does anyone think that a salary cap on off field spending can ever be seriously enforced? And would realise any real world savings? We can't police the one we have now.

Imagine a team being stripped of competition points because they paid to much for physiotherapy or player counselling?

It's one of those "great in theory" suggestions for mine.

Other sports use it, not like anything ground breaking. Anything is open to rorting but it is unlikely a club will be willing to face fines and points deductions to add another physio to the staff?

 

[Canard]

Other sports use it, not like anything ground breaking. Anything is open to rorting but it is unlikely a club will be willing to face fines and points deductions to add another physio to the staff?

I wonder how much $ will be needed to enforce it

 

[Perth Red]

I wonder how much $ will be needed to enforce it

A lot less than bailing insolvent clubs out to the tune of $10mill a year I suspect?

 

[Canard]

A lot less than bailing insolvent clubs out to the tune of $10mill a year I suspect?

Is there any evidence that these costs are what have driven clubs to the wall?

 

[siv]

Is there any evidence that these costs are what have driven clubs to the wall?

Lets look at clubs that had financial stife

Newtown - ran a cost splurge to make the 81 GF and then went bust. Not even Singo could save them

Norths - delayed facility delivery on top of a one of SL war

St Merge - Reliance on a LC that started to fail

Wests-Tigers - Only Balmain has issue in a LC redvelopment that has gone belly up

Knights - private investor who went bankrupt after gross financial mismanagement

Auckland - again investor issues

Titans - built too much too soon

Bar the Bears and Balmain all the others had issues because of FC financial mismanagement

 

[Von Hipper]

Does anyone think that a salary cap on off field spending can ever be seriously enforced? And would realise any real world savings? We can't police the one we have now.

Imagine a team being stripped of competition points because they paid to much for physiotherapy or player counselling?

It's one of those "great in theory" suggestions for mine.

This guys doesn't get it. Great in theory? Try great all round. Total derp who had the insolence to question me. /s

Lets look at clubs that had financial stife

Newtown - ran a cost splurge to make the 81 GF and then went bust. Not even Singo could save them

Norths - delayed facility delivery on top of a one of SL war

St Merge - Reliance on a LC that started to fail

Wests-Tigers - Only Balmain has issue in a LC redvelopment that has gone belly up

Knights - private investor who went bankrupt after gross financial mismanagement

Auckland - again investor issues

Titans - built too much too soon

Bar the Bears and Balmain all the others had issues because of FC financial mismanagement

He doesn't quite get it either but he is close. We don't know why Canard is commited to that view. This guy at least spells it out. However the test is erroneous.

Over a period of years it will have a major positive effect. Who knows, those LC issues may have been totally avoided if they had to fund less and everyone knows what the bar is.

Its not an air-tight thing, but its a damn sight better than having no protection at all.

So we have found out here its not for insolvency only, which is the end result, and indirect when looking at this. Its also to keep the clubs closer together and make it so that competition literally only happens on the field if possible << Isn't that what people want? For skill and tactics to determine things more, not who had the coldest ice bath?

^^ Across the years it will have an anti inflationary effect.

Spiralling costs ruin even billion dollar companies, but as a league they will all save money in the long term and they will undoubtedly still get to offer cutting edge facilities over time.

A lot less than bailing insolvent clubs out to the tune of $10mill a year I suspect?

This guy gets it.
____

BTW: the NSWRL justification for their position on the funding matter is blatantly wrong. I find it absurd they actually believe that. THEY, the clubs make the money?

[he knows the following, its just not his ideal, he stated as much; there is nothing wrong at its core with believing something, if only the ARLC can prove otherwise, that is the real test for a belief]

Buddy - they also LOSE ALL the money and then some.... (of course to state this succinctly without 20 pages I have to state we have to cross out other funding to other areas if we are to be fair in the aforementioned assessment; in objective terms they will always be prone to spending more than they can afford simply because they have one thing to do, and they try to do it [bit boring if they turn up saying oh well lets not compete much this year...]. No club goes round to fail. Its a protection mechanism, and sound financial strategy, these measures)

I honestly think on the field it will be better off in the end

 

[Perth Red]

I guess if the NRL wanted iron clad guarantee that clubs weren't going to come to them with the begging bowl to bail them out of financial strife they could be totally socialist and set an expenditure limit for every club based on lowest common demoninator (without pokie funding). Probably around $22mill based on a club like Cronulla or Penrith post 2018 $11-13mill club grant. Then if clubs want to spend more than the $22mill they have to submit a business case each year for extra expenditure based on reasonable expected revenue.

