Speaking about boring, what about the poor 90 thousand who turned up to that pathetic game you put on anzac day, a scoreline of what ? nearly one hundred points, if any of them ever come back after that just goes to show that you lot in melbourne are the most boring sports city in the world, not only australia, and if our game is so boring, then why has the storm got a growing average crowd size each year,? Once the new stadium is built expect that to nearly double. And soccer will lose you more of your pathetic memberships. Your brainwashing days are nearly over dogged.

Put your money where your mouth is dogged, and we will see if perth gets a team into our league before 2015, as for the force, we dont need there fans, we have our own and if you think sponsership is a problem you must be blind, the broncos have to turn down half there sponsers and the coast are already the best thing since sliced bread, Why, because they have a strong team, unlike the drivel that the a.f.l will have running around in there comp,where are you mob going to get your players from,?  I cant wait for these 2 teams join the comp, it will highlight what a crappy comp you are really running, what is your supporter base going to do, get the lions supporters to run down the coast so they look like they are getting a crowd. Ha,

Your game is a mess and you need crowd to make it exciting, without the noise its a dog-fest.

One last thing, A.F.L is supposed to be 150 years old this year, and the only people cellabrating this fact is you lot down in melbourne, up here in N.S.W and QLD we dont give a pigs ear about your game or cellabrations because its your game not ours, like you have said dogged, we have our game you and the other lot at the bottom of the world have yours. You have alienated the rest of australia from you and now you think you can buy us out, dont try to insult us, why do you think the council are making it so hard for your code to break into the coast, because we want to slowly destroy you and your brainwashed code, this will also happen to your expansion into Sydney, we will finish you off slowly.

The only reason we have afl in our states is for tall guys who cant make it into the real code.

Soccer and league will slowly kill off aussie rules, and union will pick up the crumbs.

One good thing is we can see your downfall because your crowds cant get any bigger, ours can?

dogged:

and yes this is all a bit boring....i keep having to repeat myself to respond to the saem incorrect and mindless moronic mantra...unless there are any new lies I don't think I'll bother....i think i've effectively exposed most of the old lies and the most common lies.... 

If it's all a bit boring why not leave? I mean it's not like you have to be on here so why waste your and everyone elses time by being on here if it bores you? doesn't seem to make sense, but then again nothing you have said really has.

Oh and BTW dogged, I don't know if you read any other threads than this one but you should check out "will america ever accept Rugby League as a serious sport". Now I don't usualy play match-maker but here I go, there is a poster on there "The Empire", Now you 2 would be a perfect couple. Now I'm not sure of your gender or relationship status nor his, you are probably both males but you could definatley make it work.

I'd have to agree with oikee............the AFL is such a weak competition, how on earth can they possibly support two more teams?!?!?!?! You've already got 10, if not 12 teams in the AFL that have absolutely no chance in winning the comp - at least in the NRL, as the last decade has shown, 14 of the 16 teams have a realistic chance of winning the competition. The World Wildlife Foundation should list the AFL in it's 'ednangered' species category.

And the Reds will be a part of the NRL by 2015 - I would bet my house on it!

And finally, oikee spoke truly when he said the in the next decade, League and Football (soccer) will be the two major codes in this country - the FFA are making all the right moves as far as their code goes and it's no secret that there are more juniors playing football (soccer) than any other code. Rugby League's junior base is booming in the southern states whilst the same can't be said for AFL in the Northern States.

Rugby Union is an absolute joke however.

OK,

 

We are really wasting all our time with this guy. He just ignores all the major points that he cant rebutt, and then just makes up heresay with no factual basis for the things he thinks he has a chance with. Funny how he conveniently overlooks certain things, like the TV ratings Dallymessenger posted a little while back.

Oh he does that alot don't worry, simply put the guy's an idiot.

dogged:

don't hold your breath...WA will never have a team...it hasn't got the finanacial strength...RLeague missed its chance - Force is there now and they'll make a fist of it....

Using your logic, one could argue that the AFL missed their chance at setting up a team on the Gold Coast.

(I brought up this point during the earlier phases of the discussion.  You refused to acknowledge it.  I wonder why that is?  An objective,truth-seeking person who doesn't have an agenda wouldn't brush off a point during a debate.)

dogged:

and if you know anythying about WA you will know that AFL people like RUnion far more than RLeague....it's a more strategic game and aussies people respect this and can get into it....

