Jump to content

Investment from Australia


Recommended Posts

Ok, it is clear from the expansion going on in Australia that some groups, even at a lower League level have A LOT OF MONEY. 

Redcliffe Dolphins have a hundred million dollars of property and ten of millions in the bank. 

East's Tigers who are making Brisbane Firebirds have 80 million in property and 26 million in the bank. Probably more money in the bank than the entire Super League clubs put together. 

Broncos have 16 million in the bank etc. 

Raiders, Panthers, Roosters, South's etc all have significant backing financially.

Now, it is evident not all the Australian game has lots of money, some of it doesn't. However, clearly some of it does. 

Maybe, the most realistic way forward (whatever the structure) is enticing investment in UK / European RL by Australian clubs. 

How can we do this? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 minute ago, Damien said:

Didn't Brisbane do this with London?

I agree this is interesting but one failure need not stop considering how we might find additional investment. 

For instance, Brisbane may be in a better place themselves now, given London's impending move to a better location to invest and bring together the two identities. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite their vast TV deal, most Aussie clubs are still propped up by the gambling dens they sucker their poorest supporters into to blow their weekly wages on.

Apart from being ethically revolting, it's not a business model they could apply over here.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Australian clubs operate on a different business model. All the Sydney clubs were designated areas where they would be responsible for the administration of RL. They established junior clubs and leagues through each area and each NSWRL first-grade club had its own pyramid building up through the age groups. These leagues were all run as Community Associations - tax-free organisations that exist for a charitable, social, educational or sporting purpose.

Over the years their funding progressed from running raffles at games to collecting donations from local businesses through to the legalisation of slot machines. These gambling and alcohol licences allowed the clubs to develop huge asset bases but they are still required by legislation to have a charitable purpose and provide services for members.

Most clubs spent money on developing their local leagues with the cash from their "Leagues Clubs." (I've never understood why they aren't called League Clubs, rather than Leagues.) Penrith District Junior Rugby League, for example, has at least 40 clubs playing in at least 1 Division in their league, many fielding teams all the way through from U5s to Open Age.

It's difficult to see how spending money on foreign activities would fit into this model. The option would exist for privately-owned clubs - Storm, Broncos, Cows, Warriors, Titans. But then the Broncos are about 75% owned by Rupert Murdoch who has already tried putting money into RL outside OZ. Titans are owned by a local car dealer gazillionaire and a sand-and-gravel mogul. It's hard to see how they would derive any commercial boost from investing in Europe.

So the community-based model couldn't justify European investment as "providing services to local community" and the private-owner model couldn't justify the expense on commercial grounds.

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 I think that is insightful, especially given purposes in the constitutions. 

However, most of these clubs do not have localised purposes that limit their investment in 
RL to be local. 

The Warriors, Broncos, Storm, Rabbitohs, Titans are all privately owned. Others I suspect can 
invest beyond their physical borders so long as local benefit can be sold (being RL ventures this would not be hard) 

The key issue is can we "sell" the alignment to be for the benefit of RL in England alone but 
for the local club. 

For instance, alignment between identities, even if less financial and more close partnership 
should be attempted. We see this with Soccer identities globally creating 'families' of clubs (eg. Man City / Melbourne City // New York City etc). 

With London's impending move to Wimbledon, it gives a feel of potential and growth again. Even the name Wimbledon is recognisable globally due to Tennis. 

Bart Campbell, part owner of the Melbourne Storm is also connected to private equity and I believe on the board of NZ Rugby (engaging PE). Creating a global Storm brand supported by PE could be a genuine possibility. That said, the Storm in England would probably have to be a new club or a club willing to change it's branding. 

The talk from Koukash recently has shown that there is "money" willing to invest in the game (clubs) but 
we need to give them something that sounds promising, not more of the same. |

For instance, if the Bradford Bulls had solved their stadium issue, they would actually be a promising investment
given their potential. Admittedly, without a better stadium possibility this will be hard. Odsal is a dump, a big one but still a dump. 

Edited by Izmir Zaferi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Izmir Zaferi said:

 I think that is insightful, especially given purposes in the constitutions. 

However, most of these clubs do not have localised purposes that limit their investment in 
RL to be local. 

The Warriors, Broncos, Storm, Rabbitohs, Titans are all privately owned. Others I suspect can 
invest beyond their physical borders so long as local benefit can be sold (being RL ventures this would not be hard) 

The key issue is can we "sell" the alignment to be for the benefit of RL in England alone but 
for the local club. 

For instance, alignment between identities, even if less financial and more close partnership 
should be attempted. We see this with Soccer identities globally creating 'families' of clubs (eg. Man City / Melbourne City // New York City etc). 

With London's impending move to Wimbledon, it gives a feel of potential and growth again. Even the name Wimbledon is recognisable globally due to Tennis. 

Bart Campbell, part owner of the Melbourne Storm is also connected to private equity and I believe on the board of NZ Rugby (engaging PE). Creating a global Storm brand supported by PE could be a genuine possibility. That said, the Storm in England would probably have to be a new club or a club willing to change it's branding. 

The talk from Koukash recently has shown that there is "money" willing to invest in the game (clubs) but 
we need to give them something that sounds promising, not more of the same. |

For instance, if the Bradford Bulls had solved their stadium issue, they would actually be a promising investment
given their potential. Admittedly, without a better stadium possibility this will be hard. Odsal is a dump, a big one but still a dump. 

