Page 2 of 3
Re: Crowds of 5-7k for Storm if it wasn't for New Zealanders
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:25 pm
by ParraEelsNRL
Mod, can you explain to the littlest fumblefan that I was not having a discussion with it and that I actually told it to f u c k off and not to bother me anymore as I hate sooks and esp dobbers.
Re: Crowds of 5-7k for Storm if it wasn't for New Zealanders
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:10 pm
by NSWAFL
If you don't like me, leave.
Re: Crowds of 5-7k for Storm if it wasn't for New Zealanders
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:07 pm
by ParraEelsNRL
Squeaaaaaaaaaaaak
Re: Crowds of 5-7k for Storm if it wasn't for New Zealanders
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:41 pm
by cos789
ParraEelsNRL wrote:
don't ever talk to me again
Mr. Tourettes is back - thinks a sentence is a string of abuse.
Re: Crowds of 5-7k for Storm if it wasn't for New Zealanders
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:21 pm
by ParraEelsNRL
*unnacceptable
Re: Crowds of 5-7k for Storm if it wasn't for New Zealanders
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:38 pm
by Beaussie
ParraEelsNRL wrote:Prove it.
I posted that info from the Australian from its business section and if need be, I can get the 2010 NRL state of the game report.
There lies, more lies and then there is complete bullshyte.
The Australian ay? Like the Storm and the NRL, owned by News Ltd.
Real reliable source that one.
News Ltd

Re: Crowds of 5-7k for Storm if it wasn't for New Zealanders
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:41 pm
by ParraEelsNRL
Fat Pat huh?
Re: Crowds of 5-7k for Storm if it wasn't for New Zealanders
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:31 pm
by cos789
Totally FITH
Re: Crowds of 5-7k for Storm if it wasn't for New Zealanders
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:54 pm
by NSWAFL
Beaussie wrote:ParraEelsNRL wrote:Prove it.
I posted that info from the Australian from its business section and if need be, I can get the 2010 NRL state of the game report.
There lies, more lies and then there is complete bullshyte.
The Australian ay? Like the Storm and the NRL, owned by News Ltd.
Real reliable source that one.
News Ltd

Whoa! Beaussie I'll think you'll find that the Australian is a Fairfax newspaper.
Re: Crowds of 5-7k for Storm if it wasn't for New Zealanders
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:39 pm
by Beaussie
NSWAFL wrote:Beaussie wrote:ParraEelsNRL wrote:Prove it.
I posted that info from the Australian from its business section and if need be, I can get the 2010 NRL state of the game report.
There lies, more lies and then there is complete bullshyte.
The Australian ay? Like the Storm and the NRL, owned by News Ltd.
Real reliable source that one.
News Ltd

Whoa! Beaussie I'll think you'll find that the Australian is a Fairfax newspaper.
You're wrong NSWAFL. See the following.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/network
News Limited is one of Australia's largest media conglomerate companies, employing more than 8,000 staff nationwide and approximately 3,000 journalists. The publicly listed company's interests span newspaper and magazine publishing, Internet, Pay TV, National Rugby League, market research, DVD and film distribution, and film and television production trading assets.
As a part of News Corporation, News Limited operates 170 newspaper and magazine titles in Australia, including the following:
The Australian including weekly insert magazine The Deal and monthly insert magazine (wish)
The Weekend Australian including insert magazine The Weekend Australian Magazine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Limited
Re: Crowds of 5-7k for Storm if it wasn't for New Zealanders
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:25 am
by NSWAFL
Oh! I could have sworn it was Fairfax. Oh wel......
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 12:28 am
by 214Four
sorry double post
Re: Crowds of 5-7k for Storm if it wasn't for New Zealanders
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 12:34 am
by 214Four
"Crowds of 5-7k for Storm if it wasn't for New Zealanders"
Thanks, your thread was very informative. it has taught me alot about AFL, like...
1. AFL is mainly the anglo-aussie mans game,
2. New Zealanders who currently are the largest migrant nationality to australia each year are more likely to follow RL than AFL (even in VIC the AFLs mecca).
3. AFL fans do not consider increasing attendances as progress if those crowds makeup an increasing muliticultural fanbase. They probably consider it like those who dont follow AFL, 'Un-Australian'.
4. AFL supporters are more likely to make racist comments often without even realising it. Which puts me back to #1.
even anglo/caucasian migrants from NZ and UK are least likely to follow AFL. Only the occasional irishman. Not entirely his fault though
Re: Crowds of 5-7k for Storm if it wasn't for New Zealanders
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:30 am
by Xman
214Four wrote:"Crowds of 5-7k for Storm if it wasn't for New Zealanders"
Thanks, your thread was very informative. it has taught me alot about AFL, like...
1. AFL is mainly the anglo-aussie mans game,
2. New Zealanders who currently are the largest migrant nationality to australia each year are more likely to follow RL than AFL (even in VIC the AFLs mecca).
3. AFL fans do not consider increasing attendances as progress if those crowds makeup an increasing muliticultural fanbase. They probably consider it like those who dont follow AFL, 'Un-Australian'.
4. AFL supporters are more likely to make racist comments often without even realising it. Which puts me back to #1.
even anglo/caucasian migrants from NZ and UK are least likely to follow AFL. Only the occasional irishman. Not entirely his fault though
AFL has similar indigenous Australian participation rates to the NRL.

the difference is that ARs is played in Australia and RL overseas in areas like the pacific. It's no surprise the NRL has a higher proportion of players from these regions.
Your 4th comment is ridiculous and without substannce.

Re: Crowds of 5-7k for Storm if it wasn't for New Zealanders
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:30 am
by Xman
214Four wrote:"Crowds of 5-7k for Storm if it wasn't for New Zealanders"
Thanks, your thread was very informative. it has taught me alot about AFL, like...
1. AFL is mainly the anglo-aussie mans game,
2. New Zealanders who currently are the largest migrant nationality to australia each year are more likely to follow RL than AFL (even in VIC the AFLs mecca).
3. AFL fans do not consider increasing attendances as progress if those crowds makeup an increasing muliticultural fanbase. They probably consider it like those who dont follow AFL, 'Un-Australian'.
4. AFL supporters are more likely to make racist comments often without even realising it. Which puts me back to #1.
even anglo/caucasian migrants from NZ and UK are least likely to follow AFL. Only the occasional irishman. Not entirely his fault though
