 |
| 
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 77 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jan 2013 | 12 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2015 | Nov 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
You can't help but think that the Doctor should consider becoming competitive with London Broncos a more pressing matter than worrying about Melbourne Storm?
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1871 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2010 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2017 | Mar 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="DaveO"It is exactly what you are saying. If a sponsorship deal worth £38m a year is only really worth £1m a year to the clubs given there are 12 clubs in the RU premiership £26m has just vanished. Thus is a ludicrous position on your part. You also have nothing to back this up. It is just opinion. '"
Sorry I gave you far too much credit when I asked if you were being obtuse, you obviously don’t have the intelligence to be. If you can’t even understand why what you have wrote in reply is so foolish then I am not going to pretty much repeat myself for nothing, you may as well read what you are quoting again and try to understand, maybe get your son to help you. Where have I said £26m has disappeared? Do you not currently think that Rugby Union clubs get TV revenue? Can you really not see, or understand, that any increase in money from a new TV deal is just an increase on what they got in the old deal and is not all just new money?
Quote ="DaveO"It's £38 million a year that if going to give them a 50% increase on TV revenue over and above their current Sky deal. They ere going to use it to increase their salary cap. Do you deny that fact?'"
For some reason you do seem rather hung up on this 50% figure which in isolation is rather meaningless. If you read your first sentence again you may understand why your post previously was so stupid. I don’t know what they are going to do, maybe they are just going to use it to reduce their already vast losses so that the sugar daddies dont need to plough quite as much money in.
Quote ="DaveO"Trying to suggest McCafferty is spinning it is not an argument. It's just another unsubstantiated opinion of yours.
Based on what you have read there is an awful lot of PR spin [uin your opinion[/u is what you meant to say surely. '"
Of course the head of Premiership Rugby union is never going to spin a hugely unpopular deal that hasn’t got RFU approval, ERC approval or approval from the Welsh, Scottish, Irish, French or Italians. He is certainly not going to make it sound attractive as possible to get these nations on board and not have to lose over a 1/3 of the £152m which is for the European element of this deal.
Quote ="DaveO"I simply used the only figures you gave and so you know exactly what I did. The debt is more than covered by the revenue from the TV deal and you are ignoring other sources of revenue such as from the RFU itself.'"
I suggest you learn to read a little better. I gave you a breakdown club by club of profits and losses which showed exactly what each club made or lost. By saying that 7 clubs lost more than £1.5 million I was trying to make it as simple as possible for you to understand and to illustrate that clubs getting an extra £1 million will mean they will still lose money. Seems this wasnt simple enough for you though. Also the debt is not covered by the extra TV revenue as I have shown.
Quote ="DaveO"[codehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/wales/9735565/The-future-of-Welsh-rugby-union-is-at-stake-as-the-Heineken-Cup-falls-flat.html[/code
This is a deal for Premiership clubs. I should imagine the Scots clubs are pretty broke as well. So what?
It is only in your mind its worth a mere £1m per club. All you have done is try to construct a scenario that fits in with the conclusion you want to draw. It's all McCafferty spin if it is too inconvenient for your position is your latest tack. ?'"
Is this for real? If you bothered to read the article that I gave you, and which you quote above it says, “English clubs expect to get roughly £1 million more per club as part of their £152 million deal with BT Vision.” Here is a different link for you, that shows they expect to get £1 million more per club, as you struggled to read and understand that one:
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19585839
As for the rest of your post when I read nonsense like that it is obvious you are just being pedantic and arguing for arguments sake, with absolutely no basis. Your waffle about the Football Championship is a prime example of that. Turnover, wages, attendences, facilities, TV revenue are all far higher in the Football Championship so what are you even arguing about here. You dont even provide a counter argument apart from its an ambition. Well its my ambition to be a multi billionaire but just because my pay went up a little last year it doesnt mean its going to happen.
