PNG's back.

[mikail-eagle]

The 2 super funds are not really private finance companies per say.

1. Nasfund Limited. https://nasfund.com.pg/
This is the biggest Super fund and has 7 shareholders which are;
1. Employers Federation of PNG
2. Manufacturers Council of PNG
3. PNG Chamber of Mines & Petroleum
4. PNG Chamber of Commerce & Industry
5. PNG Banking & Financial Workers Union
6. PNG Trade Union Congress
7. Rural Industries Council


2. Nambawan Super Limited https://www.nambawansuper.com.pg/
This is the second Super fund. Its really just owned by the members as it was established in 1971 to mainly to cater for Public Servants.

Annual reports for both are on their websites. Their range of investments and portfolios are all listed.
Their websites get updated very quickly to inform members of any changes.
Having a stake in an NRL Team would be huge news for either of them but so far there is noting announced by either of them.

 

[Wb1234]

 

[Wb1234]

The 2 super funds are not really private finance companies per say.

1. Nasfund Limited. https://nasfund.com.pg/
This is the biggest Super fund and has 7 shareholders which are;
1. Employers Federation of PNG
2. Manufacturers Council of PNG
3. PNG Chamber of Mines & Petroleum
4. PNG Chamber of Commerce & Industry
5. PNG Banking & Financial Workers Union
6. PNG Trade Union Congress
7. Rural Industries Council


2. Nambawan Super Limited https://www.nambawansuper.com.pg/
This is the second Super fund. Its really just owned by the members as it was established in 1971 to mainly to cater for Public Servants.

Annual reports for both are on their websites. Their range of investments and portfolios are all listed.
Their websites get updated very quickly to inform members of any changes.
Having a stake in an NRL Team would be huge news for either of them but so far there is noting announced by either of them.

If they are connected to the png govt then perhaps they told them to invest ? But you could be right and it’s the journo making a mistake

 

[Murishido]

That’s assuming all things are equal which they’re not. It’s like saying why don’t all players play for Cowboys/Raiders/Knights as Accomodation costs are much cheaper etc which certainly doesn’t happen.
It’s 6% difference which is pretty quickly negated by generally having to pay overs to get players to move to Auckland.
Tax rates average out at about $23k per player but when you’re having to pay a journeyman $100k(often more) extra than they’d get at an Aus club a Marquee $300k+ it’s swallowed up and then some trying to be competitive on the player market.
That way of thinking has proven unsustainable which is why the club are desperate to become more

Well every argument on recruitment needs an assumption of all else being equal otherwise is a 20000 page treatise on the decision making of many.

Just as you've made an abundance of assumptions above.

First let me say clearly development is a better club angle.

Also never said every player at any point so the straw man is petty and unnecessary.

worth pointing out that's also a ridiculous statement given every player can't clearly can't play for a few clubs.

But just as the all else being equal assumption has obvious flaws so does assuming the average is every instance.

On overs the whole point is overs should already be embedded in the post tax number. and also please remember the discussion originated from the png tax benefits.

Not sure how you landed on the 6% but when I did reference people in their prime hopefully you didn't include first contract minimum salary players or low value players who obviously aren't be recruited with money as a differentiator, given their salary. But given you think it's possible for a handful of teams to have every player I'm not confident.

For the guys being "bought" it's a mid teens post tax didifference. That's before capital gains. Also cheaper to live on a 500k plus income than sydney as well.