Talking Footy

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

All 9 matches have some form of FTA coverage - digital channels goto 80 % of the audience.

Dont give me that Bullshit. Foxtel bought 9 games and they show 9 games!


So,What Are we talking about an extra 18 FTA matches - its Ok then :D - its a level playing field. 200 AFL matches - 100 League matches.

210 - 130 PTV matches

The funny part is we will still have outrate you anyrate :D :D :D

What are you on? There are 4 FTA games shown to each city. No more!

There are not 9 payTV games shown in isolation. They compete with each other! One is shown on fox footy and another on fox 1 at the same time! therefore there are actually only 6 games shown in isolation. The NRL have 5. So the difference is not that big.

But you're certainly forgetting the biggest difference. The NrL games are averaged over 2 hours, a massive advantage over a 3 hour program in pure numbers. But the reality is the 3 hour program is far more impressive, and valuable!

That may be right, But, as I said all matches carry some kind of FTA coverage.

We have 5 pay TV games. one of those overlaps but believe me the number is still 5. !

You Forget Sydney & Queensland get more bucks for advertising space , heaps more than WA and SA. something that more than counterbalances your argument.

Another thing you forget is that top rating events draw megabucks - we have 4 you have 1

The AFL have teams in 5 states, and play in the other state and territories. They need to divide theie telecasts for each game to different markets. But in the end it's still only 4 FTA games per market. The NRL can show a single game to a city heartland of 7 million people because other than the unloved storm your game is isolated to 2 states. This is an advantage for this single game, but Brisbane just turn off in huge numbers when the broncos aren't playing.
You need the SOO revenue. You're 500m a year behind in revenue because of poor membership, sponsorship and gate revenue.

It cannot be possible surely that someone,anyone can believe that a minute(same time) of TV advertising is the same price for Perth as it is for Sydney. No that simply cannot be.

enarelle wrote:

It cannot be possible surely that someone,anyone can believe that a minute(same time) of TV advertising is the same price for Perth as it is for Sydney. No that simply cannot be.

Surely the value is relative to the population. SYD/BRIS/GC = Mel/Adel/Perth.

WRONG- WRONG - WRONG- WRONG and WRONG, But what can you expect from a brainwashed AFL fan

pussycat wrote:

WRONG- WRONG - WRONG- WRONG and WRONG, But what can you expect from a brainwashed AFL fan

Prove it.

Nearly all of what you said is your opinion - largely misguided and ill informed at that.

pussycat wrote:

Nearly all of what you said is your opinion - largely misguided and ill informed at that.

Which part do you disagree with?

Xman wrote:

enarelle wrote:

It cannot be possible surely that someone,anyone can believe that a minute(same time) of TV advertising is the same price for Perth as it is for Sydney. No that simply cannot be.

Surely the value is relative to the population. SYD/BRIS/GC = Mel/Adel/Perth.

NRL states 62% of advertising dollars spent here
38% in the AFL states


debate ends here

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

enarelle wrote:

It cannot be possible surely that someone,anyone can believe that a minute(same time) of TV advertising is the same price for Perth as it is for Sydney. No that simply cannot be.

Surely the value is relative to the population. SYD/BRIS/GC = Mel/Adel/Perth.

NRL states 62% of advertising dollars spent here
38% in the AFL states


debate ends here

Ive been very skeptic on the $1bill+ talk as of late on the TV right deal but watching this i am now leaning toward the NRL getting the $1bill+ deal its been talking about.

http://www.abc.net.au/sport/offsiders/c ... 477611.htm

Roy Masters makes some interesting point here and also on national TV.

eelofwest wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Surely the value is relative to the population. SYD/BRIS/GC = Mel/Adel/Perth.

NRL states 62% of advertising dollars spent here
38% in the AFL states


debate ends here

Ive been very skeptic on the $1bill+ talk as of late on the TV right deal but watching this i am now leaning toward the NRL getting the $1bill+ deal its been talking about.

http://www.abc.net.au/sport/offsiders/c ... 477611.htm

Roy Masters makes some interesting point here and also on national TV.

The same guy swore black and blue the AFL wouldn't get close to 1 bil on their last deal!

Hmm, interesting article, What League team do you think your kids will follow Xman?

pussycat wrote:

Hmm, interesting article, What League team do you think your kids will follow Xman?

Just like every other kid from Melbourne, the only league team that would be of interest to my kids would be the storm of coarse. But let's face it, they're not exactly interesting for the kids compared to watching Essendon, who they all follow!

In fact why an AFL supporter would follow RL is beyond me. What's the attraction?

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Hmm, interesting article, What League team do you think your kids will follow Xman?

Just like every other kid from Melbourne, the only league team that would be of interest to my kids would be the storm of coarse. But let's face it, they're not exactly interesting for the kids compared to watching Essendon, who they all follow!

In fact why an AFL supporter would follow RL is beyond me. What's the attraction?

Underestimating your opponent is the first step to ruin Xman. :D

eelofwest wrote:

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Hmm, interesting article, What League team do you think your kids will follow Xman?

Just like every other kid from Melbourne, the only league team that would be of interest to my kids would be the storm of coarse. But let's face it, they're not exactly interesting for the kids compared to watching Essendon, who they all follow!

In fact why an AFL supporter would follow RL is beyond me. What's the attraction?

Underestimating your opponent is the first step to ruin Xman. :D

Can you underestimate the storm? Off field they are a total disaster as an expansion. They have had almost 15 years of amazing success but haven't grown substantially from their first years numbers.

The NRL is light years behind the AFL in expansion. They have no substantial grassroots development in any AFL state.

Xman wrote:

eelofwest wrote:

Xman wrote:

Just like every other kid from Melbourne, the only league team that would be of interest to my kids would be the storm of coarse. But let's face it, they're not exactly interesting for the kids compared to watching Essendon, who they all follow!

In fact why an AFL supporter would follow RL is beyond me. What's the attraction?

Underestimating your opponent is the first step to ruin Xman. :D

Can you underestimate the storm? Off field they are a total disaster as an expansion. They have had almost 15 years of amazing success but haven't grown substantially from their first years numbers.

The NRL is light years behind the AFL in expansion. They have no substantial grassroots development in any AFL state.

Your comment says it all lol

Ill repeat Underestimating your opponent is the first step to ruin Xman.