Talking Footy

Hocus, Thats the biggest loas of horse shit I've heard! and it comes as no surprise that Xman agrees with you.


Im from newcastle, and would assume raider dave is from Canberra. We put our pants on just the same as the people in the City fork do. I can tell you from experience, In General, fan from the bush are far more passionate about the the game than people in the cities.

pussycat wrote:

Hocus, Thats the biggest loas of horse **** I've heard! and it comes as no surprise that Xman agrees with you.


Im from newcastle, and would assume raider dave is from Canberra. We put our pants on just the same as the people in the City fork do. I can tell you from experience, In General, fan from the bush are far more passionate about the the game than people in the cities.

Talk about miss the point entirely!

You both live in a regional area that has an NRL team. There are millions in NSW and QLD that don't. Claiming them as fans because they watch the TV is fine. But how does this help the NRL beyond a TV rights deal that will still be below the AFL's despite all the moaning about regional ratings?

As I have said, each code has a similar sized metro heartland population of 7 million. The AFL wins ratings, crowds, memberships and sponsorship money in a metro comparison By a massive margin. The NRL claim they are on equal footing or ahead in ratings (only) by adding their larger regional population.But other than tv ratings, what do these fans provide to the league in financial support? Zilch.

To miss a point you need to have a point.

a Region NSW/Qld viewer is worth more than a Perth or an Adelaide viewer.


Maybe Pokie's post wasnt the most ridiculous one i've read

pussycat wrote:

To miss a point you need to have a point.

a Region NSW/Qld viewer is worth more than a Perth or an Adelaide viewer.


Maybe Pokie's post wasnt the most ridiculous one i've read

Talk about ridiculous. Look in the mirror pussycat.

Are you seriously trying to tell us your old mate Roy is wrong:

The AFL has higher five-capital-city ratings than the NRL, which has a stronger regional following. It means Seven can charge higher rates for ads in, say, Perth than a regional network can levy advertisers in say, western Queensland.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z1tOMZSKGV

You lot constantly harp on about the flawed regional ratings that don't count many AFL areas of the country because on an apples vs apple comparison in the metro markets, you lot cop a hiding.

Beaussie wrote:

pussycat wrote:

To miss a point you need to have a point.

a Region NSW/Qld viewer is worth more than a Perth or an Adelaide viewer.


Maybe Pokie's post wasnt the most ridiculous one i've read

Talk about ridiculous. Look in the mirror pussycat.

Are you seriously trying to tell us your old mate Roy is wrong:

The AFL has higher five-capital-city ratings than the NRL, which has a stronger regional following. It means Seven can charge higher rates for ads in, say, Perth than a regional network can levy advertisers in say, western Queensland.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z1tOMZSKGV

You lot constantly harp on about the flawed regional ratings that don't count many AFL areas of the country because on an apples vs apple comparison in the metro markets, you lot cop a hiding.

Well said Beaussie =D>

Stupid puddy! Fancy thinking regional Qld is worth more in advertising than Perth and Adelaide.

Beaussie wrote:

pussycat wrote:

To miss a point you need to have a point.

a Region NSW/Qld viewer is worth more than a Perth or an Adelaide viewer.


Maybe Pokie's post wasnt the most ridiculous one i've read

Talk about ridiculous. Look in the mirror pussycat.

Are you seriously trying to tell us your old mate Roy is wrong:

The AFL has higher five-capital-city ratings than the NRL, which has a stronger regional following. It means Seven can charge higher rates for ads in, say, Perth than a regional network can levy advertisers in say, western Queensland.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z1tOMZSKGV

You lot constantly harp on about the flawed regional ratings that don't count many AFL areas of the country because on an apples vs apple comparison in the metro markets, you lot cop a hiding.

I believe that is correct - to a point. A regional viewer, financial worth to the networks, is 2 or maybe even 3 times less than that of a metro viewer, However regional NSW/Qld makes 3 times that of Adelaide.

http://www.thinktv.com.au/SiteMedia/w3s ... r_2011.pdf

As you can see Adelaide, with a population of 1.2mil earn more tv revenue than regional qld with a population of about double.

Metro-wise: Perth and Adelaide combined earn more than Brisbane. Sydney earns more than Melbourne. Combined, NRL cities earn only 14% more than AFL cities, not the huge difference we are led to believe.

Nation-wide: NRL states earm 26% more than AFL states.

However, AFL games have nearly 3 times the advertising time of NRL games.

There are about 80 commercials in an AFL match, which is divided by quarters, compared with 34 in the NRL, with two recent NRL Saturday evening finals matches lasting as long as one AFL final.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-league/l ... z1tOne3b9v

Xman wrote:

http://www.thinktv.com.au/SiteMedia/w3s ... r_2011.pdf

As you can see Adelaide, with a population of 1.2mil earn more tv revenue than regional qld with a population of about double.

Metro-wise: Perth and Adelaide combined earn more than Brisbane. Sydney earns more than Melbourne. Combined, NRL cities earn only 14% more than AFL cities, not the huge difference we are led to believe.

Nation-wide: NRL states earm 26% more than AFL states.

