Talking Footy

Xman wrote:

How wrong could you be Dave?

Almost all Lions supporters live in Brisbane, suns in the GC, Swans and Giants supporters in Sydney, Power and Crow supporters in Adelaide, and eagles and Docker supporters in Perth. All Victorian teams are mixed amongst the state but the rivalry is immense.

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

How wrong could you be Dave?

Almost all Lions supporters live in Brisbane, suns in the GC, Swans and Giants supporters in Sydney, Power and Crow supporters in Adelaide, and eagles and Docker supporters in Perth. All Victorian teams are mixed amongst the state but the rivalry is immense.

ahhhhh

I was talking about the NRL & VFL clubs in Sydney & Melbourne only >
:_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

within those Cities
most NRL fans in Sydney KNOW .. why they follow their club
they ... STILL.... live in the old historic district

VFL fans in Melbourne couldn't tell you why they follow the club they do
there is no geographical identity
who do they represent ? >
theres no ..... I follow the team that represents where I come from !!... in the VFL in Melbourne
hell
some of the old VFL clubs districts ... are barely 10 streets wide :_<> :_<> :_<>
they may be too stupid to realise it but they are confused wombats :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

MarkZZZ wrote:

I still don't think you can draw any conclusions from the numbers. AFL have to spend more to create a market and that in turn creates more expenses which can be iffy if the market doesn't eventuate and isn't self sustaining.

It's a different business model so comparing one to the other so is pretty meaningless. The NRL have alleady stated that they will use the profit along with future profits to grow the game in future years. Lets hope they go with the "assist natural growth" rather than the "create a market" route that the AFL have gone down.

I read somewhere that some among the AFL don't expect teams like GWS to turn a profit for 30 years. The article said they may even go on to play finals football and even win a Premiership within 10 years but financially they would be a drain for the AFL for a long time into the future.

Cracker wrote:

MarkZZZ wrote:

I still don't think you can draw any conclusions from the numbers. AFL have to spend more to create a market and that in turn creates more expenses which can be iffy if the market doesn't eventuate and isn't self sustaining.

It's a different business model so comparing one to the other so is pretty meaningless. The NRL have alleady stated that they will use the profit along with future profits to grow the game in future years. Lets hope they go with the "assist natural growth" rather than the "create a market" route that the AFL have gone down.

I read somewhere that some among the AFL don't expect teams like GWS to turn a profit for 30 years. The article said they may even go on to play finals football and even win a Premiership within 10 years but financially they would be a drain for the AFL for a long time into the future.

MarkZZZ, the NRL aren't going to move anywhere as long as their liabilities are so high. That's a minus number that the AFL doesn't have to the same level and more than counters any market creation methods the AFL use.

I would also state that market creation is an integral part of expanding a business. The AFL have already saturated their natural growth areas, so they must go looking for new markets through creation or they will stagnate. And because of the natural lie of the nation's population the pull towards Sydney is inevitable. The population base has the room for a second Sydney AFL club.

The NRL would do well to copy this template, and they are already talking about Perth as well as the second Brisbane team. But like the AFL in Victoria, the NRL can't look to New South Wales - except maybe on the Central Coast if anything to make use of Blue Tongue. But the NRL must also target Adelaide as soon as possible, in order to match the AFL's effort of having a league presence in all five major population centres. It's all about competition in sport, and the NRL is behind at present and will remain so as long as the revenue is down and the liabilities are high. And that increase in revenue needs to be spent on expansion.

Just while I think of it, I put it to you that (for different reasons) the PNG effort could be as bad for the NRL as the GIants for the AFL. While the pure numbers of supporters would be there in PNG without doubt, do they have the money? It's food for thought.

MarkZZZ wrote:

Cracker wrote:

MarkZZZ wrote:

I still don't think you can draw any conclusions from the numbers. AFL have to spend more to create a market and that in turn creates more expenses which can be iffy if the market doesn't eventuate and isn't self sustaining.

It's a different business model so comparing one to the other so is pretty meaningless. The NRL have alleady stated that they will use the profit along with future profits to grow the game in future years. Lets hope they go with the "assist natural growth" rather than the "create a market" route that the AFL have gone down.

I read somewhere that some among the AFL don't expect teams like GWS to turn a profit for 30 years. The article said they may even go on to play finals football and even win a Premiership within 10 years but financially they would be a drain for the AFL for a long time into the future.

MarkZZZ, the NRL aren't going to move anywhere as long as their liabilities are so high. That's a minus number that the AFL doesn't have to the same level and more than counters any market creation methods the AFL use.

I would also state that market creation is an integral part of expanding a business. The AFL have already saturated their natural growth areas, so they must go looking for new markets through creation or they will stagnate. And because of the natural lie of the nation's population the pull towards Sydney is inevitable. The population base has the room for a second Sydney AFL club.

The NRL would do well to copy this template, and they are already talking about Perth as well as the second Brisbane team. But like the AFL in Victoria, the NRL can't look to New South Wales - except maybe on the Central Coast if anything to make use of Blue Tongue. But the NRL must also target Adelaide as soon as possible, in order to match the AFL's effort of having a league presence in all five major population centres. It's all about competition in sport, and the NRL is behind at present and will remain so as long as the revenue is down and the liabilities are high. And that increase in revenue needs to be spent on expansion.

