Talking Footy

Xman wrote:

So the ABS are controlled by the AFL?

Quick, get your tinfoil hats on!!

the ABS said your sport has 223K in 2010
the VFL says thats risen by 670K more in 2 years

a 300% + increase


& we're the ones wearing tin foil hats

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

So the ABS are controlled by the AFL?

Quick, get your tinfoil hats on!!

the ABS said your sport has 223K in 2010
the VFL says thats risen by 670K more in 2 years

a 300% + increase


& we're the ones wearing tin foil hats

Take your issue up with them. They must give accurate descriptions of how they came up with the figures.

But all things considered, whether in schools, auskick, or club level, ARs participation is at record levels.

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

So the ABS are controlled by the AFL?

Quick, get your tinfoil hats on!!

the ABS said your sport has 223K in 2010
the VFL says thats risen by 670K more in 2 years

a 300% + increase


& we're the ones wearing tin foil hats

Take your issue up with them. They must give accurate descriptions of how they came up with the figures.

But all things considered, whether in schools, auskick, or club level, ARs participation is at record levels.

my issue with who .. the ABS ?
theres no doubt the ABS figure is correct ... its says 223K in 2010
no doubt theres been a rise in this number in the last 2 years
as almost all sports have had a rise as well
no
its that figure the VFL pulled out of its @rse .. thats the problem
its an almost hilarious ..laughable figure
the only people who believe that number.. are the baaaaing merinos who follow your sport

So, where do the ABS get their figures? Show me why they are wrong.

Xman wrote:

So, where do the ABS get their figures? Show me why they are wrong.

ahhhhhhh
what part of

theres no doubt the ABS figure is correct

are you unable to comprehend ?

for the 4th time
its the VFL's figures that are not even close to being right
& if you use the ABS's figure ( thanks drac for linking it ) then this is prove definitive ..that it can't be

K

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

So, where do the ABS get their figures? Show me why they are wrong.

ahhhhhhh
what part of

theres no doubt the ABS figure is correct

are you unable to comprehend ?

for the 4th time
its the VFL's figures that are not even close to being right
& if you use the ABS's figure ( thanks drac for linking it ) then this is prove definitive ..that it can't be

K

Why?

Aren't the AFLs and ABS figures similar?

Raiderdave wrote:

Drac wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

fudgey fudgey ...... naughty naughty

Are these numbers fudged?

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf ... eation~116

the ABS says... 223K played VFL in 2010
in 2012 apparently its 895K

nothing sus there .... ....

You might want to check that again Dave. I think you have participation numbers mixed up with registered player numbers.

piesman2011 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Drac wrote:

Are these numbers fudged?

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf ... eation~116

the ABS says... 223K played VFL in 2010
in 2012 apparently its 895K

nothing sus there .... ....

You might want to check that again Dave. I think you have participation numbers mixed up with registered player numbers.

where on the VFL's ... page of half truths.. are the VFL's 2012.. registered player numbers ?

I mean
given we know how the VFL collates its participation figures ( see E's little example on how it goes down )
who gives a f about them ....
I mean they are pointless ... meaningless ... as the Fed Govt stated

Raiderdave wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

the ABS says... 223K played VFL in 2010
in 2012 apparently its 895K

nothing sus there .... ....

You might want to check that again Dave. I think you have participation numbers mixed up with registered player numbers.

where on the VFL's ... page of half truths.. are the VFL's 2012.. registered player numbers ?

I mean
given we know how the VFL collates its participation figures ( see E's little example on how it goes down )
who gives a f about them ....
I mean they are pointless ... meaningless ... as the Fed Govt stated

The AFL clearly stated school, auskick and club numbers. Did the ABS?

Dave, did you actually read the report or did you just skim through it looking for random figures?

223,700 was the number of MALE CHILDREN playing Australian Football in 2009-10.

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

You might want to check that again Dave. I think you have participation numbers mixed up with registered player numbers.

where on the VFL's ... page of half truths.. are the VFL's 2012.. registered player numbers ?

I mean
given we know how the VFL collates its participation figures ( see E's little example on how it goes down )
who gives a f about them ....
I mean they are pointless ... meaningless ... as the Fed Govt stated

The AFL clearly stated school, auskick and club numbers. Did the ABS?

yes .. year after year the VFL put up ... participation figures only
no club registered player numbers
certainly none of these from NSW .. QLD or the ACT

gee ... I wonder why

Drac wrote:

Dave, did you actually read the report or did you just skim through it looking for random figures?

223,700 was the number of MALE CHILDREN playing Australian Football in 2009-10.

so 230 or 240K played all up with girls included

so what.... it aint 800K in 2012 plus D head ?

Raiderdave wrote:

Drac wrote:

Dave, did you actually read the report or did you just skim through it looking for random figures?

223,700 was the number of MALE CHILDREN playing Australian Football in 2009-10.

so 230 or 240K played all up with girls included

so what.... it aint 800K in 2012 plus D head ?

You'd almost think there was another group of sporting participants.....what are they called again? God, it's on the tip of my tongue! Not children, the other things...the things that children grow up into....

I wonder....I wonder if table 14.13 measures the participation numbers of these.....'non-children', these people over the age of 15. Adults! That's the term I was looking for! Adults.

223,700 male children, 227,600 male adults. So 450kish not including female adults or children, many of whom participate in Auskick. Given the increases in playing numbers (especially among women) that have been described in 2010, 2011, and now 2012, yes, I think it's plausible that numbers across all age groups and genders have increased to their current figure.

Dave, I don't like to call you names because of your cognitive disabilities, but you Sir, are a toilet.

Drac wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Drac wrote:

Dave, did you actually read the report or did you just skim through it looking for random figures?

223,700 was the number of MALE CHILDREN playing Australian Football in 2009-10.

so 230 or 240K played all up with girls included

so what.... it aint 800K in 2012 plus D head ?

You'd almost think there was another group of sporting participants.....what are they called again? God, it's on the tip of my tongue! Not children, the other things...the things that children grow up into....

I wonder....I wonder if table 14.13 measures the participation numbers of these.....'non-children', these people over the age of 15. Adults! That's the term I was looking for! Adults.

223,700 male children, 227,600 male adults. So 450kish not including female adults or children, many of whom participate in Auskick. Given the increases in playing numbers (especially among women) that have been described in 2010, 2011, and now 2012, yes, I think it's plausible that numbers across all age groups and genders have increased to their current figure.

Dave, I don't like to call you names because of your cognitive disabilities, but you Sir, are a toilet.

Classic!

Drac wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Drac wrote:

Dave, did you actually read the report or did you just skim through it looking for random figures?

223,700 was the number of MALE CHILDREN playing Australian Football in 2009-10.

so 230 or 240K played all up with girls included

so what.... it aint 800K in 2012 plus D head ?

You'd almost think there was another group of sporting participants.....what are they called again? God, it's on the tip of my tongue! Not children, the other things...the things that children grow up into....

I wonder....I wonder if table 14.13 measures the participation numbers of these.....'non-children', these people over the age of 15. Adults! That's the term I was looking for! Adults.

223,700 male children, 227,600 male adults. So 450kish not including female adults or children, many of whom participate in Auskick. Given the increases in playing numbers (especially among women) that have been described in 2010, 2011, and now 2012, yes, I think it's plausible that numbers across all age groups and genders have increased to their current figure.

Dave, I don't like to call you names because of your cognitive disabilities, but you Sir, are a toilet.

Powned.