Off-season snakes and ladders

[RL1908]

There is no way to set your watch to 1985 and let the good times roll.

Players now are fulltime proffesionals. They won't accept being told that suddenly they will have to get jobs to supplement their incomes. All that would do would drive young players to other codes. Also how is going back to players being trained twice a week and rocking up on the weekend going to move our game forward at all ? Like it or not the game is not going to go back to how it was 20 years ago.

Having watched a fair bit of the football put on by the players pre fulltime proffesionalism it wasn't a patch on todays game. ( I know some of you may disagree and thats fine to but thats my opinion) If you had teams from the early 90's against teams from the current era the current teams would sh*t all over them.

Also as Adam says, clubs won't give up searching for an edge over the competition.

No doubt any post-1995 team trained 11 months of the year, 7 days a week, would flog any pre-1995 team.

Where did I write that players have to go back to full-time or part-time work? What I said was that just because players are getting a full-time contract, doesn't mean that the NRL clubs have to make them work 7 days a week on football. If that gives the players heaps of free time, good luck to them - it might actually make playing RL an attractive, lengthy and fun career.

 

[RL1908]

Nice in theory but its essentially saying to all the clubs
"Ok, everybody, stop trying your best to gain an advantage......now!"

Which tells us what?

That the salary cap merely forces clubs to spend their $ on everything but the players as the club seeks out the advantages it can find to give it an edge. The salary cap won't stop a club going broke, and doesn't equalise all the clubs.

With money and facilities, a club can turn a team of lesser talents into a winning team, thus negating the intended benefits of the salary cap.

It would be interesting to know how much time and the type of training that professional soccer and RU players put in, compared to NRL players - and if the answer to that is because they are "softer" games, then it merely proves my suggestion that RL is too physically demanding for its own financial good.

 

[TinghaExpress]

The answer probably lays in finding a balance.

How is it that in the space of 15 years we have gone from a game where the bulk of each club's income has gone from paying the players, to now where it is down around 25% going to the players, and clubs are going broke spending $11m on keeping a $4.1m team on the field?

I don't think the game's income is dependent upon it being a full time professional sport for the players. Do the tv moguls and the fans care if the players are made work for 7 days a week? Would the "product" be any worse if players trained less, did their own fitness work?

In other words, the players salaries can be kept at current levels, provided something is done to end the off-field "space race" and curb that spending.

The NRL is attempting to cover the salary cap costs to each club via the NRL grant. So, each club won't even have to fund its players' salaries.

All of which leaves me struggling to understand what is the imperative that makes it necessary for players to train fulltime, and for each NRL club to spend $11 million to put a team on the field (a team that they don't even fund the salaries for).

Just because a footballer is paid $200K doesn't mean that he has be trained every day of the week, and looked after like a race horse or a V8 - all of which costs money.

Better to put the $ into the bank balances of the players, have them train at 2 team sessions per week, and front up on the weekend for a game. As a fan, who would care? Would the spectacle be so bad that the game was no longer worth watching? Attendances from 1908 to 1995 would suggest part time footballers can put on quite a decent show!

I agree that the game has to live within its means, but it isn't the spending of $ on players that is consuming each club's $11 million. Players salaries are almost covered entirely by the NRL.

Excellent post! That is probably the most intelligent thing I have ever read in regards to the money problems football clubs facing in the present day...

 

[RL1908]

Excellent post! That is probably the most intelligent thing I have ever read in regards to the money problems football clubs facing in the present day...

Thanks.

By pointing out that the players share is down to 25%, I'm not suggesting that they are grossly underpaid - their % is down markedly, but that is because the clubs are sourcing much more income than they ever have before.

It's remarkable that clubs are apparently on the brink of financial despair, at a time when they are obtaining far more income than ever. The problem is all the off-field spending, and the necessity to do it to compete with the other clubs in this off-field premiership competition.

 

[BrisVegas]

The off-field overheads are being set by the powerhouse clubs.

When clubs such as Brisbane/Gold Coast/N-QLD are limited by the salary cap on the amount of money they can spend on players, they simply allocate that excess money to other area's that facilitate success on the field. The Broncos for the 2007 season was spending just 16% of their revenue on 1st grade player salaries.

