Canterbury.....The great Myth of the new millenium.

[Cammo]

You know for a fact that this is currently still happening?

If you do then you better give info to the NRL ASAP.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

It was part of his contract in 2002!
A contract that included the 04 season!

Another typical defense. we cheated last year but we didnt this year.

& at no stage ever did the Dogs take what was given to them.

Givent that what G & F wanted then the only thing in the Dogs favour was the destruction of league through injuctions. They actually had a very strong hand based on litigation & time.

It was a negotiated outcome.

 

[ibeme]

How do you know it was a negotiated outcome reefy? Is that just speculation?

Anasta took a pay cut along with the others, including Ryan who had just signed with the team.

 

[DJ1]

It was part of his contract in 2002!
A contract that included the 04 season!

Another typical defense. we cheated last year but we didnt this year.

& at no stage ever did the Dogs take what was given to them.

Givent that what G & F wanted then the only thing in the Dogs favour was the destruction of league through injuctions. They actually had a very strong hand based on litigation & time.

It was a negotiated outcome.

Quick! Let the NRL know. It's amazing that no one has discovered your info before. It can't be a case of the NRL is aware either as Politis would have been right onto it.

Better yet, call the Roosters. If there is any way they could get the trophy I'm sure they would take advantage of it.

 

[DJ1]

It's quite simple to relay the reports of what occurred. But alas, you have not a clue what information is out there.

Then go to the archives. or better still use the freedom of information act to see what you can come up with. SMH subscription entitles you to the archives. You have used selected reporting & have failed to see that the end result was a negotiated result. Both sides (NRL & the cheats) gave conscessions. The biggest concession was in establishing the systematic rorting techniques that had been going on at the club.

There was no negotiation. It was an open book investigation. The NRL handed down a penalty. The Dogs (New) management appealed. The appeal was rejected. The Dogs (New) management accepted the punishment.

Irrespective of your paranoia regarding accountability, someone was accountable in this instance! They were sacked along with the ignorant but incompetent management who they deceived. It was their responsibility to gain indepenent legal advice.

Oh its all so squeeky clean out there isnt it? I was too dumb to know! Blame him, hes the one with a Jaguar! I didn't know that me getting paid 300k in paper bags was illegal!
The excuses just go on & on.
Not enough were sacked. The penalty was far from sufficient.
Exclusion until the next round of license renewals was the only correct option & the one that was sought but injunctions would have meant an end to the 02 competion & possible 03. Hence the negotiations.

Show me anything, anywhere apart from you that suggests the NRL were actively seeking to revoke the Bulldogs licence.

b)Precedent of penalty. All previous penalties for breaches of all types resulted in a monetary penalty only.

But you dont know everything about the money trail do you.

Give me one example of a salary cap breach which resulted in a harsher penalty than simply monetary!

Why?

Case closed on that one as I see you've got nothing.

d)Despite the claims of a club chairman (George Piggins) that many clubs had similar if not identical undisclosed payment processes in place, the NRL refused to complete the same third party audit on all clubs. (It was later revealed that the Roosters had only disclosed 50% of Craig Wings $300K contract over 2 years, this resulted in a penalty of $300K, no points or handing of the 2002 premiership trophy to the Warriors)

Because, if you fail to see, the Dogs situation was far worse than has been revealed. why do you think they jumped at the chance to take the fine.
because G & F wanted them gone for good.

Great men!

Oh, I see. Far worse than has been revealed. OK then. Point taken. I guess your right. Apologies.

:lol: I can't support what I know. I don't claim to be able. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Same as i don't support the claims against the Coffs incedent. Some people know exactly what happened. But they are not allowed to know that are they.
That is why I know the Dogs players in Coffs are innocent of everything except for being stupid fuggwitts & getting into that situation.

I see, you can't support what you know and don't claim to be able to.

So you claim that our 2004 squad was 80% identical to our 2002 squad but when faced with the evidence which shows how incorrect you are you simply claim that it is normal player churn.

Umm can you please show me somewhere , some club who does not experience 6 player churns per year?

I am right & quite possibly even on the conservative side.

It was your claim of 80% when the reality was 64% not mine.

ummm, how many years of data do you think there are since the new ratings system came in? lol

Why do you deliberately want to only include figures from capital cities when rural areas as a percentage have achieve the greatest growth in access to televised rugby league through the penetration of subscription television?

Where are the figures? I can help if you want. Just ask.
The figures are the worst since 2000. Estimates agree that quite possibly the worst since the 97 split Gf's.
I'll give you a hint, the new system came in somewhere in there.

lol, if you were to pick one subject to debate with me, this is not the one to pick.

