NRL to reap $1.2b from TV rights

[Xman]

Eels for 2011 in one paper the AFL got a rating of 122 million compared to the NRL/RL having 133? million for culumative ratings (Sydney morning herald?). In another report AFL had 113 million in another for culumative ratings (the Australian) and the NRL got 113. This year the only report I have see has been the Australian, which talked about two different ways of adding up ratings. In both AFL was in front.
You can add NZ viewers and I can add T-box, tablets and phone viewers, all of which take away from people watching games on TV for the AFL. Yes NRL will have phone viewers next year but this will take away from your TV viewers and with no new changes for NRL next year apart from a slight change to the time in which one game is shown your TV viewer numbers will suffer. You might be right in that RL has won the cumulative ratings this year but you dont know for sure. But all of the reports printed so far say otherwise.

=D> =D>

All in all AFL beats NRL

the rest is speculation

[pussycat]

XMan, We live in the real world, not a fantasy world

[Xman]

XMan, We live in the real world, not a fantasy world

Really? So youre saying the Australian are lying?

[eelofwest]

Eels for 2011 in one paper the AFL got a rating of 122 million compared to the NRL/RL having 133? million for culumative ratings (Sydney morning herald?). In another report AFL had 113 million in another for culumative ratings (the Australian) and the NRL got 113. This year the only report I have see has been the Australian, which talked about two different ways of adding up ratings. In both AFL was in front.
You can add NZ viewers and I can add T-box, tablets and phone viewers, all of which take away from people watching games on TV for the AFL. Yes NRL will have phone viewers next year but this will take away from your TV viewers and with no new changes for NRL next year apart from a slight change to the time in which one game is shown your TV viewer numbers will suffer. You might be right in that RL has won the cumulative ratings this year but you dont know for sure. But all of the reports printed so far say otherwise.

Might be right.......................

Mate you know it i know it on this issue i am 100% correct and i dare you to prove me otherwise.

Look at the 2011 ratings of 134m + 12m in NZ, now i linked Xman the 2012 RL anual report which shows 0.3% up on FTA ratings, 1.4% up on Fox ratings and SOO is up 10% and the Test matches were also up slightly.

How can you even deny that the RL gave Aussie rules another Ass wooping in 2012?

Come on at least admit the blatantly obvious that the RL handed your code a beatings on Tele.

Or are you going to stick your head in the sand Pies????

[Xman]

Eels for 2011 in one paper the AFL got a rating of 122 million compared to the NRL/RL having 133? million for culumative ratings (Sydney morning herald?). In another report AFL had 113 million in another for culumative ratings (the Australian) and the NRL got 113. This year the only report I have see has been the Australian, which talked about two different ways of adding up ratings. In both AFL was in front.
You can add NZ viewers and I can add T-box, tablets and phone viewers, all of which take away from people watching games on TV for the AFL. Yes NRL will have phone viewers next year but this will take away from your TV viewers and with no new changes for NRL next year apart from a slight change to the time in which one game is shown your TV viewer numbers will suffer. You might be right in that RL has won the cumulative ratings this year but you dont know for sure. But all of the reports printed so far say otherwise.

How can you even deny that the RL gave Aussie rules another Ass wooping in 2012?

How can you possibly say it did? The NRL LOST to the AFL.

You're all for adding ARL games, but then refuse to add Aussie Rules on all media.

[pussycat]

Compare sport v sport idiot, not sport v league. If you compare league v league (AFL v nRL) we all know who dominates that category.

You mean if we only count 3/4 of our game Even then we would still win if you didn't manipulate your figures.

[Xman]

Compare sport v sport idiot, not sport v league. If you compare league v league (AFL v nRL) we all know who dominates that category.

You mean if we only count 3/4 of our game Even then we would still win if you didn't manipulate your figures.

AFL beat NRL.........how can you possibly deny this?

