What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Todd Greenberg Appointed NRL CEO

Who Should Be The Next NRL CEO

  • Todd Greenberg

    Votes: 6 7.4%
  • Shane Richardson

    Votes: 5 6.2%
  • Phil Gould

    Votes: 7 8.6%
  • John Grant

    Votes: 2 2.5%
  • Andrew Demetriou

    Votes: 5 6.2%
  • John Quayle

    Votes: 10 12.3%
  • Somebody Else.....Post Who

    Votes: 46 56.8%

  • Total voters
    81
  • Poll closed .
Messages
3,884
Todd Greenberg is an insular Sydney boy. He can barely see beyond the road that leads from Belmore Oval to NRL headquarters at Moore Park.

If we don't get new teams in Wellington, Perth and Brisbane/Ipswich, the game will continue to lose attendances, and forfeit the chance to become a truly national and international game. Of course the Poms have to do their part as well, by encouraging the growth of the game in southern England, in Wales, and especially in France. The fact that the head of the RFL, Nigel Wood is doing SFA in his domain should not exonerate Todd Greenberg. The Poms have nothing like the funds that the NRL has. The NRL has enough money now to sustain the poorly run existing clubs, and to expand. If it expanded it could ask for and get more money from the TV networks.

If Todd Greenberg had vision, he would be developing a strategic plan for expansion. It would include Wellington, Perth and Brisbane/Ipswich within five years, followed by the existing PNG Hunters (funded by PNG based multinationals) within 7 years, followed by Adelaide and Fiji within 10 years. That would bring us to 22 clubs. The final pieces of the puzzle would be Christchurch, and one more Queensland club, to give the state the 5 NRL clubs which is the minimum it deserves, and create a 24 club competition with 23 rounds. Each of those expansion phases would require more games each week, which would mean more slots for the TV channels (which would enable either Nine network, or Fox or the Ten network to gain more programming), which would mean more TV money for the NRL. It makes financial sense and it would make rugby league the dominant game in the entire South Pacific region.

If Todd Greenberg cannot understand this then John Grant and the NRL board need to take the initiative. They have the power to push Greenberg forward with expansion.
 
Last edited:

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,869
I'm still trying to figure out how the frick the NRL ran at an$18million loss last year? That would have to be his number 1 priority.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,869
You're going to be disappointed, he has stated from his first day that he is no visionary and that there will be no expansion.
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,500
You're going to be disappointed, he has stated from his first day that he is no visionary and that there will be no expansion.


Wrong once again.He stated expansion was not on ATM,not no expansion period.A hell of a difference.

You keep putting your interpretation on every word coming out of NRL head office.Make a good politician.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,869
It's really interesting when you see club accounts in their annual reports and how much revenue has increased but still,they spend more than they bring in each year. Sharks this year classic example. Managed to increase their revenue by 9% yet increased their spending by 14% leading to yet another $1.5million loss.
Here is a summary of sharks football related income 14-15. You'd think you could run a club break even on this, it's why NRL needs to reign in non player salary football spending. Clubs are incapable of managing it themselves as they will break the bank in the hope of a good season on the field leading to increased revenue to cover their extra spending. If it doesn't happen or they lose sponsors etc they are screwed.

Memberships $1.36mill
Game day revenue $1.2mill
Merchandise $1.35million
Sponsorship $6million
NRL grant $8.2million

So they brought in close to $18million just on football related revenue and still made a $1.5ill loss.

http://www.sharks.com.au/content/dam/sharks/pdfs/SharksAnnualReport2015_FINAL2opt.pdf
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,869
Wrong once again.He stated expansion was not on ATM,not no expansion period.A hell of a difference.

You keep putting your interpretation on every word coming out of NRL head office.Make a good politician.

He actually said short to medium term. Wtf is medium term in the world of RL? They started talking about it in 2007, nine years ago now. I very much doubt they will even consider it before 2020/21 now in line with next tv deal but given the NRL seems to closely link the discussion to tv rights it could easily be the one after that. For some of us old timers that might as well be never lol.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,869
do you just copy and paste that into all your posts?

Come on you must admit it is pretty quote worthy for a new CEO on day one to tell the world he isn't visionary lol. Makes smith's gaff on the Australian captain seem very minor yet the media went for his throat over it. I've never heard a CEO admit in public they aren't visionary, generally it's a key attribute you're looking for in someone you are going to employ to lead your organisation into the future!
 

applesauce

Bench
Messages
3,573
It's odd the NRL clubs can't see that expansion actually got them to the point they are now in terms of presence and monetary value. Do they think the NRL would even matter if the Broncos, Storm, Warriors et al. were excluded from the competition and it was still the NSWRL?

