Talking Footy

214Four wrote:

"In 2009, the club recorded an $11.7 million loss."
the panthers would prob make one of the lowest revenues from mercandise, sponsers and members in the NRL, but it has the largest revenue in australia from its leagues clubs. the 11.7 million would of been covered in the cash grant the panthers leagues club gives penrith panthers rugby league club every year. The club will never fold or run out of money.



Collingwood reported their revenue at $75 million in 2011, which included the gaming revenue. the actual football clubs revenue was $50 million. with a $1-2 million profit

Canterbury reported their revenue at $16 million in 2011, which was the actual football clubs revenue, and $101 million with the gaming revenue added, and a $1-2 million profit.

Its funny how collingwood likes to release figures with the gamming revenue added to their total amount, whereas the bulldogs didnt, just to make it seem the 'gap' is wider than it really is (a Typical AFL stint really)... It seems it doesnt matter where abouts the person is in the AFL, they will still have an undenying need to fudge figures for their own benefit...

214Four wrote:

"In 2009, the club recorded an $11.7 million loss."
the panthers would prob make one of the lowest revenues from mercandise, sponsers and members in the NRL, but it has the largest revenue in australia from its leagues clubs. the 11.7 million would of been covered in the cash grant the panthers leagues club gives penrith panthers rugby league club every year. The club will never fold or run out of money.



Collingwood reported their revenue at $75 million in 2011, which included the gaming revenue. the actual football clubs revenue was $50 million. with a $1/2 million profit

Canterbury reported their revenue at $16 million in 2011, which was the actual football clubs revenue, and $101 million with the gaming revenue added, and a 1/2 million profit.

Its funny how collingwood likes to release figures with the gamming revenue added to their total amount, whereas the bulldogs didnt, just to make it seem the 'gap' is wider than it really is (a Typical AFL stint really)... It seems it doesnt matter where abouts the person is in the AFL, they will still have an undenying need to fudge figures for their own benefit...

Xman wrote:

Striker wrote:

Because the venue treated us like $hit.

How so?

You realise most AFL teams and fans prefer the MCG. The costs at Etihad are far higher. yet you think theyd have higher crowds there....

Striker wrote:

Xman wrote:

Striker wrote:

Because the venue treated us like $hit.

How so?

You realise most AFL teams and fans prefer the MCG. The costs at Etihad are far higher. yet you think theyd have higher crowds there....

MCG capacity 100,000. Etihad 56,000. There's your reason right there. The surface at Etihad has always been sus for AFL.

Striker wrote:

Xman wrote:

Striker wrote:

Because the venue treated us like $hit.

How so?

You realise most AFL teams and fans prefer the MCG. The costs at Etihad are far higher. yet you think theyd have higher crowds there....

MCG capacity 100,000. Etihad 56,000. There's your reason right there. The surface at Etihad has always been sus for AFL.

Striker wrote:

They just didn't really want us in there, so they did everything they could to keep fans from coming. Security being Nazis, that sort of thing.

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

Hmmm, same thing was being said about Cricket over the last few years where the fun police have been out in force.

I also see the fun police have stopped the rah rahs from having a Mexican wave during the goal kicks.

But xman thinks it doesn't happen and that these fun police do not impact crowds