Of course clubs wouldn't accept this as they have too much self interest. They won't accept grant equalisation, they won't accept a bail out sinking fund, they will just continue to expect the NRL to pick up the pieces when one of them stuffs up.

 

[siv]

I can't see how the NRL can determine what is in or out of a FC admin cost structure

Clubs operate using different models

Each clubs annual revenue differs from $13 mil to $25 mil

And clubs cost structures vary in the same ratio

To try and limit Penrith and the Dogs who can spend because Newcastle can't is poor business

Just like costs for Easts and Souths are higher due their proximity to the city compared to the Illawarra or Penrith costs in the city outskirts

Then what do you imclude in a $3 mil cap ?
- coaches and on field support staff
- FC admin staff
Sounds reasonable

But what about
- home venue rental or upkeep
- training equipment
- training facilities or venue costs
- membership management/sales staff
- corporate management
- medical staff or medical facilities/venue costs ?

Or clubs without a CoE, are we saying they can't save up and build or upgrade a FC HQ or training facility anymore

And will the model address the fact that clubs still want to run their own RG and U20s U18s and U16s teams and development squads

I say financial mismanagement is what the NRL should manage. eg loss of 2 comp points for every $500k in the red

And setup legal governance models around facilities to protect FCs. eg setup shelf companies to build and manage a FC facilities and to protect the FC from facilities financial issues

 

[Canard]

It actually makes an excuse for clubs to neglect things like paying for Doctors, medical staff and health professionals.

It's for noble intent, as people think the money saved will flow elsewhere into the game. Practically, however I can't see one cent extra being saved.

Clubs will either a) cheat the system or b) that money will go to other sports/sponsorship programmes.

 

[Von Hipper]

Allow me to point this out to some people because its going to start making sense, real fast.
(I am getting a like every 18 posts, some others every 40... so I hope this makes sense.)

Siv - check out the AFL article, it lists most things, with charts, ect, and pros and cons.

I can't see how the NRL can determine what is in or out of a FC admin cost structure

Clubs operate using different models

Each clubs annual revenue differs from $13 mil to $25 mil

And clubs cost structures vary in the same ratio

To try and limit Penrith and the Dogs who can spend because Newcastle can't is poor business

Just like costs for Easts and Souths are higher due their proximity to the city compared to the Illawarra or Penrith costs in the city outskirts

Then what do you imclude in a $3 mil cap ?
- coaches and on field support staff
- FC admin staff
Sounds reasonable

But what about
- home venue rental or upkeep
- training equipment
- training facilities or venue costs
- membership management/sales staff
- corporate management
- medical staff or medical facilities/venue costs ?

Or clubs without a CoE, are we saying they can't save up and build or upgrade a FC HQ or training facility anymore

And will the model address the fact that clubs still want to run their own RG and U20s U18s and U16s teams and development squads

I say financial mismanagement is what the NRL should manage. eg loss of 2 comp points for every $500k in the red

And setup legal governance models around facilities to protect FCs. eg setup shelf companies to build and manage a FC facilities and to protect the FC from facilities financial issues

Football caps are not restrictions - they are cost control measures. Big difference. Its not poor business when its within a league with costs spiralling out of control, and especially when the cap will increase over time.

^ Some do not get it, don't you? And I know you're not 100% thick - but if Brisbane spend X then it makes the others need to increase their spend by Y% or they will take a hit. If these were individual businesses not in direct line of each other - of course you would have a point - but they are intinsically tied together - its essential almost they increase spending.

Like when you're a kid (when was the last time anyone anyway told you to limit spending - your wife?) and you get sent to the shop to grab something, and you're allowed to buy no more than 2 dollars of junk food from the change and if you don't limit it, you're in trouble?



Its an absolute insult that canard guy had a crack at me when I started posting in this thread. He is not up there, not buy a long shot. Brain cramps probably

Siv at least has a crack and thinks out posts.

Take a look at English Premier league - has a salary cap - lol - a very loose one based on tv revenue that doesn't affect commerical opportunities. Don't be fooled - that is UEFA and the EPL trying to reign in spending and/or get clubs thinking about it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...estrictions-won-t-hit-high-earners-clubs.html

A football cap is the same thing. And its pretty easy to work out what will and won't go in it - I mean the NRL currently control the Titans and Newcastle, and they have audited these places - HEY!!! Greenberg even RAN a club! omg?

You guys are not thinkers at times.

Me: I'm a f**kin` thinker!!

It actually makes an excuse for clubs to neglect things like paying for Doctors, medical staff and health professionals.

It's for noble intent, as people think the money saved will flow elsewhere into the game. Practically, however I can't see one cent extra being saved.

Clubs will either a) cheat the system or b) that money will go to other sports/sponsorship programmes.

This nit-wit won't get to see this since he ignored me, but I very much wish he would. Would put him to the head of the class probably.

Dont forget about the tax, Canard.....

> as for quote: thats half the point. It makes clubs think about what they really need to spend on things.

In fact there is not much to spend the money on, just the temptation to use more and more money. From the AFL article:>>


"Clip their wages, chop their numbers, or get fewer doing more for the same amount, are options.

While the senior coach's wage will not drop – industry sources suggest the current average wage for a coach is $700,000 – the more pragmatic among them will recognise that what they get paid could now affect the club's ability to get resources into the football department in other areas.

It means a successful coach such as Hawthorn's Alastair Clarkson, who could write his own ticket in previous eras, might have a choice to make the next time he is out of contract at the end of 2016.

Chase his market value at another club, likely to be less successful and with fewer resources than Hawthorn, or accept below market rates to be part of an organisation he helped establish that has a good culture and ongoing prospects.

His friend, and part of the reason for his success, fitness coach Andrew Russell, is likely to find himself in the same position too.

Their club president Andrew Newbold knows that, hence why he called in December for a tenure allowance to sit outside the football department cap, so stable clubs can remain attractive to long-serving employees.

Newbold's other option, as some in the industry suggest he should, is to exceed the cap and pay the tax."

__

Remember it would include a tax, remember when I said 'its not a restriction, its a cost control measure'?

Yeah. Now you know/don't know. lolz.

The sport is competing against union and others, while afl just itself, but they have to make some effort and still have an effective cap.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-04-02/making-the-new-cap-fit

 

[Diesel]

Just make it that if a club needs to be bailed out along the lines of the Titans or Knights or to a lesser extent Balmain (WT) or Dragons to the tier 2 competitions with an order of merit coming from exisiting Tier 2 clubs to NRL level. That'll sort out any financial mismanagement

 

[Perth Red]

Sounds good in theory but a) it's a bad look for the NRL if clubs are going broke, damages the brand integrity
b) NRL has a contract to deliver 8 games a week, you can't just drop Titans and Bring in Redcliffe and expect them to be anywhere near competitive or havebthe infrastructure to be at NRL level, porentially within a few months.

It's why the NRL is trying to push through things to minimise the risks of clubs finding themselves in financial trouble. Problem is clubs don't want to be protected from themselves. Maybe if the NRL did let one fall over then the others may be more reasonable?

 

[siv]

Allow me to point this out to some people because its going to start making sense, real fast.
(I am getting a like every 18 posts, some others every 40... so I hope this makes sense.)

Siv - check out the AFL article, it lists most things, with charts, ect, and pros and cons.



Football caps are not restrictions - they are cost control measures. Big difference. Its not poor business when its within a league with costs spiralling out of control, and especially when the cap will increase over time.

^ Some do not get it, don't you? And I know you're not 100% thick - but if Brisbane spend X then it makes the others need to increase their spend by Y% or they will take a hit. If these were individual businesses not in direct line of each other - of course you would have a point - but they are intinsically tied together - its essential almost they increase spending.

