Swans 22,208 Members / Storm Just 8,683 Members

Which is the best football code? Here you can have it out with other football fans.
User avatar
Xman
Coach
Coach
Reactions:
Posts: 13919
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:09 pm
Team: Essendon
Location:

Re: Swans 14,048 Members / Storm Just 6,078 Members

Post by Xman »

Raiderdave wrote:
King-Eliagh wrote:
Xman you present an interesting array of mediating factors which strengthen my argument. The comparison Beaussie put up is rubbish. Could you or perhaps beaussie now care to inform me on numbers of canberran members of GWS and melbournian members of the swans?
I'll help out here E

nearly 50% Canberran for GWS ... ( meaning only about .. 8-[ 2K Sydneysiders have actually signed up for them for 2012 so far :? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: )
nearly 33% Melb for the Swans
Proof?

3 hours and counting, or retract
King-Eliagh: ...I believe [RL] is popular in all the other states and territories, bar tasmania.
User avatar
Raiderdave
Coach
Coach
Reactions:
Posts: 16683
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:10 pm
Team: Canberra
Location:

Re: Swans 14,048 Members / Storm Just 6,078 Members

Post by Raiderdave »

Xman wrote:
Raiderdave wrote:
King-Eliagh wrote:
Xman you present an interesting array of mediating factors which strengthen my argument. The comparison Beaussie put up is rubbish. Could you or perhaps beaussie now care to inform me on numbers of canberran members of GWS and melbournian members of the swans?
I'll help out here E

nearly 50% Canberran for GWS ... ( meaning only about .. 8-[ 2K Sydneysiders have actually signed up for them for 2012 so far :? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: )
nearly 33% Melb for the Swans
Proof?

3 hours and counting, or retract
parra already posted the breakdown for the midgits
it actually said only 25% of GWS's members come from western sydney

thats ...1K .. 8-[ :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

& with the Swans
its higher then even I thought

10K out of 25K 8-[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Swans

Supporter baseAs the only AFL club in Sydney, the Swans have a large population base to draw on. In 2006, following the first premiership in 72 years, the club achieved a record membership and the biggest since 1999. There is still a healthy Melbourne following for the Swans, particularly a revival in the late 1990s. Almost 10,000 Swans members are (South) Melbourne based and the club experiences good support when the team plays in Melbourne and many also make the long trip to Sydney for home games as well. The club recently celebrated in 2007 their 25th anniversary since relocating from South Melbourne, with parties hosted both in Sydney and their former home.

choke on that .. you dipshit :wink:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
RL SOO II 4.194 Million veiwers
RL SOO I 4.068 Million
NRL GF 3.968 Million
VFL Grand Final 3.620 Million
SOO III 3.364 Million
NRL Prelim 2.219 Million
Kangaroos V NZ 1.214 Million

Sookerwhos V Japan 238K :lol:
User avatar
King-Eliagh
Coach
Coach
Reactions:
Posts: 12787
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:23 pm
Team: Parramatta
Location:

Re: Swans 14,048 Members / Storm Just 6,078 Members

Post by King-Eliagh »

Xman wrote:
Raiderdave wrote:
King-Eliagh wrote:
Xman you present an interesting array of mediating factors which strengthen my argument. The comparison Beaussie put up is rubbish. Could you or perhaps beaussie now care to inform me on numbers of canberran members of GWS and melbournian members of the swans?
I'll help out here E

nearly 50% Canberran for GWS ... ( meaning only about .. 8-[ 2K Sydneysiders have actually signed up for them for 2012 so far :? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: )
nearly 33% Melb for the Swans
Proof?

3 hours and counting, or retract
Xman? Since when has this 3 hour proof bullshite been mandated by the members or agreed with by Beaussie? You are kidding me arent you?

In any case Raider's provided the goods and its worse than the AFL mob would have hoped. Beaussie's comparison blown outta the water. Rubbish as we leaguies suspected and illustrated. There'll be nothing more to see here folks, apart from a few desperado aussie rules fans trying to save face. Its gunna be ugly, get out while you can 8-[
Image

xman wrote:
KE, why is an even comp important?
NSWAFL
Coach
Coach
Reactions:
Posts: 2402
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:48 pm
Team: Sydney Hills Eagles
Location:

Re: Swans 14,048 Members / Storm Just 6,078 Members

Post by NSWAFL »

Raiderdave wrote:
parra already posted the breakdown for the midgits
it actually said only 25% of GWS's members come from western sydney

thats ...1K .. 8-[ :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

& with the Swans
its higher then even I thought

10K out of 25K 8-[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Swans

Supporter baseAs the only AFL club in Sydney, the Swans have a large population base to draw on. In 2006, following the first premiership in 72 years, the club achieved a record membership and the biggest since 1999. There is still a healthy Melbourne following for the Swans, particularly a revival in the late 1990s. Almost 10,000 Swans members are (South) Melbourne based and the club experiences good support when the team plays in Melbourne and many also make the long trip to Sydney for home games as well. The club recently celebrated in 2007 their 25th anniversary since relocating from South Melbourne, with parties hosted both in Sydney and their former home.