The idea that the Salary Cap creates a level playing field is a half-truth. Sure once in a blue moon a club like the Panthers or the Wests Tigers in 2005 will luck into the right mix on the field to jag a premiership, but for the most part club success is tied to the revenue generated. Clubs are still racing to outspend each other, and the battle of the haves and have-nots exists, it's just that player wages have been frozen in the equation, thereby forcing players to look overseas to earn their true worth. If the Broncos football department are outspending the Sharks by over 300%, they are going to have far greater success over a long period of time.


To expand on the issue of money required to field an NRL side:

Brisbane & The Gold Coast will be looking at revenue of $23m-$25 million this coming financial year (and only about 400k-500k of that is poker machine revenue).

The lower spending Sydney clubs (Cronulla, Penrith) are looking at revenue of $10m-$12m.

Lets assume that all clubs are spending up to the $4.1m salary cap + $1m in Toyota Cup/2nd tier/Junior Scholarship Payments.

Brisbane/Gold Coast are therefore spending $18m-$20m on football operations other then the playing roster.

Cronulla/Penrith are therefore spending $5m-$7m on football operations other then the playing roster.

Therefore the SE-QLD clubs are outspending the Sydney clubs by a factor of 250-400%. The sort of competitive edge that gives a team is huge: if clubs want to stay competitive they will need to match that sort of money.

It's also shows how lopsided the figures are in terms of the cut of revenue the players get, now down to 16.6% when in the 80's it was about 75-80% of turnover. I'd be annoyed if I was a player that was bringing in the revenue and was getting such a pitiful slice that isn't even being adjusted with the profit growth of some clubs.


It does however raises the (favourable) issue of what to do with all the surplus cash. I know that the Broncos are looking at fielding the largest full time coaching staff in Australian domestic sport next year.

Ivan Henjak - Coach (Full-time) assisted by:

- Allan Langer - Assistant Coach: Halves (Full-time)
- Shane Webke - Assistant Coach: Forwards (Full-time)
- Paul Green - Assistant Coach: Skills (Full-time)
- Peter Ryan - Assistant Coach: Defence (Full-time)
- Mick Devere - Assistant Coach: Backs and Kicking (Full-time)

Dean Benton - Performance Director (Full-time) assisted by:

- Andrew Croll - Athletic Performance Coach (Full-time)
- Dan Baker - Strength Coach (Full-time)
- Tim Gabbett - Sports Scientist (Full-time)


If the money can't be spent on retaining players like Lockyer or Eastwood from going to SuperLeague, it may as well be spent on supporting the players to ensure they club has the best chance of making the finals.



The AFL released it's review of the 2007 season last year which touches on the link between club revenue and success:

http://www.gfc.com.au/News/NewsArticle/tabid/3933/Default.aspx?newsId=56150

Money buys success

Sebastian Hassett
2:37 PM Wed 12 March, 2008

THE NOTION that big-spending clubs are more likely to achieve on-field success has long been debunked as a myth in footy circles – but now there’s figures to back it up.

Results published in the AFL’s 2007 Club Financial Review Survey showed that of the eight teams which spent the most money on their football departments over the past five seasons, only two of those clubs (Essendon and Adelaide) have failed to make a grand final.

Significantly, four of the eight top spending clubs (Sydney, Brisbane, West Coast and Port Adelaide) each participated in two grand finals each over the period, while even the Crows – despite not making it to a decider – still made the eight in every year except 2004, including back-to-back top-two regular season finishes.

AFL Chief Executive Andrew Demetriou said the figures indicated the importance of investing profits back into football departments.

“There’s a five year trend there which I think is telling a story,” Demetriou said.

“I think what the figures show is that the clubs willing to spend more on their football departments are more likely to play in finals.

“(The) challenge for all our clubs is to work out ways to increase their football spending so that they can compete with the other clubs.”

However, Demetriou said all teams were becoming increasingly aware of the trend, with many already taking steps to increase their spending.

“There’s no doubt clubs are already onto it,” he said.

“They are recognising that if they want to give themselves the best shot (they need to invest).

