2017 Draw

Dip wrote:

Just going by social media. There are literally hundreds of posts/likes on Facebook posts saying they want some day and weekend games, and not one saying something along the lines of "how good are all these Thursday and Friday night games".

Plus, I haven't ever said that the club is disadvantaged by having these games, just that its what i think fans want (and what you asked me). I think that if I was the argumentative type.

Dip wrote:

Just going by social media. There are literally hundreds of posts/likes on Facebook posts saying they want some day and weekend games, and not one saying something along the lines of "how good are all these Thursday and Friday night games".

Plus, I haven't ever said that the club is disadvantaged by having these games, just that its what i think fans want (and what you asked me). I think that if I was the argumentative type, then while I don't personally think we're disadvantaged commercially, I do think it isn't as much as the critics think. Sure, sponsors get bigger exposure, and that's worth a lot, but the smaller crowds at particularly Thursday night games (last year clubs other than Broncos had home crowds down 26% from their season average on Thursday night matches), with most of the ticket sales going directly to the Broncos would be higher with more matches on the weekend. I have personally spoken to, and also considered myself, not becoming/renewing a member, or going to a package with less home games, than they would have if they knew they weren't always going to get Thursday and Friday home games.

Also, when you're talking about advantages, you need to compare it to how much better they get it above other teams in the competition. It is very clear that Channel 9 wouldn't pay as much for FTA rights as they would have if they didn't get scheduling rights. If scheduling rights were of no concern to them, then we wouldn't be having this discussion regarding scheduling in the first place. Of all the extra money generated with the FTA agreement, it goes to the NRL, and after they keep their share, the rest is then distributed via grants to the clubs. In other words, The Broncos get 1/16th of part of the FTA rights proceeds, which are significantly higher due the Brisbane Broncos more than any other club. You might not like to hear that, but if you think about it objectively, you can't come to any other conclusion.

Especially as someone who supports a club that in all likelihood now only exists because the NRL now has the financial resources to step in (as opposed to letting them die like the Jets, Rabbits, Seagulls, Rams, Magpies, Steelers etc at various times in the past), you really should be thankful to the Brisbane Broncos for not having to pick a new team to follow. Happy for you to continue to hate on them though. I've always been a big believer in "hate" in sport. Emotion is what makes the good times so enjoyable.

I guess it's human nature to always want to complain about a perceived unfairness, whether it really exists or not. Almost everybody does it (myself included). Of the top of my head I can think of people complaining about the following things whether or not they really exist or are an influence, and depending on which side of the fence you stand:
1. Broncos get too many Thursday and Friday games and that is unfair to the other teams
2. Broncos get too many Thursday and Friday games and that is unfair to the Broncos
3. Sydney teams don't travel
4. MRC is against us
5. Refs are against us
6. ____ has too many 5 day turnarounds
7. It's unfair during the rep season as we have to provide too many origin players
8. It's unfair during the rest of the season as they have too many origin players
9. ____ has to play a home city final not at their home ground

The list can go on and on.

As for Bennett and the thoroughbreds, when that has one bit of relevance to the player's salary cap, you might have an argument.

filthridden wrote:


I expect better from a star pupil.
See me after class.

flasSId* wrote:
plot for porn.

Honeysett wrote:Re the Bennett under the table payment, don't you think Bennett could dribble it down to some of the players? It's already dodgy paying him and keeping no record of it. Considering th  squads they've fielded in the past it's hard to imagine it's all above board.

Krump wrote:
You're clutching mate. It does seem unnecessary to pay him under the table if all is legit though.

Honeysett wrote:Seeing them go ten years without any success

ryno_ wrote:

Well... I get that you hate the Broncos, but dont stand there and lie to us.

Honeysett wrote:

Success in that context is a premiership. It's been ten years since you've won one. For a club considered a powerhouse and one that has a lot more positives than most clubs that should be the benchmark as well.

ryno_ wrote:

ITT: making the GF and losing in golden point is not, overall, a successful season. Making 2 prelim in 3 years is not, overall, successful.

Right.

ryno_ wrote:

ITT: making the GF and losing in golden point is not, overall, a successful season. Making 2 prelim in 3 years is not, overall, successful.

Right.

Honeysett wrote:

Are you suggested that making a final is good enough?

What's the goal of Rugby League? Win a premiership. If you're not winning premierships you've not having the ultimate success, of which everyone is measured.

Broncos are a club that should be winning more than they have been - shows how far they've fallen now that the competition is more equal in terms of salary cap. Also shows how even the competition is.

Also about the GF you were lucky to make it to golden point, the game plan in the last 20 minutes was shocking and the Cowboys should have scored a couple of times.

No Worries wrote:

Would you say the Roosters have been successful winning 3 J. J. Giltinan Shields on the trot ?

Dip wrote:

While the ultimate success is definately winning a premiership success, there are also other measures, such as making finals, and the week to week success that winning and competitiveness brings.

If you're saying that a premiership is the only success then you're saying that in the last 15 years we've only been as successful as say the Tigers, Knights, Dragons, Sharks, Panthers and Rabbitohs. Too me, if feels more like we've been more successful than that - kind of like the Dogs and Storm over the last decade and a half. Certainly, when I go to work on a Monday morning and someone asks about the football on the weekend, more often than not I have felt better than say Knights or Tigers supporters.

Have we won as many premiership as I think we could have, definately not. Doesn't mean it hasn't been a successful period. I think you believe that as well, you're just not willing to admit it. I mean, I could be wrong, but I think you were one of the people who thought the Storm weren't punished enough for cap rorts. If you think the only measure of success is premierships, and you take those away from them, by you're definition you've taken away all their success. Further penalties were then imposed, so I can't see how you can have it both ways.

Honeysett wrote:
However they had their premierships taken away and a huge fine, do they move on the players in lieu of the huge phone? That's another discussion.

dasherhalo wrote:

??
"

Honeysett wrote:

Are you suggested that making a final is good enough?

What's the goal of Rugby League? Win a premiership. If you're not winning premierships you've not having the ultimate success, of which everyone is measured.

Broncos are a club that should be winning more than they have been - shows how far they've fallen now that the competition is more equal in terms of salary cap. Also shows how even the competition is.

Also about the GF you were lucky to make it to golden point, the game plan in the last 20 minutes was shocking and the Cowboys should have scored a couple of times.