I dont really care if you believe what I have said or not, I am just stating facts and figures, which are fairly easy to interpret and my arguments are based on this. You have links to what the deal is worth per club and you have links to profits and losses of all clubs of all Premiership Rugby Union clubs. In the one link you have posted there is absolutely nothing that suggests that RU clubs will no longer be dependant on sugar daddies or match Championship Footballs wages. You can say TV revenue is going up 50% until the cows come home, or alternative true statements like the sky is blue, which may also be correct, but it has absolutely no relevance to backing up your claims. |
|
Quote ="DaveO"It is exactly what you are saying. If a sponsorship deal worth £38m a year is only really worth £1m a year to the clubs given there are 12 clubs in the RU premiership £26m has just vanished. Thus is a ludicrous position on your part. You also have nothing to back this up. It is just opinion. '"
Sorry I gave you far too much credit when I asked if you were being obtuse, you obviously don’t have the intelligence to be. If you can’t even understand why what you have wrote in reply is so foolish then I am not going to pretty much repeat myself for nothing, you may as well read what you are quoting again and try to understand, maybe get your son to help you. Where have I said £26m has disappeared? Do you not currently think that Rugby Union clubs get TV revenue? Can you really not see, or understand, that any increase in money from a new TV deal is just an increase on what they got in the old deal and is not all just new money?
Quote ="DaveO"It's £38 million a year that if going to give them a 50% increase on TV revenue over and above their current Sky deal. They ere going to use it to increase their salary cap. Do you deny that fact?'"
For some reason you do seem rather hung up on this 50% figure which in isolation is rather meaningless. If you read your first sentence again you may understand why your post previously was so stupid. I don’t know what they are going to do, maybe they are just going to use it to reduce their already vast losses so that the sugar daddies dont need to plough quite as much money in.
Quote ="DaveO"Trying to suggest McCafferty is spinning it is not an argument. It's just another unsubstantiated opinion of yours.
Based on what you have read there is an awful lot of PR spin [uin your opinion[/u is what you meant to say surely. '"
Of course the head of Premiership Rugby union is never going to spin a hugely unpopular deal that hasn’t got RFU approval, ERC approval or approval from the Welsh, Scottish, Irish, French or Italians. He is certainly not going to make it sound attractive as possible to get these nations on board and not have to lose over a 1/3 of the £152m which is for the European element of this deal.
Quote ="DaveO"I simply used the only figures you gave and so you know exactly what I did. The debt is more than covered by the revenue from the TV deal and you are ignoring other sources of revenue such as from the RFU itself.'"
I suggest you learn to read a little better. I gave you a breakdown club by club of profits and losses which showed exactly what each club made or lost. By saying that 7 clubs lost more than £1.5 million I was trying to make it as simple as possible for you to understand and to illustrate that clubs getting an extra £1 million will mean they will still lose money. Seems this wasnt simple enough for you though. Also the debt is not covered by the extra TV revenue as I have shown.
Quote ="DaveO"[codehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/wales/9735565/The-future-of-Welsh-rugby-union-is-at-stake-as-the-Heineken-Cup-falls-flat.html[/code
This is a deal for Premiership clubs. I should imagine the Scots clubs are pretty broke as well. So what?
It is only in your mind its worth a mere £1m per club. All you have done is try to construct a scenario that fits in with the conclusion you want to draw. It's all McCafferty spin if it is too inconvenient for your position is your latest tack. ?'"
Is this for real? If you bothered to read the article that I gave you, and which you quote above it says, “English clubs expect to get roughly £1 million more per club as part of their £152 million deal with BT Vision.” Here is a different link for you, that shows they expect to get £1 million more per club, as you struggled to read and understand that one:
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19585839
As for the rest of your post when I read nonsense like that it is obvious you are just being pedantic and arguing for arguments sake, with absolutely no basis. Your waffle about the Football Championship is a prime example of that. Turnover, wages, attendences, facilities, TV revenue are all far higher in the Football Championship so what are you even arguing about here. You dont even provide a counter argument apart from its an ambition. Well its my ambition to be a multi billionaire but just because my pay went up a little last year it doesnt mean its going to happen.
