Talking Footy

Raiderdave wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

no .... its not unknown at all
the NRL confirmed the online rights for 2013-16 were double their present deal , thats $180 Million
that does contain naming rights .. but not the sharing revenue with telstra ( as no one yet knows how much that could end up being but ova 20 Mill is certain )
so its around 180 million with the shared revenue


end of

Your kidding right Dave? You cant even get the dates right its not 2013-16, its 2013-17. Do you have an issue will numbers? Its not uncommon. Maybe you can figure this out. Double is 150 million. I will give you a clue as to why. It has something to do with the length of the contract. However how much telstra added to the 1.025 billion is unknown due to Other factors such naming rights, how much of this doubled is due to estimated sharing revenue and how money of this double is due to the fox online money for the tablet rights. The latter was already payed into the 1.025 billion. Who knows how much the NRL currently have as a total?

we know

its presently 1.205 Bill with the kiwis to come
the VFL will be numb 2 very shortly

deal with it

More made up facts Dave. Can you work out why double is 150 million?? Have a good think.

piesman2011 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

Your kidding right Dave? You cant even get the dates right its not 2013-16, its 2013-17. Do you have an issue will numbers? Its not uncommon. Maybe you can figure this out. Double is 150 million. I will give you a clue as to why. It has something to do with the length of the contract. However how much telstra added to the 1.025 billion is unknown due to Other factors such naming rights, how much of this doubled is due to estimated sharing revenue and how money of this double is due to the fox online money for the tablet rights. The latter was already payed into the 1.025 billion. Who knows how much the NRL currently have as a total?

we know

its presently 1.205 Bill with the kiwis to come
the VFL will be numb 2 very shortly

deal with it

More made up facts Dave. Can you work out why double is 150 million?? Have a good think.

facts dickhead ... not made up ... facts

no where did anyone say .. we got double our old yearly amount of 90 million divided by 6 years ( 15 Million)
this came from vicky kicky fans .. assuming, ney hoping .. this was the case

the article said the 90 million ... was doubled
end of

Raiderdave wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

we know

its presently 1.205 Bill with the kiwis to come
the VFL will be numb 2 very shortly

deal with it

More made up facts Dave. Can you work out why double is 150 million?? Have a good think.

facts dickhead ... not made up ... facts

no where did anyone say .. we got double our old yearly amount of 90 million divided by 6 years ( 15 Million)
this came from vicky kicky fans .. assuming, ney hoping .. this was the case

the article said the 90 million ... was doubled
end of

Oh you are referring to this article?

http://www.zdnet.com/au/telstra-denies- ... 000008658/
That looks like a top quality newspaper to me. Oh wait a minute its not a newspaper. Thats confusing, im sure it's well respected.
Josh Taylor looks like he is about 12 years old, im sure he is an expert in his field. He has to be when he makes up figures. Lets look at one of them.
Heres a quote

Today, Telstra and the ARLC wouldn't disclose the value of the new deal, but said that it was worth double the 2007 agreement, which was reportedly worth AU$90 million, putting the deal at around AU$180 million

Looks like a few assumptions and failed addition to me. I do teach statistics by the way. Are you sure you want to put your credability behind this one online article, I know you care about facts Dave. Double the previous deal? What does that mean? How can you tell comparing a 6 year deal to a 5 year deal? You must be an expert on figures like Josh Taylor, whoever that is.

piesman2011 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

More made up facts Dave. Can you work out why double is 150 million?? Have a good think.

facts dickhead ... not made up ... facts

no where did anyone say .. we got double our old yearly amount of 90 million divided by 6 years ( 15 Million)
this came from vicky kicky fans .. assuming, ney hoping .. this was the case

the article said the 90 million ... was doubled
end of

Oh you are referring to this article?

http://www.zdnet.com/au/telstra-denies- ... 000008658/
That looks like a top quality newspaper to me. Oh wait a minute its not a newspaper. Thats confusing, im sure it's well respected.
Josh Taylor looks like he is about 12 years old, im sure he is an expert in his field. He has to be when he makes up figures. Lets look at one of them.
Heres a quote

