Divided rugby league fell 25 years ago – but united has it conquered? by Steve Mascord.

[The_Wookie]

As usual you are 100% correct. I’m an amateur by comparison to you but that was exactly my understanding as well.

Just to give you an example

These are the ratings documents from Oztam for NRL Grand Final Week.

- Top 20 Programs (metro)
- Regional Top 20 (note this excludes places like Darwin and some others)
- Multi Channels
- Total TV (a week later)
- Voz (two weeks later) - this is the definitive one.

 

[Captain Apollo]

You forgot to mention Endeavour Sports High lol

There are a number I didn't cite. Those were the only three that came into my head when I was typing at the time.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

I dont believe in the parts of the report that are based on "fanatics".

Why not?

Thanks for explaining a system ive been actively reporting and writing on for a decade. I had no idea.

Are you always this puerile in your day to day interactions with people, or only when you're on the internet under the cloak of anonymity?

Um not quite right.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/tv-shows/the-first-rule-of-the-ratings-box-is-you-cant-talk-about-the-ratings-box/news-story/6dfad3bdbd4b6ea39da0a27e2ef07a65

My bad.

Representative sampling is an accepted way of collating ratings and is used world wide as an industry standard.

It still isn't 100% accurate.

Call it what you like, its still a legal form of income at this time.

Doesn't change the fact a professional sporting club's primary reason for existing is to generate revenue from an active fanbase. If it cannot do this and has to rely on revenue from gambling, real estate or investment then it's a failure and doomed to fall over at some stage. Look at what happened to the Titans and Knights. Or the rugby union clubs falling over in England.

And what was the return from the Panthers Group?

Says a lot about the viability of the football club, doesn't it?

That does kind of suck for Cronulla, but it doesnt make them non viable.

What happens when they burn through whatever is left of the payment they got for relinquishing their stake in the retail project?

Then they're back to square one with less assets on hand to offload.

lol f**king siphoned from where exactly? The grant is chiefly based on the tv rights of the NRL as well as the licencing, wagering and other commercial incomes. None of which are generated from any tier below it.

The clubs received $217,600,000 per annum from the ARLC in 2020. This year they'll receive $277,100,000.

That's an increase of $59,500,000.

Is the new broadcast rights deal for 2023-2027 generating enough revenue to cover the extra $59,5000,000 that's going to the NRL clubs each year?

If not then the ARLC will need to reduce the amount it gives to all tiers below the NRL. Doesn't bode well for the junior side of the game with the NRLW set to expand and the increase in non-broadcast revenue not being all that great.

Money was taken away from the tiers below the NRL to bail out the NRL clubs during COVID-19.

This was confirmed on p36 of the Gemba report. There's a graph showing the yearly distribution of funds to NRL clubs, development and state bodies. Between 2019 and 2020 the distribution to the NRL clubs jumped from 72% to 82%. The proportion of available funds distributed to NRL clubs has grown significantly over the lifespan of the ARLC while development and state bodies has declined.

You'll respond by saying the money is generated by the clubs so they should keep it, but that's a bloody dumb mindset because the professional side of the game wouldn't exist with the lower tiers. It costs a lot of money to identify and develop enough talent to fill 17 NRL rosters. Less money in development means less full-time officials identifying talent. Quality juniors will go unidentified and eventually stop playing the game.

Well now given your posts, I have to doubt myself now.

Maybe if you focused more on proof reading your obnoxious posts then your spelling and grammar wouldn't be so shoddy.

With no respect at all. I dont give a damn and it has no bearing on the distribution model of the league.

You don't know anything about the BRL/Queensland Cup and don't care about its existence, yet you get all pissy about my indifference to small clubs from Sydney. You're a hypocrite.

f**king lol.

Only an idiot would oppose the dismantling of the NSL and argue it f**ked soccer. I actually followed the 2001/02 NSL season as I had Optus Vision and saw how poor the crowds were for most games. Only the Perth Glory were well supported back in those days. At no stage were the Perth Glory as big popular as Sydney FC and Melbourne Victory. The Brisbane Roar were more popular during their successful run than the Perth Glory were in the NSL.

