Peter's claims about Storm finances
So the poor showing for News Ltd is all Melbourne Storm and Brian Waldron's fault?peter wrote: My investment in News has given me a less than satisfactory return, and yes I agree in hindsight it was not a wise investment. This is the precise reason why a large number of shareholders are growing tired of underperformed divisions of the group.
Things will change in regards to this investment, we need to ensure that the club is being properly managed and financially sustainable, at the moment neither is occurring.
If you are an expert in accounting then you would be aware that figures can tell any story that you want them to. Whilst one subsidiary of News Ltd may be spending more money then they earn you will find that other subsidiaries benefit, eg Storm lose money, Fox Sports (50% News owned) & Foxtel (25% News owned) gain income through additional subscribers/advertising dollars.
To truly assess the viability of the Storm brand to News Ltd you would need to factor in all aspects of the business, from ticket sales, memberships, merchandise, sponsors, NRL grant, pay tv subscriptions, pay tv advertising, etc. I note from my previous reading of a News Ltd annual report (I think it was the 2006 annual report) that this information is spread in such a way than anyone outside of management & the board of directors would struggle to see the entire picture. Why do you think Channel 7 spent millions pursuing the NRL, etc in a legal case trying to blame other parties for the collapse of C7? Because sport is worth a lot of money!
Back on the Stormy Stormy Night, I'll see you all there, well those that go.
For what it's worth, Peter has raised the interest, and perhaps the ire of some at Storm HQ. I'll paraphrase some of the response (it was lengthy and impassioned and shows that the staff are truly working their collectives off for this club).
Peter's argument contains two missing links:
* Gate receipts from the current Olympic Park ground are poor (presumably this means a better deal at the new stadium)
* The expenditure by the footy club on the football department is maintained if not increased to maintain our position as an on-field powerhouse in the NRL.
Peter's argument contains two missing links:
* Gate receipts from the current Olympic Park ground are poor (presumably this means a better deal at the new stadium)
* The expenditure by the footy club on the football department is maintained if not increased to maintain our position as an on-field powerhouse in the NRL.
Storm has doubled the memebership in the last two years, tripled corporate hospitality revenue, and sponsorship revenue is amongst the highest in the NRL.Storm Staff Member wrote:Obviously we are supported by News Ltd – much in the way Sydney based clubs rely on their leagues clubs for financial support.
Show me one NRL club that runs at a profit from traditional football revenue sources - i.e. where gate receipts, membership, sponsorship & corporate hospitality cover the expenditure of the football dept and admin costs??? Broncos maybe? Get 33,000 on average to a state of the art Suncorp Stadium that seats 52,000 with 2,500 corporate capacity and see what that does for your bottom line.
The reality is, it doesn’t happen – that’s why the competition is going through one of those really tough periods where all NRL clubs are closely reviewing their practices.
The email also goes into details on the reason for the $250 general public price, and also the enticement of the bottle of wine. I presume that should members want to get on board the wine, call the club and see if you can purchase the bottle separately.Regarding the level of support we receive from News Limited, I’m not sure where he gets his numbers from but they are simply not accurate. And as a shareholder of News Limited, Peter should ask himself how much additional revenue is generated for News via their ownership of Foxtel having Melbourne in the NRL competition, giving them a pay TV product into all three major television markets up the Eastern seaboard?
Hi Brian.Buzz wrote: For what it's worth, Peter has raised the interest, and perhaps the ire of some at Storm HQ. I'll paraphrase some of the response (it was lengthy and impassioned and shows that the staff are truly working their collectives off for this club).
" Obviously we are supported by News Ltd – much in the way Sydney based clubs rely on their leagues clubs for financial support.
Show me one NRL club that runs at a profit from traditional football revenue sources - i.e. where gate receipts, membership, sponsorship & corporate hospitality cover the expenditure of the football dept and admin costs??? Broncos maybe? Get 33,000 on average to a state of the art Suncorp Stadium that seats 52,000 with 2,500 corporate capacity and see what that does for your bottom line.
The reality is, it doesn’t happen – that’s why the competition is going through one of those really tough periods where all NRL clubs are closely reviewing their practices."
With the exception of the Broncos not 1 club returns a profit, so congratulations for getting something correct. Your comment in regards to Sydney clubs relying on Leagues club revenue shows how far removed from reality your really are. All Leagues club grants to their football clubs have been dramatically reduced in the past few years. With the possible exception of the Bulldogs not 1 Sydney club will receive a grant that exceeds 10% of what News will again have to inject into this club.
