Administration - The AFL v NRL *Moderator Approved* - Rules in OP

[Kwality]

Somehow I think the AFL will be alright.

The new funding for the NRL clubs is a big deal, they now will have annual grants that could end up exceeding the salary cap by up to $5m, provided they spend it wisely and invest back into the clubs and not the football department there's a genuine possibility that by 2018 every club will be break even or profitable. In the space of 5 years they will have gone from having part of the salary cap covered by the NRL grant, to completely covered, to now exceeding it by 30% + $1.5m p.a., they need to make the most of it, no more excuses.

agree BUT excuses & footy clubs (all codes) go hand in hand - all clubs making a profit? Nah, wont happen (all codes).

 

[Hoops]

Somehow I think the AFL will be alright.

The new funding for the NRL clubs is a big deal, they now will have annual grants that could end up exceeding the salary cap by up to $5m, provided they spend it wisely and invest back into the clubs and not the football department there's a genuine possibility that by 2018 every club will be break even or profitable. In the space of 5 years they will have gone from having part of the salary cap covered by the NRL grant, to completely covered, to now exceeding it by 30% + $1.5m p.a., they need to make the most of it, no more excuses.

I think it was 2007 on the back of the $780m Tv rights all AFL clubs made a profit except for Saint Kilda I think it was. But with greater revenue come greater costs as you start to compete for supporters, coaching staff and the like, so It doesn't last too long for expenses to rise. but what tHe NRL do have in their favour is that a huge chunk of each clubs revenue will come from the central body I'm thinking around almost 50% depending on the club compared to the AFL which would be about 30% at a guess. This helps kepp the competition even.

 

[bigleague]

I think it was 2007 on the back of the $780m Tv rights all AFL clubs made a profit except for Saint Kilda I think it was. But with greater revenue come greater costs as you start to compete for supporters, coaching staff and the like, so It doesn't last too long for expenses to rise. but what tHe NRL do have in their favour is that a huge chunk of each clubs revenue will come from the central body I'm thinking around almost 50% depending on the club compared to the AFL which would be about 30% at a guess. This helps kepp the competition even.

It's less than 50%, NRL clubs only receive ~$7m grants now and I doubt there's any with revenues of only 14m.

 

[Hoops]

It's less than 50%, NRL clubs only receive ~$7m grants now and I doubt there's any with revenues of only 14m.

I said will be. Clubs recieve $7.55M now from the NRL, add that to the extra $100m a year across 16 clubs gives each club a total of about $13.8M and when I said will be almost 50% I had a figure of about $30m in mind with most clubs having around the low $20m's now.

 

[bigleague]

I said will be. Clubs recieve $7.55M now from the NRL, add that to the extra $100m a year across 16 clubs gives each club a total of about $13.8M and when I said will be almost 50% I had a figure of about $30m in mind with most clubs having around the low $20m's now.

Are you assuming they will not use the additional funding to grow their revenues?

 

[Hoops]

Are you assuming they will not use the additional funding to grow their revenues?

Certainly not to the same rate as their grant grows.

 

[jatz14]

Are you assuming they will not use the additional funding to grow their revenues?

Did they last time?

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[bigleague]

Did they last time?

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

What last time? They have at best only ever had enough funding to cover player payments.

 

[Gigantor]

Anyway, whatever happens, we know in our own lives, the more you earn, the more you spend - that's the nature of it, and in footy, there's always something to spend money on, because it's pointless to not put every cent (plus some) into winning the only thing which matters, and there are 18 clubs trying to do the exact same thing (at least that's the mentality footy clubs traditionally have).

No one pats you on the back if you finish bottom 4 five years running but can show average annual profits of $100,000.

 

[bigleague]

Anyway, whatever happens, we know in our own lives, the more you earn, the more you spend - that's the nature of it, and in footy, there's always something to spend money on, because it's pointless to not put every cent (plus some) into winning the only thing which matters, and there are 18 clubs trying to do the exact same thing (at least that's the mentality footy clubs traditionally have).

No one pats you on the back if you finish bottom 4 five years running but can show average annual profits of $100,000.

Yep

 

[papabear]

tbh you can pretty much guarantee costs will rise with rugby league clubs.

Its sad really, the ARLC and the clubs all looking out for themselves instead of spending on the game more broadly.

 

[bigleague]

tbh you can pretty much guarantee costs will rise with rugby league clubs.

Its sad really, the ARLC and the clubs all looking out for themselves instead of spending on the game more broadly.

They are also spending an additional $100m a year on grassroots & lower grades.

 

[bigleague]

 

[bigleague]

NRL gain more digital control in new rights deal with Telstra

The NRL will take back control of its digital assets, including the NRL.com and club websites, under the terms of its new broadcast deal.

