Talking Footy

The_Wookie wrote:

pussycat wrote:

I think you will find that all NRL teams all appeared at least once in the Fri night slot.

Thats not hard to do when you have two friday night games.

The_Wookie wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

adamj1300 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

The NRL more than doubled last time Whilst that sought of growth can't be expected this time I expect our lead over the AFL will increase!!!

Infact, with CH 7,9 and 10 all mad keen to get league it hard to work out who will bid for the AFL. Maybe the ABC, 800k my be a more realistic figure

rubbish the NRL's ratings are down

& yet RL's figure was STILL 11 Million more then the fumbles & bumbles was :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

watch it set new records in 2014
&
when we have an extra 24 games in 2018 , watch that 11 million lead become 15 Million
will the fumbles & feebles beat RL ever again in the ratings ?

I think not folks
I



think not

lol WHAT 11 million lead. Quantify that anywhere that you didnt just make shit up from with any source other than a forum post.

OH and btw - Broadcast revenue for the NRL in 2013 - 221 million. Broadcast revenue for the AFL in 2012 - 224 million. Both first years of their respective deals.(and lets not talk about the 90 million the NRL made in non broadcast revenue v the 247 million in non broadcast revenue the AFL made in 2012).

The_Wookie wrote:

eelofwest wrote:

The_Wookie wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

adamj1300 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

The NRL more than doubled last time Whilst that sought of growth can't be expected this time I expect our lead over the AFL will increase!!!

Infact, with CH 7,9 and 10 all mad keen to get league it hard to work out who will bid for the AFL. Maybe the ABC, 800k my be a more realistic figure

rubbish the NRL's ratings are down

& yet RL's figure was STILL 11 Million more then the fumbles & bumbles was :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

watch it set new records in 2014
&
when we have an extra 24 games in 2018 , watch that 11 million lead become 15 Million
will the fumbles & feebles beat RL ever again in the ratings ?

I think not folks
I



think not

lol WHAT 11 million lead. Quantify that anywhere that you didnt just make shit up from with any source other than a forum post.

OH and btw - Broadcast revenue for the NRL in 2013 - 221 million. Broadcast revenue for the AFL in 2012 - 224 million. Both first years of their respective deals.(and lets not talk about the 90 million the NRL made in non broadcast revenue v the 247 million in non broadcast revenue the AFL made in 2012).

Hey wookie, how many teams did you have to create to get that TV deal.................................................how much money are these 2 teams draining out of the coffers?.........................................how much profit did you make as a game in 2013?

NRL a cool 50million how about you blokes.............. :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

Got to have money to spend it. Start bragging when you come within cooee of the revenue to be able to spend it. So the AFL expanded, that costs money. We know it does, we even know it cost 20-25 million a year at the moment. The league isnt exactly going broke over it, not when its got 90 million sitting around in a future fund, and millions in other infrastructure reserves. Hell the league can afford to make 25 million a year in BONUS payments from the tv rights that the clubs arent even entitled to - and has done since 2001.

The_Wookie wrote:

What lesson in finance? You have to have the money to spend it. If the AFL needed to save 50 million, it could have quite easily.



Saving money is commendable Im sure, except the AFL has almost no debt (other than the 48 million in loans it currently guarantees for clubs, state leagues and stadium australia) - the NRL has 123 million in liabilities at present - and the AFL opts to pay more money to the clubs, state leagues, game development and facility development. The AFL contributes to developing stadiums, the NRL doesnt. But hey, you keep that 50 million in the bank.

Also 400 million in 2017? that may be? thats great, but its still less than what the AFL is making NOW.

The AFL will be lucky to have banked 30 million? It has 90 million in its future fund as of October last year. Theres also millions in various other infrastructure and strategic partnership reserves. The AFL spent a whole 11 million extra - a tiny percentage of its overall income - on gold coast and gws last year.

its not a contest, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

pussycat wrote:

The_Wookie wrote:

What lesson in finance? You have to have the money to spend it. If the AFL needed to save 50 million, it could have quite easily.



Saving money is commendable Im sure, except the AFL has almost no debt (other than the 48 million in loans it currently guarantees for clubs, state leagues and stadium australia) - the NRL has 123 million in liabilities at present - and the AFL opts to pay more money to the clubs, state leagues, game development and facility development. The AFL contributes to developing stadiums, the NRL doesnt. But hey, you keep that 50 million in the bank.

