NRL to reap $1.2b from TV rights

[eelofwest]

This. 1 million people downloaded the free AFL app, and tens of thousands had paid for live games within the first month of the season. =D>

I doubt ratings from mobile devices are recorded so it's practically impossible to find an actual ratings figure. Or we could do a Raiderdave and just make up a random figure

Hey dopey the NRL will be available to all subscribers the AFL only available to Telstra users.

The NRL will pull even further in front if you want to play that game........ =D> =D>

NRL can offer this service to People in NZ, ENG, PNG, France, Wales.....................it will be a massacre if you want to included Mobile ratings....

Not if people don't bother purchasing an extra package for a second rate sport

The AFL app is available to all services and the amount of downloads it had smashed the amount the nRL app had.

Another lie from you spewie..

Telstra have exclusive rights to the AFL meaning that the apps can only be used through telstra subcribers.

The NRL do not and are allowed to stream there content through any provider, the NRL also gets a % share of the profits from these Apps subscribers.

Like i said if we are to add the mobile ratings in the coming years it will massacre the AFL easy.

Aspect s of the deal announced yesterday between Telstra and the National Rugby League (NRL) is to my mind a very significant development in the “exclusive access to content” competition story. The aspect that jumped out at me is the arrangement that Telstra will provide its tablet and smartphone live streaming of NRL games to the other two mobile operators Voda and Optus (for a fee) as well as run it to its own mobile customers.

http://telcothoughts.com/2012/12/12/tel ... ew-ground/

[pussycat]

Here you go Dave this article says that Rl beat AFL this season.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 1o58v.html

Now wait for the AFLs response.

sorry pies, this was for 2011. There has been no boasting from the NRL or media this year. I wonder why? >

My bad but the NRL number says it totalled 134 million in 2011 and that the AFL got a total of 12 million less so that is 122 million for the AFL in 2011 but the Australian paper said that the AFL for 2011 got 113 million. So which paper and result is correct? Could it be that the Sydney Herald includes extras for the AFL like the preseason comp and perhaps the crowd totals while the Australian article doesnt inlcude the preseason comp and crowd totals?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/r ... 6525246762

Heres a contrast

Sydney morning Herald

2011 AFL numbers 122 million
2011 NRL numbers 134 million

The Australian newspaper

2011 AFL numbers 113.6 million
2011 NRL numbers 113.5 million


Look closely at the 2011 AFL numbers and compare the Sydney morning herald with the Australian numbers and tell me again Dave that the AFL preseason numbers are included in the Australian newspaper's numbers.

So do you think now that the Australian newspaper's stats for 2012 exclude the AFL preseason or are they using a different set of stats in the two newspapers? Its one or the other. Perhaps all knowing Dave you can answer this question.

I would agree that the Stats in the 'Australian' only focus on the two competitions. They fail to take into consideration representive fixtures for the nrl or the preseason for the AFL. Given the 2012 figures that he produces. When all ratings are included it's quiet easy to see which code dominates.

In fact those 2012 figures, for the AFL, must be quiet concerning for Andrew, given that they had all live games and coded there ratings in a different way to get a higher number.

[Xman]

sorry pies, this was for 2011. There has been no boasting from the NRL or media this year. I wonder why? >

My bad but the NRL number says it totalled 134 million in 2011 and that the AFL got a total of 12 million less so that is 122 million for the AFL in 2011 but the Australian paper said that the AFL for 2011 got 113 million. So which paper and result is correct? Could it be that the Sydney Herald includes extras for the AFL like the preseason comp and perhaps the crowd totals while the Australian article doesnt inlcude the preseason comp and crowd totals?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/r ... 6525246762

Heres a contrast

Sydney morning Herald

2011 AFL numbers 122 million
2011 NRL numbers 134 million

The Australian newspaper

2011 AFL numbers 113.6 million
2011 NRL numbers 113.5 million


Look closely at the 2011 AFL numbers and compare the Sydney morning herald with the Australian numbers and tell me again Dave that the AFL preseason numbers are included in the Australian newspaper's numbers.

So do you think now that the Australian newspaper's stats for 2012 exclude the AFL preseason or are they using a different set of stats in the two newspapers? Its one or the other. Perhaps all knowing Dave you can answer this question.

I would agree that the Stats in the 'Australian' only focus on the two competitions. They fail to take into consideration representive fixtures for the nrl or the preseason for the AFL. Given the 2012 figures that he produces. When all ratings are included it's quiet easy to see which code dominates.

