Re: THIS IS FOR BILLY EVE : Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:37 am  

loiner81 wrote:

No chance, you'll just get a load of totally unrelated "facts" and made up stats before he moves on to something completely different (after insulting you once or twice of course) to try and divert you from the fact that he's ****** up yet again.

actually, I'll answer the question of the blitzkrieg poster when he admits he is wrong......

loiner81 wrote:

Trademark.

actually, I mentioned the 2 New Zealand based events playing English sports to counter the outlandish claim that people attend games but don't care about the results.

I'm all over this particular debate my little "33 years supporting Leeds at full price" buddy......47,013 or 98% of the available capacity of the stadium DID care enough to pay to watch it.....rendering the comparison of the FA cup and Challenge Cup void.....useless and kaput!

BTW......by again, do you mean when I predicted 360k attendance at the RLWC? Get over it pal......I predicted that probably over 18 months ago now.....there's a whole new season of SL shenanigans to rip into now......things to get excited about only to find you've been spoon fed bullshit......ask your mate Billy to show you how the BARB figures work again

Re: THIS IS FOR BILLY EVE : Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:48 am  

gutterfax wrote:

Oohhhh Australian Sports eh?
Both games are ENGLISH sports, both games were played in NEW ZEALAND CITIES and your clutching at straw (men) now.

The teams competing were 15 Australian, 1 New Zealand. Thus it can be can be called Australian, I'm not claiming about the 'birthplace' of the sport. I'm not saying RL is an Australian sport, but the NRL is an Australian sport. That to was held in Wellington doesn't change that, if the FA Cup final was held in Dubai would that make it a Middle East sport?

Gutterfax wrote:

no, actually, it's your opinion.
The only FACT that bears out in this debate (that you and your tag team partner are increasingly becoming more troll-like with each post) is that 47,013 people did care about the FA cup match enough to attend it.

And you know they cared how? Because in YOUR OPINION (from the other side of the world) is that every football fan who turns up to a match cared deeply about the outcome. Maybe they're just sheep-like like your tag-team partner likes to accuse RL fans of being.

Gutterfax wrote:

Answer me this.....and as it relates to the actual topic, a YES/NO answer should suffice:

When Starbug posted
...did you, or did you not respond

as I say, I doubt I'll get a straight answer to a straight question that is 100% relevant to this particular sub debate within Billy's thread, but hey, I've asked.

It's been explained but you won't read it properly. I did say that.....Then I moved onto another sentence talking about another reason/problem with the FA Cup. Note the full stop between what you quoted from me and the bit about Chelsea/Man City/Mourinho/Pellegrini.

Maybe you'll answer some questions from Him, or maybe how a club like Man City (who care deeply about the FA Cup according to you) couldn't even get over 30,000 just over a few years ago for an All Premiership FA Cup clash before their riches and success saw a big increase in nationwide and global fan base, meaning even the least important games get near full crowds.

Gutterfax wrote:

47,013 people cared........filling 98% of the seats in the stadium.....regardless of YOUR OPINION!

47,013 bought tickets, how they felt is YOUR OPINION and isn't automatically correct no matter how much you claim.

Re: THIS IS FOR BILLY EVE : Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:01 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

The teams competing were 15 Australian, 1 New Zealand. Thus it can be can be called Australian, I'm not claiming about the 'birthplace' of the sport. I'm not saying RL is an Australian sport, but the NRL is an Australian sport. That to was held in Wellington doesn't change that, if the FA Cup final was held in Dubai would that make it a Middle East sport?

Nice try....but I mentioned and then you hung your hat on 2 events.....16 at both, so 16 Australian and 16 NON Australian.....yet you claim them both as AUSTRALIAN SPORTS.

If Sid James were alive he could play you in "carry on failing" (babs Windsor as loiner81)

ThePrinter wrote:

And you know they cared how? Because in YOUR OPINION (from the other side of the world) is that every football fan who turns up to a match cared deeply about the outcome. Maybe they're just sheep-like

They paid to get in....47,013/98.35% of the grounds worth.....

ThePrinter wrote:

like your tag-team partner likes to accuse RL fans of being.

I don't need billy to deal with you and your girlfriend.........but nice try to further deflect away from the question asked...you remember, the pertinent one to the actual topic?

ThePrinter wrote:

It's been explained but you won't read it properly. I did say that.....

I'll stop you there. You admit to agreeing with Starbug......who was discussing ATTENDANCES in the cup based on his TV viewing.

ThePrinter wrote:

Then I moved onto another sentence talking about another reason/problem with the FA Cup. Note the full stop between what you quoted from me and the bit about Chelsea/Man City/Mourinho/Pellegrini.

