What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

lol@50uff$ VI: DKoR's meltdown

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nemesis

Nemesis

Bench
Messages
3,211
gronkathon said:
Nemi butthurt no? :cool:

jgjlsy.jpg
Click to expand...
I bet you have lots of pics of naked men on your hard drive, guzzlathon
 
Nemesis

Nemesis

Bench
Messages
3,211
ek999 said:
There was no more legal battles. There was nowhere for Souths to appeal to. As soon as the judgement was handed down, News Ltd could have kicked Souths out there and then. I don;t understand the point you are trying to make. I'm not arguing about whether Souths are in the comp or not, I'm telling you they are only in it because of News Ltd deciding to allow them to stay.

If News Ltd get simulcast matches for Foxtel in the next TV deal they will be making more money from the game due to increased subscriptions at a higher rate. Sure they may be paying the ARLC more but they are getting more in return. News Ltd never wanted to be ther owner of the game, that costs them money. They have only ever been interested in the TV and newspaper revenue that it provides them.

You original answer was "Since 1908, Souths have always competed standalone, as SSDRLFC... whilst St George merged with Illawarra and registered a new combined team in the 1999 comp... hope this ends your confusion." However, Souths didn't compete in 2000/01 so they have not always competed. And before you argue that they always existed as an entity, St George still do too http://abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?abn=83002350272

They are one half of a joint venture of two seperate clubs fielding the one team in the NRL. And St George only ever merged with Illawarra to get the junior base it provides and it has seemed to work, they managed to win a premiership 2 years ago. Souths last did that 40 or so years ago
Click to expand...
No they couldn't, because of the statement they made to the High Court BEFORE they even began the case.... and they didn't, because the ensuing legal battle would have sent them broke, dumbarse.

In regards, to the TV deal, the ARLC will do what is best for the "shareholders" of Rugby League i.e the clubs, members and fans, not the shareholders of News Limited. Good luck to News Limited if they're relying on getting increased subscriptions for Foxtel, when it's likely they'll have less RL content.

Also, in a tougher economic climate, when household costs such as electricity etc are spiralling out of control, a Foxtel subscription would not be high on the priority list for many people... another blow to the News Limited scum's bargaining position.

Finally, where exactly did I say that Souths competed in 2000/2001 you f**kstick? I said that Souths have always competed as SSDRLFC, in other words, have not merged or changed their name.
Let me guess... when I said "always" you thought I meant since the begining of f**king time, right?

The facts are that St George made the decision to merge with Illawarra and registered a completely new team under a new name in the competition. Hence the NRL rightly maintain separate records for St George and St George Illawarra because they are two different entities.
 
Last edited:
El Diablo

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
Nemesis said:
No they couldn't, because of the statement they made to the High Court BEFORE they even began the case
Click to expand...
yes they could

what was said before is irrelevant and had nothing to with the high court ruling http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JCULRev/2003/6.html

Finally, an unusual aspect of the High Court appeal was that News Ltd made it clear before the proceedings began that it would not seek to remove Souths from the competition should the decision be made in its favour. Thus the proceedings before the High Court could be viewed as nothing more than an academic exercise. However, News Ltd?s wish to take the matter to the High Court might indicate that News Ltd may, at some time in the future, seek to reduce the number of teams in the NRL. If so, a clarification on the legality of the 14-team term was far from a mere academic exercise as the decision would allow it to use a similar provision in order to reduce the number of teams. This author has reservations as to whether the NRL is sustainable in its present 15-team format, given the competition from both the Australian Football League (AFL) and rugby union for players, spectators and the sponsorship dollar. For that reason the High Court decision may well prove to be an important one for News Ltd in its role as a partner in the NRL.
Click to expand...
 
Nemesis

Nemesis

Bench
Messages
3,211
El Diablo said:
yes they could

what was said before is irrelevant and had nothing to with the high court ruling http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JCULRev/2003/6.html
Click to expand...
"might indicate" implies a vague threat of possible expulsions in the future... that's all. A vague threat which has no substance in reality. The fact is they could not afford any more legal battles.

As stated, it's a moot point anyway, as the News Limited scum can no longer expel any team from the competition.
 
Nemesis

Nemesis

Bench
Messages
3,211
Well if they ever attempt to, it won't be the most viable Sydney team i.e Souths, they'll be targeting.
 
Last edited:
Fire

Fire

First Grade
Messages
9,669
Nemeweirdmerkin...a jurist, academic, and Justice of the High Court of Australia. That'll do me :lol:

LOL@5(c)uff$!
 
Nemesis

Nemesis

Bench
Messages
3,211
juanfarkall said:
Do these pictures show the results of a DNA rearranging session with Nemmiewinks at the Maroubra carpark ?
Click to expand...
They show the contents of guzzlathon's hard drive... I'm sure he has naked pics of many men, including you and he doing lots of rectal shoom shumming, juanf**kstrannies

LOL@Dead V... The Slide of the League"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top