Fight Club - Football TV Ratings (AFL vs NRL)

[eelofwest]

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.

The minimum as stated by Demetrius will be 220m for the expansion teams to survive.

[Xman]

Fri TV #AFL #afltigersdons 611k+71k (Seven/7mate) 225k (FoxFooty)

Fri TV #NRL 628k+17k (Nine/GEM) NRL late 323k (Nine)

Another win, against 2 games too!

17k for live NRL in Mel Adel Perth.

[enarelle]

Gentleman could you show us some data that shows at the AFL level the TV deal is not more than 50% of their revenue over the next 5 years?

[Xman]

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=2869

This thread shows the 2010 revenue for the AFL and clubs. It was around 950m, 150m coming from TV rights.

The tv rights per year in the current contract is around 250m per year. Then non tv rights revenue for 2012 for AFL and clubs would be near 800m per year, well above the 250m from TV rights.

[enarelle]

Well apart from the insight as to the debt many of the clubs you are having I belive you are doubling counting the TV revenue at the AFL and the club level.

If the clubs are reporting accurately they would include AFL grants in their revenue streams.

PS Last year at the NRL level only the overall funding was higher than the TV deal ie no club dollars

[Xman]

Well apart from the insight as to the debt many of the clubs you are having I belive you are doubling counting the TV revenue at the AFL and the club level.

If the clubs are reporting accurately they would include AFL grants in their revenue streams.

PS Last year at the NRL level only the overall funding was higher than the TV deal ie no club dollars

Yes there is some doubt counting in that the AFL club revenue includes some millions from grants that the AFL also count as revenue. But that is far less than 10m per club so it would barely be 150m for the year. Therefore the overall revenue from the AFL and clubs would be at least 800m with only 250m coming from TV rights.

[pookus]

Gentleman could you show us some data that shows at the AFL level the TV deal is not more than 50% of their revenue over the next 5 years?

Do you really doubt the dominance of AFL revenue.Just look at this round already.AFL(164,000 6 games we have one more)NRL(60,000 5 games)I can only summise how much extra revenue this is worth but it is in the millions.Repeat this every week.Throw in the extra TV revenue 150 million cash.And nearly 100% more corporate sponsorship and your starting to see the picture.The gap widens every week.

[Xman]

Sat TV #AFL Night 582k+125k Arvo 201k+46k #Seven #7mate

Fantastic seven mate ratings for the swans! Add foxtel and they are pretty decent figures.

What, ten to 15 times the NRL in AFL states?

[piesman2011]

Well apart from the insight as to the debt many of the clubs you are having I belive you are doubling counting the TV revenue at the AFL and the club level.

If the clubs are reporting accurately they would include AFL grants in their revenue streams.

PS Last year at the NRL level only the overall funding was higher than the TV deal ie no club dollars

The players are after a fixed figure of 25-27 per cent of overall revenue over the next three years, not five years as the AFL wants.

This equates to about $220 million a season (over five years), initially suggesting the league and players may be closer to a deal on pure monetary terms than previously thought.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/AFL/AFL-news/p ... z24iD1j2rM


So if 220 million a season is 25% of the total revenue. Then the total revenue for a year is about 880 million. I guess this is not proof but there are many articles which back up these numbers from around the time the players were trying to negotiate a new pay agreement. The TV deal is about 250 million a year. So the TV deal is only about 28% of the total yearly revenue.

[pussycat]

AFL total revenue for 2010 was $336m.

AFL projected revenue for 2015 $-23m.

The NRL projected revenue for 2015 is $100B.

http://www.AFL.com.au/portals/0/AFL_doc ... porate.pdf

The AFL reported a loss of 23.6m for the 2011 .

http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/02/17/th ... -for-2011/

[Xman]

AFL total revenue for 2010 was $336m.

AFL projected revenue for 2015 $-23m.

The NRL projected revenue for 2015 is $100B.

http://www.AFL.com.au/portals/0/AFL_doc ... porate.pdf

The AFL reported a loss of 23.6m for the 2011 .

http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/02/17/th ... -for-2011/

So in 2015 the AFL expect to earn 23m, a 90% reduction on 2010, and the NRL expect to earn 100Bil?

[pussycat]

No, In 2015 the AFL is expected to loose $23m. and it happend 4 years earlier than expected

[Xman]

No, In 2015 the AFL is expected to loose $23m. and it happend 4 years earlier than expected

They explained the loss. The amount theyve invested into stadiums for the suns and giants is massive. These are one off costs that will set up these two teams as financially viable for the future. The AFLs futures fund was established for this purpose and was made possible by a decade of surplus budgets.

[enarelle]

The Suns and in particular GWS will survive for as long as the AFL wants to pump money into them. They are and will never be financially viable without the input of the AFL.

Of course the bigger question will be how long do the Victorian clubs let the AFL squander their inheritance on these interstate follies?

[Xman]

The Suns and in particular GWS will survive for as long as the AFL wants to pump money into them. They are and will never be financially viable without the input of the AFL.

Of course the bigger question will be how long do the Victorian clubs let the AFL squander their inheritance on these interstate follies?

The suns made a small profit last year. They own their stadium and directly receive financial benefit from its use. The Giants would also have an attractive stadium deal. The AFL did an enormous amount of reseach into these teams including financial models. I dare say they know far more about it than you.