Talking Footy

Swans4ever wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

pHyR3 wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

pHyR3 wrote:

1.025 doesnt include digital rights which the AFL figure does.

AFL is over 3 hours with more breaks (played in quarters) nrl is over 2

if theres so many participants then why did the NRL GF in victoria outrate AFL GF in Sydney with teams from the opposite state not playing? not even taking into account the extra 0.7 million people sydney has.

okay, nrl is not national. so? still had 150k in perth watching the GF and probably more for SOO. in a city of 1.7 million without a team it's not too horrible. and will be a lot better when they do have a team. and don't come in with 2013 AFL gf figures for perth cause im pretty sure they were in the gf if im not mistaken.

Again you didn't answer the question - you went back to TV ratings - you don't even mount an argument against me when I said they are far from accurate - is that because you have none? Yes - you don't even mount an argument against me that ALL factors need to be considered - I feel like I'm talking to Baldrick from Black Adder! I have also said this many times (maybe not to you though) Melbourne people support ANY team that is in their state - when the Storm had their salary cap issue the local radio stn SEN (AFL OWNED) ran a campaign to get as many people to buy memberships in the club - because the Storm weren't in this years GF there was a substantial drop! This doesn't indicate support for RL but support for the Storm! In Perth they do have a large RU following which may account for the interest - yet their participation rate for actually playing the game is about 2700 whereas RU has about 22k! As for the media rights deal the AFL will make about 425 mil in total revenue - the NRL 284mil - so you tell me if you can face the truth who is the number one code ..........the AFL!

whats the question?

(cue some idiotic joke about comprehension skills or intelligence)

how will the media rights deal make 425 mil AFL, 284 mil nrl? source.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/833 ... not-enough

http://www.smh.com.au/data-point/AFL-le ... 2grkp.html

Question

Like I have said MANY times you have to look at more than just TV ratings - the last NRL TV deal prior to last year was a fraction of the previous AFL deal (750 mil) the NRL got 1.025 in the AUSTRALIAN broadcast deal NZ last I looked was not part of AUSTRALIA! So for TV revenue from the AUSTRALIAN TV deal the AFL win and has always won - then we go to crowds, sponsorship, total revenue streams, memberships and lastly participation and again the AFL clearly win - before you try and tell us that TV ratings are the ONLY consideration AGAIN - tell me this would you rather that the NRL had all these boxes ticked or not? If the answer is yes than you have a paradox in your argument which is unsustainable!

So does NRL tick all those boxes BETTER than the AFL?

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Phelpsy wrote:

So counting how many people watch on nz is an indicator of popularity in Australia ?
The domestic one day comp with India coming up is going to be huge then l

How do you get people watching on Tv ,when we are talking about $$$$ for TV deals.

I was replying to the braindead who says NZ tv rights should not be counted.

God Damn
you derpball fans are thick.

adamj1300 wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

pHyR3 wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

pHyR3 wrote:

1.025 doesnt include digital rights which the AFL figure does.

AFL is over 3 hours with more breaks (played in quarters) nrl is over 2

if theres so many participants then why did the NRL GF in victoria outrate AFL GF in Sydney with teams from the opposite state not playing? not even taking into account the extra 0.7 million people sydney has.

okay, nrl is not national. so? still had 150k in perth watching the GF and probably more for SOO. in a city of 1.7 million without a team it's not too horrible. and will be a lot better when they do have a team. and don't come in with 2013 AFL gf figures for perth cause im pretty sure they were in the gf if im not mistaken.

