Talking Footy

The NRL TV deal means NOTHING to the clubs in financial trouble, Dave, you goose!!

Raiderdave wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Cracker wrote:

Well I wasn't concentrating on crowds so much as I was the revenue. I also follow two teams - both Bulldogs. Canterbury and Footscray.

I saw that Wookie made a good point
2012 AFL revenue 425 Mil
2013 NRL revenue 330 mil

2012 AFL Tv rights = 221 mil
2013 NRL TV rights = 220 mil

That means NRL only has 110 mil from other revenue streams where's AFL has 204 mil - that extra 80 mil is from everything associated with larger crowds hence the NRL needs to close this gap something which will be hard to do in 5 yrs - that's my point!

& heres a little ditty for you shit for brains

the VFL needs every cent of that extra 80 mill to bail out its failing clubs
it barely has anything left after its paid out their failing operations


the NRL meanwhile banked 50 Million in profits
that's our point

And how many of the NRL clubs are broke and in the same position - why else have they been lobbying for an increase in the distribution from the NRL - again the NRL isn't in a far superior position to AFL clubs - your just closing your eyes to the problems that exist there!

none
the only one who has hit a bit of financial trouble in the last 12 months are the Tigers
& that's under control now apparently as well.

theres been no lobbying for an increase you lying twat
the deal for this 5 year period is done & set in stone
the grant has increased from 4 Million to 7 million per club , per year

All clubs get the shortfall ( if there is one) between their costs & their revenue covered by their leagues club, so unlike VFL clubs .. NRL clubs do NOT carry over debt & the interest payments that go with them.
in 2013 what ever losses there were for NRL clubs would have been the smallest in a long time because of the extra money handed out by the NRL
the Clubs that own all their non football operations .... the Broncos & Raiders are in complete control of all their revenues & are sailing along financially

so no shithead

the NRL does not have anywhere near the problems the VFL has
hence they were able to post a 50 million profit ...

Again can't state a point has to add in the abuse! Well here's a couple things that have been on the web for a while
Club bosses discuss increase as players say cap doesn't fit By Brad Walter Nov. 28, 2012, 3 a.m.
NRL chief executives are set to discuss calls for a bigger salary cap and club grant next season at a meeting in Sydney on Wednesday in a move that may help to resolve the futures of Israel Folau and Brett Stewart.

Clubs were allocated $7 million in funding for the 2013 season, with $5 million to cover the salary cap and the rest to help meet costs associated with reaching targets announced in the game's strategic plan.
http://www.dailyliberal.com.au/story/11 ... oesnt-fit/
Or
Footy clubs face millions in debt
- 26 Mar 2012 00:07:45
Share
As NRL side Gold Coast Titans teeters on the brink of survival with debts of up to $35 million, many other football clubs around Australia are struggling financially.

The newly installed independent commission to run rugby league has appointed auditors to look into the situation at Gold Coast, which racked up most of the debts from building a Centre of Excellence adjacent to its Skilled Stadium home ground. The building has been plagued by court action.

But Gold Coast is not the only NRL club with financial difficulties. Just about all clubs are reliant on annual grants from their licensed clubs, while private owners have to dip into their pockets to fund the annual operating shortfalls.

The listed Brisbane Broncos are a rare success, recording a $1.36 million profit from revenue of almost $29 million in 2011, and paid a dividend to its shareholders.
http://m.afr.com/p/lifestyle/sport/foot ... t84JwrRbOJ
Or
Only two clubs – the Brisbane Broncos and North Queensland Cowboys – can claim to be financially self-sufficient from footballing revenues – sponsorship, merchandise, gate receipts and the NRL grant. The other 14 clubs all require regular cash injections from between $1 million and $5 million from supporting leagues clubs or generous backers just to break even. This is not sustainable in the long run.

In recent years Newcastle, Wests Tigers, Souths, Penrith, Cronulla, Gold Coast and Melbourne have faced financial difficulties that threatened their existence. On each occasion new funds, a revamped ownership structure or, in Penrith's case, an administrative structure, were put in place to secure survival. The same vulnerable environment exists with virtually all clubs except the Broncos, undercapitalised as standalone entities. This means most football clubs are not financially robust enough to sustain any significant setback. You only have to look at the situation at Cronulla where the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority investigation could result in massive legal bills to comprehend the tenuous situation. Newcastle, Cronulla, Wests Tigers and Manly are under financial stress and may require support from the NRL at some time in the next few years.
http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league ... 2swhv.html

So again whose delusional! And what happens when individual clubs start embarking on state of the art facilities like the AFL clubs? Debt debt and more debt!

