OFFICIAL A message for BroncosHQ from Billy Walters

Lockysillegitimatechild said:
Todd Carney for $35 is absolutely worth it for the banter with mates hahaha.. some of the flops for over $100 is crazy. Jason Clark for $7 is worth it just for the sheer cheapness haha
Click to expand...
Some more options on Cameo too

www.cameo.com

Cameo - NRL

NRL on Cameo! Cameo lets you book personalized videos from your favorite people.
www.cameo.com www.cameo.com
 
Cameo is legit some of the cringiest shit you're ever likely to see on the internet. It's got TikTok and Twitter handily beat. I mean....

1651676487718.png


Michael Jordan Reaction GIF
 
theshed said:
I just think that the appearance of an even comp is enough. I don’t buy into the full blown conspiracies, I just assume the NRL is poorly run and lazy and if you actually investigated all clubs and punished them accordingly it would be a constant interruption to the season.
Click to expand...
Hanlon's Razor
 
McHunt said:
They have incentives to expand the competition in a way that fans of every club can feel like they're not disadvantaged. Fans will always whinge and carry on about refs being biased and other conspiratorial tedious fleabrained shit, but fans of all clubs in all sports are like that. They always will be, and you can't do much about it. If you think Broncos fans are a whiny bunch of entitled *****, try the Warriors.
Click to expand...
That's not entirely true. They have a primary incentive to be financially successful. True fans will support a club regardless of their success. If a new team or struggling team is seen to have a financial benefit over a team that can be said to be financially secure, then the incentive would be to promote the struggling team to the detriment of the stable team. That's just business. Broncos went to shit, but they didn't lose money. Sharks nearly folded and suddenly got saved at the last minute by an angel investor (property developer mate of Scomo) and won a premiership.

It's just business. Enjoy it to watch, but don't think they're not being somewhat fucky with it.
 
Organix said:
That's not entirely true. They have a primary incentive to be financially successful. True fans will support a club regardless of their success. If a new team or struggling team is seen to have a financial benefit over a team that can be said to be financially secure, then the incentive would be to promote the struggling team to the detriment of the stable team. That's just business. Broncos went to shit, but they didn't lose money. Sharks nearly folded and suddenly got saved at the last minute by an angel investor (property developer mate of Scomo) and won a premiership.

It's just business. Enjoy it to watch, but don't think they're not being somewhat fucky with it.
Click to expand...
I guess that must be true at least somewhat but they still have to impose the same salary restrictions across the competition. The serial success of the Broncos and then the Storm does strain credibility though.
 
McHunt said:
I guess that must be true at least somewhat but they still have to impose the same salary restrictions across the competition. The serial success of the Broncos and then the Storm does strain credibility though.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Although the success of an NRL team in Brisbane is far different to that of a team in Melbourne. However, the revenue potential for both is quite high. Probably why there is/has been a push for more QLD/Brisbane teams as opposed to Victorian teams.
 
The thing that I find most sus is that areas "under threat" suddenly get the attention, be it from media personalities banging the "It's good for the game" BS like when Fifi went to GC or the evergreen Melbourne.

Years ago when the AFL started "attacking" western sydney with the Giants and now we've got Penrith as the NRL golden child.

Melbourne had massive investment and fluff pieces when they started out.

The tinfoil hat part of my brain thinks there's definitely something to the second Brisbane team stuff. There are times when I feel things seem far too "scripted".
 
Organix said:
That's not entirely true. They have a primary incentive to be financially successful. True fans will support a club regardless of their success. If a new team or struggling team is seen to have a financial benefit over a team that can be said to be financially secure, then the incentive would be to promote the struggling team to the detriment of the stable team. That's just business. Broncos went to shit, but they didn't lose money. Sharks nearly folded and suddenly got saved at the last minute by an angel investor (property developer mate of Scomo) and won a premiership.

It's just business. Enjoy it to watch, but don't think they're not being somewhat fucky with it.
Click to expand...
No, the Sharks weren't 'saved' by an angel investor !!! That's changing the facts to suit your narrative. The Sharks ALREADY OWNED a big parcel of land smack bang in the middle of the shire. They'd owned the land for decades but it wasn't for sale. It became extremely valuable over time as there's no land available any more in the area and certainly not on that scale. It was a saleable asset, an extremely lucrative asset and when the Sharks NEEDED to sell to stay afloat they were inundated with big offers of cash from developers.

The Sharks always had that asset and always owned their own grounds plus the adjoining extremely valuable land. When the Sharks bought that land it was relatively cheap but over time it became worth a fortune. They were never going broke as such but were cash poor.

You'll need to think of another conspiracy.
 
Skathen said:
The thing that I find most sus is that areas "under threat" suddenly get the attention, be it from media personalities banging the "It's good for the game" BS like when Fifi went to GC or the evergreen Melbourne.