I dont really care if you believe what I have said or not, I am just stating facts and figures, which are fairly easy to interpret and my arguments are based on this. You have links to what the deal is worth per club and you have links to profits and losses of all clubs of all Premiership Rugby Union clubs. In the one link you have posted there is absolutely nothing that suggests that RU clubs will no longer be dependant on sugar daddies or match Championship Footballs wages. You can say TV revenue is going up 50% until the cows come home, or alternative true statements like the sky is blue, which may also be correct, but it has absolutely no relevance to backing up your claims. | |
|
| | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Moderator | 14395 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2024 | May 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
Moderator
|
|
Quote ="Famous"Sorry I gave you far too much credit when I asked if you were being obtuse, you obviously don’t have the intelligence to be. If you can’t even understand why what you have wrote in reply is so foolish then I am not going to pretty much repeat myself for nothing, you may as well read what you are quoting again and try to understand, maybe get your son to help you. Where have I said £26m has disappeared? Do you not currently think that Rugby Union clubs get TV revenue? Can you really not see, or understand, that any increase in money from a new TV deal is just an increase on what they got in the old deal and is not all just new money? '"
Of course they get TV revenue. A lot of it. They now get even more. That is why they moved from Sky to BT.
Quote For some reason you do seem rather hung up on this 50% figure which in isolation is rather meaningless. If you read your first sentence again you may understand why your post previously was so stupid. I don’t know what they are going to do, maybe they are just going to use it to reduce their already vast losses so that the sugar daddies dont need to plough quite as much money in.'"
Well at least you are now acknowledging they are getting more money not from the sugar daddy route. Their salary cap is currently £4.5m. The TV deal is worth £38m a year. Divided by 12 that is £3m a year so £1.5m to find. They also get about £730K from the RFU per season. So that leaves £770K to find which is bugger all given sponsorships, prize money, gate receipts merchandise and so on. Far less than what Wigan has to find off its own bat for example to fund our much smaller cap and run the club.
Quote I suggest you learn to read a little better. I gave you a breakdown club by club of profits and losses which showed exactly what each club made or lost. By saying that 7 clubs lost more than £1.5 million I was trying to make it as simple as possible for you to understand and to illustrate that clubs getting an extra £1 million will mean they will still lose money. Seems this wasnt simple enough for you though. Also the debt is not covered by the extra TV revenue as I have shown.
'"
See above. You make it sound as if this their only income which it if course is not. In a previous post I said this (which is what you disagreed with):
"In RU the deal with BT Vision to take the sport away from Sky is what is funding their ambition to pay players more money. They want to pay the level of soccers fist division clubs to attract the talent but the key point is they are getting the money into the sport in general and dividing it up. Not relying on sugar daddies to provide the cash. "
All that is perfectly true. It IS their [iambition[/i to pay players more money aiming to[i towards[/i soccer first division and they ARE getting more money into the sport to divide up and this money is NOT reliant on sugar daddies as it is coming from the increased TV revenue.
Quote Is this for real? If you bothered to read the article that I gave you, and which you quote above it says, “English clubs expect to get roughly £1 million more per club as part of their £152 million deal with BT Vision.” Here is a different link for you, that shows they expect to get £1 million more per club, as you struggled to read and understand that one:
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19585839'"
It doesn't matter how much more they are getting, the net amount is what matters and where it is all coming from. It's clear they are getting a shed load off BT and a hand out off the RFU similar in amount to what we get off Sky.
Quote As for the rest of your post when I read nonsense like that it is obvious you are just being pedantic and arguing for arguments sake, with absolutely no basis. Your waffle about the Football Championship is a prime example of that. Turnover, wages, attendences, facilities, TV revenue are all far higher in the Football Championship so what are you even arguing about here. You dont even provide a counter argument [uapart from its an ambition[/u. Well its my ambition to be a multi billionaire but just because my pay went up a little last year it doesnt mean its going to happen.'"
Given all I ever said it was it was their stated [uambition[/u what on earth do I have to counter? I never said it was anything else [iother[/i than an ambition. So if there is any waffle here its from you arguing as if [iI[/i had said something completely different.