In fact those 2012 figures, for the AFL, must be quiet concerning for Andrew, given that they had all live games and coded there ratings in a different way to get a higher number.

They also fail to take into account 1 AFL game lasts 1.5 NRL games meaning an NRL fan can be counted more often even though the watch less time. If an NRL fan watches 16 hrs on the weekend they are counted 8 times. The same AFL fan, again watching 16 hrs, is only counted just over 5 times.

Thats why no matter what the figures say, each AFL fan has watched 1.5 times the sport of each NRL fan. Therefore the AFL is easily the most watched sport each year.

[piesman2011]

I dont think AD would really care about the NRL numbers. He would only really care abuot his own which has shown growth of about 9% + Tbox, online and phone numbers which cant really be counted. The NRL however has shown overall about 1% growth will little change to their format going from 2013-2017. This would worry whoever is the NRLs new CEO a lot more in my opinion.

[pussycat]

sorry pies, this was for 2011. There has been no boasting from the NRL or media this year. I wonder why? >

I notice it was'nt Roy Masters who wrote that article.


I would assume, due to the way the AFL inflate there ratings nowadays, they have made the playing fields very uneven. Making a true comparrison almost impossible.
There are some sick - desperate - people in this world(most of them come from Melbourne)

Ch7 split their programs for ratings, just like ch9 and ch10. How the hell is that "the AFL inflating their ratings"?

Do the NRL split there matches for regular season matches ?.... Whats that you say....NO???????????

The NRL might have used this method for the Grand Final, But they didn't break there match into 5 segments to maximize there results to the Nth degree

[Xman]

I notice it was'nt Roy Masters who wrote that article.


I would assume, due to the way the AFL inflate there ratings nowadays, they have made the playing fields very uneven. Making a true comparrison almost impossible.
There are some sick - desperate - people in this world(most of them come from Melbourne)

Ch7 split their programs for ratings, just like ch9 and ch10. How the hell is that "the AFL inflating their ratings"?

Do the NRL split there matches for regular season matches ?.... Whats that you say....NO???????????

The NRL might have used this method for the Grand Final, But they didn't break there match into 5 segments to maximize there results to the Nth degree

Neither the NRL or the AFL split their ratings because THEY DONT COUNT THEM OR DICTATE HOW THEY ARE COUNTED!

[pussycat]

My bad but the NRL number says it totalled 134 million in 2011 and that the AFL got a total of 12 million less so that is 122 million for the AFL in 2011 but the Australian paper said that the AFL for 2011 got 113 million. So which paper and result is correct? Could it be that the Sydney Herald includes extras for the AFL like the preseason comp and perhaps the crowd totals while the Australian article doesnt inlcude the preseason comp and crowd totals?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/r ... 6525246762

Heres a contrast

Sydney morning Herald

2011 AFL numbers 122 million
2011 NRL numbers 134 million

The Australian newspaper

2011 AFL numbers 113.6 million
2011 NRL numbers 113.5 million


Look closely at the 2011 AFL numbers and compare the Sydney morning herald with the Australian numbers and tell me again Dave that the AFL preseason numbers are included in the Australian newspaper's numbers.

So do you think now that the Australian newspaper's stats for 2012 exclude the AFL preseason or are they using a different set of stats in the two newspapers? Its one or the other. Perhaps all knowing Dave you can answer this question.

I would agree that the Stats in the 'Australian' only focus on the two competitions. They fail to take into consideration representive fixtures for the nrl or the preseason for the AFL. Given the 2012 figures that he produces. When all ratings are included it's quiet easy to see which code dominates.

In fact those 2012 figures, for the AFL, must be quiet concerning for Andrew, given that they had all live games and coded there ratings in a different way to get a higher number.

They also fail to take into account 1 AFL game lasts 1.5 NRL games meaning an NRL fan can be counted more often even though the watch less time. If an NRL fan watches 16 hrs on the weekend they are counted 8 times. The same AFL fan, again watching 16 hrs, is only counted just over 5 times.

Thats why no matter what the figures say, each AFL fan has watched 1.5 times the sport of each NRL fan. Therefore the AFL is easily the most watched sport each year.

and if yor trying to make reference to the advertising dollar each code generates - than your even further behind on that one.

