CEO

[mike]

The discussion wasn’t about on-field performance, it was about the supposed improvement in off field performance which is just smoke and mirrors, given it’s predominantly all from things like donations which is, regardless of what you might like to believe, unsustainable.

Improvement is improvement, yes? It's like wins are wins. It's the absolute measurement of the club. My point was - either there is improvement (or wins), or there is not. CEO is measured on off-field performance. The hows and whys are interesting but ultimately the sum total is the measurement of the role. So I don't think its realistic for the Wests Board to remove Pascoe if he's posting wins in his KPIs. I didn't set the KPIs - Wests did.

You said the Wests Tigers foundation isn’t just randos giving the club money, but the description of what it does is “The Wests Tigers Foundation gives our loyal Members, fans and supporters a chance to directly contribute to the club and play a significant role in its success — both on and off the field.” Can you clarify please how this isn’t just donations?

I didn't say it isn't donations. But it's an incorporated, systematic program for handling donations. The club has always relied on donations from benefactors - Harry T, Lee H etc. Many sponsors are passionate fans not just people hoping for a well-place advertisement. Laundy over at Bulldogs is a hardcore Dogs fan. Roosters are built on the financial contributions of passionate business leaders. Rusty Crowe isn't advertising anything when he buys Souths.

With the exception of these donations which can literally be cancelled at any time given they are non contractual in nature, Tigers revenue isn’t more unpredictable than any other business. You have memberships, merchandise sales, tv rights, ticket sales and other game day revenue. Any second year accounting student could have a decent punt on next years revenue/profit based on the previous corresponding periods and would be right give or take 5-10%. It’s a pretty basic business.
On to your last comment “The whole point of the Tigers operations over the past 5+ years has been to diversify the income streams. Business 101 as you say.” Yet all they’ve seemingly done is increase donations and grants? In 5 years. That’s it. Can you advise anything else they’ve done?

Memberships are on a rolling annual basis, so they can be cancelled as well. All of those income streams are unpredictable years in advance. For example if Tigers make the Top 4 in 2022, you will expect ticket sales, merch etc. to skyrocket. But Tigers can't directly control on-field results because of the nature of sport. So all sports face the same challenges and all clubs look for novel revenue streams.

Memberships are up over 5 years. Merch sales are up too. Sponsorship $$$ value is up. This is despite on-field results, so it's quite a reasonable result overall. Wests Tigers Foundation as I understand it is very unique. I know they have other rods in the fire, looking at adding value to memberships, e.g. discounts at linked companies (gyms, cafes etc.). There's already some of that now, e.g. Brydens offer special services to members. I'm not privy to exactly how far along that stuff is.

But if you can think of new opportunities to increase revenue / add new revenue streams, by all means contact the club.

Improvement from an extremely low base. If the previous administration was a 2/10 and Pascoe is a 2.5/10, are you happy with that? How about we get someone in that's an 8/10?

We're going around in circles on the donations stuff because I fundamentally disagree that it's a good way to build a sustainable business and everything i've ever been taught or learned about business is it's not the way to do things. It's fine as the cherry on top, as a sustainable long term revenue stream, red flags everywhere.

Memberships are sticky, much more so than a donation.

Every revenue stream possible should be developed.

 

[avocadoontoast]

Profit itself isn't important.
As you can see on the aesthetically pleasing graphs on that link, the various revenue streams have increased, which has given us the ability to extend spending on football operations (which has famously been thrifty in the past).
It's all a bit simplistic, understandably I suppose, but that's the ultimate goal on that side. Make more money so we can spend more money.

Predominantly due to "other income", which is donations and grants.

These are pretty common within Australian sporting clubs (at least AFL and NRL) aren't they?
Either way, I'm not defending Pascoe (far from it), but just pointing out that 'profit' isn't a realistic proposition for a professional sporting organisation.

The point I’m making is that the reason we are ‘commercially sound’ off the field is due to grants and donations, not great management.

Corporate partnerships have also grown..

Has it? According to the chart the revenue in sponsorships, hospitality and events has stayed more or less stagnant from 2017-2019, whilst margins have improved.

Who improves the margins? Who attracts the donations and grants.

It's a funny thing I think - if Madge is only measured by on-field success (or lack of it), why do you guys drill down into the nitty-gritty of what the CEO is delivering? Either he makes the club self-reliant / financial or he does not. The mechanisms by which he achieves that are far far secondary of concern.

The question is - will a new CEO deliver better on-field performance, and if so, by what mechanisms does that CEO achieve a direct influence on team output?

I drill down onto the nitty gritty of what he's delivering because the more you dig the more you find out that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Let's talk margins, it appears on face value that they've increased but given he conveniently lumps sponsorships, hospitality and events together, the lower margin in 2018 is possibly (and probably) due to a higher proportion of events being held (which is obviously going to have a higher element of cost than pure sponsorship).

Onto the mechanisms, it absolutely does matter how and where the money comes from because **donations can't be considered recurring revenue.** You can broadly forecast out merchandise sales and ticket sales etc, but how can you with any surety rely on donations to get you through? What happens if they stop donating? That means a huge revenue stream dries up and we're screwed. It is the antithesis of self reliance. As CEO it's important for him to create recurring revenue streams, not donations that can be turned off at any point. That is business 101.

Last week you asked me what my experience is dealing with CEO's, to which I responded I deal with them every day due to my work. What's your experience dealing with them?

Absolutely donations can be considered as reoccurring revenue and the revenue stream from donations can be predicted and budged for. A donation is just a different type of product you can sell.

Donations are non-contractual in nature and can be cancelled at any time. They cannot be relied upon as future income. Handouts shouldn't form part of your long term commercial plan.

Sorry but that just isn’t true. They are not handouts they are a unique commercial advantage that only a few types of organisations can rely upon, just in the same way any sales predictions can be relied upon. Donations are a viable revenue stream for sporting clubs and should definitely be in your long term commercial plans.

As we discussed yesterday Mike, I don't agree with you. Donations are something that's nice to have as the cherry on top, **but that tap can very easily be turned off.**

Let's say Harry T is one of our main contributors and we rely on him to keep the lights on. He calls Pascoe and says, i'm not contributing any more money. What's the contingency?

Nonesense. You don’t have just one donator, you build a large group of people who donate regularly.

It isn't nonsense. You can't rely on it.

Then how can any business rely on sales?

Because it's tangible. You're selling a product or a service.

That is exactly what is happening with donations, the product is the sense of contributing to the team, to the club. Yes it can be turned off at any point but that is the same for any retail product. The only difference here is the product you are selling isn't a physical item, its a sense of goodwill and connection.

I do get what you are saying as because its not a physical product people are more likely to stop donating but this is a predictable business model, charities have operated on it for a long time.

I agree, but we are not a charity, it's a different beast altogether. And when people/companies have limited money to spend or have to cut back, it will always be the things that have no physical product or service.

 

[mike]

Profit itself isn't important.
As you can see on the aesthetically pleasing graphs on that link, the various revenue streams have increased, which has given us the ability to extend spending on football operations (which has famously been thrifty in the past).
It's all a bit simplistic, understandably I suppose, but that's the ultimate goal on that side. Make more money so we can spend more money.

Predominantly due to "other income", which is donations and grants.

These are pretty common within Australian sporting clubs (at least AFL and NRL) aren't they?
Either way, I'm not defending Pascoe (far from it), but just pointing out that 'profit' isn't a realistic proposition for a professional sporting organisation.

The point I’m making is that the reason we are ‘commercially sound’ off the field is due to grants and donations, not great management.

Corporate partnerships have also grown..

Has it? According to the chart the revenue in sponsorships, hospitality and events has stayed more or less stagnant from 2017-2019, whilst margins have improved.

Who improves the margins? Who attracts the donations and grants.

It's a funny thing I think - if Madge is only measured by on-field success (or lack of it), why do you guys drill down into the nitty-gritty of what the CEO is delivering? Either he makes the club self-reliant / financial or he does not. The mechanisms by which he achieves that are far far secondary of concern.

The question is - will a new CEO deliver better on-field performance, and if so, by what mechanisms does that CEO achieve a direct influence on team output?

I drill down onto the nitty gritty of what he's delivering because the more you dig the more you find out that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Let's talk margins, it appears on face value that they've increased but given he conveniently lumps sponsorships, hospitality and events together, the lower margin in 2018 is possibly (and probably) due to a higher proportion of events being held (which is obviously going to have a higher element of cost than pure sponsorship).

Onto the mechanisms, it absolutely does matter how and where the money comes from because **donations can't be considered recurring revenue.** You can broadly forecast out merchandise sales and ticket sales etc, but how can you with any surety rely on donations to get you through? What happens if they stop donating? That means a huge revenue stream dries up and we're screwed. It is the antithesis of self reliance. As CEO it's important for him to create recurring revenue streams, not donations that can be turned off at any point. That is business 101.

Last week you asked me what my experience is dealing with CEO's, to which I responded I deal with them every day due to my work. What's your experience dealing with them?

Absolutely donations can be considered as reoccurring revenue and the revenue stream from donations can be predicted and budged for. A donation is just a different type of product you can sell.

Donations are non-contractual in nature and can be cancelled at any time. They cannot be relied upon as future income. Handouts shouldn't form part of your long term commercial plan.

Sorry but that just isn’t true. They are not handouts they are a unique commercial advantage that only a few types of organisations can rely upon, just in the same way any sales predictions can be relied upon. Donations are a viable revenue stream for sporting clubs and should definitely be in your long term commercial plans.

As we discussed yesterday Mike, I don't agree with you. Donations are something that's nice to have as the cherry on top, **but that tap can very easily be turned off.**

Let's say Harry T is one of our main contributors and we rely on him to keep the lights on. He calls Pascoe and says, i'm not contributing any more money. What's the contingency?

Nonesense. You don’t have just one donator, you build a large group of people who donate regularly.

It isn't nonsense. You can't rely on it.

Then how can any business rely on sales?

Because it's tangible. You're selling a product or a service.

That is exactly what is happening with donations, the product is the sense of contributing to the team, to the club. Yes it can be turned off at any point but that is the same for any retail product. The only difference here is the product you are selling isn't a physical item, its a sense of goodwill and connection.

I do get what you are saying as because its not a physical product people are more likely to stop donating but this is a predictable business model, charities have operated on it for a long time.

I agree, but we are not a charity, it's a different beast altogether. **And when people/companies have limited money to spend or have to cut back, it will always be the things that have no physical product or service.**

You just don’t know what you are talking about. Just stop with the anti donation rhetoric, you clearly have no expertise in this area.

 

[cochise]

Profit itself isn't important.
As you can see on the aesthetically pleasing graphs on that link, the various revenue streams have increased, which has given us the ability to extend spending on football operations (which has famously been thrifty in the past).
It's all a bit simplistic, understandably I suppose, but that's the ultimate goal on that side. Make more money so we can spend more money.

Predominantly due to "other income", which is donations and grants.

These are pretty common within Australian sporting clubs (at least AFL and NRL) aren't they?
Either way, I'm not defending Pascoe (far from it), but just pointing out that 'profit' isn't a realistic proposition for a professional sporting organisation.

The point I’m making is that the reason we are ‘commercially sound’ off the field is due to grants and donations, not great management.

Corporate partnerships have also grown..

Has it? According to the chart the revenue in sponsorships, hospitality and events has stayed more or less stagnant from 2017-2019, whilst margins have improved.

Who improves the margins? Who attracts the donations and grants.

It's a funny thing I think - if Madge is only measured by on-field success (or lack of it), why do you guys drill down into the nitty-gritty of what the CEO is delivering? Either he makes the club self-reliant / financial or he does not. The mechanisms by which he achieves that are far far secondary of concern.

The question is - will a new CEO deliver better on-field performance, and if so, by what mechanisms does that CEO achieve a direct influence on team output?

I drill down onto the nitty gritty of what he's delivering because the more you dig the more you find out that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Let's talk margins, it appears on face value that they've increased but given he conveniently lumps sponsorships, hospitality and events together, the lower margin in 2018 is possibly (and probably) due to a higher proportion of events being held (which is obviously going to have a higher element of cost than pure sponsorship).

Onto the mechanisms, it absolutely does matter how and where the money comes from because **donations can't be considered recurring revenue.** You can broadly forecast out merchandise sales and ticket sales etc, but how can you with any surety rely on donations to get you through? What happens if they stop donating? That means a huge revenue stream dries up and we're screwed. It is the antithesis of self reliance. As CEO it's important for him to create recurring revenue streams, not donations that can be turned off at any point. That is business 101.

Last week you asked me what my experience is dealing with CEO's, to which I responded I deal with them every day due to my work. What's your experience dealing with them?

Absolutely donations can be considered as reoccurring revenue and the revenue stream from donations can be predicted and budged for. A donation is just a different type of product you can sell.

Donations are non-contractual in nature and can be cancelled at any time. They cannot be relied upon as future income. Handouts shouldn't form part of your long term commercial plan.

Sorry but that just isn’t true. They are not handouts they are a unique commercial advantage that only a few types of organisations can rely upon, just in the same way any sales predictions can be relied upon. Donations are a viable revenue stream for sporting clubs and should definitely be in your long term commercial plans.

As we discussed yesterday Mike, I don't agree with you. Donations are something that's nice to have as the cherry on top, **but that tap can very easily be turned off.**

Let's say Harry T is one of our main contributors and we rely on him to keep the lights on. He calls Pascoe and says, i'm not contributing any more money. What's the contingency?

Nonesense. You don’t have just one donator, you build a large group of people who donate regularly.

It isn't nonsense. You can't rely on it.

Then how can any business rely on sales?

Because it's tangible. You're selling a product or a service.

That is exactly what is happening with donations, the product is the sense of contributing to the team, to the club. Yes it can be turned off at any point but that is the same for any retail product. The only difference here is the product you are selling isn't a physical item, its a sense of goodwill and connection.

I do get what you are saying as because its not a physical product people are more likely to stop donating but this is a predictable business model, charities have operated on it for a long time.

I agree, but we are not a charity, it's a different beast altogether. And when people/companies have limited money to spend or have to cut back, it will always be the things that have no physical product or service.

The Wests Tigers Foundation is a charity linked to the Wests Tigers and funds Projects and initiatives related to:
Elite Development
Community Engagement
Heritage

This model has been copied by other clubs and was seen as an innovation when it was established.

 

[avocadoontoast]

Profit itself isn't important.
As you can see on the aesthetically pleasing graphs on that link, the various revenue streams have increased, which has given us the ability to extend spending on football operations (which has famously been thrifty in the past).
It's all a bit simplistic, understandably I suppose, but that's the ultimate goal on that side. Make more money so we can spend more money.

Predominantly due to "other income", which is donations and grants.

These are pretty common within Australian sporting clubs (at least AFL and NRL) aren't they?
Either way, I'm not defending Pascoe (far from it), but just pointing out that 'profit' isn't a realistic proposition for a professional sporting organisation.

The point I’m making is that the reason we are ‘commercially sound’ off the field is due to grants and donations, not great management.

Corporate partnerships have also grown..

Has it? According to the chart the revenue in sponsorships, hospitality and events has stayed more or less stagnant from 2017-2019, whilst margins have improved.

Who improves the margins? Who attracts the donations and grants.

It's a funny thing I think - if Madge is only measured by on-field success (or lack of it), why do you guys drill down into the nitty-gritty of what the CEO is delivering? Either he makes the club self-reliant / financial or he does not. The mechanisms by which he achieves that are far far secondary of concern.

The question is - will a new CEO deliver better on-field performance, and if so, by what mechanisms does that CEO achieve a direct influence on team output?

I drill down onto the nitty gritty of what he's delivering because the more you dig the more you find out that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Let's talk margins, it appears on face value that they've increased but given he conveniently lumps sponsorships, hospitality and events together, the lower margin in 2018 is possibly (and probably) due to a higher proportion of events being held (which is obviously going to have a higher element of cost than pure sponsorship).

Onto the mechanisms, it absolutely does matter how and where the money comes from because **donations can't be considered recurring revenue.** You can broadly forecast out merchandise sales and ticket sales etc, but how can you with any surety rely on donations to get you through? What happens if they stop donating? That means a huge revenue stream dries up and we're screwed. It is the antithesis of self reliance. As CEO it's important for him to create recurring revenue streams, not donations that can be turned off at any point. That is business 101.

Last week you asked me what my experience is dealing with CEO's, to which I responded I deal with them every day due to my work. What's your experience dealing with them?

Absolutely donations can be considered as reoccurring revenue and the revenue stream from donations can be predicted and budged for. A donation is just a different type of product you can sell.

Donations are non-contractual in nature and can be cancelled at any time. They cannot be relied upon as future income. Handouts shouldn't form part of your long term commercial plan.

