Could not tell if you were being deliberately ignorant (troll) or unwillingly so, but I’ll bite.

DB was referring to ‘real war’ and how your attitude mimics that of terrorist organisations in the Middle East; ‘giving one back’ for what has been ‘taken for decades’.

Unfortunately this belligerent mindset is a self-perpetuating cycle of hostility, because the more you ‘give it back’, the more of a counter-reaction you shall receive from the establishment and society et al.

Actions create counter-reactions (Or in other words, ‘forces create counter-forces’). It’s a simple axiom, why can’t zealots like yourself understand Al?

“Not vilifying any code mate…”

Then explain the negative statement attributed to yourself:

“ah..but funny how league can have its 2% world cup and afl its annual irish jig..”

“..i’m making the valid and reasonable point that we should also compare and question him to the other journos i refer to ..”

No it is not a valid or reasonable point. It is a red herring:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(idiom)

The article is about Foz, it is not about the “other journos”. That is an entirely different arguement.

“who have vastly more profile , have shown they have their own agendas and what they have had to say..?”

If you have issues with their objectivity, that’s your opinion and its fine. But that is an entirely different arguement, if it distresses you so much, go and author an article yourself detailing the ‘outrages’.

“http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/is-your-afl-club-in-the-black/story-e6frf9jf-1225815357617″

“$19.4 million.”

As opposed to the FFA who want $billion+ (or at least hundreds of millions) to stage a tournament that has a once in four year interest in Australia?

That’s a nice dose of loaded language there keeper, sure you can’t add anymore in?

I notice you failed to respond to my very valid critique of one of your rambling posts. It doesn’t look good when you deliberately ignore points that undermine your position. Nor does it help when you go out of your way with such venom to vilify the other codes; it’s not nice and its reflects your deep insecurity issues.

By the way, mock RL all you like for their small WC, or the AFL for its I.R. series, at least they’re not so greedy as to demand massive handouts from government and rival competitions.

“When did an average salary league-wide of well over $100,000 a year become inadequate? ”

Since when did ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’ become a good idea? Bollocks.

I recall some fairly strong anti-football sentiment coming from Gweeds in the past, this looks to be a hopeless attempt at subterfuge (then again maybe I’m wrong):

“And I love both codes. However I can’t understand why this desire for Australian Football to be ‘international’ It smack of a huge cringe to me.”

“It’s hardly central to the overall thesis.”

Yes, you are correct. Did you not notice that I said “I agree with your overall assessment…”

Even though I agree with his assessment of Foz, his indulgence in hypocrisy weakens his credibility and the arguement he presents; thus such oversights should be avoided.

“Variety is everything in a free society…”

Yes, yes, exactly! Culture is NOT homogeneous! Why is that fact so hard to grasp from the soccer camp?

A lifetime drilling of ‘the world game’ & ‘the beautiful game’ has made them believe their own hype.

“It is particularly disappointing when administrative heads such as Aussie Rules’ Andrew Demetriou let themselves down by provoking paranoia and fear of association football…”

Typically no quote is provided, the author just assumes we unthinkingly agree with him. I call BS.

The stock standard sensationally loaded language (bread & butter for journalism) is not neglected either; “paranoia”, “fear”. Pathetic.

“The name ‘football’ actually made its first appearance in a document in 1486 and was not referring to the foot making contact with the ball. In fact, it was referring to the game being played ‘on foot’, as opposed to on horseback as in royally-approved jousting.”

Accusing Foster being ignorant is hypocritical on your part Slippery Jim.

The real and factual truth about the etymology of the word ‘football’ is inconclusive, PERIOD. No ‘ifs’ or ‘buts’.

There are two popular theories (foot-to-ball action vs. on-foot as opposed to on horse). Neither has been proven, they are nothing more than speculative popular theories.

I find it remarkable how often people (even accredited journalists!) sprout either two etymologies as if they were somehow fact. They’re not.

Please people, for the love of God, stop spreading these dubious hypotheses about the origins of the word. We don’t know the truth and we never will.

However Jim, I agree with your overall assessment of Foz being divisive and hate-filled.

“the papers don’t support too many pro-football journalists.”

So funny how zealots rationalise the current state of affairs. Here are the available two choices:

a) The market is representative of supply & demand conditions, thus the status quo is real.

or

b) Grand conspiracy plan involving most, if not ALL mainstream media outlets, spanning several decades if not over a CENTURY, just to ‘keep soccer down’. Sometimes this conspiracy also involves the government, how wild the theory gets depends on the individual’s ability to avoid reason.

Now honestly, which option is more probable, more factual?

keeper, this article is specifically about Foz, not about the other sports media personalities.

You have provided nothing more than a red herring. It does not exonerate the idiotic things Foz says.

