Happy 99th Birthday South Sydney

[Rotten Rooster]

And you can't count.

As a child born in 1998 won't be ten years old in 2007, so won't clubs founded in 1908 be 100 years old in 2007. When the Roosters 99th birthday ticks over, the Roosters will be in thier hundredth year of existance, but will not be one hundred years old. They will have to wait until their hundredth birthday to be one hundred years old.

So if a clubs plays its first season in 2000, in 2002 and when it runs out what season is it playing you fool. Two season by your count

season 1 2000
season 2 2001
season 3 2002

Go wipe the egg off your face

As for the name changes, in this day and age an NRL club is a buisness and needs to evolve with the times, which includes name changes, jersey changes, emblem changes, what ever it takes to get fans and dollars. The name change was a shrewed marketing ploy, instead of mainly attracting young fans from the eastern suburbs they are attracting kids from all over sydney. You ask any older fan why they go for the team they do and they will tell you in many cases I was bought up in the area and thats why I go for the club. The roosters have more chance of attracting kids say from out west as sydney roosters then they would have as eastern suburbs. Why is it so hard for people to congatulate the 100th year acheivement instead of trying to finding a fault, be a fan of the game its history as well as your respective club.

 

[Bumble]

Fact: Souths= Purchased & owned.

Christ ink, is that really the best you have?

Your club no longer exists in the top flight of rugby league.

 

[innsaneink]

:shock: You dont say!?!?

You can keep trading insults if you like...just letting you know I'm done.

 

[Willow]

That's a first.
Credit due to Inky, even he knows that hijacking a good thread has it limits.

 

[McCrud]

As for the name changes, in this day and age an NRL club is a buisness and needs to evolve with the times, which includes name changes, jersey changes, emblem changes, what ever it takes to get fans and dollars. The name change was a shrewed marketing ploy, instead of mainly attracting young fans from the eastern suburbs they are attracting kids from all over sydney. You ask any older fan why they go for the team they do and they will tell you in many cases I was bought up in the area and thats why I go for the club. The roosters have more chance of attracting kids say from out west as sydney roosters then they would have as eastern suburbs. Why is it so hard for people to congatulate the 100th year acheivement instead of trying to finding a fault, be a fan of the game its history as well as your respective club.

But aren't your club's crowd attendances dying in the arse?

Not very 'shrewed' me thinks...more 'fickle fanbases' than anything.

 

[Rotten Rooster]

But aren't your club's crowd attendances dying in the arse?

In 2006 you were only in front of the NZ Warriors in terms of crowd attendances.

Not very 'shrewed' me thinks...more 'fickle fanbases' than anything.

Lets not talk out our butts here, any club in the league that has back to back sh*t seasons has no crowd attendance. You think suncorp would fill if you guys came bottom of the table 2-3 years in a row! Most fans are fickle in every sport in every country in any league. Pitty most fans cant see past their own team and live to bag others!

 

[McCrud]

Lets not talk out our butts here, any club in the league that has back to back sh*t seasons has no crowd attendance. You think suncorp would fill if you guys came bottom of the table 2-3 years in a row! Most fans are fickle in every sport in every country in any league. Pitty most fans cant see past their own team and live to bag others!

I don't deal in 'hypotheticals' I deal in facts. It's an embarrassing figure.

Maybe we should install Arko's old 'criteria' for admission for the NRL - you blokes wouldn't be too far off a fail, that's for sure.

Why are the Roosters always referred to as a 'Glamour Club'? It's the most untrue thing I've ever heard. Must be all those high-flyers who frequent your joint - because it's sure as @#$% ain't got nothing to do with crowd support. I think we should remove that tag and give it to a club that deserves it.

 

[Rotten Rooster]

I don't deal in 'hypotheticals' I deal in facts. It's an embarrassing figure.

Maybe we should install Arko's old 'criteria' for admission for the NRL - you blokes wouldn't be too far off a fail, that's for sure.

Why are the Roosters always referred to as a 'Glamour Club'? It's the most untrue thing I've ever heard. Must be all those high-flyers who frequent your joint - because it's sure as @#$% ain't got nothing to do with crowd support. I think we should remove that tag and give it to a club that deserves it.

Its obvious you have no concept of buisness and marketing that why your on the dole or work at K-mart. Check any clubs attendances when they are doing well as apposed to when they are not to get FACTS before you start blowing crap out your arse.
As for the tag galmour club you will have to address that question to the media not me or the club we did not choose that tag or use it.