There was controversy off the field because many of the NSL clubs were created along ethnic lines by European immigrants who relocated to Australia after WWII. The clubs drew their support from the small ethnic groups they represented and it sometimes led to hostile interactions at games. I remember a nasty incident between Croatians and Serbians during the 2001/02 season. The recent FFA Cup featured one of these ethnic clubs. Sydney United, who were previously known as Sydney Croatia, were sanctioned and fined after some of their fans sang fascist songs and made Nazi salutes.

Sydney United sanctioned by Football Australia for ‘deeply offensive’ fan behaviour | Football Australia | The Guardian

Sydney United 58 FC have been fined $15,000 and face possible bans from future competitions

amp.theguardian.com

 

[Pneuma]

Why not?



Are you always a puerile in your day to day activities?



My bad.



It still isn't 100% accurate.



Doesn't change the fact a professional sporting club's primary reason for existing is to generate revenue from an active fanbase. If it cannot do this and has to rely on revenue from gambling, real estate or investment then it's a failure and doomed to fall over at some stage. Look at what happened to the Titans and Knights. Or the rugby union clubs falling over in England.



Says a lot about the viability of the football club, doesn't it?



What happens when they burn through whatever is left of the payment they got for relinquishing their stake in the retail project?

They're back to square one with less assets on hand.



Sigh.

The clubs received $217,600,000 per annum from the ARLC in 2020. This year they'll receive $277,100,000.

That's an of $59,500,000.

Are the broadcast rights for 2023-2027 generating enough to cover the extra $59,5000,000 that's going to the clubs each year?

If not then the ARLC will need to reduce the amount it gives to all tiers below the NRL. Doesn't bode well for the junior side of the game with the NRLW set to expand and the increase in non-broadcast revenue not being all that great.

Money was taken away from the tiers below the NRL to bail out the NRL clubs during COVID-19.

This was confirmed on p36 of the Gemba report. On the page there's a graph showing the yearly breakdown of funding to NRL clubs, development and state bodies. Between 2019 and 2020 the distribution to the NRL clubs jumped from $72% of available funds to 82%. In fact, the proportion of available funds distributed to NRL clubs has grown significantly over the lifespan of the ARLC while development and state bodies has declined.

You'll respond by saying the money is generated by the clubs so they should keep it, but that's a bloody dumb mindset because the professional side of the game wouldn't exist with the lower tiers. It costs a lot of money to identify and develop enough talent to fill 17 NRL rosters. Less money in development means less full-time officials identifying talent. Quality juniors will go be missed and eventually leave the game behind.



Maybe if you paid better attention to proof reading your obnoxious posts then your spelling and grammar wouldn't be so shoddy.



You don't know anything about the BRL/Queensland Cup and don't care about its existence, yet you get all pissy about my indifference to small Sydney clubs. You're a hypocrite and an obnoxious wanker.


Only an idiot would oppose the dismantling of the NSL and argue it f**ked soccer. I actually followed the 2001/02 NSL season as I had Optus Vision and saw how poor the crowds were for most games. Only the Perth Glory were well supported back in those days and they were never as big as Sydney FC and Melbourne Victory. The Brisbane Roar were more popular during their successful run than the Perth Glory were in the NSL.

There was controversy off the field because many of the NSL clubs were created along ethnic lines by European immigrants who relocated to Australia after WWII. The clubs drew their support from the small ethnic groups they represented and it sometimes led to hostile interactions at games. I remember a nasty incident between Croatians and Serbians during the 2001/02 season. The recent FFA Cup featured one of these ethnic clubs. Sydney United, who were previously known as Sydney Croatia, were sanctioned and fined after some of their fans sang fascist songs and made Nazi salutes.

Sydney United sanctioned by Football Australia for ‘deeply offensive’ fan behaviour | Football Australia | The Guardian

Sydney United 58 FC have been fined $15,000 and face possible bans from future competitions

amp.theguardian.com

Potato

 

[Canard]

Doesn't change the fact a professional sporting club's primary reason for existing is to generate revenue from an active fanbase

What???

 

[Perth Red]

Surely with $5mill above salary cap even the Sharks can turn a profit?

The actual payout to clubs this season is likely to be $289mill ($17milll a club x 17 clubs).
That's up from $228mill in 2019 (the last time we can see what TV revenue was) on a Tv revenue of $324.5mill
Its anticipated the TV revenue (cash) this year will be in the region of $370mill.
So club payments will go up $61mill and TV revenue $45.5mill. A gap of $15.5mill.

