AFL vs NRL - the TV war

[Beaussie]

umm.. doing much better then every other sporting club in NSW are they
....they're broke
last time I looked the Sharks were the only Sydney NRL club in as bad a shape financially

Swans broke? Absolute rubbish

http://www.theage.com.au/AFL/AFL-news/w ... 1ev0o.html

We're not Broke
We're not broke

phhhhttttttt ... Dimetriou had to address the Swans players to assure them they'd be 2 sides in Sydney in 2012 & they'd be one of them

they've lost about 2 million in the last 3 seasons ... & have made the finals 2 out of theose 3 years
yeah .... they're the most succesful sporting club in NSW alright
NAAAARRRRRTTTTTT

Absolute rubbish Raiderdave and you know it. For crying out loud did you even read the article you posted.

''Any exposure that we had to the club has been written off in prior periods, and I think it's very simple that if you extract Club Swans out of the consolidated entity, you are left with Sydney Swans, and the position is as it's been for 20 years. It's a low-margin business, we don't turn a profit every year but we've got no debt, and I think what's really encouraging is this year our spon-sorship is up over 30 per cent.''

In February, the Swans announced a loss of $549,819 for the year to October 31, 2010, but this was an improvement on the previous year when losses were $752,428 when the club did not reach the finals. Colless pointed out at the time that last year's figures included a non-cash expense of $486,853, so in cash terms the result was a loss of $63,000, and ''a pretty reasonable result''.

Also factored into last season figures were costs of $500,000 incurred in establishing the Sydney Swans Academy. That cost is budgeted to double this year and continue to grow as programs are launched in areas of NSW.

AFL boss Andrew Demetriou added his support yesterday, saying rumours about the Swans were inaccurate. ''They had an indirect involvement with Club Swans which was a gaming facility. That facility is closing but the Sydney Swans Football Club is in terrific financial shape,'' he said. ''This year we've been thrilled because they've increased their revenue significantly, and there's no issues whatsoever with the Sydney Swans. They're averaging 27,000-28,000 to their games, … and they've signed up an additional $3 million of new sponsorship this year.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/AFL/AFL-news/we-m ... z1PaT0rg5Z

[Beaussie]

The biggest issue for the Swans is not their financial position, which although deteriorating, but rather they dont have relevance for the people of Sydney.

The ambition to have them as everyones "second" team has clearly failed. They have almost no profile and no high profile players - in the Sydney community.


When you get all your home games shown live including prime time Saturday night on FTA and no body watches you know you are not relevant to the community.

The irony for the AFL is that the total audience for all the other games is about the same as the Swans poor showing -in Sydney.


The main benefit the AFL gets from the Swans is the maintenance of the myth that the AFL has a national competition. They will keep backing them to keep that myth alive.

That's the biggest load of crap I've read in this thread yet.

Couldn't have said it better myself TLPG. Fair dinkum, an NRL supporter having the hide to say the AFL as a national competition is a myth. Oh dear that would explain the bigger crowds even in Sydney and nationwide tv ratings that embarrass the NRL.

Even David Gallop has admitted as much in the past when talking about the respective tv deals for the AFL and NRL.

"The AFL has teams in more states and draws crowds more than twice the size of ours. Television is sold on the basis of five capital-city audiences and we do not have that footprint. It also isn't a solution for us to simply throw a team in those areas where we have limited interest in our code."

"Also, the AFL has an extra game on free-to-air, its games go for 20 per cent longer than a league game and allow for greater advertising revenue.''

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/c ... 23,00.html

There you have it folks. NRL CEO David Gallop tells it how it is.

[TLPG]

Oh I love it when you own these poor blinkered human beings, Beau! And hoisting them by their own petards! =D>

[King-Eliagh]

Beaussie I dont think you understand what Enarelle is getting at and I know Talking Footy's resident doofus TLPG has no clue, as per usual.

I think what Enarelle is getting at is that the AFL has little relevance in Sydney compared to Rugby League. This is without doubt and obvious when one compares how many AFL teams there are compared to NRL teams in Sydney. The same is true, and perhaps even moreso, for Rugby League in Melbourne. With this in mind, I think Enarelle makes a very valid point regarding the Sydney AFL side perpetuating the myth that AFL is a 'national' sport.

Beaussie if we take your line of thought that the AFL having teams in each state makes it a 'national' sport then where are the teams in the Territory? In Canberra? In Tasmania? If we take your line of thought that the AFL having teams in each state makes it the 'national' sport then we can equally state that Rugby League is a Victorian sport.

Having said all this, and to halt your and TLPG's undoubtable insecure defensive illegitimate rebuttles, I must state that I'm not saying here that Rugby League is more of a national sport than AFL. I'm supporting Enarelle's statement and pointing out what you, and definitely Talking Footy's Village Idiot TLPG, may have missed.

[pussycat]

The biggest issue for the Swans is not their financial position, which although deteriorating, but rather they dont have relevance for the people of Sydney.

The ambition to have them as everyones "second" team has clearly failed. They have almost no profile and no high profile players - in the Sydney community.


When you get all your home games shown live including prime time Saturday night on FTA and no body watches you know you are not relevant to the community.

The irony for the AFL is that the total audience for all the other games is about the same as the Swans poor showing -in Sydney.


The main benefit the AFL gets from the Swans is the maintenance of the myth that the AFL has a national competition. They will keep backing them to keep that myth alive.

That's the biggest load of crap I've read in this thread yet.

Couldn't have said it better myself TLPG. Fair dinkum, an NRL supporter having the hide to say the AFL as a national competition is a myth. Oh dear that would explain the bigger crowds even in Sydney and nationwide tv ratings that embarrass the NRL.

Even David Gallop has admitted as much in the past when talking about the respective tv deals for the AFL and NRL.

"The AFL has teams in more states and draws crowds more than twice the size of ours. Television is sold on the basis of five capital-city audiences and we do not have that footprint. It also isn't a solution for us to simply throw a team in those areas where we have limited interest in our code."

"Also, the AFL has an extra game on free-to-air, its games go for 20 per cent longer than a league game and allow for greater advertising revenue.''

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/c ... 23,00.html

There you have it folks. NRL CEO David Gallop tells it how it is.

This is the problem we have, Gallop, head of the NRL, is employed by News Limited, he is little more than a News Limited puppet. His remarks are nothing more than a lame attempt to justify why we were so blatantly robbed by News LTD at the last TV Rights deal. And he has chosen to do so by using the same hocus pocus BS that Demetriou is always sprouting.

[TLPG]

Then why don't the clubs rise up and force Gallop to resign, Pussycat? After all, News Ltd already put the bad smell on matters via the Storm, right?

Point is, they don't. Because Gallop is the best man available to make the best of a bad situation.

Be grateful you don't have the FIFA boss in charge!

[Beaussie]

Here we go again, blame News Ltd and now chuck in the NRL CEO David Gallop for robbing the game.

Time for NRL supporters to accept the facts. The AFL rates much better nationwide than the NRL, in particular in the all important capital cities. Further Channel 7,9,10 and Foxtel are all desperate to get a piece of the AFL broadcasting pie every time the rights are being negotiated. This always competitive bidding process for the AFL continues to result in record Australian sport broadcast deals. Last deal... $1.253 Billion. In the case of the NRL, no other network other than Channel 9 is really interested.

[enarelle]

Boys,boys,boys you are quoting an article that is 3 years old and out of date.

In the last 3 years league has gone from behind AFL on a aggregate audience to in front. Every year the NRL puts the Super league war behind it grows stronger. in that same period the AFL presence in Sydney as represented by their lead item ie the Swans has gone backwards.

These days Gallop is talking up the next deal as a $billion plus. Why is he doing this - well because he knows he has it. Channel 9 have already said publicly they will have to substantially increase their offer to just keep what they have. Telstra will pay $100m for one game per week. Fox Sports cannot afford to lose Super Saturday or Monday night football. Monday nights are up 40% this year alone. The Toyota Cup has been a ratings winner and was not included in the last deal. Fox only keeps if it keeps the NRL games that go with it.

This is just another example of the AFL supporter wanting to live in the past when all was warm and lovely under that "special" AFL sun.

Come on AFL fans prove the Repucom report wrong on the total audience for last year. Prove the Swans decline in ratings wrong.

Stop trying to hide behind dollars as proof that AFL is a better game with wider support.

55% of the population lives in NSW/QLD/ACT

66% of the advertising dollars are spent in NSW/QLD.

AFL is a minor sport in NSW/QLD

NRL is the sport in NSW/QLD

Who represents the right way to go for TV to leverage the 66% advertising dollars?

[Raiderdave]

Beaussie, I think you're telling some little white lies within your semi factual post. I agree that Alice Springs has adds for Mount Isa and from memory maybe Rockhampton, but Townsville...??? Comon now you know I've lived in Alice Springs before right?

Another Beaussie myth busted!

Believe what you want. It seems clear you, like many NRL supporters don't like hearing the truth about the regional tv markets.

Daniel Green has covered this very issue perfectly where he pointed out in his article on the TV ratings page the following:

Over the entire season, the AFL was watched by a total of 65,023,000 and the NRL by 40,272,000. But what many fail to take into account is the three hour running time of an AFL telecast compared to the two hour running time of it's NRL rival. When this is taken into account, the AFL is viewed 2.4 times as often as the NRL on free-to-air according to Oztam figures. 195,069,000 cumulative hours were viewed for the AFL compared to 80,546,000 for the NRL. With advertisers able to slot in commercials every time a goal is kicked, the commercial value would also appear to be far greater than the NRL, which has far fewer opportunities to slot in ads of their own. It should also be noted, that the NRL's flexible schedule where they choose games several weeks out for its various timeslots, gives it what should be a ratings advantage. Friday night football in the NRL is selected as the highest rating match and is shown live, from 7:30 to 9:30, with Sydney and Brisbane usually getting different matches featuring local teams to maximise ratings. The AFL meanwhile, on Friday nights has a one hour delayed telecast in Melbourne, 90 minutes in Adelaide, and 3 hours delayed in Perth of one match set in stone from the previous October. Looking at these circumstances, and comparing the heartlands of the two codes, one would think that in Sydney, the NRL would rate higher than Melbourne for the AFL. Interestingly, the AFL averages 451,000 in Melbourne on Friday nights and the NRL averages 386,000 in Sydney, with the AFL figures going through to 11:30pm. The NRL figure only goes to 9:30, at which time a delayed (and lower rating) telecast of another NRL match begins.

