NRL administration look amateurish

[leagueiscrap]

You stated millions yr after yr .
Proof please ,
As yet you've not been able to.

Lol

the two codes have different ownership structures spazza
the AFL owns its clubs, Suns & Giants of that extra money claimed that those clubs recieve every year 12 million of that is distribution money
the NRLOL clubs are privately owned so the full extent of how much their owners pump in to their sinkhole of clubs is not really known as they do not have to publicly list their financials
in the Minnowbourne storm annual report it has listed it received 19.6 million from Valimanda PTY LTD as a management fee

exact same thing as the AFL giving one of its clubs money!
difference is spazza, the suns are only a handful of years old and will need time to set up its business and become established & consider it cost at least $35 plus million to run an AFL club

there you have the storm, still on life support, the NRLOL and Newsltd pumped unknown amounts of millions in to the storm, now the new owners are despite being located in the center of Melbourne, a decade of success

ill buy the gold coke titans annual report this weekend to get a better understanding on what a joke they are

[pussycat]

Looks amateurish ?

* Posted a larger profit these past 2 years than the AFL,
* Revenue has increased by about 2x as much as the AFL's,
* Tv contract more than doubled the previous contract,
* Ground Records for South Sydney, Eastern Suburbs, Canterbury, Storm , Western Australia and others probably in the last couple of years,
* Record ratings for Origin, Record ratings for Grand Final,Record ratings for many other clubs,
* Record ratings for Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Tasmania as well as NZ,
* The highest rating program on National TV last year as well 4 of the top 5 ports programs for the year,
* The biggest crowd and the highest rating match in Melbourne this year.
As opposed to

the Australian
Thirteen clubs — the Suns and the Giants not included because they are being funded by the AFL — are carrying a combined debt of $91m. Last year eight clubs finished in the red
The Future Fund established by the commission in 2007 has a book value of $89.4m but sits with only $63m in cash. While established to buy assets (Etihad Stadium) and be a reserve to cope with unforeseen financial circumstances, it appears to be used to keep the league turning over.

The AFL denies this but there is no doubt the account is being used for matters other than stated when the commission gave birth to the fund with an initial seeding of $16m in 2007. The past two annual reports record profits of a combined $29m, which are claimed to have been The AFL Commission and its *administration used to be close to infallible. At least in the eyes of this country’s sport watchers. The indigenous competition was flying higher than any other code because it was not fettered by the selfish and parochial views of the clubs that formed the national league.

That was a long time ago. Nobody thinks that any more. The commission and the men and women administrators who answer to it are not nearly as clever as first pictured. Not nearly as transparent as required. Not nearly as constant as hoped.

What many might have suspected is now fact. The confused and opaque treatment of Melbourne’s tanking scandal was not an aberration. It was pretty much the league’s blueprint for crisis management.

Any last suggestion that the league leaders and their underlings performed their job in a manner that the code’s supporters would be comfortable with has been shredded this week. This final reveal has come in two parts. The release on Thursday of a detailed account of the Essendon supplements saga in the book The Straight Dope written by colleague Chip Le Grand and followed yesterday by the AFL’s life ban on medicine man Stephen Dank

While the scandal is closing in on its third birthday, the book exposes the AFL’s dangerous need to control everything that it is involved in, and bludgeon into submission those who resist the league’s wish to manage any and every outcome.

The league is just one villain in a book without heroes. Coach James Hird? He never did understand the core issue in this case that flattened interest in the sport to such an extent people would *report turning off their radios and televisions if the saga and its progress was mentioned.

The book reveals in a meeting with AFL Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick that Hird was asked why he did not accept the league’s wishes that he own responsibility for what happened in 2012 at the club. Hird’s reply was that he *believed the club did not cheat.

The coach, and former champion player, of course, was never charged with cheating. The AFL wanted him to step away from the club for 12 months because he did not fulfil his governance responsibilities when club high-performance employee Dank was running a dangerous supplement and drug program which might well have put the health of Hird’s players at great risk.

Hird never accepted his governance accountability or that the AFL, ultimately, was trying to manage the damage to Hird, one of the game’s most adored and *respected figures, as well as to the game. Thus neither the game nor the coach escaped a mudslide of scorn.

Towards nearly the end of part one of the AFL’s role, the league had almost unravelled. Unable to manage the outcome it wanted, the chairman of the Australian Sports Commission, John Wiley, was whistled up to see if he could broker a deal with Essendon’s chairman, Paul Little. And then-chief executive Andrew Demetriou was like a groggy boxer, backed onto the ropes and throwing punches instinctively but without power and precision.

This is the same organisation — except Demetriou has gone and Gillon McLachlan has laced on the chief executive gloves — that is *attempting to steer Australian football to market supremacy nationally while soccer continues to soar and the reformed and *retooled NRL tries to widen its *influence outside NSW and Queensland.

The AFL is attempting to expand the competition as well as equalise it. To many observers it is beginning to appear such aims might be mutually exclusive.

