Talking Footy

Raiderdave wrote:

Marcus

your maths assignment ..... hop to it sonny

an answer
if you need help ask that bet welching piece of cr@p Bearsy ..... he has a calculator I think
it obviously doesn't work .. but between the 2 of you , you should be able to work it out .. or get in the vicinty

come on
lets go

What Maths are you talking about Dave?

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Marcus

your maths assignment ..... hop to it sonny

an answer
if you need help ask that bet welching piece of cr@p Bearsy ..... he has a calculator I think
it obviously doesn't work .. but between the 2 of you , you should be able to work it out .. or get in the vicinty

come on
lets go

What Maths are you talking about Dave?

this one


someone gets 950 Million cash for their goods & services from a buyer
& it is peddled for 594 hours

another merchant gets 925 Million for their goods & services from a buyer
& they put their product on for 384 hours

whom does the buyer deem more valuable

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Marcus

your maths assignment ..... hop to it sonny

an answer
if you need help ask that bet welching piece of cr@p Bearsy ..... he has a calculator I think
it obviously doesn't work .. but between the 2 of you , you should be able to work it out .. or get in the vicinty

come on
lets go

What Maths are you talking about Dave?

this one


someone gets 950 Million cash for their goods & services from a buyer
& it is peddled for 594 hours

another merchant gets 925 Million for their goods & services from a buyer
& they put their product on for 384 hours

whom does the buyer deem more valuable

Oh Dave you dumbo. Channel 9 only wanted 3 games. If they were more valauble why didnt you sell more?

Fact is the AFL got more money and their fans enjoy more games on FTa and PayTV. The NRL got less money and their fans need to endure another 5 years of moaning at ch9 and their terrible FTA coverage.

Thats a win/win for the AFL and a loss/loss for the NRL.

Hows them calculations Dave?

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

What Maths are you talking about Dave?

this one


someone gets 950 Million cash for their goods & services from a buyer
& it is peddled for 594 hours

another merchant gets 925 Million for their goods & services from a buyer
& they put their product on for 384 hours

whom does the buyer deem more valuable

Oh Dave you dumbo. Channel 9 only wanted 3 games. If they were more valauble why didnt you sell more?

Fact is the AFL got more money and their fans enjoy more games on FTa and PayTV. The NRL got less money and their fans need to endure another 5 years of moaning at ch9 and their terrible FTA coverage.

Thats a win/win for the AFL and a loss/loss for the NRL.

Hows them calculations Dave?

ah ...
594 hrs for 950 Million
384 hrs for 925 million


the answer as to who is more valuable in this above equation .... lets go

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

this one


someone gets 950 Million cash for their goods & services from a buyer
& it is peddled for 594 hours

another merchant gets 925 Million for their goods & services from a buyer
& they put their product on for 384 hours

whom does the buyer deem more valuable

Oh Dave you dumbo. Channel 9 only wanted 3 games. If they were more valauble why didnt you sell more?

Fact is the AFL got more money and their fans enjoy more games on FTa and PayTV. The NRL got less money and their fans need to endure another 5 years of moaning at ch9 and their terrible FTA coverage.

Thats a win/win for the AFL and a loss/loss for the NRL.

Hows them calculations Dave?

ah ...
594 hrs for 950 Million
384 hrs for 925 million


the answer as to who is more valuable in this above equation .... lets go

Dave, the NRL had 8 games to sell and could only sell them for less money than the AFL who had more games to sell because they have a bigger, more popular product. Sorry mate, thems the facts.

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Oh Dave you dumbo. Channel 9 only wanted 3 games. If they were more valauble why didnt you sell more?

Fact is the AFL got more money and their fans enjoy more games on FTa and PayTV. The NRL got less money and their fans need to endure another 5 years of moaning at ch9 and their terrible FTA coverage.

Thats a win/win for the AFL and a loss/loss for the NRL.

