CEO

[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.

 

[avocadoontoast]

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.

Well two things.

Firstly you misunderstood my question - I asked by what mechanism will a new CEO (alone) achieve better on-field performance (i.e. without sacking other staff). The CEO can only peripherally impact football operations and is still operating at the direction of the Board.

Secondly, most of Tigers revenue is unpredictable. Sure, if people stop donating it's a problem (I think Pascoe is referring to the Wests Tigers Foundation, which is not just randos giving the club money). Also it's a problem if nobody wants to sponsor the club, or they can't get elite-level members, or if results drive bad crowds etc. I don't see a problem with relying on donations, so long as it's not the only source of income. And it's not. The whole point of the Tigers operations over the past 5+ years has been to diversify the income streams. Business 101 as you say.

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.

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?

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?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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 donor, you build a large group of people who donate regularly. So if one stops the effect is negligible,. Just like if I decide to stop buying coffee everyday it will have minimal impact on a particular coffee shop.

 

[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.

 

[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.

You absolutely can. There are organisations that have been doing exactly that since before last century.

Edit: Since the end of WWII at least.

 

[hobbo1]

Punt Pascoe ..
Deadset Fiasco .

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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?

Correct. Exactly the same principle.

 

[TrueTiger]

I believe in what I was taught along time ago when I did my Accountancy course in Sydney,my teacher at the time said...and I quote ""if your CREDITORS outweigh your ASSETS then you are heading toward financial ruin""

I believe we are not in this position so therefore somebody has done a good job with the financials of the club,albeit Covid has ruined a lot of good businesses we are still in a reasonably good position to come back bigger and stronger once our NRL side starts to perform much better,hopefully 2022 is that year....

 

[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.

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

 

[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?

 

[jirskyr]

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.

 

[TrueTiger]

Mike and Avo,I have learnt a lot over the years and as a very successful businessman told me once..
Donations are an absolute bonus to the business and greatly appreciated,however,you must build up regular clientel and make repeat sales of your products for your business to flourish...that is the core of developing and maintaining a very good profitable business..

 

[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.

 

[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.

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?

People donate because they want to support the club in that way. Supporting their club is what they are buying. The club surviving into the future is their return.

 

[avocadoontoast]

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.