Talking Footy

King-Eliagh wrote:

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

Failing to provide sufficient evidence for an accusation is not a successful defense, but a failed attack.

Cos said he had a smoking gun, Xman. Just wait for it, could you?

NSWAFL wrote:

Cos said he had a smoking gun, Xman. Just wait for it, could you?

From what I can tell both codes have ticketed and non ticketted members. The NRL club members also seem to get league membership in the same deal, not the other way round. Evidence to the contrary is necessary to keep this thread alive.

Which is what Cos has apparently.

Xman wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

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

Failing to provide sufficient evidence for an accusation is not a successful defense, but a failed attack.

Fair dinkum, who would've thought Raider and co of all people would be calling for this thread to be deleted after all the carry on in this forum of late.

In anycase, it doesn't bother me if that's what the consensus is. I would've preferred however, that if it's clear one side can't prove their point, the thread title is changed to have [AFL] or [NRL] placed at the start of the thread title so we all know who won that battle. Thoughts? I may well be alone in thinking along these lines and if that's the case so be it I happy to accept the decision of the majority. Bear this in mind though, what's to stop every thread being deleted eventually if we go down this track of deleting all threads where one sides point is not proven? I wouldn't have thought it was a good precedent to set, but that's just my opinion. Alright, go on attack me now.

Xman wrote:

NSWAFL wrote:

Cos said he had a smoking gun, Xman. Just wait for it, could you?

From what I can tell both codes have ticketed and non ticketted members. The NRL club members also seem to get league membership in the same deal, not the other way round. Evidence to the contrary is necessary to keep this thread alive.

The original assertion was the nrl was fudging membership by counting ticketted and non-ticketted members.
From what you are saying I interpret that as you saying that you agree that is the case and that the nrl fudge membership numbers.
To clarify, what is the new assertion because I'm not sure what 'contary" refers to, the former or latter statement.

Beaussie wrote:

Xman wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

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

Failing to provide sufficient evidence for an accusation is not a successful defense, but a failed attack.

Fair dinkum, who would've thought Raider and co of all people would be calling for this thread to be deleted after all the carry on in this forum of late.

In anycase, it doesn't bother me if that's what the consensus is. I would've preferred however, that if it's clear one side can't prove their point, the thread title is changed to have [AFL] or [NRL] placed at the start of the thread title so we all know who won that battle. Thoughts? I may well be alone in thinking along these lines and if that's the case so be it I happy to accept the decision of the majority. Bear this in mind though, what's to stop every thread being deleted eventually if we go down this track of deleting all threads where one sides point is not proven? I wouldn't have thought it was a good precedent to set, but that's just my opinion. Alright, go on attack me now.

There are a few options

We could lock it and call it "myth busted", or "failed" if the accusation clearly fails.

If the accusation is successful we could call it "TKO" or "knockout".

Good idea not to delete it though.

Xman wrote:

Beaussie wrote:

Xman wrote:

Failing to provide sufficient evidence for an accusation is not a successful defense, but a failed attack.

Fair dinkum, who would've thought Raider and co of all people would be calling for this thread to be deleted after all the carry on in this forum of late.

In anycase, it doesn't bother me if that's what the consensus is. I would've preferred however, that if it's clear one side can't prove their point, the thread title is changed to have [AFL] or [NRL] placed at the start of the thread title so we all know who won that battle. Thoughts? I may well be alone in thinking along these lines and if that's the case so be it I happy to accept the decision of the majority. Bear this in mind though, what's to stop every thread being deleted eventually if we go down this track of deleting all threads where one sides point is not proven? I wouldn't have thought it was a good precedent to set, but that's just my opinion. Alright, go on attack me now.

There are a few options

We could lock it and call it "myth busted", or "failed" if the accusation clearly fails.

If the accusation is successful we could call it "TKO" or "knockout".

Good idea not to delete it though.

Some good ideas there Xman. Can we get some agreement between both sides on this at least? Surely this is better than threads being deleted.

Xman wrote:

Beaussie wrote:

Xman wrote:

Failing to provide sufficient evidence for an accusation is not a successful defense, but a failed attack.

Fair dinkum, who would've thought Raider and co of all people would be calling for this thread to be deleted after all the carry on in this forum of late.