The commission has set aside $200 million to ensure the Gold Coast Suns and the Greater Western Sydney Giants, the game’s 17th and 18th teams, are self-sufficient by 2016. The truth is these clubs might not be able to fund themselves by 3016.

The established clubs are convinced that the push of second teams into Queensland and NSW is starting to strain the commission’s finances. In a series of exclusive reports over the past two weeks, The Australian has exposed a brittle financial structure underpinning the league.

Thirteen clubs — the Suns and the Giants not included because they are being funded by the AFL — are carrying a combined debt of $91m. Last year eight clubs finished in the red.

This season’s results will be no better. Up to eight clubs are forecasting losses again. The Saints and Carlton have budgeted for $2.2m losses. Carlton’s result, in particular, has blown out but they had a poor start to the season and had to remove coach Mick Malthouse.

The Western Bulldogs and *Adelaide forecast losses close to $1m each. Geelong are expecting a negative result anywhere between $250,000 and $500,000, while North Melbourne could lose $60,000. Fremantle and Brisbane might break even.

The Future Fund established by the commission in 2007 has a book value of $89.4m but sits with only $63m in cash. While established to buy assets (Etihad Stadium) and be a reserve to cope with unforeseen financial circumstances, it appears to be used to keep the league turning over.

The AFL denies this but there is no doubt the account is being used for matters other than stated when the commission gave birth to the fund with an initial seeding of $16m in 2007. The past two annual reports record profits of a combined $29m, which are claimed to have been deposited in the Future Fund.

In simple terms that should put the Future Fund at $118m. Yet it is still recorded at $89m but with just $62m in cash. No doubt this is all regulated accounting and there is no suggestion of impropriety, but nonetheless money appears to be drying up at football’s headquarters.

Several clubs are sure the league is haemorrhaging money to its vision of national domination. McLachlan denies these suggestions outright though he acknowledged to The Australian this week that the establishment of the Suns and the Giants has proved more expensive than considered when they were mere doodling on whiteboards.

Increasingly, the AFL is taking money from the more successful clubs and pushing it into equalisation funds. Collingwood and Hawthorn have been the loudest opponents to the introduction of a soft cap on football department spending (not including player payments) and a hefty tax on *revenue growth.

The expenditure tax will provide $3.1m this year while the full impact of revenue from the soft cap on football departments will not be definitive until budget estimates turn into actuals in October. Next season the football department tax becomes more punitive, rising from 37.5 per cent of each dollar over the cap to 75 per cent in 2016.

Clubs with bigger revenue bases and membership rolls than others see this as the AFL asking them to do what is really the job of the commission. Banker to the poor. And money issues might become tighter rather than freer with the new broadcast rights to run for five years from 2017-2021. Already it has been suggested — and not denied — that the AFL will look for at least $1.7bn. That’s up from the present deal of $1.25bn.

The clubs already have their thinning hands out for a greater slice of the new money and the AFL Players Association is determined to garner a bigger cut of the deal for its footballers.

AFLPA boss Paul Marsh has said repeatedly that he wants a *formulated percentage of the broadcast deal and he is prepared to use both the salary cap and draft system for leverage.

Marsh represents a challenging element in the league’s distribution of money. He has come to the job with a clear mandate from his employees to wrench a lot more money for the players from the system.

And this is the AFL Commission’s growing problem. Revenue is not increasing as quickly as the number of mouths growling for a bigger cut. Programs previously driven with zeal by the AFL are now barely propped up. The push for the AFL to have an international presence has evaporated in step with increasing demands on the game’s funds.

Vicheads! :_<> :_<> :_<>

[leagueiscrap]

Looks amateurish ?

* Posted a larger profit these past 2 years than the AFL,
* Revenue has increased by about 2x as much as the AFL's,
* Tv contract more than doubled the previous contract,
* Ground Records for South Sydney, Eastern Suburbs, Canterbury, Storm , Western Australia and others probably in the last couple of years,
* Record ratings for Origin, Record ratings for Grand Final,Record ratings for many other clubs,
* Record ratings for Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Tasmania as well as NZ,
* The highest rating program on National TV last year as well 4 of the top 5 ports programs for the year,
* The biggest crowd and the highest rating match in Melbourne this year.
As opposed to

the Australian
Thirteen clubs — the Suns and the Giants not included because they are being funded by the AFL — are carrying a combined debt of $91m. Last year eight clubs finished in the red
The Future Fund established by the commission in 2007 has a book value of $89.4m but sits with only $63m in cash. While established to buy assets (Etihad Stadium) and be a reserve to cope with unforeseen financial circumstances, it appears to be used to keep the league turning over.

The AFL denies this but there is no doubt the account is being used for matters other than stated when the commission gave birth to the fund with an initial seeding of $16m in 2007. The past two annual reports record profits of a combined $29m, which are claimed to have been The AFL Commission and its *administration used to be close to infallible. At least in the eyes of this country’s sport watchers. The indigenous competition was flying higher than any other code because it was not fettered by the selfish and parochial views of the clubs that formed the national league.