Your have a long winded drawn out game - [-o< dont worry the trying to shorten it. Hope it doesn't bastardise the culture of your game to much

[eelofwest]

I dont think AD would really care about the NRL numbers. He would only really care abuot his own which has shown growth of about 9% + Tbox, online and phone numbers which cant really be counted. The NRL however has shown overall about 1% growth will little change to their format going from 2013-2017. This would worry whoever is the NRLs new CEO a lot more in my opinion.

1% on the NRL comp and 10% on rep footy so overall it is more then 1% growth for the whole of rugby league.

The AFL growth is purely simulcast nothing more, Question Pies were to from here on the ratings front for AFL???????????

[Xman]

I would agree that the Stats in the 'Australian' only focus on the two competitions. They fail to take into consideration representive fixtures for the nrl or the preseason for the AFL. Given the 2012 figures that he produces. When all ratings are included it's quiet easy to see which code dominates.

In fact those 2012 figures, for the AFL, must be quiet concerning for Andrew, given that they had all live games and coded there ratings in a different way to get a higher number.

They also fail to take into account 1 AFL game lasts 1.5 NRL games meaning an NRL fan can be counted more often even though the watch less time. If an NRL fan watches 16 hrs on the weekend they are counted 8 times. The same AFL fan, again watching 16 hrs, is only counted just over 5 times.

Thats why no matter what the figures say, each AFL fan has watched 1.5 times the sport of each NRL fan. Therefore the AFL is easily the most watched sport each year.

and if yor trying to make reference to the advertising dollar each code generates - than your even further behind on that one.

Your have a long winded drawn out game - [-o< dont worry the trying to shorten it. Hope it doesn't bastardise the culture of your game to much

I wasnt referring to advertising dollar, although that is clearly impacted but a different topic. I was more referring to the fact that cummulative figures are not a good method of evaluating popularity because shorter programs are counted more often despite being watched by the same audience. This results in a false impression of greater numbers. In reality the AFL are way way ahead in total audience.

[piesman2011]

I dont think AD would really care about the NRL numbers. He would only really care abuot his own which has shown growth of about 9% + Tbox, online and phone numbers which cant really be counted. The NRL however has shown overall about 1% growth will little change to their format going from 2013-2017. This would worry whoever is the NRLs new CEO a lot more in my opinion.

1% on the NRL comp and 10% on rep footy so overall it is more then 1% growth for the whole of rugby league.

The AFL growth is purely simulcast nothing more, Question Pies were to from here on the ratings front for AFL???????????

NRL season up 0.37%

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/r ... 6525246762

rep footy up about 1 million viewers. So one million more viewers up on previous viewership of 128 million is a grand total of 0,77%

add the two together and you get an increase of : (drum roll)
1.14% increase for RL in OZ sorry for the 0.14% inaccuracy.


I would put the AFL growth down to more live footy because as shown in the above article the FTA amount is down by about 10 million for AFL.

Your question is an excellent on Eels. From here hopefully the AFL can get another 10% going forward next year, with GC and GWS playing better and better exposure into secondary markets in terms of FTA TV going forward it might be a good posibility. But who knows the AFL might only generate 1% increase in growth like another comp which has not really changed its format going forward.

[Stewie]

I dont think AD would really care about the NRL numbers. He would only really care abuot his own which has shown growth of about 9% + Tbox, online and phone numbers which cant really be counted. The NRL however has shown overall about 1% growth will little change to their format going from 2013-2017. This would worry whoever is the NRLs new CEO a lot more in my opinion.

The AFL growth is purely simulcast nothing more, Question Pies were to from here on the ratings front for AFL???????????

There's plenty of potential growth for AFL ratings. It's called what the nRL have been doing for years, aka selling out to television.

The AFL could move one of the early Saturday afternoon games to a weekly Monday night fixture. This would mean that there would only be one Sat arvo game on at a time and not 2 so there would be no overlapping of games therefore maximising ratings. Then obviously the Monday night game would also be standalone and not competing with another AFL game, once again maximising its ratings.

Good Friday Football one day will happen, just not under Demetriou though.

A twilight grand final may happen some time in the future, once again probably not under Demetriou.

As you can see there's plenty of options for the AFL to take if they wish to seek more TV $ like the nRL did. The nRL has maxed out on selling itself to TV, the AFL has not.

