Expansion plans cloudy: NRL

[Iafeta]

Not sure I agree. Alot of people when moving to here look for ways to become "Australian" this often includes following the local sport.

Indeed Sheedy was in the paper here the other day suggesting the AFL should get adverts into immigration newspapers etc and have stands at citizenship ceremonies to sign up new immigrants as members of their local AFL club.

Whilst many retain the interst in their original countries sport, such as Europeans and soccer, my experience is many do look to assimiliate and take on a local club to follow.

Not all people are so easily adaptable.

In a small average to above average income street that I live in, there would be probably 5 immigrant families and I would take a fair guess and suggest 3 of those would have no interest in Australian local sports. The above point is right, their children may do though as schools are a massive way to assimilate through socialising with their schoolmates. Football is a bit different, but even then they are largely following the European leagues. My wife's family came from Poland and Ukraine, and they didn't really adapt to our sports. Sweet lass that her mum was, she would turn over to see if the Warriors were winning for me, but otherwise she really didn't understand it or like it particularly. Out of her siblings (the 3 kids), 2 of them have taken up supporting the sports and one has not.

There would be some degree of easy assimilation probably more so on their family break up, families with kids would find it easier.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

So where's the quote where I said it?

The only thing you've proven is that you're a dickwad with the intelligence of a toad.

Not in real terms there isn't.

Yes but you never mentioned in 'real terms' until I proved you wrong

In total numbers crowds are UP!

 

[ElectricEelMan]

So where's the quote where I said it?

The only thing you've proven is that you're a dickwad with the intelligence of a toad.

Not in real terms there isn't.

I have even showed that your 23% increase in population since 1994 is wrong.

We have even showed that at least 50% of that population is through immigration which skews the numbers a bit - and a better representation of comparing the two is through a look at the increase the numbers through births.

And if you do that the numbers are about where they should be

 

[Nemesis]

Do you understand what the word 'imply' means?
You implied it dickhead
F*ck you are geniused!
Go back and you will see how you implied. I have already pointed out yo you at least 10 times, but i suppose your geniusation can only make you understand the simplest of things. So here it is again:

One dude said 'crowds are up'
You said that is 'bullsh*t' - see definition of 'imply'
I said you are wrong

Do you understand now, dipsh!t?

You just may the first person in the world with a negative IQ

You're clutching at straws dickwad... "implied" is simply your interpretation of what I said, so if you can't quote what I said, fug off. While you're at it look up the meaning of "in real terms" lizard brain.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

You're clutching at straws dickwad... "implied" is simply your interpretation of what I said, so if you can't quote what I said, fug off. While you're at it look up the meaning of "in real terms" lizard brain.

F*ck you are stupid

What, so when someone says crowd numbers have never been higher and you retort with 'bullsh*t, you are wrong' I am supposed to interpret that you really meant 'You are right crowd numbers have never been higher, but you when you look in real terms crowds are down ... but the argument was NEVER about that so i am total genius with an IQ less than brainless dead mutated rabbit"

Yeah I should have realized that since you have the IQ of a brainless dead mutated rabbit cause you have no brain, you are obviously are a mutant, and you are worth less than a rabbit.

 

[Nemesis]

I have even showed that your 23% increase in population since 1994 is wrong.

We have even showed that at least 50% of that population is through immigration which skews the numbers a bit - and a better representation of comparing the two is through a look at the increase the numbers through births.

And if you do that the numbers are about where they should be

You haven't shown jacksh*t... all you've done is made a heap of assumptions about demographic trends based on zero facts.

However, I do agree with Iafeta's statement below..

Overall, while ticket numbers are useful, the main thing to take into consideration for the health of the game is actual real dollars spent. Not only on tickets, but also the media contracts, advertising, merchandise et al in contrast to the increase in cost expenditure over this period. We need to analyse player participation across the levels, and also we need to look at the long term impact of the state government reforms on pokie tax to understand their impact on various clubs who are heavily reliant on these revenue streams. Put simply, pure crowd numbers only give half the picture of where the game is at.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

You're clutching at straws dickwad... "implied" is simply your interpretation of what I said, so if you can't quote what I said, fug off. While you're at it look up the meaning of "in real terms" lizard brain.

