www.talkingfooty.com
https://www.talkingfooty.com/forums/
Yeah i can. Tell me why is the nrl non broadcast revenue less than the a league and union????????The_Wookie wrote:you know you can choose not to post right?
these figures were taken from the link of the thread that you posted, they were from the 2013 annual reportsThe_Wookie wrote:That may no longer be the case - and probably wasnt anyway given we were comparing aleague 2014 figures to NRL 2013 figures in this thread - viewtopic.php?t=5195
I havent seen the ARU report for 2014 - and cant find it anywhere - but the 2013 report says $41 million for tv, and 146 million for total revenue, leaving 105 million in non broadcast revenue for the ARU. I doubt they generated an extra 14 million in revenue last year from non broadcast sources, so Im going with a win to the NRL there.
Aleague non broadcast revenue in 2014 was 96 million, and 40 million for tv. So apples for apples on that one, and the NRL wins. Not to mention that the only reason the Aleague was up there in the first place was the 10 million sale of wanderers.
Oh for the love of christleagueiscrap wrote:The_Wookie wrote:That may no longer be the case - and probably wasnt anyway given we were comparing aleague 2014 figures to NRL 2013 figures in this thread - viewtopic.php?t=5195
I havent seen the ARU report for 2014 - and cant find it anywhere - but the 2013 report says $41 million for tv, and 146 million for total revenue, leaving 105 million in non broadcast revenue for the ARU. I doubt they generated an extra 14 million in revenue last year from non broadcast sources, so Im going with a win to the NRL there.
Aleague non broadcast revenue in 2014 was 96 million, and 40 million for tv. So apples for apples on that one, and the NRL wins. Not to mention that the only reason the Aleague was up there in the first place was the 10 million sale of wanderers.
the A league's is boosted from the sale of the wonders, you need to point out the SOO series made 19.4 million, but when comparing apples to oranges will always create arguments.
:_<> 
:_<> how come the little NRL cannot make any money dribblerRaiderdave wrote:Oh for the love of christleagueiscrap wrote:The_Wookie wrote:That may no longer be the case - and probably wasnt anyway given we were comparing aleague 2014 figures to NRL 2013 figures in this thread - viewtopic.php?t=5195
I havent seen the ARU report for 2014 - and cant find it anywhere - but the 2013 report says $41 million for tv, and 146 million for total revenue, leaving 105 million in non broadcast revenue for the ARU. I doubt they generated an extra 14 million in revenue last year from non broadcast sources, so Im going with a win to the NRL there.
Aleague non broadcast revenue in 2014 was 96 million, and 40 million for tv. So apples for apples on that one, and the NRL wins. Not to mention that the only reason the Aleague was up there in the first place was the 10 million sale of wanderers.
the A league's is boosted from the sale of the wonders, you need to point out the SOO series made 19.4 million, but when comparing apples to oranges will always create arguments.
You are not smart enough to be a ******
Boosted
Boosted
The SOO is an annual event cockhead
& has been for 35 years
How does that compare to a one off sale of a club
Lay off the metho
Give yr 2 remaining brain cells a fighting chance
SOO keeps getting bigger and bigger, state vs state gimmick, what happens after that to the interest in LeagueAFLcrap1 wrote:Lol now gimmick bot is back .
For the hundredth time .
It's not a gimmick .
It's an annual representative (being a fumbler that will confuse you) series ,which happens to be the biggest sporting event in this country most yrs .
Yet in your insanely jealous world it's a gimmick .
Talk about self ownage .
Games you call a gimmick are bigger than any fumble game .
According to you
Your sport gets smashed by a gimmick yr after yr .
Well done dumbo
