Harvey
Well-known member
@ said:
No, we need the game and clubs to be self sustainable, not be directed by egomaniacs with deep pockets.
Nathan Tinkler did not quite work out so well for the knights.
New chapter in book of feuds
- Thread starter innsaneink
- Start date
No, we need the game and clubs to be self sustainable, not be directed by egomaniacs with deep pockets.
Nathan Tinkler did not quite work out so well for the knights.
jirskyr
Well-known member
@ said:
I disagree - we currently haven't the funding to maintain 16 self-sustained profitable clubs and we never have. The high-value TV deals are not permanent. What happens in 4-5 years from now if the next TV deal is reduced, what happens to the cap and the wages and the spending expectations if the NRL can no longer cover $10M per club?
I also honestly think you misunderstand the already existing private ownership landscape of the NRL. Eric Watson owned the Warriors for 17 years (until just recently), the Penn family own most of Manly, Rebecca Frizelle now owns the Titans. Russell Crowe does not have complete control of Souths, he is part-backed by James Packer and ceded 25% control of Souths to the membership, including jersey, colours, home ground etc. Rusty actually owns less of Souths than the Penns do of Manly.
No, Nathan Tinkler didn't work out, but that doesn't mean private ownership is synonymous with business failure.
It's also not as if non-individual ownership is a template for success either, given how many current clubs have fallen over and needed NRL intervention, despite being backed by Leagues clubs or business groups, rather than deep-pocketed owners - Gold Coast, Balmain, St George; all the clubs that were destroyed in the Super League era, Newtown.
My opinion is that clubs often run at a loss because it's such a competitive landscape, and in Australia it's not just other clubs in the NRL, it's a wide variety of other codes. When you have businesses funding the clubs, those businesses generally exist for two reasons - solely to fund the club (e.g. Football Clubs) or to make a profit from the clubs. If the profit wanes, the business tend to want move away because it's not necessarily a passion-project. Businesses typically abandon loss-making ventures unless it's in their mandate to continue funding.
Many of the traditional supporters of NRL clubs have been leagues clubs, who relied heavily on gambling revenues and have been significantly impacted by the pokies tax. This is changing, however it still means that rugby league is heavily funded at all levels, including top-tier sponsorship, by gambling monies - which is hardly an ideal moral position to be in.
But private owners, most of them do it for the passion rather than the profit, so they are likely to tip in more money and not just withdraw because the clubs lose money. Yes sometimes their business empires can fail, but so can any other business.
The English Premier League is almost entirely privately owned, as is the NFL. Doesn't mean it's a perfect system, but lots of owners with deep pockets makes for a very well-funded league.
Harvey
Well-known member
@ said:
So an A-league model where owners with deep pockets or foreign investors own all the clubs, and when they have had enough of losing money they find another sucker to buy a business running at a loss, or hand it back and walk away?
We already have common ground in the owners, players and clubs want more money from the game, which is taken from grassroots and the future of the game.
Unlike soccer there are no transfer fees in league, which provide another source of income for clubs that develop players.
If you took out the exorbitant transfer fees paid for players, most EPL clubs would run at a profit based on television, sponsorship and attendance.
If NRL clubs can’t become self sustaining, then the game is slowly dying
happy_tiger
Well-known member
@ said:
Is that fair though ??
You have to also do a head count , all those cupboard kids who support Souths
innsaneink
Well-known member
What's a cupboard kid?
He means cardboard Ink ..like a cut-out..you have to speak toad..takes years..
K
Kerry_Cogger
Guest
@ said:
Nope.Not our home game.
happy_tiger
Well-known member
@ said:
A kid you might have met in the movie Deliverance
Mum and Dad related closely
Someone from Launceston perhaps
happy_tiger
Well-known member
@ said:
Yes so true Hobbo , where we met , you were such an amazing banjo player :roll
gallagher
Well-known member
@ said:
I like it.
K
Kerry_Cogger
Guest
@ said:
Point I'm trying to make is it was our home game till Tuesday when the NRL rang our CEO and said the field is getting marked with 300 for Sutton.Our ceo says how bout something for Robbie for 250 NRL "SAYS GO GET STUFFED".This was from pressure from Russell Crowe.
happy_tiger
Well-known member
@ said:
You don't own an NRL side in Sydney thinking you'll make money in the majority of cases
If you break even you can thank your lucky stars you have put the right people in place
Unfortunately we just don't have the population / supporter base to back 16 successful clubs
Yes they could be run better and the game from top to bottom needs a major facelift , but whether that will still produce 16 healthy and profitable NRL clubs is doubtful
We need to face facts , 2 clubs from Sydney must relocate
And that's when it's get's real , do we then base that decision on FTA / Fox viewers per game or actual crowd numbers ??
K
Kerry_Cogger
Guest
@ said:
To where?
