The_Wookie wrote: Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:34 am
pussycat wrote: Sun Jul 30, 2017 10:39 am
And paying players isn't an operational reason? There nothing more important.
Promising them money you dont have is idiotic.
It was you that was trying to convince yourself and everybody else that the $280m debt was a good thing.
its certainly not a bad thing. Loans for capital investment arent bad.
Both west and Saints haven't got loans to my knowledge - maybe an advance on funding, though St George are doing very well at the moment and if they did get a handout it certainly wasn't anywhere near what the lions, Suns, GWS and others get.
learn to fucking read then. St george had to get an emergency 6.5 million loan - about the equivelant of the fuding St Kilda and Brisbane received. Wests still owe about 3 million apparently.
It’s not helping the NRL in that it still hasn’t sold the Gold Coast Titans or the Newcastle Knights to private owners.
Both clubs are losing about $2 million a year under the NRL’s ownership.
Also, the commission was forced to save a desperate St George Illawarra with a $6.5 million loan — money that still hasn’t been repaid.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/nrl ... 94843a1dc3
and since I know you'll write that off to be the telegraph. heres a link to the SMH saying the same thing
It is understood the Dragons still owe the NRL about $6 million while the Tigers' loan is about half of that, but still a significant burden to carry
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... t1dk2.html
And given that GWS and Gold Coast are still establishing themselves, youd expect the NRL clubs to be receiving less.
However you want to describe the Money , outside of funding and prize money , its all handouts.
No its not, but you just dont get it, and Im tired of repeating myself.
It was hardly me who brought any of this up so maybe you should take some of your own advice!
You were always going to do this shit, dont deny it.
Its not as though they don't have the money , they just have it invested. They may have indicated to the players they were going to get more. But this is hardly idiotic. taking out a 280m loan to buy a stadium pretty much promised to you in 6 or 7 years sounds far more questionable.
Everybody that takes out a sizeable loan think it's the way to go at the time though it does't always work out that way.
And its not as though the AFL and its player union are'nt constantly at one anothers throats. Everytime you pick up a newspaper you read about how the players union is complaining about something.
If its not Handouts what is it? lucky door prize money?
I read that article, 'in recent years' .... 'part of the 2015 annual report'. What does that have to do with any shortfall in player payments?
Deny, Deny What ? That you trying to make a major issue over something that is nothing more than a cash flow problem. It makes a lot more sense to take out a short term loan rather than be penalised by having to cash in on there investments.
Rugby League, the dominant force in Australian sport!
"I do like annoying the Victorians; they are so easy to get, At times I've looked at them and had a giggle." Peter V'Landys