 

[McCrud]

Its obvious you have no concept of buisness and marketing that why your on the dole or work at K-mart. Check any clubs attendances when they are doing well as apposed to when they are not to get FACTS before you start blowing crap out your arse.
As for the tag galmour club you will have to address that question to the media not me or the club we did not choose that tag or use it.

Obviously the Roosters hierarchy have no clue in relation to marketing because one of the NRL's 'Glamour Clubs' managed to barely hold off the ever-popular NZ Warriors as the worst attended club in the NRL.

It's a bit rich you Roosters fans giving it to South Sydney - Souths have huge potential to grow their club, fanbase and crowd attendances. The Roosters have exhusted all avenues for growth, through on-field success and money-grab name changes. And all you are left with is a pitifully fickle fanbase, many of whom have upped and moved on.

You are arguing changing the name of the club was a brilliant marketing ploy - where's the evidence? Roosters fans have the gall to argue with Souths over history - you blokes have one of the most convoluted histories in the competition.

Souths are only going one way - UP. I fear the Roosters haven't hit rock bottom yet.

P.S. I noticed you previously attempting to take the 'high-ground' in response to flaming opposition fans. You ever been to 'The Wall' lately? You Roosters supporters flame your own coach, your own players - and during your reign at the top, your mob flamed every other fan from here to bloody Timbucktoo. Bit rich trying to stem the abuse you Roosters fans are copping now isn't it?

 

[t-ba]

So if a clubs plays its first season in 2000, in 2002 and when it runs out what season is it playing you fool. Two season by your count

season 1 2000
season 2 2001
season 3 2002

Go wipe the egg off your face

FMD that's stupid. There's a difference between seasons and age.

There's a difference between the age of a club and how many seasons it has played in. An age is not recognised until the anniversary marking that age has been passed. That's why children are born at age Zero and aren't one until oh...thier first birthday.

As such, the Roosters are playing thier 100th season in the NRL whilst being 99 years and so many months and days old. They have completed 99 seasons at thier 99th birthday, and are competing in thier hundredth season, and will begin thier one hundredth year of existance.

Or are you going to argue that the Eastern Suburbs RL club was a year old when it was founded in 1908? Because if you are, please further your schooling.

Your original post:

Absolute rubbish this year they are playing in their 100th season, you obviously can not count, might try using your fingers! As for the bunnys as a club they are 100 years old as well, although not playing thier 100th season. Congrats to both cluns.

It can be argued that the Titans are actually 8 years old now, as the organisation that gave birth to the club was founded after the Chargers axing in late 1998. fun fact!

 

[Rotten Rooster]

Obviously the Roosters hierarchy have no clue in relation to marketing because one of the NRL's 'Glamour Clubs' managed to barely hold off the ever-popular NZ Warriors as the worst attended club in the NRL.

It's a bit rich you Roosters fans giving it to South Sydney - Souths have huge potential to grow their club, fanbase and crowd attendances. The Roosters have exhusted all avenues for growth, through on-field success and money-grab name changes. And all you are left with is a pitifully fickle fanbase, many of whom have upped and moved on.

You are arguing changing the name of the club was a brilliant marketing ploy - where's the evidence? Roosters fans have the gall to argue with Souths over history - you blokes have one of the most convoluted histories in the competition.

Souths are only going one way - UP. I fear the Roosters haven't hit rock bottom yet.

P.S. I noticed you previously attempting to take the 'high-ground' in response to flaming opposition fans. You ever been to 'The Wall' lately? You Roosters supporters flame your own coach, your own players - and during your reign at the top, your mob flamed every other fan from here to bloody Timbucktoo. Bit rich trying to stem the abuse you Roosters fans are copping now isn't it?

LOL you know some people on here make great points, others are quite funny and many make the most interesting points and ovbservations. You come into a special class of your own-some LOL. You can kick up the souths v roosters crap all you like I dont have a problem with the club, more power to them. ANY SALES ON AT K-MART!

 

[Rotten Rooster]

FMD that's stupid. There's a difference between seasons and age.

There's a difference between the age of a club and how many seasons it has played in. An age is not recognised until the anniversary marking that age has been passed. That's why children are born at age Zero and aren't one until oh...thier first birthday.

As such, the Roosters are playing thier 100th season in the NRL whilst being 99 years and so many months and days old. They have completed 99 seasons at thier 99th birthday, and are competing in thier hundredth season, and will begin thier one hundredth year of existance.

Or are you going to argue that the Eastern Suburbs RL club was a year old when it was founded in 1908? Because if you are, please further your schooling.

Your original post:



It can be argued that the Titans are actually 8 years old now, as the organisation that gave birth to the club was founded after the Chargers axing in late 1998. fun fact!

