Talking Footy

Phelpsy wrote:

So from where I sit no one knows the actual total tv audience fit the swans v giants game for Sydney. We know free to air and that's it. The rest is just speculation either for or against higher or lower numbers!!

Raiderdave wrote:

Phelpsy wrote:

So from where I sit no one knows the actual total tv audience fit the swans v giants game for Sydney. We know free to air and that's it. The rest is just speculation either for or against higher or lower numbers!!

oh we know it .. or near enough to it just fine
its just not a figure vicky kicky cheerleaders in here want to acknowledge

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Phelpsy wrote:

So from where I sit no one knows the actual total tv audience fit the swans v giants game for Sydney. We know free to air and that's it. The rest is just speculation either for or against higher or lower numbers!!

oh we know it .. or near enough to it just fine
its just not a figure vicky kicky cheerleaders in here want to acknowledge

"We"

Is that your multiple personalities Dave? Dumb and dumber?

Phelpsy wrote:

It's a hypothesis RD but how do you prove it?

Raiderdave wrote:

Phelpsy wrote:

It's a hypothesis RD but how do you prove it?

how does one prove a tree falling in the forest makes a sound

one can't

but we all know it does

Raiderdave wrote:

Phelpsy wrote:

It's a hypothesis RD but how do you prove it?

how does one prove a tree falling in the forest makes a sound

one can't

but we all know it does

Raiderdave wrote:

Phelpsy wrote:

It's a hypothesis RD but how do you prove it?

how does one prove a tree falling in the forest makes a sound

one can't

but we all know it does

Raiderdave wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Hey Raiderdave can you tell me if the NRL is soooooo hugh with people watching it on the box, why are so many of its clubs giung broke, .

so Hugh
who's Hugh ... your boyfriend ?

and anyway dickface
the NRL & its clubs just signed a media rights deal of nearing 1.3 Billion dollars as a result of its complete dominance of this medium in the last 5 years or so
so its clubs will benefit financially from this ... from now on
an extra 3 million per club per year for the next 5 .... & thats just the start

& I have a question for you

if the VFL is sooooooooo .... .... hugh .. with all its crowds & memberships
why are so many of its clubs ..gooig.. guing.... gargling ? ...... what ?.... going was what he was trying to spell ? ...... oh ok .... going broke ?

anything to add here you illiterate halfwit ?

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Phelpsy wrote:

It's a hypothesis RD but how do you prove it?

how does one prove a tree falling in the forest makes a sound

one can't

but we all know it does

You drop a tree in a forest....

piesman2011 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Hey Raiderdave can you tell me if the NRL is soooooo hugh with people watching it on the box, why are so many of its clubs giung broke, .

so Hugh
who's Hugh ... your boyfriend ?

and anyway dickface
the NRL & its clubs just signed a media rights deal of nearing 1.3 Billion dollars as a result of its complete dominance of this medium in the last 5 years or so
so its clubs will benefit financially from this ... from now on
an extra 3 million per club per year for the next 5 .... & thats just the start

& I have a question for you

if the VFL is sooooooooo .... .... hugh .. with all its crowds & memberships
why are so many of its clubs ..gooig.. guing.... gargling ? ...... what ?.... going was what he was trying to spell ? ...... oh ok .... going broke ?

anything to add here you illiterate halfwit ?

Why do you keep using the made up figure of 1.3 billion. John grant said you got just over 1.2 billion. Is it because the AFL got a bit over 1.3 billion which makes your made up 1.3 billion figure almost as big?

Raiderdave wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

so Hugh
who's Hugh ... your boyfriend ?

and anyway dickface
the NRL & its clubs just signed a media rights deal of nearing 1.3 Billion dollars as a result of its complete dominance of this medium in the last 5 years or so
so its clubs will benefit financially from this ... from now on
an extra 3 million per club per year for the next 5 .... & thats just the start

& I have a question for you

if the VFL is sooooooooo .... .... hugh .. with all its crowds & memberships
why are so many of its clubs ..gooig.. guing.... gargling ? ...... what ?.... going was what he was trying to spell ? ...... oh ok .... going broke ?

anything to add here you illiterate halfwit ?

Why do you keep using the made up figure of 1.3 billion. John grant said you got just over 1.2 billion. Is it because the AFL got a bit over 1.3 billion which makes your made up 1.3 billion figure almost as big?

the VFL got 1.253 Billion
not a penny more

the NRL got more then this as has been proven ad nauism

end of

Phelpsy wrote:

Why do you keep arguing with rd?? He throws bait and you all bite! You know the facts , we all do, yet when he puts up erroneous figures and arguments you all bite. The AFL could get 100 000 at every game and the nrl 10 000 and he is still going to say the nrl gets better crowds .... In fact that's almost what happens ??? At least with ratings on tv the old regional figures debate can be justified as plausible. But crowd numbers is Plain and simple re AFL getting much better crowds ... Even in Sydney generally.