That was a long time ago. Nobody thinks that any more. The commission and the men and women administrators who answer to it are not nearly as clever as first pictured. Not nearly as transparent as required. Not nearly as constant as hoped.

What many might have suspected is now fact. The confused and opaque treatment of Melbourne’s tanking scandal was not an aberration. It was pretty much the league’s blueprint for crisis management.

Any last suggestion that the league leaders and their underlings performed their job in a manner that the code’s supporters would be comfortable with has been shredded this week. This final reveal has come in two parts. The release on Thursday of a detailed account of the Essendon supplements saga in the book The Straight Dope written by colleague Chip Le Grand and followed yesterday by the AFL’s life ban on medicine man Stephen Dank

While the scandal is closing in on its third birthday, the book exposes the AFL’s dangerous need to control everything that it is involved in, and bludgeon into submission those who resist the league’s wish to manage any and every outcome.

The league is just one villain in a book without heroes. Coach James Hird? He never did understand the core issue in this case that flattened interest in the sport to such an extent people would *report turning off their radios and televisions if the saga and its progress was mentioned.

The book reveals in a meeting with AFL Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick that Hird was asked why he did not accept the league’s wishes that he own responsibility for what happened in 2012 at the club. Hird’s reply was that he *believed the club did not cheat.

The coach, and former champion player, of course, was never charged with cheating. The AFL wanted him to step away from the club for 12 months because he did not fulfil his governance responsibilities when club high-performance employee Dank was running a dangerous supplement and drug program which might well have put the health of Hird’s players at great risk.

Hird never accepted his governance accountability or that the AFL, ultimately, was trying to manage the damage to Hird, one of the game’s most adored and *respected figures, as well as to the game. Thus neither the game nor the coach escaped a mudslide of scorn.

Towards nearly the end of part one of the AFL’s role, the league had almost unravelled. Unable to manage the outcome it wanted, the chairman of the Australian Sports Commission, John Wiley, was whistled up to see if he could broker a deal with Essendon’s chairman, Paul Little. And then-chief executive Andrew Demetriou was like a groggy boxer, backed onto the ropes and throwing punches instinctively but without power and precision.

This is the same organisation — except Demetriou has gone and Gillon McLachlan has laced on the chief executive gloves — that is *attempting to steer Australian football to market supremacy nationally while soccer continues to soar and the reformed and *retooled NRL tries to widen its *influence outside NSW and Queensland.

The AFL is attempting to expand the competition as well as equalise it. To many observers it is beginning to appear such aims might be mutually exclusive.

The commission has set aside $200 million to ensure the Gold Coast Suns and the Greater Western Sydney Giants, the game’s 17th and 18th teams, are self-sufficient by 2016. The truth is these clubs might not be able to fund themselves by 3016.

The established clubs are convinced that the push of second teams into Queensland and NSW is starting to strain the commission’s finances. In a series of exclusive reports over the past two weeks, The Australian has exposed a brittle financial structure underpinning the league.

Thirteen clubs — the Suns and the Giants not included because they are being funded by the AFL — are carrying a combined debt of $91m. Last year eight clubs finished in the red.

This season’s results will be no better. Up to eight clubs are forecasting losses again. The Saints and Carlton have budgeted for $2.2m losses. Carlton’s result, in particular, has blown out but they had a poor start to the season and had to remove coach Mick Malthouse.

The Western Bulldogs and *Adelaide forecast losses close to $1m each. Geelong are expecting a negative result anywhere between $250,000 and $500,000, while North Melbourne could lose $60,000. Fremantle and Brisbane might break even.

The Future Fund established by the commission in 2007 has a book value of $89.4m but sits with only $63m in cash. While established to buy assets (Etihad Stadium) and be a reserve to cope with unforeseen financial circumstances, it appears to be used to keep the league turning over.

The AFL denies this but there is no doubt the account is being used for matters other than stated when the commission gave birth to the fund with an initial seeding of $16m in 2007. The past two annual reports record profits of a combined $29m, which are claimed to have been deposited in the Future Fund.

In simple terms that should put the Future Fund at $118m. Yet it is still recorded at $89m but with just $62m in cash. No doubt this is all regulated accounting and there is no suggestion of impropriety, but nonetheless money appears to be drying up at football’s headquarters.

Several clubs are sure the league is haemorrhaging money to its vision of national domination. McLachlan denies these suggestions outright though he acknowledged to The Australian this week that the establishment of the Suns and the Giants has proved more expensive than considered when they were mere doodling on whiteboards.

Increasingly, the AFL is taking money from the more successful clubs and pushing it into equalisation funds. Collingwood and Hawthorn have been the loudest opponents to the introduction of a soft cap on football department spending (not including player payments) and a hefty tax on *revenue growth.