Irrelevant. the attendance door wasn't shut because you used a full stop.......attendances were still by association (no pun intended) still on the table.
The rest of your comments about City/Chelsea were objective.....47,013 disagree with you and paid to do so!

ThePrinter wrote:

Maybe you'll answer some questions from Him, or maybe how a club like Man City (who care deeply about the FA Cup according to you) couldn't even get over 30,000 just over a few years ago for an All Premiership FA Cup clash before their riches and success saw a big increase in nationwide and global fan base, meaning even the least important games get near full crowds.

The FA cup may well be in the eyes of many, not as important as the Premiership and the Champions League, but it is no way, in any way shape or form, as terminally in decline as the Challenge cup. To say that is makes you and your ilk nothing short of apologists for the RFL....knock down Nigel posters must adorn your bedroom wall.....4 of them...one for each wall....with a bit of ceiling covered too!

ThePrinter wrote:

47,013 bought tickets,

...the truth will set you free.

ThePrinter wrote:

how they felt is YOUR OPINION and isn't automatically correct no matter how much you claim.

nah...I bet they were all lunatic masochists who bought the tickets not caring who won...I bet some of them were millwall fans just buying up Chelsea's allocation to spite their hated rivals

Re: THIS IS FOR BILLY EVE : Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:01 am  

loiner81 wrote:

Now we're getting somewhere. So your original point was that the RFL definitely and purposely "made up" the figures?

If the RFL's audience figures don't correspond with BARB's officially published figures, then whose figures do they correspond with?

Re: THIS IS FOR BILLY EVE : Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:04 am  

William Eve wrote:

If the RFL's audience figures don't correspond with BARB's officially published figures, then whose figures do they correspond with?

Be fair Bill. Knock-Down Nigel's bumper book of Spin has delivered so much in the way of Legacy from the RLWC, surely the odd "mistake" can be expected

BTW.....BARB take the entire viewing figure for the programme and create their own average. This is the industry standard figure that is accepted by agents and advertisers alike. The RFL did nothing wrong except compare the BARB averaged figure from 2013 with the "raw" data from 2014......if they had waited a couple of weeks then they would have been accurate/precise, but they got ahead of themselves and now they look stupid.

at Least the adjusted average figure makes the TV deal starting in 2017 but agreed no look a little better than it did before

Re: THIS IS FOR BILLY EVE : Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:37 am  

gutterfax wrote:

Nice try....but I mentioned and then you hung your hat on 2 events.....16 at both, so 16 Australian and 16 NON Australian.....yet you claim them both as AUSTRALIAN SPORTS.

Nice try yourself, you tried to make out that I was saying Wellington was an Australian city, I clearly didn't. At least you haven't descended into childish lines to deflect away from your lack of decent argument and knowledge of the current state of English football.

Gutterfax wrote:

If Sid James were alive he could play you in "carry on failing" (babs Windsor as loiner81)

Oh wait, scrap that.

Gutterfax wrote:

They paid to get in....47,013/98.35% of the grounds worth.....

Bless you thinking everyone paid to get in. Interesting how you and Billy think everyone who enters a RL match does so on a discounted ticket (oh apart from Bill who ALLEGEDLY bought all his full price but then brags about get cheap tv contracts and plane flights )

Gutterfax wrote:

I don't need billy to deal with you and your girlfriend.........but nice try to further deflect away from the question asked...you remember, the pertinent one to the actual topic?

You asked me one question that you wanted a yes/no answer to. I replied "I did say that".......now granted that's not a word-for-word a "yes", but it's a pretty clearly saying yes. A man of your claimed intelligence should've got the jist of that surely?

So whose deflecting by claiming I didn't answer questions?

Go back and double check if you like, it's still there........now how about the questions you've been asked?

Gutterfax wrote:

I'll stop you there. You admit to agreeing with Starbug......who was discussing ATTENDANCES in the cup based on his TV viewing.

Yes and as explained before, but you're struggling to understand I went on to mention something else.

Gutterfax wrote:

Irrelevant. the attendance door wasn't shut because you used a full stop.......attendances were still by association (no pun intended) still on the table.
The rest of your comments about City/Chelsea were objective

Note, something isn't irrelevant just because you don't want it to be because you've based your original argument on something else.

Gutterfax wrote:

.....47,013 disagree with you and paid to do so!

Really? You asked them all if they disagreed with me?

