Talking Footy

Posted: **Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:57 am**

adamj1300 wrote:
Cracker wrote:
It is certainly a sad indictment on private ownership, whether the Knights survive or not. The AFL banned it a long time again. The NRL should do the same.
there are a few teams in the AFL still privately owned. im sure the SA clubs are owned by the SA football league and the WA clubs, fremantle & west coast eagles owned by the WA football league. but it is funny saying that in private ownership. the West Coast Eagles are by far the richest football club in the country. not even owning a poker machine or a gaming venue. they make the Collingwoods & Essendons & Hawthorns look poor. they a have a 39odd million sitting in the bank and a 7 year wait on their membership

and the NRL clubs worse less pieces of shit, they own more poke machines than members!

No they hold the licence but they have a membership based club - it's written into their constitutions that in the event of substantial windfalls they make a royalty payment to the WAFL or SAFL.

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:00 am**

Thank you for that, Swans4ever. I was about to make the same point. Football leagues are not private companies as such. It's like suggesting the Raiders are privately owned simply because they are owned by the Canberra District RL, and this is not the case. It only becomes private ownership when the owner is outside the sport entirely, as it is with Tinkler and as it was with the Swans when Dr Edelsten owned them. And if I remember the Brisbane Bears when they were first formed.

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:33 pm**

So how is this neck fracture going to help Newcastle or rl?

Posted: **Fri Mar 28, 2014 10:37 pm**

cos789 wrote:
So how is this neck fracture going to help Newcastle or rl?

I don't think it is any different to any injury could just as easily happen in AFL - it's just a sad tragic incident - hope he gets better.

Posted: **Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:10 pm**

cos789 wrote:
Cracker wrote:
It is certainly a sad indictment on private ownership, whether the Knights survive or not. The AFL banned it a long time again. The NRL should do the same.
Moreover it's a sad indictment of rl in the regionals.

You know they play AF in Newcastle just like they play AF in NZ.

9's/Kiwikick or actually AFL

>

Posted: **Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:19 pm**

cos789 wrote:
So how is this neck fracture going to help Newcastle or rl?

Relevance to thread? That was a sad moment in sport and as Swans says, that could have happened in any sport. If you are trying to be clever, you are just proving you are a diickhead. :****

Posted: **Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:38 am**

Dogs wrote:
cos789 wrote:
Cracker wrote:
It is certainly a sad indictment on private ownership, whether the Knights survive or not. The AFL banned it a long time again. The NRL should do the same.
Moreover it's a sad indictment of rl in the regionals.

You know they play AF in Newcastle just like they play AF in NZ.
9's/Kiwikick or actually AFL >

They are derivatives of AF but are none the less AF! Just like RL 9's is still RL - why can't the AF have a modified games? Every other sport does - and yes they have all 3 in NZ

Posted: **Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:29 pm**

I've already mentioned the folly of this. I am referring to Kiwikick and not 9's. Kiwi/Auskick to Aussie Rules is like Touch Footy to rugby league.

Posted: **Sun Mar 30, 2014 4:55 pm**

Cracker wrote:
I've already mentioned the folly of this. I am referring to Kiwikick and not 9's. Kiwi/Auskick to Aussie Rules is like Touch Footy to rugby league.

NO, nothing like it.

You are ignorant of Kiwikick just like AF in NZ in general.

Talking Footy

Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain