Talking Footy

We do. So does the NRL, as the Storm found out the hard way.

TLPG wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

TLPG wrote:

Look at the whole season, idiot! Nit picking is the very reason why you have no respect in this feud.

how can he look at the Whole season 2010 against 2011
when 2011 isn't finished >

I was talking about all four seasons that Beau linked, Raider. How about you butt out?

Ahem, ahhh no you weren't TLPG. Your words clearly show it so butt out yourself XXX XXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX XXX

And I notice that noone has yet been able to dispute the facts of the AFL's waning FTA support ahahahahaaa Raiderdave has PROVEN you cockless cowboys wrong! And the proof is all here on this very site!

Post edited by Moderator MarkZZZ for personal attack on another forum member

TLPG wrote:

One thing will stop it. The NRL salary cap.

cap to rise to 7 Million during the period of the next TV deal
pushing the highest paid in our game from 500K to 750K & allowing them to use their intellectual property to sign deals outside the cap
pushing these earnings to over a million

the AFL to have massive inflationary pressure from their stupid practice of signing on NRL players who can;t play the game for a million dollars
( so no other NRL player will sign for any less & won't need to as they can now get that sort of dough in their own sport)
& their greedy cash guzzling players wanting more of the pie then they already get & as a result ...

AFL clubs going to the wall left right & centre

ah .... good times

It should go up now, Raider. Not wait until the next TV deal.

Karmichael Hunt can play. Folau has the skill. Many NRL players do. The only issue would be to adjust the tackling. Hunt's done it so there's no reason why others couldn't do it either.

I particularly like this passage

"Many AFL fans will scoff at the suggestion that the NRL could sign a TV deal equal to or greater that the AFL. They either don’t remember a pre 1995 rugby league, or in the days before the internet knew little of it.

But think about this for a moment. How much revenue would the AFL Commission have gained in their latest broadcasting rights agreement if they had been selling the sport that rated number one on Foxtel, had the highest accumulative TV figures in the country, and had a regular season, final series, State of Origin, Internationals, National Youth Competition, and the Indigenous All Star game to sell?

Would they have got more than $1.2 billion?"

What are thoughts? responses?

FTA is what counts, and in the capital cities total average AFL is winning. Pay TV is yet to gain a real share of the market in all respects because it's so expensive.

TLPG wrote:

FTA is what counts, and in the capital cities total average AFL is winning. Pay TV is yet to gain a real share of the market in all respects because it's so expensive.

the League wins overall on FTA
despite having less content

if we add another FTA game to our schedule in the next rights deal .. then the NRL would win
comp V comp
& League would be uncatchable in the code v code battle

not my " opinion "

sheer fact

Advertisers don't care about the regionals. They look at the capital cities.

Sheer fact, not my opinion.

TLPG wrote:

Advertisers don't care about the regionals. They look at the capital cities.

Sheer fact, not my opinion.

that myth will be sent to the shredder when the NRL sign their next TV deal

won't it

TLPG wrote:

Advertisers don't care about the regionals. They look at the capital cities.

Sheer fact, not my opinion.

That might be your opinion and Beau's opinion . But I would be very confident that the person that wrote the article is a lot better informed than either of you, and he doesn't seem to give any credence to your fantasy's and myth's that regional figures don't count.


Please, answer this. 'WHY DO PEOPLE, WASTE THERE LIVES, TAKING THESE FIGURES IF THEY MEAN NOTHING????????????'.

Trying to win over an audience with crafted mumbo jumbo maybe?

Onions wrote:

Trying to win over an audience with crafted mumbo jumbo maybe?

no ... he's not TPLG

Raiderdave wrote:

TLPG wrote:

FTA is what counts, and in the capital cities total average AFL is winning. Pay TV is yet to gain a real share of the market in all respects because it's so expensive.

the League wins overall on FTA
despite having less content

I've yet to see one week where the NRL has had a win over the AFL on FTA in the capital cities that matter to the broadcasters and advertisers. Please note before you spew more rubbish in this thread, State of Origin is not the NRL.

pussycat wrote:

Please, answer this. 'WHY DO PEOPLE, WASTE THERE LIVES, TAKING THESE FIGURES IF THEY MEAN NOTHING????????????'.

They mean something - to Prime, Win, Southern Cross and the other regional broadcasters. And they have local advertisers to satisfy, which hardly brings in the sort of money that the city networks command - but it's all they have. Minnows can do plenty locally, but nothing on the grand scale.

Just to put some perspective on things.

Beaussie wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

TLPG wrote:

FTA is what counts, and in the capital cities total average AFL is winning. Pay TV is yet to gain a real share of the market in all respects because it's so expensive.

the League wins overall on FTA
despite having less content

I've yet to see one week where the NRL has had a win over the AFL on FTA in the capital cities that matter to the broadcasters and advertisers. Please note before you spew more rubbish in this thread, State of Origin is not the NRL.

Do You have any thoughts on why people bother to take regional figures?