Streaming companies want to broadcast AFL

[Terry]

And membership is NOT the issue pal. You fumblers always make the mistake of thinking what is good for fumbling is good for everything else. It ain't. Memberships are handy. But they're not the issue. In fact there is no issue. And of course Leagues clubs are totally relevant. All the clubs are financially strong with various revenue streams including leagues clubs.

Memberships contribute a hell of a lot of money to AFL club coffers. And it must be good for everyone, because the NRL has pushed club memberships since the ARLC was formed.

You dills got caught out for years by comparing AFL club financials V NRL's. They were different. The NRL's football clubs and leagues clubs were reported separately. Your mobs weren't. That is now changing and the true picture is emerging.

Nothing has actually changed. The nature of the reporting is the same. Its just [eople look a little deeper at the figures these days as more information is made readily accessible.

But I think the issue for some AFL fans is perception -mostly that AFL clubs are football clubs with pokies attached, where NRL clubs seem to be more Pokies with a club attached - and that shows in some of their accounting, if not outright ownership structures.

"Memberships contribute a hell of a lot of money to AFL club coffers. And it must be good for everyone, because the NRL has pushed club memberships since the ARLC was formed.

Thanks bummy, but you must have missed the part where I said memberships are 'handy' but they are not the issue. NRL supporters aren't historically or culturally into club memberships. That's is slowly changing and it is now a 'handy' earner for the clubs.

And:

"Nothing has actually changed. The nature of the reporting is the same. Its just [eople look a little deeper at the figures these days as more information is made readily accessible."

The reporting was separate for the football clubs and the leagues clubs. That's how some of the idiot media would have headlines about football clubs running at losses whilst ignoring massive revenue, profit and asset bases of the parent entity. That has now changed.

And NSW has had licenced clubs with pokies for decades. Hence they dwarf the Vic equivalent and have grown into massive conglomerates. But they all have in their constitution that they are for the promotion and propagation of Rugby League.

[TLPG]

I actually think it's more likely they'll fall back to 16 clubs to be honest. The NRL has the same problem in Sydney that the AFL has in Melbourne. Too many clubs.

In both cases its utterly bullshit. Not every club has to be big, someone has to come last.

No NRL clubs are in financial trouble, and most AFL clubs in Melbourne arent either - the Saints still but given time they'll also get out.

Spot On

While the comment speaks correctly it doesn't alter the fact that both cities are over populated with clubs. It's why I support North Melbourne moving to Tasmania as an example. Financial status is irrelevant to it. On field performance is a more valid consideration and North have been terrible over the last three years (pandemic restraints not withstanding). I can't say if any Sydney based NRL club is similarly positioned, but that's where the drop of a club will be. On field performance. As I said - the presence of a leagues club is not relevant as I demonstrated with Balmain and Newtown.

[Quolls2019]

In both cases its utterly bullshit. Not every club has to be big, someone has to come last.

No NRL clubs are in financial trouble, and most AFL clubs in Melbourne arent either - the Saints still but given time they'll also get out.

Spot On

While the comment speaks correctly it doesn't alter the fact that both cities are over populated with clubs. It's why I support North Melbourne moving to Tasmania as an example. Financial status is irrelevant to it. On field performance is a more valid consideration and North have been terrible over the last three years (pandemic restraints not withstanding). I can't say if any Sydney based NRL club is similarly positioned, but that's where the drop of a club will be. On field performance. As I said - the presence of a leagues club is not relevant as I demonstrated with Balmain and Newtown.

I would think that that financial survival and viability of all the current clubs would not support the view that there are too many clubs in Melbourne.
I do understand why some believe this.
I do not understand why moving to Tasmania would improve Norths on field performance.
Also North is down at the moment, wont be forever, and is not the first or last team to be in this position.

[AFLcrap1]

In both cases its utterly bullshit. Not every club has to be big, someone has to come last.

No NRL clubs are in financial trouble, and most AFL clubs in Melbourne arent either - the Saints still but given time they'll also get out.

