NRL faces major turmoil as clubs threaten breakaway league

[Perth Red]

Question on merchandise sales, does it all go to the NRL and then shared out or do individual clubs get the money for what they sell of their own merch? I ask as this article seemed to suggest it was tallied by the NRL but can't see it as a revenue/expenditure in NRL financials?

http://rugbyleagueweek.com.au/nrl-smashing-afl-fabric-war/

 

[Diesel]

I know whatever is sold through their own channels, website, game day mercy stands etc, they don't get that high of a percentage of the sale.

I read somewhere in the past the NRL kept the majority of the sales and a small percentage went to clubs, something like 5%

 

[Von Hipper]

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

especially when clubs lose a combined 50m a year

 

[Perth Red]

Strange as only a small amount must be in NRL revenue, the article suggests sales top $166mill yet nrl's total none tv revenue is only$149mill . Maybe the clubs get it and give the NRL a smallish %?

 

[Perth Red]

especially when clubs lose a combined 50m a year

Thanks something else that needs to be addressed. If pokie club grants class as revenue or not. For a lot of clubs they may lose a couple of mill but leagues club grant covers those losses. It's not the same as losing a couple of mill and having it sitting their as a long term deficit on the books.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

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

I mostly agree with all this. I think the Nrl should take over the salary cap from clubs to stop any further rorting and liase with clubs on available TPAs though. I think it would be wrong for the Nrl to try and control what the clubs spend on there football dept. But a cap should still exist. Any Grant money from the Nrl should only be used on revenue items like memberships, merchandise, ticket sales etc.

 

[Perth Red]

I mostly agree with all this. I think the Nrl should take over the salary cap from clubs to stop any further rorting and liase with clubs on available TPAs though. I think it would be wrong for the Nrl to try and control what the clubs spend on there football dept. But a cap should still exist. Any Grant money from the Nrl should only be used on revenue items like memberships, merchandise, ticket sales etc.

Why would it be wrong? Surely the goal of the NRL is to have an even competition full of sustainable clubs. Given clubs can't spend what they like on players they are throwing money at the football operations side of things that Is causing disparity and financial stresses.

If you take a club at the bottom end of the revenue scale, let's use the Sharks, from their 2015 financials their revenue was

NRL grant $8.2mill (+$1.3mill advance)
Match day $1.2mil
Memberships $1.3mill
Merch $1.3mill
Sponsorship $6mill
Total $18mill

There football expenses were $12.5mill of which around $7.5mill would be player salaries and $5mill non player football costs.

Fortunately they got a $1.3mill grant advance but even with it the consolidated loss between NRL club and leagues club was $1.5mill.

Maybe a $3-4mill cap on playing related expenses would see them more stable?

 

[Stormwarrior82]

Maybe I didn't word it correctly. I think it would be wrong for the Nrl to dictate to the clubs how they should spend there football dept money.

What would be the point for all clubs to have 3 physios, 3 masseuses, 4 trainers 1 head coach.

If the coach feels that yoga helps them well so be it. If the coach or club want every player to have a designated masseuses then that's fine too. The clubs/coach should be adult enough to work out how they structure there training for the year ahead. But not go over the designated cap amount.

 

[T-Boon]

Hopefully with the extra money my club can forgo its plan to build a centre of excellence and go straight to building a centre of magnificence. Just to stay one step ahead.

 

[Von Hipper]

Hopefully with the extra money my club can forgo its plan to build a centre of excellence and go straight to building a centre of magnificence. Just to stay one step ahead.

Haha!
Something we have to consider is that the NSWRL is trying to destroy the very thing they have been "elected" to preserve.

Can they please get nicked before they complete their agenda? Oops! Sorry!! Can't turn up to the office today, we willfully shut it down when we redirected funds away from the grassroots. It just means we can work from home. It's the same place we'll be too when we no longer have jobs. Cost cutting at its finest..

 

[siv]

Maybe I didn't word it correctly. I think it would be wrong for the Nrl to dictate to the clubs how they should spend there football dept money.

