- The actual text of his interview read something like “I briefly considered match-fixing, then dismissed the possibility.” The only person who deserves ridicule is the SST journo who blew it all out of proportion.Besides, 40 missed penalties? You’d be a fool to not at least briefly consider it.
Professor Longhair3.1.1
The actual text of his interview read something like “I briefly considered match-fixing, then dismissed the possibility.” The only person who deserves ridicule is the SST journo who blew it all out of proportion.The person who rightly deserves ridicule for this foolish claim is Henry, for even raising it. There is nothing at all to support his allegation.Besides, 40 missed penalties? You’d be a fool to not at least briefly consider it.You’d be a fool to accept such a baseless and unsupported claim. Henry has no evidence to back up that wild claim. The fact is that France did NOT infringe during the long period in the second half when the All Blacks tried (in vain) to breach their defence.
Te Reo Putake3.2
I hope there’s a chapter on cheating by the All Blacks, the current captain specifically. However, the guts of rugby’s problems lie with its ridiculously complicated nature. Football has 11 ‘laws’ that have stayed essentially constant for a century, rugby has hundreds of rules that regularly change. In football or league, the crowd usually sees the offence that causes the whistle to be blown; in rugby, nobody knows.- That rugby laws are different to football laws is something that differentiates them as quite different games. Diversity is a good thing.Laws help define the character of the game. Complexity and a range of contests make rugby the unique game that it is. We can enjoy the differences.
ps. “To choose sports for fashion or you personality. The basic idea is to enjoy yourself. That is important. It’s outdoor sport that has recently started to shine. Outdoor sport is the science to raise spirits”The famous Japanese philisopher RAV 4.Colonial Viper3.2.1.1.1
I now have coffee on my keyboard. Thanks.- Sorry, mate! Pete’s waffle was so similar to that spare tyre cover’s wording, I just couldn’t help myself.
Gosman3.2.2
Rugby Union is doing just fine around the world with it’s ‘complicated’ laws. It’s extremely debateable that simplyfied games do better anyway. Rugby League is definately less popular than Rugby Union around the World where it is only in Papua New Guinea and the Eastern states of Australia where it is the more popular form of Rugby.- League is also more popular in the UK in terms of spectator attendence, I understand, though Rugby has the better TV audiences. And the Perth Pirates will be joining the NRL in two seasons, taking that code to both coasts of Oz.
Rugby in NZ is dying, according to a report released this morning. The ITM cup teams are losing millions each year.- I think you will find that your view about the spectator attendance difference between Rugby League and Rugby Union in the UK is based on out of date data. Rugby Union has pretty much caught up and surpassed Rugby League in the Club game and in the International game there is no comparison. Rugby League struggles to fill 40,000 seat stadiums whilst England, Scotland, and Wales regularly fill 70 -80,000 seat stadiums for the big Internationals.It is also incorreect when to state it is in the UK and not England. Rugby League is pretty much non-existant outside the North of England and (one) London club as a Professional spectator sport.
- The NRL expansion is not as settled as you would like to make out. I have seen reports over the past few years which have said expansion to any number of places was imminent, (including to Wellington even). As for ITM provinces losing money, this happens in professional sport all the time. The Warriors had to be bailed out a few years ago. That didn’t mean Rugby League in NZ was dying or even in much trouble.
Chris3.2.2.1.3
That link you posted doesn’t state that they are losing millions each year? It says their revenue dropped in 2011 and states the world cup as the likely reason for that.That report said that 9 of the 14 teams made a profit.Rob3.2.2.1.4
Only 1 NRL franchise makes any money, they tried expansion before to Perth (your an expert TRP you must remember the reds) and it bit them big time.What is it you dont like about NZ Rugby.- What is it you dont like about NZ Rugby.The special treatment and high levels of tax payer subsidies required in order to operate its loss making events and venues, for starters.
- I thought you would be all for State picking winners and providing them with preferential treatment.
