There is a stench of death and decay in the News/NRL!

[imported_Beast]

I think it is now time for the many of you I recognise on this site who have been active and loyal in their support and praise of the current league regime, the News/NRL, to acknowledge now that all is NOT what it seems.
We are having to put up with statements from the village idiot in Moffett, and the village turd in Malcolm Noad that the News/NRL cannot afford a 16th team in the comp.
Now I call on some of you to refresh my memory from the period of December/January/February 2001 and reiterate the supposed record breaking sponsorship and tv deal, pay and free to air, that was to have league as the pinnacle of sport in this country. I recall we were bombarded by the News Ltd press with rubbish of how the league coffers are overflowing and all is well.
Now it is July 2001, a few months down the track and the News/NRL cannot afford a 16th team in the comp. They tell us there are not enough players to sustain a 16th team. They tell that some of the clubs passed fit under the bullshit criteria are very close to falling over.
My query is where are these great sums of money we heard about earlier in the year.
Has it it all gone into News Ltd coffers to attempt to cover their excesses during the SL days.
They are spending almost $80 million on their administration.
Cannot they spend a bit on promoting league, we see nothing of that during the year.
How is league going to expand to survive if the governing body is deathriding the game by saying their is a 'dearth of players".
My personal interest is the Bears.
I hope they hang about in First Division next year, clear their debts which they will do,and then compel the News/NRL to reinstate them into the comp by 2003.
I am wondering which of the clubs struggling will be "clinically ' dead by the end of 2002..will it be Cronulla, the j/vs, NQ, Newcastle, Melbourne.
It is not a very pretty or very positive picture. Does anybody agree, and if not why not?

 

[legend]

Beast, I have tried replying to this thread twice and it has stuffed up twice so I am extremely pissed off. I will reply later and make sure I copy my work before I send it.

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

Rugby League is now a fully owned subsidary of Newscorp. As such it is doing fine. It is in the interests of Newscorp to maximise profits while reducing costs to a minimum. Some people have estimated that the NRL will have a surplus of 36 million dollars this year (estimated because Moffet will not release the figures). Much of this surplus will go to Newscorp in dividends.
The clubs are run as independant entities and some of these are not profitable. Newscorp prop up these clubs to keep the whole product viable.
What is Newscorp getting from the deal? They are starting to get a monetary return from the NRL itself, but the main reason they want Rugby League is because it sells pay TV. Pay TV is developing into a billion dollar industry in this country and the No 1 reason people give for signing up for pay TV is to view Rugby League.
Reducing the number of teams reduces the cost of running Rugby League as a business. The ideal situation for Newscorp is to have as few teams as possible representing as much area as possible. If they could get everyone in Sydney following just a few sides they would have the ideal product. Growth area such as NZ, NQ and Melbourne are useful for their purposes of selling pay TV to new areas. Proping up the clubs in these areas is good business. Newscorp throws them a few million and sells tens or even hundreds of million worth of pay TV.
Souths, Norths and Manly are not teams they want to pay for.
All this is well known, but it is worth stating I think.
Newscorp will prop up the unviable clubs while they are making big dollars out of the game in other areas. The minute they don't see a dollar to be made they will cut League loose, whichmay not be that bad a thing when it happens. The clubs are still independant entities and will survive without the NRL and Newscorp. Running costs at the clubs are being reduced with the salary cap etc, so most clubs will be viable at some time in the future.

 

[legend]

Great reply roopy. I can see where you are coming from but to me if the CEO's of most clubs and the NRL powerbrokers were working in anything else but league they would all be sacked for gross imcompetence. The game needs sixteen sides and one of those should be on the Central Coast but the NRL simply want to surrender that area for the sake of 200k per club. If the clubs had any initiative they would roll out membership drives like your Knights did so they can easily fund that shrotfall. Why would you also knock back a man who has come cap in hand with the millions required to fund a club? The Central Coast would become self sufficient in the not too distant future and would provide ample juniors and the area has some of the best facilities in the country. North Power is made for RL.

I am finding I am becoming very negative about the game and often ponder when will it all end or what next for the NRL in terms of fiascos and disasters. We have given the other codes such a headstart and we need to stop the rot now. Step 1 has already been accomplished with Souths reinstatemnet and Step 2 is the return of the Manly and Norths to create 16 teams. the game will have to have 20 sooner or later if the NRL wants to crack W.A and S.A and we also need anothe side for SE QLD.

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

Legend,
I totally agree that the agenda you put forward is the best for League, and the agenda I put forward is the best for Newscorp.
That is the problem. Newscorp want the game to be popular but at the lowest possible cost and in the widest possible area, while the best thing for League is too have the game as big as possible in as many places as possible.
I don't like what is happening much, but we have to work with the cards we have been delt.
We must get the most we can out of Newscorp before they inevitably cut us loose.

 

[imported_Beast]

Roopy,
Just a couple of points.
Pay tv is not and never will be a billion dollar industry in Oz. We do not have the population base or the advertising revenue to generate that sort of figure. The latest figures I saw for Foxtel is that they appear to have a majority of the market, they have reduced their debt, but their debt for start up costs and running costs is still in excess of $200 odd million. They are many years away from any type of profit, if at all.
Couple with the fact the Stokes through his C7 pay tv are suing the Fox/Telstra Consortium to get acess to the cable for their interests and also the ACCC is making a major inquiry into the conduct of News/ Telstra and PBL and the possibilities that they are in breach of Trade Practices provisions as regards their pay tv ventures.
It is far from plain sailing for News.
The fact that the News/NRL must rely on misleading and deceptive conduct in the running of league again highlights the fact that they may be compelled to jump before theyr are pushed

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

Beast,
By billion dollar business I mean turnover, not profit.
By my quick calculations (based on what I pay) they will need to sell about 1.8 million subscriptions for a billion dollar turnover. I think that is achievable.
Newscorp are still in the red by a long way over League, but they will eventually make their money back with interest. That's why they are still involved. They may be bastards, but they are not fools. If they had no chance of making money they would cut their loses and get out quick smart.

 

[Cronulla_Mania]

I'll take a different view on this and say that NRL/News definitely has the $$$. The facts are that Moffett and the NRL are trying to rationalise and bring down costs to an acceptable level. If the NRL and individual teams kept spending at the rates they were in 1998-99, then we would be down to a 4 team comp by next year. Im not going to bring up old wounds (we all know what happened), but the NRL and clubs definitely needed to rationalise or else the game would be 6ft under by now...
They have wads of cash, but moffo will never admit to it. I can't believe that people can even speculate on HOW much that have, but the facts are with approximately $100m worth of revenue coming into the game each year, they have got to have money.
That said, it would be great to see Norths (Central Coast) bears back in the comp....so what do they do?? Geez, its a tough decision, but if norths get back in then we will see st george, illawarra, wests and balmain all staking claims to get back in. I have also heard that the gold coast and newtown would love another opportunity....so where does it all stop?? It would get back to the '2 many sydney teams' argument, which is quite valid....
MFC.

 

[imported_Beast]

Roopy.
On your figures then it is possible they may get a large turnover.
And yes they are definitely bastards, I think they would admit that themselves, however News ltd have been known to utilise loss making operations for their dubious tax purposes.
We shall see.
MFC.
I agree that the spending in the period you nominated was madness and not sustainable, and that costs must be reduced, however the cost savings must begin in the administrations of clubs and the governing body. The figure of $80 millionfor the NRL is completely unacceptable and cannot be defended.
As for the other clubs wanting to get back in, Norths will get back in, of that I am sure, they will probably have to use the Courts but that is the fault of the News/NRL. They have money, juniors, infrastructure and very healthy support and would attract the corporate support necessary, there is no reasonable or rational reason for excluding them.
Instead of being negative about the clamourings of these other clubs wanting a part, I prefer to consider that these clubs have something to offer, if they are ignored or put down then that merely plays into the hands of those competing with league. It seems everyone acknowledges that accept the News/nrl!