[Raiderdave]

Compare sport v sport idiot, not sport v league. If you compare league v league (AFL v nRL) we all know who dominates that category.

ah dickhead
what else is their to the VFL .. except ...... the VFL

the NRL is just a component to RL

SOO
Tests
All Stars
City Country

heck .. we have a lot of things
& the VFL has ... well ... nothing

RL... Australias most watched sport

[piesman2011]

Eels for 2011 in one paper the AFL got a rating of 122 million compared to the NRL/RL having 133? million for culumative ratings (Sydney morning herald?). In another report AFL had 113 million in another for culumative ratings (the Australian) and the NRL got 113. This year the only report I have see has been the Australian, which talked about two different ways of adding up ratings. In both AFL was in front.
You can add NZ viewers and I can add T-box, tablets and phone viewers, all of which take away from people watching games on TV for the AFL. Yes NRL will have phone viewers next year but this will take away from your TV viewers and with no new changes for NRL next year apart from a slight change to the time in which one game is shown your TV viewer numbers will suffer. You might be right in that RL has won the cumulative ratings this year but you dont know for sure. But all of the reports printed so far say otherwise.

Might be right.......................

Mate you know it i know it on this issue i am 100% correct and i dare you to prove me otherwise.

Look at the 2011 ratings of 134m + 12m in NZ, now i linked Xman the 2012 RL anual report which shows 0.3% up on FTA ratings, 1.4% up on Fox ratings and SOO is up 10% and the Test matches were also up slightly.

How can you even deny that the RL gave Aussie rules another Ass wooping in 2012?

Come on at least admit the blatantly obvious that the RL handed your code a beatings on Tele.

Or are you going to stick your head in the sand Pies????

You might be right. There are a few issues:
Firstly the silence from the NRL in terms of saying "we won" there is only one published article on the issue, with no rebuttal.
Secondly there appears to be multiple ways of adding up cumulative ratings, with different results. who knows what's more accurate, or what they are including.

All that we do know is that both competitions rate roughly about the same when it comes to cumulative ratings.

[Raiderdave]

Compare sport v sport idiot, not sport v league. If you compare league v league (AFL v nRL) we all know who dominates that category.

You mean if we only count 3/4 of our game Even then we would still win if you didn't manipulate your figures.

AFL beat NRL.........how can you possibly deny this?

well not really
our rep program is just an extension of the NRL

its the same players
& we whupped yuz good ... again

[Raiderdave]

The AFL tried everything did they? Where was the AFL's Monday Night Football every round? Where was the AFL's twilight grand final? Without :

& we add another one


oh oh oh ... if we copied you lot .. we'd win





whupped like bitches ..... again

[Raiderdave]

Most watched sport? 16 hrs a week v 27 hrs

I wonder which is most watched?

and which hour is more valuable to broadcasters in this nation


an hour of vicky kicky
or
an hour of Rugby League

& folks ... its another whupping for the Victorian game

[Xman]

Most watched sport? 16 hrs a week v 27 hrs

I wonder which is most watched?

and which hour is more valuable to broadcasters in this nation


an hour of vicky kicky
or
an hour of Rugby League

& folks ... its another whupping for the Victorian game

They are completely different indicators

We have the most valuable Australian TV product and we are the most watched sporting product in Australia.

[eelofwest]

Eels for 2011 in one paper the AFL got a rating of 122 million compared to the NRL/RL having 133? million for culumative ratings (Sydney morning herald?). In another report AFL had 113 million in another for culumative ratings (the Australian) and the NRL got 113. This year the only report I have see has been the Australian, which talked about two different ways of adding up ratings. In both AFL was in front.
You can add NZ viewers and I can add T-box, tablets and phone viewers, all of which take away from people watching games on TV for the AFL. Yes NRL will have phone viewers next year but this will take away from your TV viewers and with no new changes for NRL next year apart from a slight change to the time in which one game is shown your TV viewer numbers will suffer. You might be right in that RL has won the cumulative ratings this year but you dont know for sure. But all of the reports printed so far say otherwise.

Might be right.......................

Mate you know it i know it on this issue i am 100% correct and i dare you to prove me otherwise.

Look at the 2011 ratings of 134m + 12m in NZ, now i linked Xman the 2012 RL anual report which shows 0.3% up on FTA ratings, 1.4% up on Fox ratings and SOO is up 10% and the Test matches were also up slightly.

How can you even deny that the RL gave Aussie rules another Ass wooping in 2012?

Come on at least admit the blatantly obvious that the RL handed your code a beatings on Tele.

Or are you going to stick your head in the sand Pies????

