NRL club finances: Broncos lead the pack, while Raiders depend on leagues club dollars

[greeneyed]

NRL club finances: big dollar Broncos NRL’s richest team | What’s your NRL team worth?

The case for a second team in Brisbane has been given added weight after NRL benchmarking revealed the Broncos continued to enjoy a significant financial advantage over their rivals that allowed them to channel record sums into their football department and playing talent.

Read more: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/ ... b0faae838a

This is an article really well worth reading... all the figures are for 2018.

There are figures which I understand to show money generated from sponsorship and membership... the figures are labelled "Total contributions margin". These figures have the Broncos at the top of the table, the Raiders at the bottom...

Broncos $17.8 million
Cowboys 10
Storm 9.7
Rabbitohs 9.4
Roosters 8
Warriors 7.4
Average 7.3
Dragons 7.2
Knights 6.5
Tigers 6.1
Bulldogs 5.5
Panthers 5.4
Eels 5.2
Sharks 5.2
Titans 5.1
Sea Eagles 4.9
Raiders 3.2

That's sort of worrying, if I've interpreted the numbers correctly.

Also shows Raiders rank fourth for football department expenditure on $20.2m (behind Broncos 21.5, Roosters 20.8, Panthers 20.6). Lowest were the Titans on 13.6 and the average was 18.1.

Also shows Raiders ranked fourth for player expenditure on $11.6m (behind Bulldogs and Broncos 12.0, Panthers 11.7). Average was 11, lowest was Titans on 9.5. Storm reportedly spent only 10.7 and Roosters 11.4.

Raiders were in the red to the tune of $3.9m before leagues club support... and were in the "black" to the tune of $0.7m after leagues club contribution. Half the clubs were in the black before leagues club support... Broncos ranked first with profit of $2.1m.

[-TW-]

I imagine it would be a lot better this year considering prize money, sponsorship clauses etc

Even with the outlay on the COE

Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk

[Roger Kenworthy]

GE how many news sites do you subscribe to?

[FuiFui BradBrad]

Also shows Raiders ranked fourth for player expenditure on $11.6m (behind Bulldogs and Broncos 12.0, Panthers 11.7). Average was 11, lowest was Titans on 9.5. Storm reportedly spent only 10.7 and Roosters 11.4.

Yeah, but which set of books were they reviewing?

[cat]

I would take that article with a grain of salt.
Clubs dont hand over their books to journos for a start.

Lets also remember we have never needed to be bailed out by the NRL ala tigers, knights, titans etc.

Certain Sydney clubs fought against the poker machine tax as they rely on it to survive.

And in terms of the amount we spent on the football team, there is a cap that was in place last year, no one can spend overs.

We also have to pay more due to all our away games being road trips

[greeneyed]

I would take that article with a grain of salt.
Clubs dont hand over their books to journos for a start.

Lets also remember we have never needed to be bailed out by the NRL ala tigers, knights, titans etc.

Certain Sydney clubs fought against the poker machine tax as they rely on it to survive.

And in terms of the amount we spent on the football team, there is a cap that was in place last year, no one can spend overs.

We also have to pay more due to all our away games being road trips

It is a leaked NRL report... that is going to an NRL conference of CEOs. Clubs do hand over their numbers to the NRL.

The Raiders Group also fought against changes to poker machine laws. Though they do seem to be very sound and are diversifying investments out of licensed clubs.

I don't think travel explains the football department spending... lots of clubs that travel every second week spent a lot less. A lot of it would be on science etc. I don't think that's a bad thing... that level of spend got the Raiders to the Grand Final this year.

The real concerning thing is the sponsorship etc dollars.

[cat]

"Leaked report" is another way of saying "close friend says".

Still don't believe it and the only teams who travel as much as us are cowboys, warriors, knights and storm

And if you believe certain clubs would be telling the truth i have some lovely swamp land for you to buy

[-TW-]

Bit rich coming from the GH's crisis merchant

Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk

[Botman]

I am actually really happy to see our football dept expenditure so high... that's one area even in the dark days of Stuart's era where i was effusive with my priase. He's certainly got the club to open it's purse strings.