Actually, the new system of ratings reports which now provide for FTA and PTV was launched in August last year.

That means that 2004 is actually the first NRL season under this new reporting structure to view total TV viewing since the launch of PTV in '95.

In case you wish to dispute, here's the press release,

http://www.oztam.com.au/media/MediaRelease_12Aug03.pdf

The other point is simply wrong regarding FTA stats being the worst since 2000 (or is it 1997? I reread and you're still not decided) anyway as 2004 still beat 2001.

Because people now have the convienience of choice to either watch an event live or a replay.

e.g. in our household we watched the FTA and 2 PTV replays. That's 3 times. For many families the night time Grand Final is also inconvienient for small kids to watch and they watch the next day.

All in all, multiple screenings over an ever growing PTV subscriber base will consistently impact the FTA ratings.

Look at the ratings for the entire seasons of both NRL and AFL. Both codes FTA ratings declined in 2004. PTV is the reason. Not a Bulldog v Rooster GF. lol

No you are wrong.
Both grand finals this year were impacted by the teams that participated.
Nothing to do with pay TV because it was live & exclusive in prime time.
If the event is of a high calibre with supported participants, the public wil l watch, irespective of time, kids, work, diseases, approaching death.
EG. Pat Rafter 1am Tuesday Morning.
Have a look at the figures, they dont lie.
& the reason the 5 capital figure is important is because that is the money demographic that advertisers want & are willing to pay through their teeth for.
But I thought that was obvious.

Look at it this way. Oztam took over the stats from AC Neilson in 2001. However, a total TV audience rating system including PTV was not available until Aug 2003.

If we look at the key stats from each area being major caps plus the indicated shift in Foxsports 2 viewership prior to the GF.

2004
FTA
Total 2.107M
Syd 1.045M
Mel 389K
Bri 617K
Ade 26K
Per 31K

Foxsports 2 viewership also shows an increase in share from 1.8% of total viewing time in week 40 to 5.9% in week 41. This increase equates to an additional 478K viewers. Total for Foxsports 2 1.925M (Viewers not households as per FTA)

Total 2004 combined viewers 4.032M


2003
FTA
Total 2.352M
Syd 1.152M
Mel 489K
Bri 638K
Ade 36K
Per 35K

Total for Foxsports 2 1.633M (Viewers not households as per FTA)

Total 2003 combined viewers 3.985M



2002
FTA
Total 2.177M
Syd 1.025M
Mel 428K
Bri 653K
Ade 35K
Per 35K



2001
FTA
Total 2.097M
Syd 1.136M
Mel 315K
Bri 542K
Ade 50K
Per 55K

 

[blacktip-reefy]

But now the council is digesting the news that its partner, the Bulldogs, is under investigation from the National Rugby League for breaches of the salary cap. The Herald revealed on Saturday that over the past two years the Bulldogs have paid players $1.5 million over the salary cap. The paper has since learned that a company associated with Al Constantinidis, International Sports Marketing, was used by the leagues club to make payments to players. The club transferred the money to ISM, which then wrote cheques to players, relatives or companies associated with players.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/18/1029114051214.html

The team leading the National Rugby League competition, the Bulldogs, has breached the NRL salary cap by more than $1.5 million over the past two years.

http://smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/16/1029114013522.html

Legal action was launched against Sydney's Bulldogs League Club over matters relating to the 2002 salary cap scandal.

The club allegedly breached the Registered Clubs Act by failing to keep accurate financial records relating to $1.5 million paid to players between 1999 and 2002.

After admitting in 2002 to breaching the NRL salary cap by $1 million over two years, the Bulldogs were fined $500,000 and stripped of their competition points, relegating the club to the bottom of the ladder.

The NSW Licensing Court was told the club "generated" invoices from two companies, International Sports Design and International Sports Marketing, totalling about $1.5 million between December 1999 and June 2002.

But the invoices were "actually for payment to the players of the Bulldogs Football Club", according to documents tendered to the court.

The Director of Liquor and Gaming claims the club failed to keep correct accounts and books for these payments, which were recorded as being made for "professional services" relating to the Oasis project and other developments.

If the charges are proven, the court may cancel the licensed club's certificate of registration, fine it or impose conditions on the club's operation.
http://www.aol.com.au/cgi-bin/aim/story?D=20040309&I=154728_08&T=sc

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Bulldogs admit overspending
August 19 2002





National Rugby League club the Bulldogs have admitted to overspending $400,000 above the salary cap this season and another $600,000 last year.

The Bulldogs apologised to the NRL and their fans, saying there were mitigating circumstances, although they wouldn't disclose any details during a two-hour crisis meeting with league officials in Sydney today.

