Talking Footy

Xman wrote:

The stadiums made the mistake. :

Stewie wrote:

Xman wrote:

The stadiums made the mistake. They even said that at the time

The Melbourne Storm CEO disagrees.

What's the bet the Storm with their News Limited money paid the stadium owners to lie?

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

The stadiums made the mistake. :

oh
so the NRL clubs didn't fudge any crowds then ?

Raiderdave wrote:

Stewie wrote:

Xman wrote:

The stadiums made the mistake. They even said that at the time

The Melbourne Storm CEO disagrees.

What's the bet the Storm with their News Limited money paid the stadium owners to lie?

sorta like the VFL & just about every venue they use in NSW & QLD eh cockface ?

Stewie wrote:

Find some real proof you waste of flesh. The Storm CEO admitted fudging crowds was rampant in that dirty sport of rl. For shame.

Xman wrote:

Striker wrote:

Xman wrote:

There werent 10k who voted idiot!

Probably paid off....... this is a common theme of yours. Just like Raiderdave and his fudging fudging claims.

Both you two refuse to acknowledge data that doesnt suite your argument yet are perfectly happy to accept data that does!

What a pack of losers!!!

What a cry baby when faced with the folly of your argument! Since when does 0.0046 percent of a fan base (and be grateful I didn't include the Victory or the Rebels!!) represent a feasible survey sample?

how do you think the TV ratings system works? About 3000 homes from 23M people

If 80-90% of a sample size of 50 love the product its decent!

Thats unless the websites are fake and the voters bribed

Raiderdave wrote:

Stewie wrote:

Find some real proof you waste of flesh. The Storm CEO admitted fudging crowds was rampant in that dirty sport of rl. For shame.

oh no

no no no


ask Marcus shirtlifter
apparently the NRL didn't fudge any crowds .... the Stadium made a mistake

Striker wrote:

Xman wrote:

Striker wrote:

What a cry baby when faced with the folly of your argument! Since when does 0.0046 percent of a fan base (and be grateful I didn't include the Victory or the Rebels!!) represent a feasible survey sample?

how do you think the TV ratings system works? About 3000 homes from 23M people

If 80-90% of a sample size of 50 love the product its decent!

Thats unless the websites are fake and the voters bribed

Good reason not to believe the ratings!

Striker wrote:

And that doesn't mean I'm wrong! Hundreds of years ago that sort of sample represented those who believed the world was round (1) against those who thought it was flat (150).