The Case for Adelaide.....

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

What does Cam Smith or Bellamy gain by "lying" about being all for Perth or Adelaide expansion? If anything they would probably get more praise from the Sydney-centric league media for calling out against it. From most reports we've seen players for whatever reason like playing in these cities, and the flight isn't that bad, businessmen do it all the time.

The addition of more clubs means more job openings for proffesional rugby league players, the RLPA would likely be all for this

The RLPA only cares about extracting as much money as they can for the game's top players. The salary cap would need to be reduced to accommodate another 60 players across 2 expansion sides. The honchos at HQ aren't going to divert funds away from other areas to accommodate it.

Cam Smith is a great public speaker and performer who puts on a show for the media to protect his reputation. I don't see any sincerity in his speeches. He says the right things to win over the public and officials, but his actions on the field, especially when he doesn't get his way and malevolent use of wrestling holds to injure opponents, prove he is an entirely different person.

Smith and Bellamy aren't going to knock the Perth bid for the same reason a skilled poker player doesn't show his hand until he lays out his cards on the table. Talking down the bid would draw negative attention to the Storm. There's nothing to gain from giving the media a story that they can milk at every press conference.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

There’s always been plenty of support for a perth club from players and clubs, in fact the only person I have ever heard say in the last ten years that perth isnt a good idea is Vlandys!

id expect a perth club to be very multi cultural like the storm. Png. Fiji, nz and islands, english, qlnd, nsw. but we will have the advantage of getting some WA players through the system quicker.

Players and clubs talking it up is nothing more than diplomacy. The only thing players care about is getting as much money during their short careers.

Clubs view one another as competitors trying to poach their fans, corporate partners and players.

Brisbane 2 will only get over the line if it can guarantee 30 more players a job without driving down the salary cap and annual grant. I cannot see how the ARLC will find $23 million a year for a 17th team unless the broadcasters hand it to them. There's no way the QRL, NSWRL, RLPA and 16 clubs are going to agree to a reduction in their funding if Ch9 says 'sorry, we will not give you an extra $23 million per year'. If that's the requirement for Brisbane 2, which is a club Ch9 want because it will help their bottom line but don't want to fund, what chance does Perth have?

I doubt we will see a 17th team any time soon. If it does get the nod of approval then it will be due to PVL's superior businesses acumen.

 

[flippikat]

Brisbane 2 will only get over the line if it can guarantee 30 more players a job without driving down the salary cap and annual grant. I cannot see how the ARLC will find $23 million a year for a 17th team unless the broadcasters hand it to them. There's no way the QRL, NSWRL, RLPA and 16 clubs are going to agree to a reduction in their funding if Ch9 says 'sorry, we will not give you an extra $23 million per year'. If that's the requirement for Brisbane 2, which is a club Ch9 want because it will help their bottom line but don't want to fund, what chance does Perth have?

Ahh but the problem with just adding Brisbane 2 is that it just changes the nature of what we have. It's still 8 games per week (although with a pesky weekly bye) - just that one of them will be guaranteed to be a game in Brisbane.

Not sure how much that adds to a TV deal, and could just see the same cake divided 17 ways instead of 16.

To grow the cake (TV rights money), you need to add more content.. or a timeslot that's new. Adding Brisbane2 and Perth does this - extra game, new late night timeslot every fortnight.

The big question is whether this means that 18 clubs get a slice that's equal (or better) than what the 16 clubs currently get.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Ahh but the problem with just adding Brisbane 2 is that it just changes the nature of what we have. It's still 8 games per week (although with a pesky weekly bye) - just that one of them will be guaranteed to be a game in Brisbane.

Not sure how much that adds to a TV deal, and could just see the same cake divided 17 ways instead of 16.

To grow the cake (TV rights money), you need to add more content.. or a timeslot that's new. Adding Brisbane2 and Perth does this - extra game, new late night timeslot every fortnight.

The big question is whether this means that 18 clubs get a slice that's equal (or better) than what the 16 clubs currently get.

Wouldn't NZ2 be better for scheduling and the networks?

Perth does not provide a time slot that will draw money in the eastern states and NZ.