- FFS CV, you really are an embittered little c**k.
prism…
RobThe special treatment and high levels of tax payer subsidies required in order to operate its loss making events and venues, for starters.What’s your beef? Be a man and face the facts. CV stated facts which are sour – the facts about rugby’s present situation, with the money and interest sucked up by the business interests and professionals not the keen people in the regions. But the money guys still present rugby as a family and nationwide sport and therefore the venues should be provided by the public.- My beef, is that I volunteer a lot of time to community rugby and two other sports. I think it is good for kids to be involved in it. I dont like arm chair wankers who do nothing but run it down.So thats my beef.
McFlock…
My beef is that my city council keeps writing off debts accrued by the local rugby union, after building a multihundredmilliondollarfuckingstadium. At the expense of everyone else in the city.- Rob
I said
“with the money and interest sucked up by the business interests and professionals not the keen people in the regions. But the money guys still present rugby as a family and nationwide sport and therefore the venues should be provided”My beef is that I was stating real problems that affect your good efforts so why not try and read through a full paragraph and form an understanding from the full comment. Then comment on whether I was suggesting something you had experienced, understood or whatever. Otherwise it’s a waste of time you trying to participate in a forum where people enter their thoughts and respond to others thoughts not just repeating some litany of moans. No reason for you to call us armchair wankers, know thyself son.
- Fuck providing breakfasts in schools dear tax payers, these professional corporate (and government) sponsored rugby teams need a new half billion dollar stadium to strut their stuff!
- “Fuck providing breakfasts in schools dear tax payers, these professional corporate (and government) sponsored rugby teams need a new half billion dollar stadium to strut their stuff!”Damn straight.It sez a lot for our skewed sense of priorities that National could oversee spending of $220 million of public money on a rugby tournament, when 220,000 kids live in poverty.No matter which way you colour it, Rob, that is sickening.
Vicky32…
Fuck providing breakfasts in schools dear tax payers, these professional corporate (and government) sponsored rugby teams need a new half billion dollar stadium to strut their stuff!That hacks me off, too! Thugby can pay its own way – if enough people give a toss about it! I assure you, far fewer do than the media think – even Radio NZ assumes we care. I thought they’d know better!
- Perhaps, Gosman because unlike you, fairly sensible people prefer public money to be spent on housuing, education and healthcare – rather than wasting $220+ million on a rugby tournament.When we have 4,276 people on a State Housing waiting list – whilst spending millions on a rugby game – then there is something seriously wrong.The question is, Gosman, why do you find it so hard to relate to something so basic in our needs?
- I’ve already mentioned this to you previously, (which unsurprisingly you seemed to fail to comprehend for some reason), if you had a problem with Government funding for the RUWC you should take it up with the members of the last Labour led Government in this country who were instrumental in winning the hosting rights. In short blame Helen and Trevor.
- Oh Gossie, that’s past wasteful expenditure on rugby (a “sunk cost” in the terminology, you know). And so if you agree it was shit, let’s stop doing it from now on eh?
- How did Labour fund $220 million on the rugby world cup, Gosman?How does winning hosting rights mean that taxpayers have to foot the bill?Where did it say in the contract that we were liable to pay for the WRC, Gosman?
- Because a large part of the expenditure was built into the Hosting right’s agreement which Labour signed. The tens of millions of dollars in funding the Government paid to cover the shortfall in the ticket sales was something Labour signed up to. So essentially was the money to provide suitable stadiums and support infrastructure. Yes some funding was driven and controlled by National when they got into power but the vast bulk of it was already committed the moment we won the hosting rights. You seem to fail to grasp this rather simple concept.
Treetop…
Re HNZ, King said on Morning Report that a person has to take three rejection letters to HNZ from landlords as part of being housed. HNZ are doing all they can to not subsidise housing for those who are really struggling.mike e…
Frank don’t forget the billion dollars local bodies spent as well.
Now the rugby brain injured National party want to stop local authorities from doing it again after Shonkey has taken all the Kudos
Cat walk
team photo
Kinky handshake
- Winners!
