Talking Footy

Pete_09 wrote:

I cant believe the Lions are only $81. I support them & even I think they should be at least $150.

Well its bad luck you support them.
Vlad managed to make sure they were successful(along with the Swans..that means a compromised comp).It was esy to do with only 2 non heartland teams .
Now he has another 2 to try to make sure are successful..Someone has to miss out & it looks like the Kitty Kats.
He is still letting the Swans cheat ..even after 30 yrs in SYD...What a joke ..a team gets a higher salary cap than others (but lets call it something else that makes it sound Legit... A COLA.. .
& the 2 new teams need all the best young fumbling stick insects ,so they get them..
Poor Kitty kats miss out.

How anyone can watch a Rigged comp is beyond me..No level playing field,,

But then again ,Fumble fans are not known for being too bright.

I watch it because it is simply just a great game to watch. Rugby league nothing really happens in a game & there are heaps less tries scored (than goals in AFL) that is why the odds are so different.

Pete_09 wrote:

I watch it because it is simply just a great game to watch. Rugby league nothing really happens in a game & there are heaps less tries scored (than goals in AFL) that is why the odds are so different.

Oh my you cant be serious.
Jesus Christ ,just after I say this.


But then again ,Fumble fans are not known for being too bright

You go & prove it..

Have you got a twin brother who posts here ...he calls himself NRLcrap1..?

Look all I am saying is there is not much skill in Rugby League so it is a lot harder to predict a result. Where in AFL there is a lot of skill so the best team wins majority of the time, hence the difference in odds

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Pete_09 wrote:

I cant believe the Lions are only $81. I support them & even I think they should be at least $150.

Well its bad luck you support them.
Vlad managed to make sure they were successful(along with the Swans..that means a compromised comp).It was esy to do with only 2 non heartland teams .
Now he has another 2 to try to make sure are successful..Someone has to miss out & it looks like the Kitty Kats.
He is still letting the Swans cheat ..even after 30 yrs in SYD...What a joke ..a team gets a higher salary cap than others (but lets call it something else that makes it sound Legit... A COLA.. .
& the 2 new teams need all the best young fumbling stick insects ,so they get them..
Poor Kitty kats miss out.

How anyone can watch a Rigged comp is beyond me..No level playing field,,

But then again ,Fumble fans are not known for being too bright.

So you must struggle watching the NRL then...

The Storm have new owners following the sale by media outlet News Corp. The financial depth of the new owners is unknown, and only time will tell if they can make the highly successful football club a financial success. The Storm has been overspending to the tune of between $2 million and $5 million for 15 years. This shortfall has been financed by News Ltd and the amount spent by the club does not seem to be falling since the salary cap scandal in 2010.
The Storm football club spends about $20 million a year, or about $2-$4 million more than most other clubs except for the wealthy Broncos. The new consortium of owners, led by New Zealander Bart Campbell, are projecting the club will break even in five years, which is a long time to be losing money. The Storm has risen to the top of the competition by overspending; if the club has to curtail its expenses it is very difficult to see the performance on the field continuing, placing greater financial stress on the group.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z2reDoMEOQ

The storm, bankrolled by the owners of the NRL, rose to huge and long term success on the back of overspending despite a tiny local following. Seems real fair doesn't it..... :_<>

Pete_09 wrote:

Look all I am saying is there is not much skill in Rugby League so it is a lot harder to predict a result. Where in AFL there is a lot of skill so the best team wins majority of the time, hence the difference in odds

Agree. Its usually harder to predict a winner in low scoring games, where as higher scoring games are more often won by the better team and are therefore more predictable

It doesn't mean one is more interesting than the other. This can be determined by attendance, membership, media interest, ratings etc

Xman wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Pete_09 wrote:

I cant believe the Lions are only $81. I support them & even I think they should be at least $150.