Have you ever played Rugby Union?  I vice-captained my school's open's Rugby Union side when I was 15 -- I played for a club in the southern suburbs of Brisbane, too.   The word "stragetic" did not pop into my mind when I played it. On the contrary, I thought it was quite easy to understand; the forwards secure the ball at the breakdown, the scrum half feeds the ball to the backs and/or forwards who are standing just off from the ruck and keep the ball away from your own 22.

The set pieces are the most strategic part of the game.  The scrums and line outs require a bit of intelligence, but not that much.  The intelligence that is required pales in comparision to the spatial awareness that is needed to succeed in Rugby League.  The four key players of a Rugby League team (halfback, five-eighth, fullback and hooker) need to think on their feet.  Plus, they need to have the skill to be able to pull off their attacking plans.  The scrumhalves and flyhalves in Rugby Union aren't anywhere as skillful and compulsive as the halfbacks and five-eighths from Rugby League.

I played Rugby League for my school.  I found it to be a tougher, more skillful sport than Rugby Union.  In Rugby League, the defenders have to face an attack that has enough time and space to run a good line at a strong pace.  It's hard to tackle a player when they have the time to do this.  In Rugby Union, the defence usually deals with forwards who pick and drive (do you even know what that means?), which is a lot easier to defend against.

I suggest you play the games before you comment on them.

dogged:

and they do like the genuinely international aspect of RUnion (not the pretend international teams of RLeague)...the monotony 'five tackles followed by a kick' of RL just never caught on in perth...

Australians like to support the underdog.  The Australian Wallabies are the underdog.  The Australian Kangaroos are the top dog.  It's why the Wallabies' matches usually attract lots of people to the games.  People like to be able to say that they were there when the underdog Aussies won the Bledisloe Cup.  Hell, even I like to see it!

The Australian Rugby Union (ARU) has around 66,000 registered players (men women and children).  New Zealand has over 141,000, South Africa has over 400,000 and England has over 600,000.  Therefore, Australia is definitely the underdog in Rugby Union. 

Competition is a factor, too.  The Kangaroos usually wallop their opponents when they play them on Australian soil.  The Wallabies struggle to overcome their opponents.  People want to see a close game, not a one-sided display.  It's why England's Ashes triumpth in 2005 lead to the huge interest in the 06/07 series. drew so much interest after Australia lost them to England in 2005.

i personally think that south africa is a must for league to get a grip off and make into a world force. they already have heaps of rugby knowledge, albeit rah rah!

Jack GB:

i personally think that south africa is a must for league to get a grip off and make into a world force. they already have heaps of rugby knowledge, albeit rah rah!

http://www.rlwc08.com/forums/thread/267443.aspx

Well SARL can be helped out by all for their upcoming England tour.

---

For all The latest Rugby League scores from around the world:
http://www.rugbyleagueinternationalscores.com
Contact
info@rugbyleagueinternationalscores.com
-------------------------------------

.."how he conveniently overlooks certain things, like the TV ratings Dallymessenger posted a little while back."

 Mate i've asnwered the TV thing about 10 times!!!... look send all your TV data to the NRL...get Gallop to explain the following to you - how a TV broadcast of NRL (FOX plus free to air) which you claim thrashes the AFL in terms of viewers gets about 30% less per game than the AFL in its broadcasting deal (and that's being generous becasue 30% is lifted straight from one of Roy Master's articles so it's likely to be even more)......

whatever warped TV figures you try to argue your case (and frequently when talking to RL people figures are not national and exclude everything outside NSW/QLD) you either have to come to one of two conclusions - 1. the AFL gets a *** load more money due to the gfact it has many more viewers or 2. RL actually has more TV viewers but it did a shocking deal in negotiating its broadcasting deal....incompetence by NRL or a less popular sport..those are your only options...and it is the later....and i'm not even going to bother responding to specific viewing figures and listen to nonsense arguments that RL has nmore TV viewers yet gets paid far less for its broadcast...total nonsense...the NRL gets less becasue less people watch....

send your arguments and your stats to the NRL...argue with them not me... 

