Page 22 of 852
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 11:23 am
by Dogs
Onions wrote:Where's that ******* metro coverage map again? Link it and watch Truth tear you **** wits a new one! I know I ******* said that you two were ******* stupid over it. Show the map to Truth and see what ******* happens!
Good comment Onion, have you actually read them. I have just taken a look at SA ozTAM map and it is pretty wide for a state with only 1.6million people in it. Anyway, I did some research and found the following. (See truthslayer, if you had of done some research, these are the towns considered to be of any relevance in SA. Wikipedia stated the following:
Other significant population centres include Mount Barker (approx. 29 149) which is in ozTAM count, Mount Gambier (approx. 23,494), Whyalla (21,122), Murray Bridge which is in ozTAM count(18,364), Port Augusta (13,257), Port Pirie (13,206), Port Lincoln (13,044), and Victor Harbor which is in ozTAM count (10,380). Of all your major hubs that are recognised as being larger than 10k people in SA only 5% are not counted by ozTAM. Really do you want to keep going on SA.
Onion, I will tell you the same thing I told Truthslayer, you AFL ladies want to discard some real numbers by only using ozTAM as regional number makes you look bad, not to mention the bias in ozTAM to AFL.
Of the top 10 major towns outside the 5 metro cities, which are not already counted in ozTAM, Rugby League based towns holds the 4 biggest and 7 of the 10 as follows:
Newcastle - 546788
Canberra-Queanbeyan - 410419
Wollongong - 292190
Sunshine Coast - 251081
Townsville -172316
Cairns -150920
Toowoomba - 131258
This represents 8.1% of Australian population
AFL based towns holds 3 of them as follows:
Greater Hobart -214705
Launceston - 106153 (Note that is around 60% of Tas)
Ballarat - 96097
Which represents 1.8% of the national population
Get with the facts onion, majority of regional Australia is in Rugby League based towns. So of course you guys want to keep them out of this debate. As far as the maps go, the only one who looks stupid hear, is you and your mate truthslayer :_<>
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 11:49 am
by Truthsayer
Mr Dog you left out Bendigo in your list there. Canberra, the Sunshine Coast and Cairns have a strong AFL following. Yes I will continue to mention South Australia. There are many more centres in that state that you have not mentioned. The Iron Triangle, Peterborough, Clare, the Riverland, Bordertown, Millicent, Naracoorte. AFL is strong in South Australia. Perhaps not as strong as in Victoria, but the point is that there are many towns that have a local football club whereas there are towns in New South Wales of a comparible size that do not have a rugby league club.
I would like to see this map that Mr Onions is referring to. Then I will see if I can indeed rebuff your numbers.
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:05 pm
by Raiderdave
Truthsayer wrote:Mr Dog you left out Bendigo in your list there. Canberra, the Sunshine Coast and Cairns have a strong AFL following. Yes I will continue to mention South Australia. There are many more centres in that state that you have not mentioned. The Iron Triangle, Peterborough, Clare, the Riverland, Bordertown, Millicent, Naracoorte. AFL is strong in South Australia. Perhaps not as strong as in Victoria, but the point is that there are many towns that have a local football club whereas there are towns in New South Wales of a comparible size that do not have a rugby league club.
I would like to see this map that Mr Onions is referring to. Then I will see if I can indeed rebuff your numbers.
it was top 10 only
& a few teams playing in Canberra .. Cairns & the Sunshine coast makes the AFL have a presence in these centres.. strong is a matter of opinion
& facts suggest it is anything but " strong " & your code in these centres is not in the same post code as the engrained code .. Rugby League
we've established about 160K people are not counted in SA
thats all ... based on ratings for Tasmania
this represents only about 25K vewiers per week
give up.. you're done ..youve been beaten up with the facts .. & have no sense of reality
you're making a fool of yourself now
quit before what ever cred you have left .. goes
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:16 pm
by Dogs
Truthsayer wrote:Mr Dog you left out Bendigo in your list there. Canberra, the Sunshine Coast and Cairns have a strong AFL following. Yes I will continue to mention South Australia. There are many more centres in that state that you have not mentioned. The Iron Triangle, Peterborough, Clare, the Riverland, Bordertown, Millicent, Naracoorte. AFL is strong in South Australia. Perhaps not as strong as in Victoria, but the point is that there are many towns that have a local football club whereas there are towns in New South Wales of a comparible size that do not have a rugby league club.
