BS Claim#2: The RFL alone is bigger than all the AFL....

[ParraEelsNRL]

Xman, lock the thread and award NSWAFL a BS point.

No, rules are rules. 1 week.

Ahh ok, missed that bit.

Heck, you could leave this thread open for a year and he wouldn't defeat me imo. A week it is.

[NSWAFL]

Sponsors - Irrelevant
School comps - Irrelevant
Pro teams - Long way to go there
Semi pro teams - Still a long way to go
Knockout comps - That's double handling of the previous two isn't it?
3 TV stations - Irrelevant
Local comps - Still a long way to go
Regional comps - Still a long way to go
City comps - Still a long way to go
CC final crowds - Irrelevant

You're light years away from 3000 comps, bub. You've got a week to come up with them.

Oh and only three facebook pages out of 27 links. SO if you want to go back to 60 that's fine with me. You still need 3000 RL comps.

[ParraEelsNRL]

Keep on fighting reverse troll, you're making cuzzy sara look smart.

[ParraEelsNRL]

Ok NSWAFL, you are stuck on the supposed (BS) number of teams playing AFL around the world compared to RL clubs in the UK.

You said there would have to be 3000 clubs/teams playing RL in the UK (I noticed you will not move on from this until I defeat you, again).

285,000 people play Rugby League in the UK, here's the link from none other than Sports England Chairman Richard Lewis (who just so happens to be the RFL CEO).

http://www.sportfocus.com/newspub/story.cfm?ID=32299

285,000 divided by 3,000 is 95, there are not 95 players per team, there are 17, right?

So 285,000 divided by 17 is 16,764.

Hmmmmm, so 16,000+ RL clubs/teams in the UK huh?

Now 16,764 divided by 50 (remember I say 50 times bigger?) is 335.

So NSWAFL, could you post the 335 individual clubs/teams playing AFL outside of Australia, and I want real clubs with real websites and none of this BS facebook or made up wiki links.

If it's good enough for me to use official stats, it's good enough for you to do the same.

[ParraEelsNRL]

Sponsors - Irrelevant

Why?

It shows there are people interested enough to sponsor a league that they think is going somewhere.

School comps - Irrelevant

Why?

It shows that the sport is entrenched in the country and they can be self sustaining in the years ahead with local born and bred players.

Pro teams - Long way to go there

Not when you're stuck on 0 it aint.

Semi pro teams - Still a long way to go

Not when you are stuck on 0 it aint.

Knockout comps - That's double handling of the previous two isn't it?

Not when teams from other countries or leagues are involved.

3 TV stations - Irrelevant

No it's not, it shows that there is a demand for the sport.

Local comps - Still a long way to go

285,000 participants says otherwise.

Regional comps - Still a long way to go

Oh, we are dealing with AFL fans here, regional players don't count even outside Australia let alone in it.

City comps - Still a long way to go

I thought that was the AFL's breed and butter lol.

CC final crowds - Irrelevant

Crowds do come into it as it shows that the game being played is enjoyed by thousands of fans.

You're light years away from 3000 comps, bub. You've got a week to come up with them.

I never said 3,000 comps, you said 3,000 comps, stop moving the goal posts.

Oh and only three facebook pages out of 27 links.

Which means 24 dumbarse.

SO if you want to go back to 60 that's fine with me. You still need 3000 RL comps.

Where in the hell did you get 60 AFL nations from?

[ParraEelsNRL]

Smashed, absolutely humiliated, yeeehaaa!

[cos789]

The trouble is with this dissection nobody has stated the criteria.
What is the criteria.
Is the statement bs because there is no criteria ?
Does the claimant have to prove that all the criteria or just one ?

IMO all the claimant has to do is prove the claimant is wrong with one criteria since
the original statement is without qualifying criteria to prove the statement is bs.

We need a ruling or else nothing will be resolved .

Also the statement maker is supplying supposed facts to uphold the statement from one side only.
There is no statement to downgrade the opposition.


Anyway I do not see any figures on participation from the original statement makers.

There have quoted only a few teams. Not much at all really.

We really need a ruling on what constitutes bigger.

[cos789]

If we use the number of countries as criteria then obviously this thread is substantiated as bs.

[ParraEelsNRL]

Done like cold beer on a hot summers day, we'll let the mods and a RL fan decide the winner, that was the deal.

Poor NSWAFL, the guy never stood a chance.

2-0 too me and I have a double BS file going now in which Bea and Cuzzy Sara will put my tally for 1 nights work up to 4-0.

This BS file stuff is easy.

[cos789]

The Rugby Football League (RFL) is the governing body for rugby league in the United Kingdom. It administers the England National Rugby League Team, The Challenge Cup, The Rugby League National Leagues and The Super League (Europe).

The RFL Archive collection includes footage from The Super League, The World Club Challenge, The Four Nations (previously known as the Tri Nations) and The Challenge Cup.

Date:1928 - Present day

Coverage:Super League

Established in 1996 The Super League is the top-level professional rugby league club competition in Europe. The league features fourteen teams; twelve from England, one from Wales and one from France, whom compete annually from February to October.

http://www.imgprogramming.com/rflarchive/

Is that it ??

