Talking Footy

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

cos789 wrote:

Cracker wrote:

I think these claims about Sydney ratings of the Swans have gone on for long enough.

Raiderdave, you will provide proof that The Jetsons outrates Sydney AFL games on television. Or when Xman comes back I will be making a request that under the new rules the claim should be deleted.

Just like you runninga away from your disputation that AF is played in NZ.

All you have to do is acknowledge that AF is played in NZ
according to the link supplied.

You look like a complete moron in not acknowledging AF is played in NZ
when a complete could recognise the fact that AF is played in NZ.

Obsessed fruitloop .
Show some Show some respect for the proud owner of the Swans.

Dumbest post ever NUPHY! Unlike NRL we don't have private ownership! Swans are number one NSW and don't it piss you right off too!

You are dumber than a bag of horseshit.
Owned does not equal PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.
OWNED = when i show you fumblers up as liars & delusional tards.

Now show some respect for the Chairman.

So you post a picture of the iron chef with a comment

Show some respect for the proud owner of the Swans

What else can you be inferring NUPHY!

That he owns the Thwans on TV in Syd.
Most people with an IQ above that of 3 day old roadkill could work that out.
Then there is you.

AFLcrap1 wrote:

That he owns the Thwans on TV in Syd.
Most people with an IQ above that of 3 day old roadkill could work that out.
Then there is you.

We'll you didn't say that you said he was the owner! How about you choose your words better next time!

Swans4ever wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

That he owns the Thwans on TV in Syd.
Most people with an IQ above that of 3 day old roadkill could work that out.
Then there is you.

We'll you didn't say that you said he was the owner! How about you choose your words better next time!

How about you get a clue

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

That he owns the Thwans on TV in Syd.
Most people with an IQ above that of 3 day old roadkill could work that out.
Then there is you.

We'll you didn't say that you said he was the owner! How about you choose your words better next time!

How about you get a clue

And how about you get a doctor to remove that MASSIVE chip off your shoulders NUPHY!

Swans4ever wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

That he owns the Thwans on TV in Syd.
Most people with an IQ above that of 3 day old roadkill could work that out.
Then there is you.

We'll you didn't say that you said he was the owner! How about you choose your words better next time!

How about you get a clue

And how about you get a doctor to remove that MASSIVE chip off your shoulders NUPHY!

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

That he owns the Thwans on TV in Syd.
Most people with an IQ above that of 3 day old roadkill could work that out.
Then there is you.

We'll you didn't say that you said he was the owner! How about you choose your words better next time!

How about you get a clue

And how about you get a doctor to remove that MASSIVE chip off your shoulders NUPHY!

spazzza no photos of your fantasy date nite!!! post it in the right forum

adamj1300 wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

That he owns the Thwans on TV in Syd.
Most people with an IQ above that of 3 day old roadkill could work that out.
Then there is you.

We'll you didn't say that you said he was the owner! How about you choose your words better next time!

How about you get a clue

And how about you get a doctor to remove that MASSIVE chip off your shoulders NUPHY!

spazzza no photos of your fantasy date nite!!! post it in the right forum

Your not inferring anything homosexual in nature are you adam? I seem to recall someone having a go at me for something along those lines. Do you recall who that was?

King-Eliagh wrote:

The swines don't rate in sydney, literally. You can say alls you like and have a big cry about where the ratings boxes are but unfortunately for you swines there's millions out there who are smarter than you. 3k is a very very valid sample size statistically speaking. Anyone who's studied stats would know this and anyone who hasn't studied stats wouldn't be stoopid enough to make the claim it isn't. Well, almost anyone.

And re memberships, I'd bet the swans have a few thou members in the act

Swines it's like you've come back from the dunny, left your zipper undone with your left testicle hanging out and a long stream of toilet paper is trailing behind you dragging from your shoe.

What the fukk has happened to your posting man? > :-+

Fix it up or pissoff.

Again could have predicted every word you just posted you are such a clone of RD's - have you EVER had an opposing view point??? Me thinks not - a sure sign that you are void of independent thought - AGAIN prove that 3000 set box's are an accurate and reliable medium to determine ACTUAL viewer numbers and I will happily concede that point - then address my next five points
1. Membership
2. Sponsorship
3. Revenue
4. Average Crowds
5. Total Revenue

Swans are number one in these areas - the fact you ONLY ever talk about tv ratings means you agree with me - $ in the end is the only test that counts - and the Swans wouldn't be getting those sponsors unless it was worth it to the sponsor - they would go with the Bunnies, the Sharks or the Sea Eagles. But by all means you and the rest of the NRL concentrate on tv ratings - the Swans will keep being number one!

And still outrated by reruns of Mighty Mouse.

Everything outrates them, heck, I reckon some of those boring home shopping channels outrate them. I'd lol if they did.

Actually, loling right now.

