Anti-AFL thread - post here

[Mickey]

Originally posted by E.A.
LOL

So you work with an imbecile?

Big deal.

So does he.

Thats a bit harsh, considering North Melbourne have been using the Kangaroos name before the RL did, unless I'm mistaken.

 

[Mickey]

Originally posted by E.A.
Like littleduck pointed out....

Do you consider that the Wallabies represent our country?

Or the team that plays the Hybrid matches against Ireland?

Last time I looked, each one of them had Australia on the Jersey.

Don' follow union, so you'll have to ask someone else that question. Although the Wallabies are more known around the country than the RL team due to marketing as Littledick pointed out earlier. Its a good debate, it'll be interesting to see what other people think. Its a pity RL is not played in other countries that are competitive, like union is.

 

[Fire Storm]

Its a pity RL is not played in other countries that are competitive, like union is.

Last year the NZ team whacked the Kangaroo's. And the GB vs Kangaroos Test series had some of the best games of RL I've seen. And Australia didn't win them. GB lost them. Extremely competitive. A very poorly picked NZ team didn't compete with Australia the other night for 2/3's of the game because they wern't competive. Other wise Australia would beat them 70-0 or more like they do in Union.


Funny how no one bagged the Aussie cricket team when the belted every team they played(still do).

We have an International game. True its only GB and NZ. But thats plenty for me. WAAAAY more than what AR can claim. So don't be a jerk Mickey. You sound jelous when you talk like that.

 

[Mickey]

Originally posted by Mark Rudd
Funny how no one bagged the Aussie cricket team when the belted every team they played(still do).

Yep, because back in the 80's we were being crushed, we then built up an academy and got youngsters in, now the cricket world is following in our footsteps, cricket is our national sport and at least it is national.

Jeolous of what?

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by Mark Rudd

Funny how no one bagged the Aussie cricket team when the belted every team they played(still do).

It almost seems as if you are delighted when the aussies get beaten in a test, and are hoping the poms beat us too.

With cricket, if Australia win thats all people care about, preferably by a huge margin. Its the pommies who get bagged for losing, not our side. The more we win in a row the better. That test series NZ tied with us a couple of years ago is seen as a black mark.

I don't know if anyone is bagging the aussie kangaroos, they are more bagging the other teams and they should be rising to our level.

 

[Sid]

Little duck says: Who thinks crowds are the sole determinant of a sports popularity and wellbeing?

Originally posted by E.A.
I'd say no littleduck, but I tend to think that AFL supporters will say yes.

E.A. the reason why most AFL supporters think so is because crowds are far more significant in determining the popularity of a game than tv ratings. It's more likely that there are more non-fans watching a sport on tv than non-fans who attend a game (sorry if that doesnt make sense but u get my point hopefully).

AFL has far better crowds and better revenue (i dunno by how much). I think thats more significant than crowds. You would have to agree.

 

[Aucklander]

The only way other teams will rise to the Kangaroo's level, is by playing them more often.

Hence, the tri-series and less meaningless one-off matches.

 

[littleduck]

Originally posted by Sid
Little duck says: Who thinks crowds are the sole determinant of a sports popularity and wellbeing?


E.A. the reason why most AFL supporters think so is because crowds are far more significant in determining the popularity of a game than tv ratings. It's more likely that there are more non-fans watching a sport on tv than non-fans who attend a game (sorry if that doesnt make sense but u get my point hopefully).

AFL has far better crowds and better revenue (i dunno by how much). I think thats more significant than crowds. You would have to agree.

You mentioned "revenue", well broadcast rights is the primary source of revenue for both codes.

Fair enuogh if you think crowds = more popular, but in reality its tv ratings and broadcast rights that bring in the most $$$.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by littleduck
You mentioned "revenue", well broadcast rights is the primary source of revenue for both codes.

Fair enuogh if you think crowds = more popular, but in reality its tv ratings and broadcast rights that bring in the most $$$.

i reckon crowds would bring more revenue than a tv rights deal. If you consider there are about 6 million people who attend over an AFL season, multiply by the cost of a ticket i don't know but i'd assume there would be more money in that per game than what the tv deal is worth. I'm happy to be proved wrong if somebody can find time to do a calculation but that would be my assumption anyway.

And from memory the NRL's total gross revenue last year was 80 odd million. The AFL's is quite a bit more than that but i'll look it up when i get a chance.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by nicko18
The AFL's is quite a bit more than that but i'll look it up when i get a chance.

these are 2002 figures...

Sponsorship/TV rights (local and international), radio rights - $94.6 million
AFL Finals Series - $18.7 million
AFL Membership - $16.4 million
Publications - $6.9 million
Consumer Products - $5.7 million
Equalisation Income - $5.5 million
Other (including Wizard Cup, corporate hospitality packages) - $12.1 million



Total revenue 2002 - $159.7 million
----------------------------------------------------------------
so obviously revenue from crowds go to the clubs, not the league.

 

[coop]

Very good.

Now all you have to do to prove your point is to post the same figures from Rugby League.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by coop
Very good.

Now all you have to do to prove your point is to post the same figures from Rugby League.

i've posted it before in this forum somewhere, couldnt be bothered digging it up, but the NRL would never breakdown their figures like that. They are much less transparent for some reason. I've only ever found the total figure before, and the only reason that figure was even released was because of the fracas with the RLPA

 

[hirdy_is_champ]

afl rulz

more skill better crouds.
afl is the best
sorry league ppl im bored

 

[E.A.]

Re: afl rulz

Originally posted by hirdy_is_champ
more skill better crouds.
afl is the best
sorry league ppl im bored

and stupid.

 

[MightyFighting]

Re: afl rulz

Originally posted by hirdy_is_champ
more skill better crouds.
afl is the best
sorry league ppl im bored

"My only wish,
to catch a fish..."

 

[Le Rouge]

Re: afl rulz

Originally posted by hirdy_is_champ
more skill

AFL more skill? BULL****!!! You gotta be joking right?

better crouds.

Proof you are ******ed

afl is the best

So why isn't it played ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD

sorry league ppl im bored

no you are a moron! Apology accepted.

 

[melbournestorm]

Re: afl rulz

Originally posted by hirdy_is_champ
more skill better crouds.
afl is the best
sorry league ppl im bored

Hope your other 175 posts were better then that.

 

[Mickey]

Re: Re: afl rulz

Originally posted by Le Rouge
AFL more skill? BULL****!!! You gotta be joking right?

If you are going to make a statement like that, back it up.

 

[melbournestorm]

Re: Re: Re: afl rulz

Originally posted by Mickey
If you are going to make a statement like that, back it up.

The original statement wasn't even backed up.lol

 

[Mickey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: afl rulz

Originally posted by melbournestorm
The original statement wasn't even backed up.lol

so lets here it then from both sides...................each game requires different skills, doesn't mean RL OR AR is more skillful than the other. A pathetic statement from two lunatics!

 

[littleduck]

Now if you started a thread like "AFL PLAYERS TACKLE LIKE GIRLS" and then went on to say "AFL PLAYERS WOULDNT LAST 2 SECONDS IN LEAGUE" then you might have a decent discussion about the tackling ability (or lack of) of AFL players.

 

[Mickey]

Originally posted by littleduck
Now if you started a thread like "AFL PLAYERS TACKLE LIKE GIRLS" and then went on to say "AFL PLAYERS WOULDNT LAST 2 SECONDS IN LEAGUE" then you might have a decent discussion about the tackling ability (or lack of) of AFL players.

The tackling style in AR is different to the RL style due to the rules.

 

[Spiteful Beetle]

Yep, I played both codes in Melbourne and I did laugh at how many times the experienced rugby players in the team (the guys from Qld, NSW and NZ etc) fended the AR players off when they tried to go high. Once we taught them that they could and should tackle around the legs, they got the hang of it.

 

[Le Rouge]

Originally posted by Mickey
The tackling style in AR is different to the RL style due to the rules.

OK we've named Tackling.

Rugby League CRAPS over AFL at this.

You can't tell me or anybody with a brain, that it's easier to tackle a 110+ Kg man (Eg. a big forward) running at a great speed directly at you or at an angle from face to face like league. It would be like stopping a charging bull. There is big impact every tackle.

AFL tackles are usually grabs, with less force either from behind or side on.

ALSO in League you are constantly runing backwards and forwards continously tackling. Taking alot of energy out of you.

They may be different but league tackles are the most difficult and physically demanding. Probably the sport best at it in the world.

 

[LebaneseForces]

Top Thread Champ