The_Wookie wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Cracker wrote:

Well I wasn't concentrating on crowds so much as I was the revenue. I also follow two teams - both Bulldogs. Canterbury and Footscray.

I saw that Wookie made a good point
2012 AFL revenue 425 Mil
2013 NRL revenue 330 mil

2012 AFL Tv rights = 221 mil
2013 NRL TV rights = 220 mil

That means NRL only has 110 mil from other revenue streams where's AFL has 204 mil - that extra 80 mil is from everything associated with larger crowds hence the NRL needs to close this gap something which will be hard to do in 5 yrs - that's my point!

Can update this for you as of today

2013 AFL Revenue - 502 million
2013 NRL Revenue - 314 million

2013 AFL Broadcast and AFL Media revenue - 234.8 million
2013 NRL Broadcast and Digital Revenue - 228 million

2013 AFL Non broadcast revenue streams - 268.3 million
2013 NRL non broadcast revenue streams - 90 million

2013 AFL payments to clubs - 209.15 million
2013 NRL payments to clubs - 129.6 million

Hey wookie do you have the total expenses for each and final profits for each. After all the important number is the net profit.

It rather depends on how that final net profit/loss was achieved, Mark. You could, in certain circumstances, be misrepresenting a net loss.

Cracker wrote:

It rather depends on how that final net profit/loss was achieved, Mark. You could, in certain circumstances, be misrepresenting a net loss.

Agreed could be robbing peter to pay Paul claiming a profit and then having to use that profit for the same purpose you should have out laid in the first place - look it's all just a pissing contest anyway - I don't begrudge RL FINALLY doing well economically but when it's been suggested that the NRL will overtake the AFL in five years well it's just not right on both codes recent financial histories (the last five years). In time IMO there will be little to separate them - finances, crowds and memberships - it's not a question of one giving way to another and again IMO there will be greater number of fans whose favourite side is not confined to one code - rather favourite team NRL = Storm, AFL = Swans A-League = Heart, Basketball =Melb Tigers etc etc. People do this to more or less a degree when following OS comp's e.g Chelsea, Yankees, Celtics etc etc. People like RD, KE claiming moral and athletic superiority will be a thing of the past and they and their ideas Dinosaurs!

Swans4ever wrote:

Cracker wrote:

It rather depends on how that final net profit/loss was achieved, Mark. You could, in certain circumstances, be misrepresenting a net loss.

Agreed could be robbing peter to pay Paul claiming a profit and then having to use that profit for the same purpose you should have out laid in the first place - look it's all just a pissing contest anyway - I don't begrudge RL FINALLY doing well economically but when it's been suggested that the NRL will overtake the AFL in five years well it's just not right on both codes recent financial histories (the last five years). In time IMO there will be little to separate them - finances, crowds and memberships - it's not a question of one giving way to another and again IMO there will be greater number of fans whose favourite side is not confined to one code - rather favourite team NRL = Storm, AFL = Swans A-League = Heart, Basketball =Melb Tigers etc etc. People do this to more or less a degree when following OS comp's e.g Chelsea, Yankees, Celtics etc etc. People like RD, KE claiming moral and athletic superiority will be a thing of the past and they and their ideas Dinosaurs!

So what your saying is that all these numbers are just that, numbers and are meaningless?

MarkZZZ wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Cracker wrote:

It rather depends on how that final net profit/loss was achieved, Mark. You could, in certain circumstances, be misrepresenting a net loss.

Agreed could be robbing peter to pay Paul claiming a profit and then having to use that profit for the same purpose you should have out laid in the first place - look it's all just a pissing contest anyway - I don't begrudge RL FINALLY doing well economically but when it's been suggested that the NRL will overtake the AFL in five years well it's just not right on both codes recent financial histories (the last five years). In time IMO there will be little to separate them - finances, crowds and memberships - it's not a question of one giving way to another and again IMO there will be greater number of fans whose favourite side is not confined to one code - rather favourite team NRL = Storm, AFL = Swans A-League = Heart, Basketball =Melb Tigers etc etc. People do this to more or less a degree when following OS comp's e.g Chelsea, Yankees, Celtics etc etc. People like RD, KE claiming moral and athletic superiority will be a thing of the past and they and their ideas Dinosaurs!