 

If those TV figures are "warped" then you go and find the real ones where AFL gets more viewers and show us. Come on put some meaning into your whinging.

dogged:

send your arguments and your stats to the NRL...argue with them not me... 

OK then we will, that means you can go now, bye

Another example of Dogged believing what he wants to believe, and disregarding everything else without any factual basis.

do i need to reference plain facts for you mate....the value of NRL and aFL broadcasting deals are so well documented I won't bother - if you doubt me you look it up... what I will give you is a link to an article where Roy Masters moans about the NRL broadcasting deal....he doesn't get it and you don't get it....broadcasting deals are concrete evidence of overall viewership - proof of the true numbers...I'm not going to waste my time trying to follow anyone ducking and weaving through distorted and cherry picked numbers - and lies......why do that when I can go straight to the bottom line and see what they're worth...how much? one simple objective and concrete measure...and RL is 30% behind - at least 30% behind.....and no matter how many times you repeat the lie that "RL dominates on TV" it makes not difference to reality... 

 http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/tv-pays-toprating-nrl-half-as-much-as-afl/2007/02/13/1171128973651.html

 you're the one beleiving what you wantto beleive in spite of reality staring you in the face......you position - 'I beleive RL dominates TV sports viewing in Australia and is far more watched than AFL and  I believe this in spite of the fact that the NRL receives 30% less money for its boradcast rights. I have no problems believing the far more popular RL gets paid less than AFL"....this is your idiotic and deluded position...itt is you who disregard reality not me ...

dogged:

...I'm not going to waste my time trying to follow anyone ducking and weaving through distorted and cherry picked numbers - and lies.....

 

Again...

 

Anything that goes against what you think is automatically lies. I would have thought concrete evidence of how amny people watch certain shows would be the ah...TV ratings?, you know...that statistic that actually tells you how many people watch?.

 

Ah, having looked at the article you just linked, are you aware that it actually strengthens my point that more people watch NRL than AFL?. "AFL does not rate on PAY TV, Of the top 100 programs on Pay TV last year 73 were Rugby League. The NRL had eight in the top ten" "The AFL had one game that ranked lower than the movie Star Wars 3:Revenge of the Sith, at 89th, with a couple of games in the 90 to 100 bracket". Are these just lies too?. Granted the AFL does get more revenue from their TV deal, for what reason that is I have no idea, and either do you. We are not administrators of either code. But the fact reamins that the NRL rates much better than the AFL.

 

 

dogged:

do i need to reference plain facts for you mate....the value of NRL and aFL broadcasting deals are so well documented I won't bother - if you doubt me you look it up... what I will give you is a link to an article where Roy Masters moans about the NRL broadcasting deal....he doesn't get it and you don't get it....broadcasting deals are concrete evidence of overall viewership - proof of the true numbers...I'm not going to waste my time trying to follow anyone ducking and weaving through distorted and cherry picked numbers - and lies......why do that when I can go straight to the bottom line and see what they're worth...how much? one simple objective and concrete measure...and RL is 30% behind - at least 30% behind.....and no matter how many times you repeat the lie that "RL dominates on TV" it makes not difference to reality... 

 http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/tv-pays-toprating-nrl-half-as-much-as-afl/2007/02/13/1171128973651.html

 you're the one beleiving what you wantto beleive in spite of reality staring you in the face......you position - 'I beleive RL dominates TV sports viewing in Australia and is far more watched than AFL and  I believe this in spite of the fact that the NRL receives 30% less money for its boradcast rights. I have no problems believing the far more popular RL gets paid less than AFL"....this is your idiotic and deluded position...itt is you who disregard reality not me ...

Again idiot, get me the "Real" TV ratings then that show AFL getting more viewers than NRL, come on. Just because you're TV deal is worth more doesn't mean you get more viewers f*ck knuckle! You keep going on and on and on about how AFL's deal is better but does that automatically mean more people watch AFL, I know for sure I don't decide what sport to watch based on how much the TV deal is worth and neither does anyone else. The TV RATINGS are what matter and unless you can show me something that goes against what dallymessenger has posted then your posts just don't have any credibility. Noone really gives a f*ck how much the TV deals are worth, it doesn't change how people think of the sport. 

My god you are retarded.