Round 7 V Souths

[darkbloom]

It's interesting that you mention Gould's spending. I think at the time of Gould's arrival, Panthers' rugby league needed money spent on it.

With the struggles of the licensed club operations over the preceding few years, funding to the footy club had diminished to the point they were trying to run it of the fumes of an oily rag. I think this needs to be factored when comparing Elliott v Gould eras.

It's a short term strategy and unfortunately sooner or later in a competitive environment, any "savings" from under-investment usually need to be repaid in the longer term.

Hopefully the footy club is back on track and the licensed club can afford an appropriate and sustainable level of ongoing footy club spend/investment over the next few years and into the future.

Oily rags must be pretty pricey in your neck of the woods. The spend in recent years is emphasised even more strongly by the massive increases in the NRL Grant - it now covers the total salary cap plus some of the administration costs.

In any case for all the investment what has it returned? The revenue generating areas of RL have not improved at all as a result of the investment.

In the name of balance - there was a very poor $30m investment by the licensed club of around $30m that caused serious problems that spilled into the Gould era - so, Gus is not alone in my assessment of excessive and damanging spending in our club.

The licensed club lost $6-7m last year - and it has outsourced its gaming, the primary driver of revenue/profit. Its success is dependent on the property portfoilio that has been built up over the years. That portfolio has rapidly diminished to finance the money you see as being needed by the development of the football team.

Yes, you do have to "repay" in action - a fact that Bill Shorten seems to be pushin right now. But you also have to repay spending that cannot produce a return.

Let's hope your last paragraph proves accurate but I not optimistic. Maybe the proposed Convention Centre will be the silver bullet.

 

[Abacus]

Oily rags must be pretty pricey in your neck of the woods. The spend in recent years is emphasised even more strongly by the massive increases in the NRL Grant - it now covers the total salary cap plus some of the administration costs.

In any case for all the investment what has it returned? The revenue generating areas of RL have not improved at all as a result of the investment.

In the name of balance - there was a very poor $30m investment by the licensed club of around $30m that caused serious problems that spilled into the Gould era - so, Gus is not alone in my assessment of excessive and damanging spending in our club.

The point I was trying to make is that you can't take most of the money out of an area of your business for a number of years (think 2007-2011), running all programs and systems down to meet the financial limitation and then expect to magically compete against the best in a competitive industry just by matching your competitors' spend. You will need to spend extra in order to bring those programs and systems to where they would/should be if the financial restrictions were not implemented.

The licensed club lost $6-7m last year - and it has outsourced its gaming, the primary driver of revenue/profit. Its success is dependent on the property portfoilio that has been built up over the years. That portfolio has rapidly diminished to finance the money you see as being needed by the development of the football team.

The licensed club is a basket case - no argument. The longer they try to maintain their business plan around gaming, the more they are digging their own grave.

I don't think I said that property should be sold to finance the football team. Just that the board and management of 10-12 years ago made some decisions regarding the football operations that needed undoing. You're asserting Gould was overspending - on a year by year basis, yes he was. My argument is that money needed to be spent IF we want a successful football operation.

Expecting significant revenue growth from rugby league in Sydney is nonsensical. Short of moving to a bigger stadium thereby increasing attendance, membership and eventually sponsorship (from increased market presence), there are limited other avenues for the football not-for-profit to generate investment returns other than on-field performance. Or relocation.

I don't think either of us are overly confident of future funding from the licensed club (with or without a convemtiom centre) - only hopeful.

 

[darkbloom]

The point I was trying to make is that you can't take most of the money out of an area of your business for a number of years (think 2007-2011), running all programs and systems down to meet the financial limitation and then expect to magically compete against the best in a competitive industry just by matching your competitors' spend. You will need to spend extra in order to bring those programs and systems to where they would/should be if the financial restrictions were not implemented.

The licensed club is a basket case - no argument. The longer they try to maintain their business plan around gaming, the more they are digging their own grave.