Not propping up losing businesses, with artificially low wages, taxpayer subsidies and privatisation, that cannot make a go of it otherwise.- Especially losing businesses and events which are showcases and wallet stuffers for the rich and the corporates. It seems the Right are very fond of that kind of state provided “welfare”.
Daveosaurus…
It makes more sense than backing losers, which is all that the current mob can do. How’s that Holiday Highway working out for you?
- Yep, what CV said and, of course, the boredom!
To answer a couple of points:
Chris, you need to read the article again. I didn’t say that each franchise was losing millions each year. I accurately reported that they are losing millions collectively. And that’s over many years. Further to that, clubs are dying in the provinces. Forced amalgamations or just closure are the realities for grassroots rugby. Meanwhile football continues to grow ever more popular (go the Footie Ferns!).
Gossie, dead right about the UK, I should have said England. I disagree about your assesment of local league, though. The Perth Reds (cheers, Rob) and the Warriors both went broke because of financial mismanagement, not because of the state of the game. The NRL will be expanding to WA and they will make it work. Just look at the turnout at the Warriors game there a week ago; bad result, but a whopping crowd. The next expansion phase will also include a new Brisbane team, likely to be based in the suburbs.- Grassroots rugby is going the way of grassroots yachting. Too much emphasis on those who are competing at the top end internationally, while starving those who play at local level.
- Bullshit, you guys know absolutely nothing as usual. Go to rugby grounds early Saturday morning if you could actually get out of bed on time and you will see loads of grass roots volunteers (coaches, refs , administrators) plus loads of kids playing the game. This is what you fundementally do not get and never will. Whatever your hatred of NZRU or the All Blacks , or the wold cup is, you guys have no idea of what it means at a local community level where lots of good families get involved just as they do for many sports.Take your bigotry and stuff it up your pompous backside .
- “Take your bigotry and stuff it up your pompous backside” .
Yes, I’d forgotten Rugby’s obsession with buggery, thanks for reminding me. And do check the sports draw section of today’s newspaper wherever it is you live. Count the number of rugby games. Then count the number of footy games. You’re not going to like the result, Rob.
Rugby doesn’t even make it into the top twenty on this list of the games we play. framu…
settle down rob – several people are actually saying the same thing as youthe general gist of things does seem to belocal/grassroots rugby – sweet as, nothing wrong with itcorporate rugby – not so good, syphons off taxpayer money to subsdise business ventures and deprives grassroots rugby of much needed fundsat least thats the way the discussion appears to me- Hey Frank, “have you taken your meds this morning” HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, oh really, how original, wow I have never heard that before, my god you are an original comic genius, please stop my sides are acheing. The originality and the humour, classic…As to you TRiPe, obviously we should just call off the whole game as you dont like it, Why dont you go out there if your legs can support your enourmous head and explain to the very few people who play the game or are at all interested in Rugby, that its all waste of time as you are an intellectual genius from the Standard and this is how you deem it to be. How about you tell these guys at half time that its boring you and that they engage in buggery, you dork.
- Cheers, Rob, but I can’t take credit for the slow painful death of rugby as a player sport. That’s entirely down to the game itself and its professional version fixated leadership who don’t give a toss about grassroots rugby, as long as the AB’s get paid. Funnily enough, in the small rural town where I live, the local rugby club limps on, reduced to a single team, with players mainly drawn from the nearest large town instead of from the locals. The sons of the soil round here either work on Saturdays or, you guessed it, play football.
- As to you TRiPe, obviously we should just call off the whole game as you dont like it,The games can go on, just not with tax payer handouts to the corporate entities involved.
- Go on TRiPe name the rugby club .
- ” oh really, how original, wow I have never heard that before ”Heh, while I don’t actually care about this conversation either way I can’t help but wonder how many people are asking about Rob taking his meds and in what capacity.If they are medical professionals I strongly suggest following their advice.