Bulldogs chief executive Bob Hagan stood down from the NRL board until the issue was resolved.

NRL boss David Gallop would not comment on what punishment the Bulldogs would receive, but said he was not ruling anything out at this stage.

Fines, deduction and possible expulsion from the premiership all remain a possibility for the competition leaders.


Gallop described the club's breaches as a "deliberate, elaborate system of payment to players".

He said an NRL auditing team would conduct a thorough examination of the Bulldogs' financial records from tomorrow.

AAP

 

[blacktip-reefy]

How do you know it was a negotiated outcome reefy? Is that just speculation?

The day the boss had his finger on the button.

Teh dogs gave headquarters more false documents hiding even more. This was after they agreed to tell all.
The plug was going to be pulled & needed full internal agreement & then would have needed the agreement of all the CEO's

Lobbying the CEO's was ken Arthurson who wanted the dogs gone.

So close.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Look at it this way. Oztam took over the stats from AC Neilson in 2001. However, a total TV audience rating system including PTV was not available until Aug 2003.

Who gives a fugg about replay? Does it matter?

OFcourse not!! It's the Grand Fianl. Live & exclusive.

Oh hang on, I think I will wash the car & watch the replay.

If we look at the key stats from each area being major caps plus the indicated shift in Foxsports 2 viewership prior to the GF.

Lets look at the indicated shift of your mind from reality to pixieland.

2004
FTA
Total 2.107M


2003
FTA
Total 2.352M

2002
FTA
Total 2.177M

2001
FTA
Total 2.097M

As I said.
Worst result in viewing audience since the new system.
After building steadily & peaking last year at 2.35 million & increasing each year previously by approx 170 -250k, this year the ratings went backwards by the amount to near 01 figures.
because the old figures cannot be compared. estimates say that the considered the expected improvement, a 170 k turnaround in theses markets was a huge backwards step.

But lets look at the shift in viewing on Fox sports 3 . At this moment there are few looking at it.

:lol:

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Announcing the penalty last Friday, NRL chief executive David Gallop said: "The only possible outcome of these breaches was to accumulate and retain a playing squad outside the boundaries of the rules agreed to by all clubs." In other words, the Bulldogs have deliberately set out to gain an advantage over their rivals, whose inferior depth is tested to the limit every time they lose players to injury or suspension.

Supporting that view is the fact that the Bulldogs have won the Jersey Flegg (under 21s) competition for the past three seasons in succession and taken out three of the past five first division titles.

Since 1998, Paul Mellor (Cronulla), Justin Murphy (Warriors), Adam Peek (South Sydney), David Thompson and Robert Relf (both North Queensland) are the only first graders to leave for other NRL clubs

Tell me again, what was Canteburys strength this year again?
Oh, that would have been the bench. made up of players they had illegally on their books in lower grades from 2000, 2001, 2002.

 

[Zef]

So I guess what you're saying when it's all said and done is - you're not happy Jan.

Would it make you feel better if we sold your Sharkies a Hughes?

 

[DJ1]

So which figure do you want to use,

You have included many,

1.5M over two years

over the past two years the Bulldogs have paid players $1.5 million over the salary cap

$1.5M over 4 years

$1.5 million paid to players between 1999 and 2002

$1M over 2 years

$400,000 above the salary cap this season and another $600,000 last year

Pick one will you!

PS the $400K one is the accurate one.

 

[DJ1]

Look at it this way. Oztam took over the stats from AC Neilson in 2001. However, a total TV audience rating system including PTV was not available until Aug 2003.

Who gives a fugg about replay? Does it matter?

OFcourse not!! It's the Grand Fianl. Live & exclusive.

Oh hang on, I think I will wash the car & watch the replay.

If we look at the key stats from each area being major caps plus the indicated shift in Foxsports 2 viewership prior to the GF.

Lets look at the indicated shift of your mind from reality to pixieland.

2004
FTA
Total 2.107M


2003
FTA
Total 2.352M

2002
FTA
Total 2.177M

2001
FTA
Total 2.097M

As I said.
Worst result in viewing audience since the new system.
After building steadily & peaking last year at 2.35 million & increasing each year previously by approx 170 -250k, this year the ratings went backwards by the amount to near 01 figures.
because the old figures cannot be compared. estimates say that the considered the expected improvement, a 170 k turnaround in theses markets was a huge backwards step.

But lets look at the shift in viewing on Fox sports 3 . At this moment there are few looking at it.

:lol:

No. you said "The figures are the worst since 2000. Estimates agree that quite possibly the worst since the 97 split Gf's. "

The bottom line is that 2004 has been the most successful season in RL history for both average crowds and total TV audience.