With the heavy Poker Machine taxes that now exist and the non smoking restrictions that now apply to all clubs in NSW these grants are continuing to fall, yet not one Sydney based club needs an $8m injection of money each year! Their balance sheets are far more palatable to those which are being produced here.
Regarding the level of support we receive from News Limited, I’m not sure where he gets his numbers from but they are simply not accurate. And as a shareholder of News Limited, Peter should ask himself how much additional revenue is generated for News via their ownership of Foxtel having Melbourne in the NRL competition, giving them a pay TV product into all three major television markets up the Eastern seaboard?
Do you honestly believe that NSW & Queensland pay TV subscribers do so because Melbourne are part of the NRL, please don't patronise me with such a ridiculous statement. What percentage of all Pay TV subscribers in Victoria do so because they want to see Rugby League?. If you don't know then I suggest you find out because I can assure you it is not worth the ink that it takes to write that many zeros. Foxtel's revenue would be unaffected if the Storm were not located in Melbourne. In fact the argument that pay tv revenue would actually increase if the Storm were relocated to a more friendly environment for Rugby League. If Rugby League was important to Victoria you would think that the NRL's premier media supporter, the Nine Network would be showing the game at semi reasonable hour.
For this club to survive in Melbourne in the long term the balance sheet will have to exactly that...........BALANCE, and without such an excessive amount from News.
You can go and ahead and ban me if you wish, but your problems will not go away. Running a successful NRL team needs far more than a great football team, it needs a great management team, thank god we have at least one of the ingredients.
Show me one NRL club that runs at a profit from traditional football revenue sources - i.e. where gate receipts, membership, sponsorship & corporate hospitality cover the expenditure of the football dept and admin costs??? Broncos maybe? Get 33,000 on average to a state of the art Suncorp Stadium that seats 52,000 with 2,500 corporate capacity and see what that does for your bottom line.
The reality is, it doesn’t happen – that’s why the competition is going through one of those really tough periods where all NRL clubs are closely reviewing their practices."
With the exception of the Broncos not 1 club returns a profit, so congratulations for getting something correct. Your comment in regards to Sydney clubs relying on Leagues club revenue shows how far removed from reality your really are. All Leagues club grants to their football clubs have been dramatically reduced in the past few years. With the possible exception of the Bulldogs not 1 Sydney club will receive a grant that exceeds 10% of what News will again have to inject into this club.
With the heavy Poker Machine taxes that now exist and the non smoking restrictions that now apply to all clubs in NSW these grants are continuing to fall, yet not one Sydney based club needs an $8m injection of money each year! Their balance sheets are far more palatable to those which are being produced here.
Regarding the level of support we receive from News Limited, I’m not sure where he gets his numbers from but they are simply not accurate. And as a shareholder of News Limited, Peter should ask himself how much additional revenue is generated for News via their ownership of Foxtel having Melbourne in the NRL competition, giving them a pay TV product into all three major television markets up the Eastern seaboard?
Do you honestly believe that NSW & Queensland pay TV subscribers do so because Melbourne are part of the NRL, please don't patronise me with such a ridiculous statement. What percentage of all Pay TV subscribers in Victoria do so because they want to see Rugby League?. If you don't know then I suggest you find out because I can assure you it is not worth the ink that it takes to write that many zeros. Foxtel's revenue would be unaffected if the Storm were not located in Melbourne. In fact the argument that pay tv revenue would actually increase if the Storm were relocated to a more friendly environment for Rugby League. If Rugby League was important to Victoria you would think that the NRL's premier media supporter, the Nine Network would be showing the game at semi reasonable hour.
For this club to survive in Melbourne in the long term the balance sheet will have to exactly that...........BALANCE, and without such an excessive amount from News.
You can go and ahead and ban me if you wish, but your problems will not go away. Running a successful NRL team needs far more than a great football team, it needs a great management team, thank god we have at least one of the ingredients.
Peter who are you and why do you feel the need to keep carrying on about News and the clubs management in a thread designed to just discuss the cost of a night out with the club and not how the club are doing financially anyway?? You could have started another thread for that.
Seriously, some of us here have little digs at certain aspects of the regular club stuff (like costs of presentation ball tickets & whatnot) but that's just regular supporter grumbles we get over pretty quickly.