Gutterfax wrote:

The FA cup may well be in the eyes of many, not as important as the Premiership and the Champions League, but it is no way, in any way shape or form, as terminally in decline as the Challenge cup. To say that is makes you and your ilk nothing short of apologists for the RFL....knock down Nigel posters must adorn your bedroom wall.....4 of them...one for each wall....with a bit of ceiling covered too!

Sorry must have missed the bit where I said the CC was doing great or the RFL were amazing, or mentioned Nigel Wood. Truth is the CC isn't as important as it was, I've never claimed it to be, it's you here that is hopelessly defending a cup competition, not me.

The FA Cup isn't in decline no.......just got Premiership managers saying they wish they didn't have to compete in it lol.

Re: THIS IS FOR BILLY EVE : Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:44 am  

William Eve wrote:

If the RFL's audience figures don't correspond with BARB's officially published figures, then whose figures do they correspond with?

I've no idea, why not ask them?
And that's not what i asked you though is it?

Re: THIS IS FOR BILLY EVE : Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:49 am  

gutterfax wrote:

actually, I'll answer the question of the blitzkrieg poster when he admits he is wrong......
actually, I mentioned the 2 New Zealand based events playing English sports to counter the outlandish claim that people attend games but don't care about the results.

I'm all over this particular debate my little "33 years supporting Leeds at full price" buddy......47,013 or 98% of the available capacity of the stadium DID care enough to pay to watch it.....rendering the comparison of the FA cup and Challenge Cup void.....useless and kaput!

BTW......by again, do you mean when I predicted 360k attendance at the RLWC? Get over it pal......I predicted that probably over 18 months ago now.....there's a whole new season of SL shenanigans to rip into now......things to get excited about only to find you've been spoon fed bullshit......ask your mate Billy to show you how the BARB figures work again

Oh dear, you've just reinforced everything I said about you at the bottom of page 12 of this thread.

Nicely done

Re: THIS IS FOR BILLY EVE : Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:54 am  

William Eve wrote: BREAKING NEWS!!! RFL discovered to be talking bollox HERE about the record breaking, smashing all box office records figure of 353,000 viewers tuning into the Wigan V Huddersfield opening SL fixture on Sky Sports 1 on Friday 7th Feb. The actual viewing figure was 243,000 according to http://www.barb.co.uk which was beaten by Premier League Darts viewing figures of 284,000 the night before (Thu 6th Feb) Sky Sports 1 w/e 9 Feb 2014 000's 1 LIVE FORD SUPER SUNDAY - MATCH (SUN 1525) 1,910 2 LIVE FORD MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL (MON 1900) 1,598 3 LIVE FORD SUPER SUNDAY - MATCH (SUN 1230) 1,133 4 FORD SATURDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL LIVE (SAT 1657) 697 5 FL72 LIVE - YEOVIL V LEEDS (SAT 1200) 374 6 GILLETTE SOCCER SATURDAY 09-10 (SAT 1500) 338 7 LIVE PREMIER LEAGUE DARTS/#PREMIER LEAGU (THU 1900 284 8 LIVE SUPER LEAGUE (FRI 1900) 243 9 REAL MADRID V AT MADRID-LIVE (WED 1855) 241 10 REAL SOCIEDAD V LEVANTE-LIVE (SUN 1830) 219 ...(*Source: barb.co.uk) They also told porkies about the viewing figures for the Aviva Premiership game on BT Sport 1 which registered 75,000 viewers according to BARB as opposed to the 65,200 claimed by the RFL. BT Sport 1 w/e 9 Feb 2014 000's 1 BARCLAYS PREMIER LEAGUE (SAT 1200) 973 2 FA CUP (WED 1915) 127 3 AVIVA PREMIERSHIP RUGBY (FRI 1900) 75 4 FRENCH LIGUE 1 (SUN 1955) 51 5 AVIVA PREMIERSHIP RUGBY (SAT 1830) 45 6 AVIVA PREMIERSHIP RUGBY (SUN 1200) 44 7 NBA (SAT 1506) 40 8 SERIE A (MON 1943) 29 9 GOAL! BUNDESLIGA PREVIEW (THU 2059) 24 10 FRENCH LEAGUE CUP (TUE 1958) 20 ...(* Source: barb.co.uk) To summarise the RFL horseshit earlier this week..... 1. The 353,000 was actually 243,000 which was less than the 251,000 viewers who tuned into the Widnes V Wakey SL opener in 2012. 2. The alleged 38% increase in viewing figures on last season's SL opener was actually 29% (243K v 188K). 3. The alleged extra 288,000 viewers tuning into Super League on 7th Feb which was alleged to be 543% higher than the alleged viewers for the Union game on the much smaller BT Sport subscription base was actually an extra 168,000 which is 324% higher (243K v 75K). 4. I expect the RFL viewing comparison to BDO Darts on Eurosport (A desperate RFL or what? Well, they are hardly going to compare the figures with Premier League Darts for obvious reasons ) are garbage as well since according to BARB, Eurosport haven't reported any viewing figures for that week. 5. RFL Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics by plenty the 353 is not actually 243. one is a peak figure and one is an average figure. chances are all three figures are more than likely right. like i have posted elsewhere. my take on it is... 353 is obviously the peak figure 299 might be the average from 8pm kickoff till the game finishes 243 is the average from the start of the program (730pm) till the end (10pm) just on peaks, averages (and how they work) and that city game man city v chelsea PEAKED WITH 6.01M, The full programme averaged 4.57M

