gingerjon

There has been a lot of gasping but a moneyed up footballer being offensive because of an issue with a taxi also has a long tradition over here. Unfortunately, it will now be unresolved for at least a year because of the now-standard delays with the UK court system.

Not really, I guess. So I'll repeat mine: there is money. You don't just invest in transport but you absolutely do need to do that. We agree. But you do also need to invest in massive, vanity project stadiums - not overpay for them in full and fleece the taxpayer for years as per America and the Olympics - and things like massive, vanity project stadiums. The Etihad is getting on for a quarter of a century old. The northwest needs investment. Why not Old Trafford?

The government chose not to afford HS2.

Assuming you mean in the US then my money would be on neither of us. V’landys, rightly, is focused only on Australia.

All the sights ... Aberavon, Bridgend, Bermondsey ... It's a fair point though.

I believe I am right in saying that the only Australian sport covered live by a major US network (Fox Sports 1) next weekend, and every weekend thereafter for the season, is aussie rules. So quite where any momentum from this event is meant to go - in a US sense - is meant to go, I have no idea.

Only one? Where's your ambition?

Except when it's yoghurt.

I have no idea how that line gets passed an editor to be honest. Just really grim.

Fields did pretty well considering the absolute garbage he's working with most of the time. But it is not the Bears way to address that.

Fools and their money ...

It doesn't just need to be football matches. Don't think a major new venue could tempt the NFL - especially if a new ground got some decent infrastructure as part of the development - for example?

You have done an excellent job choosing your words there. It was, I agree, a superb Australian event and a success in and for Australia and Australian rugby league. Whether it has succeeded on terms other than that is unknown but unlikely. And that success is, I agree, absolutely not to be sneezed at.

No problem with that, and good they declared it. But it means I'll not be believing a single word they say on whether the event worked, succeeded (etc).

Yes. I post it here for whimsy. How much changed, how much stayed the same, that sort of thing ...

I did find this, mind https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-32214250

That's a news story - the graphic gives it away albeit discreetly - that has been shunted there automatically. I did think I saw them put an explainer about why the NRL was kicking off in Vegas but can't see it now.

First, a disclaimer: I travelled to Vegas as a guest of the NRL, along with executives from other media companies. Yup. Most of the media coverage reflects this.

Most of Branson's ventures lose spectacular amounts of money - his most valuable asset being the ability to licence the word 'Virgin' to mugs. So that's not a bad a comparison.

All in probably around three hours to three and a half. Those who go seem to also value the wrap around stuff like tailgate parties etc which will add on another couple of hours.

Odd that the NRL said that's how much it was going to cost them, then.

The new NRL fans don't currently have a TV station to watch the sport on.

For all the bluster about breaking America - and it is bluster - this, to me, shows the real positive. Boosting an already insanely popular and visible sport in Australia even further.

Because double headers are a terrible idea and triple headers worse.

So, remind me again, in detail, how much money is available to the NRL via this market, and how they are now accessing this money? Remember that this - to repeat: excellent multi day event - cost them $10m.