I also notice jimbo unthinkingly and automatically praising your post; typical groupthink from jimbo comes as no surprise.

But please go ahead, continue defending the man; he is doing irrevocable damage to your sport. All the better for the traditional codes! Go Foz Go!

“Research has shown consistently for the past 3-4 years that the Socceroos are Australia’s favorite national team.”

Astonishingly yet another Simpsons analogy I can apply here –

Disco Stu: ‘Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue… A-y-y-y!’

Then again this is just some opinion survey, not an actual sales report. Perhaps the analogy isn’t so adaptive after all.

“B-A-T, if you think any insecurity by soccer fans is a “fascinating insight”…”

It is, I mean I can understand the Johnny Warren era and I would justify lashing out by soccer folk during that period.

But we live in the year 2010, times have changed; maybe you are just older than other people on this forum.

Many soccer zealots feel past injustices somehow justify being obnoxious arseholes today. That I think is more of a reflection of ones’ mental capacity.

This inferiority complex is very damaging to soccer, as it blinds one to reason and has resulted in much anti-AFL anti-NRL hysteria, a sort of counter-backlash if you will. The only problem is, those sports are popularly supported, thus attempts to ‘put them in their place’ will only further alienate soccer from ordinary Australians.

Yes its hard to let go for some soccer fans, having felt past prejudices, but holding a grudge isn’t going to do them or their sport any good.

A look at history suggests that, those who harbour a heavy chip on their shoulder tend to be self-fulfilling personalities, i.e. they unnecessarily reinforce their own perceived inferiority.

Actual support for the sport is also looked upon favourably.

“…each has every right to pursue the best direction of their sport…”

Yet, judging by the AFL criticisms of soccer fans, even from MODERATES, they have no issue with violating such liberty. The fact that a business/sporting organisation could act in its own best interest is somehow an affront to many soccer fans. You see it ALL THE TIME in the loaded and sensationalist language frequently used to vilify the AFL.

It’s disturbing how they think they can justify such authoritarianism with spurious claims of national interest. Filthy collectivists.

Sam you are simply repeating yourself without refuting what I have said. You just don’t get it.

The proof is in the dollars. The price mechanism DOES NOT LIE.

RL sells more product therefore generating more profit. FACT
Soccer as a sport does not generate comparable revenue to RL in Australia. FACT.
Thus soccer sells less product in Australia than RL. FACT.
Therefore soccer is the less popular sport in Australia. CONCLUSION.

You can continue to pointlessly argue that soccer is more geographically spread, but that just means that whatever diluted support it has, is spread more evenly across the country. It does not prove absolute support for the sport.

You also forgot that RL heartlands, NSW & QLD, comprise approx 51% of the population.

“Has been in the Sweeney report for quite few years now.”

Yeah yeah I’d bet if you apply the same criteria to the United States you would come to the same conclusion that soccer is their most popular national sport, which is an absurd notion. Participation rates are fallacy for measuring popular support of a sport, having a kick in the park or playing junior school rep soccer =/= $ or any sort of meaningful support.

You are also seem unaware that for the many Australians, soccer is a once in four year event for a few weeks, then its back to the better sports.

Keep dreaming Sam.

st.penguin you’re right, a forum isn’t representative… of the entire demographic.

Also the fact that people do lie in surveys, even when its anonymous and no judgement is being passed. Given the amount of sports zealots that infest our population (of all codes) who would have no compunction spruiking their sports dedication, I’d take such surveys with a grain of salt.

Of course Guru, to be offended by his spiels is to lend legitimacy, of which he is so cravenly devoid of.

“Doesn’t matter if soccer needs handouts.”

Yes it does, it indicates that soccer, for lack of selling enough product (IN AUSTRALIA), requires massive handouts from the government & rival competitions in order to host a WC, this does not apply to RL.

“It’s still a more popular sport.”

Not in Australia. Once again, you confuse the global popularity of the sport for its domestic status.

RL is more popular than soccer in Australia, Q.E.D.

Indeed he chose selective language, but one can still read between the lines.

I don’t think its offensive, just immature.

“We are talking here association football vs rugby league. Not a-league vs NRL.

As a competition NRL is more popular. As a sport football is more popular.”

Whatever way you spin it, doesn’t change the fact that RL doesn”t need massive handouts from government and rival competition in order to host a WC, soccer does.

You’re attempting to pass off the global popularity of soccer as domestic, which just isn’t the case.

I don’t understand, what do you mean by ‘unobtusely’?

If you meant obtusely then I’d say perhaps I should have said ‘watch him cut and run’.

“I imagine he is referring only to national teams on pay TV although of course the more popular national teams get played on FTA”

Yeah that seems about right. Lazza uses the qualifier ‘team’ just so he can say that soccer has the highest X at something, because soccer hasn’t got many stats that are impressive.

Seconded.