Spot On

While the comment speaks correctly it doesn't alter the fact that both cities are over populated with clubs. It's why I support North Melbourne moving to Tasmania as an example. Financial status is irrelevant to it. On field performance is a more valid consideration and North have been terrible over the last three years (pandemic restraints not withstanding). I can't say if any Sydney based NRL club is similarly positioned, but that's where the drop of a club will be. On field performance. As I said - the presence of a leagues club is not relevant as I demonstrated with Balmain and Newtown.

All you demonstrated as was laughed at in a previous post is you have NFI about Leagues clubs .
You posted about Balmain & it was wrong
Very wrong
Laughably wrong

[Terry]

In both cases its utterly bullshit. Not every club has to be big, someone has to come last.

No NRL clubs are in financial trouble, and most AFL clubs in Melbourne arent either - the Saints still but given time they'll also get out.

Spot On

While the comment speaks correctly it doesn't alter the fact that both cities are over populated with clubs. It's why I support North Melbourne moving to Tasmania as an example. Financial status is irrelevant to it. On field performance is a more valid consideration and North have been terrible over the last three years (pandemic restraints not withstanding). I can't say if any Sydney based NRL club is similarly positioned, but that's where the drop of a club will be. On field performance. As I said - the presence of a leagues club is not relevant as I demonstrated with Balmain and Newtown.

"As I demonstrated with Balmain and Newtown". Pal, the exact opposite of what you 'demonstrated' happened with Balmain and Newtown. They no longer have a leagues club. They no longer take part in the NRL. Pretty damn solid evidence there. Without finances over and above head office allocations you don't have a club.

And punting a team after 3 years of poor performances??? Pleeeaaasssee!!! Who ya gonna replace 'em with to fulfill broadcast commitments? I mean almost every three years you'd be punting someone. Total idiocy!!!

[TLPG]

Then how come Balmain still had a leagues club a decade after the RL club merged with Western Suburbs hmm? I stand by what I said. And which Sydney based club has only been around for three years?

[pussycat Mark 11]

If Paramount continues to be a player in sports rights we may very well find ourselves getting substantially more for our rights next time - long before 2031.

[Fred]

If Paramount continues to be a player in sports rights we may very well find ourselves getting substantially more for our rights next time - long before 2031.

I think this could have some merit - but it is all speculation. What we do know is that AFL gets substantially more than the NRL - dwarfs the NRL broadcast deal in fact. What will happen in 2028 is anyone's guess.

[pussycat Mark 11]

If Paramount continues to be a player in sports rights we may very well find ourselves getting substantially more for our rights next time - long before 2031.

I think this could have some merit - but it is all speculation. What we do know is that AFL gets substantially more than the NRL - dwarfs the NRL broadcast deal in fact. What will happen in 2028 is anyone's guess.

Its not that bigger guess considering streaming is becomes more popular and atracts evermore potential bidders every day. The NRL, being much more popular in this area certainly will help. Cant imagine Fox would want to part with a large chunk of its business that they've been building up over many years.

[RiderJake]

If Paramount continues to be a player in sports rights we may very well find ourselves getting substantially more for our rights next time - long before 2031.

I think this could have some merit - but it is all speculation. What we do know is that AFL gets substantially more than the NRL - dwarfs the NRL broadcast deal in fact. What will happen in 2028 is anyone's guess.

Its not that bigger guess considering streaming is becomes more popular and atracts evermore potential bidders every day. The NRL, being much more popular in this area certainly will help. Cant imagine Fox would want to part with a large chunk of its business that they've been building up over many years.

Fox does not want to part with its achievements. That's why some changes are coming. And we don't know how it will end.

[Terry]

Then how come Balmain still had a leagues club a decade after the RL club merged with Western Suburbs hmm? I stand by what I said. And which Sydney based club has only been around for three years?

