AFL vs NRL - the TV war

[Raiderdave]

Where are the AFL crowds below 20K then? The fact that the Swans are consistently above 20K and the Sydney NRL clubs can get less than 10K means the NRL is getting thrashed. The AFL hasn't had any crowd below 10K since Fitzroy were in the comp!

again

you said

and thrash NRL crowds whenever there are only one or two NRL games in Sydney. The only time the NRL total in Sydney will beat a Swans game at the SCG is if they have three games on

last time I looked
35K is bigger then 33K ... & thats just for 1 game .. not 2 , not 3

do you have a problem with Maths ?

[TLPG]

Do you have a problem with context?

[Raiderdave]

Do you have a problem with context?

do you have a problem with factual statements ?

[TLPG]

No, when they are in context. You aren't in context. You are picking bits off the issue and beating those bits without touched the core issue.

[Raiderdave]

No, when they are in context. You aren't in context. You are picking bits off the issue and beating those bits without touched the core issue.

your statement was pretty clear

awfully inaccurate

but clear
I merely pointed out you were wrong
which you were

be man enough to admit your statement was worded poorly ... & in or out of context ... incorrect.

[King-Eliagh]

do you have a problem with factual statements ?

hahaha, I can assure you he does Raider! :D Especeially when it doesnt fit the "context" of his lifelong wet dream of the AFL dominating the NRL.

It's great to see other members pointing you out as a phony TLPG

Your statement on crowds in Sydney has been proven to be a farce and you've just lost more credibility. We all know the swans get fairly decent crowds, thats great but why do you post utter buuullshit to try and make the nrl look like its being dominated???

You've only got one option here TLPG. Just admit that you have once again pulled several digits out of your ass

[TLPG]

your statement was pretty clear

awfully inaccurate

but clear
I merely pointed out you were wrong
which you were

be man enough to admit your statement was worded poorly ... & in or out of context ... incorrect.

It wasn't. I said that the AFL is murdering the NRL. Average attendances prove me correct. Individual NRL success stories like the ones you tried to insert cover up the issue.

Clear?

[King-Eliagh]

OI Peanut? Shutup!

In terms of support in Sydney Rugby League MURDERS AFL.

Peanut, when you try to prove this isnt true you look like an idiot.

[Beaussie]

The Swans -where are they nearly thirty years down the track?

Doing much better than every other sporting club in NSW I would have thought is a fantastic result for the AFL after just 30 odd years in Sydney compared to the NRL. Thoughts?

Swans rated the No. 1 sporting club in town in terms of sponsorship, membership and attendances

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/spo...-1225837530086

[Beaussie]

Especeially when it doesnt fit the "context" of his lifelong wet dream of the AFL dominating the NRL.

Wet dream? Last time I checked, the AFL was and will continue to dominate the NRL when it comes to crowds, participation numbers, tv ratings, tv rights, sponsorship and membership etc etc. I can't think of one part of the game where the opposite is true. Can you? Do you honestly believe the NRL will get anywhere near the new record tv rights deal set by the AFL? Keep dreaming if you seriously believe that.

[Beaussie]

I think considering RL's massive support all across regional and metro NSW and QLD, two states which hold a very large percentage of the entire nations population, and the lesser level of support RL has in places like VIC and the NT, that 1 billion would be fair.

We all should remember that regional australia is a rapidly expanding and already large market.

I'm in regional Australia now and my thoughts on regionals being BS in the big scheme of things when it comes to tv rights has been confirmed by the fact that most channels don't even have advertising other than ads for their own network and filler (involving images from the countryside backed by music). The odd ad you do see is for the local car yard, fruit shop or butcher.

This all brings me back to the point I've been raising time and time again. TV networks who bid for the football tv rights don't give a rats about regional markets. Bidding networks only care about the all important capital cities. That is a fact. Even advertisers don't care about regionals judging by what I've just outlined above. I'm yet to see one ad for a company with a national footprint (eg: Toyota, Woolworths. Coca Cola etc etc). Regionals are merely a poor excuse for NRL supporters to try explain the massive difference between the AFL and NRL when it comes to tv broadcasting rights deals ("Oh but, but, what about the regionals?"). It just doesn't add up I tell ya.

[pussycat]

Oh yes there is! The FTA figures in regional areas are rubbish and always have been. Prime have always relied on that and it's WRONG! They just won't get it through their thick skulls that the FTA process of ratings is rubbish.

The only rubbish here is coming fom the simple misguided people who live in some type of fantasy world, believing that TV figures from NBN or Win, the ones that alone rival anything shown on the western seaboard don't count. Do you think TV directors are so incompetant or maybe, daft enough to pretend these figures don't exist? The Gold Coast alone has an audience twice the size of Hobart.


And all of this is before we start talking about the cost of advertising space for the various networks. advertising time on the eastern Seaboard is at least 3 times that of the Western Seaboard.

[King-Eliagh]

I think considering RL's massive support all across regional and metro NSW and QLD, two states which hold a very large percentage of the entire nations population, and the lesser level of support RL has in places like VIC and the NT, that 1 billion would be fair.

We all should remember that regional australia is a rapidly expanding and already large market.

I'm in regional Australia now

I've deleted all the rubbish you posted below Beaussie because last I heard Alice Springs is REMOTE Australia, not regional

I'm positive the regionals are taken seriously by the TV networks. From a population perspective regional Australia numbers at least 3 million in QLD and NSW, probably a fair bit more. In total this is bigger than most the "all powerful cities" you continue to dribble about.

To your question on whether I think league will get a similar TV deal to Aussie Rules. I say yes. I'm thinking it's gunna be atleast 900,000.

[pussycat]

Especeially when it doesnt fit the "context" of his lifelong wet dream of the AFL dominating the NRL.

Wet dream? Last time I checked, the AFL was and will continue to dominate the NRL when it comes to crowds, participation numbers, tv ratings, tv rights, sponsorship and membership etc etc. I can't think of one part of the game where the opposite is true. Can you? Do you honestly believe the NRL will get anywhere near the new record tv rights deal set by the AFL? Keep dreaming if you seriously believe that.

I was under the impresion this thead was about TV viewers There is no doubting that the AFL get much better crowd attendance. I don't know the reson for this, maybe the people of Sydney are just lazyier or maybe its a case of there being a lot more things to do in NSW/Qld. However, this should not be confussed with the thinking they have less fans - because they don't!

As I said previously, we will get close to your TV deal, this time - after that one we will leave you for dead.

[MarkZZZ]

I don't know the answer to the question I am going to ask. I will leave that to others to dig up the facts (remember I said facts not "I think", I know or I think I know to be true).

When the AFL is paid by TV for its coverage, how many hours do they pay for? When the NRL is paid by TV for its coverage, how many hours do they pay for? I ask this question because AFL games go on for a lot longer than NRL games. There is more opportunity for the all important "break from our sponsors."

Doing the math, 3 NRL games/week converts to 6 hours of coverage to insert adds and 3 games/week of AFL converts to 9 hours of coverage to insert adds.

If you do the math, AFL received $1.253 billion (correct me if I am wrong, that's the number that came up when I googled it) for selling the TV rights, for the NRL to have a comparable (i.e. $/hour) deal they would need to get around $835 million.
It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

TV buy coverage to be able to sell advertising space during the program, having 9 hours a week as apposed to 6 hours a week should mean they should be able to get more for their $ so you would expect them to pay more.

What does this mean? To me, it means looking at the $ they are paid is only part of the picture. It comes down to value for money. How many hours of broadcast/$ spent divided by the $ they can recieve for selling adds during the broadcast.