Wests Tigers' landmark deal could become NRL boardroom blueprint

[magpie4ever]

I dont believe the ARLC would be upset by this.

They would have full control over the club (through independent directors). No more factions, no more worrying about the Leagues clubs income; the one and only consideration with be what will benifit the football club and their fans most.

Sure, they may move away from Leichhart and Campbeltown into one of the bigger/better stadiums or lobby for a boutique stadium i a new spot, but whose can actually argue that would be a bad thing. The only thing that keeps the Tigers on these derelict fields is factions not wanting to lose the internal fight.

I honestly believe the best thing that could happen for the Tigers is these two factions leaving.

Who would finance all this? Remember even the money the NRL has provided to the WTs is in the form of a loan to the Balmain side of the joint venture - it needs to be repaid. The NRL or ARLC are not going to finance an independent Wests Tigers with spare cash.

Rugby League has been tribal for over hundred years and if you take that away you are left with the sunshine fans - there when the going is good, missing in action in the lean years.

The majority of fans from 30 years of age up are either old Balmain or Wests supporters (so you still need them for at least another 40 plus years); if you lose them; the WTs would be in major shit. Why shouldn't the WTs recognise their history - and that is; two great foundation clubs: Western Suburbs and Balmain

 

[magpie4ever]

Never said there was....but privatisation has proven to be succesful.

How does loving the club change things though, Im curious.

A billionaire might see it as his/her civic duty. Too lose money on their beloved team.

 

[innsaneink]

Examples please: Souths have made very small profits over the last year or two; and I doubt Rusty and Holmes a Court have got their original outlay back . Brisbane are similar - supported by a group called the "thoroughbreds". Melbourne and NQ have lived off News Corp monies.

Im not talking profits, Im talking on-field.
Add manly and look at all the finals appearances of all those teams.

Its where we are headed imo....its our destiny

 

[magpie4ever]

The fact is 8 teams will make an enlarged finals' series and 8 will not. You can't always be in the top 8; that is football.

Might be interesting to see the number of finals appearnces for all teams since the commencement of the joint venture in 2000; to see if the 50:50 Wests:Balmain spilt has held the WTs back. I'm sure MU would have these stats, somewhere.

 

[innsaneink]

BRIS 12
Canb 8
Cant 8
Cron 7
Gld Cst 2 (founded 07)
Manly 9 (from 2003) NE before that
Mel 10
NZ 7
Newc 8
NQ 6
Parra 7
Penr 4
Rabbits 3 (since 02)
ST G Illa 9
Roostrs 8

Wests Tigers 3

 

[magpie4ever]

BRIS 12
Canb 8
Cant 8
Cron 7
Gld Cst 2 (founded 07)
Manly 9 (from 2003) NE before that
Mel 10
NZ 7
Newc 8
NQ 6
Parra 7
Penr 4
Rabbits 3 (since 02)
ST G Illa 9
Roostrs 8

Wests Tigers 3

Ok, are you able to do the same for the qualifying finals - 2nd last week (final 4) - that is the real semis.

 

[innsaneink]

LOL....I could but I cbf

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Who would finance all this? Remember even the money the NRL has provided to the WTs is in the form of a loan to the Balmain side of the joint venture - it needs to be repaid. The NRL or ARLC are not going to finance an independent Wests Tigers with spare cash.

Well, the ARLC are obviously ok with financing them in the short term (they are doing it now with the lone).

As for their long term prospects, it is not that hard to imagine NRL teams becoming self sustainable on sponorship, membership, crowds and tv money (south are turning a profit without a Leagues clubs throwing in).

If the ARLC was to employ business savvy people on the board and as CEO/CFO/ect. the it is not hard to imagine them becoming independent of the need to take loans and grants from the Leagues club (or in this scenario, the ARLC).

I would like to see the Leagues Clubs leave the board because they are based towards decisions that benefit their own bottom line (for example, keeping teams in dilapidated suburban grounds just so the 8,000 fans that show up will head to their Leagues Club next door), whereas a franchise independent of Club money can make decisions in the best interest of the team and the fans (eg. Playing out of a high quality stadium in an easy to access location, regardless of its proximity to Leagues Clubs and poker machines).

Rugby League has been tribal for over hundred years and if you take that away you are left with the sunshine fans - there when the going is good, missing in action in the lean years.

The majority of fans from 30 years of age up are either old Balmain or Wests supporters (so you still need them for at least another 40 plus years); if you lose them; the WTs would be in major shit. Why shouldn't the WTs recognise their history - and that is; two great foundation clubs: Western Suburbs and Balmain

Absolutely, they should definitely continue to engage the fans of the traditional franchise, but doing that doesnt require a Leagues Club to control the board.