However, AFL games have nearly 3 times the advertising time of NRL games.

There are about 80 commercials in an AFL match, which is divided by quarters, compared with 34 in the NRL, with two recent NRL Saturday evening finals matches lasting as long as one AFL final.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-league/l ... z1tOne3b9v

63% of the NRLs audience is metro, 77% of the AFLs audience comes from metro populations. Therefore the advantage the NRL have by being popular in two states with a 26% revenue advantage is diluted because a greater proportion of their audience ratings are from regional centers which earn less than metro centers.

Are you only quoting the sections that suits you? The article cleary says:

1/ RL outrates the AFL on FTA,

2/ RL outrates the AFL on PTV,

3/ 60 per cent of the national advertising dollar is spent in NSW and Queensland.

4/ RL is a better TV product.

While Point 4 is probably Roy's personal opinion, The first three are facts.


If Stokes gets the entire $1m revenue from adelaide CH7 earns, while ch.9 only gets 40% of the $3m NSW/Qld regionals bring in. Then who gets the most?

Yes the advantage is diluted. but not non existant.

pussycat wrote:

Are you only quoting the sections that suits you? The article cleary says:

1/ RL outrates the AFL on FTA,

2/ RL outrates the AFL on PTV,

3/ 60 per cent of the national advertising dollar is spent in NSW and Queensland.

4/ RL is a better TV product.

While Point 4 is probably Roy's personal opinion, The first three are facts.


If Stokes gets the entire $1m revenue from adelaide CH7 earns, while ch.9 only gets 40% of the $3m NSW/Qld regionals bring in. Then who gets the most?

Yes the advantage is diluted. but not non existant.

The cumulative total for this article have been discussed a million times! I only quoted them to show the massive advantage the AFL coverage has in advertising time per game. We already know the NRL have an advantage in advertising revenue, but it pales in comparison to the last point. The scheduling allowed the NRL to win this cumulative count last year, mainly because of a longer season, rep games, more shown games per week, and live FN.

Rugby league outrates AFL on combined free-to-air and pay TV audiences but it needs State of Origin football to do so

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rugby-l ... z1tPlJQflW

This year the AFLs audience has gone up by 25-30%! It isn't going to be even close!

I was replying to the other article, The one Beau was quoting, and you were agreeing with.

Do you expect me to apologise because my sport has things like exciting rep football?

More games??? you had 4 and a bit games each week. We had 3.

Ratings will be closer this year - but even with all the extra TV coverage you have, we will stilll win - how pathetic! :D :D :D

pussycat wrote:

I was replying to the other article, The one Beau was quoting, and you were agreeing with.

Do you expect me to apologise because my sport has things like exciting rep football?

More games??? you had 4 and a bit games each week. We had 3.

Ratings will be closer this year - but even with all the extra TV coverage you have, we will stilll win - how pathetic! :D :D :D

You have a longer season!

You have 7-8 viewable games per week. We had 4.5.

25 or so rounds times 3 extra games per week is 75 more games at least that the NRL show per season. Obviously these are on foxtel but at 200-300k per game that's nearly 20m extra ratings.

How on earth will the NRL win this years ratings when they lose every weekend? The AFL were only behind by the SOO ratings last year. The AFLs ratings have increased 25-30% which means they will be 30-40mil ahead of last year, way ahead of the 15m difference of last year.

The AFL has 198 matches + 10 finals matches for a total of 208. 207 of these matches will be shown live on PTV. Around 105 of these will be shown on FTA, about 75 live.

Rugby League has 193 matches + 10 finals + around 8 Representive Matches for a total of 211. 125 of these matches will be on PTV, about 112 will be live. around 90 matches will be on FTA, about 35 live.

pussycat wrote:

The AFL has 198 matches + 10 finals matches for a total of 208. 207 of these matches will be shown live on PTV. Around 105 of these will be shown on FTA, about 75 live.

Rugby League has 193 matches + 10 finals + around 8 Representive Matches for a total of 211. 125 of these matches will be on PTV, about 112 will be live. around 90 matches will be on FTA, about 35 live.

And of these 207 AFL matches only about 50 will be shown in isolation, therefore only about 130 games will be available for viewers to watch because the audiences are split between two or more matches shown simultaneously.

Of the NRLs 211 games just about every single game is shown in isolation.

Therefore the entire NRL audience can watch 211 games and the AFL audience only about 130 games.

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

The AFL has 198 matches + 10 finals matches for a total of 208. 207 of these matches will be shown live on PTV. Around 105 of these will be shown on FTA, about 75 live.

Rugby League has 193 matches + 10 finals + around 8 Representive Matches for a total of 211. 125 of these matches will be on PTV, about 112 will be live. around 90 matches will be on FTA, about 35 live.

And of these 207 AFL matches only about 50 will be shown in isolation, therefore only about 130 games will be available for viewers to watch because the audiences are split between two or more matches shown simultaneously.

Of the NRLs 211 games just about every single game is shown in isolation.

Therefore the entire NRL audience can watch 211 games and the AFL audience only about 130 games.

So Xman you admit that NRL will out rate AFL by a fair margin next year?