Talking Footy

Xman wrote:

Here , i'll dumb it down for you Dave. 750k is more than 150k and 30% is more than 5%.

Got it yet?

our total in Vic & WA was actually .... 186,800... for 14 games
an average of 13,500 not much behind the AFL average in the Nthn states of 17,000

now I'd hazzard a guess & say .. that If we increased the number of games in these states .. if we doubled them
to 28 & .. only increased our attendances by 30 or 40,000

we'd be quite alarmed

oh but of course .... we're not brain washed baaaing half wits .. are we ?

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Here , i'll dumb it down for you Dave. 750k is more than 150k and 30% is more than 5%.

Got it yet?

our total in Vic & WA was actually .... 186,800... for 14 games
an average of 13,500 not much behind the AFL average in the Nthn states of 17,000

now I'd hazzard a guess & say .. that If we increased the number of games in these states .. if we doubled them
to 28 & .. only increased our attendances by 30 or 40,000

we'd be quite alarmed

oh but of course .... we're not brain washed baaaing half wits .. are we ?

As usual, all guess work from Dave. It's always coulda, woulda, shoulda.

How bout now Dave?

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Here , i'll dumb it down for you Dave. 750k is more than 150k and 30% is more than 5%.

Got it yet?

our total in Vic & WA was actually .... 186,800... for 14 games
an average of 13,500 not much behind the AFL average in the Nthn states of 17,000

now I'd hazzard a guess & say .. that If we increased the number of games in these states .. if we doubled them
to 28 & .. only increased our attendances by 30 or 40,000

we'd be quite alarmed

oh but of course .... we're not brain washed baaaing half wits .. are we ?

As usual, all guess work from Dave. It's always coulda, woulda, shoulda.

How bout now Dave?

spend nearly a quarter of a billion dollars
for almost no gain in yr 1
& have less support with 44 games then you did when you had 22 after 5 years


growth .. VFL style

How many millions have been used to bankroll the flailing storm? Once they miss the finals they could just about disappear!

The lions and suns are established in their market. The suns and giants will follow over time. We've got the cash to follow it through.

Xman wrote:

How many millions have been used to bankroll the flailing storm? .

by the NRL since 1998... not a cent

over the next 5 years .. about 25 Million
or ..... about 10% of what the VFL will spend on just 2 of its cluster f.uck sides

anything else I can help you with ?

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

How many millions have been used to bankroll the flailing storm? .

by the NRL since 1998... not a cent

over the next 5 years .. about 25 Million
or ..... about 10% of what the VFL will spend on just 2 of its cluster f.uck sides

anything else I can help you with ?

From the NRL no, but millions from the previous owners of the NRL, news ltd. there ain't no free lunches. What they lost on the storm would have hurt the NRL in the end.

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

How many millions have been used to bankroll the flailing storm? .

over the next 5 years .. about 25 Million

So the nrl receive $900million in cash, immediately payout $96 million to cover advances and they're commited to $25 million for the Storm. That's $785 million only $85 million better than last time !!!
Thats' not counting all the lost contra in News Corp freebie advertising.

.

cos789 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

How many millions have been used to bankroll the flailing storm? .

over the next 5 years .. about 25 Million

So the nrl receive $900million in cash, immediately payout $96 million to cover advances and they're commited to $25 million for the Storm. That's $785 million only $85 million better than last time !!!
Thats' not counting all the lost contra in News Corp freebie advertising.

.

ah cuzzy .... mate put down that VFL calculator before you hurt yourself

we got 925 Million cash in our Australian TV deal alone ... we'll get up to another 200 Million to 250 Million when our deal is finalised with the other contributors tipping in
but lets go the low end & say we don't get anymore then 60 Million for our online rights .. & 100 Mill from the Kiwis
we're at 1.085 Billion in cold hard cash

take out next years advance payment of 96 Million .. & the NRL's extra commitment to the Storm over the entire life of the deal which is just 25 Million
& we're at 964 Million for 5 years
some .... 464 Million more then our total previous deal over 6 years.. with a lot of bills already paid
our 16 clubs have far smaller running costs .. even with a bit of inflationary pressure ... this won't change much as the NRL won't allow it to

the VFL's total cash 1.1 Billion
has a bill of 250 Million odd for its 2 .. watse of space clubs ..before anything else is even looked at

Like a salary cap double the NRL's
for 18 clubs .. not 16 .. that is going up by 7% again over these next 5 years
among just a few other cash draining corkers that are pretty concerning

yep

tap that calculator a few times champ ... it might work a bit better if you do

Raiderdave wrote:

cos789 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

over the next 5 years .. about 25 Million

So the nrl receive $900million in cash, immediately payout $96 million to cover advances and they're commited to $25 million for the Storm. That's $785 million only $85 million better than last time !!!
Thats' not counting all the lost contra in News Corp freebie advertising.