The expenditure tax will provide $3.1m this year while the full impact of revenue from the soft cap on football departments will not be definitive until budget estimates turn into actuals in October. Next season the football department tax becomes more punitive, rising from 37.5 per cent of each dollar over the cap to 75 per cent in 2016.

Clubs with bigger revenue bases and membership rolls than others see this as the AFL asking them to do what is really the job of the commission. Banker to the poor. And money issues might become tighter rather than freer with the new broadcast rights to run for five years from 2017-2021. Already it has been suggested — and not denied — that the AFL will look for at least $1.7bn. That’s up from the present deal of $1.25bn.

The clubs already have their thinning hands out for a greater slice of the new money and the AFL Players Association is determined to garner a bigger cut of the deal for its footballers.

AFLPA boss Paul Marsh has said repeatedly that he wants a *formulated percentage of the broadcast deal and he is prepared to use both the salary cap and draft system for leverage.

Marsh represents a challenging element in the league’s distribution of money. He has come to the job with a clear mandate from his employees to wrench a lot more money for the players from the system.

And this is the AFL Commission’s growing problem. Revenue is not increasing as quickly as the number of mouths growling for a bigger cut. Programs previously driven with zeal by the AFL are now barely propped up. The push for the AFL to have an international presence has evaporated in step with increasing demands on the game’s funds.

Vicheads! :_<> :_<> :_<>

both leagues are non for profit! making large profits are pointless as their are no share holders! the AFL makes 200 million more than the little NRLOL and invests back in the game, the NRLOL does not it cannot afford to run its own clubs, so the it privatises the clubs, the owners sink million in to them, the league clubs & business owners!
it takes 15 to 20 million to run an NRLOL club, 9 million of that comes from the NRLOL through distribution rights & the owners still need to sink millions in!

crowds are down
ratings are down
FFS the grand final struggles to sell out most years

the little NRLOL is dying a slow painful death
SOO is the ultimate example of this, the gimmick seems to grow, yet everything else league does not


go and read the minnowboure storm annual report and see how much the owner pumped in to the storm
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=5173
have a read over the annual reports
see how pissant the NRLOL clubs are financially & still needing money from their owners, running on operating budgets half of that of an AFLl club

[AFLcrap1]

How much do the Melb storm get off their leagues club ..poke poke poke

[leagueiscrap]

How much do the Melb storm get off their leagues club ..poke poke poke

FFS spazza take your pills! ya tarrrd
it might help that touretts out break

[The axe]

Lol .keep grasping .
Tell me brains .
Do the NRL give any club more $$$$ than any other .
This argument was about compromising a comp by ensuring some clubs got more money than others ,by head office .
You claimed it happens in the NRL ..yr after yr .
Lol
Think about it

Come on you can do it .

Brains! I can't be that intelligent I'm trying to educate somebody who is both ignorant and stupid, it would appear I'd have more success teaching a dog to smoke cigarettes but I digress.

Now to the point, what does or doesn't compromise the respective competitions is of no relevance to the conversation you and I are having and more than once now I've been happy to concede the AFL is contributing millions in extra funds to both their expansion teams. It's a matter of option weather or not you believe that is compromising the AFL , I tend to think it is a huge factor in the continued grow of the game in the northern states. Just my option and of no real relevance.

So now we move to the next phase, the area that is causing you the most trouble it would seem. I joined the conversation on the back of what was a claim by pussy twat that "we don't have two expansion clubs that drain us off most of our profits" I then posed a question" what about the storm and the Titans , they cost millions every year do they not". Notice my inflection, not a statement of claim clearly a question.

Now this is where shit gets real, your first and only response was that no team received a cent more than any other, you mumbled things like even salary cap, no special entitlements, all get the same $$$$ to spend and tried to steer the conversation towards the AFL clubs for some reason. It seemed that no matter what was asked of you nothing could penetrate that thick scull of yours. But then Pusey twat of all people did what I could not, he pointed you towards the light, not only did the NRL now own the steaming dog turd that is the Titans but had payed out 3.6 million to ensure that they made it to the next week. Your argument was destroyed on the spot and off you slinked not to be seen again.

So to sum up,yes the nrl do provide extra funds to some clubs and not other, the Titans, st George , the Balmain side of the Wests Tigers received 2 million to prop them up and Cronulla is surviving only by the good graces of the NRL, and I haven't even mentioned the fact the NRL now own the knights another failed business, what must that be costing.

Finally back to my question which you failed to address, which NRL club based in Victoria had a fund of 26.5 million dollars set up for them as part of the hand over of control to the IC at the insistence of news limited, a fund that has been running year on year if you will since 2012 and will run until 2017 a fund no other club has access to. You would have to consider that to be extra dollars would you not. Let me know if you need any more help with all this.

[leagueiscrap]

He's asked a fucking legit question. How much does the Storms leagues club contribute to the Storm.

not sure as their annual report is a bit sketchy where the money comes from!
19.6 million from management

so ballbag are you wanting to go halves in the NRLOL club annual reports?

