AFL International Rules out rates RL World Cup Finals

[SportCapital]

& once again
You want to bring length of time into it
3hrs v 2 hrs
Once you do that when the tv deals are worked out per hr
We got a higher deal.

You can't absurdly apply length of time for ratings yet ignore for $$$ value for length of time .

So which is it .

Simple.
What number is larger....
1800000000 or 2500000000

Lol thanks for proving my point

"No sir, i don't require you 10's on million extra dollars per year, i got a higher deal" said no one ever!

WARNING: Don't go into business with crapper. I don't think he comprehends what is good for one.

[AFLcrap1]

You just don't get it .

If RL get for example 120 million viewers a year
& AFL get 110 million viewers a year ..
Then which is the most watched sport .

According to some of your not do bright friends ..it's AFL because it goes longer .
Yet when you apply the same logic to $$ per hr Suddenly that logic doesn't apply .

Your simple view that AFL got more in their deal ....is right .
I agree .
Hence when the simple logic that 120 is more than 110 is right ....that's why I said you proved my point .

Is this too hard to understand ...
It is for your fumbler friends .

So tell me what is the most watched sport in this country ..

[NlolRL]

You just don't get it .

If RL get for example 120 million viewers a year
& AFL get 110 million viewers a year ..
Then which is the most watched sport .

According to some of your not do bright friends ..it's AFL because it goes longer .
Yet when you apply the same logic to $$ per hr Suddenly that logic doesn't apply .

Your simple view that AFL got more in their deal ....is right .
I agree .
Hence when the simple logic that 120 is more than 110 is right ....that's why I said you proved my point .

Is this too hard to understand ...
It is for your fumbler friends .

So tell me what is the most watched sport in this country ..

Most watched isnt as simple as the raw ratings because this ignores program lenght. The AFL get 110m for 3 hours, or 330mil, the nrl only 240mil. The program most watched must therefore be the AFL because it has a far higher sustained audience.

Your point about cash per hour is valid, but these rights deals are influenced by far more than just ratings. Eg advertising revenue in different markets

[AFLcrap1]

Lol the above
Is a perfect example sports bullshitter .

But but but

If if if
But but but
If if if .

The stupidity is astounding .

[leeroy*NRL*]

The Question is>>

did networks pay over for AFL>> (short answer no)

why they may not get as much viewers per games as Rugby League>

the Networks make more money through advertising (as there is more advertising opportunities in AFL)

When you break it down> its amazing how much money NRL get from networks

still waiting for an AFL Person to admit this....

weve been through this. The AFL have more advertising space but RL is popular on Australia's most expensive advertising market. Add to that RL sell more content, ie SOO

more advertising space by a long margin>>

Sydney market is about 25-30% stronger than Melbourne for adverting dollar $$

More rugby league content>> 3 more games...SOO

international tournaments are sold separately

[Beaussie]

How did it compare to the Socceroos game during the week? I'll wait

Smashed every other non Socceroos soccer game on Australian tv this year that’s for sure. Smashed!

Any comment on soccers declining tv ratings since leaving SBS?

viewtopic.php?f=43&t=6295

Comon would love to hear your analysis of soccer tv ratings this season.

[pussycat]

You just don't get it .

If RL get for example 120 million viewers a year
& AFL get 110 million viewers a year ..
Then which is the most watched sport .

According to some of your not do bright friends ..it's AFL because it goes longer .
Yet when you apply the same logic to $$ per hr Suddenly that logic doesn't apply .

Your simple view that AFL got more in their deal ....is right .
I agree .
Hence when the simple logic that 120 is more than 110 is right ....that's why I said you proved my point .

Is this too hard to understand ...
It is for your fumbler friends .

So tell me what is the most watched sport in this country ..

Most watched isnt as simple as the raw ratings because this ignores program lenght. The AFL get 110m for 3 hours, or 330mil, the nrl only 240mil. The program most watched must therefore be the AFL because it has a far higher sustained audience.

Your point about cash per hour is valid, but these rights deals are influenced by far more than just ratings. Eg advertising revenue in different markets

[NRL&NFLweLaughATafl]

Leaguies steering clear of this thread. How’s that silver? Always 2nd to the AFL lol

Actually you have just made a fool of yourself. The Australia vs England game in Melbourne got 1.4 million viewers in Australia alone. Is this why you are only including the finals when comparing lol?

That is not even including NZ ratings, UK ratings and all the other countries it was shown in.

Sorry to disappoint, but rugby league smashed your pretend AFL game out of the ballpark in the ratings.

[pussycat]

your interpretation of 'most watched' excludes length of time, as usual . Again, if 1 mil watch 5 minutes of the Melbourne cup, and 950k watch 6 hours of a test match, which is the most watched?

What is it with you LOL, your just like that bloke in that movie, 'You just cant handle the truth'.

TV ratings estimate a programs viewers (there's no trick regarding time), If Oztam estimate there are 1m viewers watching the Melbourne cup and 950k watching the first day of the ashes than that's what they estimate.