Expect FTA to decline further for NRL and AFL in 2005 whilst PTV increases.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Is this what you do? Television analyst
Then you probably should change courses.

PTV will increase regardless in msot areas.

What will not change is the result for live & exclusive major events free to air.
What will the audience be for the US open if it is shootout between;
Singh & Davis? Poor
Singh & Woods? Fantastic
Singh & Adam Scott? through the fuggin roof
Reason? Because big ticket events are rules unto themselves regardless.
The important thing is content. Content is king.
this years GF had little content.
That is why it was the worst rating result across 5 capitals since 97-8

 

[DJ1]

....and why is the global trend away from FTA for events and towards subscription TV?

In Australian we are hampered by the anti-syphoning laws.

This is where FTA can buy the rights but not show them.

This is why RL can't get a fair go in VIC, SA, TAS and WA.

 

[Cammo]

Well lets take your step Reefy and kick The Bulldogs out. We then alienate the largest supporter base for any Sydney team. If you think that is good for Rugby League then so be it. I would have thought you would want to keep supporters not lose them (granted there are some supporters that we all would happily lose but that is only a minority).

I for one (while upset) would get over it if The Dogs were kicked out, there are plenty of other sports I can watch.

 

[Zef]

this years GF had little content.
That is why it was the worst rating result across 5 capitals since 97-8

Yeah, but the DVD's going gangbusters Reefy, so it's not all doom & gloom.

And then there's the merchandising. Did you know The Dogs have set an all-time record in the last 3 weeks for merchandise? You just can't get any GF T-Shirts or singlets no more - they just can't make them quick enough (much like how Kleenex can't keep up with you).

And of course for every item sold - we get a cut. So we've made an absolute sh.tload of $$$ over the last month or so - and I'm told sales aren't expecting to plateau anytime soon so we'll be absolutely rolling in the folding stuff by XMAS.

So there you go - all this cash we're generating. And you say we're good for nothing - That's got to be good hasn't it? Money's good isn't it? I mean, greed is good isn't it?

How's sales of The Sharkies Flegg Merchandise going anyway? Made any money yourselves?

 

[DJ1]

lol, this is too easy

First you claim it's the worst result since 2000 or maybe 1997

The figures are the worst since 2000. Estimates agree that quite possibly the worst since the 97 split Gf's.

I provide the figures which clearly show that the total TV audience is the best it has ever been and the best FTA since 2001.

You then claim that it is the worst since the new rating system

Worst result in viewing audience since the new system.

You also claim that the new ratings system came in around 1997

Estimates agree that quite possibly the worst since the 97 split Gf's. I'll give you a hint, the new system came in somewhere in there.

I provide the documentation which clearly shows that the new total TV ratings system first began in Aug last year which makes the 2004 season the first complete season under the new ratings system.

You then quote only the FTA totals (which now only make up 52.2% of rugby league viewing patterns) in an attempt to back up your claim,

2004
FTA
Total 2.107M


2003
FTA
Total 2.352M

2002
FTA
Total 2.177M

2001
FTA
Total 2.097M

Which even in isolation still show that it was the best since 2001,

but then go on to claim that it was now the worst TV viewership result since 97/98 now across all 5 capital cities,

That is why it was the worst rating result across 5 capitals since 97-8

If you actually look at the figures, it's quite plain to see that it was the best result in Sydney since 2002 and best in Melbourne and Brisbane since 2001.


Advice, if you are going to debate a point, at least stick to the same statistical data throughout your debate. It will give you much more credibility. Your current credibility rating is zero across all 5 capitals.

 

[RB30DETT]

Reefy, quit while you are well behind.

Cronullas rape allegation was in NZ, not Coffs.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

lol, this is too easy

First you claim it's the worst result since 2000 or maybe 1997

No, you are like the person who says "this is an easy question" then answers it wrong.

I know exactly when & how the new system was fazed in.

The problem is the differences in statistical models & data retreival, prevent direct analysis between the 2.

Now, so it's nice and easy for you, the split GF's were the worst rating GF's. What years was that? Do I need to answer that for you too?

Since then, the GF's have one thing in common. They have to continued to build on the figures each year for (now read carefully, this is the 6th time I have said this) 5 capital, live & exclusive, free to air viewing.
The only figures that matter & that are important.

In 2004, the grand final reversed this trend. Not because of Pay, not because of Union world cup, not because of Olympics. No other reason then the teams were unpopular.
Instead of gaining ground in the 5 capital markets(capitals where league plans to have at least one team in each by 2020) this year the GF went backwards by the amount of the expected gain.
So while it is a few thousand more than 2001, it was a terrible result because 2001 was good result that gained more viewers.

