'13 | R4 | Easter Sun | Knights 28-12 Raiders | Hunter

[Walt Flanigan]

So the Knights won a comp with half the teams in it? Immortalise the lot of them.

There's not many who consider it a genuine premiership. But with the Knights history I guess you have to take what you can get.

 

[9701]

So the Knights won a comp with half the teams in it? Immortalise the lot of them.

There's not many who consider it a genuine premiership. But with the Knights history I guess you have to take what you can get.

Another mental Giant since when is 12 half of the teams?

so We beat 11 teams and Canberra couldn't win a comp with only 10 teams, guess we win that argument to.

The FACT remains that the NRL recognises the Knights as the 1997 Premiers and that premiership stands.

Why does this make you so upset?

 

[bileduct]

At the end of the day yes your team has had some bad ref decisions but so has EVERY team in the comp, you just seem to want to use them to justify how poorly your team played, as they were beaten by a team that had its 4th and 5th string centres playing and lost its captain for half a game.

In reality the KNights played a better game then the Raiders on that paticular day.

And funnily enough, that has never been in dispute. Look at my comment after the game, I said we lost it because we were inept, not because of refereeing decisions.

The fact of the matter is, however, that two referees have been dropped because of a litany of refereeing errors and Raiders fans have every justification to be pissed off about that. Which we are. I posted the article about refs being dropped and suddenly a bunch of Knights dickheads want to still claim that Buderus didn't shoulder charge Ferguson and that refereeing decisions had no impact on the game. But they did impact the game. They were decisions that kept us in our half for an extended period of time that the Knights scored off the back of, and we lost a player after being taken out in the air when we were penalised just the week before for accidental contact of a player that was jumping for the ball.

You say it happens to every team, and yes it does. But some teams are constantly refereed more poorly than others. Check out InsanneInk's comments in our forum, he's no Raiders fan by any stretch of the imagination and even he is convinced that the Raiders cop a raw deal more often than most.

 

[bileduct]

Beside each of them is an # and at the bottom of the page the explanation is
# The Storm stripped of 2007 and 2009 Premierships due to salary cap breaches

Logic isn't one of your strong points is it?

There's an asterisk next to the Broncos in 1997. Maybe you could explain to us what that means?

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Another mental Giant since when is 12 half of the teams?

so We beat 11 teams and Canberra couldn't win a comp with only 10 teams, guess we win that argument to.

The FACT remains that the NRL recognises the Knights as the 1997 Premiers and that premiership stands.

Why does this make you so upset?

lol upset? Maybe you should take a look back at your posts defending your Claytons Premiership. We can all see who is touchy on the issue.

So you won a comp with 12 teams in it? Immortalise the lot of them :lol:

 

[9701]

And funnily enough, that has never been in dispute. Look at my comment after the game, I said we lost it because we were inept, not because of refereeing decisions.

The fact of the matter is, however, that two referees have been dropped because of a litany of refereeing errors and Raiders fans have every justification to be pissed off about that. Which we are. I posted the article about refs being dropped and suddenly a bunch of Knights dickheads want to still claim that Buderus didn't shoulder charge Ferguson and that refereeing decisions had no impact on the game. But they did impact the game. They were decisions that kept us in our half for an extended period of time that the Knights scored off the back of, and we lost a player after being taken out in the air when we were penalised just the week before for accidental contact of a player that was jumping for the ball.

You say it happens to every team, and yes it does. But some teams are constantly refereed more poorly than others. Check out InsanneInk's comments in our forum, he's no Raiders fan by any stretch of the imagination and even he is convinced that the Raiders cop a raw deal more often than most.

None of that explains your narrow minded logic about a premiership in 1997.

 

[9701]

lol upset? Maybe you should take a look back at your posts defending your Claytons Premiership. We can all see who is touchy on the issue.