Now of course other NRL revenue has hopefully also gone up since 2019 and I think we can all agree that having strong financially viable clubs is a good thing for the comp. Add in extra costs of the NRLW set up and I dont think it is too far our of kilter. The real test of course will be does the current $25mill missing from grassroots funding in 2021 get put back?
Strong clubs
investment in revenue generating assets
build up a cash asset base
grassroots investment

Getting the balance is the key!

In comparison last year AFL gave out $300mill to clubs on a $738mill revenue (leaving $438mill to spend on other things), we are predicting to give out $289mill on a $600mill revenue base (leaving $311mill to spend on other things).

AFL 2021 40% of revenue to clubs
NRL 2023 48% of revenue to clubs (predicted)

 

[Pneuma]

Surely with $5mill above salary cap even the Sharks can turn a profit?

The actual payout to clubs this season is likely to be $289mill ($17milll a club x 17 clubs).
That's up from $228mill in 2019 (the last time we can see what TV revenue was) on a Tv revenue of $324.5mill
Its anticipated the TV revenue (cash) this year will be in the region of $370mill.
So club payments will go up $61mill and TV revenue $45.5mill. A gap of $15.5mill.

Now of course other NRL revenue has hopefully also gone up since 2019 and I think we can all agree that having strong financially viable clubs is a good thing for the comp. Add in extra costs of the NRLW set up and I dont think it is too far our of kilter. The real test of course will be does the current $25mill missing from grassroots funding in 2021 get put back?
Strong clubs
investment in revenue generating assets
build up a cash asset base
grassroots investment

Getting the balance is the key!

In comparison last year AFL gave out $300mill to clubs on a $738mill revenue (leaving $438mill to spend on other things), we are predicting to give out $289mill on a $600mill revenue base (leaving $311mill to spend on other things).

AFL 2021 40% of revenue to clubs
NRL 2023 48% of revenue to clubs (predicted)

Afl fanboy thinks afl is good.
Don’t worry about the sharks we are doing fine.
How’s that Perth team going?

 

[The_Wookie]

Why not?

because its based on very limited data and limited questions. Theres literally no substance to it.

Are you always this puerile in your day to day interactions with people, or only when you're on the internet under the cloak of anonymity?

Im this puerile with people who spout false information to people who actually know better.

A simple google of my username will bring up my actual name - but if helps mate, its Jason Lassey. Would you like my tinder profile?

My bad.

Yes indeed.

It still isn't 100% accurate.

Its still the standard used worldwide.

Doesn't change the fact a professional sporting club's primary reason for existing is to generate revenue from an active fanbase. If it cannot do this and has to rely on revenue from gambling, real estate or investment then it's a failure and doomed to fall over at some stage. Look at what happened to the Titans and Knights. Or the rugby union clubs falling over in England.

The professional sporting clubs primary reason for existing isnt to generate revenue, its to win matches and premierships. Where the revenue comes from to support that goal is largely irrelevant.

Says a lot about the viability of the football club, doesn't it?

Only if you exlude large parts of its revenue.

What happens when they burn through whatever is left of the payment they got for relinquishing their stake in the retail project?

Then they're back to square one with less assets on hand to offload.

They'll be debt free and largely able to survive on revenues they already have or will generate from assets purchased with the sale proceeds.

The clubs received $217,600,000 per annum from the ARLC in 2020. This year they'll receive $277,100,000.

That's an increase of $59,500,000.

Is the new broadcast rights deal for 2023-2027 generating enough revenue to cover the extra $59,5000,000 that's going to the NRL clubs each year?

Once again, the grant is not entirely based on tv rights money, but a portion of all NRL commercial revenue.

If not then the ARLC will need to reduce the amount it gives to all tiers below the NRL. Doesn't bode well for the junior side of the game with the NRLW set to expand and the increase in non-broadcast revenue not being all that great.

Money was taken away from the tiers below the NRL to bail out the NRL clubs during COVID-19.

Its money given to them by the NRL and its clubs anyway. Its not generated by them.

