CEO

[avocadoontoast]

The only reason we make a profit, or get close to breaking even, is because of the generosity of a certain property developer who continues to provide support.

Exactly, I’d imagine that would be a large part of the ‘other income’ that has increased so much. Seeing things a lot clearer today.

 

[BZN]

The only reason we make a profit, or get close to breaking even, is because of the generosity of a certain property developer who continues to provide support.

Wow!!! thats amazing. but can you provide the **proof** please.

 

[Tiger_Fanatic3]

Wish I had a cool job like the bloke himself


 

[jirskyr]

None that say it publicly, but our CEO did back in 2015. It was supposed to be one of his main priorities.
“But one thing I will say unequivocally is that there needs to be one defined home to complement the one defined brand of the Wests Tigers”

Yes but nothing can be done wrt a single home ground whilst we are still under the old 10-year deal with Events NSW. I think the only option available would be to try and get all matches at the Events location, which in 2021 would mean playing all home games out of Bankwest.

So if you are in favour of playing all matches at Bankwest until the deal runs out (end of 2022?) then that's potentially the only option. And the issue is I don't think that's a feasible long-term option, you are talking about hunkering down in Parramatta for a short period, then potentially moving the whole show to another centralised Stadium like the new SFS or a new Bankwest somwhere else.

The home ground conversation is not readily resolved whilst the State Govt continues to umm and ahh about their long-term stadium strategy, and that probably would have been ironed out by now if there was no such thing as COVID. But they reallocated the $850M proposed for Homebush and there is constant mooting about boutique stadium money somewhere.

I mean imagine Tigers signed a long-term lease with SFS or Bankwest and then the govt announces $250M for Campbelltown Stadium. Or doesn't announce it, because there are no high-profile long-term tennants.

 

[Geo]

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..

 

[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.

 

[jirskyr]

As part of this conversation I'd be interested to hear about precedent in other clubs that sack or remove the CEO due to on-field performance only (or primarily). That's not a wise-crack, I'd simply like to see examples of what other clubs have done if they step their CEO down because the first grade side is unsuccessful.

I keep coming back to an example where Joe Kelly was CEO of Manly during the years they were busted for salary cap and failed to make the finals (2015-2016), and he oversaw the replacement of Geoff Toovey by Trent Barrett, which was a horror show. Barrett himself shown the door after Kelly left.

Kelly was suspended for 9 months after the Manly salary cap debacle, which I think was adjusted to 6 months on appeal. The catcher is that Kelly was hired by Roosters starting 2017 and he served his suspension whilst under the employ of the Roosters. He is STILL the CEO of the Roosters. Now if everything is to be believed about Roosters "keeping everyone they want", then Joe Kelly must be a decent CEO, even though his tenure at Manly was very ordinary and, at times, provably illegal.

The reality is the Board isn't keeping Pascoe on for the fun of it, and he's been here since the tail end of 2015, so he's on 6 years now, which means at least 1 contract extension (and he's not being fired right now, so probably on his 2nd extension).

The Board will have KPIs in place and you can only assume Pascoe is meeting those KPIs, otherwise they would have moved him on. I am going to guess it's easier to find a club CEO than a top-tier Head Coach, because CEOs can come from business but coaches can only come from rugby league.

So assuming Pascoe is meeting his KPIs and yet the team is still unsuccessful, it follows that hiring a new CEO is very likely to maintain the status quo unless you increase the KPIs. But the KPIs are on the Board, so its a criticism of the board if the CEO isn't being pushed hard enough.

And if we all concede that CEOs are generally not football operation people (they basically raise funding to support football operations), then I'm not clear how removing Pascoe will directly translate into better on-field performance.

Pascoe doesn't hire the coach, he doesn't hire the trainers, he doesn't personally select the players. He runs the business and delivers funding to the football operations departments. So in replacing him, you will only be adjusting the potential funds given to Football Ops, not the actual way in which the teams are trained or coached.

And given that Pascoe started season 2016, and Tigers have been in trouble for most seasons prior to 2016, and the current finals drought includes 4 seasons before Pascoe arrived, it's evident that the Tigers struggles are not Pascoe-centric.

Now I say all this not specifically in defence of Pascoe. I have no issues if he is sacked and he can't say he hasn't been given a decent tenure. I wouldn't have a clue who Tigers might replace him with. I'll caveat that Pascoe's predecessors were typically not well received and were replaced in short time, so a long-served CEO might be a good thing.

My cautioning is that I believe most anti-Pascoe people are just tired of his face, as much as anything else they can clearly point the finger at. And my personal opinion is that replacing Pascoe is unlikely to change the fundamental influence of the CEO.

Especially if the new CEO isn't some white-hot rugby league CEO weapon, and I don't think Tigers have a history of attracting the cutting-edge talent of the game.

 

[jirskyr]

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?

 

[2005magic]

Im not pro or anti Pascoe but I do think its time for fresh consideration of CEO. Not necessarily saying he has to go but it would be good to test the market.

 

[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?