[Xman]

I dont think AD would really care about the NRL numbers. He would only really care abuot his own which has shown growth of about 9% + Tbox, online and phone numbers which cant really be counted. The NRL however has shown overall about 1% growth will little change to their format going from 2013-2017. This would worry whoever is the NRLs new CEO a lot more in my opinion.

1% on the NRL comp and 10% on rep footy so overall it is more then 1% growth for the whole of rugby league.

The AFL growth is purely simulcast nothing more, Question Pies were to from here on the ratings front for AFL???????????

NRL season up 0.37%

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/r ... 6525246762

rep footy up about 1 million viewers. So one million more viewers up on previous viewership of 128 million is a grand total of 0,77%

add the two together and you get an increase of : (drum roll)
1.14% increase for RL in OZ sorry for the 0.14% inaccuracy.


I would put the AFL growth down to more live footy because as shown in the above article the FTA amount is down by about 10 million for AFL.

Your question is an excellent on Eels. From here hopefully the AFL can get another 10% going forward next year, with GC and GWS playing better and better exposure into secondary markets in terms of FTA TV going forward it might be a good posibility. But who knows the AFL might only generate 1% increase in growth like another comp which has not really changed its format going forward.

I would definitely expect the AFL ratings would increase as the Suns and Giants improve. Their games were very one sided this year which definitely affected ratings and crowds.

[pussycat]

I dont think AD would really care about the NRL numbers. He would only really care abuot his own which has shown growth of about 9% + Tbox, online and phone numbers which cant really be counted. The NRL however has shown overall about 1% growth will little change to their format going from 2013-2017. This would worry whoever is the NRLs new CEO a lot more in my opinion.

1% on the NRL comp and 10% on rep footy so overall it is more then 1% growth for the whole of rugby league.

The AFL growth is purely simulcast nothing more, Question Pies were to from here on the ratings front for AFL???????????

NRL season up 0.37%

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/r ... 6525246762

rep footy up about 1 million viewers. So one million more viewers up on previous viewership of 128 million is a grand total of 0,77%

add the two together and you get an increase of : (drum roll)
1.14% increase for RL in OZ sorry for the 0.14% inaccuracy.


I would put the AFL growth down to more live footy because as shown in the above article the FTA amount is down by about 10 million for AFL.

Your question is an excellent on Eels. From here hopefully the AFL can get another 10% going forward next year, with GC and GWS playing better and better exposure into secondary markets in terms of FTA TV going forward it might be a good posibility. But who knows the AFL might only generate 1% increase in growth like another comp which has not really changed its format going forward.

I can't find my calculator, but going by the stats on this site rep football is up by close to 10%

[piesman2011]

1% on the NRL comp and 10% on rep footy so overall it is more then 1% growth for the whole of rugby league.

The AFL growth is purely simulcast nothing more, Question Pies were to from here on the ratings front for AFL???????????

NRL season up 0.37%

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/r ... 6525246762

rep footy up about 1 million viewers. So one million more viewers up on previous viewership of 128 million is a grand total of 0,77%

add the two together and you get an increase of : (drum roll)
1.14% increase for RL in OZ sorry for the 0.14% inaccuracy.


I would put the AFL growth down to more live footy because as shown in the above article the FTA amount is down by about 10 million for AFL.

Your question is an excellent on Eels. From here hopefully the AFL can get another 10% going forward next year, with GC and GWS playing better and better exposure into secondary markets in terms of FTA TV going forward it might be a good posibility. But who knows the AFL might only generate 1% increase in growth like another comp which has not really changed its format going forward.

I can't find my calculator, but going by the stats on this site rep football is up by close to 10%

Not doubt it is however if rep footy is only responsible for about then 10% of the overall ratings. So 10% of 10% is 1% + the very small percentage that increased from the regular season which was an 0.37% increase (even smaller when you add the rep and the regular season together). It will be interesting to see how SOO goes when the games are not close and one team is up 2 nill there might be a big drop in the ratings. The games in 2012 were great games and if I remember they all were extrememly close. I enjoyed watching them.

[pussycat]

Rep football in 2011 was roughly 13 million last year and about 15 million this year. The reporter from the Australian has already admitted that the Nrl competition had 113m. But what happens when he factors in rep football numbers?

And our growth, smaller though it may be, didn't involve the introduction of extra matches - the introduction of almost all live matches, nor was our numbers the result of a new coding system that inflated numbers.

In light of those 3 things, I think people like that Australian reporter , desperatly trying to make out that the figures represent some sort of achievment, are the ones running scared.