Fight Club - Football TV Ratings (AFL vs NRL)

[Xman]

You know you are dealing with apologists when they think this is OK.I know this forum is made to hang it on eachother but REALLY.You come in 225 million dollars cash not the other made up shite short.Also they lose a day grand final and now have more live AFL beamed in to Sydney than league.And what do they come up with WE are worth 100 dollars more per minute.lolWorth less per game,per season per five year deal but at least you got us for a 100 dollars per minute.And your on here spruiking about it.A poll in the courier asked if it was a good deal for QLD 80% said no.Seems our most northern neighbours get it.As i said the AFL commision wouldve been sacked if they came to the fans with this rot.

Hokus your deal includes 150m a year extra for I.T rights.


Only Whingers and narks like yourself reply to such polls . It was a great deal. Somethings might have been done differently, but in the end it was the best decision to get rid of any final hold News Ltd still had on us.

Demetriou could tell AFL fans anything , there all brainwased mushrooms.

It was such a great deal that 100's of NRL fans have complained on forums and media websites.

Face it, it ticked the boxes for cash but failed dismally for coverage. How the hell you guys think one live FTA game a week, and no FTA game on Saturday, is ok for 5 more years is beyond me. That stuff belongs in the 70's.

Oh and AD hasnt said anything but that it was good for the NRL. He doesnt participate in code war BS like the NRL.

[Xman]

What a lot of AFL nonsense. First we could not get near the AFL deal or get to a billion. Now we are "lucky" that both of those were achieved. Lucky to get money from NZ were the time and effort was spent to expand the game over there. Talk about sour grapes and ignoring the facts and a general lack of good grace.

As for me the supporter I get to see a game that was knocked to knees during the super league now continue its recovery and move into a period were it will flourish.

If you read the facts only a fraction of the "additional" money is going to salary cap. The greater majority is aimed at the juniors and development in all regions.

Long reign the "lucky" game in the lucky country.

PS You can beam as much AFL into Sydney as you like cause no one watches.

If no one likes AFL in Sydney you might as well pack up shop in Melbourne. AFL in Sydney outrates NRL in Melbourne but 3-5 times.

[enarelle]

For sometime now the debate on these threads has been dominated by the AFL crew telling us all how AFL dominates the TV ratings and the proof in superiority comes in the fact they have so many more dollars in their TV deal. NRL could not get more than $800m because regionals don't matter,it is not a national competition, etc etc Of course to achieve even the measly $800m they would have to sell the farm.

So now the numbers come in and low and behold the AFL crew were wrong,wrong,wrong but like Fonzie that word concession cannot be uttered.

Now suddenly the debate is about how much money the NRL wouldn't get but now its about how many games are shown live. Sorry you do not escape being so wrong so easily.

[Xman]

For sometime now the debate on these threads has been dominated by the AFL crew telling us all how AFL dominates the TV ratings and the proof in superiority comes in the fact they have so many more dollars in their TV deal. NRL could not get more than $800m because regionals don't matter,it is not a national competition, etc etc Of course to achieve even the measly $800m they would have to sell the farm.

So now the numbers come in and low and behold the AFL crew were wrong,wrong,wrong but like Fonzie that word concession cannot be uttered.

Now suddenly the debate is about how much money the NRL wouldn't get but now its about how many games are shown live. Sorry you do not escape being so wrong so easily.

Like has been said many times, who would have anticipated the ARLC would have thrown away decent TV coverage for cash? They had an offer for better coverage for 800M, which was pretty much what we were expecting, but chose money.

This is a real indication of the precarious nature of the league, which is hardly a surprise given the poor revenue from memberships and attendance, and the fact that all but 1 team makes a loss every year, despite being on a shoe string budget.

The other thing about your 1B is it was definately market driven with ch10 desperately needing content, so ch9 were forced to pay way more than the product is worth. The article i posted in the otherNRL TV rights thread showed ch9 are due to lose 10's of millions of dollars on the NRL rights. What you got was overs. Well done on getting it but dont make out like we didnt value your product correctly.

Also as stated, well done on the cash, shame the Broncos supporters are the only NRL fans cheering.