The RFL is 14 teams
Is that the figure we're working with

[cos789]

e RFL accumulated losses of £1.9 million at the end of 2001, shortly before a major restructuring of the governing body and the appointment of Richard Lewis as executive chairman in May 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_Football_League

So obviously the RFL has not 50x the resources of AR O/S

[Xman]

Ok NSWAFL, you are stuck on the supposed (BS) number of teams playing AFL around the world compared to RL clubs in the UK.

You said there would have to be 3000 clubs/teams playing RL in the UK (I noticed you will not move on from this until I defeat you, again).

285,000 people play Rugby League in the UK, here's the link from none other than Sports England Chairman Richard Lewis (who just so happens to be the RFL CEO).

http://www.sportfocus.com/newspub/story.cfm?ID=32299

285,000 divided by 3,000 is 95, there are not 95 players per team, there are 17, right?

So 285,000 divided by 17 is 16,764.

Hmmmmm, so 16,000+ RL clubs/teams in the UK huh?

Now 16,764 divided by 50 (remember I say 50 times bigger?) is 335.

So NSWAFL, could you post the 335 individual clubs/teams playing AFL outside of Australia, and I want real clubs with real websites and none of this BS facebook or made up wiki links.

If it's good enough for me to use official stats, it's good enough for you to do the same.

This post is bs on its own. You cannot work out the number of clubs by dividing participation numbers by the players on a team! You need a link if you are saying there are 16k RL clubs in the uk.

[NSWAFL]

Sponsors - Irrelevant

Why?

It shows there are people interested enough to sponsor a league that they think is going somewhere.

It's not a factor in deciding the size of a game. Any good market player can get a sponsorship for the local tiddley winks club.

School comps - Irrelevant

Why?

It shows that the sport is entrenched in the country and they can be self sustaining in the years ahead with local born and bred players.

On the contrary (and Canada is an example here per Nova Scotia) it is possible to have juniors but nowhere to go due to poor retention. Kids will try anything. Adults won't.

Pro teams - Long way to go there

Not when you're stuck on 0 it aint.

Long way to go to prove the 50 times I meant. Don't dodge the point.

Semi pro teams - Still a long way to go

Not when you are stuck on 0 it aint.

Still dodging the point. In fact mathematically you can't multiply by 0 so it's impossible to prove that it's 50 times bigger by that criteria. That's another reason why pointing to other things doesn't work to prove your point.

Knockout comps - That's double handling of the previous two isn't it?

Not when teams from other countries or leagues are involved.

Yes it is. It's the same clubs playing against them that you already count in other competitions.

3 TV stations - Irrelevant

No it's not, it shows that there is a demand for the sport.

Watching it - which is irrelevant. We are talking about the size of the game itself, not who watches it.

Local comps - Still a long way to go

285,000 participants says otherwise.

You're counting the kids there and you shouldn't be. Beside, 5700 (your figure divided by 50)? I am sure that more than that play AFL outside of Australia, and if we include the kids it'll guarantee it.

Regional comps - Still a long way to go

Oh, we are dealing with AFL fans here, regional players don't count even outside Australia let alone in it.

Even if you did count them, you're still nowhere near 50 times bigger than AFL outside of Australia.

City comps - Still a long way to go

I thought that was the AFL's breed and butter lol.

Even if you did count them, you're still nowhere near 50 times bigger than AFL outside of Australia.

CC final crowds - Irrelevant

Crowds do come into it as it shows that the game being played is enjoyed by thousands of fans.

Watching it again! Who cares?? We're talking about the game itself like I said before.

You're light years away from 3000 comps, bub. You've got a week to come up with them.

I never said 3,000 comps, you said 3,000 comps, stop moving the goal posts.

I'm not. You said RL was 50 times bigger than AFL outside Australia. AFL is played in 63 countries as I said before and I listed them. 63 x 50 = 3150.

Oh and only three facebook pages out of 27 links.

Which means 24 dumbarse.

Plus the countries that played IC and EC. You want to prove they didn't play? Total 60.

SO if you want to go back to 60 that's fine with me. You still need 3000 RL comps.

Where in the hell did you get 60 AFL nations from?

See the list I already provided in this thread.

The situation is clear. In order to prove you aren't a BS merchant you have to link us to 3000 RL comps. For someone so confident you're not BSing that should be a simple task, right?

[Xman]

Comments so far from an observer:

- Parra, a lot of your evidence is about factors that are not measurable, like professionalism and TV rights. These do not help your argument IMO because they may reflect size but don't quantify it.

- Parra, your assumtion on 16k teams in the UK is BS! You cannot simply take participation numbers and divide y 17. The numbers quoted could easily include school clinics, akin to auskick, and therefore cannot be included.

- NSWAFL, you state their are 60 comps but comp numbers alone is not the only indicator of size. Larger comps have multiple divisions. You cannot say whether your quoted comps do or not.

[NSWAFL]

- NSWAFL, you state their are 60 comps but comp numbers alone is not the only indicator of size. Larger comps have multiple divisions. You cannot say whether your quoted comps do or not.

Whilst that may be true, it's still a very good starting point and puts the original BS claim by Parra into a very clear perspective.