Like when you're a kid (when was the last time anyone anyway told you to limit spending - your wife?) and you get sent to the shop to grab something, and you're allowed to buy no more than 2 dollars of junk food from the change and if you don't limit it, you're in trouble?



Its an absolute insult that canard guy had a crack at me when I started posting in this thread. He is not up there, not buy a long shot. Brain cramps probably

Siv at least has a crack and thinks out posts.

Take a look at English Premier league - has a salary cap - lol - a very loose one based on tv revenue that doesn't affect commerical opportunities. Don't be fooled - that is UEFA and the EPL trying to reign in spending and/or get clubs thinking about it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...estrictions-won-t-hit-high-earners-clubs.html

A football cap is the same thing. And its pretty easy to work out what will and won't go in it - I mean the NRL currently control the Titans and Newcastle, and they have audited these places - HEY!!! Greenberg even RAN a club! omg?

You guys are not thinkers at times.

Me: I'm a f**kin` thinker!!



This nit-wit won't get to see this since he ignored me, but I very much wish he would. Would put him to the head of the class probably.

Dont forget about the tax, Canard.....

> as for quote: thats half the point. It makes clubs think about what they really need to spend on things.

In fact there is not much to spend the money on, just the temptation to use more and more money. From the AFL article:>>


"Clip their wages, chop their numbers, or get fewer doing more for the same amount, are options.

While the senior coach's wage will not drop – industry sources suggest the current average wage for a coach is $700,000 – the more pragmatic among them will recognise that what they get paid could now affect the club's ability to get resources into the football department in other areas.

It means a successful coach such as Hawthorn's Alastair Clarkson, who could write his own ticket in previous eras, might have a choice to make the next time he is out of contract at the end of 2016.

Chase his market value at another club, likely to be less successful and with fewer resources than Hawthorn, or accept below market rates to be part of an organisation he helped establish that has a good culture and ongoing prospects.

His friend, and part of the reason for his success, fitness coach Andrew Russell, is likely to find himself in the same position too.

Their club president Andrew Newbold knows that, hence why he called in December for a tenure allowance to sit outside the football department cap, so stable clubs can remain attractive to long-serving employees.

Newbold's other option, as some in the industry suggest he should, is to exceed the cap and pay the tax."

__

Remember it would include a tax, remember when I said 'its not a restriction, its a cost control measure'?

Yeah. Now you know/don't know. lolz.

The sport is competing against union and others, while afl just itself, but they have to make some effort and still have an effective cap.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-04-02/making-the-new-cap-fit

Interesting reading but doesnt change my point

If Brisbane can spend $X based upon the fact they earn $X there is a worry that Newcastle must also spend $X but only earn half of $X

Sorry the trick here is grow Newcastles revenue to be $X - not restrict Brisbane to spend $X/2. Where Brisbane just gets richer and richer as they bank $X/2 in cash reserves and pay more and more real ATO tax

But the trick still remains for ANY club to not spend more than they earn while they grow the revenue pie

Allowances eg travel/scheduling/new market will address some of gap

Then even if you set a FC admin cap. A shelf company or LC would just build or pay a cost for minimal fee to the FC

Then trying to use a fine system like making a club pay 75% for every $1 above the FC admin threshold - breaks company laws

So if the FC admin cap is $3 mil. Sakary Cap is $7 mil. Brisbane today earn $25 mil

They cannot fine Brisbane $10 for spending a extra $15 mil as they do today.

All that happens is that Brisbane stops getting is NRL $7 mil grant

Yes that will bite over time

But $3mil is way too low when costs today are more like $13 mil plus $7 mil player salaries

But you must grow the pie before you increase your costs

Any FC admin cost criteria will hinder some clubs but the targeted benefit clubs will never catch up until they grow the revenue pie

Smart clubs will just find legal loopholes or issue a court challenge

 

[Perth Red]

That is very utopian siv. Unless you bring in a grant equalisation model, which the clubs have refused, there is very little chance that all clubs are going to be equal in revenue. Population size, corporate support, bod, stadium deals, pokie clubs, competition, heartlands v expansion locations, ownership models etc etc all mean that clubs will,always have a widely differing income level.

Only option is either a straight cap or a cap based on reasonable expected revenue.

