Talking Footy

Raiderdave wrote:

http://www.theage.com.au/AFL/AFL-news/w ... 1ev0o.html

We're not Broke
We're not broke

phhhhttttttt ... Dimetriou had to address the Swans players to assure them they'd be 2 sides in Sydney in 2012 & they'd be one of them

they've lost about 2 million in the last 3 seasons ... & have made the finals 2 out of theose 3 years
yeah .... they're the most succesful sporting club in NSW alright
NAAAARRRRRTTTTTT

TLPG wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

http://www.theage.com.au/AFL/AFL-news/w ... 1ev0o.html

We're not Broke
We're not broke

phhhhttttttt ... Dimetriou had to address the Swans players to assure them they'd be 2 sides in Sydney in 2012 & they'd be one of them

they've lost about 2 million in the last 3 seasons ... & have made the finals 2 out of theose 3 years
yeah .... they're the most succesful sporting club in NSW alright
NAAAARRRRRTTTTTT

What a childish post!

I read the article, and I can tell you that the Swans are NOT broke. It's a perfectly reasonable financial decision to cast off dead wood. So there's a debt there. So what? So do other AFL clubs - and I'll bet the same is true of NRL clubs.

It does NOT mean they are broke. Port Adelaide are far worse off, and that's why the AFL jumped to help keep them afloat until the income of the fresh rights deal comes in. The fact that they haven't jumped to the Swans aid (which they have done plenty of times in the past when the Swans WERE in trouble) shows that they know that everything is under control.

enarelle wrote:

The biggest issue for the Swans is not their financial position, which although deteriorating, but rather they dont have relevance for the people of Sydney.

The ambition to have them as everyones "second" team has clearly failed. They have almost no profile and no high profile players - in the Sydney community.


When you get all your home games shown live including prime time Saturday night on FTA and no body watches you know you are not relevant to the community.

The irony for the AFL is that the total audience for all the other games is about the same as the Swans poor showing -in Sydney.


The main benefit the AFL gets from the Swans is the maintenance of the myth that the AFL has a national competition. They will keep backing them to keep that myth alive.

enarelle wrote:

The biggest issue for the Swans is not their financial position, which although deteriorating, but rather they dont have relevance for the people of Sydney.

The ambition to have them as everyones "second" team has clearly failed. They have almost no profile and no high profile players - in the Sydney community.


When you get all your home games shown live including prime time Saturday night on FTA and no body watches you know you are not relevant to the community.

The irony for the AFL is that the total audience for all the other games is about the same as the Swans poor showing -in Sydney.


The main benefit the AFL gets from the Swans is the maintenance of the myth that the AFL has a national competition. They will keep backing them to keep that myth alive.

enarelle wrote:

The biggest issue for the Swans is not their financial position, which although deteriorating, but rather they dont have relevance for the people of Sydney.

The ambition to have them as everyones "second" team has clearly failed. They have almost no profile and no high profile players - in the Sydney community.


When you get all your home games shown live including prime time Saturday night on FTA and no body watches you know you are not relevant to the community.

The irony for the AFL is that the total audience for all the other games is about the same as the Swans poor showing -in Sydney.


The main benefit the AFL gets from the Swans is the maintenance of the myth that the AFL has a national competition. They will keep backing them to keep that myth alive.

TLPG wrote:

No. Never would. I'd sooner watch boxing.

King-Eliagh wrote:

Beaussie, I think you're telling some little white lies within your semi factual post. I agree that Alice Springs has adds for Mount Isa and from memory maybe Rockhampton, but Townsville...??? Comon now you know I've lived in Alice Springs before right?

Another Beaussie myth busted!

Over the entire season, the AFL was watched by a total of 65,023,000 and the NRL by 40,272,000. But what many fail to take into account is the three hour running time of an AFL telecast compared to the two hour running time of it's NRL rival. When this is taken into account, the AFL is viewed 2.4 times as often as the NRL on free-to-air according to Oztam figures. 195,069,000 cumulative hours were viewed for the AFL compared to 80,546,000 for the NRL. With advertisers able to slot in commercials every time a goal is kicked, the commercial value would also appear to be far greater than the NRL, which has far fewer opportunities to slot in ads of their own. It should also be noted, that the NRL's flexible schedule where they choose games several weeks out for its various timeslots, gives it what should be a ratings advantage. Friday night football in the NRL is selected as the highest rating match and is shown live, from 7:30 to 9:30, with Sydney and Brisbane usually getting different matches featuring local teams to maximise ratings. The AFL meanwhile, on Friday nights has a one hour delayed telecast in Melbourne, 90 minutes in Adelaide, and 3 hours delayed in Perth of one match set in stone from the previous October. Looking at these circumstances, and comparing the heartlands of the two codes, one would think that in Sydney, the NRL would rate higher than Melbourne for the AFL. Interestingly, the AFL averages 451,000 in Melbourne on Friday nights and the NRL averages 386,000 in Sydney, with the AFL figures going through to 11:30pm. The NRL figure only goes to 9:30, at which time a delayed (and lower rating) telecast of another NRL match begins.

It would appear that the AFL is more passionately supported in its heartland. Or maybe this is a reflection of the indifference of Sydenysiders since the Brisbane NRL ratings (which regularly feature the Broncos on Friday nights) are strong and impressive.

The above figures, of course, only take into account the capital cities, with Oztam ratings - being the currency by which television programs are bought and sold - only measuring the capitals. Most of the Rugby League persuassion would argue that the NRL has a far greater representation in the regional areas than the AFL. This is undoubtably true, with the decentralized states of NSW and Queensland encompassing large regional areas of Rugby League loving folk. But is this regional area, which, in Television terms makes up approximately 30% of the market, enough to claw back the 25 million viewer deficit (and a deficit in viewing time of 115 million hours?) Not by a long way.

http://www.talkingfooty.com/tv_ratings_2011.php