[pussycat]

Looks amateurish ?

* Posted a larger profit these past 2 years than the AFL,
* Revenue has increased by about 2x as much as the AFL's,
* Tv contract more than doubled the previous contract,
* Ground Records for South Sydney, Eastern Suburbs, Canterbury, Storm , Western Australia and others probably in the last couple of years,
* Record ratings for Origin, Record ratings for Grand Final,Record ratings for many other clubs,
* Record ratings for Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Tasmania as well as NZ,
* The highest rating program on National TV last year as well 4 of the top 5 ports programs for the year,
* The biggest crowd and the highest rating match in Melbourne this year.
As opposed to

the Australian
Thirteen clubs — the Suns and the Giants not included because they are being funded by the AFL — are carrying a combined debt of $91m. Last year eight clubs finished in the red
The Future Fund established by the commission in 2007 has a book value of $89.4m but sits with only $63m in cash. While established to buy assets (Etihad Stadium) and be a reserve to cope with unforeseen financial circumstances, it appears to be used to keep the league turning over.

The AFL denies this but there is no doubt the account is being used for matters other than stated when the commission gave birth to the fund with an initial seeding of $16m in 2007. The past two annual reports record profits of a combined $29m, which are claimed to have been The AFL Commission and its *administration used to be close to infallible. At least in the eyes of this country’s sport watchers. The indigenous competition was flying higher than any other code because it was not fettered by the selfish and parochial views of the clubs that formed the national league.

That was a long time ago. Nobody thinks that any more. The commission and the men and women administrators who answer to it are not nearly as clever as first pictured. Not nearly as transparent as required. Not nearly as constant as hoped.

What many might have suspected is now fact. The confused and opaque treatment of Melbourne’s tanking scandal was not an aberration. It was pretty much the league’s blueprint for crisis management.

Any last suggestion that the league leaders and their underlings performed their job in a manner that the code’s supporters would be comfortable with has been shredded this week. This final reveal has come in two parts. The release on Thursday of a detailed account of the Essendon supplements saga in the book The Straight Dope written by colleague Chip Le Grand and followed yesterday by the AFL’s life ban on medicine man Stephen Dank

While the scandal is closing in on its third birthday, the book exposes the AFL’s dangerous need to control everything that it is involved in, and bludgeon into submission those who resist the league’s wish to manage any and every outcome.

The league is just one villain in a book without heroes. Coach James Hird? He never did understand the core issue in this case that flattened interest in the sport to such an extent people would *report turning off their radios and televisions if the saga and its progress was mentioned.

The book reveals in a meeting with AFL Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick that Hird was asked why he did not accept the league’s wishes that he own responsibility for what happened in 2012 at the club. Hird’s reply was that he *believed the club did not cheat.

The coach, and former champion player, of course, was never charged with cheating. The AFL wanted him to step away from the club for 12 months because he did not fulfil his governance responsibilities when club high-performance employee Dank was running a dangerous supplement and drug program which might well have put the health of Hird’s players at great risk.

Hird never accepted his governance accountability or that the AFL, ultimately, was trying to manage the damage to Hird, one of the game’s most adored and *respected figures, as well as to the game. Thus neither the game nor the coach escaped a mudslide of scorn.

Towards nearly the end of part one of the AFL’s role, the league had almost unravelled. Unable to manage the outcome it wanted, the chairman of the Australian Sports Commission, John Wiley, was whistled up to see if he could broker a deal with Essendon’s chairman, Paul Little. And then-chief executive Andrew Demetriou was like a groggy boxer, backed onto the ropes and throwing punches instinctively but without power and precision.

This is the same organisation — except Demetriou has gone and Gillon McLachlan has laced on the chief executive gloves — that is *attempting to steer Australian football to market supremacy nationally while soccer continues to soar and the reformed and *retooled NRL tries to widen its *influence outside NSW and Queensland.

The AFL is attempting to expand the competition as well as equalise it. To many observers it is beginning to appear such aims might be mutually exclusive.

The commission has set aside $200 million to ensure the Gold Coast Suns and the Greater Western Sydney Giants, the game’s 17th and 18th teams, are self-sufficient by 2016. The truth is these clubs might not be able to fund themselves by 3016.

The established clubs are convinced that the push of second teams into Queensland and NSW is starting to strain the commission’s finances. In a series of exclusive reports over the past two weeks, The Australian has exposed a brittle financial structure underpinning the league.

Thirteen clubs — the Suns and the Giants not included because they are being funded by the AFL — are carrying a combined debt of $91m. Last year eight clubs finished in the red.

This season’s results will be no better. Up to eight clubs are forecasting losses again. The Saints and Carlton have budgeted for $2.2m losses. Carlton’s result, in particular, has blown out but they had a poor start to the season and had to remove coach Mick Malthouse.

