Page 2 of 3
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 2:27 am
by ParraEelsNRL
The_Wookie wrote:Again, its instructive to note that you can call it whatever the fuck you like. Its an alliance and branding, but Touch is not an NRL subsidary and its members arent NRL members.
It is what it is so stfu mr ozkick.
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 9:47 am
by pussycat
AFLcrap1 wrote:The_Wookie wrote:AFLcrap1 wrote:Oh my another retaaaarded rant .
Any proof of counting ph numbers or emails.
I'll wait .
But I'm probably wasting my time .
You & the truth are planets apart .
Now for double counting
So do you think there's no double counting in AFL .
No Auskick kid who has to play at school .
Or kid who does want to play .
Then plays for his school .
Then probably plays on a weekend .
Lol
Participation numbers are bullshit regardless of which sport it is. But league is the only one counting the particpants of entire other organisation to boost its numbers.
They made some ort of partnership with touch football. Its questionable. But
At least they didn't tell outright lies like the AFL did at Birchgrove oval or make claims that there 80m in there future fund.
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:23 am
by AFLcrap1
In school participants that have to play in school hrs are counted .
That's no problem with fumblers .
The non contact version of our sport created by the Rabbitohs & now back home with the NRL is not allowed .
Lol .
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 11:42 am
by leagueiscrap
pussycat wrote:AFLcrap1 wrote:The_Wookie wrote:AFLcrap1 wrote:Oh my another retaaaarded rant .
Any proof of counting ph numbers or emails.
I'll wait .
But I'm probably wasting my time .
You & the truth are planets apart .
Now for double counting
So do you think there's no double counting in AFL .
No Auskick kid who has to play at school .
Or kid who does want to play .
Then plays for his school .
Then probably plays on a weekend .
Lol
Participation numbers are bullshit regardless of which sport it is. But league is the only one counting the particpants of entire other organisation to boost its numbers.
They made some ort of partnership with touch football. Its questionable. But
At least they didn't tell outright lies like the AFL did at Birchgrove oval or make claims that there 80m in there future fund.
Lol that future fund fund article was a load of crap as asic has signed off on the report unlike the nrlol asic found in the nrlol report had fudged and inflated numbers.
The nrlol has been caught out for decades for fudging numbers for funding, yet you ignore that and slam the AFL for it. As for the participation numbers both the roy Morgan & abs stats show the AFL has far greater playing numbers than the nrlol, the touch numbers are a load of crap, only a hand full of people play it out side of NSW and qld & those numbers will be double & triple counting of email addresses, phone numbers and peoples addresses, all for publicly
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 12:27 pm
by AFLcrap1
Um asked the same of your lying comrade & surprisingly he never reposted any info .
Care to post a source for your Email...ph number claim .
Or is this today's lie ?
Beep beep
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:33 pm
by ParraEelsNRL
This line is a heap of shit and if you want to think of it using basic human logic, then the aussie rules game was here first thus it is the one that is being pushed back as RL is the invader from England, comprende!
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:18 pm
by Swans4ever
ParraEelsNRL wrote:This line is a heap of shit and if you want to think of it using basic human logic, then the aussie rules game was here first thus it is the one that is being pushed back as RL is the invader from England, comprende!
Errr no RU here 1st and some of those clubs split playing RL so players could be paid - the rules difference developed over time. Perhaps you need to read a history book instead of just trying to rewrite it! Hahah
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:37 pm
by ParraEelsNRL
Errr rl was new to aus in 1908.
rl has done all the fighting against the vfl, the other two were getting their arses handed to them until rl came along and reversed the situation.
That's real history, it's why we are talking about it now you ******.
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:45 pm
by ParraEelsNRL
Swans4ever wrote:ParraEelsNRL wrote:This line is a heap of shit and if you want to think of it using basic human logic, then the aussie rules game was here first thus it is the one that is being pushed back as RL is the invader from England, comprende!
Errr no RU here 1st and some of those clubs split playing RL so players could be paid - the rules difference developed over time. Perhaps you need to read a history book instead of just trying to rewrite it! Hahah
Ha, don't sign out when two of your mates turn up to help you, what's wrong old chap?
LOL.
Oh, and RL had been split from Union since 1895 in England and had already changed a lot of the rules by the time the same league was set up out here 13 years later as a completely different sport.