Swans4ever wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

The swines don't rate in sydney, literally. You can say alls you like and have a big cry about where the ratings boxes are but unfortunately for you swines there's millions out there who are smarter than you. 3k is a very very valid sample size statistically speaking. Anyone who's studied stats would know this and anyone who hasn't studied stats wouldn't be stoopid enough to make the claim it isn't. Well, almost anyone.

And re memberships, I'd bet the swans have a few thou members in the act

Swines it's like you've come back from the dunny, left your zipper undone with your left testicle hanging out and a long stream of toilet paper is trailing behind you dragging from your shoe.

What the fukk has happened to your posting man? > :-+

Fix it up or pissoff.

Again could have predicted every word you just posted you are such a clone of RD's - have you EVER had an opposing view point??? Me thinks not - a sure sign that you are void of independent thought - AGAIN prove that 3000 set box's are an accurate and reliable medium to determine ACTUAL viewer numbers and I will happily concede that point - then address my next five points
1. Membership
2. Sponsorship
3. Revenue
4. Average Crowds
5. Total Revenue

Swans are number one in these areas - the fact you ONLY ever talk about tv ratings means you agree with me - $ in the end is the only test that counts - and the Swans wouldn't be getting those sponsors unless it was worth it to the sponsor - they would go with the Bunnies, the Sharks or the Sea Eagles. But by all means you and the rest of the NRL concentrate on tv ratings - the Swans will keep being number one!

the Swines are numb 2 for members in their home state fuckwit
& behind the Jetsons & iron chef for TV ratings ... so.. about 489th

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

Sydneysiders don't care about them
end of

Raiderdave wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

The swines don't rate in sydney, literally. You can say alls you like and have a big cry about where the ratings boxes are but unfortunately for you swines there's millions out there who are smarter than you. 3k is a very very valid sample size statistically speaking. Anyone who's studied stats would know this and anyone who hasn't studied stats wouldn't be stoopid enough to make the claim it isn't. Well, almost anyone.

And re memberships, I'd bet the swans have a few thou members in the act

Swines it's like you've come back from the dunny, left your zipper undone with your left testicle hanging out and a long stream of toilet paper is trailing behind you dragging from your shoe.

What the fukk has happened to your posting man? > :-+

Fix it up or pissoff.

Again could have predicted every word you just posted you are such a clone of RD's - have you EVER had an opposing view point??? Me thinks not - a sure sign that you are void of independent thought - AGAIN prove that 3000 set box's are an accurate and reliable medium to determine ACTUAL viewer numbers and I will happily concede that point - then address my next five points
1. Membership
2. Sponsorship
3. Revenue
4. Average Crowds
5. Total Revenue

Swans are number one in these areas - the fact you ONLY ever talk about tv ratings means you agree with me - $ in the end is the only test that counts - and the Swans wouldn't be getting those sponsors unless it was worth it to the sponsor - they would go with the Bunnies, the Sharks or the Sea Eagles. But by all means you and the rest of the NRL concentrate on tv ratings - the Swans will keep being number one!

the Swines are numb 2 for members in their home state fuckwit
& behind the Jetsons & iron chef for TV ratings ... so.. about 489th

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

Sydneysiders don't care about them
end of

No they are number one and clearly that means there are Sydney siders that do care about them! Fail again!

Swans4ever wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

The swines don't rate in sydney, literally. You can say alls you like and have a big cry about where the ratings boxes are but unfortunately for you swines there's millions out there who are smarter than you. 3k is a very very valid sample size statistically speaking. Anyone who's studied stats would know this and anyone who hasn't studied stats wouldn't be stoopid enough to make the claim it isn't. Well, almost anyone.

And re memberships, I'd bet the swans have a few thou members in the act

Swines it's like you've come back from the dunny, left your zipper undone with your left testicle hanging out and a long stream of toilet paper is trailing behind you dragging from your shoe.

What the fukk has happened to your posting man? > :-+

Fix it up or pissoff.

Again could have predicted every word you just posted you are such a clone of RD's - have you EVER had an opposing view point??? Me thinks not - a sure sign that you are void of independent thought - AGAIN prove that 3000 set box's are an accurate and reliable medium to determine ACTUAL viewer numbers and I will happily concede that point - then address my next five points
1. Membership
2. Sponsorship
3. Revenue
4. Average Crowds
5. Total Revenue

Swans are number one in these areas - the fact you ONLY ever talk about tv ratings means you agree with me - $ in the end is the only test that counts - and the Swans wouldn't be getting those sponsors unless it was worth it to the sponsor - they would go with the Bunnies, the Sharks or the Sea Eagles. But by all means you and the rest of the NRL concentrate on tv ratings - the Swans will keep being number one!

the Swines are numb 2 for members in their home state fuckwit
& behind the Jetsons & iron chef for TV ratings ... so.. about 489th

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

Sydneysiders don't care about them
end of

No they are number one and clearly that means there are Sydney siders that do care about them! Fail again!

yes
but more Sydneysiders prefer this bloke






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

It's true.

OR.