Years ago when the AFL started "attacking" western sydney with the Giants and now we've got Penrith as the NRL golden child.

Melbourne had massive investment and fluff pieces when they started out.

The tinfoil hat part of my brain thinks there's definitely something to the second Brisbane team stuff. There are times when I feel things seem far too "scripted".
Click to expand...

Let me just point you in the direction of Issue 2 of the NSWRL Digest.
 
Huge said:
No, the Sharks weren't 'saved' by an angel investor !!! That's changing the facts to suit your narrative. The Sharks ALREADY OWNED a big parcel of land smack bang in the middle of the shire. They'd owned the land for decades but it wasn't for sale. It became extremely valuable over time as there's no land available any more in the area and certainly not on that scale. It was a saleable asset, an extremely lucrative asset and when the Sharks NEEDED to sell to stay afloat they were inundated with big offers of cash from developers.

The Sharks always had that asset and always owned their own grounds plus the adjoining extremely valuable land. When the Sharks bought that land it was relatively cheap but over time it became worth a fortune. They were never going broke as such but were cash poor.

You'll need to think of another conspiracy.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, you are correct. It was all just a lot of money at once. They were going to receive $16m from state and federal governments as well, if I remember correctly. They were about to be booted from the league and then had a lot of cash pretty quickly and were basically buying their way back in. Selling land, but also gaining a lot in the process.

I dunno, having Scott Morrison as the Treasurer and responsible for Sports Rorts during that time doesn't help.

I think having a single year in which they were not cheating, that simultaneously was the year they won a premiership simply fueled my suspicions in other dealings around that time.

That and the drug cheating and limited suspensions for such.
 
Also, before becoming NRL chief. V'Landys also had a hand in keeping the sharks in the league/cronulla. This was even after winning a premiership. Anyways, my original point wasn't about a Sharks conspiracy, but rather about financial viability in clubs leading to focused interest in their success. Melbourne was never going to be successful if they weren't winning. AFL is just far more popular.

Even now I wonder if Storm were losing, would they survive or make money in Australia's sporting capital? Meanwhile, Broncos go to shit and still make profit while a second team is primed to enter a market where NRL is very popular. If Broncos were successful, however, would their entry into the league be met with a lot of fans willing to change allegiance?

It's simply a business matter in the end, and that was my point in highlighting Cronulla. There is a market there, and a lot of investment into their success (specifically a large property development directly adjacent to their field).
 
Organix said:
Also, before becoming NRL chief. V'Landys also had a hand in keeping the sharks in the league/cronulla. This was even after winning a premiership. Anyways, my original point wasn't about a Sharks conspiracy, but rather about financial viability in clubs leading to focused interest in their success. Melbourne was never going to be successful if they weren't winning. AFL is just far more popular.

Even now I wonder if Storm were losing, would they survive or make money in Australia's sporting capital? Meanwhile, Broncos go to shit and still make profit while a second team is primed to enter a market where NRL is very popular. If Broncos were successful, however, would their entry into the league be met with a lot of fans willing to change allegiance?

It's simply a business matter in the end, and that was my point in highlighting Cronulla. There is a market there, and a lot of investment into their success (specifically a large property development directly adjacent to their field).
Click to expand...
All fair enough but sometimes things are simply as they appear. It's become the norm to see everything as highly suspicious and nefarious but truthfully Cronulla had been pressured on many occasions to sell off the land they'd bought decades earlier. I think it became the plan to eventually sell at a pace which suited Cronulla but I believe financial circumstances forced them to enter into deals or a deal earlier than planned or was desirable.

People had this idea that Cronulla was broke but it was never the case rather they were asset rich and cash flow troubled. Another thing people thought was that Cronulla was on the brink and uninformed numpties on here suggested they be sent to anywhere, somewhere else. They were in fact very well placed and were never under real threat of relocation, not while they had millions upon millions of dollars in real assets. I tried to explain that too in the past.

The drug saga is often portrayed as though Cronulla had been building superhumans ( Rocky4 style) but it was hardly that. What they were fed was scientific sounding snake oil and it was about speeding up recovery time and not about building steroidal monsters to steal premierships or win competitions like the Chinese and Russians did at the Olympics. From what I remember it was only a six week course that was halted before it was even discovered.

I hardly think it had any bearing on a premiership 5 years later. As for the cap I don't know much about it but if it could have been challenged by other clubs I'm sure it would have been. How much were they over? I know we've been over in the past as has plenty of other clubs but whatever Cronulla did it wasn't in the same bracket as Melbourne's cheating.
 
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 941
1:35:47
NRL Round 16, 2001 - Brisbane Broncos vs Parramatta Eels
View full media list »

Active Now

Total: 198 (members: 8, guests: 190)
Robots: 754
Back
Top