NRL rebellion: Rugby league clubs want CEO Dave Smith gone or threaten to leave comp

[CowboyFuriousFury]

Also you mention "Sydney clubs" needing to get their houses in order? Last time I looked, there are as many clubs outside of Sydney as within relying on additional financial support from the NRL - or are you saying Newcastle and the Gold Coast are in Sydney? :sarcasm:

Because the Sydney clubs had the longest time to get it together and the club bosses down there tend to be the first to complain to the NRL admin/ARLC about grant payments. The Sydney block is responsible for the game not expanding since it constantly needs attention and consolidation despite being a 'heartland'. If the clubs had true heartland crowds, they wouldn't be in financial strife instead of empty seats and endless excuses.

Decade after decade, the clubs had time to get it together and still financially incompetent all that time and use anti-expansion as a way to keep the money to themselves it which they reckless spend.

 

[Perth Red]

This years grant is $8mill and salary cap is around $7.5mill all up. In the new scenario that difference would be around a salary cap of $7.5mill and a club grant of around $9.6mill. I wonder which clubs would break even, minus pokies, with an increase of $1.6million this year? I suspect very few. Maybe if salary cap goes up to $10mill and grant to around $13mill it might make a difference but until we see the NRL's salary cap proposal for 18 onwards it is hard to say what impact on clubs sustainability this will have. The annual $1.5mill for spending on business development means no more excuses.
Club grant increases over last few years:
2012 $3.85mill
2013 $7mill
2014 $7.55mill
2015 $8mill (approx.)
2016 $?8mill + $1.5mill
2017 ?$8mill +$1.5mill
2018 130% of salary cap +$1.5mill

If they aren't sustainable with all that cash in 2018 then they likely never will be

 

[Perth Red]

Try 40 years rugby league and NRL since Super league folded.Match that champ..

well then I would expect you to not be so naïve! Clubs have had shed loads more grant money in the last 5 years ($3.85mill to around $8mill) but their bottom lines have got worse. Explain that one if it isn't due to incompetent management running clubs.

For a start clubs have to fund any Monday night shortfalls,with the larger grant, where as in the past they were paid $40,000 to make up for loss of crowd. ..

wow they have given up around a max of $160k to get their hands on $1.5mill, some string!

and any club that gets into sh*tsville will not be bailed out. We know you would love that...

show me a quote where the NRL has said this? Everything I have read has said the exact opposite.

 

[BuffaloRules]

This years grant is $8mill and salary cap is around $7.5mill all up. In the new scenario that difference would be around a salary cap of $7.5mill and a club grant of around $9.6mill. I wonder which clubs would break even, minus pokies, with an increase of $1.6million this year? I suspect very few. Maybe if salary cap goes up to $10mill and grant to around $13mill it might make a difference but until we see the NRL's salary cap proposal for 18 onwards it is hard to say what impact on clubs sustainability this will have. The annual $1.5mill for spending on business development means no more excuses.
Club grant increases over last few years:
2012 $3.85mill
2013 $7mill
2014 $7.55mill
2015 $8mill (approx.)
2016 $?8mill + $1.5mill
2017 ?$8mill +$1.5mill
2018 130% of salary cap +$1.5mill

If they aren't sustainable with all that cash in 2018 then they likely never will be

Out of interest, would you expect a Perth team to be sustainable with no additional money than what the other teams got?

Surely an additional 30% on top of salary cap is enough?

 

[siv]

This years grant is $8mill and salary cap is around $7.5mill all up. In the new scenario that difference would be around a salary cap of $7.5mill and a club grant of around $9.6mill. I wonder which clubs would break even, minus pokies, with an increase of $1.6million this year? I suspect very few. Maybe if salary cap goes up to $10mill and grant to around $13mill it might make a difference but until we see the NRL's salary cap proposal for 18 onwards it is hard to say what impact on clubs sustainability this will have. The annual $1.5mill for spending on business development means no more excuses.
Club grant increases over last few years:
2012 $3.85mill
2013 $7mill
2014 $7.55mill
2015 $8mill (approx.)
2016 $?8mill + $1.5mill
2017 ?$8mill +$1.5mill
2018 130% of salary cap +$1.5mill

If they aren't sustainable with all that cash in 2018 then they likely never will be

Depends if they try and operste as a $25 mil or $16 mil organisation

 

[Perth Red]

Out of interest, would you expect a Perth team to be sustainable with no additional money than what the other teams got?