choke on that .. you dipshit :wink:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I've slapped a "Citation needed" on that statement on the Wikipedia article because it needs proof!
User avatar
Xman
Coach
Coach
Reactions:
Posts: 13919
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:09 pm
Team: Essendon
Location:

Re: Swans 14,048 Members / Storm Just 6,078 Members

Post by Xman »

King-Eliagh wrote:
Xman wrote:
Raiderdave wrote:
I'll help out here E

nearly 50% Canberran for GWS ... ( meaning only about .. 8-[ 2K Sydneysiders have actually signed up for them for 2012 so far :? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: )
nearly 33% Melb for the Swans
Proof?

3 hours and counting, or retract
Xman? Since when has this 3 hour proof bullshite been mandated by the members or agreed with by Beaussie? You are kidding me arent you?

In any case Raider's provided the goods and its worse than the AFL mob would have hoped. Beaussie's comparison blown outta the water. Rubbish as we leaguies suspected and illustrated. There'll be nothing more to see here folks, apart from a few desperado aussie rules fans trying to save face. Its gunna be ugly, get out while you can 8-[
Im experimentng. So shoot me!

We need to find a way to make posters accountable. Raider is a classic for making thesemclaimsmthen conveniently dissapearing and hoping it'll go away.
King-Eliagh: ...I believe [RL] is popular in all the other states and territories, bar tasmania.
NSWAFL
Coach
Coach
Reactions:
Posts: 2402
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:48 pm
Team: Sydney Hills Eagles
Location:

Re: Swans 14,048 Members / Storm Just 6,078 Members

Post by NSWAFL »

Parra's the same, Xman.
User avatar
cos789
Coach
Coach
Reactions:
Posts: 3276
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:43 pm
Team: Wookie is a failed pathetic ugly woman
Location:

Re: Swans 14,048 Members / Storm Just 6,078 Members

Post by cos789 »

So you rl guys are accepting wiki now as a reference ?

OK.

Then you need to look at the {} where they say.

citation needed :oops:
Nice try Cos.
NSWAFL
Coach
Coach
Reactions:
Posts: 2402
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:48 pm
Team: Sydney Hills Eagles
Location:

Re: Swans 14,048 Members / Storm Just 6,078 Members

Post by NSWAFL »

I just put that there a few minutes ago, Cos.
User avatar
cos789
Coach
Coach
Reactions:
Posts: 3276
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:43 pm
Team: Wookie is a failed pathetic ugly woman
Location:

Re: Swans 14,048 Members / Storm Just 6,078 Members

Post by cos789 »

NSWAFL wrote:
I just put that there a few minutes ago, Cos.
gotcha, with all bs it's easy to miss stuff.

Did some research and the AFL uses the catch phrase "access members" which is a minimum of 5 games.

Haven't found reference to away game memberships as yet.
Nice try Cos.
ParraEelsNRL
Coach
Coach
Reactions:
Posts: 9495
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:52 am
Team: Parramatta
Location: Rugby League Heartland

Re: Swans 14,048 Members / Storm Just 6,078 Members

Post by ParraEelsNRL »

Beaussie wrote:
Raiderdave wrote:
Storm had 12K last year .. they'll have that many again .. probably more in 2012
I thought it was closer to 10k but what's a few k here or there eh? :roll:

In any case, perhaps you could explain why such a successful team on the field struggles so badly for relevance in a sports mad city like Melbourne?

$11 million handouts from the NRL/News Ltd each and every year. My god, how sustainable is that? Imagine a few bad years on the field and how much those $11 million annual handout would blow out to. Scary thought isn't it.

11 million now?

OMFG :lol:

Do you want the link where they made a profit in 2009?
signature removed by Admin.
User has been banned for this and similar comments.
User avatar
Raiderdave
Coach
Coach
Reactions:
Posts: 16683
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:10 pm
Team: Canberra
Location:

Re: Swans 14,048 Members / Storm Just 6,078 Members

Post by Raiderdave »

NSWAFL wrote:
Raiderdave wrote:
parra already posted the breakdown for the midgits
it actually said only 25% of GWS's members come from western sydney

thats ...1K .. 8-[ :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

& with the Swans
its higher then even I thought

10K out of 25K 8-[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Swans

Supporter baseAs the only AFL club in Sydney, the Swans have a large population base to draw on. In 2006, following the first premiership in 72 years, the club achieved a record membership and the biggest since 1999. There is still a healthy Melbourne following for the Swans, particularly a revival in the late 1990s. Almost 10,000 Swans members are (South) Melbourne based and the club experiences good support when the team plays in Melbourne and many also make the long trip to Sydney for home games as well. The club recently celebrated in 2007 their 25th anniversary since relocating from South Melbourne, with parties hosted both in Sydney and their former home.