Where the f*ck do you mention 'real terms'?
Bobmar says there are 'MORE LEAGUE FANS THAN EVER BEFORE' which has NOTHING to do with 'real terms'
And you said 'BULLSH!T' - which implies that you meant Bobmar is wrong and that there are less fans today than 1994 - but no mention of 'real terms' cause 'real terms' wasn't what Bobmar was taklin about

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW???

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobmar28
There have been 2 mergers since 1999 yet there are MORE league fans (and juniors) today than there ever were.

That's BS... all you have to do is look at the crowd figures for the qualifying finals series in 1994 versus 2008...

P.S. and don't bother telling me that most of the 2008 series was played at smaller grounds, as none of the crowds reached the capacity of those stadiums.

RL Qualifying Finals Series Crowds 1994
Bears v Raiders (SFS) - 33,641
Sea Eagles v Broncos (SFS) - 34,891
Bears v Broncos (SFS) - 36,011
Bulldogs v Raiders (SFS) - 41,941

RL Qualifying Finals Series Crowds 2008
Roosters v Broncos (SFS) - 18,343
Sharks v Raiders (Toyota Stadium) - 18,252
Sea Eagles v Dragons (Brookvale Oval) - 19,227
Storm v Warriors (Olympic Park) - 15,193

 

[ElectricEelMan]

You haven't shown jacksh*t... all you've done is made a heap of assumptions about demographic trends based on zero facts.

However, I do agree with Iafeta's statement below..

Well you are making heaps of assumptions too
At least my assumptions make sense
Yours do not

So you honestly believe that the moment an immigrant steps off the plane he/she instantly becomes a local sport fan

If you believe that, you are deluded.

 

[Nemesis]

F*ck you are stupid

What, so when someone says crowd numbers have never been higher and you retort with 'bullsh*t, you are wrong' I am supposed to interpret that you really meant 'You are right crowd numbers have never been higher, but you when you look in real terms crowds are down ... but the argument was NEVER about that

You're an absosute fugging dickwad moron who thinks they have the right to dictate the terms of an argument, then loses their frilly knickers and has a "tanty" when the argument doesn't go their way.
Fug off tool.

so i am total genius with an IQ less than brainless dead mutated rabbit

You describe yourself well ... the first accurate statement you've made so far.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

You're an absosute fugging dickwad moron who thinks they have the right to dictate the terms of an argument, then loses their frilly knickers and has a "tanty" when the argument doesn't go their way.
Fug off tool.

You describe yourself well ... the first accurate statement you've made so far.

No, you idiot, that's me imagining what you are saying to yourself

I honestly think you need a lesson. So here goes.

Which number is MORE?

1,000 or 2,000

The lesson is simple as that.
More simply means which of those two numbers is greater. There is no qualifier about worth or value in real terms because all more means is which number is greater.

2008 crowds were MORE than 1994 crowds

Understand?

 

[Nemesis]

Where the f*ck do you mention 'real terms'?
Bobmar says there are 'MORE LEAGUE FANS THAN EVER BEFORE' which has NOTHING to do with 'real terms'
And you said 'BULLSH!T' - which implies that you meant Bobmar is wrong and that there are less fans today than 1994 - but no mention of 'real terms' cause 'real terms' wasn't what Bobmar was taklin about

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW???

DO YOU???? As I said, don't try to dictate the terms of an argument... my subsequent post said;

What I was illustrating numbnuts , is that Rugby League attendances have not grown at all in real terms since 1994.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

DO YOU???? As I said, don't try to dictate the terms of an argument... my subsequent post said;

Yes I understand because this argument didn't start in 'real terms'

You disagreed with the notion that there were 'MORE' fans today than in 1994 and you only changed your tune when you realized that you had lost badly.

So essentially what you are saying that even though there are more fans today, each fan is essentially worth LESS than in 1994. That my friend is what in 'real terms' means. It is all about worth and value ...