Sorry but that just isn’t true. They are not handouts they are a unique commercial advantage that only a few types of organisations can rely upon, just in the same way any sales predictions can be relied upon. Donations are a viable revenue stream for sporting clubs and should definitely be in your long term commercial plans.

As we discussed yesterday Mike, I don't agree with you. Donations are something that's nice to have as the cherry on top, **but that tap can very easily be turned off.**

Let's say Harry T is one of our main contributors and we rely on him to keep the lights on. He calls Pascoe and says, i'm not contributing any more money. What's the contingency?

Nonesense. You don’t have just one donator, you build a large group of people who donate regularly.

It isn't nonsense. You can't rely on it.

Then how can any business rely on sales?

Because it's tangible. You're selling a product or a service.

That is exactly what is happening with donations, the product is the sense of contributing to the team, to the club. Yes it can be turned off at any point but that is the same for any retail product. The only difference here is the product you are selling isn't a physical item, its a sense of goodwill and connection.

I do get what you are saying as because its not a physical product people are more likely to stop donating but this is a predictable business model, charities have operated on it for a long time.

I agree, but we are not a charity, it's a different beast altogether. **And when people/companies have limited money to spend or have to cut back, it will always be the things that have no physical product or service.**

You just don’t know what you are talking about. Just stop with the anti donation rhetoric, you clearly have no expertise in this area.

You chose to get personal rather than debate the issue so you've lost this argument. Play the topic, not the man.

 

[avocadoontoast]

Profit itself isn't important.
As you can see on the aesthetically pleasing graphs on that link, the various revenue streams have increased, which has given us the ability to extend spending on football operations (which has famously been thrifty in the past).
It's all a bit simplistic, understandably I suppose, but that's the ultimate goal on that side. Make more money so we can spend more money.

Predominantly due to "other income", which is donations and grants.

These are pretty common within Australian sporting clubs (at least AFL and NRL) aren't they?
Either way, I'm not defending Pascoe (far from it), but just pointing out that 'profit' isn't a realistic proposition for a professional sporting organisation.

The point I’m making is that the reason we are ‘commercially sound’ off the field is due to grants and donations, not great management.

Corporate partnerships have also grown..

Has it? According to the chart the revenue in sponsorships, hospitality and events has stayed more or less stagnant from 2017-2019, whilst margins have improved.

Who improves the margins? Who attracts the donations and grants.

It's a funny thing I think - if Madge is only measured by on-field success (or lack of it), why do you guys drill down into the nitty-gritty of what the CEO is delivering? Either he makes the club self-reliant / financial or he does not. The mechanisms by which he achieves that are far far secondary of concern.

The question is - will a new CEO deliver better on-field performance, and if so, by what mechanisms does that CEO achieve a direct influence on team output?

I drill down onto the nitty gritty of what he's delivering because the more you dig the more you find out that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Let's talk margins, it appears on face value that they've increased but given he conveniently lumps sponsorships, hospitality and events together, the lower margin in 2018 is possibly (and probably) due to a higher proportion of events being held (which is obviously going to have a higher element of cost than pure sponsorship).

Onto the mechanisms, it absolutely does matter how and where the money comes from because **donations can't be considered recurring revenue.** You can broadly forecast out merchandise sales and ticket sales etc, but how can you with any surety rely on donations to get you through? What happens if they stop donating? That means a huge revenue stream dries up and we're screwed. It is the antithesis of self reliance. As CEO it's important for him to create recurring revenue streams, not donations that can be turned off at any point. That is business 101.

Last week you asked me what my experience is dealing with CEO's, to which I responded I deal with them every day due to my work. What's your experience dealing with them?

Absolutely donations can be considered as reoccurring revenue and the revenue stream from donations can be predicted and budged for. A donation is just a different type of product you can sell.

Donations are non-contractual in nature and can be cancelled at any time. They cannot be relied upon as future income. Handouts shouldn't form part of your long term commercial plan.

Sorry but that just isn’t true. They are not handouts they are a unique commercial advantage that only a few types of organisations can rely upon, just in the same way any sales predictions can be relied upon. Donations are a viable revenue stream for sporting clubs and should definitely be in your long term commercial plans.

As we discussed yesterday Mike, I don't agree with you. Donations are something that's nice to have as the cherry on top, **but that tap can very easily be turned off.**

Let's say Harry T is one of our main contributors and we rely on him to keep the lights on. He calls Pascoe and says, i'm not contributing any more money. What's the contingency?

Nonesense. You don’t have just one donator, you build a large group of people who donate regularly.

It isn't nonsense. You can't rely on it.

Then how can any business rely on sales?

Because it's tangible. You're selling a product or a service.

That is exactly what is happening with donations, the product is the sense of contributing to the team, to the club. Yes it can be turned off at any point but that is the same for any retail product. The only difference here is the product you are selling isn't a physical item, its a sense of goodwill and connection.

I do get what you are saying as because its not a physical product people are more likely to stop donating but this is a predictable business model, charities have operated on it for a long time.

I agree, but we are not a charity, it's a different beast altogether. And when people/companies have limited money to spend or have to cut back, it will always be the things that have no physical product or service.

The Wests Tigers Foundation is a charity linked to the Wests Tigers and funds Projects and initiatives related to:
Elite Development
Community Engagement
Heritage

This model has been copied by other clubs and was seen as an innovation when it was established.

And look, contrary to Mike's hissy fit I actually have no issues with donations coming in, how would anyone? My point is that they cannot be relied upon as a future revenue stream in the same way ticketing, memberships and merchandise are.

 

[mike]

Profit itself isn't important.
As you can see on the aesthetically pleasing graphs on that link, the various revenue streams have increased, which has given us the ability to extend spending on football operations (which has famously been thrifty in the past).
It's all a bit simplistic, understandably I suppose, but that's the ultimate goal on that side. Make more money so we can spend more money.

Predominantly due to "other income", which is donations and grants.

These are pretty common within Australian sporting clubs (at least AFL and NRL) aren't they?
Either way, I'm not defending Pascoe (far from it), but just pointing out that 'profit' isn't a realistic proposition for a professional sporting organisation.

The point I’m making is that the reason we are ‘commercially sound’ off the field is due to grants and donations, not great management.

Corporate partnerships have also grown..

Has it? According to the chart the revenue in sponsorships, hospitality and events has stayed more or less stagnant from 2017-2019, whilst margins have improved.

Who improves the margins? Who attracts the donations and grants.

It's a funny thing I think - if Madge is only measured by on-field success (or lack of it), why do you guys drill down into the nitty-gritty of what the CEO is delivering? Either he makes the club self-reliant / financial or he does not. The mechanisms by which he achieves that are far far secondary of concern.

The question is - will a new CEO deliver better on-field performance, and if so, by what mechanisms does that CEO achieve a direct influence on team output?

I drill down onto the nitty gritty of what he's delivering because the more you dig the more you find out that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Let's talk margins, it appears on face value that they've increased but given he conveniently lumps sponsorships, hospitality and events together, the lower margin in 2018 is possibly (and probably) due to a higher proportion of events being held (which is obviously going to have a higher element of cost than pure sponsorship).

Onto the mechanisms, it absolutely does matter how and where the money comes from because **donations can't be considered recurring revenue.** You can broadly forecast out merchandise sales and ticket sales etc, but how can you with any surety rely on donations to get you through? What happens if they stop donating? That means a huge revenue stream dries up and we're screwed. It is the antithesis of self reliance. As CEO it's important for him to create recurring revenue streams, not donations that can be turned off at any point. That is business 101.

Last week you asked me what my experience is dealing with CEO's, to which I responded I deal with them every day due to my work. What's your experience dealing with them?

Absolutely donations can be considered as reoccurring revenue and the revenue stream from donations can be predicted and budged for. A donation is just a different type of product you can sell.

Donations are non-contractual in nature and can be cancelled at any time. They cannot be relied upon as future income. Handouts shouldn't form part of your long term commercial plan.

Sorry but that just isn’t true. They are not handouts they are a unique commercial advantage that only a few types of organisations can rely upon, just in the same way any sales predictions can be relied upon. Donations are a viable revenue stream for sporting clubs and should definitely be in your long term commercial plans.

As we discussed yesterday Mike, I don't agree with you. Donations are something that's nice to have as the cherry on top, **but that tap can very easily be turned off.**

Let's say Harry T is one of our main contributors and we rely on him to keep the lights on. He calls Pascoe and says, i'm not contributing any more money. What's the contingency?

Nonesense. You don’t have just one donator, you build a large group of people who donate regularly.