William Eve wrote: BREAKING NEWS!!! RFL discovered to be talking bollox HERE about the record breaking, smashing all box office records figure of 353,000 viewers tuning into the Wigan V Huddersfield opening SL fixture on Sky Sports 1 on Friday 7th Feb. The actual viewing figure was 243,000 according to http://www.barb.co.uk which was beaten by Premier League Darts viewing figures of 284,000 the night before (Thu 6th Feb) Sky Sports 1 w/e 9 Feb 2014 000's 1 LIVE FORD SUPER SUNDAY - MATCH (SUN 1525) 1,910 2 LIVE FORD MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL (MON 1900) 1,598 3 LIVE FORD SUPER SUNDAY - MATCH (SUN 1230) 1,133 4 FORD SATURDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL LIVE (SAT 1657) 697 5 FL72 LIVE - YEOVIL V LEEDS (SAT 1200) 374 6 GILLETTE SOCCER SATURDAY 09-10 (SAT 1500) 338 7 LIVE PREMIER LEAGUE DARTS/#PREMIER LEAGU (THU 1900 284 8 LIVE SUPER LEAGUE (FRI 1900) 243 9 REAL MADRID V AT MADRID-LIVE (WED 1855) 241 10 REAL SOCIEDAD V LEVANTE-LIVE (SUN 1830) 219 ...(*Source: barb.co.uk) They also told porkies about the viewing figures for the Aviva Premiership game on BT Sport 1 which registered 75,000 viewers according to BARB as opposed to the 65,200 claimed by the RFL. BT Sport 1 w/e 9 Feb 2014 000's 1 BARCLAYS PREMIER LEAGUE (SAT 1200) 973 2 FA CUP (WED 1915) 127 3 AVIVA PREMIERSHIP RUGBY (FRI 1900) 75 4 FRENCH LIGUE 1 (SUN 1955) 51 5 AVIVA PREMIERSHIP RUGBY (SAT 1830) 45 6 AVIVA PREMIERSHIP RUGBY (SUN 1200) 44 7 NBA (SAT 1506) 40 8 SERIE A (MON 1943) 29 9 GOAL! BUNDESLIGA PREVIEW (THU 2059) 24 10 FRENCH LEAGUE CUP (TUE 1958) 20 ...(* Source: barb.co.uk) To summarise the RFL horseshit earlier this week..... 1. The 353,000 was actually 243,000 which was less than the 251,000 viewers who tuned into the Widnes V Wakey SL opener in 2012. 2. The alleged 38% increase in viewing figures on last season's SL opener was actually 29% (243K v 188K). 3. The alleged extra 288,000 viewers tuning into Super League on 7th Feb which was alleged to be 543% higher than the alleged viewers for the Union game on the much smaller BT Sport subscription base was actually an extra 168,000 which is 324% higher (243K v 75K). 4. I expect the RFL viewing comparison to BDO Darts on Eurosport (A desperate RFL or what? Well, they are hardly going to compare the figures with Premier League Darts for obvious reasons ) are garbage as well since according to BARB, Eurosport haven't reported any viewing figures for that week. 5. RFL Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics by plenty the 353 is not actually 243. one is a peak figure and one is an average figure. chances are all three figures are more than likely right. like i have posted elsewhere. my take on it is... 353 is obviously the peak figure 299 might be the average from 8pm kickoff till the game finishes 243 is the average from the start of the program (730pm) till the end (10pm) just on peaks, averages (and how they work) and that city game man city v chelsea PEAKED WITH 6.01M, The full programme averaged 4.57M

Re: THIS IS FOR BILLY EVE : Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:18 am  

bamber wrote:

man city v chelsea PEAKED WITH 6.01M, The full programme averaged 4.57M

Is that the sound of the printer slashing his wrists?