You might be right. There are a few issues:
Firstly the silence from the NRL in terms of saying "we won" there is only one published article on the issue, with no rebuttal.
Secondly there appears to be multiple ways of adding up cumulative ratings, with different results. who knows what's more accurate, or what they are including.

All that we do know is that both competitions rate roughly about the same when it comes to cumulative ratings.

What.........

NRL 145-148M going by the 2011 figures and using the 2012 report increases as a guide to the 2012 ratings
AFL 122M

Roughly the same you say.............

Head in the sand Pies, though you were a real man and could admit when you have been beaten, guess i was wrong...

NRL 2011 TOTAL, NOT INCLUDING NZ sky

NRL clubs have been handed a big weapon to bludgeon co-owners News Ltd and the ARL with their demand for a doubling in their annual grants: TV audience figures for this year have eclipsed the AFL by 15 million, sending a clear message that the teams who put on the show deserve the same $1.25 billion broadcasters recently paid for AFL rights.

NRL cumulative TV audience numbers for the year, based on OzTAM data, were 128 million, compared with AFL's 113 million, a 2 million rise in both codes on the previous year's figures.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z2KfHoDsHB

The NRL stated that it had cumulative audience of 134 million viewers, and that its free-to-air and pay TV audiences had grown by 1.3 percent and 16 percent respectively this year. No attribution for these figures though.
http://tensport.com.au/news/theroar/Rug ... battle.htm

http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEdito ... e_2012.pdf

Page 7

2012 Origin Series is the most watched in Origin history, with a cumulative national audience of 11.89 million tuning in across the three games, up 10% on the 2011 Series (10.77million).

Page 9

NRL increased its dominance on FOX SPORTS
with overall ratings 1.4% higher.

Page 6

Average FTA ratings are 0.3% higher.

NZ sky ratings 2011

In the first annual chairmen and chief executives conference involving the incoming commissioners, plus representatives from all major state and national leagues, the 2011 season review revealed rugby league had a cumulative audience of 134 million viewers, without including a further 12 million in New Zealand.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z2KfQXCR6x

[piesman2011]

We have been over this Eel but you dont seam to understand:

The Australian newspapers figures which have for 2011 NRL 113 and AFL 113
The Australians figures in 2012 had NRL 114 and AFL 123

The Sydney Morning herald in 2011 had NRL 134 and AFL 122 in Nov 2011 (more accurate released later in the year then your quote) (they are using different stats or missing figures in the Australian newspaper perhaps)

This is from the SMH Nov 2011 while your quote is Oct 2011.

outweighing the AFL by 12 million viewers this year. The 2011 season review revealed rugby league had a cumulative audience of 134 million viewers, without including a further 12 million in New Zealand.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z2KpQRamCU



So what would the 2012 figures be for this newspaper? Who knows?

But what you are doing is comparing figures from one stastical analysis which has come up with much bigger numbers (134 NRL and 122 AFL in 2011) and comparing it with a different statistical analysis,with much small figures (2011 113 NRL and 113 AFL and in 2012 114 NRL and 123 AFL). Then you using the AFLs figure from the smaller data sets comparing them to the NRL figures from the larger data sets and pretending that it means something.

This is what you did

2011 NRL 134 X1.01 for 2012 increase (135 total)+ NZ results 12 million = 147 million (which is fine)

but you gave AFL a figure of 122. (either thats the 2011 SMH stats which needs an increase for 2012 of 9%) or thats "The Australian's" data (incorrect its 123 million) which you cant really compare because it is a different statistical analysis.

What you should have done to the AFL data was use the same reports stats (comparing 2011 SMH data NRL V AFL and extraporlated) to make your data valid:


2011 AFL SMH data 122 X 1.09% (AFL increased ratings by 9% FTA + PTV overall in 2012 I think you forgot this) for 2012 increase (133 total) + Phone (1 million + subs) T-box and tablets = who knows but I think 150 million +

The reason for this is that if you used the NRL SMH data for the NRL 2011 and add the increase for 2012 you need to use the SMH data for AFL and add their 9% increase.


You cant use data from one report and compare it directly with the other report.

Thats like me using "The Australian's" NRL 114 million and comparing it with my 133 AFL figure that I extrapolated from the SMH.


STOP TRYING TO USE STATS I DONT THINK YOU GET IT