It isn't nonsense. You can't rely on it.

Then how can any business rely on sales?

Because it's tangible. You're selling a product or a service.

That is exactly what is happening with donations, the product is the sense of contributing to the team, to the club. Yes it can be turned off at any point but that is the same for any retail product. The only difference here is the product you are selling isn't a physical item, its a sense of goodwill and connection.

I do get what you are saying as because its not a physical product people are more likely to stop donating but this is a predictable business model, charities have operated on it for a long time.

I agree, but we are not a charity, it's a different beast altogether. **And when people/companies have limited money to spend or have to cut back, it will always be the things that have no physical product or service.**

You just don’t know what you are talking about. Just stop with the anti donation rhetoric, you clearly have no expertise in this area.

You chose to get personal rather than debate the issue so you've lost this argument. Play the topic, not the man.

What you said is just plain wrong. It may be counter intuitive but they do not always just cut back on non physical things and services. You are just making things up to fit your narrative.

 

[avocadoontoast]

Profit itself isn't important.
As you can see on the aesthetically pleasing graphs on that link, the various revenue streams have increased, which has given us the ability to extend spending on football operations (which has famously been thrifty in the past).
It's all a bit simplistic, understandably I suppose, but that's the ultimate goal on that side. Make more money so we can spend more money.

Predominantly due to "other income", which is donations and grants.

These are pretty common within Australian sporting clubs (at least AFL and NRL) aren't they?
Either way, I'm not defending Pascoe (far from it), but just pointing out that 'profit' isn't a realistic proposition for a professional sporting organisation.

The point I’m making is that the reason we are ‘commercially sound’ off the field is due to grants and donations, not great management.

Corporate partnerships have also grown..

Has it? According to the chart the revenue in sponsorships, hospitality and events has stayed more or less stagnant from 2017-2019, whilst margins have improved.

Who improves the margins? Who attracts the donations and grants.

It's a funny thing I think - if Madge is only measured by on-field success (or lack of it), why do you guys drill down into the nitty-gritty of what the CEO is delivering? Either he makes the club self-reliant / financial or he does not. The mechanisms by which he achieves that are far far secondary of concern.

The question is - will a new CEO deliver better on-field performance, and if so, by what mechanisms does that CEO achieve a direct influence on team output?

I drill down onto the nitty gritty of what he's delivering because the more you dig the more you find out that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Let's talk margins, it appears on face value that they've increased but given he conveniently lumps sponsorships, hospitality and events together, the lower margin in 2018 is possibly (and probably) due to a higher proportion of events being held (which is obviously going to have a higher element of cost than pure sponsorship).

Onto the mechanisms, it absolutely does matter how and where the money comes from because **donations can't be considered recurring revenue.** You can broadly forecast out merchandise sales and ticket sales etc, but how can you with any surety rely on donations to get you through? What happens if they stop donating? That means a huge revenue stream dries up and we're screwed. It is the antithesis of self reliance. As CEO it's important for him to create recurring revenue streams, not donations that can be turned off at any point. That is business 101.

Last week you asked me what my experience is dealing with CEO's, to which I responded I deal with them every day due to my work. What's your experience dealing with them?

Absolutely donations can be considered as reoccurring revenue and the revenue stream from donations can be predicted and budged for. A donation is just a different type of product you can sell.

Donations are non-contractual in nature and can be cancelled at any time. They cannot be relied upon as future income. Handouts shouldn't form part of your long term commercial plan.

Sorry but that just isn’t true. They are not handouts they are a unique commercial advantage that only a few types of organisations can rely upon, just in the same way any sales predictions can be relied upon. Donations are a viable revenue stream for sporting clubs and should definitely be in your long term commercial plans.

As we discussed yesterday Mike, I don't agree with you. Donations are something that's nice to have as the cherry on top, **but that tap can very easily be turned off.**

Let's say Harry T is one of our main contributors and we rely on him to keep the lights on. He calls Pascoe and says, i'm not contributing any more money. What's the contingency?

Nonesense. You don’t have just one donator, you build a large group of people who donate regularly.

It isn't nonsense. You can't rely on it.

Then how can any business rely on sales?

Because it's tangible. You're selling a product or a service.

That is exactly what is happening with donations, the product is the sense of contributing to the team, to the club. Yes it can be turned off at any point but that is the same for any retail product. The only difference here is the product you are selling isn't a physical item, its a sense of goodwill and connection.

I do get what you are saying as because its not a physical product people are more likely to stop donating but this is a predictable business model, charities have operated on it for a long time.

I agree, but we are not a charity, it's a different beast altogether. **And when people/companies have limited money to spend or have to cut back, it will always be the things that have no physical product or service.**

You just don’t know what you are talking about. Just stop with the anti donation rhetoric, you clearly have no expertise in this area.

You chose to get personal rather than debate the issue so you've lost this argument. Play the topic, not the man.

What you said is just plain wrong. It may be counter intuitive but they do not always just cut back on non physical things and services. You are just making things up to suite your narrative.

Prove it.

 

[mike]

Profit itself isn't important.
As you can see on the aesthetically pleasing graphs on that link, the various revenue streams have increased, which has given us the ability to extend spending on football operations (which has famously been thrifty in the past).
It's all a bit simplistic, understandably I suppose, but that's the ultimate goal on that side. Make more money so we can spend more money.

Predominantly due to "other income", which is donations and grants.

These are pretty common within Australian sporting clubs (at least AFL and NRL) aren't they?
Either way, I'm not defending Pascoe (far from it), but just pointing out that 'profit' isn't a realistic proposition for a professional sporting organisation.

The point I’m making is that the reason we are ‘commercially sound’ off the field is due to grants and donations, not great management.

Corporate partnerships have also grown..

Has it? According to the chart the revenue in sponsorships, hospitality and events has stayed more or less stagnant from 2017-2019, whilst margins have improved.

Who improves the margins? Who attracts the donations and grants.

It's a funny thing I think - if Madge is only measured by on-field success (or lack of it), why do you guys drill down into the nitty-gritty of what the CEO is delivering? Either he makes the club self-reliant / financial or he does not. The mechanisms by which he achieves that are far far secondary of concern.

The question is - will a new CEO deliver better on-field performance, and if so, by what mechanisms does that CEO achieve a direct influence on team output?

I drill down onto the nitty gritty of what he's delivering because the more you dig the more you find out that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Let's talk margins, it appears on face value that they've increased but given he conveniently lumps sponsorships, hospitality and events together, the lower margin in 2018 is possibly (and probably) due to a higher proportion of events being held (which is obviously going to have a higher element of cost than pure sponsorship).

Onto the mechanisms, it absolutely does matter how and where the money comes from because **donations can't be considered recurring revenue.** You can broadly forecast out merchandise sales and ticket sales etc, but how can you with any surety rely on donations to get you through? What happens if they stop donating? That means a huge revenue stream dries up and we're screwed. It is the antithesis of self reliance. As CEO it's important for him to create recurring revenue streams, not donations that can be turned off at any point. That is business 101.

Last week you asked me what my experience is dealing with CEO's, to which I responded I deal with them every day due to my work. What's your experience dealing with them?

Absolutely donations can be considered as reoccurring revenue and the revenue stream from donations can be predicted and budged for. A donation is just a different type of product you can sell.

Donations are non-contractual in nature and can be cancelled at any time. They cannot be relied upon as future income. Handouts shouldn't form part of your long term commercial plan.

Sorry but that just isn’t true. They are not handouts they are a unique commercial advantage that only a few types of organisations can rely upon, just in the same way any sales predictions can be relied upon. Donations are a viable revenue stream for sporting clubs and should definitely be in your long term commercial plans.

As we discussed yesterday Mike, I don't agree with you. Donations are something that's nice to have as the cherry on top, **but that tap can very easily be turned off.**

Let's say Harry T is one of our main contributors and we rely on him to keep the lights on. He calls Pascoe and says, i'm not contributing any more money. What's the contingency?

Nonesense. You don’t have just one donator, you build a large group of people who donate regularly.

It isn't nonsense. You can't rely on it.

Then how can any business rely on sales?

Because it's tangible. You're selling a product or a service.

That is exactly what is happening with donations, the product is the sense of contributing to the team, to the club. Yes it can be turned off at any point but that is the same for any retail product. The only difference here is the product you are selling isn't a physical item, its a sense of goodwill and connection.

I do get what you are saying as because its not a physical product people are more likely to stop donating but this is a predictable business model, charities have operated on it for a long time.

