Talking Footy

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Lol .

Do the NRL pay the 26 million .

That's the question isn't it, what do you think? Remembering that you have stated that not 1 extra cent was spent on any 1 club that was not spent on another.

Nrl admin looking amateurish.

Can anyone explain to me what drove the idea that if the AFL put millions upon millions into expansion in China that itd actually get Chinese buy in?



Hilarious cockup. Same wherever the AFL invests o/s

The_Wookie wrote:

leagueiscrap wrote:

pussycat wrote:

You just don't buy 100 watermelons for $1 sell them for $1.10 and think you've made $110 You metho swilling vichead .

All the clubs that play in the NRL get a grant from the ARL. Similar with the AFL Vichead.

are you referring to the distribution money pissycat?
or the extra money the NRLOL has to give the clubs, because their owners are refusing to put in any more money to the sink hole of NRLOL club? make up that short fall of the 5 or 6 million needed to run an NRLOL club

Just how many clubs do you think are on NRL assistance?

3 or 4 we know of, titans, dragons, knights, tigers all are.
its hard to tell the full story as their annual reports aret released for free & avaliable like the AFL ones are (ill buy some of them when i get on the computer) but the amount of extra money that has been given to them by their owners is unknown with out the reports

its no different to the AFL handing the clubs extra money, as the AFL owns their clubs, would be no different to the NRLOL or clubs owner giving them extra money. but given the running costs of an NRLOL club is much lower their reliance on handouts SHOULD be vastly lower and less frequent

pussycat wrote:

leagueiscrap wrote:

pussycat wrote:

You just don't buy 100 watermelons for $1 sell them for $1.10 and think you've made $110 You metho swilling vichead .

All the clubs that play in the NRL get a grant from the ARL. Similar with the AFL Vichead.

are you referring to the distribution money pissycat?
or the extra money the NRLOL has to give the clubs, because their owners are refusing to put in any more money to the sink hole of NRLOL club? make up that short fall of the 5 or 6 million needed to run an NRLOL club

And don't the AFL Clubs get a larger grant from the AFL?

And don't the AFL clubs have larger debts ?

So use your metho addled brain to explain that you VicHead!


'

pissycat, the grant you would be referring to is called the distribution money from the broadcast and revenue raised by the leagues commission!

half of the NRLOL's clubs running costs are covered in the distribution rights around 9 million, to make up the $15/ $16 odd million running costs of the clubs!
to run an AFL club you $35 to $40 million and the clubs receive around $12 million theough the distrubution rights.

whats funny is how the NRLOL clubs still need grants from the NRLOL after their owners & league clubs already give them extra money

How much do development academies cost these days wook?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-13/a ... 370?pfm=ms

How much do you reckon port adelaide and melbourne demons have put into devp in China wook? They're AFL clubs aren't they?

And for heavens sake why can't anyone answer why the question about the evidence that China is a good investment for the AFL? the only thing I've seen is the AFL thought That because China has "a large population" that that would mean it'd be a success spending millions to devp the game over there

Thinkers. The AFL is short of any!

leagueiscrap wrote:

pussycat wrote:

leagueiscrap wrote:

pussycat wrote:

You just don't buy 100 watermelons for $1 sell them for $1.10 and think you've made $110 You metho swilling vichead .

All the clubs that play in the NRL get a grant from the ARL. Similar with the AFL Vichead.

are you referring to the distribution money pissycat?
or the extra money the NRLOL has to give the clubs, because their owners are refusing to put in any more money to the sink hole of NRLOL club? make up that short fall of the 5 or 6 million needed to run an NRLOL club

And don't the AFL Clubs get a larger grant from the AFL?

And don't the AFL clubs have larger debts ?

So use your metho addled brain to explain that you VicHead!


'

pissycat, the grant you would be referring to is called the distribution money from the broadcast and revenue raised by the leagues commission!

half of the NRLOL's clubs running costs are covered in the distribution rights around 9 million, to make up the $15/ $16 odd million running costs of the clubs!
to run an AFL club you $35 to $40 million and the clubs receive around $12 million theough the distrubution rights.

whats funny is how the NRLOL clubs still need grants from the NRLOL after their owners & league clubs already give them extra money

The NRL, like the AFL, Would not make any money without the clubs. Perhaps that's why they receive grant. > As far as I know, The only money paid outside the grant (in the NRL) was the $3m paid to the Gold Coast earlier this year. This is not the case in the AFL, with many clubs receive handouts and/or bank loans guaranteed by the AFL .

pussycat wrote:

leagueiscrap wrote:

pussycat wrote:

leagueiscrap wrote:

pussycat wrote:

You just don't buy 100 watermelons for $1 sell them for $1.10 and think you've made $110 You metho swilling vichead .

