RL independence day arrives - NRL Independent Commission announced for November 1

[Baron Vo Mandor]

The game will expand. Your opinion is wrong.

When have I said it shouldn't?

But lets get what we've got consolidated before even thinking of bring in new teams.

Just common sense.

 

[Red&BlackBear]

And if thats the case, I really can't see the clubs backing another NSW club for expansion - its a big nail in the Bears coffin. Lets face it, the Bears best chance is if the Sharks fold. Notice the sudden desire of Bears fans to reintroduce criteria for licences?

You couldn't be more wrong. If anything the NRL will want bids/new teams who will become self sustainable and have a solid fan base to insure long term survival and growth. They'll need new teams who aren't needing massive cash influxes to keep their heads above water, teams who have a great business and financial model to guarantee that they don't suffer the same problems as a few current clubs. This is great news for the Central Coast Bears bid as we have all this in place already. The criteria some fans are suggestiong has more to do with exposing which currents clubs are viable today and into the future to make sure that the game's resources and finances are used to grow the game and shore up grassroots development and not to prop up basket cases time and time again.

 

[Russell Crowe's Band]

cronullas finances are what they are.

our survival is contingent on the 3a development proposal being approved/not in march next year.

 

[Brutus]

Why are the Dragons struggling financially?

You'd think they'd be a powerhouse.

 

[Quidgybo]

A thought. The clubs are claiming this is how much they need so they can all break even. Assuming the money could be found, perhaps the NRL should respond with an offer that would see the top 10 financially performing clubs break even and leave it to the remaining clubs to pick up their act. Any extra-ordinary grant increase should be to underpin the financial stability of the competition as a whole, not abrogate the responsibility of poorly managed clubs to get their own houses in order or pursue other initiatives to increase revenues (ie. memberships, attendences etc).

Leigh.

 

[ozjet1]

cronullas finances are what they are.

our survival is contingent on the 3a development proposal being approved/not in march next year.

if clubs cant be sustainable from football operations, then they have no place in the top tier league of any sport

in saying that, a significant part of football operations revenue is the league distribution which is not what it should be because of the conflicts of interest the parties had on the sale of the most recent broadcasting rights.

the clubs are aware of this, realise the league has had a massive governance issue and been seriously mismanaged under the stewardship of the current partnership and Gallop. the fact is, the partnership has not maximised the value of the league. the key stakeholders have had different objectives throughout the life of the NRL which has led to questionable decisions which favour particular stakeholders and not the business of the league overall. if the broadcast rights were sold at the value they are actually worth, then 90% of the league wouldnt be in the financial hole theyre in.

the clubs are banding together, telling the league that theyve f**ked up, and that if the key stakeholders continue to have divergent objectives, then the whole system is going to collapse.

the English premier league was essentially a breakaway league of the top 20 Div 1 clubs of the FA at the time and for similar financial & undervaluing reasons. this appears to be heading the same way.

 

[Russell Crowe's Band]

if clubs cant be sustainable from football operations, then they have no place in the top tier league of any sport

they are running a small budget and due to financial cutbacks and increased membership/sponsorship through 09-10-11 ..i think we lost 3 M in FY end 2009, 1m end 2010....id say we will be close to breaking even this season.

the debt lies with the Leagues club. which owns the land, debt etc.
therefor if the leagues club went under...the footy club would exist through the year and be able to make player payments etc. however they would be essentially homeless and f**ked.
currently our footy operations is so low we cant compete with the other clubs in the league.

what the development does is this.

the 10 million up front from the developer (essentially an upfront trade for sole the rights to the first 314 property dwellings, due to the banks pressure) cuts the debt the LC has to a serviceable level.

the sharks will then receive a yearly income stream from retail rent, as well as increaded foot traffic to the leages club which would be completely renovated.

the club would also get percentage of sale of dwellings after the 314th sold.

its not the cash cow spruiked for years, however it is a realistic use of our land that benifits the community as a whole.

also makes us a stronger prospect for increased sponsorship.

in regards to the IC, if the clubs are all behind a break away...you cant blame the sharks. they could just as easily cut us out of it and that be it.
unless DI is a super charismatic manipulator and has everone eating out of his hand....

 

[Perth Red]

A thought. The clubs are claiming this is how much they need so they can all break even. Assuming the money could be found, perhaps the NRL should respond with an offer that would see the top 10 financially performing clubs break even and leave it to the remaining clubs to pick up their act. Any extra-ordinary grant increase should be to underpin the financial stability of the competition as a whole, not abrogate the responsibility of poorly managed clubs to get their own houses in order or pursue other initiatives to increase revenues (ie. memberships, attendences etc).

Leigh.

