Talking Footy

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Broncos every fn, raiders once. Looks like the NRL hate the raiders!

Rugby League enjoys winning the ratings
despite the VFL pulling every trick in the book ... they still came 2nd
the Broncos attract a lot of veiwers ... & contributed to another silver medal for the silly little game from across the murray

NRL & RL .... they know how to win the ratings

Good point! Despite playing your solo Brisbane team almost every FN the NRL still lost to the AFL!

and Rugby League ( Helped by the Broncos ) ... smashed the VFL .... again
the VFL tried it all on in 2012.. from more games to every game targeted on FTA into a specific market

& yet
they still didn't light up any cigars .....


oh oh oh ...... now all our regionals are counted we'll win


oh oh oh ... now all games are simulcast on pay .. we'll win


... even with the above & 22 extra games since 2010
you still came 2nd

RL .... Australias most watched sport

Most watched sport? 16 hrs a week v 27 hrs

I wonder which is most watched?

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 all this, they still destroyed the league that sold out to television years ago.

Xman wrote:

Most watched sport? 16 hrs a week v 27 hrs

I wonder which is most watched?

Theres no need to wonder. It blatantly obvious to all but a few of D most ardent followers

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

Most watched sport? 16 hrs a week v 27 hrs

I wonder which is most watched?

Theres no need to wonder. It blatantly obvious to all but a few of D most ardent followers

I dont think you understand the term most watched Pussy.

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

Most watched sport? 16 hrs a week v 27 hrs

I wonder which is most watched?

Theres no need to wonder. It blatantly obvious to all but a few of D most ardent followers

I dont think you understand the term most watched Pussy.

Well if Pussy means most Australian eyeballs on RL for the last 3 years running then he would be correct, =D> =D> =D> then if by chance he meant most eye balls in Australasia on rugby league then he would then be spot on again Pies

eelofwest wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Theres no need to wonder. It blatantly obvious to all but a few of D most ardent followers

I dont think you understand the term most watched Pussy.

Well if Pussy means most Australian eyeballs on RL for the last 3 years running then he would be correct, =D> =D> =D> then if by chance he meant most eye balls in Australasia on rugby league then he would then be spot on again Pies

I think the AFL wins with reach as well for the last few years. What I think you are refering to is called "cumulative ratings" eels and even in that statistic this year all the sources have put the AFL in front of the NRL products.

reach?? piesman our comp is international!!

thats reach!

the nrl tv deals shows that the bias 5 city rating system is BS and that regional numbers have to be added. all ratings systems are biased to AFL and yet we beat you year in year out. it must hurt!

Storm2013 wrote:

reach?? piesman our comp is international!!

thats reach!

the nrl tv deals shows that the bias 5 city rating system is BS and that regional numbers have to be added. all ratings systems are biased to AFL and yet we beat you year in year out. it must hurt!

So it reaches a few thousand across the ditch...

Shorter and exclusive program lengths bias the average and cummulative ratings to the NRl. Yet we still beat you!

Xman wrote:

Storm2013 wrote:

reach?? piesman our comp is international!!

thats reach!

the nrl tv deals shows that the bias 5 city rating system is BS and that regional numbers have to be added. all ratings systems are biased to AFL and yet we beat you year in year out. it must hurt!

So it reaches a few thousand across the ditch...

Shorter and exclusive program lengths bias the average and cummulative ratings to the NRl. Yet we still beat you!

Only problem for you singlet wearers is the AFL are wanting with all there being to break that market across the ditch...............

Problem is for AFL is the NRL will get 150m of TV Nz sky, that ditch is worth the effort put in from the NRL, so it is more then a viable expansion area and the AFL know it...... =D> =D>

Our TV deal has nearly tripled and our tv Ratings in Australasia give us the reason why they have nearly tripled.

NRL 113m + 19m rep footy + 12m Nz Footy = GAME OVER SINGLET WEARERS..........143m viewers..........

AFL 123m with simulcasting 18 teams 1 extra game a week..................

eelofwest wrote:

Xman wrote:

Storm2013 wrote:

reach?? piesman our comp is international!!

thats reach!

the nrl tv deals shows that the bias 5 city rating system is BS and that regional numbers have to be added. all ratings systems are biased to AFL and yet we beat you year in year out. it must hurt!

So it reaches a few thousand across the ditch...

Shorter and exclusive program lengths bias the average and cummulative ratings to the NRl. Yet we still beat you!

Only problem for you singlet wearers is the AFL are wanting with all there being to break that market across the ditch...............

Problem is for AFL is the NRL will get 150m of TV Nz sky, that ditch is worth the effort put in from the NRL, so it is more then a viable expansion area and the AFL know it...... =D> =D>

Our TV deal has nearly tripled and our tv Ratings in Australasia give us the reason why they have nearly tripled.

NRL 113m + 19m rep footy + 12m Nz Footy = GAME OVER SINGLET WEARERS..........143m viewers..........

AFL 123m with simulcasting 18 teams 1 extra game a week..................

a lot of numbers....and no source to back any of it up


Well done....

Xman wrote:

eelofwest wrote:

Xman wrote:

So it reaches a few thousand across the ditch...

Shorter and exclusive program lengths bias the average and cummulative ratings to the NRl. Yet we still beat you!

Only problem for you singlet wearers is the AFL are wanting with all there being to break that market across the ditch...............

Problem is for AFL is the NRL will get 150m of TV Nz sky, that ditch is worth the effort put in from the NRL, so it is more then a viable expansion area and the AFL know it...... =D> =D>

Our TV deal has nearly tripled and our tv Ratings in Australasia give us the reason why they have nearly tripled.

NRL 113m + 19m rep footy + 12m Nz Footy = GAME OVER SINGLET WEARERS..........143m viewers..........

AFL 123m with simulcasting 18 teams 1 extra game a week..................

a lot of numbers....and no source to back any of it up


Well done....

Wow more head in the sand stuff...........

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

Now i think even Columbo could put 2 and 2 together to figure out that the AFL copped another ass wooping..............

All our TV Ratings are up as the annual report states very clearly, FTA, FOX, Rep football all up on 2011 football season.

Us NRL boys are just waiting patiently, it is inevitable that a article on this thrashing will emerge soon........................fat lady were are you its your time to shine...........

So thats 2011 total ratings for RL 2 years ago. Good to know....

What about all Aussie rules ratings?

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.

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.