Talking Footy

Cracker wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Cracker wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

To the fumblers .
If I live in Canberra ,where do I go to watch my team train?



Direct me to which suburb they train at during the week.

.


They are not a Canberra team .
They are to use Cos logic a FIFO out .
Therefore they are not a home team ..
& please can you idiots tell me how many of the team actually live in Canberra.

Im pretty sure that Lions players live in Brissy.
Suns players live on the GC.

Yet no player lives in Canberra..

Well it is possible for Brisbane players to live on the Gold Coast and vice versa. But where a player lives has nothing to do with it.

Where they train on the other hand is a very valid point. And it should be pointed out that it's the regular training venue and not any special ones (example - when a Melbourne AFL club travels interstates, or when a Sydney NRL club does likewise).

Hang on you said that the NRL was National because they PLAY a couple of games in Darwin, Perth, Adelaide and Tassy - now your contradicting that by saying a team's regular training base defines a team - if so then your argument that RL is a National competition cannot be possibly be right as it's the clubs training venues are the only relevant factor - you can't have it both ways - either your wrong about GWS or NRL is not a National competition but a NSW based competition with a few clubs based outside NSW!!!!! Either way your wrong!

No I said they are national because they play in more than one state. Three states and one territory, compared to five states and no territories for the AFL. Neither cover all states and territories. That was my original point.

So I am not wrong. Are you suggesting that the Storm, the Raiders, the Broncos, the Titans and the Cowboys are not a substantive part of the competition? And I didn't even mention the Warriors simply because they aren't an Australian team.

Even on your analysis their not National - out of 16 teams (Warriors should not be included in a NATIONAL debate as last I looked NZ is not part of Australia) therefore 15 Australian based clubs 5 of which (a third) reside outside NSW if you count the snot greens (which I don't last I looked ACT is inside NSW and represent a very small area that was originally based in Queanbeyan so yes I don't consider it to be separate to NSW!). So out of 16 teams only 4 are based outside NSW - AFL on the other hand 8 sides in 4 other states - representation from Perth to Brisbane - NT in the NEAFL and Tassie in the VFL the closest to a National comp - hell A League and RU has more of a claim than RL - so yes you are wrong!

Now the Snot Greens from Canberra are effecting other sides with Manly only getting 8800!!!! How pathetic is this club that they bring down even the successful clubs - these oxygen thief's got walloped by a whopping 54 - 18, must have had the Refs give em a couple so there next home game have a smaller crowd than a NSW Cup match!!! They are shocking and a National embarrassment!!

where if failure dave when you need him to explain the piss poor crowd

Swans4ever wrote:

Cracker wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Cracker wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

To the fumblers .
If I live in Canberra ,where do I go to watch my team train?



Direct me to which suburb they train at during the week.

.


They are not a Canberra team .
They are to use Cos logic a FIFO out .
Therefore they are not a home team ..
& please can you idiots tell me how many of the team actually live in Canberra.

Im pretty sure that Lions players live in Brissy.
Suns players live on the GC.

Yet no player lives in Canberra..

Well it is possible for Brisbane players to live on the Gold Coast and vice versa. But where a player lives has nothing to do with it.

Where they train on the other hand is a very valid point. And it should be pointed out that it's the regular training venue and not any special ones (example - when a Melbourne AFL club travels interstates, or when a Sydney NRL club does likewise).

Hang on you said that the NRL was National because they PLAY a couple of games in Darwin, Perth, Adelaide and Tassy - now your contradicting that by saying a team's regular training base defines a team - if so then your argument that RL is a National competition cannot be possibly be right as it's the clubs training venues are the only relevant factor - you can't have it both ways - either your wrong about GWS or NRL is not a National competition but a NSW based competition with a few clubs based outside NSW!!!!! Either way your wrong!

No I said they are national because they play in more than one state. Three states and one territory, compared to five states and no territories for the AFL. Neither cover all states and territories. That was my original point.

So I am not wrong. Are you suggesting that the Storm, the Raiders, the Broncos, the Titans and the Cowboys are not a substantive part of the competition? And I didn't even mention the Warriors simply because they aren't an Australian team.

Even on your analysis their not National - out of 16 teams (Warriors should not be included in a NATIONAL debate as last I looked NZ is not part of Australia) therefore 15 Australian based clubs 5 of which (a third) reside outside NSW if you count the snot greens (which I don't last I looked ACT is inside NSW and represent a very small area that was originally based in Queanbeyan so yes I don't consider it to be separate to NSW!). So out of 16 teams only 4 are based outside NSW - AFL on the other hand 8 sides in 4 other states - representation from Perth to Brisbane - NT in the NEAFL and Tassie in the VFL the closest to a National comp - hell A League and RU has more of a claim than RL - so yes you are wrong!

The Raiders were based in Canberra from the very beginning. They had to play in Queanbeyan in the early years because there wasn't a venue that was up to NSWRL standard in the ACT until Bruce was ready. Seiffort has always been the envy of the Canberra District RL clubs.

A third by your numbers is still substantive. Leave the non elite leagues out of this equation. If you wish to go down that road, then you must acknowledge the presence of the game of rugby league in Adelaide (SARL), Perth (WARL), the Pilbara, Hobart and the Northern Territory.

So you must either accept that both leagues are national, or neither are.

Your choice.

Nrl is no where near national cracker ... Come on mate.

Then neither is the AFL.

FFS just because the AFL is our national game doesn't mean rl has to be as well.

get over it.

AFL logic
A comp is National ,when 1 state & 2 territories have no team .

No way a comp can be national if 3 states & 1 territory have no team .

Deflecting again crapper - the fact is that the snot greens are an embarrassment 8800 supporters mostly (IMO 95% manly supporters) means this club is bringing down other clubs!

Swans4ever wrote:

Deflecting again crapper - the fact is that the snot greens are an embarrassment 8800 supporters mostly (IMO 95% manly supporters) means this club is bringing down other clubs!

Deflecting from what you imbecile .
I was replying to Cos ,you braindead twit.

The previous 4 posts before mine were discussing National Comp..
Try to keep up or you wont even get ONE point for being unco & missing.

AFLcrap1 wrote:

AFL logic
A comp is National ,when 1 state & 2 territories have no team .

No way a comp can be national if 3 states & 1 territory have no team .

The code with at least 2 teams in the 5 largest cities in Australia, and playing regular games in the 8 largest cities, is far more national than the code with all but 2 teams in 2 states, and no teams or regular games in 2 of the 5 largest cities.

A competition is not national until it represents every state and territory. The AFL is not represented in Tasmania, the ACT or the Northern Territory. The NRL is not represented in South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory.

So neither are national.

cos789 wrote:

FFS just because the AFL is our national game doesn't mean rl has to be as well.

get over it.

OUR National game..Nice play on words.


Pull the other ONE..

Can you show me where Derpball is officially OUR national game.

It is dominant in the Southern states.
RL is dominant in the Northern states.

The only game that could possibly qualify as our National game is Cricket.

Cracker wrote:

A competition is not national until it represents every state and territory. The AFL is not represented in Tasmania, the ACT or the Northern Territory. The NRL is not represented in South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory.

So neither are national.

Which is more national?

No such term. It's either national or it's not. There is no middle ground.