So what your saying is that all these numbers are just that, numbers and are meaningless?

No what I'm saying is just because one code is doing well it will not necessarily come at the expence of another code - the changing character of fans only following one code to being fans who follow many codes means there is a signifigant marketplace for all comps. E.g. NRL clubs may actively target AFL club members to become members of a another code - e.g. Western Bulldogs fans joining Canterbury Bulldogs as they both have a common mascot - Tigers supporters becoming members of West Tigers etc etc. Most AFL supporters don't live in the traditional area of the club so its not the region they support rather the club - NRL has IMO been slow to reach this realisation in Sydney - again Balmain would not necessarily be where West Tigers fans have moved to - Traditional Manly supporters of years gone by may no longer live there rather have moved. NRL clubs seem unwilling or unable to break out of their traditiinal areas and grow their crowds and membership bases.

Swans4ever wrote:

MarkZZZ wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Cracker wrote:

It rather depends on how that final net profit/loss was achieved, Mark. You could, in certain circumstances, be misrepresenting a net loss.

Agreed could be robbing peter to pay Paul claiming a profit and then having to use that profit for the same purpose you should have out laid in the first place - look it's all just a pissing contest anyway - I don't begrudge RL FINALLY doing well economically but when it's been suggested that the NRL will overtake the AFL in five years well it's just not right on both codes recent financial histories (the last five years). In time IMO there will be little to separate them - finances, crowds and memberships - it's not a question of one giving way to another and again IMO there will be greater number of fans whose favourite side is not confined to one code - rather favourite team NRL = Storm, AFL = Swans A-League = Heart, Basketball =Melb Tigers etc etc. People do this to more or less a degree when following OS comp's e.g Chelsea, Yankees, Celtics etc etc. People like RD, KE claiming moral and athletic superiority will be a thing of the past and they and their ideas Dinosaurs!

So what your saying is that all these numbers are just that, numbers and are meaningless?

No what I'm saying is just because one code is doing well it will not necessarily come at the expence of another code - the changing character of fans only following one code to being fans who follow many codes means there is a signifigant marketplace for all comps. E.g. NRL clubs may actively target AFL club members to become members of a another code - e.g. Western Bulldogs fans joining Canterbury Bulldogs as they both have a common mascot - Tigers supporters becoming members of West Tigers etc etc. Most AFL supporters don't live in the traditional area of the club so its not the region they support rather the club - NRL has IMO been slow to reach this realisation in Sydney - again Balmain would not necessarily be where West Tigers fans have moved to - Traditional Manly supporters of years gone by may no longer live there rather have moved. NRL clubs seem unwilling or unable to break out of their traditiinal areas and grow their crowds and membership bases.

All of the AFL teams fan base have out grown their traditional areas, people move houses all the time as well.

adamj1300 wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

MarkZZZ wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Cracker wrote:

It rather depends on how that final net profit/loss was achieved, Mark. You could, in certain circumstances, be misrepresenting a net loss.

Agreed could be robbing peter to pay Paul claiming a profit and then having to use that profit for the same purpose you should have out laid in the first place - look it's all just a pissing contest anyway - I don't begrudge RL FINALLY doing well economically but when it's been suggested that the NRL will overtake the AFL in five years well it's just not right on both codes recent financial histories (the last five years). In time IMO there will be little to separate them - finances, crowds and memberships - it's not a question of one giving way to another and again IMO there will be greater number of fans whose favourite side is not confined to one code - rather favourite team NRL = Storm, AFL = Swans A-League = Heart, Basketball =Melb Tigers etc etc. People do this to more or less a degree when following OS comp's e.g Chelsea, Yankees, Celtics etc etc. People like RD, KE claiming moral and athletic superiority will be a thing of the past and they and their ideas Dinosaurs!

So what your saying is that all these numbers are just that, numbers and are meaningless?

No what I'm saying is just because one code is doing well it will not necessarily come at the expence of another code - the changing character of fans only following one code to being fans who follow many codes means there is a signifigant marketplace for all comps. E.g. NRL clubs may actively target AFL club members to become members of a another code - e.g. Western Bulldogs fans joining Canterbury Bulldogs as they both have a common mascot - Tigers supporters becoming members of West Tigers etc etc. Most AFL supporters don't live in the traditional area of the club so its not the region they support rather the club - NRL has IMO been slow to reach this realisation in Sydney - again Balmain would not necessarily be where West Tigers fans have moved to - Traditional Manly supporters of years gone by may no longer live there rather have moved. NRL clubs seem unwilling or unable to break out of their traditiinal areas and grow their crowds and membership bases.

