Mergers and Premiership Tallies

[Willow]

lol. I forgot, which club do you support again?

Sydney Swans?

 

[SoftSydney]

Quite simple.

West Magpies
St.George Dragons
Balmain Tigers
Illawarra Steelers

are now defunct NRL identities.

West Tigers & St.George Illawarra Dragons are the new identities that have emerged from those Clubs.

If St.George Illawarra Dragons win the Grand Final it will be their maiden premiership.

Hope that helps.

Yes it does thanx for clearing it up

 

[ANTiLAG]

lol. I forgot, which club do you support again?

Sydney Swans?

Well one of my favourite NSWRL teams was the St George Dragons. "Two sides of the Coyne" rah rah. But after they died in 1998 I've been in limbo. I tried supporting the replacement club - but it just wasn't the same. Too much Mundine and not enough history.

 

[Willow]

Mate - Im more than double 16

Who's a big boy now.... cute

and I still wasn't old enough to watch the defunct Dragons club win a premiership.

There you go, calling St George the Dragons again. Slip, slip, slippy...

 

[Willow]

Well one of my favourite NSWRL teams was the St George Dragons. "Two sides of the Coyne" rah rah. But after they died in 1998 I've been in limbo. I tried supporting the replacement club - but it just wasn't the same. Too much Mundine and not enough history.

The NSWRL. That's now part of the NRL, established in 1998.

I note that you don't have the same level of self-righteousness when it comes to the continuation of the competition records.

Why are you afraid to declare your team?

 

[ANTiLAG]

Who's a big boy now.... cuteThere you go, calling St George the Dragons again. Slip, slip, slippy...

Dictionary.com the word defunct. Moron.

I was talking about the defunct Dragons team aka "St George Draons" RIP 23/11/98.

Moron. If I thought you knew what defunct meant you would have just slipped yourself that St George Dragons no longer exist. But the word was probably not in your vocabulary.

 

[ANTiLAG]

The NSWRL. That's now part of the NRL, established in 1998.

I note that you don't have the same level of self-righteousness when it comes to the continuation of the competition records.

Why are you afraid to declare your team?

How is that remotely relevant to the topic at hand?

Moron.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Who's a big boy now.... cuteThere you go, calling St George the Dragons again. Slip, slip, slippy...

Dictionary.com the word defunct. Moron.

I was talking about the defunct Dragons team aka "St George Draons" RIP 23/11/98.

Moron. If I thought you knew what defunct meant you would have just slipped yourself that St George Dragons no longer exist. But the word was probably not in your vocabulary.

 

[Willow]

How is that remotely relevant to the topic at hand?

I'm of the view that you don't support rugby league, and have an ulterior motive. Is that up front enough?

So which sport / football code do you follow?

Moron.

Here it comes. Dummy spit, stage one.

 

[Willow]

Moron.

Two

Moron.

Three.

:lol:

 

[ANTiLAG]

I'm of the view that you don't support rugby league, and have an ulterior motive. Is that up front enough?

I'm of the view that is the most paranoid and conspiracy theorist statement I have heard on League Unlimited.

So which sport / football code do you follow?

Here it comes. Dummy spit, stage one.

Well from my posts its probably obvious that I follow Rugby League, Cricket and observe a bit of Yawnion.

Calling you a moron is not a dumby spit. It just a statement of how I observe your intellectual capacity. I'll give you a nick name if you prefer.

From now on instead of calling you a moron I shall call you "dummie". Okay with you dummie?

 

[Willow]

I'm of the view that is the most paranoid and conspiracy theorist statement I have heard on League Unlimited.

You should get out more.

Well from my posts its probably obvious that I follow Rugby League, Cricket and observe a bit of Yawnion.

Just as I thought. AFL supporter.

It just a statement of how I observe your intellectual capacity.

Also known as "It's" or "It is".

Ah, yet another who feels he is our intellectual superior.

You guys are a deaner a dozen.

dumby spit.

:lol:

moron

Four

moron

Five.

C'mon Antilube, just 11 more to go...

 

[RedAndWhiteThommo]

If my father won the 100 metre dash at his old school in 1967 before I was born - when he dies I cannot claim I won the hundred metre dash in 1967. Yet Saints fans here essentially claim that you can...

St George married Illawarra, killing them both, and the result of that marriage, the offspring, St George-Illawarra won the 2010 premiership. Possibly their first of many, but as it stands their first and only.

St George Dragons and Illawarra Steelers are dead. You merged them. Claiming their achievements is like claiming your mum and dads achievements as your own.

