NRL posts $46m profit for 2018

[taipan]

Using South Sydney as the example, they have achieved this from physically and psychologically moving out of their restricted geographic suburb to tap into a much broader supporter base across the city. Having a mulit-millionaire Hollywood A-lister to make you trendy and attractive to corporates and investors hasn't hurt either but not sure there are many of them floating around for other clubs to do the same?

They were offered money by ANZ to play there for a start.That was a decent incentive ,plus it was for the Dogs.That is not available now.
Their C of E and base is in the SE suburbs.
ff their large supporter base was in the East,they would still have been OK, with Rusty & co behind them.
And who knows if the incentive was not available at ANZ where they would have played.
Any way a large number of their supporters reside in the western part of Sydney.

The number of people that took to the streets, also took News Ltd aback when they flicked Souths.Hence a traditional club with a high profile, did play a part in their renaissance.

Of course having a high profile owner helps, that's what I hinted at.

 

[taipan]

Regrettably it took Souths to be kicked out to make them what they are today. It is not ideal it had to happen this way, but it made their fans even more passionate and determined when they got back in, including throwing their money at tickets and memberships. Throw in the backing of some significant people like Rusty.

Do you think Souths would be the team they are today without having been kicked out and the then backing of Rusty and Co?

Also, I think a lot of Souths fans have a short memory that many of team's fans marched for them, and supported them returning. As soon as they got back in, they told us all they are the pride of the league and the greatest team ever.

Yep.And proving my point, flicking a club that has a long history and a supporter base that is too laid back, they realised you don't realise you have lost something until it's gone.

I will say this if Souths had remained out of the NRL,the Roosters would not have filled the void,but the AFL would have played merry hell with the grassroots in the SE.Souths supporters did not follow other clubs when they were kicked out.

Obviously I'm not a South's fan, but they do have the support now most other Sydney clubs would like to have.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

AFL annual report out, Total revenue $778million. Massively more than NRL ($278mill more) Anyone who thinks the game can stay the same needs to wake up, the gap isn't closing.

I guess it depends on your view.... Well as a percentage the gap is closing. 2016 the Nrl was $350mil and afl $506mil a $156mil difference. 2017 is to difficult to judge because the afl started there new broadcast deal.
But 2018 Nrl is $523mil with afl $668mil which is $145mil.
What has been missed is the fact that the afl has mergered a number of businesses into the afl hands. My assumption is that these businesses are stadium contracts and the like. These businesses increase the afls revenue by $110mil to $778mil but lowers there overall profit from $50mil to $25mil. Meaning these business combined run at a annual loss of $25mil.

I agree that the afl has larger revenue streams atm but it is a bit misleading when you look into it deeper. Personally them merging the other businesses is just the afl trying to big note themselves and show a big game when in fact they are shrinking.

 

[BlueandGold]

I guess it depends on your view.... Well as a percentage the gap is closing. 2016 the Nrl was $350mil and afl $506mil a $156mil difference. 2017 is to difficult to judge because the afl started there new broadcast deal.
But 2018 Nrl is $523mil with afl $668mil which is $145mil.
What has been missed is the fact that the afl has mergered a number of businesses into the afl hands. My assumption is that these businesses are stadium contracts and the like. These businesses increase the afls revenue by $110mil to $778mil but lowers there overall profit from $50mil to $25mil. Meaning these business combined run at a annual loss of $25mil.

I agree that the afl has larger revenue streams atm but it is a bit misleading when you look into it deeper. Personally them merging the other businesses is just the afl trying to big note themselves and show a big game when in fact they are shrinking.

You hit the nail on the head.

De-merge those assets they bought with borrowed loans and the gap has closed substantially, and continues to close year on year.

 

[Cumberland Throw]

Revenue is only one line on the balance sheet

Can someone research the net tangible assets of nrl v afl..

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I guess it depends on your view.... Well as a percentage the gap is closing. 2016 the Nrl was $350mil and afl $506mil a $156mil difference. 2017 is to difficult to judge because the afl started there new broadcast deal.
But 2018 Nrl is $523mil with afl $668mil which is $145mil.
What has been missed is the fact that the afl has mergered a number of businesses into the afl hands. My assumption is that these businesses are stadium contracts and the like. These businesses increase the afls revenue by $110mil to $778mil but lowers there overall profit from $50mil to $25mil. Meaning these business combined run at a annual loss of $25mil.

I agree that the afl has larger revenue streams atm but it is a bit misleading when you look into it deeper. Personally them merging the other businesses is just the afl trying to big note themselves and show a big game when in fact they are shrinking.

When you talk about Not-For-Profits, the revenue is more important than the surplus (no long as they arent running at a loss)

Big revenue means big influence. Even if all of the money coming in goes straight back out, they get to chose where it goes to and what it achieves. NFPs will, in the end, spend everything they earn; if there is a surplus, they will just put the money back into the NFP and spend it somewhere else.

When looking at the balance, they only thing worth really thinking about is the deficit, since that can lead to the NFPs collapse.

But saying a NFP is doing badly because its surplus is smaller than it used to be is just wrong.

 

[Perth Red]

When you talk about Not-For-Profits, the revenue is more important than the surplus (no long as they arent running at a loss)

Big revenue means big influence. Even if all of the money coming in goes straight back out, they get to chose where it goes to and what it achieves. NFPs will, in the end, spend everything they earn; if there is a surplus, they will just put the money back into the NFP and spend it somewhere else.

When looking at the balance, they only thing worth really thinking about is the deficit, since that can lead to the NFPs collapse.

But saying a NFP is doing badly because its surplus is smaller than it used to be is just wrong.