 

[Von Hipper]

Interesting reading but doesnt change my point

If Brisbane can spend $X based upon the fact they earn $X there is a worry that Newcastle must also spend $X but only earn half of $X

Sorry the trick here is grow Newcastles revenue to be $X - not restrict Brisbane to spend $X/2. Where Brisbane just gets richer and richer as they bank $X/2 in cash reserves and pay more and more real ATO tax

But the trick still remains for ANY club to not spend more than they earn while they grow the revenue pie

Allowances eg travel/scheduling/new market will address some of gap

Then even if you set a FC admin cap. A shelf company or LC would just build or pay a cost for minimal fee to the FC

Then trying to use a fine system like making a club pay 75% for every $1 above the FC admin threshold - breaks company laws

So if the FC admin cap is $3 mil. Sakary Cap is $7 mil. Brisbane today earn $25 mil

They cannot fine Brisbane $10 for spending a extra $15 mil as they do today.

All that happens is that Brisbane stops getting is NRL $7 mil grant

Yes that will bite over time

But $3mil is way too low when costs today are more like $13 mil plus $7 mil player salaries

But you must grow the pie before you increase your costs

Any FC admin cost criteria will hinder some clubs but the targeted benefit clubs will never catch up until they grow the revenue pie

Smart clubs will just find legal loopholes or issue a court challenge

Its like they say, everyone is a general after the battle. This is especially true when they go over their end of year financials. But they never know what the future will bring in terms of costs. The best laid plans...

I respect your opinion but we are probably a ways away from agreeing; and there is nothing wrong with both the free economy and a closed one, provided there is money there. I think the financial rationality (of being a better business) that you are on about and requiring capital to drive that is totally fine, and not punishing people (like in your tax example that could be used instead to help than hinder), but I think they have a real chance to jig the market within the league before they even get to that point - and be more successful than the AFL at it from their lower cost bases - and they should all go for it.

I dont think its a real market based economy anyway. It may be when they interface with the outside world, but within the league it should be highly regulated. Its a real banana republic (sells one or two products, and maybe 1 or none resources, ie. only trades bananas ha), and should be treated as such.

I think that it may sound unfair if we choose to highlight one point/club, and we kind of need to too demonstrate the points but I also believe that when its applied to everyone no one will be saying its unfair. And that in fact it should promote more competition rather than less.

I think it will promote more competition because everyone is more competitive with everyone for starters. There will be way more comparisons, and a real focus brought back to players, team lists and on the field.

It can cross into the theoretical if we do not make examples, but clearly the best effect of this is a reduction in the financial pressures upon clubs to try to spend their way out of trouble, or spend simply to win.

With all the money the clubs generate, wow, this is surely in their best interest to have a suprlus. Its a no brainer to spend less, and I honestly think clubs would already be doing that, except they point out they simply can't 'afford' to on account of being blown away by other teams. I think that in terms of 'growth, that you alude to, they can raise the cap over the years, and don't forget hard cap/soft cap, it seems based on what the AFL is doing to be a flexible enough cap, but they may switching to a hard cap after a certain amount of time.

Both ways, to have a cap or not, do aim for financial abundance. One thing we miss in this, is the ARLC's/NRL ability to flood the system with cash. Thats something places like Cuba, ect don't have the benefit of. There is no collapsing under any weight. Really a free market is actually the enemy of sporting leagues. You highlight it with trying to make newcastle get to the bronco's level.

I think its a great addition to any league.

 

[Perth Red]

The other way to look at it is the NRL caps and fundamentally controls parts of their business whilst spending on revenue generating activities remains uncapped.

Player salary cap - already in place
FC operations (coaches, back room staff, supplement programs etc) cap - to an amount agreed by clubs

Then if they want to spend money on membership staff, corporate sponsor negotiators, game day experience, fan engagement, grassroots programs etc it is up to them on how much.

With a salary cap of say $9mill and a FC cap of $3mill basically all,
football operations will be covered by the NRL. Other revenue from memberships, ticket sales, merch, sponsorship etc is then surplus in effect and can go to other areas of operations and general admin costs.

None of that seems unreasonable to me