Rebels reveal five-point survival plan

[Delboy]

To be honest the football club board is just that, the real financial decisions are carried at the Leagues Club, we should be more intersted the business standing etc of any applicants for those positions from 3P, that is where ideas, sponsorship, revenue and survival will come from.

The hot air from the football club is satisfying in that it may bring focus back to the grassroots and perhaps recruitment and retention, but at the moment that is about it.

The point re control in NRL from memory revolved around the issues of director liability , in that if there were financial shortfalls etc it was a better result to put the control in the hands of the Leagues Club, rather than have the individual directors or possibly the football club board personally repsonsible for debts and finance.

The real power will come from ensuring sponsors and revenue streams are capable of taking the club into the future, so careful consideration of all the issues overe the next couple of months is vital.

 

[Jodeci]

With the Board consisting of all former players except two, I have massive concerns to be honest. Very unbalanced.

Gronk

The club has and will rely on Accountants, Financial Controllers etc to make sure no dumb decisions are made with how we spend the money.

It's not like the former greats will just decide "Um let's see, today we will put ticket prices at $5 for arguments sake".

They wont be doing any financial moves that will impact the club without communicating to people like our accountants, etc

I understand where you are coming from but until we find out what happens from the Leagues Club elections we will assume that they will try to move the club forward.

With regards to the CEO of the Leagues Club, they wont be assigning any fruit loop for that position, it will go through the proper channels of recruitment and be given to the best candiate with the right acheivements and business plans etc

 

[mickdo]

Dream on. Why would a sponsor throw money at a S G Ball jumper ? No real benefit really when the games are watched by only a few hundred people tops. What you are suggesting is not corporate sponsorship but a donation. Money down the drain IMHO.

Now if they brought back junior footy to the stadium and had 4 or 5 games before the NRL, then it might be worth looking into.

Small sponsors might. Small money is better than no money.

 

[Gronk]

Gronk

The club has and will rely on Accountants, Financial Controllers etc to make sure no dumb decisions are made with how we spend the money.

It's not like the former greats will just decide "Um let's see, today we will put ticket prices at $5 for arguments sake".

They wont be doing any financial moves that will impact the club without communicating to people like our accountants, etc

I understand where you are coming from but until we find out what happens from the Leagues Club elections we will assume that they will try to move the club forward.

With regards to the CEO of the Leagues Club, they wont be assigning any fruit loop for that position, it will go through the proper channels of recruitment and be given to the best candiate with the right acheivements and business plans etc

I except that they (hopefully) wont be making rash decisions without seeking advice, but my point is that most Boards don't usually need to do that.

The whole point of a Board of Directors is that you bring in experienced and qualified people from varied corporate, marketing, financial and legal backgrounds and perhaps one or two from a sporting past. Their individual contributions allow the board to make calls that are not guess work. It also helps that advice does not cost you money everytime the board needs advice financial, legal or marketing advice.

Anyway, it's been done now. Hopefully they can do a good job.

 

[Suitman]

Dream on. Why would a sponsor throw money at a S G Ball jumper ? No real benefit really when the games are watched by only a few hundred people tops. What you are suggesting is not corporate sponsorship but a donation. Money down the drain IMHO.

Now if they brought back junior footy to the stadium and had 4 or 5 games before the NRL, then it might be worth looking into.

I don't see the difference.

Only a couple of hundred would turn up to watch the first few games anyway.

Suity

 

[bartman]

I except that they (hopefully) wont be making rash decisions without seeking advice, but my point is that most Boards don't usually need to do that.

The whole point of a Board of Directors is that you bring in experienced and qualified people from varied corporate, marketing, financial and legal backgrounds and perhaps one or two from a sporting past. Their individual contributions allow the board to make calls that are not guess work. It also helps that advice does not cost you money everytime the board needs advice financial, legal or marketing advice.

Anyway, it's been done now. Hopefully they can do a good job.

To be honest, the Boards of Directors I've had experience with (serving on or reporting to) have never thought themselves and their background as above that of the organisation's full time employees, including CEOs and financial controllers.

Serving on a Board is not a full-time job in itself, no matter the background of the Board they are reliant on the skills and advice of the people in the organisation's employ. No-one would want to work for a place where as a worker you do your best in say the financial reporting, strategy and recommendations, only to see some "experienced businessman" whizz in for the monthly meetings and follow their own whims.

I think the foucs on having 100% business acumen on a Board has been and still is overstated. For example many of the people who post on here would have the necessary business acumen to dissect reports, and question and analyse the data presented, through the experience in their daily jobs in a range of companies, offices etc - even if they don't realise it themselves. You don't have to be Alan Sugar to contribute usefully to a Board...

 

[forward pass]

Dream on. Why would a sponsor throw money at a S G Ball jumper ? No real benefit really when the games are watched by only a few hundred people tops. What you are suggesting is not corporate sponsorship but a donation. Money down the drain IMHO.

Now if they brought back junior footy to the stadium and had 4 or 5 games before the NRL, then it might be worth looking into.

The same reason companies sponsor junior soccer or league sides. They want to be involved in the sport and help develop juniors. My 10 year olds soccer team is sponsored by Radio Rentals.

And mate my Touch footy team has a sponsor - and if 5 people watch our match we marvel at the size of the crowd.