Hows them calculations Dave?

ah ...
594 hrs for 950 Million
384 hrs for 925 million


the answer as to who is more valuable in this above equation .... lets go

Dave, the NRL had 8 games to sell and could only sell them for less money than the AFL who had more games to sell because they have a bigger, more popular product. Sorry mate, thems the facts.

so you can't answer it either

funny
I've put the same equation to several flogball fans & they have all come up with a similar reponse to yours

errrrrrr
ahhhhhh


but but
now hang on

see here

:_<> :_<> :_<>

its a simple equation with a simple answer
but it sure stumps the f.uck out of your average vicky kicky fan :_<> :_<> :_<>

its an irrelevant stat which you use to make yourself feel better. You get money for the product you sell. The NRL could only manage less money because that was all ch9 and fox were prepared to pay. Add to that they got a stinker of a schedule which completely dudded all their fans.

The AFL got everything: perfect scheduling and more money.

Answer this Dave: would you have preferred more money for more games on TV, or less money for less game? Theres a hard one!

Youre upset arent you?!

Xman wrote:

its an irrelevant stat. You get money for the product you sell. The NRL could only manage less money because that was all ch9 and fox were prepared to pay. Add to that they got a stinker of a schedule which completely dudded all their fans.

The AFL got everything: perfect scheduling and more money.

Youre upset arent you?!

still no answer
just more

ahhhhh
errr's
&
but but's



here .. I'll put it a different way

divide 594 into 950
answer ?

then divide 384 into 925
answer ?

which is the bigger number of the 2 above

there you go
off you pop & solve that one marcus

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

its an irrelevant stat. You get money for the product you sell. The NRL could only manage less money because that was all ch9 and fox were prepared to pay. Add to that they got a stinker of a schedule which completely dudded all their fans.

The AFL got everything: perfect scheduling and more money.

Youre upset arent you?!

still no answer
just more

ahhhhh
errr's
&
but but's



here .. I'll put it a different way

divide 594 into 950
answer ?

then divide 384 into 925
answer ?

which is the bigger number of the 2 above

there you go
off you pop & solve that one marcus

No answer Dave? So youd rather less money for less coverage.

Good for you.

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

its an irrelevant stat. You get money for the product you sell. The NRL could only manage less money because that was all ch9 and fox were prepared to pay. Add to that they got a stinker of a schedule which completely dudded all their fans.

The AFL got everything: perfect scheduling and more money.

Youre upset arent you?!

still no answer
just more

ahhhhh
errr's
&
but but's



here .. I'll put it a different way

divide 594 into 950
answer ?

then divide 384 into 925
answer ?

which is the bigger number of the 2 above

there you go
off you pop & solve that one marcus

No answer Dave? :

No answer .. is that your reply ?



VFL fans stumped by a simple mathimatical equation
they can't work it out

or is it .. then can
but the answer is just a whole world of butthurt .... :_<> :_<>

Answer this Dave: if the NRL games are worth more per game why didnt you sell more games and not only get more money but also show more games for your fans?

Xman wrote:

Answer this Dave:

you answer mine first

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Answer this Dave:

you answer mine first

Sure, the NRL gets more money per minute. I wonder who theyre going to sell the other minutes to?

Im sure theyre real proud of their less money for less coverage and les exposure, and the Broncos shown every FN, so most NRL teams will get far less exposure on FTA and get far worse opportunities for sponsorship etc.

But you work with more money per minute. This meaningless stat is all you have.

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Answer this Dave:

you answer mine first

Sure, the NRL gets more money per minute.
:

hmmm I see

a bit more ... or a lot more ?

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

you answer mine first

Sure, the NRL gets more money per minute.
:

hmmm I see

a bit more ... or a lot more ?

Its irrelevant. As I asked you, would you rather more money and more coverage or less money and less coverage? Theyre the two important stats, not dollars per minute.

When the deals were first signed and announce almost every fan wanted to know how much for and how many games they could watch on TV. AFL fans were ecstatic, great money and great coverage. NRL fans were mostly devastated, great money but disgraceful TV coverage. How many people asked, but what are we paid per minute?

Theres your answer right there Dave.