Well its bad luck you support them.
Vlad managed to make sure they were successful(along with the Swans..that means a compromised comp).It was esy to do with only 2 non heartland teams .
Now he has another 2 to try to make sure are successful..Someone has to miss out & it looks like the Kitty Kats.
He is still letting the Swans cheat ..even after 30 yrs in SYD...What a joke ..a team gets a higher salary cap than others (but lets call it something else that makes it sound Legit... A COLA.. .
& the 2 new teams need all the best young fumbling stick insects ,so they get them..
Poor Kitty kats miss out.

How anyone can watch a Rigged comp is beyond me..No level playing field,,

But then again ,Fumble fans are not known for being too bright.

So you must struggle watching the NRL then...

The Storm have new owners following the sale by media outlet News Corp. The financial depth of the new owners is unknown, and only time will tell if they can make the highly successful football club a financial success. The Storm has been overspending to the tune of between $2 million and $5 million for 15 years. This shortfall has been financed by News Ltd and the amount spent by the club does not seem to be falling since the salary cap scandal in 2010.
The Storm football club spends about $20 million a year, or about $2-$4 million more than most other clubs except for the wealthy Broncos. The new consortium of owners, led by New Zealander Bart Campbell, are projecting the club will break even in five years, which is a long time to be losing money. The Storm has risen to the top of the competition by overspending; if the club has to curtail its expenses it is very difficult to see the performance on the field continuing, placing greater financial stress on the group.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z2reDoMEOQ

The storm, bankrolled by the owners of the NRL, rose to huge and long term success on the back of overspending despite a tiny local following. Seems real fair doesn't it..... :_<>

You cant be serious..
Show me where the Storm or any other team in the NRL get higher cap than others.
All teams work under the same $$$$ for the players...Football operations don't come under the cap.
& when teams cheat the cap they are punished(Storm & Bulldogs).

Its different in Derpball.
there is LEGALISED cheating of the cap.
No penalty for Sydney..

Yes, look at soccer for instance. What is the odds of a team not scoring in the two codes?

Oh & what about the odds before the Rugby League World Cup. I think Australia was $1.40, NZ $5 & then England $14 with the most of the teams being $100 - $1,000.

At least in the AFL 6-7 teams can win the flag. Can you say that about the RL World Cup Raiderdave!!!!!

Pete_09 wrote:

Oh & what about the odds before the Rugby League World Cup. I think Australia was $1.40, NZ $5 & then England $14 with the most of the teams being $100 - $1,000.

At least in the AFL 6-7 teams can win the flag. Can you say that about the RL World Cup Raiderdave!!!!!

:_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

yes indeed
this one is NRLcrappers twin brother

what the fuck has the RLWC got to do with domestic comps you wombat

the VFL has 2.... count em
2
systems meant to even out the talent pool & provide an interesting comp
so
what in the love of gods fucking name ..... happened fumblers ? >

:_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

Phelpsy wrote:

Yes, look at soccer for instance. What is the odds of a team not scoring in the two codes?

well
when you have a code where you STILL get something for missing
its a no brainer who'd win that eh fuckhead ? :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

& who do u think will win the AFL premiership then? Whoever u pick I bet u get it wrong. Very even season coming up, I cant wait

I wonder what the odds are even for a team not to score a goal in AFL. I think you could get 10000 to 1 as it had rarely happened... I can't remember it happening in the modern era although footscray came close once. I think this happened several times in the nrl last year.

I also wonder, are the quality of games lessening in the nrl, with the shrinking talent pool given the expansion of AFL and the growth of soccer, whether teams are more even as there are less stars. Sure you have a few standouts, billy slatter anyone (go storm) but as AFL grows and more kids are drawn to AFL and to a lesser extent, soccer, are nrl all just closer in how poor a side they are?

Pete_09 wrote:

& who do u think will win the AFL premiership then? Whoever u pick I bet u get it wrong. Very even season coming up, I cant wait

I couldn't give a fuck
some pack of bumbling clowns no doubt :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>