Surely an additional 30% on top of salary cap is enough?

Honestly don't know as not been privy to the business case the bid team put together. Key factors would be: sponsorship (a main 7 figure sponsor was lined up a few years ago), crowds and membership (recent games would suggest a 10-15k membership and avg 16-18k crowds isn't out of question, stadium deal (nib seems reasonable cost from I have heard). Where extra funding might be needed in first few years would be for marketing to make a splash and grass roots to help fund a NSW cup team and ensure we are producing our own but that should got to NRLWA not the NRL club. As long as we aren't burdened with clubs travel and accommodation costs again we should be ok ;-)

I would think 30% on salary cap by 2018 plus $1.5million should be enough for all if they are well run? Sponsorship and memberships are where most clubs need to get much much better. They are significant revenue raisers and will be the point of difference for the haves and have nots even with this very generous NRL grant increase. Amazing that we have NRL clubs struggling to get main blue chip sponsors when the game is so popular.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Apparently some AFL clubs in Melbourne (Kangaroos, Bulldogs, St Kilda) get 150% of the salary cap and they still lose money...

Yet the AFL keep propping them up in their strongest most over saturated area.

Do you know why?

 

[Perth Red]

Because they can!
TBF they did try desperately hard to get one of them to move to the GC rather than set up a new club but they all refused (and knowing they would be bailed out why wouldn't you refuse?). End of day bailing out their struggling clubs has had zero impact on expanding their comp, unlike the NRL that is using it as an excuse not to expand at the moment (amongst others).

You also have to realise that these struggling clubs are also pretty well supported and have reasonable revenues compared to NRL clubs but their problem is in not keeping pace with the big clubs. If Sharks got 25k gates and had 30k members then I am sure there would be more appetite for bailing them out when they needed it.

I actually agree with a differential grant allocation to ensure all clubs are as big and strong as they can be but it should come with strict criteria for growth, not just be a soft hand out. Just posted similar on the media thread about this.

 

[Perth Red]

I'd love to know why Grant backflipped on the $1.5mill. He originally offered them it for just two years under condition they sign a new ltd term agreement. He walked out having agreed to pay it every year for 7 years and a forever license agreement. That is some negotiating by the clubs!

 

[BuffaloRules]

Because they can!
TBF they did try desperately hard to get one of them to move to the GC rather than set up a new club but they all refused (and knowing they would be bailed out why wouldn't you refuse?). End of day bailing out their struggling clubs has had zero impact on expanding their comp, unlike the NRL that is using it as an excuse not to expand at the moment (amongst others).

You also have to realise that these struggling clubs are also pretty well supported and have reasonable revenues compared to NRL clubs but their problem is in not keeping pace with the big clubs. If Sharks got 25k gates and had 30k members then I am sure there would be more appetite for bailing them out when they needed it.

I actually agree with a differential grant allocation to ensure all clubs are as big and strong as they can be but it should come with strict criteria for growth, not just be a soft hand out. Just posted similar on the media thread about this.

What difference does the size of the crowds they get when they are given an allowance of twice as much as NRL clubs and still can't make a quid?

Port Power have never had bigger crowds or bigger annual losses...

The AFL support these basket case teams in Melbourne like St Kilda and the Bulldogs that haven't won a comp in 50 years because they are determined not to cut them and give a couple of hundred thousand the excuse to follow the A-league or some other sport...

Seems like they must have done some internal polling about where all the Swans members emerged from in the late 90's...

 

[Perth Red]

Maybe, or maybe they just have that luxury to carry some now they have the funding and footprint they want? Reality is they have very few places left to expand to in next twenty years and they have sold an 18 team comp. if you cut two of those basket cases what other options do they have for two new clubs. We have at least 4-6 potential options for future expansion options if we wanted to restructure the comp.

 

[Cumberland Throw]

if i was afl i would put in a 3rd perth team.. when you have 20k waiting to sign up to WCE , its a no brainer...

hope for PR sake NRL gets in before that

 

[Perth Red]

New stadium has probably put back a third team for another 2-3 decades. Will be awhile before dockers and eagles are selling it out weekly I suspect. Perth population is still tipped to top 3mill within 15 years despite mining slow down and when the next boom who knows how many after that.

 

[taipan]

well then I would expect you to not be so naïve! Clubs have had shed loads more grant money in the last 5 years ($3.85mill to around $8mill) but their bottom lines have got worse. Explain that one if it isn't due to incompetent management running clubs.

wow they have given up around a max of $160k to get their hands on $1.5mill, some string!


show me a quote where the NRL has said this? Everything I have read has said the exact opposite.

I follow the Sharks PR before you were born,so don't call me naive.I know about incompetent mgt,my club was full of it in the past.I repeat you have NFI on what the sharks have done or plan to do under their new board.
The clubs that have shed loads and been losers,are either under a new mgt team of pros or like Cronulla shying away from Poker machine reliance.

Your not naive just plain bleeding ignorant.Soaking up too much iron ore dust.You don't give a shyte about Sydney clubs,only your own backyard and that blinds your thinking.You live in the past .

The extra monies are to be used for promotion,infrastructure long term or facility improvement and I dare say local juniors.

Read Wilson's comments.And you show me where Grant had given the clubs carte blanche to waste monies and expect to stay there in the comp,should they get into sh*tsville.

 

[Perth Red]

Ok let's come back in 5 years and see if we have 16 profitable clubs lol. I'll buy you a beer when I'm at shark park in 2021 if your right

 

[El Diablo]

you'd whinge about the beer cost

 

[Pig Champion]

you'd whinge about the beer cost

And that it's too cold and gassy.

 

[taipan]

Ok let's come back in 5 years and see if we have 16 profitable clubs lol. I'll buy you a beer when I'm at shark park in 2021 if your right

Ok Einstein you guarantee me 100% Perth Pirate's will not stuff up,overspend,or have financial problems,should they join the NRL.:roll:
You can't and no one can for any club.:sarcasm:

I have a mate who came out from Pommy land when he was 12,he whinges regularly.Now I understand.

 

[DiegoNT]

It's always sydney clubs that get blamed for the lack of growth in the game, and it's always proposed that sydney clubs should move to accommodate new expansion clubs because the sydney clubs don't have their act together. But if you take the broncos out of the equation ( because they are a truly one off, no expansion clubs could hope to match their off field sucess.) And compare the sydney clubs to outside sydney clubs then the outsiders don't compare.

http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/spor...ancial-situation/story-fnp0lyn3-1227238947334
I know that it's a rothfield article, but assuming its roughly in the ball park it makes for intersting reading. In the top half of the clubs 'rich list' you have the broncos (of course) and 7 sydney clubs. All the other outside sydney clubs occupy the bottom half od the rich list.

Average crowds for the sydney clubs- 14, 105
Average crowds for non sydney clubs (minus broncos)- 13, 427

Average memberships for sydney clubs- 17, 677
Average membership for non sydney clubs ( minus broncos)- 11, 989

Again if you go through the regular season tv ratings you'll see that most of the highest ratings feature broncos or the sydney clubs.

Of the 4 clubs currently in trouble 2 come from sydney, 2 from out. One of those sydney clubs is actually merger between a sydney clubs and a non sydney club.
So 2 out of 6 non sydney clubs (minus the broncos) are in financial trouble. That's 1/3
2 out of 9 sydney clubs are in financial trouble, that's less then a 1/4

Without the incredible success that is the Brisbane broncos to prop them up, non-sydney clubs don't have much to stand on when they accuse the sydney clubs of not having their act together.

 

[alien]

I was previously against having caps on coaching and football departments, but my stance is changing on that.

clubs who are actually run well (or who are financially strong) shouldn't be dragged down to the level of badly run/poor clubs