“St Kilda [ranked 12th in spending] have already identified they need to be spending more on their football department ... to get themselves into the top eight of that group, to give themselves more of a chance.”

Sydney has spent more than any other club on their football department, racking up an expenditure of $66.7 million (an average of $13.3 million per year), with Collingwood following closely, spending $66.5 million.

In stark contrast, North Melbourne spent just $50.1 million – around $3.3 million per year less than the top two clubs.

Ironically, the Kangaroos are one of only three clubs [alongside St Kilda and Fremantle, ranked 9th] from the bottom eight spenders to have made a top-four appearance since 2003.

..........
..........

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/harris-warns-of-afl-class-system/2007/05/30/1180205337951.html

Harris warns of AFL class system

Stephen Rielly | May 31, 2007


AS THE AFL ponders what it might do to address the permanent competitive imbalance it believes exists between its Victorian and non-Victorian clubs, Melbourne chief executive Steve Harris has warned that the competition is threatening to evolve into a permanent order of first, second and third-world organisations.

Harris said that by almost every measure a new hierarchy was emerging similar to to many of the leagues and competitions around the world that were dominated by outright wealth; competitions in name only where the prize was within reach of a rich few.

The past six premierships have been won by non-Victorian teams and not since 2003, when six of the eight finalists were from interstate, has a Victorian side finished top two. "The AFL clearly does not want an emerging league within a league, as exists in most elite sporting competitions, such as the NFL, EPL, formula one and NBA. The AFL currently risks a league within a league in Victoria, and a league within a league nationally," Harris told Melbourne members.

The recent acknowledgement by AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick and chief executive Andrew Demetriou of a systemic competitive disadvantage in the competition was supported by evidence, he said, that inextricably links success to wealth and the immense revenue-raising capabilities of the interstate teams other than Port Adelaide.

"Ladder positions, finals appearances, and grand final wins are increasingly mirrors of football department spending and club revenues," Harris said.
"Non-Victorian clubs are all in the upper end of football department spending."

This would be perpetuated and magnified if intervention by the league did not occur and 10 teams continued to vie for survival in the state.

"Melbourne, for example, not only has nine AFL clubs, but also three racing clubs, two basketball clubs, two netball teams, rugby league, soccer, the highest per capita golf course infrastructure, and the most intensive major events calendar in the world."

Harris used the Demons to illustrate his point, saying: "With the exception of Essendon — which had its worst on-field year last year but still reported a $1.6 million profit — Melbourne has been in more finals than any other Victorian side over the past nine years, and has been best-performed of the Victorian clubs in the past five years …

"So, arguably, our return on the club's football department spending has been first-rate, but against that, it is now well over 40 years since we won a flag. The non-capped areas of football department spending remain an 'arms race', and the bigger-spending clubs account for most of the grand final appearances and premierships.

"Such financial issues are not being used as an excuse or explanation for being 0-9 this season.

"We have been savaged by injury, causing us to have an average of eight of our top 22 players out each week … But the injuries might have had less impact if we had the same strength that other clubs have to spend more money, time and resources in recruiting, player development, player support services, medical and welfare services, and training facilities."

 

[RL1908]

The off-field overheads are being set by the powerhouse clubs.

Very interesting. The AFL seems to be actively encouraging spending within each club.

If this logic is taken to its ultimate conclusion, then what's the point in running the on-field premiership competition at all? Just award the title to the biggest spending club and be done with it.

That is why the only answers I can see lay in the playing laws of RL itself (apart from say banning club training before Feb 1 etc, and/or limiting team ballwork sessions to two times a week).

The playing laws need to be such that the benefits to be gained by fulltime training, support coaches and big off-field spending and facilities, are not such that a club with less finances/resources/facilities can still be competitive on the field. Does anyone think we will ever see an underdog team succeed like say Wests of 1978 (minor premiers) ever again? Until the 1970s, bush teams could sometimes beat a Sydney club.

Soccer seems to provide a good example. It is a professional sport, but upsets, though not frequent, are not rare. I'm not suggesting that would be easy for RL to achieve playing laws that negate spending advantages, but doing nothing will only lead to clubs falling away who can't keep up financially.