I think so long as the QLC continue to do the right things with their investments and are strong there, they'll continue to underwrite any issues the club has. And thus, all is good.

The sponsorship stuff will improve if we can sustain this level of success. It wont ever be on the level of other clubs who get a ton of FTA and media exposure, where we dont, but we can certainly close the gap if we're a regular contender.

[-PJ-]

Broncos

All the $$$, all the facilities, all the sponsorship..

Still stink.

[Dr Zaius]

In breaking news sole club based in large city that appears on FTA TV every Friday night earns 6 times the sponsorship of club based in small public servant city that never gets on tele.

[greeneyed]

"Leaked report" is another way of saying "close friend says".

Still don't believe it and the only teams who travel as much as us are cowboys, warriors, knights and storm

And if you believe certain clubs would be telling the truth i have some lovely swamp land for you to buy

It is very clearly a comprehensive assessment of the state of finances of all the NRL clubs, given the extensive figures and comparisons provided for all clubs. The NRL has detailed access to the books of the NRL clubs. It is a very credible news report in my view. If you don't believe it fine, but no need to respond in that way.

Here are the figures for one team towns, who travel the most, for football department spending, by the way:

Broncos $21.5m
Raiders 20.2
Storm 18.2
Cowboys 17.8
Warriors 16.7
Titans 13.6

Pretty clear that there is no strong correlation to extent of travel.

[greeneyed]

I am actually really happy to see our football dept expenditure so high... that's one area even in the dark days of Stuart's era where i was effusive with my priase. He's certainly got the club to open it's purse strings.

I think so long as the QLC continue to do the right things with their investments and are strong there, they'll continue to underwrite any issues the club has. And thus, all is good.

The sponsorship stuff will improve if we can sustain this level of success. It wont ever be on the level of other clubs who get a ton of FTA and media exposure, where we dont, but we can certainly close the gap if we're a regular contender.

Agree with the bolded part in particular. But don't disagree with the rest either!

[-PJ-]

"Leaked report" is another way of saying "close friend says".

Still don't believe it and the only teams who travel as much as us are cowboys, warriors, knights and storm

And if you believe certain clubs would be telling the truth i have some lovely swamp land for you to buy

It is very clearly a comprehensive assessment of the state of finances of all the NRL clubs, given the extensive figures and comparisons provided for all clubs. The NRL has detailed access to the books of the NRL clubs. It is a very credible news report in my view. If you don't believe it fine, but no need to respond in that way.

Here are the figures for one team towns, who travel the most, for football department spending, by the way:

Broncos $21.5m
Raiders 20.2
Storm 18.2
Cowboys 17.8
Warriors 16.7
Titans 13.6

Pretty clear that there is no strong correlation to extent of travel.

Good to see you left the Knights out..

No one cares about them..

[greeneyed]

They just have to get on a bus.

[Bay53]

I can’t believe those numbers. We have 20k members. Even if that generates $50 per person that is $1 million, average is probably closer to $100. Huawei would not pay less than $1 million. Our other sponsorships are fully subscribed.

We even get about $1.5 million from the ACT govt which is a sort of sponsorship.

Of course we rely on league club funding. That is a bit like saying I rely on my salary to make ends meet. Of course if I didn’t have that I would do it harder.

[greeneyed]

A large proportion of the 20,000 members are registered local players, who have a membership that comes with their registration fee. I doubt that generates much additional revenue for the Raiders. That is probably about four or five thousand of the member numbers for a start.

[gerg]

In breaking news sole club based in large city that appears on FTA TV every Friday night earns 6 times the sponsorship of club based in small public servant city that never gets on tele.

Yeah who'd have thunk it.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[Beejay]

We are dead last for generating income, and rely completely on poker machine money to survive.
Yet our CEO is the longest serving in the game.

This is why I worry for long term success. The only people rated by performance are the players.
Mediocre results are just accepted.

If we didn’t just give 5,000+ memberships away for free we’d probably be last for memberships as well.
I didn’t renew my membership because I was busy and didn’t think of it, I’ve been a member for 5-6 years straight. No phone call, no email, no text message.

[-PJ-]

They just have to get on a bus.

