Talking Footy

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

But but....
12k for two Sydney RL teams is worse than A league supporter levels!

Shameful! Imagine if the AFL in Sydney got that for one team let alone the swans v giants! You'd be having a party! No amount of excuse making will justify this in RL heartland!

they won't get that many for one team in a year or two .. hell the midgits may struggle to get that many to games.............. this year


a pretty tidy turnout considering
bigger then most expected for these teams ....
well done Chooks fans .........

Raider claiming victory over next years attendances!

Seems like the LU crowd weren't happy with the roosters v panthers crowd, and rightly so!

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

But but....
12k for two Sydney RL teams is worse than A league supporter levels!

Shameful! Imagine if the AFL in Sydney got that for one team let alone the swans v giants! You'd be having a party! No amount of excuse making will justify this in RL heartland!

they won't get that many for one team in a year or two .. hell the midgits may struggle to get that many to games.............. this year


a pretty tidy turnout considering
bigger then most expected for these teams ....
well done Chooks fans .........

Raider claiming victory over next years attendances!

Seems like the LU crowd weren't happy with the roosters v panthers crowd, and rightly so!

How could anyone be happy with the Roosters vs Panthers crowd. Embarrassing.

The TV ratings were just as abysmal not even making the Top 20.

Beaussie wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

they won't get that many for one team in a year or two .. hell the midgits may struggle to get that many to games.............. this year


a pretty tidy turnout considering
bigger then most expected for these teams ....
well done Chooks fans .........

Raider claiming victory over next years attendances!

Seems like the LU crowd weren't happy with the roosters v panthers crowd, and rightly so!

How could anyone be happy with the Roosters vs Panthers crowd. Embarrassing.

The TV ratings were just as abysmal not even making the Top 20.

10K was all anyone was expecting .... anyone expecting anything else had their junk in their hands
13K is bigger then 10K

when will you mongs learn maths

10k, the new standard fr RL crowds.

Looks like the Giants are in for a great year. :D

Xman wrote:

10k, the new standard fr RL crowds.

Looks like the Giants are in for a great year. :D

well .. our standard is closer to 17K

Giants had better hit that mark & then some ...I mean with half of the sthn Hemisphere at their disposal how couldn't they ?

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

10k, the new standard fr RL crowds.

Looks like the Giants are in for a great year. :D

well .. our standard is closer to 17K

Giants had better hit that mark & then some ...I mean with half of the sthn Hemisphere at their disposal how couldn't they ?

Yet less than Melbourne who have the entire western globe at their disposal. If the Giants get more than the storm will that be success?

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

10k, the new standard fr RL crowds.

Looks like the Giants are in for a great year. :D

well .. our standard is closer to 17K

Giants had better hit that mark & then some ...I mean with half of the sthn Hemisphere at their disposal how couldn't they ?

Yet less than Melbourne who have the entire western globe at their disposal. If the Giants get more than the storm will that be success?

Melbourne is a city in Victoria

can you tell me where Greater Western Sydney is ?

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

well .. our standard is closer to 17K

Giants had better hit that mark & then some ...I mean with half of the sthn Hemisphere at their disposal how couldn't they ?

Yet less than Melbourne who have the entire western globe at their disposal. If the Giants get more than the storm will that be success?

Melbourne is a city in Victoria

can you tell me where Greater Western Sydney is ?

So is this the formation of another of your excuses? Looks like you are going to make excuses for the storm getting lower crowds than the giants because of the word "greater".



There's another one Cos!

Our crowds are lower because we don't have the word "greater" infornt of the name of our clubs!

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Yet less than Melbourne who have the entire western globe at their disposal. If the Giants get more than the storm will that be success?

Melbourne is a city in Victoria

can you tell me where Greater Western Sydney is ?

So is this the formation of another of your excuses? Looks like you are going to make excuses for the storm getting lower crowds than the giants because of the word "greater".



There's another one Cos!

Our crowds are lower because we don't have the word "greater" infornt of the name of our clubs!

so........ you don't know where Greater western Sydney is either

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Melbourne is a city in Victoria

can you tell me where Greater Western Sydney is ?

So is this the formation of another of your excuses? Looks like you are going to make excuses for the storm getting lower crowds than the giants because of the word "greater".



There's another one Cos!

Our crowds are lower because we don't have the word "greater" infornt of the name of our clubs!

so........ you don't know where Greater western Sydney is either

Stop forming excuses. If you don't know what they meant you're sillier than I first thought!

What will you say if they get more crowds than the storm?v

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

So is this the formation of another of your excuses? Looks like you are going to make excuses for the storm getting lower crowds than the giants because of the word "greater".



There's another one Cos!

Our crowds are lower because we don't have the word "greater" infornt of the name of our clubs!

so........ you don't know where Greater western Sydney is either

If you don't know what they meant you're sillier than I first thought!
v

well quite clearly .... you don't either ..... so how would I know ?

again
where the hell is Greater Western Sydney

I just put it in whereis to see if they knew

the response .............

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

so........ you don't know where Greater western Sydney is either

If you don't know what they meant you're sillier than I first thought!
v

well quite clearly .... you don't either ..... so how why I know ?

again
where the hell is Greater Western Sydney

I just put it in whereis to see if they knew

the response .............

I know. It means western Sydney including Canberra, since that is where they will play over 1/3rd of their games.

So, how will they need to compare to the storm to be considered a success in their first year?

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

If you don't know what they meant you're sillier than I first thought!
v

well quite clearly .... you don't either ..... so how why I know ?

again
where the hell is Greater Western Sydney

I just put it in whereis to see if they knew

the response .............

I know. It means western Sydney including Canberra, ?

when & in what F'd up ... derpsville of a universe is Canberra part of western Sydney ..


thats gold that

I mean when did this happen ....

Western Sydney and including Canberra idiot. As if they could only call it western Sydney and then try to target Canberra.

So answer the question you gutless loser. If the suns beat the storms crowds will that be a successful year?

Xman wrote:

Western Sydney and including Canberra idiot. As if they could only call it western Sydney and then try to target Canberra.

So answer the question you gutless loser. If the suns beat the storms crowds will that be a successful year?

so shouldn' they be called the Western Sydney & including Canberra Giants ?
only sligtly less sillier then what they're called now



VFL .. a complete joke