This was confirmed on p36 of the Gemba report. There's a graph showing the yearly distribution of funds to NRL clubs, development and state bodies. Between 2019 and 2020 the distribution to the NRL clubs jumped from 72% to 82%. The proportion of available funds distributed to NRL clubs has grown significantly over the lifespan of the ARLC while development and state bodies has declined.

You'll respond by saying the money is generated by the clubs so they should keep it, but that's a bloody dumb mindset because the professional side of the game wouldn't exist with the lower tiers. It costs a lot of money to identify and develop enough talent to fill 17 NRL rosters. Less money in development means less full-time officials identifying talent. Quality juniors will go unidentified and eventually stop playing the game.

Its a bloody realistic prospect. While the NRL has an obligation to the game, the clubs have an obligation to themselves - and the clubs by and large have shouldered the development responsibilities to date.

Maybe if you focused more on proof reading your obnoxious posts then your spelling and grammar wouldn't be so shoddy.

Maybe if i cared about internet grammar police i might.

You don't know anything about the BRL/Queensland Cup and don't care about its existence, yet you get all pissy about my indifference to small clubs from Sydney. You're a hypocrite.

No. You are wrong. Its not that I dont know - its that I simply dont care about the BRL in the context of the discussion. Or your indifference to small Sydney clubs for that matter. I care about the fact that you are falsely calling them inviable, and cherry picking financial data that suits your argument while excluding large parts of the club revenues to derive a false narrative and bullshit conclusion.

Only an idiot would oppose the dismantling of the NSL and argue it f**ked soccer. I actually followed the 2001/02 NSL season as I had Optus Vision and saw how poor the crowds were for most games. Only the Perth Glory were well supported back in those days. At no stage were the Perth Glory as big popular as Sydney FC and Melbourne Victory. The Brisbane Roar were more popular during their successful run than the Perth Glory were in the NSL.

My argument is that the soccer lost its ethnic rooted soul in 2005 to create plastic franchises - you know like they did in Queensland for the ARL/NRL, and in doing so lost thousands of supporters who still follow the EPL and European leagues but dont give a stuff about the A-league.

 

[Pneuma]

Another drubbing for the dribbler.

 

[siv]

Doesn't change the fact a professional sporting club's primary reason for existing is to generate revenue from an active fanbase

No its not

Its to develop and play the sport in the local community

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

Just wondering if Logan Potato eats crayons .
To continually discount revenue to suit his agenda is laughable .
then claim if the clubs don’t give up pokie revenue they’re doomed.
It seems to have worked very well ( ethics aside) since the first pokie was in place at a club .
Yet apparently it’s DOOMED
DOOMED I tell ya.

 

[Pneuma]

Just wondering if Logan Potato eats crayons .

Not knowingly

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

What???

How else do you expect a professional sporting club to pay their players and staff?

Before television was a thing professional sporting clubs generated revenue primarily through gate receipts.

The Broncos make more money from sponsorship, corporate hospitality, ticketing and membership than they get from the annual grant. They're living proof that a large fanbase is more lucrative than relying on broadcasters.

Don't take my word for it. Go look at their annual reports in the thread I made about club revenue.

 

[Pneuma]

How else do you expect a professional sporting club to pay their players and staff?

Before television was a thing professional sporting clubs generated revenue primarily through gate receipts.

The Broncos make more money from sponsorship, corporate hospitality, ticketing and membership than they get from the annual grant. They're living proof that a large fanbase is more lucrative than relying on broadcasters.

Don't take my word for it. Go look at their annual reports in the thread I made about club revenue.

Potato

 

[Cheese sandwich]

Just wondering if Logan Potato eats crayons .
To continually discount revenue to suit his agenda is laughable .
then claim if the clubs don’t give up pokie revenue they’re doomed.
It seems to have worked very well ( ethics aside) since the first pokie was in place at a club .
Yet apparently it’s DOOMED
DOOMED I tell ya.

For a treat he can draw on the window in crayon before he licks it. Kills 2 birds with the 1 stone.

 

[AdelaideSharky]

hahahahahahaha the f**ken peanut is saying that A League and Australian Baseball league are better than NRL due to every Metro being covered.

Mid week Meth hit?

There's a reason we were told as kids not to touch drugs. GROTD makes Ben Cousins seem clean.