Your analogy doesn't hold. The St George Dragons RLFC has not died - it is still a going concern, as is the Illawarra Steelers RLFC. In order for a joint venture to exist, the orginal parties must still be a going concern. For St George Illawarra, both parents are still alive and quite healthy.

Perhaps a more suitable comparison would be the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is in effect a joint venture of the British Colonies of NSW, SA, WA, QLD, TAS and VIC. The original parties to the venture are still a going concern, and under the constitution the JV could be disolved upon the agreement of all parties.

Since Australia only came into existence in 1901, do we ignore any of the prior history? Do we accept that Australia did not send troops to the Boer War in 1899, 2 years prior to the formation of the nation? Do we consider the Eureka Stockade part of the history of Victoria only, and exclude it from Australian history? Do the achievements of Governor Macquarie only become recognised as a NSW colonial history and become expunged from Australian history as the nation did not exist?

When the Australian olympic team merged with New Zealand to form an Australasian team in 1908 and 1912, do we ignore the medals that were won by Aussies in this merged team? Can we still claim to be one of only a handful of countries to compete in all Olympics if we did not compete under our own banner for the 4th and 5th Olympiads?

Histroy can be perplexing. Much like the history of my football team. I do not ignore it because of a change in the organisational structure. I celebrate it in my own way, much as I celebrate the history of this great nation.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Also known as "It's" or "It is".

You're seriously pulling me on typos and editorial mistakes?

Seriously dummie - was it not you going on about semantics before, and now you leap on editorial glitches. Crikey.\

And certainly do not support AFL. I think its a very silly game and more painful to watch on telveision than golf.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Your analogy doesn't hold. The St George Dragons RLFC has not died - it is still a going concern, as is the Illawarra Steelers RLFC. In order for a joint venture to exist, the orginal parties must still be a going concern. For St George Illawarra, both parents are still alive and quite healthy.

Perhaps a more suitable comparison would be the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is in effect a joint venture of the British Colonies of NSW, SA, WA, QLD, TAS and VIC. The original parties to the venture are still a going concern, and under the constitution the JV could be disolved upon the agreement of all parties.

Since Australia only came into existence in 1901, do we ignore any of the prior history? Do we accept that Australia did not send troops to the Boer War in 1899, 2 years prior to the formation of the nation? Do we consider the Eureka Stockade part of the history of Victoria only, and exclude it from Australian history? Do the achievements of Governor Macquarie only become recognised as a NSW colonial history and become expunged from Australian history as the nation did not exist?

When the Australian olympic team merged with New Zealand to form an Australasian team in 1908 and 1912, do we ignore the medals that were won by Aussies in this merged team? Can we still claim to be one of only a handful of countries to compete in all Olympics if we did not compete under our own banner for the 4th and 5th Olympiads?

Histroy can be perplexing. Much like the history of my football team. I do not ignore it because of a change in the organisational structure. I celebrate it in my own way, much as I celebrate the history of this great nation.

Thommo - this is the best argument I have read on LU for you point of view, yet. In fact - it is just that - an argument. Your collegaues have spouted nothing but mere assertions. However, there is a key factual oversight in your analysis.

The St George Dragons RLFC and the Illawarra Steelers RLFC are defunct as far as the NRL first grade comp goes. Neither has a license. They merged and the resulting club St George Illawarra RLFC has the license. But good try.

With regards the Olympics - clearly Australasia won medals - not Australia or New Zealand as those countries were not there in singular form. Just a hybrid ad hoc regional team. If a World XI beats the Australian Cricket team with Shoiab al Hasan in the side can Bangladesh claim the victory? No, they cannot. Same for the Olympics. Bangladesh may celebrate Shaqib's success as a fellow Bangladeshi - but not as a Bangladeshi victory. The team that won is not a Bangladeshi team. It is a merged team. Same for the Olympics.

With regards constitutional matters - a constitution creates the birth of a new country. The country exists from when they constitutional is judically recongised and the country ceases to exist when no longer judicially recongised. The land and people of that land clearly have a history prior to the constitution and post the end of the consitution but that particular nation does not. Quite simple really.

Timing can be perplexing. For instance - take the colonially analogous USA. There were Americans in North America before July 4, 1776. But they were not part of the USA. The USA was not recongised as a nation until 1783. Their famous constitution was brought into force in 1788 replacing previous ad hoc constitutions. The nation we know as the today as the USA was formed in 1788. Sure the people celebrate the history leading upto the event (July 4) - but that history is the background to the new nation, as that particular nation did not exist during the war of independence. It just set the scene for the new nations birth.

Bit like St George Illawarra RLFC really United States and United Clubs. New entities.

 

[Willow]

You're seriously pulling me on typos and editorial mistakes?