 

[Cronulla_Mania]

Teams like Wests and Illawarra simply don't have the 8m dollars necessary to run a rugby league team. I don't know how accurate that figure is, but it wouldn't be far off the marks...most of the clubs in j/v situations were struggling by themselves. Manly and possibly St George are exceptions, id love to see back all the old teams but realistically, they don't have the money... and killing off teams like melbourne, cowboys and NZ is not the answer, because if this happens league will head backwards....
i can't really see clubs reducing their costs to below much of what it is now. 3.25m for a salary cap is quite low, compared to what the other codes have it at. The lack of money that some clubs are able to offer has already forced a few players overseas or into the rahs....its a catch 20 situation, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't....
MFC.

 

[imported_Beast]

MFC , or anybody else who could enlighten me,
I have to know where the News/NRL get this mystery figure of $8 million to run a football club.
We have a salary cap of $3.25 million, am I to believe the balance is administrative costs.
If so then that is quite wrong.
And if it is admin costs, the way some of these CEOs are running their clubs I would not feed them.

 

[Cronulla_Mania]

Im not sure beast, i was going to clarify my statement by saying that 8m is the NRLs mystical figure. As the clubs don't release such information, your guess is probably as good as mine....
But from what i do know, the clubs themselves have been handed the responsibility of promoting their own home games this year. Some clubs have done diddly squat, although clubs such as Parra have spent heaps advertising in the local rags and radio....
I dunno, 8 million wouldn't be 2 far off the mark. Alot of coaches don't come cheap these days, organising and paying for ground use and security is also quite expensive. All of the support staff wouldn't come cheaply either, and i think even piggins is starting to realise how costly an exercise it will end up being. But that said, CEOs of some clubs (hello west tigers chairman) need a bullet up the bum for some of the decisions they have made....
MFC.

 

[Willow]

This is probably the most important debate in Rugby League but it also the most complicated. Wehave known for some time that SuperLeague really won the war.
The 'ownership' of the NRL is pretty much with NewsCorp whose holdings feature in most of the sponsorship deals.

I would never presume to speak for all Saints supporters but I believe Dragons fans and their club don't really agree on a number of issues.
For example, while most fans wanted to see South back in, the club administrators were of the opposite view.
Same thing with Norths, although the club is quieter on that front. I'd like to see Norths back as well.
It's true that StGeorge probably could have stood by and watched Illawarra die (and they would have died) and then take on the NRL on as a stand alone club. But that's not the way it worked out.
In the future, I can see the merger surviving but with different ground rules.
I agree that we will see the culling of another team within the next season or two. I believe that team will be Cronulla.
The plan by the NRL to move the Dragons to Wollongong and give St George to the Sharks hasn't gone to plan. St George have money, Cronulla are broke. NewsCorp will ultimately go with the option which best suits their bottom line.

To state more of the obvious on money issue goes: Newscorp will not do anything for Rugby League prior to looking after there own shareholders.
The master will always be paid first.

 

[imported_Rasputin]

Beast,
I haven't got the exact details with me just now but I can give you a roughbreakdown of the income/costs from memory and if you want more specificsI can get them for you.

For Parramatta,the Dogs, Roosters & Brisbane the approx cost is$11M per yearwiththe others rangingbetween $7M and $9M.

Each club gets $2.5m from the NRL plus aminimum 3M ($4.8M for the eels) in sponsorship which ispart of the min requirement to getthe NRL license. Clubs average between$2M for the lower clubs and$3.9M for the top clubs in gate takings. On top of this some clubs get varying amounts by way ofgrants from their leagues clubs which are up to $1.5M per year.

Direct costs for running the clubs is made up ofplayer salaries (salary cap 3.25M), coaches/support staff, trainers etcplus training equipment (gyms)as wellas ground hire & catering. Varies but on average total cost around $6M per year

Indirect costs vary from club to club and take into account junior development, scholarships, player educational programs (making lawyers out of front rowers )), insurance andoperating costs such as training camps, pre season training etc. Clubs like the eels spendaround 2.5M per year on junior development but others like the roosters spend zilch so it varies for each club.