To Sydney games yes, and Canberra at a stretch..

But they still have to hit Townsville, Melbourne, Auckland, GoldCoast and Brisbane.

[edwahu]

Maybe I have misunderstood something but based on this expenses are

20.2m for football + 11.6m for players = 32m

Revenue we know is
13.1m NRL grant +
3.2m "total contribution margin" +
1.5m Canberra stadium agreement + 3.2m leagues club grant to get in the black
= 21m

So unless I miss something there is a lot of revenue ignored in this story and the figures.

Other clubs are also needing leagues club grants with similar football and player costs but much higher total contribution margins, so it does seem this isn't the full picture.

[cat]

They just have to get on a bus.

To Sydney games yes, and Canberra at a stretch..

But they still have to hit Townsville, Melbourne, Auckland, GoldCoast and Brisbane.

The knights are the same as us, all away games are travel games. Its a 3hr+ drive away from Sydney then add on to that getting to the gong, kogarah etc

You need to be staying over night everytime.

Broncos travel less because their Gold Coast game isnt an over nighter

[cat]

Maybe I have misunderstood something but based on this expenses are

20.2m for football + 11.6m for players = 32m

Revenue we know is
13.1m NRL grant +
3.2m "total contribution margin" +
1.5m Canberra stadium agreement + 3.2m leagues club grant to get in the black
= 21m

So unless I miss something there is a lot of revenue ignored in this story and the figures.

Other clubs are also needing leagues club grants with similar football and player costs but much higher total contribution margins, so it does seem this isn't the full picture.

I totally agree, Sharks had no major sponsor for half of that year and were asking the bank for more loans, Titans were also waist deep in finacial trouble etc

No mad monday news to report , slow news week kind of story

[greeneyed]

Maybe I have misunderstood something but based on this expenses are

20.2m for football + 11.6m for players = 32m

Revenue we know is
13.1m NRL grant +
3.2m "total contribution margin" +
1.5m Canberra stadium agreement + 3.2m leagues club grant to get in the black
= 21m

So unless I miss something there is a lot of revenue ignored in this story and the figures.

Other clubs are also needing leagues club grants with similar football and player costs but much higher total contribution margins, so it does seem this isn't the full picture.

Would the player spending be part of the football department spend? What’s missing is the administration spending?

The figures clearly don’t add up that way. The total contribution margin thing may well be some sort of residual indicator. But it’s not really clear. They're certainly presented as an indicator of "money generated from sponsorship and membership". It may well simply be the difference between total revenues and the NRL grant.

[BJ]

To explain some of the perceived financial anomalies????

Don’t forget we have to give the Government over a million dollars a year in Bruce Stadium hire costs and their are some fees, taxes and charges that we pay in Canberra that other clubs don’t face from their town Councils.

If the data reported is correct then they must include these type of things. This may explain some of the numbers.

[edwahu]

To explain some of the perceived financial anomalies????

Don’t forget we have to give the Government over a million dollars a year in Bruce Stadium hire costs and their are some fees, taxes and charges that we pay in Canberra that other clubs don’t face from their town Councils.

If the data reported is correct then they must include these type of things. This may explain some of the numbers.

It's the other way around, the government pays us 1.5m to play at Bruce.

[BJ]

To explain some of the perceived financial anomalies????

Don’t forget we have to give the Government over a million dollars a year in Bruce Stadium hire costs and their are some fees, taxes and charges that we pay in Canberra that other clubs don’t face from their town Councils.

If the data reported is correct then they must include these type of things. This may explain some of the numbers.

It's the other way around, the government pays us 1.5m to play at Bruce.

It was reported in the Canberra Times we now have a fee?????

[greeneyed]

They just have to get on a bus.

To Sydney games yes, and Canberra at a stretch..

But they still have to hit Townsville, Melbourne, Auckland, GoldCoast and Brisbane.

Let me have another go...