All the clubs that play in the NRL get a grant from the ARL. Similar with the AFL Vichead.

are you referring to the distribution money pissycat?
or the extra money the NRLOL has to give the clubs, because their owners are refusing to put in any more money to the sink hole of NRLOL club? make up that short fall of the 5 or 6 million needed to run an NRLOL club

And don't the AFL Clubs get a larger grant from the AFL?

And don't the AFL clubs have larger debts ?

So use your metho addled brain to explain that you VicHead!


'

pissycat, the grant you would be referring to is called the distribution money from the broadcast and revenue raised by the leagues commission!

half of the NRLOL's clubs running costs are covered in the distribution rights around 9 million, to make up the $15/ $16 odd million running costs of the clubs!
to run an AFL club you $35 to $40 million and the clubs receive around $12 million theough the distrubution rights.

whats funny is how the NRLOL clubs still need grants from the NRLOL after their owners & league clubs already give them extra money

The NRL, like the AFL, Would not make any money without the clubs. Perhaps that's why they receive grant. > As far as I know, The only money paid outside the grant (in the NRL) was the $3m paid to the Gold Coast earlier this year. This is not the case in the AFL, with many clubs receive handouts and/or bank loans guaranteed by the AFL .

Rubbish! Guess again pussy cat!
There are more clubs than that on nrlol life support, that's after their owners have already or refuse to throw them extra money!

It's even more funny when a nrlol club needs less then half the money than a AFL club to run its operations

The axe wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Lol .

Do the NRL pay the 26 million .

That's the question isn't it, what do you think? Remembering that you have stated that not 1 extra cent was spent on any 1 club that was not spent on another.

Do they .
Not that I have seen .

You can keep insinuating all you like .
Time to stump up some proof .

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Lol .

Do the NRL pay the 26 million .

If your Referring to there debt, No they do not, outside of its administrative role the Nrl have nothing to do with it. Any debt falls to there owners.

AFLcrap1 wrote:

The axe wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Lol .

Do the NRL pay the 26 million .

That's the question isn't it, what do you think? Remembering that you have stated that not 1 extra cent was spent on any 1 club that was not spent on another.

Do they .
Not that I have seen .

You can keep insinuating all you like .
Time to stump up some proof .

Your the one who claimed the nrlol paid the debt! Now you insist we provide proof of your claim

Fucken tarrrd

The axe wrote:

pussycat wrote:

The axe wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

The axe wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

I'm here AXEY .
Page 3 your first post claimed the Titans & storm cost millions EVERY yr .
I asked for proof .

Ok starting from the start again are we, now remember your position was the Titans recieved not 1 cent extra. That's been shown to be false by Pussy twat, so I ask again who owns the Titans?

You claimed yr after yr .p,costing millions
It was a one off payment .
The thuns & midgets get millions more than other clubs yr after yr .
Doesn't happen in the NRL .

What relevance do the 2 AFL clubs have to the conversation im happy to acknowledge they receive extra cash from the AFL Have already done so. Now where were we, so the Titans are a failed business who had to be rescued from administration by th nrl And have already cost 3.6 million this year In additional funding. Who do we think will be paying the future running costs of the Titans from here on In, maybe the new owners might have to put their hand in their pocket. I understand it costs as much as 300,000 to open the front door on game day, wonder what the break even is must be more than 9000 you would think be costing the owners a fortune.

A one of payment of 3.6m is a lot different to an organisation that receives 20m + per year and still loses money . And , according to the Australian, may not be self sufficient in 100years

Your falling behind and repeating yourself try to keep up, and remember You can't believe everything you read in the papers. That is unless it in some way supports your argument, I learnt that from every league fan on this forum.

What relevance? It just shows what hypocrites you and the Metho swiller are! Your own game is drowning in debt and the best you've got is to attack the owners of the Titans. What the Fark does the this have to do with the NRL anyrate? If anything the NRL needs to be commended for its responsible handling of the situation.

More than half your clubs get additional funding , VicHead, The two clubs that you speak of just happen to get hundreds of millions FROM THE AFL!