I agree, but we are not a charity, it's a different beast altogether. **And when people/companies have limited money to spend or have to cut back, it will always be the things that have no physical product or service.**

You just don’t know what you are talking about. Just stop with the anti donation rhetoric, you clearly have no expertise in this area.

You chose to get personal rather than debate the issue so you've lost this argument. Play the topic, not the man.

What you said is just plain wrong. It may be counter intuitive but they do not always just cut back on non physical things and services. You are just making things up to suite your narrative.

Prove it.

Church

 

[avocadoontoast]

Profit itself isn't important.
As you can see on the aesthetically pleasing graphs on that link, the various revenue streams have increased, which has given us the ability to extend spending on football operations (which has famously been thrifty in the past).
It's all a bit simplistic, understandably I suppose, but that's the ultimate goal on that side. Make more money so we can spend more money.

Predominantly due to "other income", which is donations and grants.

These are pretty common within Australian sporting clubs (at least AFL and NRL) aren't they?
Either way, I'm not defending Pascoe (far from it), but just pointing out that 'profit' isn't a realistic proposition for a professional sporting organisation.

The point I’m making is that the reason we are ‘commercially sound’ off the field is due to grants and donations, not great management.

Corporate partnerships have also grown..

Has it? According to the chart the revenue in sponsorships, hospitality and events has stayed more or less stagnant from 2017-2019, whilst margins have improved.

Who improves the margins? Who attracts the donations and grants.

It's a funny thing I think - if Madge is only measured by on-field success (or lack of it), why do you guys drill down into the nitty-gritty of what the CEO is delivering? Either he makes the club self-reliant / financial or he does not. The mechanisms by which he achieves that are far far secondary of concern.

The question is - will a new CEO deliver better on-field performance, and if so, by what mechanisms does that CEO achieve a direct influence on team output?

I drill down onto the nitty gritty of what he's delivering because the more you dig the more you find out that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Let's talk margins, it appears on face value that they've increased but given he conveniently lumps sponsorships, hospitality and events together, the lower margin in 2018 is possibly (and probably) due to a higher proportion of events being held (which is obviously going to have a higher element of cost than pure sponsorship).

Onto the mechanisms, it absolutely does matter how and where the money comes from because **donations can't be considered recurring revenue.** You can broadly forecast out merchandise sales and ticket sales etc, but how can you with any surety rely on donations to get you through? What happens if they stop donating? That means a huge revenue stream dries up and we're screwed. It is the antithesis of self reliance. As CEO it's important for him to create recurring revenue streams, not donations that can be turned off at any point. That is business 101.

Last week you asked me what my experience is dealing with CEO's, to which I responded I deal with them every day due to my work. What's your experience dealing with them?

Absolutely donations can be considered as reoccurring revenue and the revenue stream from donations can be predicted and budged for. A donation is just a different type of product you can sell.

Donations are non-contractual in nature and can be cancelled at any time. They cannot be relied upon as future income. Handouts shouldn't form part of your long term commercial plan.

Sorry but that just isn’t true. They are not handouts they are a unique commercial advantage that only a few types of organisations can rely upon, just in the same way any sales predictions can be relied upon. Donations are a viable revenue stream for sporting clubs and should definitely be in your long term commercial plans.

As we discussed yesterday Mike, I don't agree with you. Donations are something that's nice to have as the cherry on top, **but that tap can very easily be turned off.**

Let's say Harry T is one of our main contributors and we rely on him to keep the lights on. He calls Pascoe and says, i'm not contributing any more money. What's the contingency?

Nonesense. You don’t have just one donator, you build a large group of people who donate regularly.

It isn't nonsense. You can't rely on it.

Then how can any business rely on sales?

Because it's tangible. You're selling a product or a service.

That is exactly what is happening with donations, the product is the sense of contributing to the team, to the club. Yes it can be turned off at any point but that is the same for any retail product. The only difference here is the product you are selling isn't a physical item, its a sense of goodwill and connection.

I do get what you are saying as because its not a physical product people are more likely to stop donating but this is a predictable business model, charities have operated on it for a long time.

I agree, but we are not a charity, it's a different beast altogether. **And when people/companies have limited money to spend or have to cut back, it will always be the things that have no physical product or service.**

You just don’t know what you are talking about. Just stop with the anti donation rhetoric, you clearly have no expertise in this area.

You chose to get personal rather than debate the issue so you've lost this argument. Play the topic, not the man.

What you said is just plain wrong. It may be counter intuitive but they do not always just cut back on non physical things and services. You are just making things up to suite your narrative.

Prove it.

Church

Lol you’re comparing a church to a rugby league team. That will do me

 

[mike]

Profit itself isn't important.
As you can see on the aesthetically pleasing graphs on that link, the various revenue streams have increased, which has given us the ability to extend spending on football operations (which has famously been thrifty in the past).
It's all a bit simplistic, understandably I suppose, but that's the ultimate goal on that side. Make more money so we can spend more money.

Predominantly due to "other income", which is donations and grants.

These are pretty common within Australian sporting clubs (at least AFL and NRL) aren't they?
Either way, I'm not defending Pascoe (far from it), but just pointing out that 'profit' isn't a realistic proposition for a professional sporting organisation.

The point I’m making is that the reason we are ‘commercially sound’ off the field is due to grants and donations, not great management.

Corporate partnerships have also grown..

Has it? According to the chart the revenue in sponsorships, hospitality and events has stayed more or less stagnant from 2017-2019, whilst margins have improved.

Who improves the margins? Who attracts the donations and grants.

It's a funny thing I think - if Madge is only measured by on-field success (or lack of it), why do you guys drill down into the nitty-gritty of what the CEO is delivering? Either he makes the club self-reliant / financial or he does not. The mechanisms by which he achieves that are far far secondary of concern.

The question is - will a new CEO deliver better on-field performance, and if so, by what mechanisms does that CEO achieve a direct influence on team output?

I drill down onto the nitty gritty of what he's delivering because the more you dig the more you find out that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Let's talk margins, it appears on face value that they've increased but given he conveniently lumps sponsorships, hospitality and events together, the lower margin in 2018 is possibly (and probably) due to a higher proportion of events being held (which is obviously going to have a higher element of cost than pure sponsorship).

Onto the mechanisms, it absolutely does matter how and where the money comes from because **donations can't be considered recurring revenue.** You can broadly forecast out merchandise sales and ticket sales etc, but how can you with any surety rely on donations to get you through? What happens if they stop donating? That means a huge revenue stream dries up and we're screwed. It is the antithesis of self reliance. As CEO it's important for him to create recurring revenue streams, not donations that can be turned off at any point. That is business 101.

Last week you asked me what my experience is dealing with CEO's, to which I responded I deal with them every day due to my work. What's your experience dealing with them?

Absolutely donations can be considered as reoccurring revenue and the revenue stream from donations can be predicted and budged for. A donation is just a different type of product you can sell.

Donations are non-contractual in nature and can be cancelled at any time. They cannot be relied upon as future income. Handouts shouldn't form part of your long term commercial plan.

Sorry but that just isn’t true. They are not handouts they are a unique commercial advantage that only a few types of organisations can rely upon, just in the same way any sales predictions can be relied upon. Donations are a viable revenue stream for sporting clubs and should definitely be in your long term commercial plans.

As we discussed yesterday Mike, I don't agree with you. Donations are something that's nice to have as the cherry on top, **but that tap can very easily be turned off.**

Let's say Harry T is one of our main contributors and we rely on him to keep the lights on. He calls Pascoe and says, i'm not contributing any more money. What's the contingency?

Nonesense. You don’t have just one donator, you build a large group of people who donate regularly.

It isn't nonsense. You can't rely on it.

Then how can any business rely on sales?

Because it's tangible. You're selling a product or a service.

That is exactly what is happening with donations, the product is the sense of contributing to the team, to the club. Yes it can be turned off at any point but that is the same for any retail product. The only difference here is the product you are selling isn't a physical item, its a sense of goodwill and connection.

I do get what you are saying as because its not a physical product people are more likely to stop donating but this is a predictable business model, charities have operated on it for a long time.

I agree, but we are not a charity, it's a different beast altogether. **And when people/companies have limited money to spend or have to cut back, it will always be the things that have no physical product or service.**

You just don’t know what you are talking about. Just stop with the anti donation rhetoric, you clearly have no expertise in this area.

You chose to get personal rather than debate the issue so you've lost this argument. Play the topic, not the man.

What you said is just plain wrong. It may be counter intuitive but they do not always just cut back on non physical things and services. You are just making things up to suite your narrative.