NZ2 will allow the NRL and Foxtel to have a Super Sunday consisting of 3 games, with each Sunday 4pm NZST being a home game for the Warriors/NZ2. Great for Sky Sports NZ, allows Foxtel to screen games at 2pm, 4pm and 6pm.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Wouldn't NZ2 be better for scheduling and the networks?

Perth does not provide a time slot that will draw money in the eastern states and NZ.

NZ2 will allow the NRL and Foxtel to have a Super Sunday consisting of 3 games, with each Sunday 4pm NZST being a home game for the Warriors/NZ2. Great for Sky Sports NZ, allows Foxtel to screen games at 2pm, 4pm and 6pm.

Hence a reason why Adelaide has an advantage over Perth. Will suit every time slot on the schedule whereas Perth (and NZ2) will not. 30min time difference versus 2hrs for both those. So the possible exception would be the 6pm Friday slot, which will be 5.30pm Adelaide.

I’d be interested to know what slot they’d make for a 9th game but assume it’d be a 3rd game on Sunday .. eg 2pm, 4pm, 6pm as suggested. Or would they go a 4th game on Saturday.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Hence a reason why Adelaide has an advantage over Perth. Will suit every time slot on the schedule whereas Perth (and NZ2) will not. 30min time difference versus 2hrs for both those. So the possible exception would be the 6pm Friday slot, which will be 5.30pm Adelaide.

I’d be interested to know what slot they’d make for a 9th game but assume it’d be a 3rd game on Sunday .. eg 2pm, 4pm, 6pm as suggested. Or would they go a 4th game on Saturday.

The only other possible slot is Monday night. With that they could then go to 20 teams, with the 2pm Sunday game played each week in NZ.

Adelaide would be an ideal place for a relocated Sydney club. It's just a matter of getting the SA gov to throw enough dough at a club to get them to make the move.

 

[LeagueXIII]

No Sydney team will move to Adelaide, it would be the death of them.

We will never get an 18th team until News give us the green light.

 

[mongoose]

No Sydney team will move to Adelaide, it would be the death of them.

We will never get an 18th team until News give us the green light.

It depends, a Sydney team might relocate if the NRL were to offer a larger grant for the first 5 years or so. Say a Sydney club becomes insolvent and go to the NRL for a handout. NRL says we will give you more money if you relocate.

I'm not against relocation under the right circumstances. I think with the right people in charge it could work, it's just that the NRL and its clubs are not good at putting the right people in charge.

 

[LeagueXIII]

It depends, a Sydney team might relocate if the NRL were to offer a larger grant for the first 5 years or so. Say a Sydney club becomes insolvent and go to the NRL for a handout. NRL says we will give you more money if you relocate.

I'm not against relocation under the right circumstances. I think with the right people in charge it could work, it's just that the NRL and its clubs are not good at putting the right people in charge.

Wishful thinking....Who's at risk

 

[greenBV4]

Wishful thinking....Who's at risk

I reakon we'll find out after this years financial statements

 

[The Great Dane]

It depends, a Sydney team might relocate if the NRL were to offer a larger grant for the first 5 years or so. Say a Sydney club becomes insolvent and go to the NRL for a handout. NRL says we will give you more money if you relocate.

I'm not against relocation under the right circumstances. I think with the right people in charge it could work, it's just that the NRL and its clubs are not good at putting the right people in charge.

They couldn't get anybody to move the last two times they tried that, even teams whom by rights should have folded at the time.

The problem with that strategy is that the clubs know that when push come to shove the NRL doesn't have the balls to force them to relocate or replace them, so they will always bail them out because they need X amount of teams for the competition to go ahead and to fulfil their contractual agreements.

 

[The Great Dane]

Players and clubs talking it up is nothing more than diplomacy. The only thing players care about is getting as much money during their short careers.

Clubs view one another as competitors trying to poach their fans, corporate partners and players.

Brisbane 2 will only get over the line if it can guarantee 30 more players a job without driving down the salary cap and annual grant. I cannot see how the ARLC will find $23 million a year for a 17th team unless the broadcasters hand it to them. There's no way the QRL, NSWRL, RLPA and 16 clubs are going to agree to a reduction in their funding if Ch9 says 'sorry, we will not give you an extra $23 million per year'. If that's the requirement for Brisbane 2, which is a club Ch9 want because it will help their bottom line but don't want to fund, what chance does Perth have?