 

[AdelaideSharky]

How else do you expect a professional sporting club to pay their players and staff?

Before television was a thing professional sporting clubs generated revenue primarily through gate receipts.

The Broncos make more money from sponsorship, corporate hospitality, ticketing and membership than they get from the annual grant. They're living proof that a large fanbase is more lucrative than relying on broadcasters.

Don't take my word for it. Go look at their annual reports in the thread I made about club revenue.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

because its based on very limited data and limited questions. Theres literally no substance to it.

Do you read the shit you say?

You defend OzTam despite it having a representative sample of just 10k households across the country, yet you flat out reject the Gemba Report.

Do you know how Gemba conducted its data?

It's mentioned on p8 of their report on NRL expansion.

*Gemba measures passion on a five-point scale, with those scoring 4 or 5 out of 5 classified as being Fanatical about a particular sport ** Gemba defines casual fans of a sport as those who claim their interest in a sport or league as being 3 out of 5
Source: Gemba Insights Program 2021
​

Here's what Gemba says on their website.

Gemba’s industry-leading Insights Program is the largest of its kind anywhere in the world, delivering proprietary and customised market research across the sport and entertainment landscape.

From consumer passion to celebrity power, from grassroots participation to sponsor recognition, Gemba Insights asks the right questions to discover illuminating answers to help governments, sporting organisations and brands achieve real commercial and operational success.​

You don't have any reasonable excuse to trust OzTam's data over Gemba's research. You just don't want to admit that you're not as smart as you want everyone to think.

Im this puerile with people who spout false information to people who actually know better.

You've been exposed as a liar on this board by another member. When the evidence was collected and presented you got all pissy and obnoxious like a sullen teenager because you're too arrogant to admit when you're wrong.

And what "falsehoods" have I spread?

Your modus operandi is to shift the goalposts when you've been proven wrong. It's dishonest for you to sit there and claim the NRL needs nine small clubs in Sydney, despite some of them being unviable and reliant on the grant. When you're confronted with evidence of Sydney clubs fleecing the Broncos, Cowboys, Warriors, Crushers and Reds your response is a flippant "that's their right" and "get over it".

How about you take your own f**ken advice and get over the fact that not everyone wants the NRL to continue propping up nine small clubs while the rest of the country is either ignored or under-represented?

You have the audacity to say a real rugby league fan would support a system that favours Sydney RL to the detriment of the game in Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and New Zealand. Sydney has less than six million people whereas the other markets have a combined population of about 25 million.

What sort of idiot would ignore 25 million people just to cater for a market of 5 million that has never displayed consistently strong levels of support for its sporting events?

No one with a brain would place one notoriously apathetic market above five other markets.

The stupidity of your stance is there are no mainstream sporting leagues outside of Australia that use the ludicrous NRL model. If it was a winning formula it would be replicated elsewhere. Not even the AFL has followed the insular NRL model.

A simple google of my username will bring up my actual name - but if helps mate, its Jason Lassey. Would you like my tinder profile?

I don't give a f**k who you are.

Its still the standard used worldwide.

Gemba say their system is a worldwide leader in its field. We both know you're talking it down because you're biased.

The professional sporting clubs primary reason for existing isnt to generate revenue, its to win matches and premierships. Where the revenue comes from to support that goal is largely irrelevant.

If that were true then professional sporting clubs wouldn’t sack players over scandals that draw bad publicity to their brand. Think of the Israel Folau incident with the ARU. It f**ked the Wallabies' chances of being competitive yet they went through with it because their main sponsor was upset.

There's also proof that where the revenue comes from is highly relevant because it reflects on the brand of the sporting club. Netball Australia recently went to war with their main sponsor over comments that were made 40 years ago by a man who has been dead for 30 years.

Gaming machines and betting agencies cause a great of harm to society. Suicide, domestic violence, criminality, bankruptcy and the breakdown of families.

Is it a good look for clubs to make a fortune off an industy that's linked to social problems that it claims to be trying to resolve?

How can anyone take the Women in League Round and its campaign on depression and suicide seriously when much of its profits are derived from an industry that is linked to domestic violence and suicide?

There's also the matter of criminal organisations using pokies to launder dirty money.