I don't think I said that property should be sold to finance the football team. Just that the board and management of 10-12 years ago made some decisions regarding the football operations that needed undoing. You're asserting Gould was overspending - on a year by year basis, yes he was. My argument is that money needed to be spent IF we want a successful football operation.

Expecting significant revenue growth from rugby league in Sydney is nonsensical. Short of moving to a bigger stadium thereby increasing attendance, membership and eventually sponsorship (from increased market presence), there are limited other avenues for the football not-for-profit to generate investment returns other than on-field performance. Or relocation.

I don't think either of us are overly confident of future funding from the licensed club (with or without a convemtiom centre) - only hopeful.

Yes I think on many points we are in fierce agreement - I guess my question comes down to what constitutes a "successful football operation".

My answer may be different to yours - I would say one that is financially sustainable in the long run. In the Sydney environment where losses are inevitable - that means one that doesn't place an unsustainable burden on its key financier.

Penrith has historically generally financed the football operation pretty well. Even the years to which you refer the minimum investment from the licensed club and associated subsidiaries was in excess of 1.5m. How it was spent may have been problems (eg selection of personnel etc)

Do we have a successful football operation now? If not, when will these spending years be converted to a successful club? I keep thinking that Gus' legacy will not be truly felt for another couple of years or more - when the academy and junior channels are in full swing.

This legacy may be positive - but it may also be that what has been used up to get to this point may be too much and we'll be paying it off rather than it paying us off.

Only time will tell.

In the meantime, let's hope they smash the Tigers in the next couple of hours.

 

[Abacus]

Yes I think on many points we are in fierce agreement - I guess my question comes down to what constitutes a "successful football operation".

My answer may be different to yours - I would say one that is financially sustainable in the long run. In the Sydney environment where losses are inevitable - that means one that doesn't place an unsustainable burden on its key financier.

Penrith has historically generally financed the football operation pretty well. Even the years to which you refer the minimum investment from the licensed club and associated subsidiaries was in excess of 1.5m. How it was spent may have been problems (eg selection of personnel etc)

Do we have a successful football operation now? If not, when will these spending years be converted to a successful club? I keep thinking that Gus' legacy will not be truly felt for another couple of years or more - when the academy and junior channels are in full swing.

This legacy may be positive - but it may also be that what has been used up to get to this point may be too much and we'll be paying it off rather than it paying us off.

Only time will tell.

In the meantime, let's hope they smash the Tigers in the next couple of hours.

I'd love to see the Panthers stay in Penrith. With the licensed club operating the way it has over the past 10-15 years, realistically, I don't see that happening. That was why I posited the statement as "IF".

Yes the funding was over $1.5m - it was also generally half (and up to a third) of what the direct competitors were funding at the same time. Hence the comparative diminishing of resources.

In respect of the legacy from Gus, if we reach the state where Yeo, JFH, RCG (if he ever pulls his finger out), Kikau and Cleary have played 5 yeara or so and we're bringing through the next junior crop (maybe the current SG Ball crew) to become a force, I think that was the vision for 80% of juniors. Despite the general criticism, its not something that can happen in 1 wave. Time will tell.

Anyway, not long now. C'MON PANTHERS!!!

 

[darkbloom]

I'd love to see the Panthers stay in Penrith. With the licensed club operating the way it has over the past 10-15 years, realistically, I don't see that happening. That was why I posited the statement as "IF".

Yes the funding was over $1.5m - it was also generally half (and up to a third) of what the direct competitors were funding at the same time. Hence the comparative diminishing of resources.

In respect of the legacy from Gus, if we reach the state where Yeo, JFH, RCG (if he ever pulls his finger out), Kikau and Cleary have played 5 yeara or so and we're bringing through the next junior crop (maybe the current SG Ball crew) to become a force, I think that was the vision for 80% of juniors. Despite the general criticism, its not something that can happen in 1 wave. Time will tell.

Anyway, not long now. C'MON PANTHERS!!!

Yep, the past 10-15 years have been very damaging - but particularly since 2007 when some decisions made made were for the wrong reasons (mainly board protecting their jackets) and were simply wrong.