Pal, the Balmain leagues club hardly contributed anything to Wests Tigers before it was closed due to insolvency. The Ashfield Leagues club has always been the main contributor outside football related income.

This is why the Balmain side of the merger has virtually no say on the board (2 out of 9 members). The club is 75% owned by Wests Ashfield and 25% Balmain (which is really a gift). Without the merger Balmain Tigers would have been closed down.

This absolutely disproves your theory.

[AFLcrap1]

Then how come Balmain still had a leagues club a decade after the RL club merged with Western Suburbs hmm? I stand by what I said. And which Sydney based club has only been around for three years?

Pal, the Balmain leagues club hardly contributed anything to Wests Tigers before it was closed due to insolvency. The Ashfield Leagues club has always been the main contributor outside football related income.

This is why the Balmain side of the merger has virtually no say on the board (2 out of 9 members). The club is 75% owned by Wests Ashfield and 25% Balmain (which is really a gift). Without the merger Balmain Tigers would have been closed down.

This absolutely disproves your theory.

It’s not hard to do when you’re arguing with someone totally clueless.

[WookieReturns]

Pal, the Balmain leagues club hardly contributed anything to Wests Tigers before it was closed due to insolvency. The Ashfield Leagues club has always been the main contributor outside football related income.

This is why the Balmain side of the merger has virtually no say on the board (2 out of 9 members). The club is 75% owned by Wests Ashfield and 25% Balmain (which is really a gift). Without the merger Balmain Tigers would have been closed down.

This absolutely disproves your theory.

even thats not true. Wests Ashfield and Balmain leagues merged in 2019.

[Terry]

Pal, the Balmain leagues club hardly contributed anything to Wests Tigers before it was closed due to insolvency. The Ashfield Leagues club has always been the main contributor outside football related income.

This is why the Balmain side of the merger has virtually no say on the board (2 out of 9 members). The club is 75% owned by Wests Ashfield and 25% Balmain (which is really a gift). Without the merger Balmain Tigers would have been closed down.

This absolutely disproves your theory.

even thats not true. Wests Ashfield and Balmain leagues merged in 2019.

Which part bummy? That Balmain leagues closed in 2008? That Balmain has only 2 board members out of 9? That Wests Ashfied are 90% owners of Wests Tigers? That Balmain leagues hardly invested in the football club?

Read Roy's beautiful article bummy. Explains all. The 2019 development was a 'takeover' not a merger. The Wests side charitably took 'em in. They could of just let 'em die and lose everything but decided for the sake of the football club to keep their name alive. They then paid off their debts with the vague hope that the developers of the derelict old club site would build 'em a new Balmain Leagues club and hand it back to 'em. Hasn't happened. Doubtful it ever will. Balmain Leagues contributed next to nothing to Wests Tigers.

Now point out what in my previous post was not true pal. And stop being so obsessive. It just makes ya look silly bummy.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/tigers ... 52lo9.html

[WookieReturns]

Which part bummy? That Balmain leagues closed in 2008? That Balmain has only 2 board members out of 9? That Wests Ashfied are 90% owners of Wests Tigers? That Balmain leagues hardly invested in the football club?

Read Roy's beautiful article bummy. Explains all. The 2019 development was a 'takeover' not a merger. The Wests side charitably took 'em in. They could of just let 'em die and lose everything but decided for the sake of the football club to keep their name alive. They then paid off their debts with the vague hope that the developers of the derelict old club site would build 'em a new Balmain Leagues club and hand it back to 'em. Hasn't happened. Doubtful it ever will. Balmain Leagues contributed next to nothing to Wests Tigers.

Now point out what in my previous post was not true pal. And stop being so obsessive. It just makes ya look silly bummy.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/tigers ... 52lo9.html

Members will be asked to endorse what is termed an amalgamation but others would describe as an inevitable takeover by Wests Leagues.

Id say that it depends on your view - but reality is it was a merger. They could have let them die. They didnt.

Let it go of your obsessions mate. Let it go.