Again you didn't answer the question - you went back to TV ratings - you don't even mount an argument against me when I said they are far from accurate - is that because you have none? Yes - you don't even mount an argument against me that ALL factors need to be considered - I feel like I'm talking to Baldrick from Black Adder! I have also said this many times (maybe not to you though) Melbourne people support ANY team that is in their state - when the Storm had their salary cap issue the local radio stn SEN (AFL OWNED) ran a campaign to get as many people to buy memberships in the club - because the Storm weren't in this years GF there was a substantial drop! This doesn't indicate support for RL but support for the Storm! In Perth they do have a large RU following which may account for the interest - yet their participation rate for actually playing the game is about 2700 whereas RU has about 22k! As for the media rights deal the AFL will make about 425 mil in total revenue - the NRL 284mil - so you tell me if you can face the truth who is the number one code ..........the AFL!

whats the question?

(cue some idiotic joke about comprehension skills or intelligence)

how will the media rights deal make 425 mil AFL, 284 mil nrl? source.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/833 ... not-enough

http://www.smh.com.au/data-point/AFL-le ... 2grkp.html

Question

Like I have said MANY times you have to look at more than just TV ratings - the last NRL TV deal prior to last year was a fraction of the previous AFL deal (750 mil) the NRL got 1.025 in the AUSTRALIAN broadcast deal NZ last I looked was not part of AUSTRALIA! So for TV revenue from the AUSTRALIAN TV deal the AFL win and has always won - then we go to crowds, sponsorship, total revenue streams, memberships and lastly participation and again the AFL clearly win - before you try and tell us that TV ratings are the ONLY consideration AGAIN - tell me this would you rather that the NRL had all these boxes ticked or not? If the answer is yes than you have a paradox in your argument which is unsustainable!

So does NRL tick all those boxes BETTER than the AFL?

has the 2013 NRL League Financials been released yet?

Raiderdave wrote:

adamj1300 wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

pHyR3 wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

pHyR3 wrote:

1.025 doesnt include digital rights which the AFL figure does.

AFL is over 3 hours with more breaks (played in quarters) nrl is over 2

if theres so many participants then why did the NRL GF in victoria outrate AFL GF in Sydney with teams from the opposite state not playing? not even taking into account the extra 0.7 million people sydney has.

okay, nrl is not national. so? still had 150k in perth watching the GF and probably more for SOO. in a city of 1.7 million without a team it's not too horrible. and will be a lot better when they do have a team. and don't come in with 2013 AFL gf figures for perth cause im pretty sure they were in the gf if im not mistaken.

Again you didn't answer the question - you went back to TV ratings - you don't even mount an argument against me when I said they are far from accurate - is that because you have none? Yes - you don't even mount an argument against me that ALL factors need to be considered - I feel like I'm talking to Baldrick from Black Adder! I have also said this many times (maybe not to you though) Melbourne people support ANY team that is in their state - when the Storm had their salary cap issue the local radio stn SEN (AFL OWNED) ran a campaign to get as many people to buy memberships in the club - because the Storm weren't in this years GF there was a substantial drop! This doesn't indicate support for RL but support for the Storm! In Perth they do have a large RU following which may account for the interest - yet their participation rate for actually playing the game is about 2700 whereas RU has about 22k! As for the media rights deal the AFL will make about 425 mil in total revenue - the NRL 284mil - so you tell me if you can face the truth who is the number one code ..........the AFL!

whats the question?

(cue some idiotic joke about comprehension skills or intelligence)

how will the media rights deal make 425 mil AFL, 284 mil nrl? source.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/833 ... not-enough

http://www.smh.com.au/data-point/AFL-le ... 2grkp.html

Question

Like I have said MANY times you have to look at more than just TV ratings - the last NRL TV deal prior to last year was a fraction of the previous AFL deal (750 mil) the NRL got 1.025 in the AUSTRALIAN broadcast deal NZ last I looked was not part of AUSTRALIA! So for TV revenue from the AUSTRALIAN TV deal the AFL win and has always won - then we go to crowds, sponsorship, total revenue streams, memberships and lastly participation and again the AFL clearly win - before you try and tell us that TV ratings are the ONLY consideration AGAIN - tell me this would you rather that the NRL had all these boxes ticked or not? If the answer is yes than you have a paradox in your argument which is unsustainable!