Particularly if it is due to an investment that is expected to make a return in the future.

 

[King hit]

Article is riddled with holes, assumptions, make believe and poorly thought out arguments. But thats the media for you. Catchy doom and gloom RL headline as usual though!

Some facts:

AFL is making more from the sale of their ninth game content than it is costing to fund the Suns and GWS. AFL also had a long term plan for this and has a grant system that supports its extra costs of expansion.

Ch9 and Fox profits are both up.

No TV deal has ever been less. There is no evidence or reason the next one wont follow the last few decades of increases. Yes people will be digesting their media differently but they will still want NRL content.

The game wont need to pump $100mill into a non heartland team, it will need the same $13.5 mil as everyone else plus a little set up and early growth support, if done properly.

Games in Perth have been selling out regularly for last few years culminating in a record breaking 38.8k at last years double header, hardly one off Origin game situation.

There will always be uncertainty about TV $'s, its a 5 year cycle! There will be a plan by end of year, if we get to hear about it, or like it is another matter.

In a thread about the positives about Rugby League you continuously talk up Klanball

 

[Stormwarrior82]

Revenue is only one line on the balance sheet

Can someone research the net tangible assets of nrl v afl..

I couldn’t be bothered to look at the annuals reports again but from memory it something like

Afl assets $500mil
Liabilities $300mil
Equity $200mil

Nrl assets $200mil
Liabilities $100mil
Equity $100mil

Numbers are very rough.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

When you talk about Not-For-Profits, the revenue is more important than the surplus (no long as they arent running at a loss)

Big revenue means big influence. Even if all of the money coming in goes straight back out, they get to chose where it goes to and what it achieves. NFPs will, in the end, spend everything they earn; if there is a surplus, they will just put the money back into the NFP and spend it somewhere else.

When looking at the balance, they only thing worth really thinking about is the deficit, since that can lead to the NFPs collapse.

But saying a NFP is doing badly because its surplus is smaller than it used to be is just wrong.

Revenue is more important than surplus if you don’t want to buy anymore investments.

Big revenue doesn’t always mean big influence but yes it does help. The afl couldnt walk into the qld premiers office but I’m sure JT probably could. All I’m saying is influence comes in a lot of ways.

The question I have is that the businesses that have now been consumed into the afl are stadium contracts etc. if they are using their afl revenue to pay for stadium hire, security, tickets, catering but then using that money a second time in business revenue doesn’t that potentially count the money twice? Or am I missing something?

Yes I agree that most marvel stadium deals are with individual afl clubs but there would still be revenue double ups wouldn’t there?

 

[Perth Red]

In a thread about the positives about Rugby League you continuously talk up Klanball

I discuss the facts. You can interpret that however your insecurities dictate.

 

[Perth Red]

I couldn’t be bothered to look at the annuals reports again but from memory it something like

Afl assets $500mil
Liabilities $300mil
Equity $200mil

Nrl assets $200mil
Liabilities $100mil
Equity $100mil

Numbers are very rough.

Not far off (consolidated)
From annual reports
Afl
assets $476.2 ($536mill)
Liabilities $268.8 ($325mill)
Equity $207.4 ($210mill)

Nrl assets $260mill ($246mill)
Liabilities $154mill ($159mill)
Equity $105mil ($88mill)

The biggie for them is in the stadium which carries an asset value of $222mill and a loan liability of $176mill

 

[Perth Red]

Revenue is more important than surplus if you don’t want to buy anymore investments.

Big revenue doesn’t always mean big influence but yes it does help. The afl couldnt walk into the qld premiers office but I’m sure JT probably could. All I’m saying is influence comes in a lot of ways.

The question I have is that the businesses that have now been consumed into the afl are stadium contracts etc. if they are using their afl revenue to pay for stadium hire, security, tickets, catering but then using that money a second time in business revenue doesn’t that potentially count the money twice? Or am I missing something?

Yes I agree that most marvel stadium deals are with individual afl clubs but there would still be revenue double ups wouldn’t there?

No it will be shown in consolidated revenue only as revenue from stadium use will be under the financials of the AFL's separate stadium management company.

Its a shame NRL couldn't have got a similar sweet deal to purchase WSS eventually.

 

[Cumberland Throw]

That's a pretty cheap stadium .. $222m

It cost $700m to build and sits on $200m of commercial land

Another sweet heart deal

 

[Perth Red]

That's a pretty cheap stadium .. $222m

It cost $700m to build and sits on $200m of commercial land

Another sweet heart deal

They know how to go about their business, that is for sure!

 

[Stallion]

No it will be shown in consolidated revenue only as revenue from stadium use will be under the financials of the AFL's separate stadium management company.

Its a shame NRL couldn't have got a similar sweet deal to purchase WSS eventually.

On this point you make sense!

 

[BlueandGold]

I couldn’t be bothered to look at the annuals reports again but from memory it something like

Afl assets $500mil
Liabilities $300mil
Equity $200mil

Nrl assets $200mil
Liabilities $100mil
Equity $100mil

Numbers are very rough.

Debt for the AFL is huge at a time when the economy is going to struggle.

AFL's Bad timing buying Docklands, should have held off a couple more years.

 

[BlueandGold]

Not far off (consolidated)
From annual reports
Afl
assets $476.2 ($536mill)
Liabilities $268.8 ($325mill)
Equity $207.4 ($210mill)

Nrl assets $260mill ($246mill)
Liabilities $154mill ($159mill)
Equity $105mil ($88mill)

The biggie for them is in the stadium which carries an asset value of $222mill and a loan liability of $176mill

Those number back up what we are saying.

The gap is closing every year.

Look at the AFL Liabilities, 325m wowzaaa.