Prove it.

And to be honest you are the one claiming that they do. The burden of proof is with you.

 

[hobbo1]

I’d rather donate to the RSPCA

 

[avocadoontoast]

Profit itself isn't important.
As you can see on the aesthetically pleasing graphs on that link, the various revenue streams have increased, which has given us the ability to extend spending on football operations (which has famously been thrifty in the past).
It's all a bit simplistic, understandably I suppose, but that's the ultimate goal on that side. Make more money so we can spend more money.

Predominantly due to "other income", which is donations and grants.

These are pretty common within Australian sporting clubs (at least AFL and NRL) aren't they?
Either way, I'm not defending Pascoe (far from it), but just pointing out that 'profit' isn't a realistic proposition for a professional sporting organisation.

The point I’m making is that the reason we are ‘commercially sound’ off the field is due to grants and donations, not great management.

Corporate partnerships have also grown..

Has it? According to the chart the revenue in sponsorships, hospitality and events has stayed more or less stagnant from 2017-2019, whilst margins have improved.

Who improves the margins? Who attracts the donations and grants.

It's a funny thing I think - if Madge is only measured by on-field success (or lack of it), why do you guys drill down into the nitty-gritty of what the CEO is delivering? Either he makes the club self-reliant / financial or he does not. The mechanisms by which he achieves that are far far secondary of concern.

The question is - will a new CEO deliver better on-field performance, and if so, by what mechanisms does that CEO achieve a direct influence on team output?

I drill down onto the nitty gritty of what he's delivering because the more you dig the more you find out that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Let's talk margins, it appears on face value that they've increased but given he conveniently lumps sponsorships, hospitality and events together, the lower margin in 2018 is possibly (and probably) due to a higher proportion of events being held (which is obviously going to have a higher element of cost than pure sponsorship).

Onto the mechanisms, it absolutely does matter how and where the money comes from because **donations can't be considered recurring revenue.** You can broadly forecast out merchandise sales and ticket sales etc, but how can you with any surety rely on donations to get you through? What happens if they stop donating? That means a huge revenue stream dries up and we're screwed. It is the antithesis of self reliance. As CEO it's important for him to create recurring revenue streams, not donations that can be turned off at any point. That is business 101.

Last week you asked me what my experience is dealing with CEO's, to which I responded I deal with them every day due to my work. What's your experience dealing with them?

Absolutely donations can be considered as reoccurring revenue and the revenue stream from donations can be predicted and budged for. A donation is just a different type of product you can sell.

Donations are non-contractual in nature and can be cancelled at any time. They cannot be relied upon as future income. Handouts shouldn't form part of your long term commercial plan.

Sorry but that just isn’t true. They are not handouts they are a unique commercial advantage that only a few types of organisations can rely upon, just in the same way any sales predictions can be relied upon. Donations are a viable revenue stream for sporting clubs and should definitely be in your long term commercial plans.

As we discussed yesterday Mike, I don't agree with you. Donations are something that's nice to have as the cherry on top, **but that tap can very easily be turned off.**

Let's say Harry T is one of our main contributors and we rely on him to keep the lights on. He calls Pascoe and says, i'm not contributing any more money. What's the contingency?

Nonesense. You don’t have just one donator, you build a large group of people who donate regularly.

It isn't nonsense. You can't rely on it.

Then how can any business rely on sales?

Because it's tangible. You're selling a product or a service.

That is exactly what is happening with donations, the product is the sense of contributing to the team, to the club. Yes it can be turned off at any point but that is the same for any retail product. The only difference here is the product you are selling isn't a physical item, its a sense of goodwill and connection.

I do get what you are saying as because its not a physical product people are more likely to stop donating but this is a predictable business model, charities have operated on it for a long time.

I agree, but we are not a charity, it's a different beast altogether. **And when people/companies have limited money to spend or have to cut back, it will always be the things that have no physical product or service.**

You just don’t know what you are talking about. Just stop with the anti donation rhetoric, you clearly have no expertise in this area.

You chose to get personal rather than debate the issue so you've lost this argument. Play the topic, not the man.

What you said is just plain wrong. It may be counter intuitive but they do not always just cut back on non physical things and services. You are just making things up to suite your narrative.

Prove it.

And to be honest you are the one claiming that they do. The burden of proof is with you.

You said I have no idea and then you compare a church to a rugby league team. Lol Mike, lol.

 

[cochise]

Profit itself isn't important.
As you can see on the aesthetically pleasing graphs on that link, the various revenue streams have increased, which has given us the ability to extend spending on football operations (which has famously been thrifty in the past).
It's all a bit simplistic, understandably I suppose, but that's the ultimate goal on that side. Make more money so we can spend more money.

Predominantly due to "other income", which is donations and grants.

These are pretty common within Australian sporting clubs (at least AFL and NRL) aren't they?
Either way, I'm not defending Pascoe (far from it), but just pointing out that 'profit' isn't a realistic proposition for a professional sporting organisation.

The point I’m making is that the reason we are ‘commercially sound’ off the field is due to grants and donations, not great management.

Corporate partnerships have also grown..

Has it? According to the chart the revenue in sponsorships, hospitality and events has stayed more or less stagnant from 2017-2019, whilst margins have improved.

Who improves the margins? Who attracts the donations and grants.

It's a funny thing I think - if Madge is only measured by on-field success (or lack of it), why do you guys drill down into the nitty-gritty of what the CEO is delivering? Either he makes the club self-reliant / financial or he does not. The mechanisms by which he achieves that are far far secondary of concern.

The question is - will a new CEO deliver better on-field performance, and if so, by what mechanisms does that CEO achieve a direct influence on team output?

I drill down onto the nitty gritty of what he's delivering because the more you dig the more you find out that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Let's talk margins, it appears on face value that they've increased but given he conveniently lumps sponsorships, hospitality and events together, the lower margin in 2018 is possibly (and probably) due to a higher proportion of events being held (which is obviously going to have a higher element of cost than pure sponsorship).

Onto the mechanisms, it absolutely does matter how and where the money comes from because **donations can't be considered recurring revenue.** You can broadly forecast out merchandise sales and ticket sales etc, but how can you with any surety rely on donations to get you through? What happens if they stop donating? That means a huge revenue stream dries up and we're screwed. It is the antithesis of self reliance. As CEO it's important for him to create recurring revenue streams, not donations that can be turned off at any point. That is business 101.

Last week you asked me what my experience is dealing with CEO's, to which I responded I deal with them every day due to my work. What's your experience dealing with them?

Absolutely donations can be considered as reoccurring revenue and the revenue stream from donations can be predicted and budged for. A donation is just a different type of product you can sell.

Donations are non-contractual in nature and can be cancelled at any time. They cannot be relied upon as future income. Handouts shouldn't form part of your long term commercial plan.

Sorry but that just isn’t true. They are not handouts they are a unique commercial advantage that only a few types of organisations can rely upon, just in the same way any sales predictions can be relied upon. Donations are a viable revenue stream for sporting clubs and should definitely be in your long term commercial plans.

As we discussed yesterday Mike, I don't agree with you. Donations are something that's nice to have as the cherry on top, **but that tap can very easily be turned off.**

Let's say Harry T is one of our main contributors and we rely on him to keep the lights on. He calls Pascoe and says, i'm not contributing any more money. What's the contingency?

Nonesense. You don’t have just one donator, you build a large group of people who donate regularly.

It isn't nonsense. You can't rely on it.

Then how can any business rely on sales?

Because it's tangible. You're selling a product or a service.

That is exactly what is happening with donations, the product is the sense of contributing to the team, to the club. Yes it can be turned off at any point but that is the same for any retail product. The only difference here is the product you are selling isn't a physical item, its a sense of goodwill and connection.

I do get what you are saying as because its not a physical product people are more likely to stop donating but this is a predictable business model, charities have operated on it for a long time.

I agree, but we are not a charity, it's a different beast altogether. And when people/companies have limited money to spend or have to cut back, it will always be the things that have no physical product or service.

The Wests Tigers Foundation is a charity linked to the Wests Tigers and funds Projects and initiatives related to:
Elite Development
Community Engagement
Heritage

This model has been copied by other clubs and was seen as an innovation when it was established.

And look, contrary to Mike's hissy fit I actually have no issues with donations coming in, how would anyone? My point is that they cannot be relied upon as a future revenue stream in the same way ticketing, memberships and merchandise are.

To be honest in the current environment and landscape we find ourselves in, I don't think any of those can be relied upon with any certainty.