What would be the point for all clubs to have 3 physios, 3 masseuses, 4 trainers 1 head coach.

If the coach feels that yoga helps them well so be it. If the coach or club want every player to have a designated masseuses then that's fine too. The clubs/coach should be adult enough to work out how they structure there training for the year ahead. But not go over the designated cap amount.

So whats the minimum ?

Whats the maximum ?

Minimum today is a simple junior football arrangement of Coach, Manager, Club President, Secretary, Trainer and sporting equipment plus travel costs

Maximum is a NFL style operation

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...n/news-story/9b11c72c7afec7576bf5be88506a4ae4

Lunch endorsed Quayle

Here’s a lesson in how the media can work. About three weeks ago, radio proprietor John Singleton, Prime Media chairman and former News Corp CEO John Hartigan, Fairfax sports columnist Roy Masters and former NSW Rugby League chief and current Newcastle Knights director John Quayle had lunch in Sydney. The high-profile crew dined at Kingsleys on Woolloomooloo wharf, the same venue where Singleton threatened to slash long-term friend and billionaire Jack Cowin with a broken wine glass last year. By all accounts, the recent lunch was more productive. It took place just after it was revealed a majority of NRL clubs were plotting to oust ARL Commission chairman John Grant. Former Nine boss David Gyngell has been one of the more high-profile names floated as a possible successor to Grant, but those at Kingsleys that day felt the best candidate for the job was at the table. Quayle, who left the game during the Super League war and played a key role managing venues at the Sydney 2000 Olympics, had not been publicly pushed as a candidate, perhaps due to a rule disqualifying anyone who has held a position in the game in the previous three years from becoming a commissioner. Regardless, a few days after the lunch, Quayle was endorsed by Triple M presenter Matt Johns,who said he “still remains one of the best administrators in world sport and he knows all the characters that exist in rugby league.” Masters joined the push in a column for The Sydney Morning Herald column called “Rugby league needs the values of John Quayle”. All of a sudden Quayle was riding a media wave of support.

 

[hrundi99]

The clubs/retailers pay a license fee to the NRL in the wholesale cost of the merch, and then the NRL give the clubs a share of the licensing fee in return. I believe the shares used to be different based on overall sales, but I think they then adjusted it so it was split evenly by 16. This was about 8 years ago when I was last involved at club level so I'm not sure if it's changed since.

 

[siv]

The clubs/retailers pay a license fee to the NRL in the wholesale cost of the merch, and then the NRL give the clubs a share of the licensing fee in return. I believe the shares used to be different based on overall sales, but I think they then adjusted it so it was split evenly by 16. This was about 8 years ago when I was last involved at club level so I'm not sure if it's changed since.

This irks me as clubs get financial benefit from popular clubs when their stock doesnt sell

It would be like having Souths and Brisbane membership fees given to the Roosters and Penrith and Manly

 

[Von Hipper]

This irks me as clubs get financial benefit from popular clubs when their stock doesnt sell

It would be like having Souths and Brisbane membership fees given to the Roosters and Penrith and Manly

Its not about fairness, its about making all clubs competitive and healthy on the bottom line - why should you care? Its not like you see the balance sheets.

I don't mind. I think its good that Wests are getting some of my teams, and Souths, and Bullsodgs and Melbourne, New Zealand. It means they'll be round longer, its a league after all.

The only place competition should happen is on the field.

Do you think Manchester United has a massive rivalry with the Manchester City Billionaire? lol wouldn't it be funny if they did that, but they don't...

Its just another measure where they can distribute funds, and its one of the first off the rank because its kind of shared anyway - they give each other the value within the jersey a lot.

So whats the minimum ?

Whats the maximum ?

Minimum today is a simple junior football arrangement of Coach, Manager, Club President, Secretary, Trainer and sporting equipment plus travel costs

Maximum is a NFL style operation

Greenbay packers got 230M in central revenue from tv in 2014 and expenses of 336M - with all their other income they made 36M profit.

