atmosphere is building in England

[adamj1300]

The AFL, with equal popularity, will make more money on TV than the NRL as it's more conducive to ads. Just like the NBA and NFL would (although they've taken it to a whole new level).

well broadcasters see it differently

the NRL was valued way more then the VFL by broadcasters because its on for a third less time
so shows a lot less adds
yet got more money >

& way more on a minute by minute basis

why
because its watched by more veiwers & considerably more in the key markets in NSW & QLD
the VFL suffers & will continue to
because it is watched by virtually no one on TV in these places


the next TV / media deal will see the NRL clear out of sight of the VFL on a dollar basis as it will no longer be tethered down by the F&L clause , & continues to dominate the ratings where they matter
the VFL will continue to be numb 2

Considering the AFL got 1.25 Bil for their rights 12 months before the NRL got 1.1 Bil - and AFL TV ratings got more than NRL I think your assessment is really speculation and not a prediction!

:_<> :_<>
so few words ( all spelt correctly for once )
so much wrong



VFL ratings for 2012 123 Million
NRL 134 Million

:

Raiderdave can you please provide the article where you got these figures from, because i remember, the AFL did beat the NRL in figures but, with the added figures of the feeder comp, toyota cup? its different,

the tv figures are not totaly accurate as 7mate isnt avaliable in a lot of regional areas and pubs and clubs do not pick up the extended channels, eg 7mate, GEM, &GO.....

[pHyR3]

Take away New Zealand, Dave, you cheat! And don't include online either because that has nothing to do with TV!

Take away NZ, fine, obviously we can't include other countries for league since AFL has no opportunity to do so lol. You can bet you'd be putting those numbers in if AFL was heaps popular in another country. But we won't include it.

I will not include online even though that is 'people watching' How does it matter whether I watch on my computer or TV. So the 1.25 bil AFL figure I believe includes digital rights (150mil to telstra). Bringing it down to 1.1 billion and the NRL at 1.05 billion. If it doesn't include digital rights then fine 1.25 bil vs 1.05 bil. About the same, except that the AFL has longer games, more ads as it is played in quarters, and more games. So, if you do the same calculations as Dave NRL will come out in front by a strong margin per hour:

AFL: 2970 hours for 1.25 bil = 400,000 an hour OR 2970 hours for 1.1billion = 370k an hour

NRL: 2010 hours for 1.05 bil = 522 k an hour. WITHOUT including new zealand or digital rights.

Now that i've disproved you, you will obviously whine about how the NRL deal was overpriced or some other BS.

[pHyR3]

Hope the NRL introduces simulcasting every game live, viewership would rise dramatically and so would the tv rights deal.

[Swans4ever]

Take away New Zealand, Dave, you cheat! And don't include online either because that has nothing to do with TV!

Take away NZ, fine, obviously we can't include other countries for league since AFL has no opportunity to do so lol. You can bet you'd be putting those numbers in if AFL was heaps popular in another country. But we won't include it.

I will not include online even though that is 'people watching' How does it matter whether I watch on my computer or TV. So the 1.25 bil AFL figure includes digital rights (150mil to telstra). Bringing it down to 1.1 billion and the NRL at 1.05 billion. About the same, except that the AFL has longer games, more ads as it is played in quarters, and more games. So, if you do the same calculations as Dave NRL will come out in front by a similar margin per hour.

Now that i've disproved you, you will obviously whine about how the NRL deal was overpriced or some other BS.

Look taking that stance clearly your right - however their deal was 12 months earlier - you can argue that the NRL should have got more to be on par - I don't really care that much either way to tell the truth the AFL has significant revenue streams (which include the tv rights). Does it really make a difference? I have said this many times the TV ratings system is one of many things that need to be taken into account - in Sydney there are 3000 TV rating boxes in a city of 5 mil - now they can't tell you where those boxes are located - they can't tell you if people are there watching the tv and the TV was left on a channel - if they had 50000 sets that would be a better analysis - if they had one for every TV that would be close to accurate (households have more than 1 TV nowadays). But 3000 is a pretty in significant number, it is less than a guide and not accurate. A better analysis would be to include, crowds, sponsorship, membership and participation. Thats would be the ONLY way to get a better picture. I don't hate RL, I go to Storm games but I can't stand people who pick out one fact and ignore the rest because it doesn't help their argument. I find most RL supporters do this to the extreme and it boils down to the Sydney insecurity - about 5 yrs ago I was on the Gold Coast watching the QLD footy show where they had RL, RU and AFL on the same show.

[pHyR3]

Thing about crowds is that NRL is a better viewing experience at home, personally I couldn't make it to any games this year as I was extremely busy (but have bought a membership to all 12 tigers home games and gotten 3 away game tickets as well for 2014). But the AFL is better at the ground because of the 3D element and the need to know where everyone is. Thus, it has and will always get better crowds. Or it should unless it collapses or something. And the same applies to memberships which AFL has had a culture of for a long time while the NRL hasn't.

[Fred]

Of that's the case why the crowds at SoO and grand final? Wouldn't people stay at home if it were better on tv. Trust me, if people started attending nrl games where they got bigger crowds of 40 to 50 thousand and the odd 80000 crowd , people would love the atmosphere and keep coming back ... As it makes for an awesome experience. If the AFL got such low crowds each week people would be less inclined to go. Going to a game and hearing 40000 people say "ball" is fantastic... Not as good if only 15000 there. If I was the nrl I would drop prices, give away tickets , just to get the crowds at the game ... Once you have them hooked to the experience, they'll keep coming back and then it is self perpetuating. This is why the giants should give as many tickets away as possible .., I would be have open gates for several games a year ... Telling people to come and experience AFL . Nothing wrong with that. Also storm giving a two for one ... Brilliant.

