No they are not. Not even close.Are you taking the piss? Seriously, one club having 100m does highlight the strength of the game. They are already a more sustainable business than the Suns and have not played one game at the top level
In terms of revenue, their leagues club actually has less than half the revenue of the Southport Sharks.
...which doesn't mean anything about the relative strength of the associated football clubs or codes, it just means the Sharks have a bigger Leagues club. It certaintly doesn't mean either would be sustainable in the NRL / AFL
So? AFL clubs need to be far bigger for a start - the Suns own revenues are probably ample to survive in the NRL with the normal club distribution - but ultimately the AFL can give bigger distributions to the Suns until kingdom come. I am not sure how it is relevant to any point you've tried to make thoughThe suns would die with out the AFL pumping huge money in.
Really? You thing I've created fake tables and made it look professional just to beat some anonymous clown whose only trick is doing laughing emojis on posters that are schooling them?You can post all the pictures you want to try and hammer home you point. Yet no link?
Anyway, here is the Ausplay power BI I was using
I chose 9 to 17 because I thought it was most relevant to the supply of future players. You can put your own selections in.....I'll even do it for you if you can't work it out for yourselfYou select an age and gender range to suit your argument.
The fact you think it would change anything just reveals how far out of your depth you are.