Today, Telstra and the ARLC wouldn't disclose the value of the new deal, but said that it was worth double the 2007 agreement, which was reportedly worth AU$90 million, putting the deal at around AU$180 million

Looks like a few assumptions and failed addition to me. I do teach statistics by the way. Are you sure you want to put your credability behind this one online article, I know you care about facts Dave. Double the previous deal? What does that mean? How can you tell comparing a 6 year deal to a 5 year deal? You must be an expert on figures like Josh Taylor, whoever that is.

heres the key phrases in the above

double the 2007 agreement of 90 mill.... no mention of anything else
&
putting it at around 180 million

& thats .. that

Raiderdave wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

facts dickhead ... not made up ... facts

no where did anyone say .. we got double our old yearly amount of 90 million divided by 6 years ( 15 Million)
this came from vicky kicky fans .. assuming, ney hoping .. this was the case

the article said the 90 million ... was doubled
end of

Oh you are referring to this article?

http://www.zdnet.com/au/telstra-denies- ... 000008658/
That looks like a top quality newspaper to me. Oh wait a minute its not a newspaper. Thats confusing, im sure it's well respected.
Josh Taylor looks like he is about 12 years old, im sure he is an expert in his field. He has to be when he makes up figures. Lets look at one of them.
Heres a quote

Today, Telstra and the ARLC wouldn't disclose the value of the new deal, but said that it was worth double the 2007 agreement, which was reportedly worth AU$90 million, putting the deal at around AU$180 million

Looks like a few assumptions and failed addition to me. I do teach statistics by the way. Are you sure you want to put your credability behind this one online article, I know you care about facts Dave. Double the previous deal? What does that mean? How can you tell comparing a 6 year deal to a 5 year deal? You must be an expert on figures like Josh Taylor, whoever that is.

heres the key phrases in the above

double the 2007 agreement of 90 mill.... no mention of anything else
&
putting it at around 180 million

& thats .. that

HaHa your kidding im sure you are.

Heres the key points that you fail to see.
1. The article is some randoms dribble and the writer doesnt even write for a credible newspaper. Firstly get me a credible newspaper.
2. He is not quoting numbers, he is using numbers he is not sure of "reportedly 90 million" and then making up his own numbers "180 million"
3. You are then using those numbers as "facts" (sic). Because in your head if someone writes something that you like online then it must be right (still in your head)

Here are two much better sources, with much better stats.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/telstra_t ... pRLxklpovK

Telstra is set to sign a sponsorship and digital rights agreement worth more than $100 million with the Australian Rugby League Commission

http://www.smh.com.au/business/telstra- ... 2b9y9.html

TELSTRA has sealed a mobile broadcasting rights and sponsorship deal with the National Rugby League worth about $100 million

1. Better sources, due to credibility.
2. There figures are better particularly the first source which uses the words worth more than $100 million. It is a guess but by using the words "worth more than" they have made it factual. The second article uses the words "about $100 million".

Thus endeth the lesson.

Haha piesman, give it up ffs.

piesman2011 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

Oh you are referring to this article?

http://www.zdnet.com/au/telstra-denies- ... 000008658/
That looks like a top quality newspaper to me. Oh wait a minute its not a newspaper. Thats confusing, im sure it's well respected.
Josh Taylor looks like he is about 12 years old, im sure he is an expert in his field. He has to be when he makes up figures. Lets look at one of them.
Heres a quote Looks like a few assumptions and failed addition to me. I do teach statistics by the way. Are you sure you want to put your credability behind this one online article, I know you care about facts Dave. Double the previous deal? What does that mean? How can you tell comparing a 6 year deal to a 5 year deal? You must be an expert on figures like Josh Taylor, whoever that is.

heres the key phrases in the above

double the 2007 agreement of 90 mill.... no mention of anything else
&
putting it at around 180 million

& thats .. that

HaHa your kidding im sure you are.