Clubs are not people and dont have birthdates they have "SEASONS", and measured by them!

 

[t-ba]

Clubs are not people and dont have birthdates they have "SEASONS", and measured by them!

Bullsh*t. That runs counter to your argument that Souths have had two less seasons than the roosters but are the same age.

Absolute rubbish this year they are playing in their 100th season, you obviously can not count, might try using your fingers! As for the bunnys as a club they are 100 years old as well, although not playing thier 100th season. Congrats to both cluns.

Why should Football clubs be held different to the standards of Countries, Buildings, Corporations, Websites, Government Departments, Anniversaries and basically everything else worth recording an age for?

 

[Rotten Rooster]

Bullsh*t. That runs counter to your argument that Souths have had two less seasons than the roosters but are the same age.



Why should Football clubs be held different to the standards of Countries, Buildings,
Corporations, Websites, Government Departments, Anniversaries and basically
everything else worth recording an age for?

Thats what we are claiming and celebrating our 100th season.

 

[t-ba]

Thats what we are claiming and celebrating our 100th season.

Then stop claiming your club is one hundred years old!

 

[Rotten Rooster]

Then stop claiming your club is one hundred years old!

How can my club be 99 years old this year and be playing 100 seasons, any way I look at seasons you look at birthdays...fair enough

So next year we are celebrating the birthday of NRL and not the 100th season of the league! Technically i would love to know the answer to that question, what is the offical line of the NRL birthday or season.

Anyhow I have hijak the this thread sorry guys

 

[t-ba]

How can my club be 99 years old this year and be playing 100 seasons, any way I look at seasons you look at birthdays...fair enough

Real Easy. You're playing your hundredth season, not one hundred seasons. You've only completed ninety-nine seasons. By early september the Roosters will have finished playing for the year and will have completed one hundred seasons.

Most people look to anniversarys to mark the age of clubs, not 'seasons.' That's why Newtown (Who were inactive in competition for a number of years) will celebrate thier centenary with the other foundation clubs.

So next year we are celebrating the birthday of NRL and not the 100th season of the league! Seems a poor choice to me.
Technically i would love to know the answer to that question, what is the offical line of the NRL birthday or season.

Next year we are celebrating a centenary of Rugby League in Australia. It's a wonderful occasion.

 

[Rotten Rooster]

Real Easy. You're playing your hundredth season, not one hundred seasons. You've only completed ninety-nine seasons. By early september the Roosters will have finished playing for the year and will have completed one hundred seasons.

Most people look to anniversarys to mark the age of clubs, not 'seasons.' That's why Newtown (Who were inactive in competition for a number of years) will celebrate thier centenary with the other foundation clubs.



Next year we are celebrating a centenary of Rugby League in Australia. It's a wonderful occasion.

You are correct, from the clubs offical stance is it is celebrating its 100th season (looking at its press releases). Our birthday is next year along with everyone elses lol. Thanks for clearing it up much appreciated.

 

[nqboy]

Under the RL laws at the time, the ball would have been returned to the centre of the field and a scrum called. Balmain's failure to form for the scrum would have earned Souths a penalty. From that point there are obviously numerous options/events that could have followed resulting in Souths scoring.

In any event, the mere taking of the kick-off was enough for Souths to be awarded the match.

As for whether there was an agreement between both sides not to turn up, the only source to support that it happened is Balmain's collective oral history. While that doesn't mean it should be dismissed, the newspapers & archives provide nothing to support that it happened.

The day before the match, Balmain officials called on the offices of the NSWRL, demanding that the match be put on a separate day (i.e. not on the undercard of the Wallabies v Kangaroos). Souths officials did not go to that meeting, and it was clear they had every intention of turning up to play the next day.

It also should be noted that in those days the competition table points continued to be tallied during the play-offs! Souths were two points ahead of Balmain. A Balmain win would have given them 2 points, leaving both teams equal. That would have triggered a second Final (Grand Final).

Given Souths had only been beaten once since the League began, & they were a formidable team, Balmain were rated in all reports I read as long odds to beat Souths twice to take the premiership. By forfeiting the Final they were not giving up as much as it perhaps appears.

The reason they did it was to force the NSWRL to lose money & cause a new leadership to be installed. If you want to get into it more there is an article here:
http://www.RL1908.com/articles/balmain-1909.htm

Excellent contribution.

Balmain were at long odds in 1969 IIRC...

 

[nqboy]

The passage Choppies posted will do me...from the book title, "The history of Rugby League clubs."...enough evidence for me.

:lol: :lol: :lol: