The "Book of feuds" shall end this friday night !

[Guest]

I wanna see an "Eat Out" Between Muz and Ingliss at half time.

Are you still refering to food because if you aren't, there will definately be another chapter in the book of feuds !

[Johnny Tobin]

Trew, why dont you go into the Barrow wearing your mask.
Oh! maybe you had better not, they may gang rape you.

The women may even get involved. ;-)

That isn't a mask.

[Johnny Tobin]

I wonder who wrote that email

A good mate of mine wrote it.

[Guest]

Hello all, I hope everyone is good and healthy for the start of the season, I have missed you all.

Let's put an end to this "book of feuds", by my invitation to you guys to come and sit in the burrow with me this friday night !

What do you say ?

lol id rather sit alone

[Juggler]

Are you still refering to food because if you aren't, there will definately be another chapter in the book of feuds !

OMG! The Book of Foods!

[Vasco]

A good mate of mine wrote it.

I also know somebody that claims part of it is his.

[trewhella]

Whoever wrote that email
A) has too much time
B) has a distinct liking for water
C) is a literary genius
D) a roosters die hard


I must meet him

[supermario]

Whoever wrote that email
A) has too much time
B) has a distinct liking for water
C) is a literary genius
D) a roosters die hard


I must meet him

trew, is there ever too much time when ripping into $ouff$ ????

[Jan]

Hello all, I hope everyone is good and healthy for the start of the season, I have missed you all.

Let's put an end to this "book of feuds", by my invitation to you guys to come and sit in the burrow with me this friday night !

What do you say ?

Gawd, the 1st game I decided that my team was the "Tri's", Easts, Roosters was
55yrs ago & we played the Rabbits that day, hated them then & it still hasn't changed never will, visit the burrow yuck never, haven't even been inside the Leagues Club nup, don't like rabbits.

[Hawkeye]

As for who wrote the article that Gould published, my guess would be a guy by the name of Alan Cadman (or something similar sounding) who has done similar sounding articles before.

The only Wall poster who I think could write something that detailed is The Doc ?

It is a great read !

[Vasco]

As for who wrote the article that Gould published, my guess would be a guy by the name of Alan Cadman (or something similar sounding) who has done similar sounding articles before.

The only Wall poster who I think could write something that detailed is The Doc ?

It is a great read !

The Doctor wrote most of that piece.

[Guest]

The Doc sure knows his stuff.

Hugh, you are a funny (unt, keep it up bro

[Guest]

Sad really, that such an eloquent piece of prose can so easily be torn apart.

Titled "Why I hate Souths", an extract reads as follows …

"There are as many reasons why Sydney Roosters supporters have such antipathy toward Souths. The main reason is the manner in which Souths have tried to manipulate public opinion and take a mortgage on rugby league history and tradition, calling themselves 'the pride of the league' and constantly attempting to portray themselves as a far more successful club than results show.

First inaccuracy, South Sydney do not call "themselves" the Pride of the League. It was a name given to us by sports journalist Claude Corbett in 1925. So, where this ignorant writer attempts to make it sound like an egotistical self label from Souths, it was actually due to the respect shown to Souths by the media to an era of dominance.

"These claims naturally rile Roosters supporters whose club has just as proud a history as their neighbours.


Well, only if you don't count the most number of elite competitions won as part of your intrinsic pride.

We are the only club to have played in all 100 seasons of the NSWRL/ARL/NRL, won more matches (1009) than any other club and produced more internationals (73) than any other club. Together with 12 premierships, 14 runners-up positions, 12 NSWRL club championships and the only club to win 19 successive matches, it is a club not prepared to stand by and let Souths continually claim the high moral ground.

Moral ground? While true some of those figures may be factual, we must ask when it comes to "moral ground", what in blue hell happened to Eastern Suburbs?

I am not one of those who say you are now a different club because you changed your name, that is not factual. You still have all your comps to your name, unlike St George.

However, you speak of being a foundation club and your "tradition", while at the same time supporting a club who removed the most traditional part of your club, it's very location name. I saw Eastern Suburbs win one of the greatest dominant performances I have ever seen in a Grand Final, in '75, 38 - 0. I did not watch a team named with a drab "look at us, we wanna be big" style name such as "Sydney". It identifies nothing about you nor recognises your true history.

That IS your tradition and you sold it in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to rebrand and grab South's juniors when we were headed for expulsion.

Moral ground? You sir, should have choked on those words by now.

"The term 'league is strong when Souths is strong' has no basis. But this has never prevented Souths supporters and naive scribes repeating it. Any serious analysis reveals the game has been at its strongest over the past 20 years, a period in which Souths have regularly been cellar dwellers - they've played in no grand finals and just two final series.

Are you actually serious? Do you know nothing of league's proud history? That expression was given birth when Souths were again very dominant and commanded massive crowds at the SCG.

Do you not have the mental capacity to understand these "traditional" expressions get handed down by league fans in general? Historical expressions are not going to vanish or be banned because some frustrated Rooster fan is jealous they were not directed at the club he supports.

"Prior to their brief finals appearance last season, the previous 15 years saw Souths never finish higher than ninth and in 12 of those years, they were lower than 12th, yet the game has not suffered as a result of Souths' continual failures. Their propaganda machine tells of their large supporter base, but even a casual glance at their home crowds over the past 20 years indicates that if these supporters exist, they do not attend Souths games. The rare home matches featuring a crowd over 15,000 during this period were invariably played with a co-tenant of the venue.

Souths averaged over 16k last season, and have had very good avergae crowds now for a number of seasons. May I suggest you actually research what you write next time? Nothing worse than being in print, and wrong.

"The big issue is that Souths fans believe they're somehow different and superior to all other league fans. They claim they stick through thick and thin when no one else would (they don't), and they've put up with so much more than everyone else (they haven't).

"Many Roosters supporters resent the way their own junior teams, who participate in joint competitions with Souths, are treated by the administrators of those competitions.

Yes, how dare look after your kids, even pay for them in some ways, and give them a comp to play in. What a terrific reason to hate us, Einstein.


Others were sickened by the way Souths turned on the Roosters, who could have killed off Souths forever had they turned their backs on clubs like them and joined Super League. Despite the Roosters' support for Souths throughout the Super League war, after Souths were dropped from the NRL they tried to push players negotiating to join the Roosters to instead join Super League clubs like the Bulldogs, who were instrumental in their demise in the first place.

Did this "support" for Souths include the stat dec submitted by the Roosters to the league at the time stating how badly it would impact them if Souths were reinstated? Yeah, thanks for that. Still, I can understand as you did really want those juniors huh? Never mind, maybe in an alternate universe somewhere.

"Local Sydney league boundaries were based on local government boundaries when clubs were formed back in the early 20th century. Souths' boundaries were based on the municipalities of Redfern, Botany, Alexandria, Mascot and Waterloo, while the Roosters' boundaries were those of the eastern municipalities of Paddington, Woollahra, Vaucluse, Randwick and Waverley.

"Many of these councils have since amalgamated, as demographic changes affected the inner and eastern suburbs of Sydney. Randwick Council has a western boundary of Anzac Parade and incorporates all those eastern suburbs east of Anzac Parade, and these suburbs like Randwick, Coogee and Maroubra were all part of the Roosters' territory from 1908 to 1929. Does anyone living in those suburbs then or now not claim to live in the eastern suburbs?

"But in 1929 a number of clubs led by Souths and Balmain helped change the NSWRL constitution so that instead of needing 75 per cent [of the vote] to remove a team from the competition, only 50 per cent was needed. Once the constitution was changed, Balmain, with Souths' help, moved to kick foundation club Glebe from the competition. Roosters fans can't miss the irony in this, given the events 70 years later.

"Soon after, these same clubs changed the constitution back, to protect themselves from future expulsion, so 75 per cent of the vote was again required to remove a club from the then NSWRL. As part of the deal to remove Glebe, Balmain took over Glebe's territory and Souths annexed that part of the Roosters territory east of Anzac Parade and south of Alison Road. The Roosters were as a result left without much of their natural territory, and a large future source of young talent. This was very relevant because for many years you needed to reside within your team's boundaries to play for that club.

"Souths won seven of their 20 premierships with a significant part of the Roosters' territory, while the residential rule was in place. The two players in recent years that Souths have so resented playing for the Roosters, Craig Wing and Braith Anasta, due to their alleged status as Souths juniors, did in fact play their junior football for clubs in the eastern suburbs, which was original Roosters territory, and should still be.

"Again in 1983 after Newtown were excluded from the competition, Souths were again all over the carcass of another foundation club, moving swiftly to grab Newtown's territory and denying the Roosters' attempts to reclaim its former territory as part of a much needed realignment of boundaries.

LOL. Does progress and change offend thee? The boundaries were a little different in 1770 as well, and in 1870. Things happen, suburbs change councils, boundaries move, people even invade and take over a country. Seriously, this whinge in particular makes you sound quite pathetic, desperate and puerile. Please, surely you can do better.

"Does anybody remember Souths expressing any opposition to the NSWRL's unsuccessful move to exclude Wests from the competition in the early '80s or to Newtown's exclusion in 1983?

Relevance? For I see none, you've run off on an unrelated tangent.

"The fact is that Souths, like many clubs with such a long history, have plenty of skeletons in the closet, and when given the power and opportunity, have acted ruthlessly in their own self-interest without any regard to the wellbeing of other traditional clubs or the game itself.

Feel free to point out any instances of such. Oh, pardon me, I should have said any "factual" instances.


"As a result, their continual whingeing and rewriting of history has grated on many league supporters, but, in particular, those of the one club that feels it has just as much right to celebrate its history as any other."

I would suggest from your demented ramblings that you are quite old, can not accept change and most certainly struggle with reality.

You will rid yourself of a lot of this angst and jealousy if you more readily accept logic and fact. You see, here's the thing. Since 1908 the sole purpose of competing in the premier elite competition now known as the NRL has been that glory day, THE Grand Final. It is the reason for the very existence of all the teams.

We have won more than any other rugby league team in history. We are the Pride of the League thanks to Claude Corbett, the media and us dominating the comp in certain eras.

You will never pass us in any area, and your obvious frustration manifests itself in a narrow minded, inaccurate and bitter rambling piece of dribble.

Go The Rabbitohs.....Pride of the League!

[Kingbilly]

dribble Darque pure dribble, no real counter no sbustanciated facts.

Fact #1 $ouff$ have no juniors, they do nothing for their juniors.
Souths Junior rugby league is a separate entity that does things for $ouff$, not the other way around.

Fact #2 Roosters fans pay up on their debts.

Interesting tidbit #1 The hate that fans have for opposing teams and their supporters is often generated through a passion for their own club and a jealousy for that success that the opposition club achieves. $ouff$ are hated because other fans detest whinging losers.
They hate the unprofessionalism that $ouff$ bring to the competition. The rest just hate them because $ouff$ are too pathetic to be pitied.

Win or lose tonight $ouff$ will remain the "JOKE OF THE LEAGUE" just ask Beau Champion, not only in the way he was treated but his pleasant surprise in learning how a "REAL" RL team prepares and trains, when he started at the Melbourne Storm

[supermario]

[QUOTE=darque;105212]Sad really, that such an eloquent piece of prose can so easily be torn apart.

Titled "Why I hate Souths", an extract reads as follows …

First inaccuracy, South Sydney do not call "themselves" the Pride of the League. It was a name given to us by sports journalist Claude Corbett in 1925. So, where this ignorant writer attempts to make it sound like an egotistical self label from Souths, it was actually due to the respect shown to Souths by the media to an era of dominance.

So you have now confirmed that this "Quote" $ouff$ being the pride if the league is now dead as their dominance is now null and void.

Well, only if you don't count the most number of elite competitions won as part of your intrinsic pride.

History is not only about premierships, history is just that, history and considering we at least have a continous history is Australian Rugby League in all grades, then our history is without question and something for our supporters to be Proud of.

Moral ground? While true some of those figures may be factual, we must ask when it comes to "moral ground", what in blue hell happened to Eastern Suburbs?

I am not one of those who say you are now a different club because you changed your name, that is not factual. You still have all your comps to your name, unlike St George.

However, you speak of being a foundation club and your "tradition", while at the same time supporting a club who removed the most traditional part of your club, it's very location name. I saw Eastern Suburbs win one of the greatest dominant performances I have ever seen in a Grand Final, in '75, 38 - 0. I did not watch a team named with a drab "look at us, we wanna be big" style name such as "Sydney". It identifies nothing about you nor recognises your true history.

That IS your tradition and you sold it in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to rebrand and grab South's juniors when we were headed for expulsion.

Moral ground? You sir, should have choked on those words by now.

our name has changed, our history and tradition has not, our clubs home has not moved from our traditional home in the East........i guess you will next claim that ANZ stadium is an annexure of Redfern??

As to the "grab of the juniors" you know that is false and $ouff$ do not run their junior league as kingbilly advised. you cannot lay claim to the Juniors.

Are you actually serious? Do you know nothing of league's proud history? That expression was given birth when Souths were again very dominant and commanded massive crowds at the SCG.

Do you not have the mental capacity to understand these "traditional" expressions get handed down by league fans in general? Historical expressions are not going to vanish or be banned because some frustrated Rooster fan is jealous they were not directed at the club he supports.

And again, this quote is null and void as the dominance of $ouff$ is no longer in existance.

Souths averaged over 16k last season, and have had very good avergae crowds now for a number of seasons. May I suggest you actually research what you write next time? Nothing worse than being in print, and wrong.

Actually, the $ouffS crowd average last year was only 200 more than the Roosters, that pretty poor for a club that BOAST about the apparent fan base it holds.........

Yes, how dare look after your kids, even pay for them in some ways, and give them a comp to play in. What a terrific reason to hate us, Einstein.

Again, $ouff$ senior football club does not have control of the juniors.

Did this "support" for Souths include the stat dec submitted by the Roosters to the league at the time stating how badly it would impact them if Souths were reinstated? Yeah, thanks for that. Still, I can understand as you did really want those juniors huh? Never mind, maybe in an alternate universe somewhere.

Again, the juniors are not run by the $ouff$ senior club. As to the reinstatement to the NRL, as to the stat dec, not only has it badly impacted the Roosters, the return of $ouff$ has also badly impacted the NRL.

LOL. Does progress and change offend thee? The boundaries were a little different in 1770 as well, and in 1870. Things happen, suburbs change councils, boundaries move, people even invade and take over a country. Seriously, this whinge in particular makes you sound quite pathetic, desperate and puerile. Please, surely you can do better.

Ahhh yes progress and Change, while i have stated that $ouff$ Senior club do not run the juniors, lets pose a hypothetical.....if they did and due to progress and change were forced to change boundaries to their detriment....would they??? i think not.

Relevance? For I see none, you've run off on an unrelated tangent.

you point out reasoning for a point of yours above by refering to a stat dec the roosters signed to keep $ouff$ out.......yet $ouff$ actions towards Wests expultion was to send the club to the gallows........pot kettle black.

Feel free to point out any instances of such. Oh, pardon me, I should have said any "factual" instances.

Read any point above

I would suggest from your demented ramblings that you are quite old, can not accept change and most certainly struggle with reality.

You will rid yourself of a lot of this angst and jealousy if you more readily accept logic and fact. You see, here's the thing. Since 1908 the sole purpose of competing in the premier elite competition now known as the NRL has been that glory day, THE Grand Final. It is the reason for the very existence of all the teams.

We have won more than any other rugby league team in history. We are the Pride of the League thanks to Claude Corbett, the media and us dominating the comp in certain eras.

You will never pass us in any area, and your obvious frustration manifests itself in a narrow minded, inaccurate and bitter rambling piece of dribble.

Go The Rabbitohs.....Pride of the League!

The Proof in $ouff$ Changing history is clear and apparent in the Book of Fudes.

While $ouff$ have won more premierships....their "history" has ALOT to left to be desired.

We have no frustrations towards your club, some may border on pity, but most sit and laugh at the vauduville comedy that is $ouff$.

it seems $ouff$ care moreso of what the Roosters think of them rather than Vice versa.........