I would like to see this map that Mr Onions is referring to. Then I will see if I can indeed rebuff your numbers.
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:22 pm
by Dogs
Dogs wrote:Truthsayer wrote:Mr Dog you left out Bendigo in your list there. Canberra, the Sunshine Coast and Cairns have a strong AFL following. Yes I will continue to mention South Australia. There are many more centres in that state that you have not mentioned. The Iron Triangle, Peterborough, Clare, the Riverland, Bordertown, Millicent, Naracoorte. AFL is strong in South Australia. Perhaps not as strong as in Victoria, but the point is that there are many towns that have a local football club whereas there are towns in New South Wales of a comparible size that do not have a rugby league club.
I would like to see this map that Mr Onions is referring to. Then I will see if I can indeed rebuff your numbers.
Seriously I am now laughing my a*** off,
http://www.exploreaustralia.net.au/Sout ... terborough. Are you actually looking at the sizes of these towns before you post them. Now you are going to suggest from probably melbourne where your sport is strong in other states, it is about a creditable as the towns you are putting up. Again, Newcastle is about as big as the entire SA regional population, yet you ignore that. ozTAM includes a significant amount of regional SA population already.
Like I said and Raider is right, it is the top 10, bendigo is 11. But to keep you happy I will get back to you with the top 20, so you can have your extra 90k
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:33 pm
by Onions
It all fucking counts, Puppies!!
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:35 pm
by Dogs
Onions wrote:It all ******* counts, Puppies!!
So you are now admitting regional should be included dushbag, your mate is trying to suggest we need to include regional SA, or can't use regional figures as SA regional is not counted. SA regional is a drop in the ocean compared to regional NSW and QLD. Thats it avoid joinging your commetry into the above, and try and start something new to avoid the fact that what you all speak is bullshit.
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:37 pm
by Onions
And he also fucking pointed out that parts of New South Wales and Queensland aren't fucking counted either! Or did you miss that, Puppies?
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:44 pm
by Dogs
Onions wrote:And he also ******* pointed out that parts of New South Wales and Queensland aren't ******* counted either! Or did you miss that, Puppies?
Parts of which make up far bigger numbers then what is missed out in SA. I would suggest including regionalTAM and missing these few areas is far less impact to this thread than your terrific idea of only using ozTAM which misses as massive part of the Australia population and of cause favours AFL dramatically.
Are we all forgeting that this is averages anyway. The counters need to be spread (regardless of ozTAM or regionalTAM) as wide as they logistically can and at a minimum all the main regional cities need to be covered. By only using ozTAM this is not even close to true.
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:59 pm
by Raiderdave
Onions wrote:And he also ******* pointed out that parts of New South Wales and Queensland aren't ******* counted either! Or did you miss that, Puppies?
we're pounding the ever living Fark outta you without em
if they were added
well its .... time to call the priest
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:17 pm
by Dogs
Dogs wrote:Dogs wrote:Truthsayer wrote:Mr Dog you left out Bendigo in your list there. Canberra, the Sunshine Coast and Cairns have a strong AFL following. Yes I will continue to mention South Australia. There are many more centres in that state that you have not mentioned. The Iron Triangle, Peterborough, Clare, the Riverland, Bordertown, Millicent, Naracoorte. AFL is strong in South Australia. Perhaps not as strong as in Victoria, but the point is that there are many towns that have a local football club whereas there are towns in New South Wales of a comparible size that do not have a rugby league club.
I would like to see this map that Mr Onions is referring to. Then I will see if I can indeed rebuff your numbers.
Seriously I am now laughing my a*** off,
http://www.exploreaustralia.net.au/Sout ... terborough. Are you actually looking at the sizes of these towns before you post them. Now you are going to suggest from probably melbourne where your sport is strong in other states, it is about a creditable as the towns you are putting up. Again, Newcastle is about as big as the entire SA regional population, yet you ignore that. ozTAM includes a significant amount of regional SA population.