I know the club was able to stay and a relatively strong financial position last year due to the number of people pledging their memberships, which again was a form of charity and a sign of support.

Sporting clubs are a unique business model in a number of ways, one of those is people are lifelong supporters and are willing to put money in for little return. That is why businesses are keen to sponsor sporting teams, because they are trying to attach themselves to the club and connect themselves to that connected and committed customer base. That is also why donations become a relevant, strong and somewhat predictable revenue stream as it is that connection to the club that is being sold.

 

[mike]

Profit itself isn't important.
As you can see on the aesthetically pleasing graphs on that link, the various revenue streams have increased, which has given us the ability to extend spending on football operations (which has famously been thrifty in the past).
It's all a bit simplistic, understandably I suppose, but that's the ultimate goal on that side. Make more money so we can spend more money.

Predominantly due to "other income", which is donations and grants.

These are pretty common within Australian sporting clubs (at least AFL and NRL) aren't they?
Either way, I'm not defending Pascoe (far from it), but just pointing out that 'profit' isn't a realistic proposition for a professional sporting organisation.

The point I’m making is that the reason we are ‘commercially sound’ off the field is due to grants and donations, not great management.

Corporate partnerships have also grown..

Has it? According to the chart the revenue in sponsorships, hospitality and events has stayed more or less stagnant from 2017-2019, whilst margins have improved.

Who improves the margins? Who attracts the donations and grants.

It's a funny thing I think - if Madge is only measured by on-field success (or lack of it), why do you guys drill down into the nitty-gritty of what the CEO is delivering? Either he makes the club self-reliant / financial or he does not. The mechanisms by which he achieves that are far far secondary of concern.

The question is - will a new CEO deliver better on-field performance, and if so, by what mechanisms does that CEO achieve a direct influence on team output?

I drill down onto the nitty gritty of what he's delivering because the more you dig the more you find out that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Let's talk margins, it appears on face value that they've increased but given he conveniently lumps sponsorships, hospitality and events together, the lower margin in 2018 is possibly (and probably) due to a higher proportion of events being held (which is obviously going to have a higher element of cost than pure sponsorship).

Onto the mechanisms, it absolutely does matter how and where the money comes from because **donations can't be considered recurring revenue.** You can broadly forecast out merchandise sales and ticket sales etc, but how can you with any surety rely on donations to get you through? What happens if they stop donating? That means a huge revenue stream dries up and we're screwed. It is the antithesis of self reliance. As CEO it's important for him to create recurring revenue streams, not donations that can be turned off at any point. That is business 101.

Last week you asked me what my experience is dealing with CEO's, to which I responded I deal with them every day due to my work. What's your experience dealing with them?

Absolutely donations can be considered as reoccurring revenue and the revenue stream from donations can be predicted and budged for. A donation is just a different type of product you can sell.

Donations are non-contractual in nature and can be cancelled at any time. They cannot be relied upon as future income. Handouts shouldn't form part of your long term commercial plan.

Sorry but that just isn’t true. They are not handouts they are a unique commercial advantage that only a few types of organisations can rely upon, just in the same way any sales predictions can be relied upon. Donations are a viable revenue stream for sporting clubs and should definitely be in your long term commercial plans.

As we discussed yesterday Mike, I don't agree with you. Donations are something that's nice to have as the cherry on top, **but that tap can very easily be turned off.**

Let's say Harry T is one of our main contributors and we rely on him to keep the lights on. He calls Pascoe and says, i'm not contributing any more money. What's the contingency?

Nonesense. You don’t have just one donator, you build a large group of people who donate regularly.

It isn't nonsense. You can't rely on it.

Then how can any business rely on sales?

Because it's tangible. You're selling a product or a service.

That is exactly what is happening with donations, the product is the sense of contributing to the team, to the club. Yes it can be turned off at any point but that is the same for any retail product. The only difference here is the product you are selling isn't a physical item, its a sense of goodwill and connection.

I do get what you are saying as because its not a physical product people are more likely to stop donating but this is a predictable business model, charities have operated on it for a long time.

I agree, but we are not a charity, it's a different beast altogether. **And when people/companies have limited money to spend or have to cut back, it will always be the things that have no physical product or service.**

You just don’t know what you are talking about. Just stop with the anti donation rhetoric, you clearly have no expertise in this area.

You chose to get personal rather than debate the issue so you've lost this argument. Play the topic, not the man.

What you said is just plain wrong. It may be counter intuitive but they do not always just cut back on non physical things and services. You are just making things up to suite your narrative.

Prove it.

Church

Lol you’re comparing a church to a rugby league team. That will do me

No I am not. I am pointing out that your statement that people will automatically cut back on none physical things and services in times of financial stress is simply not true.

 

[mike]

Profit itself isn't important.
As you can see on the aesthetically pleasing graphs on that link, the various revenue streams have increased, which has given us the ability to extend spending on football operations (which has famously been thrifty in the past).
It's all a bit simplistic, understandably I suppose, but that's the ultimate goal on that side. Make more money so we can spend more money.

Predominantly due to "other income", which is donations and grants.

These are pretty common within Australian sporting clubs (at least AFL and NRL) aren't they?
Either way, I'm not defending Pascoe (far from it), but just pointing out that 'profit' isn't a realistic proposition for a professional sporting organisation.

The point I’m making is that the reason we are ‘commercially sound’ off the field is due to grants and donations, not great management.

Corporate partnerships have also grown..

Has it? According to the chart the revenue in sponsorships, hospitality and events has stayed more or less stagnant from 2017-2019, whilst margins have improved.

Who improves the margins? Who attracts the donations and grants.

It's a funny thing I think - if Madge is only measured by on-field success (or lack of it), why do you guys drill down into the nitty-gritty of what the CEO is delivering? Either he makes the club self-reliant / financial or he does not. The mechanisms by which he achieves that are far far secondary of concern.

The question is - will a new CEO deliver better on-field performance, and if so, by what mechanisms does that CEO achieve a direct influence on team output?

I drill down onto the nitty gritty of what he's delivering because the more you dig the more you find out that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Let's talk margins, it appears on face value that they've increased but given he conveniently lumps sponsorships, hospitality and events together, the lower margin in 2018 is possibly (and probably) due to a higher proportion of events being held (which is obviously going to have a higher element of cost than pure sponsorship).

Onto the mechanisms, it absolutely does matter how and where the money comes from because **donations can't be considered recurring revenue.** You can broadly forecast out merchandise sales and ticket sales etc, but how can you with any surety rely on donations to get you through? What happens if they stop donating? That means a huge revenue stream dries up and we're screwed. It is the antithesis of self reliance. As CEO it's important for him to create recurring revenue streams, not donations that can be turned off at any point. That is business 101.

Last week you asked me what my experience is dealing with CEO's, to which I responded I deal with them every day due to my work. What's your experience dealing with them?

Absolutely donations can be considered as reoccurring revenue and the revenue stream from donations can be predicted and budged for. A donation is just a different type of product you can sell.

Donations are non-contractual in nature and can be cancelled at any time. They cannot be relied upon as future income. Handouts shouldn't form part of your long term commercial plan.

Sorry but that just isn’t true. They are not handouts they are a unique commercial advantage that only a few types of organisations can rely upon, just in the same way any sales predictions can be relied upon. Donations are a viable revenue stream for sporting clubs and should definitely be in your long term commercial plans.

As we discussed yesterday Mike, I don't agree with you. Donations are something that's nice to have as the cherry on top, **but that tap can very easily be turned off.**

Let's say Harry T is one of our main contributors and we rely on him to keep the lights on. He calls Pascoe and says, i'm not contributing any more money. What's the contingency?

Nonesense. You don’t have just one donator, you build a large group of people who donate regularly.

It isn't nonsense. You can't rely on it.

Then how can any business rely on sales?

Because it's tangible. You're selling a product or a service.

That is exactly what is happening with donations, the product is the sense of contributing to the team, to the club. Yes it can be turned off at any point but that is the same for any retail product. The only difference here is the product you are selling isn't a physical item, its a sense of goodwill and connection.

I do get what you are saying as because its not a physical product people are more likely to stop donating but this is a predictable business model, charities have operated on it for a long time.

I agree, but we are not a charity, it's a different beast altogether. **And when people/companies have limited money to spend or have to cut back, it will always be the things that have no physical product or service.**

You just don’t know what you are talking about. Just stop with the anti donation rhetoric, you clearly have no expertise in this area.

