How rich are we really?

pennywisealfie

pennywisealfie

State of Origin Captain
Contributor
Mar 4, 2008
10,530
5,279
Over the years, we've all heard the line thrown out that if there was no salary cap, the entire Australian team would play for the Broncos because of how much richer we are than other clubs. But are we really that rich?

Sure, we had that Clive Berghofer thing built (which hasn't exactly helped with results). The salary cap also of course (supposedly) evens the playing field in terms of spending on players. But what about things that have no cap? When we were trying to sign Craig Bellamy, the half dozen or times we offered, we didn't we make him an offer he simply couldn't refuse? Instead we have Kevie on one of the lowest coach salaries in the league.

Shit doesn't make sense to me.
 
Being well off doesn't mean freedom to burn cash when we're a PLC and have to report to Shareholders.
Kev was paid what would be market rate for a coach with low NRL Experience and a team on the bottom of the ladder.

Paul White did try and buy Bellamy but he didn't aim high enough obviously as Craig just took that offer to the Storm who gave him a pay bump and he stayed.

The club screwed up badly with Seibold's contract, that was a lot of money burnt.

There also is technically some form of spending limits for club admins/training staff to allow the lesser financially able clubs to compete - however the terms of this were pretty loose from my understanding and I have no idea how enforced it is (or even if it's still a thing?).

How rich we is also a matter of public record due to the PLC reporting requirements:
 
pennywisealfie said:
Over the years, we've all heard the line thrown out that if there was no salary cap, the entire Australian team would play for the Broncos because of how much richer we are than other clubs. But are we really that rich?

Sure, we had that Clive Berghofer thing built (which hasn't exactly helped with results). The salary cap also of course (supposedly) evens the playing field in terms of spending on players. But what about things that have no cap? When we were trying to sign Craig Bellamy, the half dozen or times we offered, we didn't we make him an offer he simply couldn't refuse? Instead we have Kevie on one of the lowest coach salaries in the league.

Shit doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...
I think there is a salary cap for coaches and staff too.
 
pennywisealfie said:
Over the years, we've all heard the line thrown out that if there was no salary cap, the entire Australian team would play for the Broncos because of how much richer we are than other clubs. But are we really that rich?

Sure, we had that Clive Berghofer thing built (which hasn't exactly helped with results). The salary cap also of course (supposedly) evens the playing field in terms of spending on players. But what about things that have no cap? When we were trying to sign Craig Bellamy, the half dozen or times we offered, we didn't we make him an offer he simply couldn't refuse? Instead we have Kevie on one of the lowest coach salaries in the league.

Shit doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...
The short answer, is we're run simply to be profitable, on field results are secondary. So while we could afford to give Bellamy 3m a year, we won't, because that's not good for profits. You'd think success would generate profits, but have crowds even dropped while we've sucked?

Ultimately DD wants to show how he's increased revenue and profitability every year. I wish we'd get bought out by some rich dude who doesn't care about turning a profit and then we wouldn't be owned by News Corp. I can dream.
 
Kimlo said:
The short answer, is we're run simply to be profitable, on field results are secondary. So while we could afford to give Bellamy 3m a year, we won't, because that's not good for profits. You'd think success would generate profits, but have crowds even dropped while we've sucked?

Ultimately DD wants to show how he's increased revenue and profitability every year. I wish we'd get bought out by some rich dude who doesn't care about turning a profit and then we wouldn't be owned by News Corp. I can dream.
Click to expand...

They don't become rich ***** by not caring about turning a profit
 
Wasnt there talk previously that whilst we turn a profit some of the Sydney clubs demolish us in terms of money available because they're backed by the leagues clubs??

In a salary cap free world we would likely be hamstrung to making "prudent" economists decisions as we are publically listed compared to privately owned clubs like GC and Rorters.

Also clubs like dogs, eels, etc are backed by massive leagues clubs that just provide grants to the NRL team as needed.