We'll never pick out a figure here or inclusions/exclusions with the football cap. The AFL one is tricky enough. But its well worth doing it - thats the future - forget 50m/yr club loses, you are looking square down the barrell of 100m/yr.

The money needs to be earmarked to make these clubs profitable or benefit them in some other way beyond player/staff perks (which are still being given/done/ect/anyway)

Like anything the real numbers could be worse/better. Look at our relationship with football clubs and league clubs here, they get pretty rubbery, or player payments (some are higher than the book price).

Any gap they can eek out is for the better.

YOU WILL NOTE the clubs want the maximium to the game/least to the admin as they possibly can - they know its only going to get distributed anyway so they want their max value possible. Not a 50/50, ect of some other leagues, they want their 30% on top of salary cap grants.

^^ I think its ridiculous to tie it to the salary cap amount, but anyway...

I have always thought maybe in another 5-10 years they could be getting the extra 30%/whatever it works out to in overall %, not because we all hate clubs but because the game's finances are so atrocious beyond tv and centrally-derived incomes.

We can only be thankful really for TV's ability to generate money - not the clubs (they can't atm) but tv can because of advertisers.

I think they need to creep up on the best figure over time.

https://deadspin.com/the-nfl-split-7-2-billion-in-revenue-sharing-last-year-1719217695

 

[bad boy bubby]

Why would it be wrong? Surely the goal of the NRL is to have an even competition full of sustainable clubs. Given clubs can't spend what they like on players they are throwing money at the football operations side of things that Is causing disparity and financial stresses.

If you take a club at the bottom end of the revenue scale, let's use the Sharks, from their 2015 financials their revenue was

NRL grant $8.2mill (+$1.3mill advance)
Match day $1.2mil
Memberships $1.3mill
Merch $1.3mill
Sponsorship $6mill
Total $18mill

There football expenses were $12.5mill of which around $7.5mill would be player salaries and $5mill non player football costs.

Fortunately they got a $1.3mill grant advance but even with it the consolidated loss between NRL club and leagues club was $1.5mill.

Maybe a $3-4mill cap on playing related expenses would see them more stable?

Why not use 2016 financials?
Last i read every Sydney team lost money but the one that lost the least was the Sharks, plus they won the premiership, have you forgotten already? or does that bit of info not suit the crap you spew ?

 

[Von Hipper]

Why not use 2016 financials?
Last i read every Sydney team lost money but the one that lost the least was the Sharks, plus they won the premiership, have you forgotten already? or does that bit of info not suit the crap you spew ?

latest figures not out, much?

I'm not sure you understand exactly what he's talking about...but to recap everyone.

He's talking about the basic principle of throwing money at the 'problem' of winning, and if its not players, then its always something else, that if the salary cap is evening out the comp then naturally more clubs will feel the need to get the edge via the football department, especially since there is always a minimum salary spend.

Dem sunk costs, its not enough to rely on the coach anymore. And the arms race.

The temptation to throw money you don't have at something is huge for these places because of the pressure to perform well.

If you introduce a cap - pressure relief valve in a couple of ways.

The argument does not rely on a specific year's financial statement.

The question to everyone then is really why stop at a salary cap when it has a minimum spend? They should be ensuring other areas do not pour over.

They don't have a draft so they really need to work out why they are shooting themselves in the foot so much.


ha

 

[Perth Red]

Why not use 2016 financials?
Last i read every Sydney team lost money but the one that lost the least was the Sharks, plus they won the premiership, have you forgotten already? or does that bit of info not suit the crap you spew ?

Err because they arent released until end of next year lol. Could have chosen any club, what it shows is that despite larger grants, partly because of out of control non playing expenditure, clubs are losing money.

If sharks don't show at least a break even in next Accounts on the back of a gf win then you wonder when they ever will.

 

[El Diablo]

will Perth be in the red or black?

 

[sensesmaybenumbed]

will Perth be in the red or black?

Well.... they were called the Perth Reds....