Threat of IC collapse leading to breakaway competition

I think the clubs have to fold on their own, or be tempted into relocating or merging. When the NRL comes in and punts clubs "for the good of the game" all hell breaks loose as we saw with Souths. The clubs have to make the call themselves. But on Sydney clubs
-the 5 I mentioned won't go anywhere anytime soon
-Cronulla are in serious trouble
-Parra and Penrith may merge, one might fold, but not both (if one goes, the other will inherit fans and juniors from the other)
-Manly could be in some trouble if they struggle on the field (which they haven't done for a while) and but I assume they do okay playing home games at Bluetongue.
 
@Marshall_magic said:
I think the clubs have to fold on their own, or be tempted into relocating or merging. When the NRL comes in and punts clubs "for the good of the game" all hell breaks loose as we saw with Souths. The clubs have to make the call themselves. But on Sydney clubs
-the 5 I mentioned won't go anywhere anytime soon
-Cronulla are in serious trouble
-Parra and Penrith may merge, one might fold, but not both (if one goes, the other will inherit fans and juniors from the other)
-Manly could be in some trouble if they struggle on the field (which they haven't done for a while) and but I assume they do okay playing home games at Bluetongue.

How many clubs do you want MM
My goal would be to get the NRL to a level where we can play each club home and away (why I suggested 12-14 teams )
The only true way to measure who is the best club throughout the season
 
http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8358805

NRL clubs reject breakaway talk

NRL clubs have backed away from claims they could start a breakaway competition if they did not receive a hefty increase in funds from the game's governing body.

Speaking on behalf of the 16 disgruntled clubs - 14 of which are running at a loss - Wests Tigers' chairman Dave Trodden denied reports the NRL and the incoming commission had been issued with a threat.

Rather, Trodden says the clubs were simply reacting to an offer from the NRL, in which they state the $3.65 million they will receive in 2012 is well short of the mark.

In an email sent to NRL powerbrokers on Tuesday, the clubs said they needed $6 million a year to keep their heads above water.

"There is no threat," Trodden told AAP of the possibility of a breakaway competition.

"Our position has really been mis-represented."

As part of the paperwork ahead of the formation of the independent commission - the formation of which is again expected to be delayed from its November 1 start date - clubs were given two agreements to sign to confirm their participation in the competition.

One is a member agreement, while the other is a licence agreement, which clubs have been signing on a rolling basis since the NRL began.

The licence agreement contains the amount of money the clubs would be scheduled to receive over the next six years.

"The clubs were asked to comment on it and all that the clubs did was to comment on it," Trodden said.

"(We are) saying 'the amount of money that you put in that document is insufficient for clubs to be financially sustainable, and if you want to know how much it's going to cost for clubs to be financially sustainable, this is the figure'."

The bid would represent an injection of more than $34 million for the clubs, but the NRL has only $18 million in cash reserves.

The NRL, which is refusing to comment, is anticipating a big pay-day as part of a new broadcast deal, which is due to be sorted out next year and take effect in 2013.
\
\
\
\
14 clubs running at a loss???
 
14 clubs running at a loss, no wonder they want more money, but then some may only be a small loss not necessarily massively in debt.
 
@happy tiger said:
@Marshall_magic said:
I think the clubs have to fold on their own, or be tempted into relocating or merging. When the NRL comes in and punts clubs "for the good of the game" all hell breaks loose as we saw with Souths. The clubs have to make the call themselves. But on Sydney clubs
-the 5 I mentioned won't go anywhere anytime soon
-Cronulla are in serious trouble
-Parra and Penrith may merge, one might fold, but not both (if one goes, the other will inherit fans and juniors from the other)
-Manly could be in some trouble if they struggle on the field (which they haven't done for a while) and but I assume they do okay playing home games at Bluetongue.

How many clubs do you want MM
My goal would be to get the NRL to a level where we can play each club home and away (why I suggested 12-14 teams )
The only true way to measure who is the best club throughout the season

16-18 is my ideal number. With origin in the mid season (teams forced to rest star players) the play everyone twice wouldn't be as decisive as you'd think. With more clubs you have more games (hence a better TV deal) and more slots for players to stay in the game (less talent drain to rival codes). I'd hate to see any team leave the competition to be perfectly honest.
 
@Marshall_magic said:
@happy tiger said:
@Marshall_magic said:
I think the clubs have to fold on their own, or be tempted into relocating or merging. When the NRL comes in and punts clubs "for the good of the game" all hell breaks loose as we saw with Souths. The clubs have to make the call themselves. But on Sydney clubs
-the 5 I mentioned won't go anywhere anytime soon
-Cronulla are in serious trouble
-Parra and Penrith may merge, one might fold, but not both (if one goes, the other will inherit fans and juniors from the other)
-Manly could be in some trouble if they struggle on the field (which they haven't done for a while) and but I assume they do okay playing home games at Bluetongue.

How many clubs do you want MM
My goal would be to get the NRL to a level where we can play each club home and away (why I suggested 12-14 teams )
The only true way to measure who is the best club throughout the season

16-18 is my ideal number. With origin in the mid season (teams forced to rest star players) the play everyone twice wouldn't be as decisive as you'd think. With more clubs you have more games (hence a better TV deal) and more slots for players to stay in the game (less talent drain to rival codes). I'd hate to see any team leave the competition to be perfectly honest.