Like I said and Raider is right, it is the top 10, bendigo is 11. But to keep you happy I will get back to you with the top 20, so you can have your extra 90k
Thanks for the invitation to include bendigo. So in there interests of keeping it fair, I added in the top 20. To keep all the information on the table I have also not added the following into the previous top 10 or now in the top 20 as they are either 50/50 or already counted in ozTAm figures:
GoldCoast 50/50 and already counted
Geelong - Already in ozTAM (sounds like another bias to AFL in ozTAM)
Mandurah - Already in ozTAM (sounds like another bias to AFL in ozTAM)
Darwin 50/50
With the above said, thanks truthsayer, you are one of our best, are you sure you don't secretly support rugby league. This now makes a further mockery of the idea of only using ozTAM as it increases the NRL based towns by 1.9% and we lose 10% of our fan based viewers and incresase AFL by only 1.2% to 3%. The inclusiogn where:
Bendigo 91713
Mackay 85700
Burnie-Devonport 82567 (With this you would have 80% of Tassie incl)
Latrobe Valley[5] 81001
Rockhampton 77878
Bundaberg 69036
Bunbury 68248
Hervey Bay 60807
Wagga Wagga 58610
Coffs Harbour 53401
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:46 pm
by Onions
Dogs wrote:Onions wrote:And he also ******* pointed out that parts of New South Wales and Queensland aren't ******* counted either! Or did you miss that, Puppies?
Parts of which make up far bigger numbers then what is missed out in SA. I would suggest including regionalTAM and missing these few areas is far less impact to this thread than your terrific idea of only using ozTAM which misses as massive part of the Australia population and of cause favours AFL dramatically.
Are we all forgeting that this is averages anyway. The counters need to be spread (regardless of ozTAM or regionalTAM) as wide as they logistically can and at a minimum all the main regional cities need to be covered. By only using ozTAM this is not even close to true.
You're a fucking idiot! According to you we might as well not count South Australia! What are you, biased against the fucking state? You fucking count ALL OF IT!! Or you don't count any of it!! Got that, fuck wit??
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:49 pm
by Dogs
Onions wrote:Dogs wrote:Onions wrote:And he also ******* pointed out that parts of New South Wales and Queensland aren't ******* counted either! Or did you miss that, Puppies?
Parts of which make up far bigger numbers then what is missed out in SA. I would suggest including regionalTAM and missing these few areas is far less impact to this thread than your terrific idea of only using ozTAM which misses as massive part of the Australia population and of cause favours AFL dramatically.
Are we all forgeting that this is averages anyway. The counters need to be spread (regardless of ozTAM or regionalTAM) as wide as they logistically can and at a minimum all the main regional cities need to be covered. By only using ozTAM this is not even close to true.
You're a ******* idiot! According to you we might as well not count South Australia! What are you, biased against the ******* state? You ******* count ALL OF IT!! Or you don't count any of it!! Got that, **** wit??
Are you happy to include RegionalTAM?
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:49 pm
by Raiderdave
Onions wrote:Dogs wrote:Onions wrote:And he also ******* pointed out that parts of New South Wales and Queensland aren't ******* counted either! Or did you miss that, Puppies?
Parts of which make up far bigger numbers then what is missed out in SA. I would suggest including regionalTAM and missing these few areas is far less impact to this thread than your terrific idea of only using ozTAM which misses as massive part of the Australia population and of cause favours AFL dramatically.
Are we all forgeting that this is averages anyway. The counters need to be spread (regardless of ozTAM or regionalTAM) as wide as they logistically can and at a minimum all the main regional cities need to be covered. By only using ozTAM this is not even close to true.
You're a ******* idiot! According to you we might as well not count South Australia! What are you, biased against the ******* state? You *******
count ALL OF IT!! Or you don't count any of it!! Got that, **** wit??
we did ..... we added the 25K veiwers that represent the number in the 160K not counted
add this 25K to Adelaides figures each week
& thats all of SA counted
K ... happy ?
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:58 pm
by Onions
No, because you fucking made that up! Like everything else you fucking say, mother fucker!