Are you worth less as a fan than in 1994?
No? Yes?
Cause that is exactly what you are saying

 

[Nemesis]

No, you idiot, that's me imagining what you are saying to yourself

I honestly think you need a lesson. So here goes.

Which number is MORE?

1,000 or 2,000

The lesson is simple as that.
More simply means which of those two numbers is greater. There is no qualifier about worth or value in real terms because all more means is which number is greater.

2008 crowds were MORE than 1994 crowds

Understand?

There you go again, attempting to dictate terms to suit your argument. Economics is all about "real terms" not absolute figures, that's why we have a "seasonally adjusted inflation rate".
Go back to kindergarten fool.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

There you go again, attempting to dictate terms to suit your argument. Economics is all about "real terms" not absolute figures, that's why we have a "seasonally adjusted inflation rate".
Go back to kindergarten fool.

How can I get this through your thick skull?

This wasn't an economics argument, until you oh so conveniently turned it into one.

Is there MORE fans today than in 1994?

The answer is YES!

It is simple as that

F*CK!

 

[ElectricEelMan]

There you go again, attempting to dictate terms to suit your argument. Economics is all about "real terms" not absolute figures, that's why we have a "seasonally adjusted inflation rate".
Go back to kindergarten fool.

The only way to settle this is to ask bobmar if he meant in real terms or absolute terms. I can guarantee you 100% he meant absolute terms.

 

[Nemesis]

Yes I understand because this argument didn't start in 'real terms'

You disagreed with the notion that there were 'MORE' fans today than in 1994 and you only changed your tune when you realized that you had lost badly.

So essentially what you are saying that even though there are more fans today, each fan is essentially worth LESS than in 1994. That my friend is what in 'real terms' means. It is all about worth and value ...

Are you worth less as a fan than in 1994?
No? Yes?
Cause that is exactly what you are saying

Still trying to dictate terms I see. There is a big difference between "changing your tune" and qualifying a statement for a dumbarse like you who can't undertand the context it was made in. Try reading all my earlier posts in this thread tool...

I am not going to waste any more time arguing with an idiot like you, as you are clearly are brain-dead oxygen thief.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

Still trying to dictate terms I see. There is a big difference between "changing your tune" and qualifying a statement for a dumbarse like you who can't undertand the context it was made in. Try reading all my earlier posts in this thread tool...

I am not going to waste any more time arguing with an idiot like you, as you are clearly are brain-dead oxygen thief.

Good to see you know you have lost this argument

I hear you mother calling, she wants you aborted!

 

[Nemesis]

Good to see you know you have lost this argument

I hear you mother calling, she wants you aborted!

One can never win arguments with imbeciles like you... Fug off tool.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

One can never win arguments with imbeciles like you... Fug off tool.

Well I proved you wrong

Obviously you are a bitter old fool. I just went through this thread, and no where did you mention anything about using 'real terms' instead of 'absolute terms' when equating crowd numbers. Only when i called you out in your errors did you turn that way.

You are simply a bitter old man who hated Super League and believes that caused serious damage to rugby league, which you are right. And added to the fact the Rabbitohs were thrown out the league, left you bitter and old and full of anger. And you just can't fathom how quickly rugby league has recovered in the past 5-10 years. Sure if Super League never happened, the NRL would be much better off but you just couldn't handle someone coming out and saying there are more fans today than there were in 1994. Cause it is true? Cause you are a bitter old man who can't handle the truth? Cause it proves your bitterness mislayed?

So when I proved you wrong, all you could do was come up with the 'real term' clause even though bobmar never meant such a thing. You know it, I know it. There are more fans today than in 1994.

It is time to get over your super league bitterness.

 

[perverse]

rofl. some of the pretentious crap early on in this thread from sydney folk is hilarious. this purse fight is also rather amusing.

FTR i think a natural death of sydney clubs will occur... and i think it will be a catalyst for good in our game. there may be short-to-medium term pain... but ultimately it will be a gain. i think the fear mongers that would like us to believe that we will lose too many fans are kidding themselves... because if we were going to lose too many fans if we let x, y or z club die naturally... then they wouldn't be dying naturally as they would be financially viable.