You chose to get personal rather than debate the issue so you've lost this argument. Play the topic, not the man.

What you said is just plain wrong. It may be counter intuitive but they do not always just cut back on non physical things and services. You are just making things up to suite your narrative.

Prove it.

And to be honest you are the one claiming that they do. The burden of proof is with you.

You said I have no idea and then you compare a church to a rugby league team. Lol Mike, lol.

Again I didn’t compare Rugby League with the Church. I just have a clear example of why your statement is false.

 

[tigerbalm]

The holy house of Concord with Pastor Pascoe handing out little envelopes. If we get enough tithe maybe they can afford some players?

 

[getagrip]

Profit itself isn't important.
As you can see on the aesthetically pleasing graphs on that link, the various revenue streams have increased, which has given us the ability to extend spending on football operations (which has famously been thrifty in the past).
It's all a bit simplistic, understandably I suppose, but that's the ultimate goal on that side. Make more money so we can spend more money.

Predominantly due to "other income", which is donations and grants.

These are pretty common within Australian sporting clubs (at least AFL and NRL) aren't they?
Either way, I'm not defending Pascoe (far from it), but just pointing out that 'profit' isn't a realistic proposition for a professional sporting organisation.

The point I’m making is that the reason we are ‘commercially sound’ off the field is due to grants and donations, not great management.

Corporate partnerships have also grown..

Has it? According to the chart the revenue in sponsorships, hospitality and events has stayed more or less stagnant from 2017-2019, whilst margins have improved.

Who improves the margins? Who attracts the donations and grants.

It's a funny thing I think - if Madge is only measured by on-field success (or lack of it), why do you guys drill down into the nitty-gritty of what the CEO is delivering? Either he makes the club self-reliant / financial or he does not. The mechanisms by which he achieves that are far far secondary of concern.

The question is - will a new CEO deliver better on-field performance, and if so, by what mechanisms does that CEO achieve a direct influence on team output?

I drill down onto the nitty gritty of what he's delivering because the more you dig the more you find out that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Let's talk margins, it appears on face value that they've increased but given he conveniently lumps sponsorships, hospitality and events together, the lower margin in 2018 is possibly (and probably) due to a higher proportion of events being held (which is obviously going to have a higher element of cost than pure sponsorship).

Onto the mechanisms, it absolutely does matter how and where the money comes from because **donations can't be considered recurring revenue.** You can broadly forecast out merchandise sales and ticket sales etc, but how can you with any surety rely on donations to get you through? What happens if they stop donating? That means a huge revenue stream dries up and we're screwed. It is the antithesis of self reliance. As CEO it's important for him to create recurring revenue streams, not donations that can be turned off at any point. That is business 101.

Last week you asked me what my experience is dealing with CEO's, to which I responded I deal with them every day due to my work. What's your experience dealing with them?

Absolutely donations can be considered as reoccurring revenue and the revenue stream from donations can be predicted and budged for. A donation is just a different type of product you can sell.

Donations are non-contractual in nature and can be cancelled at any time. They cannot be relied upon as future income. Handouts shouldn't form part of your long term commercial plan.

Sorry but that just isn’t true. They are not handouts they are a unique commercial advantage that only a few types of organisations can rely upon, just in the same way any sales predictions can be relied upon. Donations are a viable revenue stream for sporting clubs and should definitely be in your long term commercial plans.

As we discussed yesterday Mike, I don't agree with you. Donations are something that's nice to have as the cherry on top, **but that tap can very easily be turned off.**

Let's say Harry T is one of our main contributors and we rely on him to keep the lights on. He calls Pascoe and says, i'm not contributing any more money. What's the contingency?

Nonesense. You don’t have just one donator, you build a large group of people who donate regularly.

It isn't nonsense. You can't rely on it.

Then how can any business rely on sales?

Because it's tangible. You're selling a product or a service.

But why should they buy your product or service and not someone elses?

Every year i'll buy tickets, i'll buy endless beers at the game and i'll buy the supporter gear. They are things you can more or less count on from a revenue perspective (outside of Covid). It's something I want and am happy to pay for, as I get something in return.

What are you getting in return for your donation to the foundation?

Exposure, publicity, tax deduction?

 

[avocadoontoast]

Profit itself isn't important.
As you can see on the aesthetically pleasing graphs on that link, the various revenue streams have increased, which has given us the ability to extend spending on football operations (which has famously been thrifty in the past).
It's all a bit simplistic, understandably I suppose, but that's the ultimate goal on that side. Make more money so we can spend more money.

Predominantly due to "other income", which is donations and grants.

These are pretty common within Australian sporting clubs (at least AFL and NRL) aren't they?
Either way, I'm not defending Pascoe (far from it), but just pointing out that 'profit' isn't a realistic proposition for a professional sporting organisation.

The point I’m making is that the reason we are ‘commercially sound’ off the field is due to grants and donations, not great management.

Corporate partnerships have also grown..

Has it? According to the chart the revenue in sponsorships, hospitality and events has stayed more or less stagnant from 2017-2019, whilst margins have improved.

Who improves the margins? Who attracts the donations and grants.

It's a funny thing I think - if Madge is only measured by on-field success (or lack of it), why do you guys drill down into the nitty-gritty of what the CEO is delivering? Either he makes the club self-reliant / financial or he does not. The mechanisms by which he achieves that are far far secondary of concern.

The question is - will a new CEO deliver better on-field performance, and if so, by what mechanisms does that CEO achieve a direct influence on team output?

I drill down onto the nitty gritty of what he's delivering because the more you dig the more you find out that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Let's talk margins, it appears on face value that they've increased but given he conveniently lumps sponsorships, hospitality and events together, the lower margin in 2018 is possibly (and probably) due to a higher proportion of events being held (which is obviously going to have a higher element of cost than pure sponsorship).

Onto the mechanisms, it absolutely does matter how and where the money comes from because **donations can't be considered recurring revenue.** You can broadly forecast out merchandise sales and ticket sales etc, but how can you with any surety rely on donations to get you through? What happens if they stop donating? That means a huge revenue stream dries up and we're screwed. It is the antithesis of self reliance. As CEO it's important for him to create recurring revenue streams, not donations that can be turned off at any point. That is business 101.

Last week you asked me what my experience is dealing with CEO's, to which I responded I deal with them every day due to my work. What's your experience dealing with them?

Absolutely donations can be considered as reoccurring revenue and the revenue stream from donations can be predicted and budged for. A donation is just a different type of product you can sell.

Donations are non-contractual in nature and can be cancelled at any time. They cannot be relied upon as future income. Handouts shouldn't form part of your long term commercial plan.

Sorry but that just isn’t true. They are not handouts they are a unique commercial advantage that only a few types of organisations can rely upon, just in the same way any sales predictions can be relied upon. Donations are a viable revenue stream for sporting clubs and should definitely be in your long term commercial plans.

As we discussed yesterday Mike, I don't agree with you. Donations are something that's nice to have as the cherry on top, **but that tap can very easily be turned off.**

Let's say Harry T is one of our main contributors and we rely on him to keep the lights on. He calls Pascoe and says, i'm not contributing any more money. What's the contingency?

Nonesense. You don’t have just one donator, you build a large group of people who donate regularly.

It isn't nonsense. You can't rely on it.

Then how can any business rely on sales?

Because it's tangible. You're selling a product or a service.

But why should they buy your product or service and not someone elses?

Every year i'll buy tickets, i'll buy endless beers at the game and i'll buy the supporter gear. They are things you can more or less count on from a revenue perspective (outside of Covid). It's something I want and am happy to pay for, as I get something in return.

What are you getting in return for your donation to the foundation?

Exposure, publicity, tax deduction?

Sponsorship gets that but do donations? They definitely get tax deductions but do they get exposure and publicity?

 

[BZN]

I know of a sponsor who wrote Pascoe an email some two-three months ago. The email discussed amongst other things, the performance of the team and make up of the board.

There were two main points raised in particular

1) Firstly, the sponsor expressed their desire for it to be communicated to the board that the current board arrangement appeared to lack direct accountability to stakeholders. There was no direct link between sponsors/fans and the board - no means of voting right membership in Wests Tigers.

2) The 2nd point raised by the sponsor was the fact that our board didn't have footy experience and pointed to Penrith and the Roosters as an example (Greg Alexander is a board member for Penrith & Luke Ricketson is a board member for the Roosters).

The sponsor was not even given the courtesy of an acknowledgement let alone a reply.

Fair to say, the sponsor wont be back in 2022.

Would you care to tell us who that sponsor is ?