I have never bought the whole "better on tv" argument to justify low crowds otherwise why wouldn't people stay home for SoO. Because going to the game is half the fun ... The whole atmosphere a large crowd creates. It now has its own momentum like the AFL do with their crowds ...

[Swans4ever]

Of that's the case why the crowds at SoO and grand final? Wouldn't people stay at home if it were better on tv. Trust me, if people started attending nrl games where they got bigger crowds of 40 to 50 thousand and the odd 80000 crowd , people would love the atmosphere and keep coming back ... As it makes for an awesome experience. If the AFL got such low crowds each week people would be less inclined to go. Going to a game and hearing 40000 people say "ball" is fantastic... Not as good if only 15000 there. If I was the nrl I would drop prices, give away tickets , just to get the crowds at the game ... Once you have them hooked to the experience, they'll keep coming back and then it is self perpetuating. This is why the giants should give as many tickets away as possible .., I would be have open gates for several games a year ... Telling people to come and experience AFL . Nothing wrong with that. Also storm giving a two for one ... Brilliant.

I have never bought the whole "better on tv" argument to justify low crowds otherwise why wouldn't people stay home for SoO. Because going to the game is half the fun ... The whole atmosphere a large crowd creates. It now has its own momentum like the AFL do with their crowds ...

I think in the case of RL - the reason they have the TV culture is because of Superleague - people stayed away from games in protest but still watched on TV because they preferred it to better homes and gardens - over time going to the game didn't seem as important - going to AFL has retained that religious experience for AFL fans because it was brought into question like for RL fans. Just IMO - but I would agree if they really want to get crowds up drop prices to a token price AND rationalise the stadiums to maybe 2 or 3 stadiums in Sydney. Expansion may also help AFL has a lot of interstate and local derby rivalry.

[pHyR3]

Of that's the case why the crowds at SoO and grand final? Wouldn't people stay at home if it were better on tv. Trust me, if people started attending nrl games where they got bigger crowds of 40 to 50 thousand and the odd 80000 crowd , people would love the atmosphere and keep coming back ... As it makes for an awesome experience. If the AFL got such low crowds each week people would be less inclined to go. Going to a game and hearing 40000 people say "ball" is fantastic... Not as good if only 15000 there. If I was the nrl I would drop prices, give away tickets , just to get the crowds at the game ... Once you have them hooked to the experience, they'll keep coming back and then it is self perpetuating. This is why the giants should give as many tickets away as possible .., I would be have open gates for several games a year ... Telling people to come and experience AFL . Nothing wrong with that. Also storm giving a two for one ... Brilliant.

I have never bought the whole "better on tv" argument to justify low crowds otherwise why wouldn't people stay home for SoO. Because going to the game is half the fun ... The whole atmosphere a large crowd creates. It now has its own momentum like the AFL do with their crowds ...

You talk about atmosphere needing 40,000 but some of the best NRL experiences in the crowds I have enjoyed have been at Leichardt and Cambelltown with 15-20k (20k max). Excluding SOO and any finals match, although never been to SOO or a GF, prefer to have some beers and go to the bar which has a great atmosphere with the massive projectors and stuff.

But yeah, NRL is a better viewing experience at home, leaving aside atmosphere etc. Because even if youre at the game you spend half the time tiwsting your neck to look at the big screen for the replays and highlights. Whereas at home it's all there in widescreen HD glory. Whereas with AFL, from what I can gather, you need to see a lot more than a couple of players and the ball (which is in the air more often) and you need to see where people are positioned that are far away from one another. And if you're watching on TV you'd probably get annoyed at being unable to see that, and that has helped develop a membership/attendance culture.

Also the superleague wars like the guy above said.

[Fred]

Again, if it was better on tv people wouldn't flock to soo

[NRLCrap1]

Phy, are you going to admit that crowds not going to games is a problem for NRL? Being there for ANY sporting event is always preferable to watching it on TV. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't really support the game.

[pHyR3]

Again, if it was better on tv people wouldn't flock to soo

Yes they would. So the average club game interests lets say 500k people for AFL and NRL. If 10% of AFL fans turn up and the other 90% watch at home that is 50k at the game and 450k at home. If only 5% of NRL turn up because it is better on TV and 95% watch at home, then that's a 25k crowd and 475k at home. However, because SOO and GFs interest MILLIONS of people. 5% of 2 million is an instant sellout.

[Fred]

Where did you get this 5 and 10 percent. Soecilative at best to suit a point of view. I think a lot of people go to soo because they are passionate and the atmosphere of a full crowd makes the experience great. Also, it is a better level of rl on display. So people go to the product. Product is good so you get crowds .... That creates atmosphere and then this creates a buzz of going to the game. It's circular you see. Of course that's my speculation but with some rationale. If I were the nrl I would build crowds.

[pHyR3]

they're made up numbers obviously.... If you have more people interested in big events then you'll get more people at the game, thus a sellout. If you can't understand that.... i mean.

[Swans4ever]

Same can be said of memberships if 10% of fan base buy membership then Collingwood has 800000 fan base Sydney has 370000 etc etc whereas Broncos only have 270000 odd - you can twist facts however you want!

[pHyR3]

Memberships are essentially tickets to a game, so my theory holds there. Less people from any NRL club will get tickets, attend games, get memberships with the same number of fans because it is better watched on TV than AFL. So, less percentage of broncos fans get memberships and attend games because they watch on TV.