- Why would I want to name the club, Rob? It’s not as if that’s an unusual situation; as I mentioned earlier, clubs are either shutting up shop or going through forced amalgamations right round the country. In the case of my local team, the other clubs have lent them players just so the competition can retain a rural away game every second week. It’s a pretty sad situation, but that’s how the NZRFU seem to want it.
By the way, have I mentioned how pathetic the AB’s and Super 12 salaries actually are? The richest sportsmen in NZ tend to be footballers, golfers, yatchies and the occasional basketballer or baseballer. Rugby incomes reflect the global presence of the game, ie. zilch. - Oh I see now, so a sport is only valid if you get super heated salaries.
- @ Rob,“Hey Frank, “have you taken your meds this morning” HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, oh really, how original, wow I have never heard that before, my god you are an original comic genius, please stop my sides are acheing. The originality and the humour, classic…”I never claimed to be “original”. I don’t get paid enough to deliver original comic material on blogs.“Take your bigotry and stuff it up your pompous backside .”What? Anal sex on our first date? Do I get dinner first?
- @ Frank, I know you didn’t claim to be original, and after reading your blog, its probably best you don’t.
- ” Frank, I know you didn’t claim to be original, and after reading your blog, its probably best you don’t.”I’m honoured.*doffs hat*
- Mc Flock goose is more likely a mormon like Mitt the gitt gaffe prone
- How is football or in our language soccer growing more popular. What happened to the Nix crowd numbers this year, where is your proof. In Auckland Junior club teams are down and have been decreasing for 3 years now.
- The Nix had a poor season and they play in a rubbish venue. Both factors kept attendence down. Even so, the atmosphere at a Nix game is still more exciting than listening to drunken twits moooing Ohhhtagohhh or ringing a cow bell. That does not alter the fact that football continues to grow in player numbers, while rugby continues to decline. I’m too polite to ask for a citation for your claim about numbers dropping in Ak, but for the benefit of the others you might want to front up with the evidence.
- Westpac Stadium would be one of the better sports grounds in the country. I don’t think you can balme the stadium for any issues with attendances.
- The Nix had a poor season and they play in a rubbish venue.Well, just copy an answer from the NZRU playbook: time for a brand new stadium! A fully covered one please, to keep up with the Joneses.
- It’s a cricket ground, Gos. It’s an awful venue for watching the football codes because the crowd is so far from the action. Which I why I hope West Ham United don’t move to the London Olympic stadium and why league games in Sydney look so poorly attended, too. 20k spectators in a stadium built for 80k always seems dismal.
- It’s a cricket ground, Gos. It’s an awful venue for watching the football codes because the crowd is so far from the action.I agree with this – I wouldn’t call it ‘awful’ but a cricket ground is certainly inferior to a rectangular ground.It’s not just watching to the action. The Dunedin stadium has a far better atmosphere per 1,000 of crowd, even smallish crowds of a few thousand can generate a great mood. A RWC pool match in Dunedin had a far better buzz than a semifinal at Eden Park with twice the crowd.
- Westpac stadium is awful for everything.
The food is shit, the beer is the worst kind of piss (Tui usually which is undrinkable) and you can’t smoke. gareth…
The Cake tin aint a cricket grounds asshole… now the basin thats a cricket ground….
- You should have stated English Rugby but as stated you would have been equally wrong about that too. The attendances for the Super League and Premiership are basically on par. However English Rugby Union has a more dynamic international and cross border competition that Rugby League in England cannot compete with. There is no equivalent of the Heineken Cup for example in Rugby League.
- How did Labour fund $220 million on the rugby world cup, Gosman?How does winning hosting rights mean that taxpayers have to foot the bill?Where did it say in the contract that we were liable to pay for the WRC, Gosman?Care to answer my questions, Gosman?