It reminds me of the myopic view of stopping refugees in Australia or the US where refugees, particularly after WW2, helped lead to the prosperity and multiculturalism we enjoy today. They forget that everyone was once trying to find a better life, and once they have it they try and shut the door on others.

The NRL clubs don't want others taking a share of the pie even if it means more pie for everyone.
 

applesauce

Bench
Messages
3,573
It's really interesting when you see club accounts in their annual reports and how much revenue has increased but still,they spend more than they bring in each year. Sharks this year classic example. Managed to increase their revenue by 9% yet increased their spending by 14% leading to yet another $1.5million loss.
Here is a summary of sharks football related income 14-15. You'd think you could run a club break even on this, it's why NRL needs to reign in non player salary football spending. Clubs are incapable of managing it themselves as they will break the bank in the hope of a good season on the field leading to increased revenue to cover their extra spending. If it doesn't happen or they lose sponsors etc they are screwed.

Memberships $1.36mill
Game day revenue $1.2mill
Merchandise $1.35million
Sponsorship $6million
NRL grant $8.2million

So they brought in close to $18million just on football related revenue and still made a $1.5ill loss.

http://www.sharks.com.au/content/dam/sharks/pdfs/SharksAnnualReport2015_FINAL2opt.pdf

Because they are hoping if they over spend off the field they will make it back with finals or GF appearance. It is an arms race that sees clubs bet on themselves, but in order to break even they have to win and when they don't win (i.e. half the competition) they fall into the red.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,869
you asking about the 95-96 ARL western reds, the 97 SL Perth reds, the 08-09 jim beam/Bundaberg cup WA reds or just Perth generally? Lol
To best of my knowledge the Reds rugby league club they lost a whack of money in 95-97 the same as every SL and arl club during that period. Is there a Point to your question?

And I couldn't help but notice you avoided giving An opinion on the new ceo's non visionary comment. What is your view on that? Do you think it's a positive thing that NRL has appointed a leader who confesses to being non visionary?
 
Last edited:

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
the current Perth side

and no visionary comment is fantastic because it's got you all pissed off and not being able to sleep at night

probably bad news for your dog though
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,500
He actually said short to medium term. Wtf is medium term in the world of RL? They started talking about it in 2007, nine years ago now. I very much doubt they will even consider it before 2020/21 now in line with next tv deal but given the NRL seems to closely link the discussion to tv rights it could easily be the one after that. For some of us old timers that might as well be never lol.


Your words "there will be no expansion".Maybe the English for Poms is a different animal than English for Aussies.
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,500
Because they are hoping if they over spend off the field they will make it back with finals or GF appearance. It is an arms race that sees clubs bet on themselves, but in order to break even they have to win and when they don't win (i.e. half the competition) they fall into the red.


Ignore my post
 
Last edited:

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,500
Because they are hoping if they over spend off the field they will make it back with finals or GF appearance. It is an arms race that sees clubs bet on themselves, but in order to break even they have to win and when they don't win (i.e. half the competition) they fall into the red.


Ignore my post.
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,500
It's really interesting when you see club accounts in their annual reports and how much revenue has increased but still,they spend more than they bring in each year. Sharks this year classic example. Managed to increase their revenue by 9% yet increased their spending by 14% leading to yet another $1.5million loss.
Here is a summary of sharks football related income 14-15. You'd think you could run a club break even on this, it's why NRL needs to reign in non player salary football spending. Clubs are incapable of managing it themselves as they will break the bank in the hope of a good season on the field leading to increased revenue to cover their extra spending. If it doesn't happen or they lose sponsors etc they are screwed.

Memberships $1.36mill
Game day revenue $1.2mill
Merchandise $1.35million
Sponsorship $6million
NRL grant $8.2million

So they brought in close to $18million just on football related revenue and still made a $1.5ill loss.



http://www.sharks.com.au/content/dam/sharks/pdfs/SharksAnnualReport2015_FINAL2opt.pdf



Now I know where the election donkey votes comes from.

The Sharks had to pay $1m in legal fees re the ASADA debacle.
They were fined initially $1m that reduced to $600,000 due to lack of management practices during the ASADA stuff up..
The Sharks had a Monday night cyclone playing Souths and lost at least 10,000 paying fans in the process.

When one does a financial analysis ,its best to also look at where the monies being paid out or lost revenue opportunities are.


The club also noted they were on track to break even ,kept for the ASADA outlays.

Thank you linesmen thank you ballboys.:sarcasm:
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,869
Your words "there will be no expansion".Maybe the English for Poms is a different animal than English for Aussies.

Well if you want to get pedantic I didn't say "ever",
For the pedants, there will be no expansion in the foreseeable future ie likely next 5 years :roll: or as Todd said short to medium term they arent even going to look at it. You can all make up your own parameters for what he means by medium term
 

Latest posts

Top