The Western Bulldogs and *Adelaide forecast losses close to $1m each. Geelong are expecting a negative result anywhere between $250,000 and $500,000, while North Melbourne could lose $60,000. Fremantle and Brisbane might break even.

The Future Fund established by the commission in 2007 has a book value of $89.4m but sits with only $63m in cash. While established to buy assets (Etihad Stadium) and be a reserve to cope with unforeseen financial circumstances, it appears to be used to keep the league turning over.

The AFL denies this but there is no doubt the account is being used for matters other than stated when the commission gave birth to the fund with an initial seeding of $16m in 2007. The past two annual reports record profits of a combined $29m, which are claimed to have been deposited in the Future Fund.

In simple terms that should put the Future Fund at $118m. Yet it is still recorded at $89m but with just $62m in cash. No doubt this is all regulated accounting and there is no suggestion of impropriety, but nonetheless money appears to be drying up at football’s headquarters.

Several clubs are sure the league is haemorrhaging money to its vision of national domination. McLachlan denies these suggestions outright though he acknowledged to The Australian this week that the establishment of the Suns and the Giants has proved more expensive than considered when they were mere doodling on whiteboards.

Increasingly, the AFL is taking money from the more successful clubs and pushing it into equalisation funds. Collingwood and Hawthorn have been the loudest opponents to the introduction of a soft cap on football department spending (not including player payments) and a hefty tax on *revenue growth.

The expenditure tax will provide $3.1m this year while the full impact of revenue from the soft cap on football departments will not be definitive until budget estimates turn into actuals in October. Next season the football department tax becomes more punitive, rising from 37.5 per cent of each dollar over the cap to 75 per cent in 2016.

Clubs with bigger revenue bases and membership rolls than others see this as the AFL asking them to do what is really the job of the commission. Banker to the poor. And money issues might become tighter rather than freer with the new broadcast rights to run for five years from 2017-2021. Already it has been suggested — and not denied — that the AFL will look for at least $1.7bn. That’s up from the present deal of $1.25bn.

The clubs already have their thinning hands out for a greater slice of the new money and the AFL Players Association is determined to garner a bigger cut of the deal for its footballers.

AFLPA boss Paul Marsh has said repeatedly that he wants a *formulated percentage of the broadcast deal and he is prepared to use both the salary cap and draft system for leverage.

Marsh represents a challenging element in the league’s distribution of money. He has come to the job with a clear mandate from his employees to wrench a lot more money for the players from the system.

And this is the AFL Commission’s growing problem. Revenue is not increasing as quickly as the number of mouths growling for a bigger cut. Programs previously driven with zeal by the AFL are now barely propped up. The push for the AFL to have an international presence has evaporated in step with increasing demands on the game’s funds.

Vicheads! :_<> :_<> :_<>

both leagues are non for profit! making large profits are pointless as their are no share holders! the AFL makes 200 million more than the little NRLOL and invests back in the game, the NRLOL does not it cannot afford to run its own clubs, so the it privatises the clubs, the owners sink million in to them, the league clubs & business owners!
it takes 15 to 20 million to run an NRLOL club, 9 million of that comes from the NRLOL through distribution rights & the owners still need to sink millions in!

crowds are down
ratings are down
FFS the grand final struggles to sell out most years

the little NRLOL is dying a slow painful death
SOO is the ultimate example of this, the gimmick seems to grow, yet everything else league does not


go and read the minnowboure storm annual report and see how much the owner pumped in to the storm
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=5173
have a read over the annual reports


see how pissant the NRLOL clubs are financially & still needing money from their owners, running on operating budgets half of that of an AFLl club

They are not for profit organisation. But even a dim witted Vichead like yourself should be able to figure out that the more they can make the more they can reinvest in the business, ie. the bigger hand out the AFL can give to the Suns next year. You must be well into you third bottle of Metho because you've totally lost touch with reality.

The Melbourne Storm made a profit . Im not sure of what if any there owners pumped into it. What I am sure of however is that the AFL invest 20 million into the Suns last year and they still lost half a million

Ratings may be down for the AFL but the NRL there up up up L:>

You just make shit up - facts seem, to elude you.

[leagueiscrap]

Looks amateurish ?

* Posted a larger profit these past 2 years than the AFL,
* Revenue has increased by about 2x as much as the AFL's,
* Tv contract more than doubled the previous contract,
* Ground Records for South Sydney, Eastern Suburbs, Canterbury, Storm , Western Australia and others probably in the last couple of years,
* Record ratings for Origin, Record ratings for Grand Final,Record ratings for many other clubs,
* Record ratings for Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Tasmania as well as NZ,
* The highest rating program on National TV last year as well 4 of the top 5 ports programs for the year,
* The biggest crowd and the highest rating match in Melbourne this year.
As opposed to

the Australian
Thirteen clubs — the Suns and the Giants not included because they are being funded by the AFL — are carrying a combined debt of $91m. Last year eight clubs finished in the red
The Future Fund established by the commission in 2007 has a book value of $89.4m but sits with only $63m in cash. While established to buy assets (Etihad Stadium) and be a reserve to cope with unforeseen financial circumstances, it appears to be used to keep the league turning over.