Just while I think of it, I put it to you that (for different reasons) the PNG effort could be as bad for the NRL as the GIants for the AFL. While the pure numbers of supporters would be there in PNG without doubt, do they have the money? It's food for thought.

Don't agree with you. It would be easy for the NRL to create teams and then heavily invest in them and get them successful but at what cost. What then when those teams become a drain on the League like GWS etc. Do they then impose a super tax on the big profitable teams in the NRL like the AFL are proposing to do? Not a good move IMHO. Market identification and support as apposed to market creation is always the better business path. Create a market where not many want to buy it you end up with the obviious example like GWS in Sydney.

Like I said the models of business are different. PNG haven't been promoted into the NRL out of nowhere and been heavily subsidized. Not a good comparison on your part.

MarkZZZ wrote:

Cracker wrote:

MarkZZZ wrote:

I still don't think you can draw any conclusions from the numbers. AFL have to spend more to create a market and that in turn creates more expenses which can be iffy if the market doesn't eventuate and isn't self sustaining.

It's a different business model so comparing one to the other so is pretty meaningless. The NRL have alleady stated that they will use the profit along with future profits to grow the game in future years. Lets hope they go with the "assist natural growth" rather than the "create a market" route that the AFL have gone down.

I read somewhere that some among the AFL don't expect teams like GWS to turn a profit for 30 years. The article said they may even go on to play finals football and even win a Premiership within 10 years but financially they would be a drain for the AFL for a long time into the future.

MarkZZZ, the NRL aren't going to move anywhere as long as their liabilities are so high. That's a minus number that the AFL doesn't have to the same level and more than counters any market creation methods the AFL use.

I would also state that market creation is an integral part of expanding a business. The AFL have already saturated their natural growth areas, so they must go looking for new markets through creation or they will stagnate. And because of the natural lie of the nation's population the pull towards Sydney is inevitable. The population base has the room for a second Sydney AFL club.

The NRL would do well to copy this template, and they are already talking about Perth as well as the second Brisbane team. But like the AFL in Victoria, the NRL can't look to New South Wales - except maybe on the Central Coast if anything to make use of Blue Tongue. But the NRL must also target Adelaide as soon as possible, in order to match the AFL's effort of having a league presence in all five major population centres. It's all about competition in sport, and the NRL is behind at present and will remain so as long as the revenue is down and the liabilities are high. And that increase in revenue needs to be spent on expansion.

Just while I think of it, I put it to you that (for different reasons) the PNG effort could be as bad for the NRL as the GIants for the AFL. While the pure numbers of supporters would be there in PNG without doubt, do they have the money? It's food for thought.

Don't agree with you. It would be easy for the NRL to create teams and then heavily invest in them and get them successful but at what cost. What then when those teams become a drain on the League like GWS etc. Do they then impose a super tax on the big profitable teams in the NRL like the AFL are proposing to do? Not a good move IMHO.

Like I said the models of business are different. PNG haven't been promoted into the NRL out of nowhere and been heavily subsidized. Not a good comparison on your part.

MarkZZZ wrote:

Cracker wrote:

MarkZZZ wrote:

I still don't think you can draw any conclusions from the numbers. AFL have to spend more to create a market and that in turn creates more expenses which can be iffy if the market doesn't eventuate and isn't self sustaining.

It's a different business model so comparing one to the other so is pretty meaningless. The NRL have alleady stated that they will use the profit along with future profits to grow the game in future years. Lets hope they go with the "assist natural growth" rather than the "create a market" route that the AFL have gone down.

I read somewhere that some among the AFL don't expect teams like GWS to turn a profit for 30 years. The article said they may even go on to play finals football and even win a Premiership within 10 years but financially they would be a drain for the AFL for a long time into the future.

MarkZZZ, the NRL aren't going to move anywhere as long as their liabilities are so high. That's a minus number that the AFL doesn't have to the same level and more than counters any market creation methods the AFL use.

I would also state that market creation is an integral part of expanding a business. The AFL have already saturated their natural growth areas, so they must go looking for new markets through creation or they will stagnate. And because of the natural lie of the nation's population the pull towards Sydney is inevitable. The population base has the room for a second Sydney AFL club.

The NRL would do well to copy this template, and they are already talking about Perth as well as the second Brisbane team. But like the AFL in Victoria, the NRL can't look to New South Wales - except maybe on the Central Coast if anything to make use of Blue Tongue. But the NRL must also target Adelaide as soon as possible, in order to match the AFL's effort of having a league presence in all five major population centres. It's all about competition in sport, and the NRL is behind at present and will remain so as long as the revenue is down and the liabilities are high. And that increase in revenue needs to be spent on expansion.

Just while I think of it, I put it to you that (for different reasons) the PNG effort could be as bad for the NRL as the GIants for the AFL. While the pure numbers of supporters would be there in PNG without doubt, do they have the money? It's food for thought.