- You are having a hard time comprehending this aren’t you Frank?A large amount of the Government funding for the tournament was explicitly (i.e. written down) stated in the Hosting agreement.Additionally the Labour led Government provided a degree of confidence that the Government of NZ would ensure the tournament venues met the standards required and external factors such as security etc would be taken care of.In short the last Labour led Government signed up for a programme that led to much of this funding. Why do you think people like Trevour Mallard haven’t really qubbled with the big ticket items like spending on Eden Park?
- I comprehend your ACT-style hypocrisy only too well, Gosman.“A large amount of the Government funding for the tournament was explicitly (i.e. written down) stated in the Hosting agreement.”Source please.“Additionally the Labour led Government provided a degree of confidence that the Government of NZ would ensure the tournament venues met the standards required and external factors such as security etc would be taken care of.”Source please.And why couldn’t private enterprise take care of funding security? I thought you were big on not subsiding private enterprise?So you endorse private enterprise enjoying subsidies – when it suits you?“In short the last Labour led Government signed up for a programme that led to much of this funding.”Source please.“Why do you think people like Trevour Mallard haven’t really qubbled with the big ticket items like spending on Eden Park?”Pffft! Deflection. Not a particularly clever one at that.You’ve run out of answers.
- Here you go FrankPlease note the proposal for the loss to be split 2/3rd to the Government and 1/3 to the NZRFU as well as this section:“What else is the government doing to support the bid?The government is working with various partners to ensure there is infrastructure in place to support the hosting of the event. This includes security, transport and tourism matters so that New Zealand can deliver a safe, well co-ordinated and vibrant tournament. ”This was specified in 2005 under the Labour led government of Helen Clark.There was also the matter of the upgrade to Eden Park which the Government agreed to help finance as a result of getting it up to standard for hosting the Cup matches. Remember that Trevor Mallard would have spent hundreds of millions of dollars more if he had his way with his waterfront stadium idea. Do you remember him pushing for this Frank or have you conveniently fogotten any bad stuff that Labour did?
- How will the costs of hosting the RWC be met if the bid is successful?The government and NZRU make cash contributions towards costs of $20 million and $10 million respectively.It appears you’ may not have read that PR properly, Gosman.Labour offered $20 million in 2005, when our economy was bouyant; nett sovereign debt was low-to-nil; unemployment was low; and the Labour Government was in surplus.National blew that out to $220 million of public money during a high deficit; high unemployment; and a stagnating economy which the WRC seems not to have helped much.“Remember that Trevor Mallard would have spent hundreds of millions of dollars more if he had his way with his waterfront stadium idea.”You left out… at a time of low sovereign debt and government surpluses. Neither of which National has achieved with their unaffordable tax cuts.But at least you’re focusing on issues and offering backed-up information (even if it doesn’t prove your argument at all). You’re improving, slowly.
- Seriously Frank are you expecting people to believe your nonsense about Labour only committed to 20 million dollars of expenditure. You do realise that the large amounts of the 220 million dollars was on the additional costs such as infrastructure and other support services that went into the tournament.don’t you? That spending would have been required even if Labour was still in power in 2011.I note that you try and avoid the fact that Trevor Mallard wanted to spend even more money on the cup by trying to argue that the Government could have done so. Irrelevant. The point is if he had got his way it would have been well above the 220 millions dollars that it eventually reached.Are you still trying to argue that Labour didn’t commit us to much of this spending?
- Seriously Frank are you expecting people to believe your nonsense about Labour only committed to 20 million dollars of expenditure.Seriously, Gosman, do you not accept the information that you yourself provided?You provided the figures and now you’re backtracking on it’s veracity?!?!If you have info that Labour would’ve spent more, put up, or shut up.You do realise that the large amounts of the 220 million dollars was on the additional costs such as infrastructure and other support services that went into the tournament.don’t you?Sorry, no, you’ve not provided any evidence of that. You saying so doesn’t make it so. That spending was done by your political party, not mine.Try taking responsibility for a change. It’ll be a novel experience.That spending would have been required even if Labour was still in power in 2011.Oh, not the old Labour-would’ve-spend-more line?!?!*facepalm*Not very original, Gosman.I note that you try and avoid the fact that Trevor Mallard wanted to spend even more money on the cup by trying to argue that the Government could have done so.Dishonest response. That’s not what I said. Not even close.Grasping for straws now.Irrelevant. The point is if he had got his way it would have been well above the 220 millions dollars that it eventually reached.… and back to the old Labour-would’ve-spend-more line.Face it, Gosman, you shot yourself in the foot.You presented information. But unfortunately you didn’t read it carefully enough.Oh well, at least you’re on-topic.