It would appear that the AFL is more passionately supported in its heartland. Or maybe this is a reflection of the indifference of Sydenysiders since the Brisbane NRL ratings (which regularly feature the Broncos on Friday nights) are strong and impressive.

The above figures, of course, only take into account the capital cities, with Oztam ratings - being the currency by which television programs are bought and sold - only measuring the capitals. Most of the Rugby League persuassion would argue that the NRL has a far greater representation in the regional areas than the AFL. This is undoubtably true, with the decentralized states of NSW and Queensland encompassing large regional areas of Rugby League loving folk. But is this regional area, which, in Television terms makes up approximately 30% of the market, enough to claw back the 25 million viewer deficit (and a deficit in viewing time of 115 million hours?) Not by a long way.

http://www.talkingfooty.com/tv_ratings_2011.php

this selective .. only giving half the story ... AFL puff piece again
exposed as a load of rubbish when it first came out.. he comments on the regional ratings ...
yet doesn't provide one shred of evidence .. one " stat " to back up his comment ... " that it doesn't go close to making up the difference in the metro figures " ... just a flippant remark & these fumbleball wombats gobble it up like its factual .. what clowns

[TLPG]

Raider your post just goes to show that when facts are thrown in front of you, all you can do is chuck a tantrum.

Enarelle, your figures are skewed and I'll tell you why. The NRL total attendance includes something that the AFL doesn't have - State of Origin. The only reason the AFL dropped it is because we don't have two equal states. We have three.

Nothing much has changed in three years. The AFL is still winning the war and it doesn't how any of you twist it - it remains fact.

[Raiderdave]

Raider your post just goes to show that when facts are thrown in front of you, all you can do is chuck a tantrum.

Enarelle, your figures are skewed and I'll tell you why. The NRL total attendance includes something that the AFL doesn't have - State of Origin. The only reason the AFL dropped it is because we don't have two equal states. We have three.

Nothing much has changed in three years. The AFL is still winning the war and it doesn't how any of you twist it - it remains fact.

what facts ... where has this clown who posted this article 3 years ago put " ALL" the facts in his article
post all the information .... not half & we'll have a balanced debate
til then ... it is an AFL puff piece & nothing more

also
enerelle is not talking about attendances ... he is talking about TV audiences ... & when negotiating a new TV deal .... Origin has to be included quite obviously ... Rugby League is the most watched sport on Australian TV plain n simple... don't complain because your sport is a tad ... " one dimensional " & ours isn't .. If AFL want more on their deals .. then put something else up besides club football

hows the saying go
if you've got it .... flaunt it

& we've got it
so we'll flaunt it

[TLPG]

The TV audience figures in regional Australia for FTA are wrong.

Pure and simple.

The methods they use are outdated and BS.

AFL isn't one dimensional. It's a great game that is successful without the need for additional levels. You can't change fact like I said.

[Raiderdave]

The TV audience figures in regional Australia for FTA are wrong.

Pure and simple.

The methods they use are outdated and BS.

AFL isn't one dimensional. It's a great game that is successful without the need for additional levels. You can't change fact like I said.

thats your opinion .. its not the opinion of industry experts
I'll take their word for it for the time being

I wasn't talking about AFL not being great or otherwise .. again , thats a matter of opinion .. but one thing isn't , you have 1 level of football .... club , that is it

Rugby League has 3
Club
State
International

it is a " multi " dimensional football code
one of 3 that are in this Country

theres 1 that isn't
& its yours

[TLPG]

We have the International Cup (I don't meant the Irish thing). We have interleague matches at the local level. Now that I think of it - you don't have the latter! And actually at the local development level, AFL is played in more countries now than thugby league!! Argue that!!

Industry experts. Relying on a limited system that gives inaccurate and biased figures on FTA TV. Pay is more accurate because everyone who has it is counted. Practical fact - not opinion.

[Raiderdave]

We have the International Cup (I don't meant the Irish thing). We have interleague matches at the local level. Now that I think of it - you don't have the latter! And actually at the local development level, AFL is played in more countries now than thugby league!! Argue that!!

Industry experts. Relying on a limited system that gives inaccurate and biased figures on FTA TV. Pay is more accurate because everyone who has it is counted. Practical fact - not opinion.

ummm... was sorta talking about the elite level

Australian Rules Football has nothing apart from its club comp at the highest level
the only code in Australia that doesn't have something else

& if pay is a more accurate indicator for TV
then League Truely is winning the war then isn;t it