As I say......i attempted to get it back on topic. Have a pop at loiner81.......gmhes the one attacking billy here and on the Ladbrokes thread

He just happened to quote a wrong year which has completely derailed his kindergarten effort at mocking others and poking fun at Arriva Premiership attendances by comparison. That's assuming his cited attendance figures for the Arriva Premiership are accurate of course.


Nimbostratus appears to be the formation dominating the skies around West Yorkshire today.

Bit weird.

Just a bit, the guy's off his nut.

My dearest William, indeed I did quote the wrong figure. However what you deliberately missed off was the comparison to just 5 days worth of English Football. That was the comparison, since the Union Moonies were happily slagging off the far, far bigger code of football.

But if you want a comparison to the AP then here are the stats compiled in your terms (double headers etc attendances spread across the number of games


2013 SL regular round cumulative (incl Magic Weekend) - 1,619,701
2012/13 AP regular round cumulative - 1,506,196

2013 SL cumulative incl playoffs - 1,759,951
2012/13 AP cumulative incl playoffs - 1,618,140

2014 SL regular round cumulative - 1,540,332
2013/14 AP regular round cumulative - 1,554,641

2014 SL cumulative incl playoffs - 1,677,825
2013/14 AP cumulative incl playoffs - 1,644,978


Here are the figures using the what now seems accepted way of compiling attendances and is the way the AP use to compile them (using double header etc attendances for each match):

2013 SL regular round cumulative - 1,774,578
2012/13 AP regular round cumulative - 1,569,298

2013 SL cumulative incl playoffs - 1,914,828
2012/13 AP cumulative incl playoffs - 1,681,242

2014 SL regular round cumulative - 1,716,015
2013/14 AP regular round cumulative - 1,617,278

2014 SL SL cumulative incl playoffs - 1,843,508
2013/14 AP cumulative incl playoffs - 1,721,924


Whichever way you want to compile them, there you go.

Which wasn't the point anyway, feel free to find where I've slagged off or belittled Union for it's attendances. I haven't. I even said on whichever thread it was where media was discussed that I believe domestic Union deserves more recognition.

The point was that when people criticised rugby union ON THE FIELD they were met with a response quoting attendances. Then the main culprit criticised football which, as the stats I quoted for the 2 codes of rugby show, comprehensively craps all over any other sport in terms of attendances.

So which measure of compiling attendances would you prefer? Spreading multi-game attendances across each game (ie the method you used) or giving each game at the event the same, full, attendance (the method the Aviva Premiership uses)?

Alas, it is a simplified world you live in buddy. If the constant references to Union were purely about the slow ponderous nature of the game, then I have no doubt that everyone, even Billy with his 10 minute loo-break experience, would agree.
Unfortunately, the references to Union are usually delivered as a barb towards the game in general and anyone stupid enough to watch it, never mind pay to watch it. There is a train of thought on here, displayed by many posters, that surely the 70,000,000+ who watch the 6 nations, or the 1,000,000+ who attend the 6 Nations, or the millions who attend world cups or the 4 billion viewers

are all brain dead sheep because they do so. It is then also claimed that there is an orchestrated campaign in the media to promote the other code to these sheep in the hope of increasing the size of the herd, whilst ensuring that RL is ignored.

I suspect if RLFANS.COM sold it's own branded range of tin-foil hats, they's sell quite well on here!

Thats funny, I've just re-read this thread and no-one criticised football and certainly not me, you shoe-horned it into the debate because you were losing the argument. Anyone who goes back to page 7 onwards can see what you have done. What sort of saddo makes things up what other posters have said and then argues against those points?





Maybe as you keep accusing me of criticising football you can provide the evidence that i have to every single member of this forum? Because if you can't, what little credibility you have left will be gone

Lol. It very much went over your head didn't it...

Hmmmm...


Thanks for yet again proving my point.

Don't try and squirm out of it, where's the proof i criticised football? Three times you have said i did when you full well know i didn't. Now everyone on this forum can see how you operate on here, by not being able to provide the evidence you are proving to everyone that you make up things that people are supposed to have said, and then when challenged about it you pretend it was a joke. How can anyone take you seriously anymore on this forum? They will read a comment from you and wonder if you made it up as you did on this thread. Absolutely pathetic

If you check the thread (Page 6), you'll discover it was in fact one of your moonie cohorts (moonie81) who slagged off the far bigger code of soccer first. Gutterfax merely responded by agreeing that soccer was poop, just like union... but popular poop.

Back at the start of the Burgess thread when people were sticking to just the on field action in RU.....



Which got this reply.....



Repeat a few more times then claim/dream up that its others who brought things like attendances, popularity and how the sport is run into the debate and criticised them.

Here's another one......



Which got this response.....

Indeed.

I think both Union and football are rubbish to watch in general. I think anyone can criticise any sport regardless of their relative size or popularity. In the same way as Bradford fans can criticise Leeds if they wish. Yes they'll be criticising a much bigger, more successful and more popular club

but hey sometimes I might agree with their criticism.

That's not the case with Gutterfax. If a Bradford fan criticised Leeds style of play for instance I wouldn't reply by calling them bitter and they have a chip on their shoulder along with quoting Leeds average attendance.

To do so is frankly bizarre.

Are you serious? You think this.... [i "Are we allowed to mention that Football's boring or will you come back with a load of TV viewing figures to put us all in our place?"[/i is me slagging football off? Or is it me choosing another sport that's bigger than RL to make a point.

Are you going to comment on Him's stats or are we pretending that didn't just happen?

Ouch

Do you even read any posts on here?

Wait, you're not Jeremy Guscott are you? It's just you obviously like Union and don't seem to really know what's going on around you. If so then I unreservedly apologise. I wouldn't want to upset you. I've heard we should be afraid of you.

So after ignoring the topic of the thread totally, loiner 81 is now championing soccer in the hope of digging himself out if a hole entirely of his own digging whilst him tries to counter his attendance error by posting total attendances ignoring the number if games played to achieve them
Tin foil hats all round I say.......huzzah.

I'm off to bed, when I stop laughing

...at least while asleep you can't make any more of a fool of yourself. Sleep well

Apology accepted.

Ha Ha Ha

Get over yourself you sanctimonious knob end!

Who do you think you are, you're nothing but a legend in your own nap time you fool!

I'm Gutterfax. It says so on the left hand side of my posts.....can you not read?

I heard that McNamara was a good coach. By someone who worked with him at the Roosters.

The same was said about Rob Powell at London.


To be fair to McNamara, the team's performances have improved in the last couple of years. Seconds from a RLWC final and a finger nail from a 4 Nations final and not embarrassed by either ANZAC team since the 2nd half v Australia in 2011. With a little rub of the green (and a neutral referee) we could be discussing a 4 nations winning coach.......

If England do ever win anything with McNamara as head coach it will be in spite of him rather than because of him.
The 4 Nations saw England with more shape, structure and game plan than since before the 2008 World Cup. This was probably due to the influence of Deacon rather than McNamara as England did seem to have the same moves etc as Wigan. The selection of Farrell & Tomkins in the 2nd row plus Sarginson into centre was probably due to the intention to adopt the Wigan style.
Deacon's only problem was he had McNamara at his side and as his assistant.