Talking Footy

enarelle wrote:

The NRL now comfortably out rates the AFL on national numbers so how dominant must they be north of the Murray.

The NRL membership grew by 30k last year and that would have been NSW/QLD and the AFL went backwards even with an additional team in the same area

Gees you post some rubbish round here. One of your most pathetic lies to date.

Raiderdave wrote:

Beaussie wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Correct enarelle
while the AFL steadfastly refuses to release their " ticketed" numbers ... probably due to the embarrasing % they would be
its easier to understand how some AFL clubs that report 40K members ... 4 times some NRL clubs .... are broke & can't pay their bills as the numbers are a continuation of the smoke n mirrors that are a part of everyday AFL life


NRL report son their " ticketed " situation quite openly for the purposes of transparency

Where??? Link please.

no probs .. heres last years

numbers reported in March 2010
http://www.nrl.com/rabbitohs-hit-10,000 ... fault.aspx

2011's numbers i'll find & post soon

The Rabbitohs are now the NRL are they? Oh dear.

Beaussie wrote:

cooee wrote:

Topper wrote:

Whatever is provided includes memberships of the attached Leagues Clubs.

If that was true the Broncos would have 40,000 members not 16,000.

http://www.broncosleagues.com.au/default.asp

16,000 Broncos members? Hahaha, more fudging figures. What is it with you lot and having to fudge everything to try and impress us? It ain't working, we all know the real miserable story of NRL fudged figures.

Last year they did and this year they are aiming for 20,000.

Long way to go yet. Pretty pathetic for a club with a whole city to themselves in what you lot always call RL heartland wouldn't you agree? Those numbers are no doubt fudged too as is the norm in the NRL.

You and Tooper keep going on about the NRL fudging the numbers but I'm yet to see any proof brought forward from either of you. I also see you chose to ignore my post from the NRL about leagues club memberships.

At least the Broncos have increased their total each year unlike the Lions.

cooee wrote:

Topper wrote:

Whatever is provided includes memberships of the attached Leagues Clubs.

If that was true the Broncos would have 40,000 members not 16,000.

http://www.broncosleagues.com.au/default.asp

if it was true ... & we all know its not
but we'll keep tipsy amused

Penrith would have ........80,000 members
the membership of their leagues club

The Rabbitohs are now the NRL are they? Oh dear

... geez what a wombat
the Rabbitohs led the story
by signing up 10K .. " ticketed " members ..the rest of the NRL tally from Feb 2010 is there too

Topper wrote:

State of the Game is lying. It's counting Leagues Club memberships and it should not be. The "fudging" is rife. For the benefit of Cooee the Broncos are smart enough not to count all of their Leagues Club memberships. If there is a successful club off the field (as well as on) it's them. They have the highest average attendance of the competition by a considerable margin.

Beaussie wrote:

Long way to go yet. Pretty pathetic for a club with a whole city to themselves in what you lot always call RL heartland wouldn't you agree? Those numbers are no doubt fudged too as is the norm in the NRL.

the growth is the Key ... 25% each year for the last 5
& not just for the Broncos ... all NRL clubs

a juggernaut

meanwhile .... tumble weeds continue to roll along outside GWS's office
the Swans numbers continue to plummett
the Thuns have experienced a massive drop
the Lions don't know where the hell their members have gone

cooee wrote:

You and Tooper keep going on about the NRL fudging the numbers but I'm yet to see any proof brought forward from either of you. I also see you chose to ignore my post from the NRL about leagues club memberships.

At least the Broncos have increased their total each year unlike the Lions.

I didn't ignore the post, cooee. I addressed it. The lies are deeply ingrained and there is yet to be bona fide evidence from independant parties that the figures are accurate. So our queries are valid and the onus is on you to provide the bona fide evidence required. And I know that it doesn't exist, so you are unable to deflect our accusations when there is related evidence of altering figures to suit the "needs" of the NRL. I cite the television ratings and the crowd figures as examples of this evidence.

Topper wrote:

cooee wrote:

You and Tooper keep going on about the NRL fudging the numbers but I'm yet to see any proof brought forward from either of you. I also see you chose to ignore my post from the NRL about leagues club memberships.

At least the Broncos have increased their total each year unlike the Lions.

I didn't ignore the post, cooee. I addressed it. The lies are deeply ingrained and there is yet to be bona fide evidence from independant parties that the figures are accurate. So our queries are valid and the onus is on you to provide the bona fide evidence required. And I know that it doesn't exist, so you are unable to deflect our accusations when there is related evidence of altering figures to suit the "needs" of the NRL. I cite the television ratings and the crowd figures as examples of this evidence.

ah......

So I'm suppose to find evidence to deny your accusations that are based on nothing but what you and Beaussie have pulled from your arses.

How about you provide evidence that your accusations are true FIRST.

Television and Crowds have nothing to do with the topic of memberships.

cooee wrote:

How about you provide evidence that your accusations are true FIRST.

yes.. good luck tipsy

I see an annual membership to Raiders Gungahlin is $10

wow
I'll get all ova that
looking forward to taking my membership card from said leagues club ... & swiping it at Canberra Stadium for the First Raiders game next year V Melbourne
gee

I wonder how far I'll get

Television and crowds have everything to do with memberships when it comes to the NRL's TV deal when it comes up next, cooee.

Have you seen the stories that Beaussie has linked about crowd numbers being changed (or fudged as he puts it)? It's well known about the ratings and their lack of accuracy. So it follows that the membership numbers would be of the same ilk. If you wish to prove otherwise, start by proving that their crowd and TV ratings are 100 percent accurate to eliminate the imputation.

I don't know why your talking about crowds and TV ratings when the issue was that clubs were including leagues club membership in their total membership tallies. Which I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that this is in fact occurring.