no.

what the sydney clubs lose their LC cover.

if the LC cut the annual grant, then the football club spend less so the loss is less.

moving to the new stadium should help a lot.

but then again this is with a very succesful team winning GFs.

what happens when they dont and slip down the table.

no doubt there crowds will go down, if and when that happens, but in the short term they will hopefully go up in the new ground. It has taken over a decade but they are finally getting established in the most challenging environment for RL in the world. Over 900,000 Victorians tuned in for the GF. Shows what there potential is.

Brisbane have been able to remain a top team for ever and I can see the Storm being the same, if they can make up the News Ltd funding when it is reduced.

Our budget is governed by how much the Leagues Club will contribute (as well as sponsors etc) for the following season. Is it different for NRL clubs?

So, the question still stands. Does a $3m loss include the monies already forked out by Leagues Clubs? Anyone?

the answer is no it doesnt include it

if a footy club loses 3 million, that is the money that needs to be covered by external sources

if the LC say to the footy club your grant is 3 million, then with no other external revenue sources the footy club will lose 3 million ie expenses over evenues by 3 million, the loss covered by the LC grant

just think of the LC grant as additional revenue source which means that the footys clubs expenses are all paid for ie the grant covers the shortfall in revenues.

the same as the Storm, yet I hear no one death riding clubs that are reliant on these other external sources of income.

news ltd are soon leaving the storm on their own.

all the LC aint go anywhere

get out of the sun for a while, sit down and think about what this means

if the storm dont become self sufficient soon, the game wont cover their loses.

a massive cut in funding will mean a very poor side and crowds will drop.

not quite! News have said they will not just leave them (they can't as they have an agreement with the Vic Govt to guarantee their survival). If after 6 years (the suggested time News wants them propping up) then fair enough. In that time I predict LC profits will contniue to follow the same dramatic pattern fo the last few years and also some sugar daddies pockets may have got longer. I see Storm at no more risk over the next 6 years than probably 5 or 6 clubs in the NRL.

looks thats just a load of nonsense

Without news ltd the storm are in a lot of trouble. can they turn it around sufficiently? people in the game like michael searle and gallop arent sure

sydney RL clubs have virtual casino, some with assets of $300 million behind them backing them up

we all hope the storm can be financially viable. if they arent then further expansion should go to teams that are more financially stable until the games finances are strong enough to support weak teams

For someone who loves TV audience figures so much I suggest you take a look at teh NRL GF viewing figures. Then consider what they would have looked liek against teh AFL's WITHOUT the 900,000 Victorian viewers that tuned in to watch the Storm!

Losing a Melbourne team would be the biggest step backwards for RL in this country since they culled the Rams, Reds and Crushers and retereated back to the Eastern seaboard confines of the last century.

If a city the size of Melbourne cannot support one RL side it says much about RL being Australia's number 1 sport.

Dally wants a return to ARL days with a huge majority of Sydney sides in the comp - it is the only way Sydney sides have a chance of actually winning it.

so you believe TV ratings are accurate when it suits you huh?

no but you seem to so where does that leave your argument? Come on tell me how would the GF have faired with no Melbourne team? How would you have spun the GF viewing getting hammered without the Vic viewers? If you can't see the value of a Melbourne team to the NRL, well specsavers should be your next stop!

What? Sydney clubs like Panthers who are crying that they will have to cut back on support for senior and junior League because of reduced revenue due to the new smoking laws and pokie taxes? Sydney clubs like Parra who posted a massive loss this year - not the football club, the Leagues club which pays for football operations?

Storm don't [ilose money[/i. That's a misconception.
Storm spend roughly $21million a year (a large portion of it on junior development). They make approx $15M a year from external sources (tickets, sponsorship, jersey sales and so on) and the remainder comes from News Ltd, their owner - just as Russell Crowe, Delmege etc tip into [itheir[/i teams. If News reduced their contribution, Storm would have to curb expenditure and (unfortunately) that would have to start with Victorian juniors. If they [ilost[/i money, they would be in debt.

Anyway, most Sydney clubs would wet themselves at the thought of having a $15M revenue stream.