Now start working on those PTV figures. Maybe you can explain why an advertising run on the replay of the GF( on pay) costs a few thousand dollars whilst the live showing on 9 it cost a few hundred grand.

You also claim that the new ratings system came in around 1997

Is English your first language

I provide the documentation which clearly shows that the new total TV ratings system first began in Aug last year which makes the 2004 season the first complete season under the new ratings system.

Oh right. So on your logic, because pay tv wasnt counted previously, then the figures for a live free to air event were wrong in previous years?
& now that they count pay tv, that caused the 5 capital FTA result to decline so dramtically?

Geezus! No wonder the pay tv has struggled for 10 years.
Let me guess, you majored in arts?

You then quote only the FTA totals (which now only make up 52.2% of rugby league viewing patterns) in an attempt to back up your claim,

If I was an advertiser spending $10000k's, it is all I'm interested in.
Ask Mr Pepsi if he cares what pay tv is doing on superbowl day.

lol, this is too easy

First you claim it's the worst result since 2000 or maybe 1997

No, you are like the person who says "this is an easy question" then answers it wrong.

I know exactly when & how the new system was fazed in.

The problem is the differences in statistical models & data retreival, prevent direct analysis between the 2.

Now, so it's nice and easy for you, the split GF's were the worst rating GF's. What years was that? Do I need to answer that for you too?

Since then, the GF's have one thing in common. They have to continued to build on the figures each year for (now read carefully, this is the 6th time I have said this) 5 capital, live & exclusive, free to air viewing.
The only figures that matter & that are important.

In 2004, the grand final reversed this trend. Not because of Pay, not because of Union world cup, not because of Olympics. No other reason then the teams were unpopular.
Instead of gaining ground in the 5 capital markets(capitals where league plans to have at least one team in each by 2020) this year the GF went backwards by the amount of the expected gain.
So while it is a few thousand more than 2001, it was a terrible result because 2001 was good result that gained more viewers.

Now start working on those PTV figures. Maybe you can explain why an advertising run on the replay of the GF( on pay) costs a few thousand dollars whilst the live showing on 9 it cost a few hundred grand.

You also claim that the new ratings system came in around 1997

Is English your first language

I provide the documentation which clearly shows that the new total TV ratings system first began in Aug last year which makes the 2004 season the first complete season under the new ratings system.

Oh right. So on your logic, because pay tv wasnt counted previously, then the figures for a live free to air event were wrong in previous years?
& now that they count pay tv, that caused the 5 capital FTA result to decline so dramtically?

Geezus! No wonder the pay tv has struggled for 10 years.
Let me guess, you majored in arts?

You then quote only the FTA totals (which now only make up 52.2% of rugby league viewing patterns) in an attempt to back up your claim,

If I was an advertiser spending $10000k's, it is all I'm interested in.
Ask Mr Pepsi if he cares what pay tv is doing on superbowl day.

2004
FTA
Total 2.107M


2003
FTA
Total 2.352M

2002
FTA
Total 2.177M

2001
FTA
Total 2.097M

Which even in isolation still show that it was the best since 2001,

but then go on to claim that it was now the worst TV viewership result since 97/98 now across all 5 capital cities,

This is like picking on mormons!
2001, it was estimated, increased substantially from 2000.
There was anothr consideration too(remember that?)
2001, on those figures was a good result.
2004 declined & was the only year not to grow.

Therefore, in isolation, to the people that matter(the advertisers with money) they reached less people than expected across the 5 capitals.
Roughly 200k less than expected.
But hang on, they picked up an extra 75 k across high income demographics like, bogabilla, texas, connabarrabran etc.

That is why it was the worst rating result across 5 capitals since 97-8

Excellent analysis. Who said that?

If you actually look at the figures, it's quite plain to see that it was the best result in Sydney since 2002 and best in Melbourne and Brisbane since 2001.

No it wasn't. because advertisers were expecting to hit more across those 5 capitals. Thats how the spots are sold.

"Well Mr Holden, for your your 1.2 million advertising investment, you will hit 2.4 million across 5 capitals based on growth of the event over the last 5 years.

Will they get a refund for the 200k they missed? what about next year? What figures will 9 promote as expected target? How will this affect the FTA rights being negotiated soon?

But hang on, we measured pay tv, washed the car, played with kids & watched the replay didn't we.

Advice, if you are going to debate a point, at least stick to the same statistical data throughout your debate. It will give you much more credibility. Your current credibility rating is zero across all 5 capitals.

Ummm. Go back over the posts & see where you went wrong.

Score
D-