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

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
15,546
ARLC chairman will need to appointed in Feb 2018 after Grants 2nd 3 year term concludes. Doesn't mean he is sacked

Step down... sacked... whatever...

Although as we have just witnessed, agreements don't been jack 12 months down the track...

I got a feeling they will need a crowbar to get this bloke out...

Club chairs on Tuesday said they felt confident about Grant remaining at the helm of the ARLC, although it’s been agreed he will step down when his second three-year term ends in February 2018.
 

Canard

Immortal
Messages
35,613
Or vote out a basket case

I assume it would be cheaper to prop up a club with a administrators then take the hit in TV monies that losing one would create. So I don't believe a club would be likely be expelled unless there was exceptional circumstances.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,800
The near $1 million gulf between the salaries of the NRL's highest-paid coaches and those at the bottom of the pay scale is tipped to narrow as a cap on football department spending looms as an equalisation measure as important as the salary cap under the new broadcast deal.

While John Grant's future was a focal point of day-long tense talks between the Australian Rugby League Commission and disgruntled club bosses on Tuesday, a threshold on spending outside the salary cap and how it affects the NRL's 16 coaches looms as a major talking point next year.
Some of the competition's shrewdest clipboard carriers, headed up by premiership-winning coaches Craig Bellamy (Storm) and Wayne Bennett (Broncos), command salaries north of $1 million while the NRL's cash-strapped clubs fork out pay packets far inferior for their brains trust.

The issue has long been a source of consternation between the clubs, who are heavily restricted and scrutinised on how much they can spend on their full-time playing squad but have had an unfettered ability to invest in support mechanisms such as coaches to attract the game's elite to their club.

While it is unlikely a cap on football department expenditure will greatly diminish the earning capacity of the game's top coaches, it will keep it level and allow other clubs who have survived above the breadline to be more aggressive in pursuing the best mentors on the market.

That means the contract values of the game's lowest paid coaches will be lifted to haul them closer to the dollars commanded by the likes of Bellamy, Bennett and Bulldogs boss Des Hasler.
Spending on areas such as support staff, sports science and centres of excellence will be under the microscope under the new football department cap, but some of the clubs which are willing to absorb costs in that area such as the Broncos are not expected to have to suddenly cut spending.

It is instead anticipated that clubs which don't spend anywhere as much on off-field operations will gradually claw back the margin in football department spending once they receive grants at 130 per cent of the salary cap in 2018, gradually inching their way to parity with the premiership heavyweights.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ne-bennett-back-to-field-20161221-gtfl19.html
 

CC_Roosters

First Grade
Messages
5,221
There is a blindingly obvious solution to regulating football spending. forget a one size fits all cap that only ties everyone to the lowest common denominator club and instead have spending set as a percentage of total club revenue. nobody gets held back in terms of what they can spend provided they can afford it and it provides a clear motive for clubs to be innovative in increasing their income.

So if say the roosters revenue was
$13m Central grant
$2m memberships
$1.5m gamely
$1m sponsorship

If the spending % was set at 75% of revenue as an example total allowed spending is $13.13m for the roosters

Sport is about survival of the fittest not about having cookie cutter teams limited in what they can do by this or that hard cap.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,800
There is a blindingly obvious solution to regulating football spending. forget a one size fits all cap that only ties everyone to the lowest common denominator club and instead have spending set as a percentage of total club revenue. nobody gets held back in terms of what they can spend provided they can afford it and it provides a clear motive for clubs to be innovative in increasing their income.

So if say the roosters revenue was
$13m Central grant
$2m memberships
$1.5m gamely
$1m sponsorship

If the spending % was set at 75% of revenue as an example total allowed spending is $13.13m for the roosters

Sport is about survival of the fittest not about having cookie cutter teams limited in what they can do by this or that hard cap.


Do you include LC funding in the revenue calculations? Whenever they talk about clubs losing money they don't count LC funding that covers the losses. Without it half the Sydney teams wouldn't exist.

The main problem for sustainability is clubs run so close to the edge and have little in reserves so it only takes one main sponsor to pull out it a dip in form leading to membership/crowds dropping and they are in strife. The fund will help once it builds up but the first few years isn't going to cover much when you consider the nrl has spent over $10mill last year on keeping three clubs afloat.

You'd hope with a massive grant increase and a reasonable spending cap we won't see a repeat of recent times.
 

Tiger5150

Bench
Messages
3,797
There is a blindingly obvious solution to regulating football spending. forget a one size fits all cap that only ties everyone to the lowest common denominator club and instead have spending set as a percentage of total club revenue. nobody gets held back in terms of what they can spend provided they can afford it and it provides a clear motive for clubs to be innovative in increasing their income.

So if say the roosters revenue was
$13m Central grant
$2m memberships
$1.5m gamely
$1m sponsorship

If the spending % was set at 75% of revenue as an example total allowed spending is $13.13m for the roosters

Sport is about survival of the fittest not about having cookie cutter teams limited in what they can do by this or that hard cap.

Not a bad idea but the trouble with that plan is a bit of a chicken and egg concept. Hypothetically take a team like the Tigers that struggle relatively with revenue. You are potentially you are locking that team into poverty and ultimately failure. It would prevent a (extremely hypothetical) scenario where a struggling team like the Tigers could gamble long term, purchase a coach like say Bellamy for overs to attract players and success to the club and ultimately sponsors and revenue.

Additionally it may be impractical to implement. Revenue reporting would typically lag from 12-18 months behind. Do you base what you can spend on coaches and management for 2017 on 2016 revenue? Forecast Revenue?
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,800
The clubs can't stick to a salary cap, what chance sticking to a football cap? Best increase the integrity units budget!

Still the Danks of the world will be rubbing their hands at nrl clubs getting $5.5million more grant a year. Not to mention any successful coach.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,800
i heard Dank is moving to Perth

how much did Perth make or lose?

hopefully that means no Perth as they would be a basket case

how much do Perth spend?

seems like a good enough reason to not introduce a Perth team

the Perth coach always has some interesting stuff to say at press conferences

And they say I'm fixated on a Perth side lol
 
Last edited:

T-Boon

Coach
Messages
15,862
It seems that the coaches and players have worked out that their pay and pay increases are closely linked to TV deals, so I wonder if one of these days it will dawn on them to be a bit more appreciative of TV and actually talk at press conferences etc like they are happy to be there.
Maybe say some things that aren't cliches or answers that make it seem like the journalist has asked a personal question about their daughter.
Bennett is the perfect example. He is arguable the GOAT, you would think he has insight into the game but he sits there arms folded, surly, bored, looking at his watch, often hostile. You don't like the questions. Here is a tip - f**king say something. Talk.
If this culture changes maybe journalist will stop scrounging through the gutter so much for gossip.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
so I wonder if one of these days it will dawn on them to be a bit more appreciative of TV and actually talk at press conferences etc like they are happy to be there.
how exactly could anyone even pretend to be happy when getting asked questions from grubs like Massoud, Weedler, Rothfield etc etc ?
 

Latest posts

Top