Don't agree with you. It would be easy for the NRL to create teams and then heavily invest in them and get them successful but at what cost. What then when those teams become a drain on the League like GWS etc. Do they then impose a super tax on the big profitable teams in the NRL like the AFL are proposing to do? Not a good move IMHO.

Like I said the models of business are different. PNG haven't been promoted into the NRL out of nowhere and been heavily subsidized. Not a good comparison on your part.

Xman wrote:

MarkZZZ wrote:

Cracker wrote:

MarkZZZ wrote:

I still don't think you can draw any conclusions from the numbers. AFL have to spend more to create a market and that in turn creates more expenses which can be iffy if the market doesn't eventuate and isn't self sustaining.

It's a different business model so comparing one to the other so is pretty meaningless. The NRL have alleady stated that they will use the profit along with future profits to grow the game in future years. Lets hope they go with the "assist natural growth" rather than the "create a market" route that the AFL have gone down.

I read somewhere that some among the AFL don't expect teams like GWS to turn a profit for 30 years. The article said they may even go on to play finals football and even win a Premiership within 10 years but financially they would be a drain for the AFL for a long time into the future.

MarkZZZ, the NRL aren't going to move anywhere as long as their liabilities are so high. That's a minus number that the AFL doesn't have to the same level and more than counters any market creation methods the AFL use.

I would also state that market creation is an integral part of expanding a business. The AFL have already saturated their natural growth areas, so they must go looking for new markets through creation or they will stagnate. And because of the natural lie of the nation's population the pull towards Sydney is inevitable. The population base has the room for a second Sydney AFL club.

The NRL would do well to copy this template, and they are already talking about Perth as well as the second Brisbane team. But like the AFL in Victoria, the NRL can't look to New South Wales - except maybe on the Central Coast if anything to make use of Blue Tongue. But the NRL must also target Adelaide as soon as possible, in order to match the AFL's effort of having a league presence in all five major population centres. It's all about competition in sport, and the NRL is behind at present and will remain so as long as the revenue is down and the liabilities are high. And that increase in revenue needs to be spent on expansion.

Just while I think of it, I put it to you that (for different reasons) the PNG effort could be as bad for the NRL as the GIants for the AFL. While the pure numbers of supporters would be there in PNG without doubt, do they have the money? It's food for thought.

Don't agree with you. It would be easy for the NRL to create teams and then heavily invest in them and get them successful but at what cost. What then when those teams become a drain on the League like GWS etc. Do they then impose a super tax on the big profitable teams in the NRL like the AFL are proposing to do? Not a good move IMHO.

Like I said the models of business are different. PNG haven't been promoted into the NRL out of nowhere and been heavily subsidized. Not a good comparison on your part.

The AFL funded the Giants and Suns to the tune of 20m combined last year. I wonder how much the 9th game earned them extra in the last TV rights deal? I'd suggest the drain isnt as big as youre suggesting, and likely a pretty sound investment in the game's future. Not to mention the fact the AFL have close to 100m saved in a futures fund

MarkZZZ wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Cracker wrote:

It rather depends on how that final net profit/loss was achieved, Mark. You could, in certain circumstances, be misrepresenting a net loss.

Agreed could be robbing peter to pay Paul claiming a profit and then having to use that profit for the same purpose you should have out laid in the first place - look it's all just a pissing contest anyway - I don't begrudge RL FINALLY doing well economically but when it's been suggested that the NRL will overtake the AFL in five years well it's just not right on both codes recent financial histories (the last five years). In time IMO there will be little to separate them - finances, crowds and memberships - it's not a question of one giving way to another and again IMO there will be greater number of fans whose favourite side is not confined to one code - rather favourite team NRL = Storm, AFL = Swans A-League = Heart, Basketball =Melb Tigers etc etc. People do this to more or less a degree when following OS comp's e.g Chelsea, Yankees, Celtics etc etc. People like RD, KE claiming moral and athletic superiority will be a thing of the past and they and their ideas Dinosaurs!

So what your saying is that all these numbers are just that, numbers and are meaningless?

adamj1300 wrote:

MarkZZZ wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Cracker wrote:

It rather depends on how that final net profit/loss was achieved, Mark. You could, in certain circumstances, be misrepresenting a net loss.

Agreed could be robbing peter to pay Paul claiming a profit and then having to use that profit for the same purpose you should have out laid in the first place - look it's all just a pissing contest anyway - I don't begrudge RL FINALLY doing well economically but when it's been suggested that the NRL will overtake the AFL in five years well it's just not right on both codes recent financial histories (the last five years). In time IMO there will be little to separate them - finances, crowds and memberships - it's not a question of one giving way to another and again IMO there will be greater number of fans whose favourite side is not confined to one code - rather favourite team NRL = Storm, AFL = Swans A-League = Heart, Basketball =Melb Tigers etc etc. People do this to more or less a degree when following OS comp's e.g Chelsea, Yankees, Celtics etc etc. People like RD, KE claiming moral and athletic superiority will be a thing of the past and they and their ideas Dinosaurs!

So what your saying is that all these numbers are just that, numbers and are meaningless?

no the profit margins are almost meaning less. in the who overall process of things, yes the NRL made a bigger profit, but in the total revenue what was the money spent on?