.

ah cuzzy .... mate put down that VFL calculator before you hurt yourself

we got 925 Million cash in our Australian TV deal alone ... we'll get up to another 200 Million to 250 Million when our deal is finalised with the other contributors tipping in
but lets go the low end & say we don't get anymore then 60 Million for our online rights .. & 100 Mill from the Kiwis
we're at 1.085 Billion in cold hard cash

take out next years advance payment of 96 Million .. & the NRL's extra commitment to the Storm over the entire life of the deal which is just 25 Million
& we're at 964 Million for 5 years
some .... 464 Million more then our total previous deal over 6 years.. with a lot of bills already paid
our 16 clubs have far smaller running costs .. even with a bit of inflationary pressure ... this won't change much as the NRL won't allow it to

the VFL's total cash 1.1 Billion
has a bill of 250 Million odd for its 2 .. watse of space clubs ..before anything else is even looked at

Like a salary cap double the NRL's
for 18 clubs .. not 16 .. that is going up by 7% again over these next 5 years
among just a few other cash draining corkers that are pretty concerning

yep

tap that calculator a few times champ ... it might work a bit better if you do

Projected revenue this year and the next 2 after that:
AFL 430-440(million) Nrl 170-180
AFL 440-450 NRL 260-270
AFL450-460 NRL270-280
700 compared to 1.3 add to that added advertising exposure and you start to get an idea of the gap in finances.Sure the billion is great and expansion is expensive but the reality is we have the money to be adventurous and all great businesses take risks.In 5 years time ask yourself with the pathetic revenue streams outside of the broadcaster and less exposure what chance have you really got to catch up.Little own overtake the premier code in the country.By the way 35000 to the only final in Sydney this weekend what a joke.You must be envious when you turn on the tele and see 85000 at the G.

Fri TV #NRL #NRLCBYMAN 899,000 (FTA metro) Syd 589k Mel 34k Bri 267k Ade 3k Per 6k (Nine/GEM)

Quick get that Perth team in stat!



Fri TV #AFL #AFLHawksPies 1,066,000 (FTA metro) Syd 40k Mel 604k Bri 45k Ade 196k Per 181k (Seven/7mate) #AFLFinals

Easy! And 3hrs compared to 2.


Has v Coll drew more than 1.07m on metro tv, while regional and pay audiences will take full Friday figure close to 1.7million. #greatness

piesman2011 wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

hmmm I see

a bit more ... or a lot more ?

Its irrelevant. As I asked you, would you rather more money and more coverage or less money and less coverage? Theyre the two important stats, not dollars per minute.

When the deals were first signed and announce almost every fan wanted to know how much for and how many games they could watch on TV. AFL fans were ecstatic, great money and great coverage. NRL fans were mostly devastated, great money but disgraceful TV coverage. How many people asked, but what are we paid per minute?

Theres your answer right there Dave.

The AFL took less money to show the AFL live on Friday nights, to show the AFL into the local teams home states on FTA TV and to give fans the oppotunity to see every game live on TV. Most NRL supporters dont really care about the money (same as AFL supporters), they just want to watch their teams live (in HD if possible). Unfortunately the NRL needed the money for the future of the game (good for the sport but not the best deal for the fans or for the exposure of the greatest game of all). The AFL negotiated a deal that gave the code less money but gave the game more exposure. This will help generate more support for the code in the long term.
As for more money per minute. Why does this matter. The AFL fans have more footy to watch. The AFL has lots of money and they players all 843 of them will have an average salary of 350K by 2016.

The ARLCommission took less money and settled on the conditions they did because they felt it was in the fans and games best interest to get rid of the first and last offer clause that News Ltd held up until 2028.

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

Xman wrote:

Its irrelevant. As I asked you, would you rather more money and more coverage or less money and less coverage? Theyre the two important stats, not dollars per minute.

When the deals were first signed and announce almost every fan wanted to know how much for and how many games they could watch on TV. AFL fans were ecstatic, great money and great coverage. NRL fans were mostly devastated, great money but disgraceful TV coverage. How many people asked, but what are we paid per minute?

Theres your answer right there Dave.

The AFL took less money to show the AFL live on Friday nights, to show the AFL into the local teams home states on FTA TV and to give fans the oppotunity to see every game live on TV. Most NRL supporters dont really care about the money (same as AFL supporters), they just want to watch their teams live (in HD if possible). Unfortunately the NRL needed the money for the future of the game (good for the sport but not the best deal for the fans or for the exposure of the greatest game of all). The AFL negotiated a deal that gave the code less money but gave the game more exposure. This will help generate more support for the code in the long term.
As for more money per minute. Why does this matter. The AFL fans have more footy to watch. The AFL has lots of money and they players all 843 of them will have an average salary of 350K by 2016.

The ARLCommission took less money and settled on the conditions they did because they felt it was in the fans and games best interest to get rid of the first and last offer clause that News Ltd held up until 2028.

Rubbish. They took money over decent FTA coverage. The AFL took both great money and great FTA payTV coverage.

Sat FTA TV #NRL #NRLMELSOU 789,000 (Syd 472k Mel 64k Bri 246k Ade 2k Per 5k) Nine/GEM

Sat FTA TV #NRL #NRLNQLBRI 702,000 (Syd 392k Mel 24k Bri 280k Ade 3k Per 3k) Nine/GEM

Sat FTA TV #AFL #AFLCrowsSwans 749,000 (Syd 142k Mel 297k Bri 52k Ade 165k Per 93k) Seven #AFLFinals

Sat FTA TV #AFL #AFLCatsFreo 1,013,000 (Syd 43k Mel 515k Bri 39k Ade 139k Per 277k) Seven/7mate #AFLFinals

AFL smashing nRL even without foxtel.

Those swans figures for Sydney are impressive especially given the foxtel ratings would add 40-50k.

Look at those Perth and Adelaide NRL figures!

According to twitter:

Fox Footy ratings not avail yet. System fail, not yet repaired

Hopefully we get a few to break 400K.

Just in :

Fri Sub TV #AFL #AFLHawksPies 417,000 (metro+regional) Pre-game 156k Post-game 228k #FoxFooty @Collingwood_FC @HawthornFC

http://twitter.com/MediaweekAUS/status/ ... 9252912129

Straight to the top of the list.