Here are the figures for one team towns, who travel the most, for football department spending:

Broncos $21.5m
Raiders 20.2
Storm 18.2
Average 18.1
Cowboys 17.8
Knights 17.4
Warriors 16.7
Titans 13.6

It's pretty clear there is no correlation between those numbers and travel. I'd go so far as to say that the travel expenses that are met by the NRL are probably not included in the numbers, only the extra travel costs that clubs decide to incur themselves... because if they were included, why would the Warriors have below average spends?

The article suggests that a lot of the football department spend is on coaching staff salaries, and that is a significant contributor to the differences between the clubs.

By the way, the report also shows that the Panthers ($-4.9m), Sharks ($-3.3m), Sea Eagles ($-1.8m) and Bulldogs ($-1m) were the four clubs that ended "in the red" in 2018 even after leagues club grants/third party contributions... Panthers and Bulldogs impacted by payouts to sacked coaches.

[edwahu]

The NRL only pays for two nights economy travel and twin rooms for 27 people. So I would say it is a factor for clubs that go beyond that.

[greeneyed]

To explain some of the perceived financial anomalies????

Don’t forget we have to give the Government over a million dollars a year in Bruce Stadium hire costs and their are some fees, taxes and charges that we pay in Canberra that other clubs don’t face from their town Councils.

If the data reported is correct then they must include these type of things. This may explain some of the numbers.

It's the other way around, the government pays us 1.5m to play at Bruce.

It was reported in the Canberra Times we now have a fee?????

I wrote something that went through the contract in great detail... just can't put my finger on it.

There is a performance payment, for playing at Canberra Stadium, plus payroll tax forgiveness. The total of the cash and other incentives to play in Canberra totalled around $190,000 per game in 2019 from memory. The Raiders still have to pay to hire the stadium, and that is a set fee for each game.

[afgtnk]

Sticky's papered over the cracks well so far.

[Billy Walker]

Good thread this - interesting read. I think a case can be made for the NRL introducing custom salary caps for some clubs. The AFL have a higher cap for the 2 Sydney teams based on the higher cost of living in Sydney as opposed to Melbourne.

Perhaps a system where a clubs salary cap is somehow aligned with success. Going into 2020 the Roosters would be on the base salary cap but the Titans cap will have increased by X amount and will continue to do so year on year until they are successful. A system that forces the successful clubs to turn over the roster and allows the weaker clubs scope to attack quality players. It would even the comp out and ensure all clubs have a regular shot at success.

[-TW-]

The AFL got rid of COLA years ago

Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk

[Cranky Old Man]

Good thread this - interesting read. I think a case can be made for the NRL introducing custom salary caps for some clubs. The AFL have a higher cap for the 2 Sydney teams based on the higher cost of living in Sydney as opposed to Melbourne.

Perhaps a system where a clubs salary cap is somehow aligned with success. Going into 2020 the Roosters would be on the base salary cap but the Titans cap will have increased by X amount and will continue to do so year on year until they are successful. A system that forces the successful clubs to turn over the roster and allows the weaker clubs scope to attack quality players. It would even the comp out and ensure all clubs have a regular shot at success.

There are many reasons Nick Politis has gone on the NRL board, and ensuring that something like this is never raised is just one of them.

[Billy Walker]

Good thread this - interesting read. I think a case can be made for the NRL introducing custom salary caps for some clubs. The AFL have a higher cap for the 2 Sydney teams based on the higher cost of living in Sydney as opposed to Melbourne.

Perhaps a system where a clubs salary cap is somehow aligned with success. Going into 2020 the Roosters would be on the base salary cap but the Titans cap will have increased by X amount and will continue to do so year on year until they are successful. A system that forces the successful clubs to turn over the roster and allows the weaker clubs scope to attack quality players. It would even the comp out and ensure all clubs have a regular shot at success.

There are many reasons Nick Politis has gone on the NRL board, and ensuring that something like this is never raised is just one of them.

I don’t get that. If year on year premierships is what he wants he’d be better establishing his own fake Harlem Globetrotter style comp where his favourite team never loses. Would there seriously be any joy in that? Surely the goal needs to be a high quality, super competitive even competition that is a significant thing to win.

Nobody on the Greenhouse would complain if the raiders went on a St George style grand final winning dynasty, but there is a point where it needs to be competitive. Nobody cares about the Kangaroos v USA right...