 

[Geo]

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.

In number

https://www.weststigers.com.au/about/sponsors/

It’s a long scroll

 

[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.

In number

https://www.weststigers.com.au/about/sponsors/

It’s a long scroll

It might be a bigger list, but it hasn't translated into a material increase in revenue during that period.

 

[Geo]

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.

In number

https://www.weststigers.com.au/about/sponsors/

It’s a long scroll

It might be a bigger list, but it hasn't translated into a material increase in revenue during that period.

This has..

https://www.weststigers.com.au/foundation/

Commenced 2018..

 

[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.

In number

https://www.weststigers.com.au/about/sponsors/

It’s a long scroll

It might be a bigger list, but it hasn't translated into a material increase in revenue during that period.


This has..

https://www.weststigers.com.au/foundation/

Commenced 2018..

That's exactly my point. They're donations.

 

[Geo]

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.

In number

https://www.weststigers.com.au/about/sponsors/

It’s a long scroll

It might be a bigger list, but it hasn't translated into a material increase in revenue during that period.


This has..

https://www.weststigers.com.au/foundation/

Commenced 2018..

That's exactly my point. They're donations

Is that bad

 

[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.

In number

https://www.weststigers.com.au/about/sponsors/

It’s a long scroll

It might be a bigger list, but it hasn't translated into a material increase in revenue during that period.


This has..

https://www.weststigers.com.au/foundation/

Commenced 2018..

That's exactly my point. They're donations

Is that bad

If you were running a business would you sleep well at night knowing one of your primary income streams is donations?

 

[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.

In number

https://www.weststigers.com.au/about/sponsors/

It’s a long scroll

It might be a bigger list, but it hasn't translated into a material increase in revenue during that period.


This has..

https://www.weststigers.com.au/foundation/

Commenced 2018..

That's exactly my point. They're donations

Is that bad

If you were running a business would you sleep well at night knowing one of your primary income streams is donations?

But ‘Business’ is misleading in this context, it’s a sporting club, so yes donations are an integral part of the income stream.

 

[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.

In number

https://www.weststigers.com.au/about/sponsors/

It’s a long scroll

It might be a bigger list, but it hasn't translated into a material increase in revenue during that period.


This has..

https://www.weststigers.com.au/foundation/

Commenced 2018..

That's exactly my point. They're donations

Is that bad

If you were running a business would you sleep well at night knowing one of your primary income streams is donations?

But ‘Business’ is misleading in this context, it’s a sporting club, so yes donations are an integral part of the income stream.

Hang on a second. Firstly, this is a business and that is why profits and commercial performance is discussed so often on this forum. Secondly, the reason why this has been brought up is because Pascoe has been praised for creating a self sufficient operation, which is not true at all. Sure, donations can assist the business, but it shouldn't be a primary income stream. Non-recurring income is not something you should rely on to survive.

 

[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.

In number

https://www.weststigers.com.au/about/sponsors/

It’s a long scroll

It might be a bigger list, but it hasn't translated into a material increase in revenue during that period.


This has..

https://www.weststigers.com.au/foundation/

Commenced 2018..

That's exactly my point. They're donations

Is that bad

If you were running a business would you sleep well at night knowing one of your primary income streams is donations?

But ‘Business’ is misleading in this context, it’s a sporting club, so yes donations are an integral part of the income stream.

Hang on a second. Firstly, this is a business and that is why profits and commercial performance is discussed so often on this forum. Secondly, the reason why this has been brought up is because Pascoe has been praised for creating a self sufficient operation, which is not true at all. Sure, donations can assist the business, but it shouldn't be a primary income stream. Non-recurring income is not something you should rely on to survive.

Why not? NGOs do it every day of the week 24x7. I don’t see any reason why as a sporting club you would not be developing a recurring income stream using donations as well. That’s exactly what they have done with ‘foundation’ initiative. Very smart business move if you ask me.

 

[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.

In number

https://www.weststigers.com.au/about/sponsors/

It’s a long scroll

It might be a bigger list, but it hasn't translated into a material increase in revenue during that period.


This has..

https://www.weststigers.com.au/foundation/

Commenced 2018..

That's exactly my point. They're donations

Is that bad

If you were running a business would you sleep well at night knowing one of your primary income streams is donations?

But ‘Business’ is misleading in this context, it’s a sporting club, so yes donations are an integral part of the income stream.

Hang on a second. Firstly, this is a business and that is why profits and commercial performance is discussed so often on this forum. Secondly, the reason why this has been brought up is because Pascoe has been praised for creating a self sufficient operation, which is not true at all. Sure, donations can assist the business, but it shouldn't be a primary income stream. Non-recurring income is not something you should rely on to survive.

Why not? NGOs do it every day of the week 24x7. I don’t see any reason why as a sporting club you would not be developing a recurring income stream using donations as well. That’s exactly what they have done with ‘foundation’ initiative. Very smart business move if you ask me.

We'll have to agree to disagree Mike. I think it's a terrible way to run a business.