There looking for potential buyers for groceries or a Holden Astra's. And they give a breakdown of that figure , 18-28, the 29 to 40 age group. Its not a trick question

Your constantly reading list showing the most watched program's in 2017 , or since ratings first began.

Rugby League has more viewers. That's just a fact - a very straight forward one. Have you always been such a poor loser?

But 'most watched' and more viewers are two different things. More viewers suggest a larger following, or audience. Most watched is how often, or for how long the audience watches the program. If the block has a larger audience or following than the news, but the news is shown for more hours, the block has more viewers but the news is more watched.

So its just coincidental that lists showing the most watched/viewed programs Nationally for 2017 (SMH, Mumbrella' TV Tonight and others). just happens to be the same as the mediaweek ratings have shown through out the year, even though there totally different things

[AFLcrap1]

The worst case of grasping at straws I've seen in a long long time .

[NlolRL]

The worst case of grasping at straws I've seen in a long long time .

you cant claim 'most watched' using cumulative figures without taking length of time watched into account. Well you guys can, but its idiotic. As I've said, 6 hours of NRL viewed by one fan on Saturday = 3 games ratings, where as the same time only equals 2 AFL game's ratings. Taking cumulative ratings into account only suggests the NRL was watched by 50% greater audience overall, where as the truth is they were they had the same audience for the same viewing time. That's a significant 'false' advantage to the NRL

[AFLcrap1]

The worst case of grasping at straws I've seen in a long long time .

you cant claim 'most watched' using cumulative figures without taking length of time watched into account. Well you guys can, but its idiotic. As I've said, 6 hours of NRL viewed by one fan on Saturday = 3 games ratings, where as the same time only equals 2 AFL game's ratings. Taking cumulative ratings into account only suggests the NRL was watched by 50% greater audience overall, where as the truth is they were they had the same audience for the same viewing time. That's a significant 'false' advantage to the NRL

Seriously
What fucking planet are you on
To claim something as idiotic when ratings sites are doing the same is very strange .

False disadvantage ..
Are you for real
Yet if I absurdly use your bulldhit theory to work out that RL got a better media deal per hr
All we get is but but but

You are the sorest loser I've ever seen
Please show one official ratings site that backs your crap up.

[NlolRL]

The worst case of grasping at straws I've seen in a long long time .

you cant claim 'most watched' using cumulative figures without taking length of time watched into account. Well you guys can, but its idiotic. As I've said, 6 hours of NRL viewed by one fan on Saturday = 3 games ratings, where as the same time only equals 2 AFL game's ratings. Taking cumulative ratings into account only suggests the NRL was watched by 50% greater audience overall, where as the truth is they were they had the same audience for the same viewing time. That's a significant 'false' advantage to the NRL

Seriously
What fucking planet are you on
To claim something as idiotic when ratings sites are doing the same is very strange .

False disadvantage ..
Are you for real
Yet if I absurdly use your bulldhit theory to work out that RL got a better media deal per hr
All we get is but but but

You are the sorest loser I've ever seen
Please show one official ratings site that backs your crap up.

I have no issue saying RL got a better deal per hour, although they do have SOO included, plus every game shown in isolation, so the comparison is complex.

Please show one official rating site that uses yearly cumulative ratings for anything. And no, Roy Masters doesnt count

[pussycat]

you cant claim 'most watched' using cumulative figures without taking length of time watched into account. Well you guys can, but its idiotic. As I've said, 6 hours of NRL viewed by one fan on Saturday = 3 games ratings, where as the same time only equals 2 AFL game's ratings. Taking cumulative ratings into account only suggests the NRL was watched by 50% greater audience overall, where as the truth is they were they had the same audience for the same viewing time. That's a significant 'false' advantage to the NRL

Seriously
What fucking planet are you on
To claim something as idiotic when ratings sites are doing the same is very strange .

False disadvantage ..
Are you for real
Yet if I absurdly use your bulldhit theory to work out that RL got a better media deal per hr
All we get is but but but

You are the sorest loser I've ever seen
Please show one official ratings site that backs your crap up.

I have no issue saying RL got a better deal per hour, although they do have SOO included, plus every game shown in isolation, so the comparison is complex.

Please show one official rating site that uses yearly cumulative ratings for anything. And no, Roy Masters doesnt count

After the first 5 rounds ratings are down 5 %

.......but, but, but, um ,err, gosh, but but but Friday night.

[NlolRL]

Seriously
What fucking planet are you on
To claim something as idiotic when ratings sites are doing the same is very strange .

False disadvantage ..
Are you for real
Yet if I absurdly use your bulldhit theory to work out that RL got a better media deal per hr
All we get is but but but

You are the sorest loser I've ever seen
Please show one official ratings site that backs your crap up.

I have no issue saying RL got a better deal per hour, although they do have SOO included, plus every game shown in isolation, so the comparison is complex.

Please show one official rating site that uses yearly cumulative ratings for anything. And no, Roy Masters doesnt count

After the first 5 rounds ratings are down 5 %

.......but, but, but, um ,err, gosh, but but but Friday night.

what the fuck are you on about?