- Okay Frank. This is easily resolved. What was that 220 million figure made up of? Do you know and if so do you know what part of that spending was as result of decision that National made in Government that it is unlikely Labour would have made the same decision?
- BTW where did you get this 220 million figure from anyway? Do you happen to have a source for it or are you pulling this out of the air like many of your ‘facts’?
- “Okay Frank. This is easily resolved. What was that 220 million figure made up of? ”“BTW where did you get this 220 million figure from anyway? Do you happen to have a source for it or are you pulling this out of the air like many of your ‘facts’?”No, the NZ Herald ‘made it up’:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10760088“Do you know and if so do you know what part of that spending was as result of decision that National made in Government that it is unlikely Labour would have made the same decision?”So what you’re asking here is how much more Labour would have spent had it been in government?!Tell you what, sunshine, when I get back from a visit to Parallel Earth 2, where National lost the 2008 election, I’ll let you know. (Or I’ll just send you a postcard.)How about you just focus that libertarian mind of yours on What Is, rather thasn What Might Have Been? Because I tell you what, Gosman, the constant “Labour-would-have-spent-more” excuse wears mightily thin after a while.I’ll say one thing though; Labour would not have cut taxes in 2009 and 2010. That is a dead cert.
- No I’m not asking you how much MORE Labour would have spent. I’m asking you of that budget where would Labour not have spent money.Remember Labour committed us to this tournament and the costs associated with holding it. Of that Government spend where would Labour likely have saved money?Would they not have spent any money on a Party central in Auckland on the waterfront? Certainly Trevor Mallard wasn’t against this idea as far as I’m aware.Would they not have spent money on upgrading stadiums? If so then then it is unlikely the IRB would have been very pleased to be playing in substandard stadiums.Start to use the analytical part of your brain for once Frank and delve a little deeper into issues beyond the superficial ideological level.BTW this link suggest the spending by Government was much higher than 220 million dollars.
- Gosman, you’re deflecting from National’s $220 million spend-up, to something theoretical, had Labour been in government.Do you realise how pathetic that attempt at deflection looks?National is in power, not Labour.If you’re going to constantly blame Labour, then they might as well be in power and I expect you to vote for them in 2014 (or earlier).The Nats wasted $220 million, for little appreciable gain, whilst,* 200,000+ kids live in poverty* State houses are damp and mouldy* a critical housing shortage goes unaddressed* we have 160,000 jobless, whilst the Christchurch rebuild is crying out for skilled tradespeple.That is what you should be focused on.Not what Labour “might” have done had it been in government.It seems bizarre that when National wastes $220 million on a rugby tournament, you don’t seem to mind. So much for your libertarian views of keeping the State out of commerce.On the other hand, you’re desperately deflecting onto Labour – who hasn’t been in government for over three years.When will you take responsibility for the policies of the Party you voted for, without trying to blame others?
- “BTW this link suggest the spending by Government was much higher than 220 million dollars.*sighs*That report you point to was dated 4:00 AM Sunday May 2, 2010.The report I pointed to is dated 5:30 AM Wednesday Oct 19, 2011, and thus more recent. And this kinda proves that you don’t read the info I present to you.This was the very first paragraph on the Oct 19 2011 report,“Budget blowouts have pushed public spending on the Rugby World Cup well above $200 million – without counting $555 million in stadium upgrades and $39 million in direct losses from hosting the tournament.”You are having a hard time comprehending this aren’t you, Gosman?Hopeless.