Heres the key points that you fail to see.
1. The article is some randoms dribble and the writer doesnt even write for a credible newspaper. Firstly get me a credible newspaper.
2. He is not quoting numbers, he is using numbers he is not sure of "reportedly 90 million" and then making up his own numbers "180 million"
3. You are then using those numbers as "facts" (sic). Because in your head if someone writes something that you like online then it must be right (still in your head)

Here are two much better sources, with much better stats.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/telstra_t ... pRLxklpovK

Telstra is set to sign a sponsorship and digital rights agreement worth more than $100 million with the Australian Rugby League Commission

http://www.smh.com.au/business/telstra- ... 2b9y9.html

TELSTRA has sealed a mobile broadcasting rights and sponsorship deal with the National Rugby League worth about $100 million

1. Better sources, due to credibility.
2. There figures are better particularly the first source which uses the words worth more than $100 million. It is a guess but by using the words "worth more than" they have made it factual. The second article uses the words "about $100 million".

Thus endeth the lesson.

how the F do you know .... what he knows ?
oh thats right

you don't

so we'll go off what hes written
which is
we got double what we got last time
end of

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

Haha piesman, give it up ffs.

Just playing with Raiderdave, we both know hes got no idea

Raiderdave wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

heres the key phrases in the above

double the 2007 agreement of 90 mill.... no mention of anything else
&
putting it at around 180 million

& thats .. that

HaHa your kidding im sure you are.

Heres the key points that you fail to see.
1. The article is some randoms dribble and the writer doesnt even write for a credible newspaper. Firstly get me a credible newspaper.
2. He is not quoting numbers, he is using numbers he is not sure of "reportedly 90 million" and then making up his own numbers "180 million"
3. You are then using those numbers as "facts" (sic). Because in your head if someone writes something that you like online then it must be right (still in your head)

Here are two much better sources, with much better stats.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/telstra_t ... pRLxklpovK

Telstra is set to sign a sponsorship and digital rights agreement worth more than $100 million with the Australian Rugby League Commission

http://www.smh.com.au/business/telstra- ... 2b9y9.html

TELSTRA has sealed a mobile broadcasting rights and sponsorship deal with the National Rugby League worth about $100 million

1. Better sources, due to credibility.
2. There figures are better particularly the first source which uses the words worth more than $100 million. It is a guess but by using the words "worth more than" they have made it factual. The second article uses the words "about $100 million".

Thus endeth the lesson.

how the F do you know .... what he knows ?
oh thats right

you don't

How do you know what I know? maybe I have the insider knowledge.
Hang on did I just use the exact same weak arse argument that you just tried to use. That has to be the weakest shit I have seen in a long time. Thats just admitting you dont have a clue. Hang on a minute did you write that article? Is your name Josh Taylor?

So your going with the single online pretend news paper over two crediable print newspapers. Good luck with any credibility you thought you had.
For the record whats double 15 million a year over 5 years?
Wait for it .............




the answer is........ .....



150 million and that my friend is primary school mathematics.

piesman2011 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

heres the key phrases in the above

double the 2007 agreement of 90 mill.... no mention of anything else
&
putting it at around 180 million

& thats .. that

HaHa your kidding im sure you are.

Heres the key points that you fail to see.
1. The article is some randoms dribble and the writer doesnt even write for a credible newspaper. Firstly get me a credible newspaper.
2. He is not quoting numbers, he is using numbers he is not sure of "reportedly 90 million" and then making up his own numbers "180 million"
3. You are then using those numbers as "facts" (sic). Because in your head if someone writes something that you like online then it must be right (still in your head)

Here are two much better sources, with much better stats.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/telstra_t ... pRLxklpovK

Telstra is set to sign a sponsorship and digital rights agreement worth more than $100 million with the Australian Rugby League Commission

http://www.smh.com.au/business/telstra- ... 2b9y9.html

TELSTRA has sealed a mobile broadcasting rights and sponsorship deal with the National Rugby League worth about $100 million

1. Better sources, due to credibility.
2. There figures are better particularly the first source which uses the words worth more than $100 million. It is a guess but by using the words "worth more than" they have made it factual. The second article uses the words "about $100 million".