The NRLs privatised teams show that private owners can engage fans just as well as (and i would argue in most cases better than) the Leagues Clubs elected members.

Take the Knights as an example. The original board members, supposedly the people protecting the knights tradition, were the same board members that changed the jersey every 3 years.

 

[magpie4ever]

Well, the ARLC are obviously ok with financing them in the short term (they are doing it now with the lone).

As for their long term prospects, it is not that hard to imagine NRL teams becoming self sustainable on sponorship, membership, crowds and tv money (south are turning a profit without a Leagues clubs throwing in).

If the ARLC was to employ business savvy people on the board and as CEO/CFO/ect. the it is not hard to imagine them becoming independent of the need to take loans and grants from the Leagues club (or in this scenario, the ARLC).

I would like to see the Leagues Clubs leave the board because they are based towards decisions that benefit their own bottom line (for example, keeping teams in dilapidated suburban grounds just so the 8,000 fans that show up will head to their Leagues Club next door), whereas a franchise independent of Club money can make decisions in the best interest of the team and the fans (eg. Playing out of a high quality stadium in an easy to access location, regardless of its proximity to Leagues Clubs and poker machines).



Absolutely, they should definitely continue to engage the fans of the traditional franchise, but doing that doesnt require a Leagues Club to control the board.

The NRLs privatised teams show that private owners can engage fans just as well as (and i would argue in most cases better than) the Leagues Clubs elected members.

Take the Knights as an example. The original board members, supposedly the people protecting the knights tradition, were the same board members that changed the jersey every 3 years.

That is a lot of imagining; but it may work.

I don't believe privatising is as easy as you believe. There is a heap of dumb supposedly business savy people out there.

Unlike, other sides who change their jersey on an annual basis or, in the case of the, Warriors who change their's fortnightly.

 

[magpie4ever]

LOL....I could but I cbf

You lazy f**ker.:lol:;-)

 

[R2Coupe]

I think the mayor of Leichhardt would have more insight than most into the issues surrounding the site.
He has access to plans and the community and wouldn't openly slander or defame the development in a open letter if he didn't have the facts.

Whatever happens, Benny is a scumbag and no way will we be able to have the project pass this stage, break ground and finish in a two year period.

Only Harry can save the Tigers.

The development proposal is accessible on the Planning Dept. site. Logically, why would the developer go back to Council when the matter is still under assessment and no decision has been made. Seems like a case of wishful thinking by the Mayor.

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=4499

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

That is a lot of imagining; but it may work.

When you are considering the future, all yyou can do is imagine hypotheticals (obviously its better to base them on previous events, but it is still inescapably nothing more than conjecture)

I don't believe privatising is as easy as you believe. There is a heap of dumb supposedly business savy people out there.

Sure, theres always gonna be a guy selling shit as shoe polish, but that is only considering half of the question.

In the end, what you have to decide is;
Do you prefer the Status Quo (an archaic franchise structure that has never given any hope of successful governance...)
OR you can take a chance with a new direction, a direction driven by DSmith and the ARLC. (They have proven their business skills and i would argue they have proven that you can trust them to make decisions in the best interest of the team and the fans)

Unlike, other sides who change their jersey on an annual basis or, in the case of the, Warriors who change their's fortnightly.

Actually i was comparing the old board to Tinkler (and the privatised model) that is so against these wacky new designs they didnt even bother with making a 9s jersey.

 

[magpie4ever]

When you are considering the future, all yyou can do is imagine hypotheticals (obviously its better to base them on previous events, but it is still inescapably nothing more than conjecture)



Sure, theres always gonna be a guy selling shit as shoe polish, but that is only considering half of the question.

In the end, what you have to decide is;
Do you prefer the Status Quo (an archaic franchise structure that has never given any hope of successful governance...)
OR you can take a chance with a new direction, a direction driven by DSmith and the ARLC. (They have proven their business skills and i would argue they have proven that you can trust them to make decisions in the best interest of the team and the fans)



Actually i was comparing the old board to Tinkler (and the privatised model) that is so against these wacky new designs they didnt even bother with making a 9s jersey.

I believe you and others are placing too much on-field success with corporate governance. The lack of on-field success is more due to poor recruiting and retention plus player big-headness than the shit fight at the boardroom level.

Am i right or wrong? I hand up the example of Manly - on field success, pitch battle in the boardroom.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I believe you and others are placing too much on-field success with corporate governance. The lack of on-field success is more due to poor recruiting and retention plus player big-headness than the shit fight at the boardroom level.

Am i right or wrong? I hand up the example of Manly - on field success, pitch battle in the boardroom.