- It isn’t theoretical at all Frank. That spending largely became a reality as soon as the IRB awarded NZ the rights to hold the cup in 2005.It is like the Olympics. You don’t simply hold the current Government in power in the UK responsible for the budget, especially considering the Labour party was in power for much of the time that London has spent preparing for the games.I’ll ask you again, which part of the spend on the RUWC would a Labour led government have likely not spent the money that eventually was spent?Would they have cut back on security arrangements?Would they have cut back on tourism promotion?Come on Frank it doesn’t take a genius to carry out this intellectual exercise.
- Still deflecting attention from National/ACT wasting $220+ million of our tax dollars, Gosman?Sorry sunshine; ain’t going to work. Bill English writes the budget, not David Parker.Your Party is going to have to wear responsibility for mismanaging the economy – no one else.However, after 2014, things will change.By the way; next time you carp on about people taking responsibility for their economic situation, I’ll be sure to point you back to this page. Your ideas about “taking responsibility” seems to be at variance with your beliefs.Anyway, you’re starting to get repetitive… You’ve run out of ideas, Gosman. And the sources you present are out of date…In other words, you’re boring me…
- funny as hell – not satisfied with Frank being the only one to oppose him, gos proceeds to provide evidence against own position, then deny its reliability.
saves everyone else the bother of demonstrating for the xxxth time that he’s a moron. Enough is Enough…
I don’t think he is deflecting.The cold hard reality is Trevor wanted to build a $1B whitehorse on the waterfront for the stupid fucking thugby world cup.Thank god someone stopped him.It was the worse decsion ever made by Helen Clark. To bring that stupid tournamnent to New Zealand.Name one benefit it brought us. Thugs on display. I haven’t met one person who enjoyed that silly 7 week spending binge by the government. I suppose Key enjoyed it.Helen was the best PM in history. This decision showed she was at least human after all.
Morrissey…
A RWC pool match in Dunedin had a far better buzz than a semifinal at Eden Park with twice the crowd.Rubbish. What a ridiculous, plainly st0000-pid claim to make. Are you really Sir Graham Henry?
- League is also more popular in the UK in terms of spectator attendence,No it is not.I understand,You do not understand. You do not know much about football, therefore your understanding is very limited.
- What are you on about, Bald Head? I was referring to league vs rugby in the UK, not league vs football.
- And as pointed out you are wrong in both the UK and English environments.
- You may be right, Gossie, but I ain’t seen the numbers yet. I take it you have them at hand?
I do suspect league vs union probably reflects the north/south divide in the UK. League being a primarily working class sport and union being associated with public schools. No money vs loadsamoney, etc - I can get you figures if you like. It might take me a few hours though. Let me get back to you.
- Here you goAviva Premiership Average 11906 (aprox)vsSuper League Average 8958 (aprox)
-
Depends on whether you’re looking at total attendance or match averages. And whether you include RFU championship in Rugby Union match averages, I suspect.League
Sport
Country
Season
# of Teams
Games
Total attendance
Average attendance
Source(s)(1 club in France) - I was referring to league vs rugby in the UK, not league vs football.Same thing. And your assertions are plain wrong.You’re very confused, my friend; why not get to bed early tonight and clear your head?
- BS goose as per usual no proof clubs including professional are struggling .
The high profile players are doing all right but those lower profile players are finding it tough.
right across the major rugby playing countries.