So does NRL tick all those boxes BETTER than the AFL?

has the 2013 NRL League Financials been released yet?

has the Wions ?
they'd kill for 4.8 million in the bank :_<> :_<> :_<>

in fact
they'd kill for $4.80 in the bank :_<> :_<>


after just 1 year of the NRL's 1.3 Billion dollar media rights deal ... the largest in Australian sport
the NRL will post profits of over 45 Million in 2013
that figure more then 3 times larger then the VFL's 2013 profit

wow
just wow

Raiderdave wrote:

adamj1300 wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

pHyR3 wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

pHyR3 wrote:

1.025 doesnt include digital rights which the AFL figure does.

AFL is over 3 hours with more breaks (played in quarters) nrl is over 2

if theres so many participants then why did the NRL GF in victoria outrate AFL GF in Sydney with teams from the opposite state not playing? not even taking into account the extra 0.7 million people sydney has.

okay, nrl is not national. so? still had 150k in perth watching the GF and probably more for SOO. in a city of 1.7 million without a team it's not too horrible. and will be a lot better when they do have a team. and don't come in with 2013 AFL gf figures for perth cause im pretty sure they were in the gf if im not mistaken.

Again you didn't answer the question - you went back to TV ratings - you don't even mount an argument against me when I said they are far from accurate - is that because you have none? Yes - you don't even mount an argument against me that ALL factors need to be considered - I feel like I'm talking to Baldrick from Black Adder! I have also said this many times (maybe not to you though) Melbourne people support ANY team that is in their state - when the Storm had their salary cap issue the local radio stn SEN (AFL OWNED) ran a campaign to get as many people to buy memberships in the club - because the Storm weren't in this years GF there was a substantial drop! This doesn't indicate support for RL but support for the Storm! In Perth they do have a large RU following which may account for the interest - yet their participation rate for actually playing the game is about 2700 whereas RU has about 22k! As for the media rights deal the AFL will make about 425 mil in total revenue - the NRL 284mil - so you tell me if you can face the truth who is the number one code ..........the AFL!

whats the question?

(cue some idiotic joke about comprehension skills or intelligence)

how will the media rights deal make 425 mil AFL, 284 mil nrl? source.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/833 ... not-enough

http://www.smh.com.au/data-point/AFL-le ... 2grkp.html

Question

Like I have said MANY times you have to look at more than just TV ratings - the last NRL TV deal prior to last year was a fraction of the previous AFL deal (750 mil) the NRL got 1.025 in the AUSTRALIAN broadcast deal NZ last I looked was not part of AUSTRALIA! So for TV revenue from the AUSTRALIAN TV deal the AFL win and has always won - then we go to crowds, sponsorship, total revenue streams, memberships and lastly participation and again the AFL clearly win - before you try and tell us that TV ratings are the ONLY consideration AGAIN - tell me this would you rather that the NRL had all these boxes ticked or not? If the answer is yes than you have a paradox in your argument which is unsustainable!

So does NRL tick all those boxes BETTER than the AFL?

has the 2013 NRL League Financials been released yet?

has the Wions ?
they'd kill for 4.8 million in the bank :_<> :_<> :_<>

in fact
they'd kill for $4.80 in the bank :_<> :_<>


after just 1 year of the NRL's 1.3 Billion dollar media rights deal ... the largest in Australian sport
the NRL will post profits of over 45 Million in 2013
that figure more then 3 times larger then the VFL's 2013 profit

wow
just wow

pHyR3 wrote:

that's what we're (or i) am SAYING NRL management has been abysmal compared to the AFL, now that we've got some decent one (who need to fix up A LOT) we are raking in money into our future funds. I wish we had AFL management mate, i really do.

NRLCrap1 wrote:

Perth contributes a lot more than that, and you're forgetting the Swans!

GWS are young so naturally they would have some financial issues. The Lions are going through a transistion off field with some board changes, so they'll bounce back.