The only other conclusion one could reach (and in the AFL's case, it appears clear) is that doing nothing to control off-field spending is simply a silent way to rationalise the competition, and let the poorer clubs fade away, merge or re-locate.

As I've been known to say before, "Fans don't march in the streets if their club goes broke".

Roy Masters wrote this in 1994...

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]From: Sydney Morning Herald - 11 April 1994
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As the boards of losing clubs line their coaches in their gun sights and the competition divides into the "haves" and the "have nots", the NSWRL should ask itself two questions.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]First, has the 10-metre rule prised open the gap between the top and bottom clubs? [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Second, has the time come to put inner-city clubs on notice that only an amalgamation can create the type of juggernaut necessary to take on Brisbane and Auckland. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The 10-metre rule favours fit, gifted players. Lesser-talented players who spend their daylight hours working at a regular job cannot match the Broncos, who spend their days training in gyms and on tartan tracks. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The rule makes it very difficult for tired, less skilful players to retreat the required distance in defence before the clever, athletic attackers are jumping out of dummy-half, launching yet another raid. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In other words, the 10-metre rule, like the four-point try, widens the points difference between the one-city clubs, who can arrange sinecure employment and professional training for their players, and the metropolitan clubs, who exercise little "after hours" influence over their playing staff.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The response of the Broncos to this gap has been: "Get your act together and come and join us." [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The attitude of the metropolitan clubs has been: "Let's pull the Broncos down to our level." [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Scorelines over recent rounds raise the question whether there are enough talented players ....playing to the standard of the 10m/one-city clubs.[/FONT]

 

[adamkungl]

I don't see why people are discouraging clubs striving for success in here. Why would anyone actually want a competition where everyone is dead even? Some clubs will have more money, always have and always will and there is NO reason why this should ever change. If some clubs don't like it, then why are the playing in the strongest Rugby competition in the world? Off to the NSW Cup with them if they don't want to compete.

 

[BrisVegas]

The only other conclusion one could reach (and in the AFL's case, it appears clear) is that doing nothing to control off-field spending is simply a silent way to rationalise the competition, and let the poorer clubs fade away, merge or re-locate.

As I've been known to say before, "Fans don't march in the streets if their club goes broke".

Roy Masters wrote this in 1994...

Funnily enough there was an article in either the SMH or DT last year (I'm trying to find the URL) that compared the current situation to 1994/95. Back then the Sydney clubs were feeling the full brunt of competition from interstate clubs as professionalism was being embraced and support staff and off field operations were being expanded exponentially.

The general thrust of the article was that if Super League didn't occur (and with it the huge cash injections from News Ltd, Optus Vision and the ARL to prop up ailing clubs) that many of Sydney clubs that are currently in the competition would have either died or relocated as the economic pressures of the competitive Sydney market became too much.

Now that the cash reserves clubs acquired during the War have been burned through, it's like 1994/95 all over again, except this time there will be no huge cash injections to buy club loyalty.

In a round about ironic type of way Super League actually extended the life of many of the smaller Sydney clubs by delaying the economic rationalisation that is increasingly likely about to occur.

As you said above: "Fans don't march in the streets if their club goes broke"

If an administrative body simply decides to get rid of 4 Sydney clubs in one swoop and holds a gun to their collective heads it will be seen as an act of aggression that goes against the great Aussie principle of "a fair go"

If reduction occurs through more natural means - the Salary Cap is raised and 3rd party money freed up, and clubs that run into financial hardship are offered assistance in merging/relocating by the administrative body - the rationalisation of clubs will be seen in a more positive light ("A compassionate NRL saving clubs from death").

You rarely hear any calls for the return of Newton, or Western Suburbs or Balmain for that matter, as it is generally accepted that the market just isn't there to sustain them in the 1st grade competition.

It's all about setting the correct environment in which club consolidation can occur in a semi-natural way - An environment that is naturally forming due to the World Economic Drama.

 

[RUNVS]

Very interesting. The AFL seems to be actively encouraging spending within each club.