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 7:15 pm
by Swans4ever
ParraEelsNRL wrote:Swans4ever wrote:ParraEelsNRL wrote:This line is a heap of shit and if you want to think of it using basic human logic, then the aussie rules game was here first thus it is the one that is being pushed back as RL is the invader from England, comprende!
Errr no RU here 1st and some of those clubs split playing RL so players could be paid - the rules difference developed over time. Perhaps you need to read a history book instead of just trying to rewrite it! Hahah
Ha, don't sign out when two of your mates turn up to help you, what's wrong old chap?
LOL.
Oh, and RL had been split from Union since 1895 in England and had already changed a lot of the rules by the time the same league was set up out here 13 years later as a completely different sport.
And your point being? The 1st RL comp in Aust was comprised of clubs that had previously been RU clubs, 2nd AF played against RU clubs in Sydney, whatever way you look at it your comp in one form or another was already in existence when AF came around, lastly the AF comp in Sydney was frozen out of grounds by RL and RU which caused its demise until the Swans moved nth. The history is all there perhaps you should read it!
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:19 pm
by AFLcrap1
Can one of the bullshit twins please provide some proof of emails & PH numbers being counted as participants .
Both made the claim .
No proof or a source as usual .
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 1:03 pm
by ParraEelsNRL
Swans4ever wrote:ParraEelsNRL wrote:Swans4ever wrote:ParraEelsNRL wrote:This line is a heap of shit and if you want to think of it using basic human logic, then the aussie rules game was here first thus it is the one that is being pushed back as RL is the invader from England, comprende!
Errr no RU here 1st and some of those clubs split playing RL so players could be paid - the rules difference developed over time. Perhaps you need to read a history book instead of just trying to rewrite it! Hahah
Ha, don't sign out when two of your mates turn up to help you, what's wrong old chap?
LOL.
Oh, and RL had been split from Union since 1895 in England and had already changed a lot of the rules by the time the same league was set up out here 13 years later as a completely different sport.
And your point being? The 1st RL comp in Aust was comprised of clubs that had previously been RU clubs, 2nd AF played against RU clubs in Sydney, whatever way you look at it your comp in one form or another was already in existence when AF came around, lastly the AF comp in Sydney was frozen out of grounds by RL and RU which caused its demise until the Swans moved nth. The history is all there perhaps you should read it!
You have no fucking idea, up to 5 years ago, you had no idea there were two codes of Rugby you stupid victardian and now you wanna give me history lessons on my own fav sport?
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 1:56 pm
by post_hoc
The_Wookie wrote:AFLcrap1 wrote:Lol the bargarsi line .
Seeing as we've overtaken AFL in participation numbers I think the line is an irrelevant piece of crap .
But you havent really taken over the particpation numbers have you. The entire increase is due to the Touch affiliation. Not due to Rugby league - the ARLC doesnt count Touch football Australia amongst its subsidaries by the way, so claiming its participants as their own is a little laughable.
Also lol @ Rugby league talking about experiences again.
Total club players for the NRL - 179,506 (and not even 10.5k outside NSW/QLD)
Total club players for the AFL - 336,108
Total clubs for the NRl - 1,077 in NSW, QLD, no specified number for the rest. Perhaps league should be concerned that they lost 50 clubs in 2015 in Qld alone, and another 40 odd in country NSW.
Total clubs for the AFL - 2,763
And Football has 1,700,000 according to Roy Morgan, but you really don't want to talk about that.
I would argue Rugby Union has successfully crossed the Barassi line more so than AFL, mind you Barassi himself couldn't cross it, being a complete failure at GWS.
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 2:26 pm
by ParraEelsNRL
1.4 million for Rugby League Australia wide which would put it second behind soccer.
Re: The "Barassi Line"
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 2:33 pm
by post_hoc
ParraEelsNRL wrote:1.4 million for Rugby League Australia wide which would put it second behind soccer.
Not sure if my 1.7 million includes futsal (but I am assuming so) as clearly football doesn't have a version of touch like League has. I don't agree with League quoting touch nor for that fact do I agree with football quoting futsal or AFL quoting school based ozkick.
I have recently seen ads in McDonalds for AFL 9's I presume the AFL are counting those numbers, so why shouldn't League count touch?