I doubt we will see a 17th team any time soon. If it does get the nod of approval then it will be due to PVL's superior businesses acumen.

Where has this $23 mil number come from?

Seriously you've just pulled it out of your arse, but even then, if the NRL really wanted to they could easily afford an extra $23 mil a year.

 

[Perth Red]

Hence a reason why Adelaide has an advantage over Perth. Will suit every time slot on the schedule whereas Perth (and NZ2) will not. 30min time difference versus 2hrs for both those. So the possible exception would be the 6pm Friday slot, which will be 5.30pm Adelaide.

I’d be interested to know what slot they’d make for a 9th game but assume it’d be a 3rd game on Sunday .. eg 2pm, 4pm, 6pm as suggested. Or would they go a 4th game on Saturday.

Perth 6pm Sunday night is ideal every other week. Means an afternoon KO in Perth which will be good for crowds and quality of football.

 

[Perth Red]

Where has this $23 mil number come from?

Seriously you've just pulled it out of your arse, but even then, if the NRL really wanted to they could easily afford an extra $23 mil a year.

Like most of his stuff lol. He still hasn't grasped that the football club grant is $13million. He still thinks, despite being told, that clubs get $13mill PLUS $10mill for salary cap. If you don't even know that about the game then what hope he has a clue about anything?

The game needs around $30mil a year to expand by two teams. If a ninth game content is worth $30mill a year is the big question that the NRL seems destined never to be able to answer. Given the NRL currently gets $340mill (pre Vid) a year from TV and spends around $200mill running the NRL top tier the money was there already if the game had a bolder vision and plan.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Like most of his stuff lol. He still hasn't grasped that the football club grant is $13million. He still thinks, despite being told, that clubs get $13mill PLUS $10mill for salary cap. If you don't even know that about the game then what hope he has a clue about anything?

The game needs around $30mil a year to expand by two teams. If a ninth game content is worth $30mill a year is the big question that the NRL seems destined never to be able to answer. Given the NRL currently gets $340mill (pre Vid) a year from TV and spends around $200mill running the NRL top tier the money was there already if the game had a bolder vision and plan.

The money that covers the salary cap comes from the ARLC!

I never said that the $10 million for the salary cap, allocated to each club by the ARLC, can be spent on anything other than player payments. But it does come out of the ARLC's budget. That means each new team will take $23 million out of the coffers, even though only $13 million can be spent on the football department.

I've always said that the $23 million needed for each club is made up of $10 million to cover the salary cap plus the $13 million for the annual grant that is guaranteed to each club. PR obviously doesn't know his maths, just like he cannot spell for shit or comprehend anything he reads, and probably doesn't even remember John Grant guaranteeing that the annual grant will be 130% of the salary cap.

To say that each new club will only take $13 million out of the coffers is BS. I'll repeat myself. They're only allowed to spend $13 million on the football department, but overall each club is taking $23 million out of the coffers.

I'll break it down even more so our mate can understand it.

$23 million per club x 16 clubs = $368 million.

$23 million x 2 = $46 million.

Adding two extra teams mean that $46 million will be needed to cover the salary cap and annual grant, not $30 million like our mate from Perth reckons.

If there was all this extra money lying around, unused, then the RLPA and 16 clubs would demand an increase to the salary cap and annual grant. To think it's just sitting there collecting dust is BS. Why else would they take out a bloody loan and be so eager to get the season restarted by late May?

The NRL Club Funding Agreement Saga


In August 2015, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the NRL clubs want an increase in their annual NRL grant from $7.5 million a year to $12 million if the salary cap rises to $10 million a year in 2018 – or an annual payment of more than $2 million in excess of their total wages bill for players. The clubs are also expected to demand an increased say in the running of the NRL

At the same time, the clubs rejected News Limited speculation that the clubs were considering a breakaway competition, despite not having signed participation agreements beyond 2017.

