Talking Footy

The ACT Brumbies have over 6,000 members to date. Raiderdave tells us the Raiders have 2,000.

Biggest sporting club in the ACT is clearly the ACT Brumbies, proven more recently too with the Raiders told to move aside as the Brumbies have first dibs on Canberra Stadium.

Oh and the Brumbies have a major sponsor too. How's the search for a sponsor going for the Raiders Dave?

No point. They're gone.

Signs certainly don't look good for the sponsorless Raiders. What a mess they are in.

Raiders gone.

Beaussie wrote:

The ACT Brumbies have over 6,000 members to date. Raiderdave tells us the Raiders have 2,000.

Biggest sporting club in the ACT is clearly the ACT Brumbies, proven more recently too with the Raiders told to move aside as the Brumbies have first dibs on Canberra Stadium.

Oh and the Brumbies have a major sponsor too. How's the search for a sponsor going for the Raiders Dave?

the Raiders have closer to 4,000 members ATM , ahead of their tally in late 2010 & almost double GWS
both the Raiders & Brumbies had around the same numbers of members last year ..... 10,000 ( that was a record for the Raiders ) & I have no doubt the Raiders will at least match their numbers from last year in 2012 .
The Raiders have weren't kicked off Canberra Stadium , Foxtel made a major blunder ... allocating a game to the raiders on a day that they'd already agreed to cover a Brumbies game at the same venue ....

the Raiders have proven consistently they are the number one team in Canberra , no sport can get near them when they are televised ... the Brumbies only wish they had that pulling power on TV down here ... RL the number one sport in Canberra ... 4 of the top 5 TV shows in 2011 down here ... all RL
not one giggleball telecast making the top 10 .. how embarrasing for a code that claims it has some influence down here
the Raiders will find a sponsor soon enough thanks for your concern Beaussie .. but as I explained ...the Raiders have a very solid financial base with 10 licensed clubs all feeding into their coffers .... so unlike you ... they are far from concerned.

I call bullshit. Where is your source for 4,000 members?

As for the pathetic Foxtel excuse, surely if the Raiders were the number one team in Canberra, the Brumbies would have been asked to shift their game right? No, it worked the other way for obvious reasons.

Dire times in the ACT for the sponsorless Raiders.

They're gone.

Beaussie wrote:

I call bullshit. Where is your source for 4,000 members?

As for the pathetic Foxtel excuse, surely if the Raiders were the number one team in Canberra, the Brumbies would have been asked to shift their game right? No, it worked the other way for obvious reasons.

Dire times in the ACT for the sponsorless Raiders.

already posted the proof
they were at 2900 .... on Dec 2nd , another 1K or so in the last 2 weeks is a given.
the actual figures will be out as per NRL guidelines in early Jan...

The Raiders are the Numb one team in the territory ... thats not in dispute
daylight is 2nd...

the brumbies couldn't move their game ....it was locked in ... in August , they are playing a sth african team who have already booked their flights & accomodation ... it would have been a nightmare for them .... & absolutley no skin off the Raiders noses at all to move it...
so the easier option was taken.

anything else I can help you with ?

Raiderdave wrote:

Beaussie wrote:

I call bullshit. Where is your source for 4,000 members?

As for the pathetic Foxtel excuse, surely if the Raiders were the number one team in Canberra, the Brumbies would have been asked to shift their game right? No, it worked the other way for obvious reasons.

Dire times in the ACT for the sponsorless Raiders.

already posted the proof
they were at 2900 .... on Dec 2nd , another 1K or so in the last 2 weeks is a given.

A stats graph with no numbers is not proof dopey.

1k in 2 weeks, you're joking right?

Raiderdave wrote:

The Raiders are the Numb one team in the territory ... thats not in dispute
daylight is 2nd...

the brumbies couldn't move their game ....it was locked in ... in August , they are playing a sth african team who have already booked their flights & accomodation ... it would have been a nightmare for them .... & absolutley no skin off the Raiders noses at all to move it...
so the easier option was taken.

anything else I can help you with ?

Brumbies take prime time spot at Canberra Stadium for obvious reasons. Rugby Union has a much larger local and international supporter base.

Beaussie wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Beaussie wrote:

I call bullshit. Where is your source for 4,000 members?

As for the pathetic Foxtel excuse, surely if the Raiders were the number one team in Canberra, the Brumbies would have been asked to shift their game right? No, it worked the other way for obvious reasons.

Dire times in the ACT for the sponsorless Raiders.

already posted the proof
they were at 2900 .... on Dec 2nd , another 1K or so in the last 2 weeks is a given.

A stats graph with no numbers is not proof dopey.

1k in 2 weeks, you're joking right?

Raiderdave wrote:

The Raiders are the Numb one team in the territory ... thats not in dispute
daylight is 2nd...

the brumbies couldn't move their game ....it was locked in ... in August , they are playing a sth african team who have already booked their flights & accomodation ... it would have been a nightmare for them .... & absolutley no skin off the Raiders noses at all to move it...
so the easier option was taken.

anything else I can help you with ?

Brumbies take prime time spot at Canberra Stadium for obvious reasons. Rugby Union has a much larger local and international supporter base.

I know the Raiders figures from 2011 ... 10K.. plenty of links to this
1K in 2 weeks .... absolutely .. we're not talking about GWS here .... 25 members a day

the Brumbies took the spot first because of the reasons I have explained ,
you seem to be struggling this morning .. . at a GWS Christmas party last night were you , there'd of been a lot of grog there eh ?
you know .. because you could have fired a machine gun off at it .... & not hit anyone

Raiderdave wrote:

I know the Raiders figures from 2011 ... 10K.. plenty of links to this

You'd be wrong again. Surprise, surprise. What is it with NRL clubs and supporters constantly fudging figures.

Beaussie wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

I know the Raiders figures from 2011 ... 10K.. plenty of links to this

You'd be wrong again. Surprise, surprise. What is it with NRL clubs and supporters constantly fudging figures.

LOL

denial .... you don't sail boats on it beaussie ..... K

Hang on, you said the Raiders had 10,000 members in 2011.

Clearly you are wrong again. Talk about denial.

??

Raiderdave wrote:

Beaussie wrote:

Hang on, you said the Raiders had 10,000 members in 2011.

Clearly you are wrong again. Talk about denial.

ah.....why haven't you posted the link to these figures ?

I know why
as they are from about the Middle of Feb 2011
by June 30th ... our figure was around 10K

K