All of the AFL teams fan base have out grown their traditional areas, people move houses all the time as well.

Agreed but it seems the NRL clubs haven't outgrown those traditional bases

And they can't because the NRL does nothing to expand them!

The_Wookie wrote:

MarkZZZ wrote:

Hey wookie do you have the total expenses for each and final profits for each. After all the important number is the net profit.

Theres a couple of problems with this, not least being the amount of money the league distributes back into the league, and the fact that the afls profit line is taken AFTER distribution to various reserve funds.

Any "other" expenses/distribution would be included in the balance sheet.


So, putting it plainly The AFL earns more but needs to spend more therefor making it a less profitable organisation.

MarkZZZ wrote:

The_Wookie wrote:

MarkZZZ wrote:

Hey wookie do you have the total expenses for each and final profits for each. After all the important number is the net profit.

Theres a couple of problems with this, not least being the amount of money the league distributes back into the league, and the fact that the afls profit line is taken AFTER distribution to various reserve funds.

Any "other" expenses/distribution would be included in the balance sheet.


So, putting it plainly The AFL earns more but needs to spend more therefor making it a less profitable organisation.

It spends more for the benefit of the game and enjoyment of fans. Such as better stadiums, expansion funding, junior programs etc..

If they cut these costs back theyd be miles ahead in profit. But why earn money if not to spend it to make life more convenient and pleasurable?

Made over 100 million from merchandise sales again last season.

Hmmmm, highest in the country by miles.

On another angle, look at the difference in the liabilities. That is a severe problem for the NRL that needs to be dealt with.

MarkZZZ, this is what I meant when I said that figures can be misrepresented.

I would add the note about the Future Fund of the AFL. If they hadn't added that amount to it, the AFL's net profit would be over $100 million compared to the NRL's $45 million plus.

Swans4ever wrote:

MarkZZZ wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Cracker wrote:

It rather depends on how that final net profit/loss was achieved, Mark. You could, in certain circumstances, be misrepresenting a net loss.

Agreed could be robbing peter to pay Paul claiming a profit and then having to use that profit for the same purpose you should have out laid in the first place - look it's all just a pissing contest anyway - I don't begrudge RL FINALLY doing well economically but when it's been suggested that the NRL will overtake the AFL in five years well it's just not right on both codes recent financial histories (the last five years). In time IMO there will be little to separate them - finances, crowds and memberships - it's not a question of one giving way to another and again IMO there will be greater number of fans whose favourite side is not confined to one code - rather favourite team NRL = Storm, AFL = Swans A-League = Heart, Basketball =Melb Tigers etc etc. People do this to more or less a degree when following OS comp's e.g Chelsea, Yankees, Celtics etc etc. People like RD, KE claiming moral and athletic superiority will be a thing of the past and they and their ideas Dinosaurs!

So what your saying is that all these numbers are just that, numbers and are meaningless?

No what I'm saying is just because one code is doing well it will not necessarily come at the expence of another code - the changing character of fans only following one code to being fans who follow many codes means there is a signifigant marketplace for all comps. E.g. NRL clubs may actively target AFL club members to become members of a another code - e.g. Western Bulldogs fans joining Canterbury Bulldogs as they both have a common mascot - Tigers supporters becoming members of West Tigers etc etc. Most AFL supporters don't live in the traditional area of the club so its not the region they support rather the club - NRL has IMO been slow to reach this realisation in Sydney - again Balmain would not necessarily be where West Tigers fans have moved to - Traditional Manly supporters of years gone by may no longer live there rather have moved. NRL clubs seem unwilling or unable to break out of their traditiinal areas and grow their crowds and membership bases.

meh
its a great selling point for our game in the reverse argument
Our derbies in Sydney are
REAL Derbies
they involve actual tribalism

literally one mob from one side of the street up against the other mob .. from the other side of the street
our game hasn't lost this
the VFL has

its clubs are soulless undefinable ...lacking in indentity with fans unsure as to why they actually follow a club >

in the NRL in Sydney ... you usually don't need an explanation as to why a person follows an NRL team
as most Live in the district that represents that Club & has done so for over 100 years in some cases

in the weird VFL its
I follow Collington

Oh... you live there then ?

what ?.... no
I live nowhere near there

so why follow them then


I dunno ? >

:_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>