- Something calling itself “Te Reo Putake” started off well, then got itself just a bit confused…I hope there’s a chapter on cheating by the All Blacks, the current captain specifically.Footballers will cheat if the referee (or non-referee) lets them get away with it. McCaw, Kaino, Woodcock, and the rest of the All Black pack cheated consistently in the second half of the RWC fiinal because the non-referee refused to penalize them.However, the guts of rugby’s problems lie with its ridiculously complicated nature.That’s true. So far, so good. But, unfortunately, it was at this point that poor old “Te Reo Putake” lost his way….Football has 11 ‘laws’ that have stayed essentially constant for a century, rugby sic has hundreds of rules that regularly change.Rugby is football too, in case you hadn’t noticed. Do you mean soccer? Then say so.In football or league sic, the crowd usually sees the offence that causes the whistle to be blown; in rugby, nobody knows.That’s not true. In last year’s RWC final, everybody could see that the home team was repeatedly fouling, and that non-referee Craig Joubert was refusing to penalize them.
- Rugby is football too, in case you hadn’t noticed. Do you mean soccer? Then say so.Rugby is football “too”? Uh, no where else in the civilised world actually, and not even in Victoria or NSW.“Soccer” is a quaint Kiwi/US term.
- Cheers, CV. The good Prof’s argument is parochial pedantry and historically weak to boot. The game is football. It’s run here by Football NZ. Only the dimmest or willfully foolish sports fan would be confused by the terms football, rugby and league.
- Tell that to the 8 year olds that play soccer for Central United, because that whats they call it, the volunteer coaches call it soccer too.. Maybe you should go and ‘educate’ them all on your way of the world.
- As I said, soccer is a quaint NZ/US term, not used in many other places in the world. Can you read?
-
- Classic – asser – that might have changed the world if it had caught on.
- The good Prof’s argument is parochial pedantry and historically weak to boot. The game is football. It’s run here by Football NZ.Everybody here and in Australia, except for a few zealots like your good self, calls it soccer.Of course it’s a kind of football, but when you say “football” in this country, it means rugby football.As you know perfectly well.
- Tell that to the 8 year olds that play soccer for Central United, because that whats they call it, the volunteer coaches call it soccer too.. Maybe you should go and ‘educate’ them all on your way of the world.You’re trying to argue with a zealot, Rob. He hates and resents rugby football for some reason. Maybe one of these days he’ll tell us why…
- It is actually Association Football as in the A in both FA and FIFA.You might be arrogant enough to call it Football but even the governing bodies acknowledge it is just another form of Football.
- “You might be arrogant enough to call it Football but even the governing bodies acknowledge it is just another form of Football.”
Laughibly ignorant, Gossie. At the time Association Football was codified, there were no other kinds of football. You do recall that William Webb Ellis ‘invented’ rugby during a game of football, don’t you?
And the word ‘association’ in FIFA and FA means the organisations are associations. D’oh! The association came first and the game, after being codified, became known as association football. Not the other way round.
But thanks for the stats on rugger and league in England (somewhere above in this thread). Must have taken a while to find; I tried and gave up. - At the time Association Football was codified, there were no other kinds of football.There were, actually. Rugby football was very popular, and in Australia and Ireland variations of Gaelic football were flourishing by the late 1850s. The Football Association was formed in 1863, and the Rugby Football Union—note the name—was formed in 1871.You do recall that William Webb Ellis ‘invented’ rugby during a game of football, don’t you?No, that’s a myth invented by the Rugby Football Union to establish an entirely bogus provenance for Rugby football. It’s as factual as the Abner Doubleday myth in baseball—that’s something else I’ll bet you know next to nothing about.The association came first and the game, after being codified, became known as association football.It became known as association football to distinguish it from another popular football—rugby football.
- Actually countries have for differing reasons, sports which are referred to as football in general conversation. In the US it’s american football, Ireland gaelic football, NZ rugby football and in Aussie you have league and rules as well…
The term Soccer originated in the UK prior to football become the common parlance around 18 tears later. In 1863 rules were written up for association football and the game was refered to as assoccer (short for association) shortened again to Soccer before Football took hold years later.
As a general rule of thumb it seems that each country refers to it’s first prevelant type of football game as football.
-
Monday, 8 January 2018
Sir Graham Henry risking rugby ridicule (Aug. 1, 2012)
Kotahi Tāne Huna
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
NZ Newswire, 30 July 2012
NZN