Page 2 of 4
Re: National Rugby League is not National
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 10:16 pm
by Raiderdave
sydneyfc wrote:ParraEelsNRL wrote:Two of the four so-called biggest football codes in the country don't even have a team in the Nations capital, for shame and National my arse!
at this rate the waiders wont be around for too much longer if they cant keep up with rental payments
get the eviction notice ready

More revenue then the entire oi league
Every
single
Year
Could buy the greazy wanker comp out tomorrow
But
Why would they buy a comp that cant outrate womens cricket :_<>

:_<>
Re: National Rugby League is not National
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 10:22 pm
by sydneyfc
#74milindabank
Re: National Rugby League is not National
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:06 am
by King-Eliagh
I don't profess to know the ins and outs of the governance of the NRL but I would suggest its international.
The oi league could be fairly aptly be called the "minority of the minority's league" or probably more accurate to say "the minority of the minority of the minority's league". Or simply "the code for wanking males with inferiority complexes"... or perhaps "national mens wimpball". Just sayin, the a-league is unoriginal and inaccurate.
Thoughts?

Re: National Rugby League is not National
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:06 am
by post_hoc
yet the sport is played by 250 million people world wide, so not talking about watching talking about actual playing in organised comps.
KE_liar, more lies from you I see, god you are having a bad day and I haven't even had my coffee yet
Re: National Rugby League is not National
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:48 am
by King-Eliagh
but but but
.... everywhere else

Re: National Rugby League is not National
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:05 am
by post_hoc
but but but 104,000 people Rugby League in Australia, but but butLOL
Re: National Rugby League is not National
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:11 am
by King-Eliagh
but... .... less than 104k bother to watch the oi league in Australia
"but but but...but but...everywhere else"
"but but but.. but KE's a big bad wiar"

Re: National Rugby League is not National
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:18 am
by post_hoc
Year upon Year the A League is growing in number of viewers, in number of crowds at the game, in revenue in every metric, so long as we keep growing then it is good.
Our Socceroos are watched by Millions, and Aussie team won the Asian Champions league and was watched by 10's of millions of people, every sign is improving for Football, more people watched the Wanderers play than watched SOO and Grandfinal combined.
The sad sad fact is rugby League is number 1 in PNG and maybe a few other pacific countries. In over 100 years you can only manage 104,000 people playing your game in Australia.
Re: National Rugby League is not National
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:48 am
by King-Eliagh
in Australia which for your info posthoc is where the wanderers are based, 99.68% of the country didn't bother watching what was touted as one of the most historic important games in Australian soccer history!
The insignificance is ginormous!

Re: National Rugby League is not National
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:47 am
by post_hoc
what I find funny is the 113,000 people that watched the Wanderers on TV and claimed to be such low number by KE_liar is still 9,000 more people than play Rugby League in the entire country.
So, if 99.68% of the country didn't bother watching, then slightly more number of people couldn't be bothered to pick up a rugby league ball and run into a meathead.
Re: National Rugby League is not National
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:43 pm
by Raiderdave
post_hoc wrote:yet the sport is played by 250 million people world wide, so not talking about watching talking about actual playing in organised comps.
KE_liar, more lies from you I see, god you are having a bad day and I haven't even had my coffee yet
But but but
Everywhere else
:_<>

Re: National Rugby League is not National
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:45 pm
by Raiderdave
post_hoc wrote:what I find funny is the 113,000 people that watched the Wanderers on TV and claimed to be such low number by KE_liar is still 9,000 more people than play Rugby League in the entire country.
So, if 99.68% of the country didn't bother watching, then slightly more number of people couldn't be bothered to pick up a rugby league ball and run into a meathead.
1.8 million play RL & its other variants in this country you stupid lying raider :_<>

Re: National Rugby League is not National
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 1:30 pm
by ParraEelsNRL
Yeah well wimps need not apply for RL, they have sokka.
Even those stick insects that play victorian rulez have more masculinity than all sokka players combined. The hardest part about sokka is the jumping up and down on seats while facing the wrong way then heading off after a match to have a fight down a dark alley somewhere pretending you are part of the movie franchise called green street poofs.
Re: National Rugby League is not National
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 1:31 pm
by King-Eliagh
post_hoc wrote:what I find funny is the 113,000 people that watched the Wanderers on TV and claimed to be such low number by KE_liar is still 9,000 more people than play Rugby League in the entire country.
So, if 99.68% of the country didn't bother watching, then slightly more number of people couldn't be bothered to pick up a rugby league ball and run into a meathead.
A flawed assessment, as is pretty much all of your assessments. The sooker was available for all to watch and I recall much less than the 113k you nominated bothered to watch the most important game in Australian history apparently. I think it was more like 47k right? Less than the Aussie womens cricket side manages

...the bioggest game in aus soccer history...less than a womens cricket match

its just astounding really.
So yes the sooker was available to the whole bloody nation, old young female male hermaphrodites dwarfs amputees anorexics rich poor you get the picture

Whereas to participate as a RL player? Well we know the ABS calls for their participant data to be current i.e. someone who played five years ago aint saying he's playing it in the most current census. This takes out pretty much the whole pop over 50 or say 8million. We know a high percentage of females aint keen on it. So for the under 50 females there goes another 6 or so million. We know you cant play it until you're about 5 or 6. There goes another 2million. We know that thai ladyboys and other men who don't have much physical strength don't go near it so there goes another 2 million. We know Victorians aint that keen on it because they like AFL. There goes another 2 million.
So yeah. Its a more demanding and difficult code to enter so really out of those who physically can, we got massive numbers.
Sooker on the other hand? It's considered 'safe'. And it is. The whole country under 60 can play it and yes they get decent numbers which is great but id have a well educated guess and say 70% of those who participate in sooker prefer to watch RL or marngrook on the tele
Poor sooker. It's never gunna be big here.
Re: National Rugby League is not National
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 1:34 pm
by post_hoc
KE_liar, wrong again, or was that more lies, the ACL was played on Foxtel only so not available to all, only available to those with a Foxtel subscription AND the sports package LOL, so why do you keep lying, your name really suits you.