Talking Footy

cos789 wrote:

Jackyboy wrote:

It's not called western tigers.

FFS I said why isn't it called western tigers because WT s sounds like a chronic stutterer

NRLCrap1 wrote:

Western Tigers can also be two teams you know!

cos789 wrote:

Jackyboy wrote:

It's not called western tigers.

FFS I said why isn't it called western tigers because WT s sounds like a chronic stutterer

cos789 wrote:

cos789 wrote:

Jackyboy wrote:

It's not called western tigers.

FFS I said why isn't it called western tigers because WT s sounds like a chronic stutterer

Hey morons, the point I was making is that Western Tigers sounds better.
I more than happy you morons have no class and prefer WTs.

cos789 wrote:

cos789 wrote:

Jackyboy wrote:

It's not called western tigers.

FFS I said why isn't it called western tigers because WT s sounds like a chronic stutterer

Hey morons, the point I was making is that Western Tigers sounds better.
I more than happy you morons have no class and prefer WTs.

Phelpsy wrote:

So what's the average crowd numbers now for the nrl and the nrl on Sydney ?

Swans4ever wrote:

Jackyboy wrote:

Phelpsy wrote:

That would be great but you have to wonder why would people turn out for these two games and not others throughout the season ? I think that is what the nrl has to focus on, sure it's great to get what is just a decent crowd to blockbusters but how do they get to the point where 40000 is seen as the norm ? Or 30000 for that matter.

One thing that even AF fans should admire about is that most if Sydney's RL games are played at surburban crowds and only 3 teams operate (Souths, bulldogs, roosters) within the 2 big stadiums instead in Melbourne with the AFL they have all their games at their 2 big stadiums and it doesn't matter at all where the team is based. So it's a bit hard to get 40k at a suburban ground but I see where you getting at with the teams with the big stadiums

Jack - the AFL went thru ground rationalisation over 10 years ago when they built Edihad stadium - in the long term it has proven to be the right choice - the AFL is now talking about a 3rd stadium (20-40k) so that there is more competition for clubs to reduce match day payments - what I don't understand is why the NRL persist in NOT embarking upon ground rationalisation? Since then memberships have grown enormously because a club no longer is tied to one suburb - in Syd it seems they can't break free of their suburb so they can't get a bigger national profile-your thoughts?

Jackyboy wrote:

cos789 wrote:

cos789 wrote:

Jackyboy wrote:

It's not called western tigers.

FFS I said why isn't it called western tigers because WT s sounds like a chronic stutterer

Hey morons, the point I was making is that Western Tigers sounds better.
I more than happy you morons have no class and prefer WTs.

Wests magpies. Balmain tigers, get it? And I'm happy you have no class and calls it WTs



That's the pot coiling the kettle black!

adamj1300 wrote:

Phelpsy wrote:

So what's the average crowd numbers now for the nrl and the nrl on Sydney ?

right in the picture

Jackyboy wrote:

adamj1300 wrote:

Phelpsy wrote:

So what's the average crowd numbers now for the nrl and the nrl on Sydney ?

right in the picture

What was round 23s average? That was last week. At the end of this week we shall see the average of round 24 too :D

adamj1300 wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Jackyboy wrote:

Phelpsy wrote:

That would be great but you have to wonder why would people turn out for these two games and not others throughout the season ? I think that is what the nrl has to focus on, sure it's great to get what is just a decent crowd to blockbusters but how do they get to the point where 40000 is seen as the norm ? Or 30000 for that matter.

One thing that even AF fans should admire about is that most if Sydney's RL games are played at surburban crowds and only 3 teams operate (Souths, bulldogs, roosters) within the 2 big stadiums instead in Melbourne with the AFL they have all their games at their 2 big stadiums and it doesn't matter at all where the team is based. So it's a bit hard to get 40k at a suburban ground but I see where you getting at with the teams with the big stadiums

Jack - the AFL went thru ground rationalisation over 10 years ago when they built Edihad stadium - in the long term it has proven to be the right choice - the AFL is now talking about a 3rd stadium (20-40k) so that there is more competition for clubs to reduce match day payments - what I don't understand is why the NRL persist in NOT embarking upon ground rationalisation? Since then memberships have grown enormously because a club no longer is tied to one suburb - in Syd it seems they can't break free of their suburb so they can't get a bigger national profile-your thoughts?

the AFL out grew the suburban grounds years ago, regularly for 30 to 35k with turning g thousands away regularly, they saw the day of light and moved to larger ones. its easy enough to say for the nrl to grow, move to more modern larger stadiums, but when your still regularly getting 6 to 8k to suburban grounds and struggle to get 20 to a stadium Australia & allianz stadium sydney there is no point >