The AFL denies this but there is no doubt the account is being used for matters other than stated when the commission gave birth to the fund with an initial seeding of $16m in 2007. The past two annual reports record profits of a combined $29m, which are claimed to have been The AFL Commission and its *administration used to be close to infallible. At least in the eyes of this country’s sport watchers. The indigenous competition was flying higher than any other code because it was not fettered by the selfish and parochial views of the clubs that formed the national league.

That was a long time ago. Nobody thinks that any more. The commission and the men and women administrators who answer to it are not nearly as clever as first pictured. Not nearly as transparent as required. Not nearly as constant as hoped.

What many might have suspected is now fact. The confused and opaque treatment of Melbourne’s tanking scandal was not an aberration. It was pretty much the league’s blueprint for crisis management.

Any last suggestion that the league leaders and their underlings performed their job in a manner that the code’s supporters would be comfortable with has been shredded this week. This final reveal has come in two parts. The release on Thursday of a detailed account of the Essendon supplements saga in the book The Straight Dope written by colleague Chip Le Grand and followed yesterday by the AFL’s life ban on medicine man Stephen Dank

While the scandal is closing in on its third birthday, the book exposes the AFL’s dangerous need to control everything that it is involved in, and bludgeon into submission those who resist the league’s wish to manage any and every outcome.

The league is just one villain in a book without heroes. Coach James Hird? He never did understand the core issue in this case that flattened interest in the sport to such an extent people would *report turning off their radios and televisions if the saga and its progress was mentioned.

The book reveals in a meeting with AFL Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick that Hird was asked why he did not accept the league’s wishes that he own responsibility for what happened in 2012 at the club. Hird’s reply was that he *believed the club did not cheat.

The coach, and former champion player, of course, was never charged with cheating. The AFL wanted him to step away from the club for 12 months because he did not fulfil his governance responsibilities when club high-performance employee Dank was running a dangerous supplement and drug program which might well have put the health of Hird’s players at great risk.

Hird never accepted his governance accountability or that the AFL, ultimately, was trying to manage the damage to Hird, one of the game’s most adored and *respected figures, as well as to the game. Thus neither the game nor the coach escaped a mudslide of scorn.

Towards nearly the end of part one of the AFL’s role, the league had almost unravelled. Unable to manage the outcome it wanted, the chairman of the Australian Sports Commission, John Wiley, was whistled up to see if he could broker a deal with Essendon’s chairman, Paul Little. And then-chief executive Andrew Demetriou was like a groggy boxer, backed onto the ropes and throwing punches instinctively but without power and precision.

This is the same organisation — except Demetriou has gone and Gillon McLachlan has laced on the chief executive gloves — that is *attempting to steer Australian football to market supremacy nationally while soccer continues to soar and the reformed and *retooled NRL tries to widen its *influence outside NSW and Queensland.

The AFL is attempting to expand the competition as well as equalise it. To many observers it is beginning to appear such aims might be mutually exclusive.

The commission has set aside $200 million to ensure the Gold Coast Suns and the Greater Western Sydney Giants, the game’s 17th and 18th teams, are self-sufficient by 2016. The truth is these clubs might not be able to fund themselves by 3016.

The established clubs are convinced that the push of second teams into Queensland and NSW is starting to strain the commission’s finances. In a series of exclusive reports over the past two weeks, The Australian has exposed a brittle financial structure underpinning the league.

Thirteen clubs — the Suns and the Giants not included because they are being funded by the AFL — are carrying a combined debt of $91m. Last year eight clubs finished in the red.

This season’s results will be no better. Up to eight clubs are forecasting losses again. The Saints and Carlton have budgeted for $2.2m losses. Carlton’s result, in particular, has blown out but they had a poor start to the season and had to remove coach Mick Malthouse.

The Western Bulldogs and *Adelaide forecast losses close to $1m each. Geelong are expecting a negative result anywhere between $250,000 and $500,000, while North Melbourne could lose $60,000. Fremantle and Brisbane might break even.

The Future Fund established by the commission in 2007 has a book value of $89.4m but sits with only $63m in cash. While established to buy assets (Etihad Stadium) and be a reserve to cope with unforeseen financial circumstances, it appears to be used to keep the league turning over.

The AFL denies this but there is no doubt the account is being used for matters other than stated when the commission gave birth to the fund with an initial seeding of $16m in 2007. The past two annual reports record profits of a combined $29m, which are claimed to have been deposited in the Future Fund.

In simple terms that should put the Future Fund at $118m. Yet it is still recorded at $89m but with just $62m in cash. No doubt this is all regulated accounting and there is no suggestion of impropriety, but nonetheless money appears to be drying up at football’s headquarters.