Now, NRL supporters on this site have been claiming that the new deal would include FTA and foxtel coverage similar to the AFL, and that you would then retake your mantle as the most watched sport on Australian TV. Sorry, but what happened there? Explanation please. Surely you dont think you can get away with out being wrong so easily.

[enarelle]

Prove the rumour of the better offer. Your theory is that they sold out for cash but rejected more cash. Please explain.

I think the real pain for the AFL crew will be next year when the measly 5 NRL games will out-rate the 9 AFL games on cable when Fox/Austar will become one and report as one. Of course it happens now but given this site only reports part of the numbers the AFL crew are spared that horror but next year here it comes.

[Xman]

Prove the rumour of the better offer. Your theory is that they sold out for cash but rejected more cash. Please explain.

I think the real pain for the AFL crew will be next year when the measly 5 NRL games will out-rate the 9 AFL games on cable when Fox/Austar will become one and report as one. Of course it happens now but given this site only reports part of the numbers the AFL crew are spared that horror but next year here it comes.

The comments about the ch10 offer have been widely discussed and acknowledged on LU.

It was more coverage and less money, not more.

If the NRL get more ratings on payTV its hardly surprising. 12 Million ppl in NSW and QLD have subscription rates of 35%. Thats 400k. AFL states have 25% subscription rates so 275k. Why? because NRL's FTA coverage is appalling and the new deal will ensure the subscription rates stay the same. But we will still well and truly be the number 1 sport in Australia for ratings, attendance, revenue, membership, media interest etc etc..

[enarelle]

On behalf of all the League fans I have to say we were wrong(came out quite easy). We were wrong in estimating how much rugby league you had to sell to get the same money as the AFL. We will not make the mistake of under estimating our game again.

[Xman]

On behalf of all the League fans I have to say we were wrong(came out quite easy). We were wrong in estimating how much rugby league you had to sell to get the same money as the AFL. We will not make the mistake of under estimating our game again.

Are you suggesting you could have sold more games for more money? If so why didn't you?

As everyone has said, the money you got was less than the AFL, and the tv coverage just horrible. How is it you think your product rates better or is worth more then?

[enarelle]

No the channels ran out of money before the NRL ran out of games. The NRL are still negotiating the full deal and will end up in the$1.2b range but did not have to create an extra game per week at the cost of at least $30m per annum.

[Xman]

No the channels ran out of money before the NRL ran out of games. The NRL are still negotiating the full deal and will end up in the$1.2b range but did not have to create an extra game per week at the cost of at least $30m per annum.

Hmmm, maybe thats all they were willing to pay. They've already admitted they'll lose millions a year on what they've paid for.

The full AUSTRALIAN deal will be less than the AFLs deal. This is despite the NRL claiming they're the number one sport on AUSTRALIAN TV.

Explain that doozy!

[enarelle]

Business performance results are based on revenue and costs or more precisely the gap between the two. The NRL did not have to fork out a dollar more to get there deal while the AFL have had to payout a minimum of an $150m to get theres.

Like or it not but the NRL includes another country.

[Xman]

Business performance results are based on revenue and costs or more precisely the gap between the two. The NRL did not have to fork out a dollar more to get there deal while the AFL have had to payout a minimum of an $150m to get theres.

Like or it not but the NRL includes another country.

Pffft. The AFL have had over a decade of large profits and have been saving millions a year as a futures fund for expansion. The TV rights were paid on the value of each code to the networks. Costs had nothing to do with it. The AFL got more and are valued higher by the networks because they are Australias premiere TV sport.

[enarelle]

Costs have everything to do with it. So if the AFL does not create the extra game each week they would have got the same dollars? Seriously?

[Xman]

Costs have everything to do with it. So if the AFL does not create the extra game each week they would have got the same dollars? Seriously?

Again, the AFL fund expansion any way they want. Theyve saved that money over many years. The network pays the value they see fit. They don't pay more because the AFL spend more. They pay more because it's valued higher.

You're forgetting a big point. The AFLs TV rights only makes up a portion of their annual revenue because sponsorship, memberships and gate receipts are so high. The TV rights are the NRLs major revenue source.

[cos789]

You're forgetting a big point. The AFLs TV rights only makes up a portion of their annual revenue because sponsorship, memberships and gate receipts are so high. The TV rights are the NRLs major revenue source.

That's what people forget.

.