But then if Bradford solved their stadium they wouldn´t need anyone´s investment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

But then if Bradford solved their stadium they wouldn´t need anyone´s investment. 

To become a Super power they would. To make money you still need money to invest. They would simply become worthy of investment. Even with a good stadium, you need a winning side, good structures, good promotion and marketing, you need pipelines and administration. All of those requires significant investment way before a good stadium will help pay the bills. 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Izmir Zaferi said:

To become a Super power they would. To make money you still need money to invest. They would simply become worthy of investment. Even with a good stadium, you need a winning side, good structures, good promotion and marketing, you need pipelines and administration. All of those requires significant investment way before a good stadium will help pay the bills. 


 

But the point is after the club has the infrastructure to generate the revenue to compete then why would anyone hand it over after they spent the millions needed to be attractive. The investment is needed for the infrastructure, not the playing budget. 

And no, that´s just overpromising. A good stadium should mean a club is sustainable at whatever level they play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/08/2021 at 19:04, Izmir Zaferi said:

Ok, it is clear from the expansion going on in Australia that some groups, even at a lower League level have A LOT OF MONEY. 

Redcliffe Dolphins have a hundred million dollars of property and ten of millions in the bank. 

East's Tigers who are making Brisbane Firebirds have 80 million in property and 26 million in the bank. Probably more money in the bank than the entire Super League clubs put together. 

Broncos have 16 million in the bank etc. 

Raiders, Panthers, Roosters, South's etc all have significant backing financially.

Now, it is evident not all the Australian game has lots of money, some of it doesn't. However, clearly some of it does. 

Maybe, the most realistic way forward (whatever the structure) is enticing investment in UK / European RL by Australian clubs. 

How can we do this? 

I thought all expansion in the NRL has been put on hold for now, and is another NRL club in SE Queensland really expansion? not in my book

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/08/2021 at 19:28, M j M said:

Despite their vast TV deal, most Aussie clubs are still propped up by the gambling dens they sucker their poorest supporters into to blow their weekly wages on.

Apart from being ethically revolting, it's not a business model they could apply over here.

As with everything, People whom want to gamble are going to find a way to gamble no matter what you do.

So considering that fact, is it better for society that-

A. Gambling is done in a safe and legal environment where help is easily accessible to people that have addiction issues, and at least some of that money is invested back into community and charitable projects that are for the betterment of society.

B. The gambling industry is still legal and safe as possible, but it's totally controlled by for profit bookies and casinos, whose owners get very rich but aren't obliged to give anything back to society outside of paying taxes.

C. It's illegal and organised crime take over, there're no safeguards or protections, it doesn't get taxed, and people whom can't pay their debts get their legs broken or worse.

Because in reality those are the options, and I know which I find the least 'ethically revolting'.

Yes leagues clubs could and should do more, I'd even say that governments should step in and mandate that they do more, but all things considered they're a pretty good outcome for what can be a very dark and damaging industry.

BTW, leagues clubs don't exist only to fund pro-clubs, in fact vast majority don't back a pro-club at all, they reinvest their profits into also sorts of charitable projects, not just community sport, and being a member of a leagues club doesn't necessarily mean you are fan of that leagues club's team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lucky 7 said:

I thought all expansion in the NRL has been put on hold for now, and is another NRL club in SE Queensland really expansion? not in my book

It was only delayed because of issues with covid. Those have been dealt with, and the three bids were presented to the ARLC last Monday with the hope that the winning bid will be decide in the coming months, and the comp will expand in either 2023 or 2024. Whether or not it actually goes ahead depends on broadcaster interest now.

BTW, expanding the competition is expansion, whether or not the team is based where you'd like them to be or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, lucky 7 said:

I thought all expansion in the NRL has been put on hold for now, and is another NRL club in SE Queensland really expansion? not in my book

Nope it is being decided which Brisbane club will enter this week. Brisbane Firehawk's // Dolphins (Redcliffe) or Brisbane Jets  

Atleast the final presentations are this week. Realistically, any of the three could be good.

Edited by Izmir Zaferi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought for a minute when Gus Gould joined the Warriors that there was a chance that some focus could be moved away from the NRL and Sydney.  He started talking about how he would help develop NZ, the Pacific islands and UK. However, with his move back to the Bulldogs he's lurched back into full-on club-first mentality. Its a shame because like him or not Gould has clout.

A bunch of clubs are barely solvent and there just isn't the money to 'invest' in the UK. The only way I can see it happening if someone with very deep pockets external to the game (most likely private equity) decided to buy into the NRL and saw value in linking more closely with the game in England. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

I thought for a minute when Gus Gould joined the Warriors that there was a chance that some focus could be moved away from the NRL and Sydney.  He started talking about how he would help develop NZ, the Pacific islands and UK. However, with his move back to the Bulldogs he's lurched back into full-on club-first mentality. Its a shame because like him or not Gould has clout.

A bunch of clubs are barely solvent and there just isn't the money to 'invest' in the UK. The only way I can see it happening if someone with very deep pockets external to the game (most likely private equity) decided to buy into the NRL and saw value in linking more closely with the game in England. 

That may be happening with our new partners led by lachlan murdoch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...