Several clubs are sure the league is haemorrhaging money to its vision of national domination. McLachlan denies these suggestions outright though he acknowledged to The Australian this week that the establishment of the Suns and the Giants has proved more expensive than considered when they were mere doodling on whiteboards.

Increasingly, the AFL is taking money from the more successful clubs and pushing it into equalisation funds. Collingwood and Hawthorn have been the loudest opponents to the introduction of a soft cap on football department spending (not including player payments) and a hefty tax on *revenue growth.

The expenditure tax will provide $3.1m this year while the full impact of revenue from the soft cap on football departments will not be definitive until budget estimates turn into actuals in October. Next season the football department tax becomes more punitive, rising from 37.5 per cent of each dollar over the cap to 75 per cent in 2016.

Clubs with bigger revenue bases and membership rolls than others see this as the AFL asking them to do what is really the job of the commission. Banker to the poor. And money issues might become tighter rather than freer with the new broadcast rights to run for five years from 2017-2021. Already it has been suggested — and not denied — that the AFL will look for at least $1.7bn. That’s up from the present deal of $1.25bn.

The clubs already have their thinning hands out for a greater slice of the new money and the AFL Players Association is determined to garner a bigger cut of the deal for its footballers.

AFLPA boss Paul Marsh has said repeatedly that he wants a *formulated percentage of the broadcast deal and he is prepared to use both the salary cap and draft system for leverage.

Marsh represents a challenging element in the league’s distribution of money. He has come to the job with a clear mandate from his employees to wrench a lot more money for the players from the system.

And this is the AFL Commission’s growing problem. Revenue is not increasing as quickly as the number of mouths growling for a bigger cut. Programs previously driven with zeal by the AFL are now barely propped up. The push for the AFL to have an international presence has evaporated in step with increasing demands on the game’s funds.

Vicheads! :_<> :_<> :_<>

both leagues are non for profit! making large profits are pointless as their are no share holders! the AFL makes 200 million more than the little NRLOL and invests back in the game, the NRLOL does not it cannot afford to run its own clubs, so the it privatises the clubs, the owners sink million in to them, the league clubs & business owners!
it takes 15 to 20 million to run an NRLOL club, 9 million of that comes from the NRLOL through distribution rights & the owners still need to sink millions in!

crowds are down
ratings are down
FFS the grand final struggles to sell out most years

the little NRLOL is dying a slow painful death
SOO is the ultimate example of this, the gimmick seems to grow, yet everything else league does not


go and read the minnowboure storm annual report and see how much the owner pumped in to the storm
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=5173
have a read over the annual reports
see how pissant the NRLOL clubs are financially & still needing money from their owners, running on operating budgets half of that of an AFLl club

They are not for profit organisation. But even a dim witted Vichead like yourself should be able to figure out that the more they can make the more they can reinvest in the business, ie. the bigger hand out the AFL can give to the Suns next year.

fuck your a dumb shit, but oh well the stero type league fan
yes thats why the AFL makes $200 million more than the NRLOL, and it invests back in to the game!
the NRLOL makes a bigger profit because the don't invest back & you pathetic basement dwellers beat your chest about it
not your condicting your self about the more you make the more you can reinvest
you know an NRLOL clubs football operations has a budget of around $15 million, the NRLOL commission pays $9 million of that!
most of the NRLOL piss ant NRLOL clubs cant even raise the 6 million to run their piss ant little minnow shit house club. they need extra money from their owners

[pussycat]

You just don't buy 100 watermelons for $1 sell them for $1.10 and think you've made $110 You metho swilling vichead .

All the clubs that play in the NRL get a grant from the ARL. Similar with the AFL Vichead.

[leagueiscrap]

You just don't buy 100 watermelons for $1 sell them for $1.10 and think you've made $110 You metho swilling vichead .

All the clubs that play in the NRL get a grant from the ARL. Similar with the AFL Vichead.

are you referring to the distribution money pissycat?
or the extra money the NRLOL has to give the clubs, because their owners are refusing to put in any more money to the sink hole of NRLOL club? make up that short fall of the 5 or 6 million needed to run an NRLOL club

[AFLcrap1]

Lol don't expect a rational answer .

[pussycat]

You just don't buy 100 watermelons for $1 sell them for $1.10 and think you've made $110 You metho swilling vichead .

All the clubs that play in the NRL get a grant from the ARL. Similar with the AFL Vichead.

are you referring to the distribution money pissycat?
or the extra money the NRLOL has to give the clubs, because their owners are refusing to put in any more money to the sink hole of NRLOL club? make up that short fall of the 5 or 6 million needed to run an NRLOL club

And don't the AFL Clubs get a larger grant from the AFL?

And don't the AFL clubs have larger debts ?

So use your metho addled brain to explain that you VicHead!




'

[The axe]

Lol don't expect a rational answer .

How you going with that whole $26.5 million fund thing, got any answers yet.

[AFLcrap1]

Lol .

Do the NRL pay the 26 million .