We might end up one of the lowest performing clubs in a salary cap free NRL.... but I dont really know NRL financials
 
Kimlo said:
The short answer, is we're run simply to be profitable, on field results are secondary. So while we could afford to give Bellamy 3m a year, we won't, because that's not good for profits. You'd think success would generate profits, but have crowds even dropped while we've sucked?

Ultimately DD wants to show how he's increased revenue and profitability every year. I wish we'd get bought out by some rich dude who doesn't care about turning a profit and then we wouldn't be owned by News Corp. I can dream.
Click to expand...
TBH that doesn't make me want to support a club. I'd rather support a club like say, Dolphins, that's purely to win football games. That's the sort of crap that would actually make me change.

Not that I would or could.
 
pennywisealfie said:
But what about things that have no cap?
Click to expand...
The things that have no cap are called Mum and Dad members. Only corporate members got a members cap this year, the rest of us we’re told go and get fucked and buy your own.
Therein lies how little money they now have. Money they’ve had to pay out on players playing at other clubs. Coaches coaching at other clubs. Coaches not coaching at all.
We have a long way to go yet in getting redemption or so it seems. Rant over.
 
Gaz said:
The things that have no cap are called Mum and Dad members. Only corporate members got a members cap this year, the rest of us we’re told go and get fucked and buy your own.
Therein lies how little money they now have. Money they’ve had to pay out on players playing at other clubs. Coaches coaching at other clubs. Coaches not coaching at all.
We have a long way to go yet in getting redemption or so it seems. Rant over.
Click to expand...
I dunno, lookong at the latest financial statements, we seem as profitable as ever before. Maybe they just don't care about the fans anymore.

Screenshot 20220420 205057 Office
 
Given we are one of the only clubs that turn a profit and over double the next club in football only revenue it wouldn't be far from the truth, if we had the ability to spend our revenue without a cap we could send alot of clubs bankrupt trying to keep up with us, the biggest issue would be Penrith who have a massive leagues club operation that can support them.

You could argue Politis could put Roosters in this position as well but they would run massive losses each year which I doubt he would be okay accepting 10 plus million dollar losses every year at minimum keeping up in this scenario.

I think if it happened, it would probably be us vs Penrith dominating the competition, both teams filled with rep players, the amount we spend on not playing related things would decrease to pay for it though.

As it stands now though we are setup in easy mode to collect profits because the cap allows basically minimal effort to make profit in that regard.
 
Mustafur said:
Given we are one of the only clubs that turn a profit and over double the next club in football only revenue it wouldn't be far from the truth, if we had the ability to spend our revenue without a cap we could send alot of clubs bankrupt trying to keep up with us, the biggest issue would be Penrith who have a massive leagues club operation that can support them.

You could argue Politis could put Roosters in this position as well but they would run massive losses each year which I doubt he would be okay accepting 10 plus million dollar losses every year at minimum keeping up in this scenario.

I think if it happened, it would probably be us vs Penrith dominating the competition, both teams filled with rep players, the amount we spend on not playing related things would decrease to pay for it though.
Click to expand...

you can throw the Storm in with Matt Tripp (but like Politis, i doubt he would accept losing money for too long)
 
Foordy said:
you can throw the Storm in with Matt Tripp (but like Politis, i doubt he would accept losing money for too long)
Click to expand...
78 year old multi billionaire. He could lose 1m a month for the next decade and he wouldn't notice it but really even 1-2m in paperbags is an enormous competitive advantage. Of course I'd never think the Roosters would do that but salary cap rotting is chump change for a personal hobby if you're a billionaire.
 
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 598
1:12:42
NRL Round 3, 2006 - Brisbane Broncos vs Parramatta Eels
View full media list »

Active Now

  • Mustafur
  • bb_gun
  • Mighty Bronx
Total: 117 (members: 3, guests: 114)
Robots: 527
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.