As a group of supporters - and that is what we are, supporters of Storm, the whole club - we are happy to have a league team in Melbourne at all!!
The club is young by rugby league standards and we will, I'm sure, continue to grow. If that means News needs to prop us up for a few more years then so be it. I have faith that the club will eventually pay it all back in spades.
If you doubt Storm so much then feel free to not participate in supporting the club - I'm sure we'll get along fine without you. Oh, and btw, did you notice that the paragraphs you were quoting were from a Storm staff member? Maybe you should take up your dissatisfaction over your low returns with News themselves and if they decide to pull all support of Storm because you're not happy about it then you can sit back counting your money and leave us alone, yeah??
Seriously, some of us here have little digs at certain aspects of the regular club stuff (like costs of presentation ball tickets & whatnot) but that's just regular supporter grumbles we get over pretty quickly.
As a group of supporters - and that is what we are, supporters of Storm, the whole club - we are happy to have a league team in Melbourne at all!!
The club is young by rugby league standards and we will, I'm sure, continue to grow. If that means News needs to prop us up for a few more years then so be it. I have faith that the club will eventually pay it all back in spades.
If you doubt Storm so much then feel free to not participate in supporting the club - I'm sure we'll get along fine without you. Oh, and btw, did you notice that the paragraphs you were quoting were from a Storm staff member? Maybe you should take up your dissatisfaction over your low returns with News themselves and if they decide to pull all support of Storm because you're not happy about it then you can sit back counting your money and leave us alone, yeah??
When I want your opinion - I'll give it to you!
Tigger, the entire point of my gripes is that if the Storm want to retain a team in Melbourne then they have to (quickly) learn to survive without the support of News. I have made it clear earlier that I am far from satisfied with several investments of News Limited and Melbourne Storm is one of those.
Whether it is palatable or not to the supporters of this club the Storm in Melbourne will not survive unless management get their act into gear and stop relying on such as huge handout from News. No other club in the NRL is so reliant upon such an amount of money from one source, yet they all remain viable in varying degrees. Without News funding this club would fall over in less than 30 days.
So whilst so supporters may gripe about ticket prices to functions, entry to games or season tickets these are just minnows in the pond compared to where the real income needs to be derived from.
Whether it is palatable or not to the supporters of this club the Storm in Melbourne will not survive unless management get their act into gear and stop relying on such as huge handout from News. No other club in the NRL is so reliant upon such an amount of money from one source, yet they all remain viable in varying degrees. Without News funding this club would fall over in less than 30 days.
So whilst so supporters may gripe about ticket prices to functions, entry to games or season tickets these are just minnows in the pond compared to where the real income needs to be derived from.
Ok then Peter, how about you rak off and whinge somewhere else then??
Go to the Storm management if you're so bloody concerned, set up a meeting and discuss your brilliant solutions to the situation. Stop coming here and complaining about something that is totally out of the control of the regular supporters - it's clear to see that we don't have anything to do with the general running of the club!
Folks, I now take back my whinge about the presentation ball ticket prices - if I have to pay $300 or $400 for a ticket to get this whining sook to shut the hell up I'll try to come up with the bloody money! (not that I could but you all see my point surely)
Go to the Storm management if you're so bloody concerned, set up a meeting and discuss your brilliant solutions to the situation. Stop coming here and complaining about something that is totally out of the control of the regular supporters - it's clear to see that we don't have anything to do with the general running of the club!
Folks, I now take back my whinge about the presentation ball ticket prices - if I have to pay $300 or $400 for a ticket to get this whining sook to shut the hell up I'll try to come up with the bloody money! (not that I could but you all see my point surely
)When I want your opinion - I'll give it to you!
-
CaptainKlutz
- Thunderstorm
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:06 pm
- Location: Sitting at the Port of the bay, wasting time.
I see your point.Tigger wrote: Ok then Peter, how about you rak off and whinge somewhere else then??
Go to the Storm management if you're so bloody concerned, set up a meeting and discuss your brilliant solutions to the situation. Stop coming here and complaining about something that is totally out of the control of the regular supporters - it's clear to see that we don't have anything to do with the general running of the club!