Thus endeth the lesson.

how the F do you know .... what he knows ?
oh thats right

you don't

How do you know what I know? maybe I have the insider knowledge.
Hang on did I just use the exact same weak arse argument that you just tried to use. That has to be the weakest shit I have seen in a long time. Thats just admitting you dont have a clue. Hang on a minute did you write that article? Is your name Josh Taylor?

So your going with the single online pretend news paper over two crediable print newspapers. Good luck with any credibility you thought you had.
For the record whats double 15 million a year over 5 years?
Wait for it .............




the answer is........ .....



150 million and that my friend is primary school mathematics. [/quote]


shit from clay
you struggle with that

The NRLs Internet deal would be about $50 mil, half of their naming and Internet rights which was $100m

Xman wrote:

The NRLs Internet deal would be about $50 mil, half of their naming and Internet rights which was $100m

marcus doing a few of these [-o< [-o< [-o<

NRL .... biggest media deal in the land

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

The NRLs Internet deal would be about $50 mil, half of their naming and Internet rights which was $100m

marcus doing a few of these [-o< [-o< [-o<

NRL .... biggest media deal in the land

Given that the nRL site is well behind the AFL site based on Alexa data in terms of internet traffic, and that the nRL's naming rights are worth much less than the national AFL, Xman is probably spot on the money with those estimates. nRL really only has TV and that's about it. Anything else such as radio, crowds, memberships for the nRL does not make for good reading

Stewie wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

The NRLs Internet deal would be about $50 mil, half of their naming and Internet rights which was $100m

marcus doing a few of these [-o< [-o< [-o<

NRL .... biggest media deal in the land

Given that the nRL site is well behind the AFL site based on Alexa data in terms of internet traffic, and that the nRL's naming rights are worth much less than the national AFL, Xman is probably spot on the money with those estimates. nRL really only has TV and that's about it. Anything else such as radio, crowds, memberships for the nRL does not make for good reading

given we beat you lot by 8 Million in Australia
20 Million in Australasia
F knows how many in oceania & even more worldwide

that silver medal looks good hanging round the VFLs neck ..... again

Raiderdave wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

heres the key phrases in the above

double the 2007 agreement of 90 mill.... no mention of anything else
&
putting it at around 180 million

& thats .. that

HaHa your kidding im sure you are.

Heres the key points that you fail to see.
1. The article is some randoms dribble and the writer doesnt even write for a credible newspaper. Firstly get me a credible newspaper.
2. He is not quoting numbers, he is using numbers he is not sure of "reportedly 90 million" and then making up his own numbers "180 million"
3. You are then using those numbers as "facts" (sic). Because in your head if someone writes something that you like online then it must be right (still in your head)

Here are two much better sources, with much better stats.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/telstra_t ... pRLxklpovK

Telstra is set to sign a sponsorship and digital rights agreement worth more than $100 million with the Australian Rugby League Commission

http://www.smh.com.au/business/telstra- ... 2b9y9.html

TELSTRA has sealed a mobile broadcasting rights and sponsorship deal with the National Rugby League worth about $100 million

1. Better sources, due to credibility.
2. There figures are better particularly the first source which uses the words worth more than $100 million. It is a guess but by using the words "worth more than" they have made it factual. The second article uses the words "about $100 million".

Thus endeth the lesson.

how the F do you know .... what he knows ?
oh thats right

you don't

How do you know what I know? maybe I have the insider knowledge.
Hang on did I just use the exact same weak arse argument that you just tried to use. That has to be the weakest shit I have seen in a long time. Thats just admitting you dont have a clue. Hang on a minute did you write that article? Is your name Josh Taylor?

So your going with the single online pretend news paper over two crediable print newspapers. Good luck with any credibility you thought you had.
For the record whats double 15 million a year over 5 years?
Wait for it .............




the answer is........ .....



150 million and that my friend is primary school mathematics. [/quote]


shit from clay
you struggle with that [/quote]

Once again you got nothing. No logic and no understanding.