The Swans love doing this. Look at this new toy the Swans bought

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sport/afl/story/0,27009,25049729-5016140,00.html

and now the Swans have one you can almost guarantee that all the other clubs will get one as it gives the Swans a advantage and the only way for the other clubs to catch up is to also buy one of these $110,000 machines.

 

[RL1908]

I don't see why people are discouraging clubs striving for success in here. Why would anyone actually want a competition where everyone is dead even? Some clubs will have more money, always have and always will and there is NO reason why this should ever change. If some clubs don't like it, then why are the playing in the strongest Rugby competition in the world? Off to the NSW Cup with them if they don't want to compete.

I don't think anyone is suggesting a "dead even" comp is even remotely achievable.

The main points are that the salary cap won't stop clubs going broke, and that the clubs are already comfortably sourcing enough money to sustain themselves if off-field spending can be curbed, so long as we as a sport seriously examine where/how this money must be spent.

 

[mongoose]

The off-field overheads are being set by the powerhouse clubs.

When clubs such as Brisbane/Gold Coast/N-QLD are limited by the salary cap on the amount of money they can spend on players, they simply allocate that excess money to other area's that facilitate success on the field. The Broncos for the 2007 season was spending just 16% of their revenue on 1st grade player salaries.

The idea that the Salary Cap creates a level playing field is a half-truth. Sure once in a blue moon a club like the Panthers or the Wests Tigers in 2005 will luck into the right mix on the field to jag a premiership, but for the most part club success is tied to the revenue generated. Clubs are still racing to outspend each other, and the battle of the haves and have-nots exists, it's just that player wages have been frozen in the equation, thereby forcing players to look overseas to earn their true worth. If the Broncos football department are outspending the Sharks by over 300%, they are going to have far greater success over a long period of time.


To expand on the issue of money required to field an NRL side:

Brisbane & The Gold Coast will be looking at revenue of $23m-$25 million this coming financial year (and only about 400k-500k of that is poker machine revenue).

The lower spending Sydney clubs (Cronulla, Penrith) are looking at revenue of $10m-$12m.

Lets assume that all clubs are spending up to the $4.1m salary cap + $1m in Toyota Cup/2nd tier/Junior Scholarship Payments.

Brisbane/Gold Coast are therefore spending $18m-$20m on football operations other then the playing roster.

Cronulla/Penrith are therefore spending $5m-$7m on football operations other then the playing roster.

Therefore the SE-QLD clubs are outspending the Sydney clubs by a factor of 250-400%. The sort of competitive edge that gives a team is huge: if clubs want to stay competitive they will need to match that sort of money.

It's also shows how lopsided the figures are in terms of the cut of revenue the players get, now down to 16.6% when in the 80's it was about 75-80% of turnover. I'd be annoyed if I was a player that was bringing in the revenue and was getting such a pitiful slice that isn't even being adjusted with the profit growth of some clubs.


It does however raises the (favourable) issue of what to do with all the surplus cash. I know that the Broncos are looking at fielding the largest full time coaching staff in Australian domestic sport next year.

Ivan Henjak - Coach (Full-time) assisted by:

- Allan Langer - Assistant Coach: Halves (Full-time)
- Shane Webke - Assistant Coach: Forwards (Full-time)
- Paul Green - Assistant Coach: Skills (Full-time)
- Peter Ryan - Assistant Coach: Defence (Full-time)
- Mick Devere - Assistant Coach: Backs and Kicking (Full-time)

Dean Benton - Performance Director (Full-time) assisted by:

- Andrew Croll - Athletic Performance Coach (Full-time)
- Dan Baker - Strength Coach (Full-time)
- Tim Gabbett - Sports Scientist (Full-time)


If the money can't be spent on retaining players like Lockyer or Eastwood from going to SuperLeague, it may as well be spent on supporting the players to ensure they club has the best chance of making the finals.



The AFL released it's review of the 2007 season last year which touches on the link between club revenue and success:

http://www.gfc.com.au/News/NewsArticle/tabid/3933/Default.aspx?newsId=56150

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/harris-warns-of-afl-class-system/2007/05/30/1180205337951.html

But brisbane and the titans are run by forward thinking business men, most sydney clubs are run by dinosaurs who think chook raffles is still the way to raise revenue.