Folks, I now take back my whinge about the presentation ball ticket prices - if I have to pay $300 or $400 for a ticket to get this whining sook to shut the hell up I'll try to come up with the bloody money! (not that I could but you all see my point surely
I'd say that New LTD is a shrewd and ruthless business and don't take kindly to backing losers.
Although seemingly put intelligently "peter" ignores some key points and emphasises why accountants should not run business's
[b]Making movies, signing songs and fight'n round the world.[/b]
Dose chess dip Err?
Dose chess dip Err?
-
Bourbon Rat
- Player Sponsor
- Posts: 5259
- Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:25 pm
- Location: THE INDEPENDENT STORM
- Contact:
Always carry a flagon of whiskey in case of snakebite and furthermore always carry a small snake - WC Fields
An investment in Melbourne Storm must be a big issue for this clown (for I believe he has earned that name). In a time of economic troubles, for News Limited to post a $5.8 billion I can understand how the spending of $8 million or whatever on a piddly little sports club that apparently no one would pay to watch on Foxtel can upset you. You wouldn't be complaining I assume should the profit line have read $5.808 billion. But then it wouldn't would it? Advertising profits would be less from several markets. I suspect more than $8 million. Makes it a shrewd investment to me!
Non performing assets of any company, regardless of what the net result is should always be scrutinized. It is simply irrelevant to suggest that $8m in a multi billion company does not matter, it does and particularly to the shareholders of that company. Based on what other NRL clubs are achieving in at least going close to balancing their books the Storm does not! Why is that so?
I would like the Storm to remain in Melbourne, provided that they substantially pay their own way, I and many other shareholders do not expect a return on investment, that would be fanciful. At the the worst at least try and reduce our losses to less than $1m, that is not to much to ask is it Buzz?
I note that you have not bothered responding to your ridiculous response on Sydney NRL clubs relying on substantial investments from their leagues clubs, does that mean the office staff are talking out of their backsides in an effort to retain their jobs because they are not doing them correctly?
We have the product, we have the team, we simply want the management to not stuff it up and lose it, because if we do the blame will fall squarley on the management.
I would like the Storm to remain in Melbourne, provided that they substantially pay their own way, I and many other shareholders do not expect a return on investment, that would be fanciful. At the the worst at least try and reduce our losses to less than $1m, that is not to much to ask is it Buzz?
I note that you have not bothered responding to your ridiculous response on Sydney NRL clubs relying on substantial investments from their leagues clubs, does that mean the office staff are talking out of their backsides in an effort to retain their jobs because they are not doing them correctly?
We have the product, we have the team, we simply want the management to not stuff it up and lose it, because if we do the blame will fall squarley on the management.
Peter, please provide details of the page number(s) of the News Ltd audited reports shows that Melbourne Storm generates a net loss of $8m per annum.
I'll print myself a copy and bring it along to Stormy Stormy Night and if you like we can debate in person the merits to News Ltd of funding Melbourne Storm.
I'll print myself a copy and bring it along to Stormy Stormy Night and if you like we can debate in person the merits to News Ltd of funding Melbourne Storm.
-
Mike_The_Undertaker
- Tropical Cyclone
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 11:38 am
- Location: Member No 17 Digg'n and Prepar'n anotha away teams demise.
True.Surandy wrote: Peter, please provide details of the page number(s) of the News Ltd audited reports shows that Melbourne Storm generates a net loss of $8m per annum.
I'll print myself a copy and bring it along to Stormy Stormy Night and if you like we can debate in person the merits to News Ltd of funding Melbourne Storm.
I also am highly dubious about that figure.
[b][size=24px]GO[color=violet]S[/color][color=blue]t[/color][color=orange]o[/color][color=blue]r[/color][color=violet]m[/color] [/b]
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/undertakermike/S_LU.gif[/img]
New jif currently being constructed..Go Joe Si
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/undertakermike/S_LU.gif[/img]
New jif currently being constructed..Go Joe Si
How would I know Peter? I just forwarded on some comments. You obviously have an agenda that has nothing to do with budgets, profits, or performance. You're either a relic from the dinosaurs who believe that Superleague ruined the game and focus all your anger on News Ltds connections, an opposition supporter stirring the pot cause you're club is in great "order", or a disgruntled Storm supporter who believes that a club in Melbourne should be turning a profit.
Please state what your position is. You're going to Brooky tomorrow - is that to support the silvertails?
Please state what your position is. You're going to Brooky tomorrow - is that to support the silvertails?