Quote I dont really care if you believe what I have said or not, I am just stating facts and figures, which are fairly easy to interpret and my arguments are based on this. You have links to what the deal is worth per club and you have links to profits and losses of all clubs of all Premiership Rugby Union clubs. In the one link you have posted there is absolutely nothing that suggests that RU clubs will no longer be dependant on sugar daddies or match Championship Footballs wages. You can say TV revenue is going up 50% until the cows come home, or alternative true statements like the sky is blue, which may also be correct, but it has absolutely no relevance to backing up your claims.'"
I never said it would allow them to match championship wages and the quotes in the links do not say that either. "Our aim has for a long time been to put ourselves on a par with football's [second tier Championship [uand we are well on our way[/u". Does not mean they are about to match championship wages and I never said it would. So it's no use arguing I did.
What I also said ages ago was this in relation to the whole thing:
"It doesn't really matter though from an RL point of view. The fact remains in order to compete with RU and NRL salary caps RL needs to find a lot of cash from outside the sport because RL's sugar daddies are not going to bankroll the sport to the required extent. You can seek crumbs of comfort on RU clubs balance sheets if you want but they aren't going away."
And that remains the case. |
|
Quote ="Famous"Sorry I gave you far too much credit when I asked if you were being obtuse, you obviously don’t have the intelligence to be. If you can’t even understand why what you have wrote in reply is so foolish then I am not going to pretty much repeat myself for nothing, you may as well read what you are quoting again and try to understand, maybe get your son to help you. Where have I said £26m has disappeared? Do you not currently think that Rugby Union clubs get TV revenue? Can you really not see, or understand, that any increase in money from a new TV deal is just an increase on what they got in the old deal and is not all just new money? '"
Of course they get TV revenue. A lot of it. They now get even more. That is why they moved from Sky to BT.
Quote For some reason you do seem rather hung up on this 50% figure which in isolation is rather meaningless. If you read your first sentence again you may understand why your post previously was so stupid. I don’t know what they are going to do, maybe they are just going to use it to reduce their already vast losses so that the sugar daddies dont need to plough quite as much money in.'"
Well at least you are now acknowledging they are getting more money not from the sugar daddy route. Their salary cap is currently £4.5m. The TV deal is worth £38m a year. Divided by 12 that is £3m a year so £1.5m to find. They also get about £730K from the RFU per season. So that leaves £770K to find which is bugger all given sponsorships, prize money, gate receipts merchandise and so on. Far less than what Wigan has to find off its own bat for example to fund our much smaller cap and run the club.
Quote I suggest you learn to read a little better. I gave you a breakdown club by club of profits and losses which showed exactly what each club made or lost. By saying that 7 clubs lost more than £1.5 million I was trying to make it as simple as possible for you to understand and to illustrate that clubs getting an extra £1 million will mean they will still lose money. Seems this wasnt simple enough for you though. Also the debt is not covered by the extra TV revenue as I have shown.
'"
See above. You make it sound as if this their only income which it if course is not. In a previous post I said this (which is what you disagreed with):
"In RU the deal with BT Vision to take the sport away from Sky is what is funding their ambition to pay players more money. They want to pay the level of soccers fist division clubs to attract the talent but the key point is they are getting the money into the sport in general and dividing it up. Not relying on sugar daddies to provide the cash. "
All that is perfectly true. It IS their [iambition[/i to pay players more money aiming to[i towards[/i soccer first division and they ARE getting more money into the sport to divide up and this money is NOT reliant on sugar daddies as it is coming from the increased TV revenue.
Quote Is this for real? If you bothered to read the article that I gave you, and which you quote above it says, “English clubs expect to get roughly £1 million more per club as part of their £152 million deal with BT Vision.” Here is a different link for you, that shows they expect to get £1 million more per club, as you struggled to read and understand that one:
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19585839'"
It doesn't matter how much more they are getting, the net amount is what matters and where it is all coming from. It's clear they are getting a shed load off BT and a hand out off the RFU similar in amount to what we get off Sky.