My plan would be to have bigger playing rosters (around 35 players) and have players maybe playing a maximum amount of games (say 20 or 85% depending on amount of teams in comp ) until semis
Origin and Tests to be played at the end of the season
 
14 Clubs running at a Loss is just laughable… It's more like 14 Clubs over spending. Of those 14, I'd say 6 are probably running at a loss as lip service to extract more money from third party benefactors... Much like the Air Force dumping fuel every year to ensure their budget isn't reduced...
 
@Cultured Bogan said:
I would rather see 12 solvent and profitable sides than 8 teams who can meet a budget and 8 that are leeches on leagues club and NRL grants and still can't make a dollar in the green. I say this as a pissed off fan who was forced two watch two great clubs with near on 200 years of history merge for the "betterment" of the game. What have we seen for our clubs' sacrifices? We've won a premiership and become one of the more successful sides in the game in recent years but those are club achievements, we've been rewarded very little by the NRL itself. We still have dead weight in the competition with isolated teams with no support base and they are cut breaks at every turn by apologists who love buzzwords like "history" and "tradition" but conveniently forget when they forced two of the oldest and proudest clubs into a merger to survive at the top flight.

FTR the merger was the best thing to happen to both clubs and I support it wholly. I just hate the double standard from the NRL when it comes to supporting dead weight clubs. Become solvent, merge or GTFO.

Great post.

The fact of the matter is that from the moment Noyce came on board, the club has been run as a business, not a football club waiting on handouts. We made the tough decision to give up matches at Campbelltown and Leichhardt to ensure revenue streams. It was not a popular decision with fans, but here we are 6 or 7 years later, and the reliance on our leagues clubs has been reduced (obviously other factors have assisted us to this outcome as well. Eg: sponsorship). I look at clubs like Manly continue to play at Brookvale Oval with poor crowds and then cry poor to the NRL and ask for their annual grant in advance. When I think of everything our clubs gave up, it is an absolute disgrace.

Rationalisation of Sydney teams must continue and if 14 out of 16 clubs are apparently trading at a loss, then it is time to allow attrition to set in and start pushing teams to merge or relocate. This is not a new idea, in fact it has been around since the Bradley report of 1992\. Further, the NSWRL seemed to have no issues in 1982 telling Newtown and Wests to leave the competition to accommodate Canberra and Illawarra, why can't the NRL show the same amount of balls now?

In saying that, the NRL will probably keep Cronulla and Manly afloat and wait till we have a couple of poor years and then enforce a criteria to eliminate Wests Tigers from the game.
 
If that figure of 14/16 clubs running at a loss is accurate than that is a disgrace. That tells me that there are 14 ceo's who are not active enough in generating sufficient revenue from the marketplace. It also leads me to believe that the market isnt big enough for them all to survive. This comes back to all the governing bodies not promoting the game at a high enough standard and there being too many clubs in Sydney.

With the pokie reforms and anti smoking movements descimating revenues from clubs, the teams need to be far more proactive in generating their own revenues and thus standing on their own two feet. What we have currently is some of Australias worst run businesses masquarading as football teams.

As for the game itself, season 2011 saw some dreadful games of football and some even more embarrasing crowd attendances. 30K stadiums with only 8k supporters present is making the code a laughing stock. It is a terrible look for tv and subsequent sponsors and provides a miserable atmosphere at the ground, which translates into lackluster efforts out on the field from the players.

Memberships are a key area that ALL clubs should be trying to improve upon. We at the Wests Tigers are one of the most supported sides in the league yet struggle to secure 10K members for the year…..why? When I look at powerhouse AFL clubs like Collingwood pulling in upwards of $100M anually and compare that to us who struggle to keep our head above water I shake in disbelief.

My idea for memberships runs along the same lines as those adopted by Costco. That company takes in over $1B anually just from memberships that allow customers the right to purchase from them. In return they lower their stock prices. What if a license was introduced for the NRL? A one off payment of $50 per adult, $20 per child, payable before the season starts that allows you the right to attend the games. Ticket, food/beverage and merchandise prices could then be slashed. In addition, your money buys you three games of football....U/20's, NRL reserve grade and NRL first grade....not a bad deal. In addition, any games that are played in that capital city are not televised that day, eg Tiges play Dragons at Campo on friday night - game is not televised in Sydney until a replay on the saturday. Bums on seats at the ground, spending money on merchandise and refreshments is one good way to increase revenue for clubs. When the games are being played in front of packed stadiums of screaming fans the product is unbeatable. That semi between the Broncs and Dragons was one of the most exciting in years...it was a very good look for the game. For the above to work though, it has to co-operate with the networks. This could be solved with careful planning and the release of the whole years draw in advance of the seasons start. If you want to watch your team play, get off your arse and go and watch them live...otherwise read about it in the paper.

The AFL threat is real and must be stopped or our game is done. This destabilisation must be doing nothing for sponsors who havent committed as of yet to our sport. A second super league will kill rugby league forever. They need to get their act together fast because the squabling over less than $50M is pathetic. Produce a superb 2012 with record attendences, tv ratings and memberships and the product will sell itself for the rights. THEN you put your hand out.....
 
Some Solid discussion in the Thread,

Do we have confirmation of the 2 clubs running profits??

I see that the WT are implied as one.
 
Broncos have to be the other
Unless they are talking about this season
It would of cost a lot of money to fix Suncorp after the floods and I don't know who's responsiblity that would of fallen to
 
If most clubs are making losses than they require extra funding just to bring themselves back to a profitable position.

The concern I have is that when clubs receive more money, the salary cap with increase with all the extra money going to player payments. The clubs will end up in exactly the same financial position.

There comes a time where clubs need to spend within their means.
 

Staff online

Back
Top