Fairfax reported on November 17 that NRL clubs want their annual grants increased to 130 per cent of the salary cap and changes to the constitution to give them a greater say in the make-up of the ARL Commission.Those are the key points in a list of demands drawn up ahead of a potentially explosive meeting on Wednesday between a delegation of club bosses and the NRL’s negotiating team, headed by ARL chairman John Grant.The clubs have devised a list of demands, which include:

• annual grants of 130 per cent of the amount for total player payments;
• a 30 per cent share of NRL profits;
• a review of the ARLC constitution;
• NRL licences for an indefinite period;
• an independent review of the NRL’s costs, and;
• a say in approving the NRL’s budget;
• Review of the ratchet clauses that link increases in the salary cap to increases in player wages;
• A vehicle to share digital rights revenue based on the model used in Major League Baseball;
• $3 million offered by the NRL but with no conditions attached.

On December 3rd, Fairfax media reported that the governing body has agreed to provide the clubs with an extra $100 million from 2018 to 2022, while the same amount will be invested in grassroots-to-elite funding. Clubs have also been granted their request of grants totalling 130 per cent of player payments over that period, plus $1.5 million per club from 2016 to 2022 to invest in their businesses.

http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=2001​

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Perth 6pm Sunday night is ideal every other week. Means an afternoon KO in Perth which will be good for crowds and quality of football.

Did you think before you wrote this?

There's been numerous 6pm games on Sunday nights this year. It's nothing new and Perth doesn't offer anything that cannot be done on the east coast. It doesn't offer anything to the broadcasters. It might be okay for crowds, but so would a game played every Sunday arvo at 4pm NZST. Perth can only play at home roughly once a fortnight.

 

[Perth Red]

No! how many times do you have to be told it is NOT $23million that comes from the NRL to each club! Clubs get $13million. The salary cap is $10million and players are paid out of club revenue, NOT directly by the NRL. Sheesh, mate get a clue. You can clearly see in the NRL annual report what clubs are getting.

A ninth game allows the Sunday 6pm to become a permanent fixture and for Fox to have a Super Sunday to match its super Saturday. Perth would be a great spot for the extra time slot on a Sunday evening every fortnight as it doesnt compromise crowd attendance or quality of football. Sunday 6pm games have been rating pretty well on Fox when played this year.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

No! how many times do you have to be told it is NOT $23million that comes from the NRL to each club! Clubs get $13million. The salary cap is $10million and players are paid out of club revenue, NOT directly by the NRL. Sheesh, mate get a clue. You can clearly see in the NRL annual report what clubs are getting.

A ninth game allows the Sunday 6pm to become a permanent fixture and for Fox to have a Super Sunday to match its super Saturday. Perth would be a great spot for the extra time slot on a Sunday evening every fortnight as it doesnt compromise crowd attendance or quality of football. Sunday 6pm games have been rating pretty well on Fox when played this year.

I had you on ignore until yesterday, so didn't see any of your posts.

I thought it was run like the pro sports leagues in America that have salary caps.

So the clubs have roughly $3-4 million left over to spend on their department after player payments?

 

[Perth Red]

NRL gives them $13mill. Players salaries account for around $10mill expenditure. Clubs then spend whatever else they earn on a whole load of stuff. Most clubs total revenue is in the $25-30million annual range (Broncos the big exception with a revenue over $55million). Football dept spending is supposed to be capped at $6mill from this year, but we shall see if NRL actually audits it in future.

So in summary
NRL $13mill grant

$10mill players salary
$6mill football dept cap
sht load of other stuff anywhere between $9mill and $35mill!

Personally Id like to see a total spend cap of around $22-24million. Stops the arms race, makes clubs more viable for investors, makes expasnion much less risky and clubs can invest surpluses in assets and future funds in case of dire times. Clubs could apply for more expenditure in certain areas if they have revenue to achieve it (ie game day experience, corporate sales etc)

 

[The Great Dane]

Personally Id like to see a total spend cap of around $22-24million. Stops the arms race, makes clubs more viable for investors, makes expasnion much less risky and clubs can invest surpluses in assets and future funds in case of dire times. Clubs could apply for more expenditure in certain areas if they have revenue to achieve it (ie game day experience, corporate sales etc)

Yeah but it also holds the strong clubs back to the median which is a double edged sword.

Sure it means that the weaker clubs can keep up without sending themselves broke to do it, but it also means that the stronger clubs can never truly meet their potential.

I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad idea, in fact I think it'd be better than current circumstances, I'm just saying that their are negatives that should be considered.