Talking Footy

The facts are there for everyone to see. Deny the possibility of fudging. At present it exists.

cooee wrote:

It's innocent till proven guilty not guilty till proven innocent.

yes quite right ...

when we say something we have to prove it
when they say something we have to disprove it

Fwits .... the lot of em

get ready .... we're not too far away from complete anarchy again

Prove that the Leagues Clubs have no connection in any way shape or form with the rugby clubs.

Then I'll shut up.

NSWAFL wrote:

Prove that the Leagues Clubs have no connection in any way shape or form with the rugby clubs.

Then I'll shut up.

it'd be Rugby League clubs you concussed wombat
connection ? what does that mean ?

does one run the other ?...... rarely
the Raiders " own " their premises ... 10 different licensed clubs
they absolutely control their clubs
but this is a rare example

most RL clubs have little or no control ova their leagues club

more obvious proof
& two words

reduced grants

if RL clubs controlled Leagues clubs , they'd take as much as they needed out of them
but the grants from Leagues clubs have been reducing for ova a decade now

proving ..... no connection as poor a term as that is

Raiderdave wrote:

you concussed wombat

As a campaigner for Australian Native wildlife I find the use of "wombat" in this case to be quite offensive.
I'm sure KE would find it offensive too because a wombat is native to Australia.

NSWAFL wrote:

Prove that the Leagues Clubs have no connection in any way shape or form with the rugby clubs.

Then I'll shut up.

He can't.
In another thread I posted a link that a certain rls club, not only was promoting nrl club memberships as well as club memberships, the nrl club was promoting the rls club membership as wholely nrl club memberships.

cos789 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

you concussed wombat

As a campaigner for Australian Native wildlife I find the use of "wombat" in this case to be quite offensive.
I'm sure KE would find it offensive too because a wombat is native to Australia.

you'd only be offended because we're talking about yr missus

cos789 wrote:

NSWAFL wrote:

Prove that the Leagues Clubs have no connection in any way shape or form with the rugby clubs.

Then I'll shut up.

He can't.
In another thread I posted a link that a certain rls club, not only was promoting nrl club memberships as well as club memberships, the nrl club was promoting the rls club membership as wholely nrl club memberships.

prove it

prove that a $10 membership to said RSL club was a membership of any sort to said NRL club .... or any NRL club
I think you'll struggle

& then we'll just have our resident Biased Moderator not do to this post
what he would if it was me making the same claim about an AFL club

just think I'll start saying this sort of stuff .... doesn't seem to matter

ah the bias
ah the inconsistency

cos789 wrote:

NSWAFL wrote:

Prove that the Leagues Clubs have no connection in any way shape or form with the rugby clubs.

Then I'll shut up.

He can't.
In another thread I posted a link that a certain rls club, not only was promoting nrl club memberships as well as club memberships, the nrl club was promoting the rls club membership as wholely nrl club memberships.

Can you repost the link. I certainly like to read it for myself.

cooee wrote:

cos789 wrote:

NSWAFL wrote:

Prove that the Leagues Clubs have no connection in any way shape or form with the rugby clubs.

Then I'll shut up.

He can't.
In another thread I posted a link that a certain rls club, not only was promoting nrl club memberships as well as club memberships, the nrl club was promoting the rls club membership as wholely nrl club memberships.

Can you repost the link. I certainly like to read it for myself.

Well I'd like you rl folk to be a little more sensible or at least post links to references.
Do we have a deal ?
Because I need some incentive to sift through a barrow load of recent nonsense.

I can't speak for Raiders but I've always included links to any reference I have used.

cooee wrote:

I can't speak for Raiders but I've always included links to any reference I have used.

Quite possibly true.
I'll see what I can do..... but I'm in no hurry.

For me as well, Cos. I missed it and I want to see it. And if Topper's still looking I'm sure he'd want to see it as well.

At this stage the original accusation against RL teams does not appear to be proven different to the non ticketed memberships offered by the AFL teams.

Unless evidence is found promptly the thread will be deleted.

Or can we just call this thread a win to the league supporters?