Dank affair exposes AFL’s weaknesses

The Australian
June 27, 2015 12:00AM

The AFL Commission and its *administration used to be close to infallible. At least in the eyes of this country’s sport watchers. The indigenous competition was flying higher than any other code because it was not fettered by the selfish and parochial views of the clubs that formed the national league.

That was a long time ago. Nobody thinks that any more. The commission and the men and women administrators who answer to it are not nearly as clever as first pictured. Not nearly as transparent as required. Not nearly as constant as hoped.

What many might have suspected is now fact. The confused and opaque treatment of Melbourne’s tanking scandal was not an aberration. It was pretty much the league’s blueprint for crisis management.

Any last suggestion that the league leaders and their underlings performed their job in a manner that the code’s supporters would be comfortable with has been shredded this week. This final reveal has come in two parts. The release on Thursday of a detailed account of the Essendon supplements saga in the book The Straight Dope written by colleague Chip Le Grand and followed yesterday by the AFL’s life ban on medicine man Stephen Dank

While the scandal is closing in on its third birthday, the book exposes the AFL’s dangerous need to control everything that it is involved in, and bludgeon into submission those who resist the league’s wish to manage any and every outcome.

The league is just one villain in a book without heroes. Coach James Hird? He never did understand the core issue in this case that flattened interest in the sport to such an extent people would *report turning off their radios and televisions if the saga and its progress was mentioned.

The book reveals in a meeting with AFL Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick that Hird was asked why he did not accept the league’s wishes that he own responsibility for what happened in 2012 at the club. Hird’s reply was that he *believed the club did not cheat.

The coach, and former champion player, of course, was never charged with cheating. The AFL wanted him to step away from the club for 12 months because he did not fulfil his governance responsibilities when club high-performance employee Dank was running a dangerous supplement and drug program which might well have put the health of Hird’s players at great risk.

Hird never accepted his governance accountability or that the AFL, ultimately, was trying to manage the damage to Hird, one of the game’s most adored and *respected figures, as well as to the game. Thus neither the game nor the coach escaped a mudslide of scorn.

Towards nearly the end of part one of the AFL’s role, the league had almost unravelled. Unable to manage the outcome it wanted, the chairman of the Australian Sports Commission, John Wiley, was whistled up to see if he could broker a deal with Essendon’s chairman, Paul Little. And then-chief executive Andrew Demetriou was like a groggy boxer, backed onto the ropes and throwing punches instinctively but without power and precision.

This is the same organisation — except Demetriou has gone and Gillon McLachlan has laced on the chief executive gloves — that is *attempting to steer Australian football to market supremacy nationally while soccer continues to soar and the reformed and *retooled NRL tries to widen its *influence outside NSW and Queensland.

The AFL is attempting to expand the competition as well as equalise it. To many observers it is beginning to appear such aims might be mutually exclusive.

The commission has set aside $200 million to ensure the Gold Coast Suns and the Greater Western Sydney Giants, the game’s 17th and 18th teams, are self-sufficient by 2016. The truth is these clubs might not be able to fund themselves by 3016.

The established clubs are convinced that the push of second teams into Queensland and NSW is starting to strain the commission’s finances. In a series of exclusive reports over the past two weeks, The Australian has exposed a brittle financial structure underpinning the league.

Thirteen clubs — the Suns and the Giants not included because they are being funded by the AFL — are carrying a combined debt of $91m. Last year eight clubs finished in the red.

This season’s results will be no better. Up to eight clubs are forecasting losses again. The Saints and Carlton have budgeted for $2.2m losses. Carlton’s result, in particular, has blown out but they had a poor start to the season and had to remove coach Mick Malthouse.

The Western Bulldogs and *Adelaide forecast losses close to $1m each. Geelong are expecting a negative result anywhere between $250,000 and $500,000, while North Melbourne could lose $60,000. Fremantle and Brisbane might break even.

The Future Fund established by the commission in 2007 has a book value of $89.4m but sits with only $63m in cash. While established to buy assets (Etihad Stadium) and be a reserve to cope with unforeseen financial circumstances, it appears to be used to keep the league turning over.

The AFL denies this but there is no doubt the account is being used for matters other than stated when the commission gave birth to the fund with an initial seeding of $16m in 2007. The past two annual reports record profits of a combined $29m, which are claimed to have been deposited in the Future Fund.

In simple terms that should put the Future Fund at $118m. Yet it is still recorded at $89m but with just $62m in cash. No doubt this is all regulated accounting and there is no suggestion of impropriety, but nonetheless money appears to be drying up at football’s headquarters.