God help a football club if its Leagues Club is linked to dirty money being laundered through its gaming machines by criminals.

Only if you exlude large parts of its revenue.

But I'm not excluding large parts of their revenue, am I?

If I was you would show just how much money they're making outside of football operations.

They'll be debt free and largely able to survive on revenues they already have or will generate from assets purchased with the sale proceeds.

One of their sources of revenue is an annual payment of $1.5m over 12 years that's tied to the payment they got for selling their stake in the Woolooware retail project. This is chump change compared to what the larger clubs make from football operations.

Sharks squandered about $10m on refurbishing their Leagues Club in Woolooware to include more pokies, despite investing in retail almost a decade earlier to reduce their reliance on gaming revenue!

So they lost land and relinquished their stake in the retail project that was meant to set them up for life, just to fall back on gaming machines!

You keep on ignoring the loomomg political fallout that's about to hit the gaming industry. Cashless cards with spending limits are the future and will lead to less money going through the pokies.

Once again, the grant is not entirely based on tv rights money, but a portion of all NRL commercial revenue.

The bulk of the NRL's revenue is sourced from broadcast rights.

Its money given to them by the NRL and its clubs anyway. Its not generated by them.

It's primarily generated by large clubs that draw good ratings and attendances.

Its a bloody realistic prospect. While the NRL has an obligation to the game, the clubs have an obligation to themselves - and the clubs by and large have shouldered the development responsibilities to date.

The clubs haven't fostered development out of kindness. They do it because they want to be in control of all aspects of the game. Shame Richardson tried to introduce a system that would take development out of the clubs' hands and help the game in rural NSW and save a lot of money. The clubs rejected it.

Maybe if i cared about internet grammar police i might.

Shoddy spelling and grammar is very unprofessional from some one who has just divulged their name and line of employment.

No. You are wrong. Its not that I dont know - its that I simply dont care about the BRL in the context of the discussion. Or your indifference to small Sydney clubs for that matter. I care about the fact that you are falsely calling them inviable, and cherry picking financial data that suits your argument while excluding large parts of the club revenues to derive a false narrative and bullshit conclusion.

None of what you said is true.

I challenge you to disprove any of the claims I made about the BRL and Sydney clubs.

I provided evidence to back up my claims. You're running away with your tail between your legs.

The Broncos draw more money from football operations than any either revenue stream. It proves a well run club with a large fanbase can make significantly more from football operations than non-football activities.

My argument is that the soccer lost its ethnic rooted soul in 2005 to create plastic franchises - you know like they did in Queensland for the ARL/NRL, and in doing so lost thousands of supporters who still follow the EPL and European leagues but dont give a stuff about the A-league.

And your argument is so stupid it makes me laugh. I went to a Catholic high school when the NSL was around. No one followed it. All of the kids who played soccer followed the EPL on Foxtel and spoke about it everyday. I was the only one who watched the NSL and I didn't even play soccer.

The ethnic-based clubs still exist at state level. They were removed from the national competition because they were a hindrance to the game's growth.

Soccer has never been stronger in Australia. We just had our best ever result at a world cup with a squad that has strong links with the A-League.

 

[Pneuma]

Do you read the shit you say?

You defend OzTam despite it having a representative sample of just 10k households across the country, yet you flat out reject the Gemba Report.

Do you know how Gemba conducted its data?

It's mentioned on p8 of their report on NRL expansion.

​

*Gemba measures passion on a five-point scale, with those scoring 4 or 5 out of 5 classified as being Fanatical about a particular sport ** Gemba defines casual fans of a sport as those who claim their interest in a sport or league as being 3 out of 5​

Source: Gemba Insights Program 2021​

​

Here's what Gemba says on their website.

Gemba’s industry-leading Insights Program is the largest of its kind anywhere in the world, delivering proprietary and customised market research across the sport and entertainment landscape.​

​

From consumer passion to celebrity power, from grassroots participation to sponsor recognition, Gemba Insights asks the right questions to discover illuminating answers to help governments, sporting organisations and brands achieve real commercial and operational success.​

You don't have any reasonable excuse to trust OzTam's data over Gemba's research. You just don't want to admit that you're not as smart as you want everyone to think.



You've been exposed as a liar on this board by another member. When the evidence was collected and presented you got all pissy and obnoxious like a sullen teenager because you're too arrogant to admit when you're wrong.

And what "falsehoods" have I spread?

Your modus operandi is to shift te goalposts when you've been proven wrong. It's dishonest for you to sit there and claim the NRL needs nine small clubs in Sydney, despite some of them being unviable and and reliant on the grant. When you're confronted with evidence of Sydney fleecing the Broncos, Cowboys, Warriors, Crushers and Reds your response is "get over it".

How about you take your own f**ken advice and get over the fact that not everyone wants the NRL to continue propping up nine small clubs while the rest of the country is either ignored or under-represented.

You have the audacity to say a real rugby league fan would support a system that favours Sydney to the detriment of Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and New Zealand. Sydney has less than six million people whereas the other markets have a combined population of about 25 million.

What sort of idiot would ignore 25 million people just to cater for a market of 5 million that has never displayed consistently strong levels of support for sporting events?

No one with a brain would place one notoriously apathetic market above five other markets.

The stupidity of your stance is there are no mainstream sporting leagues outside of Australia that use the ludicrous NRL model. There's a good reason no sport outside of Australia being stupid enough to follow the NRL's model. Not even the AFL has followed the NRL model.



I don't give a f**k who you are.



Gemba say their system is a worldwide leader in its field. We both knos you're talking it down because you're biased.



If that were true then professional sporting clubs wouldn’t sack players over scandals that draw bad publicity to their brand. Think of the Israel Folau incident with the ARU.

Where the revenue comes from is highly relevant because it reflects on the brand of the sporting club. Netball Australia recently went to war with their main sponsor over comments that were made 40 years ago by a man who has.been dead for 30 years.

Gaming machines and betting agencies cause a great of harm to society. Suicide, domestic violence, criminality, bankruptcy and the breakdown of families.

Is it a good look for clubs to make a fortune off an industy that's linked to social problems that it claims to be trying to resolve?

How can anyone take the Women in League Round and its campaign on depression and suicide seriously when much of its profits are derived from an industry that is linked to domestic violence and suicide?

There's also the matter of criminal organisations using pokies to launder dirty money.

God help a club if its Leagues Club is linked to dirty money being laundered through its gaming machines by criminals.



But I'm not excluding large parts of their revenue, am I?

If I was you would show just how much money they're making outside of football operations.



One of their sources of revenue is an annual payment of $1.5m over 12 years that's tied to the payment they got for selling their stake in the Woolooware retail project. This is chump change compared to what the larger clubs make from football operations.

They squandered about $10m on refurbishing their Leagues Club in Woolooware to include more pokies, despite investing in retail almost a decade earlier to reduce their reliance on gaming revenue!

So they lost land and relinquished their stake in the retail project that was meant to set them up for life, just to fall back on gaming machines.

You keep on ignoring the likelihood politics around gaming machines. Cashless cards with spending limits are the future and will lead to less money going through the pokies.



The bulk of the NRL's revenue is sourced from broadcast rights.



It's primarily generated by large clubs that draw good ratings and attendances.



The clubs haven't fostered development out of kindness. They do it because they want to be in control of all aspects of the game. Shame Richardson tried to introduce a system that would take development out of the clubs' hands and help the game in rural NSW. The clubs rejected it.



Shoddy spelling and grammar is very unprofessional from some one who has just divulged their name and line of employment.



None of what you said is true.

I challenge you to disprove any of the claims I made about the BRL and Sydney clubs.

The Broncos draw more money from football operations than any either revenue stream. It proves a well run club with a large fanbase can make significantly more from football operations than non-football activities like risky investing schemes such as real estate.



And your argument is so stupid it makes me laugh. I went to a Catholic high school when the NSL was around. No one followed it. All of the kids who lived soccer followed the EPL on Foxtel. I was the only one who watched the NSL and I didn't even play soccer.

The ethnic-based clubs still exist at state level. They were removed from the national competition because they were a hindrance to the game's growth.

Soccer has never been stronger in Australia. We just had our best ever result at a world cup with a squad that has strong links with the A-League.

Potato salad

 

[Pneuma]

Between the potato in Logan and the potato in Perth we have two of the biggest nobs ever to post on any forum in internet history.