I pointed out the difference in the start up circumstances of the two. What you infer from that may differ, but that's the basis of my argument. Arguing semantics on terms like bailout and assistance as well as providers may help you believe differently, but it doesn't change it.
Argue what you want, the Swans were put into Sydney without a brass razoo and ignored for a decade before attempts to merge or kill them off were made but failed. Melbourne came into the comp with guarantees of their future and the League backer pumping millions of dollars into them. Regardless of how you want to argue who paid what when and what constitutes assistance and bailouts, there is no way you could claim that Melbourne's early years are even close to Sydney's.
How many million a year?
No. Do you seriously believe that? What draft concessions did Sydney get that allowed them to win the 2005 flag?
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Because no other club was losing players at the rate Sydney and Brisbane were when it was brought in..
As above, it's not mutuall exclusive.
Having their entire existence underwritten. I ask you again. What assistance did the Swans receive in the period of 82-92?
oh dear