 

[emjaycee]

Maybe instead of fighting with Pirtek for naming/jersey rights, the new 3P introduced sponsors will look at one or more of these sponsorship options:

individual player sponsorshop ($5k per season)
corner post signage ($25k per season)
cheerleader sponsorship ($45k per season)
use of empty boxes (14 seat box $21k per season)
sideline signage ($24k for 42 metres per season)

So for a neat $125k you get:
2 players (1 NYC 1 NRL)
42 metres of signage + corner posts
naming rights of cheerleaders
14 seat box for client entertainment

If crowd averages go up to 18,000 per game x 10 home games = 180,000 'hits' or about 0.69c per hit which is a pretty good rate. Hit to sale conversion is dependant on your product (of course) but if it is a product widely available to Joe Public (KFC/Macca's/Coke/Borders/Aldi/etc) then you are in the realm of pretty good advertising spend and you get the use of the box as well.

The $125,000 goes into the revenue line of the FC and is a start I guess.

 

[emjaycee]

I think the focus on having 100% business acumen on a Board has been and still is overstated. For example many of the people who post on here would have the necessary business acumen to dissect reports, and question and analyse the data presented, through the experience in their daily jobs in a range of companies, offices etc - even if they don't realise it themselves. You don't have to be Alan Sugar to contribute usefully to a Board...

Bart, please dont encourage irresponsible builders any more than is necessary :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[bartman]

:lol:

Builders, computer help workers, retail managers, office/factory supervisors, security/transport co-ordinators, self-employed project managers or business people, retired publicans, spin/policy officers... to name but a few occupations where the skills used daily would be enough to be of use on a Board in their deliberations and responsibilities.

Regardless of professional backgrounds, having ideas and the desire to work together with the club's resources and staff for the greater good comes free to anyone. It's a trap for anyone to put Boards on pedestals - and also a trap for those elected onto them to distance themselves away from the participation, contribution and development of the little people (the members).

 

[Suitman]

:lol:

Builders, computer help workers, retail managers, office/factory supervisors, security/transport co-ordinators, self-employed project managers or business people, retired publicans, spin/policy officers... to name but a few occupations where the skills used daily would be enough to be of use on a Board in their deliberations and responsibilities.

Regardless of professional backgrounds, having ideas and the desire to work together with the club's resources and staff for the greater good comes free to anyone. It's a trap for anyone to put Boards on pedestals - and also a trap for those elected onto them to distance themselves away from the participation, contribution and development of the little people (the members).

Nicely put, Bart. You make much sense.


Suity

 

[The Engineers Room]

All these plans are well and good. But they have to win the control of the Leagues club otherwise the football club board will be useless.

 

[bartman]

All these plans are well and good. But they have to win the control of the Leagues club otherwise the football club board will be useless.

All the more reason to make sure people turn up and vote in April. (Or is it March as some newspapers reported?)

 

[strider]

interesting bit in mX (ie the insomnia fixer they give u on the train) where Leabeater is saying how he'd love to be the CEO of the Football club - not the League Club (not sure if it is sourced from somehwere else - as mX often does) .... and stuff about wanting Denis to stay on cos he has experience and costs alot to sack :lol: ..... tbh didn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling reading it

 

[fish eel]

interesting bit in mX (ie the insomnia fixer they give u on the train) where Leabeater is saying how he'd love to be the CEO of the Football club - not the League Club (not sure if it is sourced from somehwere else - as mX often does) .... and stuff about wanting Denis to stay on cos he has experience and costs alot to sack :lol: ..... tbh didn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling reading it

I was just going to post that myself!

 

[bartman]

I'll have to grab a copy down at the station in 5 mins or so... sounds like better train reading than draft amendments to the building codes.

 

[Parra Future]

They don't control the NRL side so they can't bring in sponsors for the NRL side.

What I would like to see, is for them to get one of their lined up sponsors to sponsor the Junior sides - Flegg, Harold Matthews etc. That money would go towards junior development and Pirtek money to the NRL side.

Sorry guys, not that simple at this point in time. I could be wrong, but I am led to believe that any income that comes into the FC means that the grant from the LC is lowered by that same amount. E.G, The new boys pull $100k from new sponsor, automatically, $100k is decreased from LC grant. Could be wrong, but I think that is how it works. We would rather wait until taking the LC. After that, the grant would become fixed each year so that whatever additional money the FC brought in, that would be a bonus that they could utilise in whatever other areas they see fit. The LC would still support the FC 1000%, but would not punish it by making money on its own.

 

[strider]

Sorry guys, not that simple at this point in time. I could be wrong, but I am led to believe that any income that comes into the FC means that the grant from the LC is lowered by that same amount. E.G, The new boys pull $100k from new sponsor, automatically, $100k is decreased from LC grant. Could be wrong, but I think that is how it works. We would rather wait until taking the LC. After that, the grant would become fixed each year so that whatever additional money the FC brought in, that would be a bonus that they could utilise in whatever other areas they see fit. The LC would still support the FC 1000%, but would not punish it by making money on its own.

sounds pretty logical to me! .... hell if the money isn't required immediately, the FC could always invest it in some way (safe option of course) for the future - nothing like cash in the bank

 

[Twizzle]

I'll have to grab a copy down at the station in 5 mins or so... sounds like better train reading than draft amendments to the building codes.

what could be more interesting than draft changes to the building code ?

 

[Twizzle]

sounds pretty logical to me! .... hell if the money isn't required immediately, the FC could always invest it in some way (safe option of course) for the future - nothing like cash in the bank

another residential development ?

good move