The move will mean the competition and its clubs will be able to keep revenue from digital source such as advertising, which is now primarily sold by rights holder Telstra as part of the existing broadcast contract. Telstra and the NRL also currently have a joint venture media unit that provides news, statistical and video content.

Telstra will maintain digital broadcast rights to mobile phones and tablets as part of the five-year $1.8 billion rights deal the NRL signed with Fox Sports, Nine Entertainment Co and Telstra two weeks ago, but the NRL itself will have more direct control over the content of digital assets such as websites and social media.

"This gives us the opportunity to build our own voice with our own resources with our community," NRL chairman John Grant said. "And it is one of the sources we think we can generate more revenue from."

Grant said the league would also discuss with Telstra how it could transition to new arrangements during the next two seasons.

Fox Sports, wholly owned by News Corporation, and Nine will also have digital streaming rights under the new broadcast deal.

http://www.afr.com/business/sport/n...al-with-telstra-20151203-glf8r9#ixzz3taKIR6sc

 

[Gigantor]

I would have thought in this day and age, the big leagues are not selling digital rights in their entirety, and that they retain some capacity to monetise their websites (at a minimum).

 

[bigleague]

I would have thought in this day and age, the big leagues are not selling digital rights in their entirety, and that they retain some capacity to monetise their websites (at a minimum).

I'm sure the AFL do, I would be surprised if they didn't.

 

[The_Wookie]

club and AFL website management are included in the Telstra digital rights, what the AFL makes from that is anyones guess.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Roy and Caro doing their best David and Margret on the last Offsiders for the year yesterday. Figured it would sit nicely in this tread.

http://www.abc.net.au/sport/offsiders/content/2015/s4366893.htm

 

[papabear]

They are also spending an additional $100m a year on grassroots & lower grades.

if that is so, we all know that we won't see it.

Oz tag and touch should be pushed into primary schools with a lot more vigour then it is.

 

[1873 United]

"They are also spending an additional $100m a year on grassroots & lower grades".

So for arguments sake, the NRL TV deal is worth $1.9B after all contracts a signed.

All clubs will receive approximately $13.5M a year (note: this could will rise with the salary cap under the current agreement)
Multiplied by the sum of the clubs 16
and then by the number of years of the contract 5
$13.5M * 16 = $216M
$216M * 5 = $1.080B

So for the duration of the next deal, noting i'm not sure of other NRL revenues, the Commission has to fund Touch, Tag Rugby and Junior Rugby League with approximately $900M. Then we take the other costs, running of the competition etc... and the prospect of having to plan for future expansion teams. $900M is a lot of money, divide it by 5 = $180M and I am starting to ask questions.

I now ask Wookie to present the figures of revenues (if available) for both the AFL and NRL competitions. From here we should see if the NRL can in fact spend $100M per annum extra on grass roots and development competitions, noting it is to be achieved with less than $80M left in the kitty after the clubs enjoy their drink.

Without first seeing the revenues, I don't want to make assumptions, however I see a significant shortfall of funding somewhere in the NRL's budget. To go a step further, of the $1.9B how much is paid in contra? Am I the only one that thinks that the NRL commission is bluffing its way through at the moment?

Consider this your sports thought for the day! It's hardly a code war, it is more of a view to understand why clubs are already fed up with the NRL.

 

[The_Wookie]

"They are also spending an additional $100m a year on grassroots & lower grades".

So for arguments sake, the NRL TV deal is worth $1.9B after all contracts a signed.

All clubs will receive approximately $13.5M a year (note: this could will rise with the salary cap under the current agreement)
Multiplied by the sum of the clubs 16
and then by the number of years of the contract 5
$13.5M * 16 = $216M
$216M * 5 = $1.080B

So for the duration of the next deal, noting i'm not sure of other NRL revenues, the Commission has to fund Touch, Tag Rugby and Junior Rugby League with approximately $900M. Then we take the other costs, running of the competition etc... and the prospect of having to plan for future expansion teams. $900M is a lot of money, divide it by 5 = $180M and I am starting to ask questions.

I now ask Wookie to present the figures of revenues (if available) for both the AFL and NRL competitions. From here we should see if the NRL can in fact spend $100M per annum extra on grass roots and development competitions, noting it is to be achieved with less than $80M left in the kitty after the clubs enjoy their drink.

Without first seeing the revenues, I don't want to make assumptions, however I see a significant shortfall of funding somewhere in the NRL's budget. To go a step further, of the $1.9B how much is paid in contra? Am I the only one that thinks that the NRL commission is bluffing its way through at the moment?

Consider this your sports thought for the day! It's hardly a code war, it is more of a view to understand why clubs are already fed up with the NRL.

 

[bigleague]

"They are also spending an additional $100m a year on grassroots & lower grades".

So for arguments sake, the NRL TV deal is worth $1.9B after all contracts a signed.