choke on that .. you dipshit :wink:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I've slapped a "Citation needed" on that statement on the Wikipedia article because it needs proof!
oh you've slapped a citation on them have you ?

their reaction
8-[
:-k
#-o

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
RL SOO II 4.194 Million veiwers
RL SOO I 4.068 Million
NRL GF 3.968 Million
VFL Grand Final 3.620 Million
SOO III 3.364 Million
NRL Prelim 2.219 Million
Kangaroos V NZ 1.214 Million

Sookerwhos V Japan 238K :lol:
User avatar
Raiderdave
Coach
Coach
Reactions:
Posts: 16683
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:10 pm
Team: Canberra
Location:

Re: Swans 14,048 Members / Storm Just 6,078 Members

Post by Raiderdave »

Xman wrote:
King-Eliagh wrote:
Xman wrote:
Proof?

3 hours and counting, or retract
Xman? Since when has this 3 hour proof bullshite been mandated by the members or agreed with by Beaussie? You are kidding me arent you?

In any case Raider's provided the goods and its worse than the AFL mob would have hoped. Beaussie's comparison blown outta the water. Rubbish as we leaguies suspected and illustrated. There'll be nothing more to see here folks, apart from a few desperado aussie rules fans trying to save face. Its gunna be ugly, get out while you can 8-[
Im experimentng. So shoot me!

We need to find a way to make posters accountable. Raider is a classic for making thesemclaimsmthen conveniently dissapearing and hoping it'll go away.
and Beaussie
his claim the NRL fudges its membership figures STILL hasn't been proved
yet no requests for proof from you ? :-k

gee

inconsistent much [-X [-X [-X [-X
RL SOO II 4.194 Million veiwers
RL SOO I 4.068 Million
NRL GF 3.968 Million
VFL Grand Final 3.620 Million
SOO III 3.364 Million
NRL Prelim 2.219 Million
Kangaroos V NZ 1.214 Million

Sookerwhos V Japan 238K :lol:
NSWAFL
Coach
Coach
Reactions:
Posts: 2402
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:48 pm
Team: Sydney Hills Eagles
Location:

Re: Swans 14,048 Members / Storm Just 6,078 Members

Post by NSWAFL »

They HAVE been proved, imbecile! We're still waiting for the proof of identical behaviour by AFL clubs!
User avatar
Raiderdave
Coach
Coach
Reactions:
Posts: 16683
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:10 pm
Team: Canberra
Location:

Re: Swans 14,048 Members / Storm Just 6,078 Members

Post by Raiderdave »

NSWAFL wrote:
They HAVE been proved, imbecile! We're still waiting for the proof of identical behaviour by AFL clubs!
haven't proved anything c.ockhead

proof

or it goes [-X [-X [-X [-X
RL SOO II 4.194 Million veiwers
RL SOO I 4.068 Million
NRL GF 3.968 Million
VFL Grand Final 3.620 Million
SOO III 3.364 Million
NRL Prelim 2.219 Million
Kangaroos V NZ 1.214 Million

Sookerwhos V Japan 238K :lol:
NSWAFL
Coach
Coach
Reactions:
Posts: 2402
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:48 pm
Team: Sydney Hills Eagles
Location:

Re: Swans 14,048 Members / Storm Just 6,078 Members

Post by NSWAFL »

Raiderdave wrote:
NSWAFL wrote:
Raiderdave wrote:
parra already posted the breakdown for the midgits
it actually said only 25% of GWS's members come from western sydney

thats ...1K .. 8-[ :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

& with the Swans
its higher then even I thought

10K out of 25K 8-[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Swans

Supporter baseAs the only AFL club in Sydney, the Swans have a large population base to draw on. In 2006, following the first premiership in 72 years, the club achieved a record membership and the biggest since 1999. There is still a healthy Melbourne following for the Swans, particularly a revival in the late 1990s. Almost 10,000 Swans members are (South) Melbourne based and the club experiences good support when the team plays in Melbourne and many also make the long trip to Sydney for home games as well. The club recently celebrated in 2007 their 25th anniversary since relocating from South Melbourne, with parties hosted both in Sydney and their former home.

choke on that .. you dipshit :wink:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I've slapped a "Citation needed" on that statement on the Wikipedia article because it needs proof!
oh you've slapped a citation on them have you ?

their reaction
8-[
:-k
#-o

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Well I'll give them a month or two, and if it's not cited I'll remove it completely and add in the edit summary that it's a remark that has no proof.
Post Reply