Re: TV Deal : Sun May 22, 2011 10:47 am  

joedynamo wrote: Aye, but then you type wiv a landarrrn accent and are therefore worthy of suspicion LUNDEN as in LUNDENWIC joedynamo wrote: Oh and talking of wind ups, denier has multiple meanings: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/denier yum, denier and sheen. joedynamo wrote: Not sure RL is viewed as a lesser 'product', if it was the SL War wouldnae happened and news wouldnt be fighting so hard to keep an influence within the sport...taken for granted maybe...hasnt Manly just started a thread about neins treatment of RL. A constant theme since the Afl deal has been the NRL 'reminding' media companies that its not much good gaining subscribers in less populated markets if you're hemmoraging in the two biggest... fair call

joedynamo wrote: Aye, but then you type wiv a landarrrn accent and are therefore worthy of suspicion LUNDEN as in LUNDENWIC joedynamo wrote: Oh and talking of wind ups, denier has multiple meanings: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/denier yum, denier and sheen. joedynamo wrote: Not sure RL is viewed as a lesser 'product', if it was the SL War wouldnae happened and news wouldnt be fighting so hard to keep an influence within the sport...taken for granted maybe...hasnt Manly just started a thread about neins treatment of RL. A constant theme since the Afl deal has been the NRL 'reminding' media companies that its not much good gaining subscribers in less populated markets if you're hemmoraging in the two biggest... fair call

Re: TV Deal : Sun May 22, 2011 10:56 am  

eels fan wrote: I have mentioned it here quite a few times, it seems that you are one of the few who can't and refuses to see the conflict. Erm, only very recently when you've had a friend to join with again. Why not since you joined? Go back through your posts and see where you mention a conflict of interest, let's say even as recent as 6 months ago. There's been this conflict for years and years, so you must have surely? Your "seeming" is tainted, confused and ill informed; you are forcing words into people's mouth now and telling them what they believe or think. eels fan wrote: Naaa, no one cares http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showt ... p?t=365874 2,878 replies in this thread. http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showt ... p?t=352299 2,069 replies in this thread. Read and educate yourself. And vichy, lol, talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel. You sure you're a fan of RL? Erm, who said no-one cares? You're making stuff up now. Strange. Vichy was a line you used a hell of a lot with your former friend on here remember? eels fan wrote: Ummmm, because news owns half of the game, they own part of Foxsports along with Telstra, so when they go to buy the games, they are selling them to themselves. They are profit driven, why would they pay as much as they should if they can get away with buying it off themselves cheaper? Wouldn't that help them with their profits, the one and only thing they care about?. Thanks for the good answer. Haven't you just highlighted why we won't get as much money, which EVERYONE knows anyway?

eels fan wrote: I have mentioned it here quite a few times, it seems that you are one of the few who can't and refuses to see the conflict. Erm, only very recently when you've had a friend to join with again. Why not since you joined? Go back through your posts and see where you mention a conflict of interest, let's say even as recent as 6 months ago. There's been this conflict for years and years, so you must have surely? Your "seeming" is tainted, confused and ill informed; you are forcing words into people's mouth now and telling them what they believe or think. eels fan wrote: Naaa, no one cares http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showt ... p?t=365874 2,878 replies in this thread. http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showt ... p?t=352299 2,069 replies in this thread. Read and educate yourself. And vichy, lol, talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel. You sure you're a fan of RL? Erm, who said no-one cares? You're making stuff up now. Strange. Vichy was a line you used a hell of a lot with your former friend on here remember? eels fan wrote: Ummmm, because news owns half of the game, they own part of Foxsports along with Telstra, so when they go to buy the games, they are selling them to themselves. They are profit driven, why would they pay as much as they should if they can get away with buying it off themselves cheaper? Wouldn't that help them with their profits, the one and only thing they care about?. Thanks for the good answer. Haven't you just highlighted why we won't get as much money, which EVERYONE knows anyway?

Re: TV Deal : Sun May 22, 2011 11:24 am  

lol, power does things to people all the time.