All clubs will receive approximately $13.5M a year (note: this could will rise with the salary cap under the current agreement)
Multiplied by the sum of the clubs 16
and then by the number of years of the contract 5
$13.5M * 16 = $216M
$216M * 5 = $1.080B

So for the duration of the next deal, noting i'm not sure of other NRL revenues, the Commission has to fund Touch, Tag Rugby and Junior Rugby League with approximately $900M. Then we take the other costs, running of the competition etc... and the prospect of having to plan for future expansion teams. $900M is a lot of money, divide it by 5 = $180M and I am starting to ask questions.

I now ask Wookie to present the figures of revenues (if available) for both the AFL and NRL competitions. From here we should see if the NRL can in fact spend $100M per annum extra on grass roots and development competitions, noting it is to be achieved with less than $80M left in the kitty after the clubs enjoy their drink.

Without first seeing the revenues, I don't want to make assumptions, however I see a significant shortfall of funding somewhere in the NRL's budget. To go a step further, of the $1.9B how much is paid in contra? Am I the only one that thinks that the NRL commission is bluffing its way through at the moment?

Consider this your sports thought for the day! It's hardly a code war, it is more of a view to understand why clubs are already fed up with the NRL.

The NRL will have revenues over $500m in 2018, including the $200m p.a. Grant said the commission had projected was unallocated for between 2018-22.

They had been negotiating with clubs for over a year on funding, it's not something they 'bluffed' through.

The Clubs aren't 'fed up' with the NRL now they've got their funding agreement. I am sure the AFL clubs will start arking up soon about getting their share of the TV deal, Eddie already has.

Consider this your sports thought for the day! Your ignorant conspiracy laden posts may come off as immature to others.

 

[1873 United]

The NRL will have revenues over $500m in 2018, including the $200m p.a. Grant said the commission had projected was unallocated for between 2018-22.

They had been negotiating with clubs for over a year on funding, it's not something they 'bluffed' through.

The Clubs aren't 'fed up' with the NRL now they've got their funding agreement. I am sure the AFL clubs will start arking up soon about getting their share of the TV deal, Eddie already has.

Consider this your sports thought for the day! Your ignorant conspiracy laden posts may come off as immature to others.

I think your views of the NRL are those of a person desperate to be seen as an equal in a world were equality matters not. My personal opinion, is that the NRL Commission have acted selfishly, by signing with News Ltd. a year early to save their own jobs.

The take over of touch and Tag Rugby was nothing more than a political play to produce participation numbers, sending funding to other sports is hardly a brilliant concept (Do you see Soccer funding Gaelic football?).

Pandering to the clubs is not a viable management philosophy, and neither is the head in the sand approach. I've read the numbers that Wookie posted above, and now, I'll reserve my judgement on Mr. Grant, for want of not being antagonistic in what is clearly a time of revolution in sports management.

 

[bigleague]

I think your views of the NRL are those of a person desperate to be seen as an equal in a world were equality matters not. My personal opinion, is that the NRL Commission have acted selfishly, by signing with News Ltd. a year early to save their own jobs.

The take over of touch and Tag Rugby was nothing more than a political play to produce participation numbers, sending funding to other sports is hardly a brilliant concept (Do you see Soccer funding Gaelic football?).

Pandering to the clubs is not a viable management philosophy, and neither is the head in the sand approach. I've read the numbers that Wookie posted above, and now, I'll reserve my judgement on Mr. Grant, for want of not being antagonistic in what is clearly a time of revolution in sports management.

Touch is a non-contact form of Rugby League, that is why it has play-the-balls and six 'tackle' sets.

The NRL hasn't taken over OzTag. They instead introduced League Tag. Both are again non-contact forms of Rugby League.

It is about making Rugby League more inclusive, touch-tag-tackle, male or female, social.

The last year is evident that the ARLC didn't pander to anyone. The positions of the commission were never in danger, they held the guaranteed votes of the 4 clubs financially controlled by the NRL and the support of the QRL. The, at best, handful of chairman agitated through the media because that was the only avenue they had and in the end the clubs failed to get all their demands met in the funding agreement.

It's easy to have willfully ignorant opinions.

 

[The_Wookie]

The sports broadcasts that could win over Australian Netflix and YouTube audiences
Posted on December 11, 2015

Roy Morgan polling suggests Netflix subscribers are 25% more likely than the average Australian to watch Super Rugby, and also more likely to watch FIFA World Cup soccer (+18%), English Premier League soccer (+16%), AFL pre-season games (+15%) and the Winter Olympics (+10%).

However Netflix subscribers are, compared with the norm, also more keen on some niche sports with fewer than a million potential TV viewers overall (and so perhaps with obtainable broadcasting rights), including Ice hockey (+76% more likely to watch), Triathlons (+17%), Surfing (+12%), Australian NBL basketball (+9%), and Iron Man contests (+7%)