Several clubs are sure the league is haemorrhaging money to its vision of national domination. McLachlan denies these suggestions outright though he acknowledged to The Australian this week that the establishment of the Suns and the Giants has proved more expensive than considered when they were mere doodling on whiteboards.

Increasingly, the AFL is taking money from the more successful clubs and pushing it into equalisation funds. Collingwood and Hawthorn have been the loudest opponents to the introduction of a soft cap on football department spending (not including player payments) and a hefty tax on *revenue growth.

The expenditure tax will provide $3.1m this year while the full impact of revenue from the soft cap on football departments will not be definitive until budget estimates turn into actuals in October. Next season the football department tax becomes more punitive, rising from 37.5 per cent of each dollar over the cap to 75 per cent in 2016.

Clubs with bigger revenue bases and membership rolls than others see this as the AFL asking them to do what is really the job of the commission. Banker to the poor. And money issues might become tighter rather than freer with the new broadcast rights to run for five years from 2017-2021. Already it has been suggested — and not denied — that the AFL will look for at least $1.7bn. That’s up from the present deal of $1.25bn.

The clubs already have their thinning hands out for a greater slice of the new money and the AFL Players Association is determined to garner a bigger cut of the deal for its footballers.

AFLPA boss Paul Marsh has said repeatedly that he wants a *formulated percentage of the broadcast deal and he is prepared to use both the salary cap and draft system for leverage.

Marsh represents a challenging element in the league’s distribution of money. He has come to the job with a clear mandate from his employees to wrench a lot more money for the players from the system.

And this is the AFL Commission’s growing problem. Revenue is not increasing as quickly as the number of mouths growling for a bigger cut. Programs previously driven with zeal by the AFL are now barely propped up. The push for the AFL to have an international presence has evaporated in step with increasing demands on the game’s funds.

When Demetriou delivered so many millions in the first broadcast deal, he was seen as something of a genius. Big money deals became commonplace. Now the market competition is greater, the costs more expensive, the public more discerning.

That’s the problem facing Gillon McLachlan, who heads into his first broadcast deal. Everybody is hungry and getting the MCG to reduce the price of hotdogs and meat pies is not going to cut it. Farck !!!

leagueiscrap wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

The axe wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Lol .

Do the NRL pay the 26 million .

That's the question isn't it, what do you think? Remembering that you have stated that not 1 extra cent was spent on any 1 club that was not spent on another.

Do they .
Not that I have seen .

You can keep insinuating all you like .
Time to stump up some proof .

Your the one who claimed the nrlol paid the debt! Now you insist we provide proof of your claim

Fucken tarrrd

You're insane .
& im not joking.

I showed how wrong you were in the thread where we were discussing the Titans .

AXEY is talking about something else .
& as yet has not put up one bit of evidence for all his bullshit .

* Posted a larger profit these past 2 years than the AFL,
* Revenue has increased by about 2x as much as the AFL's,
* Tv contract more than doubled the previous contract,
* Ground Records for South Sydney, Eastern Suburbs, Canterbury, Storm , Western Australia and others probably in the last couple of years,
* Record ratings for Origin, Record ratings for Grand Final,Record ratings for many other clubs,
* Record ratings for Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Tasmania as well as NZ,
* The highest rating program on National TV last year as well 4 of the top 5 ports programs for the year,
* The biggest crowd and the highest rating match in Melbourne this year,
*The introduction of '9's tournament in NZ,
* Expansion of the World Club Challenge,
* Joint Venture with Telstra,
* " " " Touch football,

etc. etc

Has the 'much more professional ' AFL done anything like this?

leagueiscrap wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

The axe wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Lol .

Do the NRL pay the 26 million .

That's the question isn't it, what do you think? Remembering that you have stated that not 1 extra cent was spent on any 1 club that was not spent on another.

Do they .
Not that I have seen .

You can keep insinuating all you like .
Time to stump up some proof .

Your the one who claimed the nrlol paid the debt! Now you insist we provide proof of your claim

Fucken tarrrd

AFLcrap1 wrote:
You post where the NRL cleared the 25-35 mill debt & I will admit I'm wrong .

Lol

Lol
Lol
You can rant all you want .
Post articles that are 5 yrs old
Stil doesn't change the fact there is no proof ,never has been that the NRL paid out a debt that big .




Lol x 10000
The highlighted part of my post says the exact opposite of what you are claiming .
You are fucking mentally impaired .
I'm serious .
Get help .
There's something seriously wrong with you ,when you read something & think it says the complete opposite .