Re: TV Deal : Sun May 22, 2011 11:30 am  

Oh, and why didn't I mention it years ago?

Well if you see when I actually started posting in this part of the forum even though I have been a member for 4 and a half years, I didn't post much until the last 12/18 months know all.

And as for vichy and me using it a lot in here, how about you use your new found mod powers and prove it?

Or are you a PW clone that states stuff but never ever backs it up? (btw, if you think being a jerk to me so I'll tell you what I really think so you can remove me is going to work, you must try harder)

Re: TV Deal : Sun May 22, 2011 11:33 am  

So Roosterbooster, why isn't there a conflict in the NRL in regards to the TV rights?

It seems to only people who can't see it are AFL fans and people from the UK.

Heck, even union fans at PR can see it and they hate RL.

Re: TV Deal : Sun May 22, 2011 11:52 am  

eels fan wrote:

Oh, and why didn't I mention it years ago?

Well if you see when I actually started posting in this part of the forum even though I have been a member for 4 and a half years, I didn't post much until the last 12/18 months know all.

Please read this again:

Erm, only very recently when you've had a friend to join with again. Why not since you joined? Go back through your posts and see where you mention a conflict of interest, let's say even as recent as 6 months ago. There's been this conflict for years and years, so you must have surely?

eels fan wrote:

And as for vichy and me using it a lot in here, how about you use your new found mod powers and prove it?

God, that'd take too long. So you never said it? I'll believe you.

eels fan wrote:

Or are you a PW clone that states stuff but never ever backs it up? (btw, if you think being a jerk to me so I'll tell you what I really think so you can remove me is going to work, you must try harder

I'm not being a jerk to you at all. You appear not to be able to handle opposing arguments when they appear and name call or make insinuations.

eels fan wrote:

And as for vichy and me using it a lot in here, how about you use your new found mod powers and prove it?

God, that'd take too long. So you never said it? I'll believe you.

eels fan wrote:

So Roosterbooster, why isn't there a conflict in the NRL in regards to the TV rights?

It seems to only people who can't see it are AFL fans and people from the UK.

Heck, even union fans at PR can see it and they hate RL.

I didn't say there wasn't a conflict. Where did I say that? Now you back that up???? Check the first paragraph of this reply. The bit in italic that says There's been this conflict for years and years,

Re: TV Deal : Sun May 22, 2011 11:57 am  

Yep, never mentioned by me before according to you. July last year good enough for you? Is that six months ago? viewtopic.php?f=62&t=463691&start=15

Yep, never mentioned by me before according to you. July last year good enough for you? Is that six months ago? viewtopic.php?f=62&t=463691&start=15

Re: TV Deal : Sun May 22, 2011 12:01 pm  

eels fan wrote: Yep, never mentioned by me before according to you. July last year good enough for you? Is that six months ago? viewtopic.php?f=62&t=463691&start=15 I apologise to you unreservedly eels fan. Please accept it. I was clearly wrong. Sorry. (I've even PMd you an apology)

eels fan wrote: Yep, never mentioned by me before according to you. July last year good enough for you? Is that six months ago? viewtopic.php?f=62&t=463691&start=15 I apologise to you unreservedly eels fan. Please accept it. I was clearly wrong. Sorry. (I've even PMd you an apology)

Re: TV Deal : Sun May 22, 2011 12:08 pm  

Eels Fan wrote:

The game has been held back now for 15 years while every other code has had a leg up from this same Murdoch mob, Murdoch and Packer lost a shhiitt load of Money on the AFL last time they had it together, guess where all their profits from Pay TV came from?

Yep, RL, and RL is still being under paid by these same visionaries.

[url]viewtopic.php?f=62&t=463691&start=15[/url]

Just one excerpt from an excellent post Eels Fan

.

Re: TV Deal : Sun May 22, 2011 1:46 pm  

While I've been here, this moderator has wrongly accused two people of things that he then conceded were wrong. What is going on? This sort of response to the raising of the conflict issue is not on. I and other posters have been attacked for raising it.