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.