In anycase, it doesn't bother me if that's what the consensus is. I would've preferred however, that if it's clear one side can't prove their point, the thread title is changed to have [AFL] or [NRL] placed at the start of the thread title so we all know who won that battle. Thoughts? I may well be alone in thinking along these lines and if that's the case so be it I happy to accept the decision of the majority. Bear this in mind though, what's to stop every thread being deleted eventually if we go down this track of deleting all threads where one sides point is not proven? I wouldn't have thought it was a good precedent to set, but that's just my opinion. Alright, go on attack me now.

There are a few options

We could lock it and call it "myth busted", or "failed" if the accusation clearly fails.

If the accusation is successful we could call it "TKO" or "knockout".

Good idea not to delete it though.

The original assertion and thread title is that the nrl fudges membership figures.
IMO this is quite clearly demonstrated and XMans seems to say that quite clearly in his blurb.

The fact that the AFL does or does not engage in the same practices is irrelevant.
The fact there are subsequent assertions as which direction memberships travel is completely irrelevant to original post.

cos789 wrote:

Xman wrote:

Beaussie wrote:

Fair dinkum, who would've thought Raider and co of all people would be calling for this thread to be deleted after all the carry on in this forum of late.

In anycase, it doesn't bother me if that's what the consensus is. I would've preferred however, that if it's clear one side can't prove their point, the thread title is changed to have [AFL] or [NRL] placed at the start of the thread title so we all know who won that battle. Thoughts? I may well be alone in thinking along these lines and if that's the case so be it I happy to accept the decision of the majority. Bear this in mind though, what's to stop every thread being deleted eventually if we go down this track of deleting all threads where one sides point is not proven? I wouldn't have thought it was a good precedent to set, but that's just my opinion. Alright, go on attack me now.

There are a few options

We could lock it and call it "myth busted", or "failed" if the accusation clearly fails.

If the accusation is successful we could call it "TKO" or "knockout".

Good idea not to delete it though.

The original assertion and thread title is that the nrl fudges membership figures.
IMO this is quite clearly demonstrated and XMans seems to say that quite clearly in his blurb.

The fact that the AFL does or does not engage in the same practices is irrelevant.
The fact there are subsequent assertions as which direction memberships travel is completely irrelevant to original post.

Can't agree.

The fact the AFL appear to count their memberships in a similar way suggests neither fudge. It's just the way they count them.

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.

Found that link yet?

Here's the official release

http://www.nrl.com/rabbitohs-break-the- ... lt.aspxThe South Sydney Rabbitohs are proud to announce that the Club has surpassed the 20,000 Member milestone yesterday


Here's the truth

http://www.rleague.com/content/article.php?id=38914
Being the first Club to hit 20,000 Members, of which over 12,000 are Ticketed Members,


It's there. The NRL on their official site fudged it's membership figures.
Game set and match.

what further discussion do you want.

cos789 wrote:

Here's the official release

http://www.nrl.com/rabbitohs-break-the- ... lt.aspxThe South Sydney Rabbitohs are proud to announce that the Club has surpassed the 20,000 Member milestone yesterday


Here's the truth

http://www.rleague.com/content/article.php?id=38914
Being the first Club to hit 20,000 Members, of which over 12,000 are Ticketed Members,


It's there. The NRL on their official site fudged it's membership figures.
Game set and match.

what further discussion do you want.

Yep that was the whole point of this thread.

cos789 wrote:

Here's the official release

http://www.nrl.com/rabbitohs-break-the- ... lt.aspxThe South Sydney Rabbitohs are proud to announce that the Club has surpassed the 20,000 Member milestone yesterday


Here's the truth

http://www.rleague.com/content/article.php?id=38914
Being the first Club to hit 20,000 Members, of which over 12,000 are Ticketed Members,


It's there. The NRL on their official site fudged it's membership figures.
Game set and match.

what further discussion do you want.

And what is the make up of the 8000 non ticketted members?

How does that differ from the AFLs tally which appears to include some non ticketted members?

I must say though, the percentage of non ticketted members seems awfully large!

The bigfooty post that was shown had only 10% non ticketted members from memory. The NRL number posted is near 40%!

Xman wrote:

And what is the make up of the 8000 non ticketted members?

The lack of an answer here is the reason why the speculation that Topper started is valid. Provide an answer, NRL fans! Explain the diff!!