This is the farce of the argument. Clubs are making losses because they are trying to play catch up to the big boys in the league. If every club gets the same increase it won't make a bit of difference.
lets take the premiers as an example. They made a "loss" of $2mill this year (or at least that was the amount their backer agreed to put in to cover income shortfall). Now lets say there budget was $16mill for sake of argument, that means their other income was $14mill + $2mill (loss). Now did they have to spend $16mill? No but they decided to be competitive against the clubs that have incomes of $16mill+. Lets say every club gets $3mill extra. Now Manly can operate on a budget of $17mill and break even but they will still be behind clubs with bigger budgets, or they can spend $19mill and keep pace with those clubs that had $16mill+ income but now have $19mill+ income. They are no better off in effect unless they decide to spend less than the others and take the hit on the field because of it.

Unless every team was on the same operating income, or teams with lower incomes get bigger grants, then there will always be disaprity and some clubs will choose to spend more than they have to try and win a GF. This is the stupidity of suggesting we wait to expand until all clubs are financially secure, it won't ever happen due to disparity in incomes!

If I was the NRL I'd want clubs to open their books to them and show where the expenditure is as I still struggle to see how it is necessary to spend $10mill+ on the non direct football salary side of operations. Stop paying ex players to be water boys might be start!

 

[Beowulf]

Do you want a tissue mate? Sounds like it got messy. You don't expand when 90% of your business is loosing money each and every year, pretty simple.

When 90% of your business is losing money you cut out those products that have no prospects of adding value to the business in the future, and review products that will add value to the business in the future. Its the time you make the hard decisions otherwise things will only get worse or repeat themselves in the near future. Its actually an exciting time for a business, because they can justify making tough decisions in search of potentially lucrative opportunities. The riskiest course is to maintain the status quo.

Exciting times ahead for the expansion bid teams....

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

If clubs dont "try to be competitive with the big boys" they wont win many match's.

Then.
- Crowds will drop off.
- Won't attract sponsors.
- Won't sell as much merchandise.

To me they'd be in an even worse position, so I don't get this don't spend it if you can't afford it, because if they don't and do shithouse then they'll be even worse off.

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

When 90% of your business is losing money you cut out those products that have no prospects of adding value to the business in the future, and review products that will add value to the business in the future. Its the time you make the hard decisions otherwise things will only get worse or repeat themselves in the near future. Its actually an exciting time for a business, because they can justify making tough decisions in search of potentially lucrative opportunities. The riskiest course is to maintain the status quo.

Exciting times ahead for the expansion bid teams....

So if we rush in 4-5 teams next year we can have a 7 team comp?

Yeah that works. As my post above says, lets make all teams competitive and financially viable then worry about expanding.

 

[Beowulf]

This is the farce of the argument. Clubs are making losses because they are trying to play catch up to the big boys in the league. If every club gets the same increase it won't make a bit of difference.
lets take the premiers as an example. They made a "loss" of $2mill this year (or at least that was the amount their backer agreed to put in to cover income shortfall). Now lets say there budget was $16mill for sake of argument, that means their other income was $14mill + $2mill (loss). Now did they have to spend $16mill? No but they decided to be competitive against the clubs that have incomes of $16mill+. Lets say every club gets $3mill extra. Now Manly can operate on a budget of $17mill and break even but they will still be behind clubs with bigger budgets, or they can spend $19mill and keep pace with those clubs that had $16mill+ income but now have $19mill+ income. They are no better off in effect unless they decide to spend less than the others and take the hit on the field because of it.

Unless every team was on the same operating income, or teams with lower incomes get bigger grants, then there will always be disaprity and some clubs will choose to spend more than they have to try and win a GF. This is the stupidity of suggesting we wait to expand until all clubs are financially secure, it won't ever happen due to disparity in incomes!

True enough. Manly have to spend above its earn to survive. With no sponsors, fans limited to an ageing population on an isolated strip of land containing only 250K people, universally disliked outside their enclave and having a decaying stadium and few junior teams (only Watmough left of local products through their system), unless they are top 4 every year and packing out Brookvale they are screwed. With Dessie going and probably a few of the key players as well, it will be tough for them more than any other team. Whilst ever they exist, they will be treading water at best financially and relying on handouts.

Great football operation however (at least until 2 weeks ago), I concede.

 

[El Diablo]

Only 4 comments published on the Daily Crap so far. Probably havent been going the way they wanted.

and look at the comments they do allow

only 7 made and these are 3 http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...eace-declared/comments-e6frexnr-1226165305210

dave of vic Posted at 7:56 AM Today

and this is why the nrl will forever be a 2nd rate sport in this country look at afl salary cap and dividends to their clubs and money in bank nrl premiers are broke lol

Comment 3 of 7
Elbogrease of Wodonga, Vic Posted at 8:04 AM Today

Just glad i'm a Swans man. AFL has it all over rugby, League & Union. League is constantly in struggle town and does naught but moan.

Comment 4 of 7
Ivan Schloeffel of Dubbo Posted at 8:14 AM Today

Go the Wallabies

 

[Lossy]

When 90% of your business is losing money you cut out those products that have no prospects of adding value to the business in the future, and review products that will add value to the business in the future. Its the time you make the hard decisions otherwise things will only get worse or repeat themselves in the near future. Its actually an exciting time for a business, because they can justify making tough decisions in search of potentially lucrative opportunities. The riskiest course is to maintain the status quo.