Seriously dummie

Also known as 'dummy'. But hey, who am I to argue? You're the intellectual giant here.

 

[Willow]

There are a few very good posts in this train wreck of a thread. This is one of them.

Your analogy doesn't hold. The St George Dragons RLFC has not died - it is still a going concern, as is the Illawarra Steelers RLFC. In order for a joint venture to exist, the orginal parties must still be a going concern. For St George Illawarra, both parents are still alive and quite healthy.

Perhaps a more suitable comparison would be the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is in effect a joint venture of the British Colonies of NSW, SA, WA, QLD, TAS and VIC. The original parties to the venture are still a going concern, and under the constitution the JV could be disolved upon the agreement of all parties.

Since Australia only came into existence in 1901, do we ignore any of the prior history? Do we accept that Australia did not send troops to the Boer War in 1899, 2 years prior to the formation of the nation? Do we consider the Eureka Stockade part of the history of Victoria only, and exclude it from Australian history? Do the achievements of Governor Macquarie only become recognised as a NSW colonial history and become expunged from Australian history as the nation did not exist?

When the Australian olympic team merged with New Zealand to form an Australasian team in 1908 and 1912, do we ignore the medals that were won by Aussies in this merged team? Can we still claim to be one of only a handful of countries to compete in all Olympics if we did not compete under our own banner for the 4th and 5th Olympiads?

Histroy can be perplexing. Much like the history of my football team. I do not ignore it because of a change in the organisational structure. I celebrate it in my own way, much as I celebrate the history of this great nation.

The Australian Olympic history is a proud one. It often boasts that Australia has been represented at all of the modern Olympics since it was reinstigated in Athens in 1896.

Australia and Greece are the only two nations to have participated at every Olympic Games of the modern era.

Yet, in 1896, Federation wasn't even established, 'Australia' was a group of British colonies (NSW, Qld and Antilube's AFL states). New Zealand was another British colony. Australia flew the British Union Flag at the Olympics. In fact, Australia's sole Olympian in 1896 was a British subject - Edwin Flack was even born in England and living in London when he decided to make his way to Athens.

Despite all these contradictions, the official history shows that Australia is one of only two nations to have participated at every Olympic Games of the modern era.

And it is a record worth cherishing. Edwin Flack eventually settled in Australia, saw in Federation and represented Australia on the International Olympic Committee. There's a statue for Flack in Victoria, his face has appeared on Australian stamps, streets have been named after him, sporting grounds and parks have also been named after him, and he is an inductee in the Australian Sports Hall of Fame. For all intents and purposes Edwin Flack was a proud Australian and Australia's first Olympian. Only a moron would try to take that away.

 

[ANTiLAG]

And the West Indies won a couple of Cricket World Cups yet have never existed as a single nation.

Whats ya point dummie?

 

[Willow]

With regards the Olympics - clearly Australasia won medals - not Australia or New Zealand as those countries were not there in singular form. Just a hybrid ad hoc regional team. If a World XI beats the Australian Cricket team with Shoiab al Hasan in the side can Bangladesh claim the victory? No, they cannot. Same for the Olympics. Bangladesh may celebrate Shaqib's success as a fellow Bangladeshi - but not as a Bangladeshi victory. The team that won is not a Bangladeshi team. It is a merged team. Same for the Olympics.

With regards constitutional matters - a constitution creates the birth of a new country. The country exists from when they constitutional is judically recongised and the country ceases to exist when no longer judicially recongised. The land and people of that land clearly have a history prior to the constitution and post the end of the consitution but that particular nation does not. Quite simple really.

Timing can be perplexing. For instance - take the colonially analogous USA. There were Americans in North America before July 4, 1776. But they were not part of the USA. The USA was not recongised as a nation until 1783. Their famous constitution was brought into force in 1788 replacing previous ad hoc constitutions. The nation we know as the today as the USA was formed in 1788. Sure the people celebrate the history leading upto the event (July 4) - but that history is the background to the new nation, as that particular nation did not exist during the war of independence. It just set the scene for the new nations birth.

What a pompous load of crap.

Constitutional matters? Talk about lame attempts at smoke screening.

LOL.

Australia and Greece are the only two nations to have participated at every Olympic Games of the modern era.

 

[ANTiLAG]

What a pompous load of crap.

Constitutional matters? Talk about lame attempts at smoke screening.

Dummie - Thommo brought up constitutional matters originally. Maybe it is he who you should accuse of 'smoke screening'.

Did you miss that part dummie? Or was it because he did not use the word constitution and your limited comprehension did not tell you he was talking about Australia's constitutional history and consitutional matters?

Dummie - you really are a dummie.