Quote As for the rest of your post when I read nonsense like that it is obvious you are just being pedantic and arguing for arguments sake, with absolutely no basis. Your waffle about the Football Championship is a prime example of that. Turnover, wages, attendences, facilities, TV revenue are all far higher in the Football Championship so what are you even arguing about here. You dont even provide a counter argument [uapart from its an ambition[/u. Well its my ambition to be a multi billionaire but just because my pay went up a little last year it doesnt mean its going to happen.'"
Given all I ever said it was it was their stated [uambition[/u what on earth do I have to counter? I never said it was anything else [iother[/i than an ambition. So if there is any waffle here its from you arguing as if [iI[/i had said something completely different.
Quote I dont really care if you believe what I have said or not, I am just stating facts and figures, which are fairly easy to interpret and my arguments are based on this. You have links to what the deal is worth per club and you have links to profits and losses of all clubs of all Premiership Rugby Union clubs. In the one link you have posted there is absolutely nothing that suggests that RU clubs will no longer be dependant on sugar daddies or match Championship Footballs wages. You can say TV revenue is going up 50% until the cows come home, or alternative true statements like the sky is blue, which may also be correct, but it has absolutely no relevance to backing up your claims.'"
I never said it would allow them to match championship wages and the quotes in the links do not say that either. "Our aim has for a long time been to put ourselves on a par with football's [second tier Championship [uand we are well on our way[/u". Does not mean they are about to match championship wages and I never said it would. So it's no use arguing I did.
What I also said ages ago was this in relation to the whole thing:
"It doesn't really matter though from an RL point of view. The fact remains in order to compete with RU and NRL salary caps RL needs to find a lot of cash from outside the sport because RL's sugar daddies are not going to bankroll the sport to the required extent. You can seek crumbs of comfort on RU clubs balance sheets if you want but they aren't going away."
And that remains the case. | |
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1871 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2010 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2017 | Mar 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="DaveO"Snip'"
I was going to pull this to pieces, as I have with all of your replies, but to be honest Right DaveO enough is enough, you are boring me now and I am not going to go round in circles anymore because the one thing I have learned on these forums is that DaveO always has to have the last word and will never admit he is wrong. I really do have better things to do than argue with a clueless fool who just argues for arguments sake, based on their own opinion, with no facts or figures to back them up. I have provided facts and figures why RU clubs will still be reliant on sugar daddies with this new TV deal, even if the salary cap remains the same never mind if it increases. I have educated you about the BT Vision deal, which you seemed to know nothing about, for example you didn’t even know the correct length of it and what it consisted of, and said why this deal is not as attractive or popular as you seem to think. I have also shown why Premiership RU is nowhere near Championship Football. In reply you have shown an alarming grasp of professional sport, finance, mathematics and I really hope you don’t look after the money in your household.
Your latest response consists of yet more drivel and instead of just admitting you were wrong and acknowledging how stupid some of your posts have been you are now trying to change the argument and throw different things into the mix. Some of your replies are also trying to wash over some of the drivel you have wrote over the last 2 pages. You have consistently ignored points that disprove you and jump on minor points that you think you have some semblance of an argument on in an effort to try and detract from your more stupid arguments of yours that I have disproved. You have shown a complete lack of understanding on this thread of most of the points made and have been proved wrong time again with facts and links and any right minded person will read the last few pages and just think you are more than just a little foolish. You have your opinion but on every post I have ever read from you you just keep repeating the same garbage ad nueseam, no matter what evidence or facts that people show, and try to dress it up like it is based on some sort of fact and I have yet to see you acknowledge you were wrong. When presented with facts you argue by comparing apples and oranges and come back with things that have absolutely nothing to do with the points being made. There is no point wasting time arguing with people like that and I would prefer a proper debate with someone with a little more intellect to be honest. I have to say though you have amused me with your complete lack of understanding and failure to read simple links, facts and articles properly but it is just all too easy and is a little like shooting fish in a barrel. You aren’t related to comical Ali are you? The head in the sand approach in spouting the same garbage despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is remarkably similar. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 1661 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2003 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2018 | Oct 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Waiting for the reply is a bit like waiting for the white smoke from the vatican.
| | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 15800 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Dec 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Im waiting for the 'quotathon' reply from DaveO.....
| | | |
| |
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2025 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
|
|