The$2.5M grant from the NRL includes$175K for advertising, some spend it others don't. Travel (airfare & accomodation) is not a club expense as it is funded directly by the NRL and is supposedly where all that tv money is going )

They are the ballpark figures of how they arrive atthe magical $8M.Hope this helps somewhat.

As to where the $480M (pay tv & naming rights) well that is the $64 million dollar question that the clubs themselves want to know and the latest is that it will finally be revealed at a meeting of CEO's within the next 6 weeks. Rather amusing that this decision was made AFTER C7 initiated litigation to have the information made public )

 

[imported_Rasputin]

BTW Moff, all clubs do release these figures. They are in the annual reports of each football club and are in the public domain.

 

[Hass]

Tonight's "NRL on FOX" was a good one. Cameron Williams, had Steve Mortimer, Laurie Daley and ohn Gibbs with him. They really thrashed out the issue of 16 teams and the Central Coast.

John Singleton has said "I want $1million worth of grants and that'sit". John Singleton is a man who makes money. He is a man who can provide success. When someone like him comes up and says more or less that I can fully fund a football team in an area that desperately needs it while getting back some tradition to the game you'd think you'd accept it.

Especially when it allows for a 16 team comp. There are too many rounds as it is and a 22 round comp would be good. But still the whinge that they lose revenue from a reduction in games is incorrect. How come they can have 26 rounds for a 15 team comp, but not 26 rounds for a 16 team comp? The Clubs and the NRL are making up extremely futile excuses.

The difference with the Wests Tigers is that them splitting up is not vital for the game. We need a team on the North Shore and a team in Gosford- we cannot afford to leave the space between the Harbour Bridge and Newcastle bare. I seriously doubt the Wests Tigers would take it to the courts- Manly and Norths needed an annullment- not just for their own good, but for the good of the game.

Cheers.

 

[imported_Rasputin]

Hass,
There are too many rounds as it is and a 22 round comp would be good.
You will never get clubs like the Knights to accept a reduction in the number of home games asaround 60% of their income is generated that way as they don't have a leagues club or a lot of sponsorships.

But still the whinge that they lose revenue from a reduction in games is incorrect.
A reduction of 2 home games translates into a loss of $600K per year for them and they can't afford it and will never support it.

How come they can have 26 rounds for a 15 team comp, but not 26 rounds for a 16 team comp?
That would mean that each club could onlyplay two other clubsonce per year and that will once again raise thearguments about which club and where you play them. None of the high drawing clubs want to play the low clubsbecause they don't draw good crowdsbut the opposite is true of the low clubs who need the high clubs to get some sort of crowd. Hmmm! Excuse the double talk there.The internal bickering of who plays who and who gets the home game is the problemand wasthe initial motivationfor a particular club to call forculling of teams in the first place)

Having said that I agree with you on the strategic need to have the bears back on the central coast and personally can see no reson why they don't just use thesame format they had a few years ago when we had 16 teams. Unfortunatelyat the end of the day it will bea political decision and not a logical one that will be made,and for thatreasonI still believe that when all the dust is settled we will have a14 team comp next year.

 

[Hass]

On the point I was making concerning the issue"if we can have 15 with 26 rounds why can't we have 16 with 26 rounds", I think I need to make myself a little more clear.

The proposed comp for next year is that there will be 15 teams. Each team will play every other team once. They'll also play10 other teams again. And everyone will receive 2 byes- covering 26 rounds.

This same format could be applied by replacing the bye with a 16th team. Each team would play each other once. They'll also play 11 other teams again. No-one will receive any byes.

This would leave everyone with 13 home and 13 away games (just like this year). So there's no loss of revenue there. It would also provide an extra match each week- even more revenue!

Now, I'd prefer 22 rounds, but it is possible with 26- so saying that loss of revenue from a reduction in matches played is not a valid excuse.

Cheers.

 

This message has been deleted by the author.

 

This message has been deleted by the author.