Also 400 million in 2017? that may be? thats great, but its still less than what the AFL is making NOW.

The AFL will be lucky to have banked 30 million? It has 90 million in its future fund as of October last year. Theres also millions in various other infrastructure and strategic partnership reserves. The AFL spent a whole 11 million extra - a tiny percentage of its overall income - on gold coast and gws last year.

its not a contest, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

You just keep telling yourself that while D slips quietly out the back door :_<> :_<> :_<>

The_Wookie wrote:

What lesson in finance? You have to have the money to spend it. If the AFL needed to save 50 million, it could have quite easily.



Saving money is commendable Im sure, except the AFL has almost no debt (other than the 48 million in loans it currently guarantees for clubs, state leagues and stadium australia) - the NRL has 123 million in liabilities at present - and the AFL opts to pay more money to the clubs, state leagues, game development and facility development. The AFL contributes to developing stadiums, the NRL doesnt. But hey, you keep that 50 million in the bank.

Also 400 million in 2017? that may be? thats great, but its still less than what the AFL is making NOW.

The AFL will be lucky to have banked 30 million? It has 90 million in its future fund as of October last year. Theres also millions in various other infrastructure and strategic partnership reserves. The AFL spent a whole 11 million extra - a tiny percentage of its overall income - on gold coast and gws last year.

its not a contest, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

One other thing, until you learn to post like a civilised himan being future posts like yours will be deleted.

pussycat wrote:

The were article were D said it is pretty easy to find. You will find not much has changed this year.

The_Wookie wrote:

One other thing, until you learn to post like a civilised himan being future posts like yours will be deleted.

adamj1300 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

The_Wookie wrote:

What lesson in finance? You have to have the money to spend it. If the AFL needed to save 50 million, it could have quite easily.



Saving money is commendable Im sure, except the AFL has almost no debt (other than the 48 million in loans it currently guarantees for clubs, state leagues and stadium australia) - the NRL has 123 million in liabilities at present - and the AFL opts to pay more money to the clubs, state leagues, game development and facility development. The AFL contributes to developing stadiums, the NRL doesnt. But hey, you keep that 50 million in the bank.

Also 400 million in 2017? that may be? thats great, but its still less than what the AFL is making NOW.

The AFL will be lucky to have banked 30 million? It has 90 million in its future fund as of October last year. Theres also millions in various other infrastructure and strategic partnership reserves. The AFL spent a whole 11 million extra - a tiny percentage of its overall income - on gold coast and gws last year.

its not a contest, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

You just keep telling yourself that while D slips quietly out the back door :_<> :_<> :_<>

why do you bumsniffers keep ignoring reality

pussycat wrote:

adamj1300 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

The_Wookie wrote:

What lesson in finance? You have to have the money to spend it. If the AFL needed to save 50 million, it could have quite easily.



Saving money is commendable Im sure, except the AFL has almost no debt (other than the 48 million in loans it currently guarantees for clubs, state leagues and stadium australia) - the NRL has 123 million in liabilities at present - and the AFL opts to pay more money to the clubs, state leagues, game development and facility development. The AFL contributes to developing stadiums, the NRL doesnt. But hey, you keep that 50 million in the bank.

Also 400 million in 2017? that may be? thats great, but its still less than what the AFL is making NOW.

The AFL will be lucky to have banked 30 million? It has 90 million in its future fund as of October last year. Theres also millions in various other infrastructure and strategic partnership reserves. The AFL spent a whole 11 million extra - a tiny percentage of its overall income - on gold coast and gws last year.

its not a contest, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

You just keep telling yourself that while D slips quietly out the back door :_<> :_<> :_<>

why do you bumsniffers keep ignoring reality

Thats funny coming from you . D treats you lot like a bunch of mushrooms - Kept in the dark & fed bullshit.

pussycat wrote:

They do spend a lot more, primarily because they have a lot more expenses.

Pretty much agree but the ARL commission are running the show now and they've barely been in business 18 months. News LTD were a blight on our game - but not no more.

I seem to recall the original ARL had $20m put aside for a rainy day almost 20 years ago. unfortunately Rupert had $500m