Exciting times ahead for the expansion bid teams....

To a large extent, yes.

Seems to me that the NRL learned a lesson from culling teams before and is reticent to travel that path again, and will choose the path of less resistance, allowing teams to die-off/relocate/merge. So the NRL has been understandably coy about expansion for good reason.

Meeting the club's demands right now risks preventing the natural attrition they seek.

 

[Perth Red]

If clubs dont "try to be competitive with the big boys" they wont win many match's.

Then.
- Crowds will drop off.
- Won't attract sponsors.
- Won't sell as much merchandise.

To me they'd be in an even worse position, so I don't get this don't spend it if you can't afford it, because if they don't and do shithouse then they'll be even worse off.

But there in lies the problem! Giving all clubs an extra $3mill a year won;t make a bit of diference to their sustainability long term if they keep spending what they haven't got to keep pace.

As I said there are only three answers:
1. You subsidise clubs with lower incomes so they can compete without going broke aka the AFL ticket levy model
2. You cut teams that can't reach a certain income level and replace them with clubs that can
3. Poorer Clubs find ways to increase their incomes to catch up to richer clubs

Giving all clubs an extra $X amount of a year will make NO DIFFERENCE!

 

[Beowulf]

So if we rush in 4-5 teams next year we can have a 7 team comp?

Yeah that works. As my post above says, lets make all teams competitive and financially viable then worry about expanding.

Unless you believe in communism, you cannot make this a level playing field. 3 or 4 of the existing teams will always be financially weak due to demographics/marketability. The IC can identify which 'products' need to be maintained and which are expendable. St George-Illawarra for example need to be protected or assisted, even if it means an administrator.

Whilst ever they can pay their way I agree teams shouldn't be culled, but if they are an identified 'expendable' bracket, they'll have less latitude than others.

4 or 5 won't fall over next week, but 2 or 3 will fall over 1-15 years....I'm sure its these clubs (plus those privately owned by other than News) that are pushing the ambit claim the hardest.

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

Unless you believe in communism, you cannot make this a level playing field. 3 or 4 of the existing teams will always be financially weak due to demographics/marketability. The IC can identify which 'products' need to be maintained and which are expendable. St George-Illawarra for example need to be protected or assisted, even if it means an administrator.

Whilst ever they can pay their way I agree teams shouldn't be culled, but if they are an identified 'expendable' bracket, they'll have less latitude than others.

4 or 5 won't fall over next week, but 2 or 3 will fall over 1-15 years....I'm sure its these clubs (plus those privately owned by other than News) that are pushing the ambit claim the hardest.

Actually you can, thats what a salary cap was brought in for otherwise we'd just let clubs spend whatever the hell they want.

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

Good discussions here BTW and good too see it isn't getting personal.

Well done to one and all on that regard.

 

[ozjet1]

they are running a small budget and due to financial cutbacks and increased membership/sponsorship through 09-10-11 ..i think we lost 3 M in FY end 2009, 1m end 2010....id say we will be close to breaking even this season.

the debt lies with the Leagues club. which owns the land, debt etc.
therefor if the leagues club went under...the footy club would exist through the year and be able to make player payments etc. however they would be essentially homeless and f**ked.
currently our footy operations is so low we cant compete with the other clubs in the league.

what the development does is this.

the 10 million up front from the developer (essentially an upfront trade for sole the rights to the first 314 property dwellings, due to the banks pressure) cuts the debt the LC has to a serviceable level.

the sharks will then receive a yearly income stream from retail rent, as well as increaded foot traffic to the leages club which would be completely renovated.

the club would also get percentage of sale of dwellings after the 314th sold.

its not the cash cow spruiked for years, however it is a realistic use of our land that benifits the community as a whole.

also makes us a stronger prospect for increased sponsorship.

in regards to the IC, if the clubs are all behind a break away...you cant blame the sharks. they could just as easily cut us out of it and that be it.
unless DI is a super charismatic manipulator and has everone eating out of his hand....

as i said, sustainable from it's core business of football operations. that's what every football club needs to achieve to continue it's participation in the top tier of the league in the future.

i understand that all these leagues club deals and funding issues are the reality at the moment, but football clubs will need to be sustainable from their own football activities and not the activities of the leagues club, as the competition continues to grow as we all should expect. the onus has to be placed on the football clubs to prove that they are a viable business in the league. they must be able to field competitive teams in the elite league while ensuring the revenue they generates from the league distribution, corporate sponsorships, ticketed memberships, gameday, merchandising & other football income covers the costs of the salary cap, football dept, admin, training facilities, gameday, junior development programs and other football costs. their must be incentive to improve these facets of the business rather than just relying on leagues club handouts.

im not advocating kicking out the sharks. until the league get a broadcast deal which is free from conflicts of interest and what the rights are worth, then there really is no claim to kick any football club out. the competition is at this junction right now because of the poor management of the NRL, not necessarily just that of the football clubs.

 

[ozjet1]

Good discussions here BTW and good too see it isn't getting personal.

Well done to one and all on that regard.

i dont believe it, i wont believe it.