I dont know how you could have gotten that from what i said; in terms of corporate governance, i place no relevance on on-field performance.

(For example, Manly have been dominating on the field for the best part of a decade. Yet their board is a royal clusterf*ck; a fact that i am positive will bight them on the ass in years to come)

When thinking about the future of the Tigers from an entirely business perspective, i believe you should never even consider the variables of the teams success.

What they need is a board that will grow a loyal fan base that will attend games regardless of performance and sponsors that know they will receive value for their money regardless of the teams ladder position. (that consists of two general pieces; branding, so as to become an image people want to associate with, and distributing a product, by being very publicly visible, accessible and convenient in terms of TV, merchandise or being at the game).

 

[innsaneink]

Manly train out of modern, up to date facilities at the Sydney Academy of Sport and Recreation narrabeen
http://www.dsr.nsw.gov.au/sydneyacademy/accom.asp

We have Concord.

 

[magpie4ever]

I dont know how you could have gotten that from what i said; in terms of corporate governance, i place no relevance on on-field performance.

(For example, Manly have been dominating on the field for the best part of a decade. Yet their board is a royal clusterf*ck; a fact that i am positive will bight them on the ass in years to come)

When thinking about the future of the Tigers from an entirely business perspective, i believe you should never even consider the variables of the teams success.

What they need is a board that will grow a loyal fan base that will attend games regardless of performance and sponsors that know they will receive value for their money regardless of the teams ladder position. (that consists of two general pieces; branding, so as to become an image people want to associate with, and distributing a product, by being very publicly visible, accessible and convenient in terms of TV, merchandise or being at the game).

Let's agree to disagree. You will not get that with Gen Ys and post Gen Ys; it is all about the immediate (continuing success).

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Let's agree to disagree. You will not get that with Gen Ys and post Gen Ys; it is all about the immediate (continuing success).

Ok, then; lets accept that for a second then (which i dont, there are a million examples that go against your assertion, let us just forget that...).

If a teams popularity is mutually dependant soully on their ability to perform on the field, this still doesnt account for the variations between teams that acchieve similar success.

Now im not saying that success doesnt influence a teams monetary position (of course it does), but that is not the onl factor to consider.

If you can only judge a boards business skills when a team is winning, then the best boards are those that capitalise on success, something that Wests Tigers can never do in their current state as their stadiums have total capacities of a bit over 15,000 in hard to reach locations.

 

[magpie4ever]

Ok, then; lets accept that for a second then (which i dont, there are a million examples that go against your assertion, let us just forget that...).

If a teams popularity is mutually dependant soully on their ability to perform on the field, this still doesnt account for the variations between teams that acchieve similar success.

Now im not saying that success doesnt influence a teams monetary position (of course it does), but that is not the onl factor to consider.

If you can only judge a boards business skills when a team is winning, then the best boards are those that capitalise on success, something that Wests Tigers can never do in their current state as their stadiums have total capacities of a bit over 15,000 in hard to reach locations.

I'm all for a refurbishment of Campbelltown Stadium - full grandstand on 3 sides with a family hill on the club end. That would easily expand capacity to around 25,000 plus; I don't know much can be done with Leichhardt. It is possible but giving the record on the Balmain Leagues club redevelopment, I doubt council would pass a major redevelopment; let alone Dept of Planning etc.

Please list the million of examples, I will keep count.;-)

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I'm all for a refurbishment of Campbelltown Stadium - full grandstand on 3 sides with a family hill on the club end. That would easily expand capacity to around 25,000 plus; I don't know much can be done with Leichhardt. It is possible but giving the record on the Balmain Leagues club redevelopment, I doubt council would pass a major redevelopment; let alone Dept of Planning etc.

Please list the million of examples, I will keep count.;-)

This is the crux of why i want the Leagues clubs off the board; that is exactly what they would say as well.

They will forever keep holding onto these traditionalist ideals regardless of whether it is actually the best option for the club. Can you honestly say that Campbeltown Stadium and Leichhart are two best locations for the Tigers to play out of?? Or the best stadiums the fans deserve??

What if you were offered a brand new Suncorp-style stadium, the only catch being, it is located in say Liverpool or Cabramatta right next to the train station and you had to play all 12 games out of it?? What would your answer be???

Because the Leagues Clubs would say no, because its not best for them ("screw the fans that could attend these games and screw the football team, we want them playing next door to our pokies and our bars"). And even if they would say yes, it would have to be shoved right in their face; this new stadium is an actual possibility, they just dont want to lobby for it.

The Leagues Clubs dont care about what is best for the NRL, whats best for the team or whats best for the fans, they only care about what is best for them.

That is why i want them off the board.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

so do we know who the new board members are now???