And how cheap does this make the Rusty-PHac bunnies deal look?
It's not a pissing contest.
sounds like a lot of post-rationalisation from souths fans on here..
realising that the club was sold off far too cheap so the brain is working out ways to justify the price..
It's not "post" rationalisation. 75+% voted for it, so most people knew it was the right decision at the time. The rest now have the benefit of hindsight to tell them it was the right decision.
I was for it at the time because I knew the "$3million isnt enough" argument was bs. They were basically paying 3 million for the privilege of paying our debts, covering our losses, and investing millions in facilities to catch us up with (and to surpass) the rest of the comp. They've now put in many times that $3m.
As well as what they've directly invested, you'd have to attribute a large percentage of sponsors (and the premium price they pay to be sponsors) to the fact that Crowe puts our club in the headlines for the right reasons regularly.
Also look how much the memberships have grown since they've been involved.
The dollar value that they've brought into the club, directly or indirectly, is many many many times more than $3 million.
lol.
If you actually look at the nuts and bolts of it, the deal that Tinkler is offering is almost exactly the same as that which Crowe offered Souths.
$3 mill to wipe off debt and then an amount each year to cover any short fall in sponsorship. The only difference being that Tinkler has a cap on his liability, Crowe does not.
Don't let the truth stand in the way of a good Souths bashing though.
This.
Good to see souffs supporters talking up the rusty discount-bin giveaway of their club. No sellers remorse there eh?
At the time I thought it was the right decision. Since then it's surpassed everything I expected at the time. Look at the growth in memberships, to the point where we are leading the league in that department, and that's without any success to market. We'll dwarf the rest of the comp when we do have success. The drastic lowering of the median age of members,we're not the club of just old people who remember our premierships like we used to be.
The increase in sponsors. Raising the profile of our club where sponsors happily pay significantly more than they do for most other teams just to be associated with us.
Improving our team where we've gone from 4 free to air appearances in 4 years to now where we're going to have 4 in 5 weeks.
All those things are thanks to making that brilliant decision of bringing Crowe and HaC in. If the Knights accept this offer and get the off field growth we have, I'll be over the moon for them. A weak club becoming a strong club is good for the entire NRL.
you hear "he brings good sponsors to the club becasue of who he is".. please elaborate which sponsors have signed on becasue of russell, and how much in overs they have paid to be part of souths, and not any other NRL club that would also provide national exposure..
I hear people bitch all the time about how we're always in the headlines. Look at this offseason. Trust me, everytime our jersey or cap or training singlet or t-shirt was in the papers or on tv, the sponsors took notice.
Also, 4 fta games in the first 5 weeks says it all. That's massive for sponsor exposure. And we're one of only 2 clubs to be shown that often.
It doesn't matter what the club SOLD for, it's what the club and the fans get out of the deal.
On the one hand, no sale = struggle street and possible future extinction.
Sale = income, better playing roster, paid off debts, improved facilities, better opportunity, increased memberships etc etc etc
As a non Souths fan, I can see that the sale to Russell Crowe was the best thing for Souths. Hell, even a blind man could see that.
I started putting bits of your post in bold, then I realised I was going to put it all in bold. Excellent post. I agree with every word. Too many idiots (Muzby and friends) are so simple minded they get a dollar figure stuck in their heads and can't let it go. It's so much bigger than that.
Don't think so. All the NFL teams are privately owned and they have a salary cap that works and even a draft.
I guess the governing body just puts rules in place regarding private ownership, such as salary cap. What I would like to see is a rule stating no team can be moved. (e.g Newcastle Knights to Perth Knights). We don't want to get like the US where a team may move across the country. That sux!
Relocation isn't necessarily bad. Obviously not the Knights, and there's no way Tinkler would move them, but I could picture a couple of sydney clubs (Cronulla, or maybe even Manly) moving for the benefit of the themselves and the NRL, that wouldn't be a bad thing.
Shame they didn;t do this deal a few months ago, they could have signed Inglis as a marquee signing to get the club buzzing for the new season.
No they couldn't, they were out of cap space.
of course it matters what it sold for...
$3m or $100m... your call..
(and btw, if rusty has put in the equivalent of $10m per year into the club, i'll paint myself green & red for the charity shield..)
Your post would be great...if he was putting $10m into the knights. He isn't. How about you f**king read before you open your mouth. He's only guaranteeing 10m in sponsorship. If they get 8m, he puts in only 2m.
The 2 years before we were profitable in 2009, we had massive losses...guess who paid those off instead of it becoming interest-charing debt?