So you won a comp with 12 teams in it? Immortalise the lot of them :lol:

Not touchy about it at all I just enjoy pointing out simple minded people that argue with FACT. It is right there in black and white on the NRL's own website yet you and several others say it never happened.

 

[9701]

There's an asterisk next to the Broncos in 1997. Maybe you could explain to us what that means?

Again at the bottom of the page it clearly tells you what it means, you aren't very good at this reading and understanding thing are you?

 

[bileduct]

Again at the bottom of the page it clearly tells you what it means, you aren't very good at this reading and understanding thing are you?

Apparently not.

So what does the asterisk mean?

 

[bileduct]

None of that explains your narrow minded logic about a premiership in 1997.

Ok, fair enough.

1.5 premierships.

Are you happy now?

 

[9701]

Apparently not.

So what does the asterisk mean?

It is there to be read if you can't do that have someone read it for you I am busy atm time for some work. If you can't decipher what it says send me a pm and when I am finished I will explain it to you.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Not touchy about it at allI just enjoy pointing out simple minded people that argue with FACT. It is right there in black and white on the NRL's own website yet you and several others say it never happened.

Never said it didn't happen. I said that not many consider it a legitimate premiership.

So for someone who enjoys using FACTS........you don't do a very good job of it.

 

[bileduct]

It is there to be read if you can't do that have someone read it for you I am busy atm time for some work. If you can't decipher what it says send me a pm and when I am finished I will explain it to you.

LOL!

Come on man, why is there an asterisk next to the Broncos in 1997? Why is 1997 the only year to have two premiers?

 

[Walt Flanigan]

He's a busy man........can't you tell?

 

[Jobdog]

And funnily enough, that has never been in dispute. Look at my comment after the game, I said we lost it because we were inept, not because of refereeing decisions.

The fact of the matter is, however, that two referees have been dropped because of a litany of refereeing errors and Raiders fans have every justification to be pissed off about that. Which we are. I posted the article about refs being dropped and suddenly a bunch of Knights dickheads want to still claim that Buderus didn't shoulder charge Ferguson and that refereeing decisions had no impact on the game. But they did impact the game. They were decisions that kept us in our half for an extended period of time that the Knights scored off the back of, and we lost a player after being taken out in the air when we were penalised just the week before for accidental contact of a player that was jumping for the ball.

You say it happens to every team, and yes it does. But some teams are constantly refereed more poorly than others. Check out InsanneInk's comments in our forum, he's no Raiders fan by any stretch of the imagination and even he is convinced that the Raiders cop a raw deal more often than most.

:lol: Seriously? You are? Never would have guessed :crazy:

You lot clearly need to get over it.

 

[Jono078]

Definitely a contender for thread of the year.

Win the award for "people who can't move on and live in the past".

 

[Noname36]

So what does the asterisk mean?

It means that in the same year that the Knights won the premiership in the real competition (I.e. the one that had been established since 1908) Brisbane also won a competition in a different traitor league competition. Ever notice that the Broncos premiership is the only one with the asterisk? That's why genius. The Knights won the comp in the real competition. Not the shit you and the Broncos sold out to.

 

[bileduct]

It means that in the same year that the Knights won the premiership in the real competition (I.e. the one that had been established since 1908) Brisbane also won a competition in a different traitor league competition. Ever notice that the Broncos premiership is the only one with the asterisk? That's why genius. The Knights won the comp in the real competition. Not the shit you and the Broncos sold out to.

So are you saying that there were two comps in 1997 and you guys won the one without the Raiders and Broncos, the two dominant teams of the 90s?

Giving you .5 of a premiership was being charitable. It's more like .3.

 

[Jobdog]

:lol: And still it goes on.

 

[Chicken_Hunter]

So are you saying that there were two comps in 1997 and you guys won the one without the Raiders and Broncos, the two dominant teams of the 90s?

Giving you .5 of a premiership was being charitable. It's more like .3.

And yet the broncos smashed the sharks in the gf, the raiders weren't good enough to make the gf for such a dominant team