Talking Footy

pussycat wrote:

Blind Freddie at his blindest could see this years numbers are wrong.

How are they wrong? Why couldn't it be that the AFLs market was under counted in previous years and because evening games were shown delayed and late at night, and even after the game was finished to Perth?

So what would you consider to be the real AFL figures? No change from last year? Exclude foxtel completely? Exclude concurrent games? Anything to make your code win?

Eels showed a thinktv report claiming the NRLs Friday game won the ratings. Are these the reports we should be using? Interesting how it claimed the AFLs regional figures were 6% viewership when the metro was 13%. If you're claiming these are the true figures you're the deluded one.

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Blind Freddie at his blindest could see this years numbers are wrong.

How are they wrong? Why couldn't it be that the AFLs market was under counted in previous years and because evening games were shown delayed and late at night, and even after the game was finished to Perth?

So what would you consider to be the real AFL figures? No change from last year? Exclude foxtel completely? Exclude concurrent games? Anything to make your code win?

Eels showed a thinktv report claiming the NRLs Friday game won the ratings. Are these the reports we should be using? Interesting how it claimed the AFLs regional figures were 6% viewership when the metro was 13%. If you're claiming these are the true figures you're the deluded one.

but but but

just suck it up
we're not delusional so won't swallow this utter BS being served up by the VFL
but
you believe what you want

K

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Blind Freddie at his blindest could see this years numbers are wrong.

How are they wrong? Why couldn't it be that the AFLs market was under counted in previous years and because evening games were shown delayed and late at night, and even after the game was finished to Perth?

So what would you consider to be the real AFL figures? No change from last year? Exclude foxtel completely? Exclude concurrent games? Anything to make your code win?

Eels showed a thinktv report claiming the NRLs Friday game won the ratings. Are these the reports we should be using? Interesting how it claimed the AFLs regional figures were 6% viewership when the metro was 13%. If you're claiming these are the true figures you're the deluded one.

but but but

just suck it up
we're not delusional so won't swallow this utter BS being served up by the VFL
but
you believe what you want

K

The commercial networks obviously believe the numbers. They paid more for the AFL.

pookus wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

How are they wrong? Why couldn't it be that the AFLs market was under counted in previous years and because evening games were shown delayed and late at night, and even after the game was finished to Perth?

So what would you consider to be the real AFL figures? No change from last year? Exclude foxtel completely? Exclude concurrent games? Anything to make your code win?

Eels showed a thinktv report claiming the NRLs Friday game won the ratings. Are these the reports we should be using? Interesting how it claimed the AFLs regional figures were 6% viewership when the metro was 13%. If you're claiming these are the true figures you're the deluded one.

but but but

just suck it up
we're not delusional so won't swallow this utter BS being served up by the VFL
but
you believe what you want

K

The commercial networks obviously believe the numbers. They paid more for the AFL.

did they

950 Million for 594 hrs of annual coverage for 5 years
925 Million for 384 hrs of annual coverage for 5 years

hmmmm think I know whos considered more valuable

do you poopuss ?

Raiderdave wrote:

pookus wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

but but but

just suck it up
we're not delusional so won't swallow this utter BS being served up by the VFL
but
you believe what you want

K

The commercial networks obviously believe the numbers. They paid more for the AFL.

did they

950 Million for 594 hrs of annual coverage for 5 years
925 Million for 384 hrs of annual coverage for 5 years

hmmmm think I know whos considered more valuable

do you poopuss ?

Oh poor us! The cash plus the coverage! How will we ever cope?

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Blind Freddie at his blindest could see this years numbers are wrong.

How are they wrong? Why couldn't it be that the AFLs market was under counted in previous years and because evening games were shown delayed and late at night, and even after the game was finished to Perth?

So what would you consider to be the real AFL figures? No change from last year? Exclude foxtel completely? Exclude concurrent games? Anything to make your code win?

Eels showed a thinktv report claiming the NRLs Friday game won the ratings. Are these the reports we should be using? Interesting how it claimed the AFLs regional figures were 6% viewership when the metro was 13%. If you're claiming these are the true figures you're the deluded one.

Aaah! XMan

The mythical AFL land
Where Dragons fly with Butterfly wings
& Bumble Bees have lost there sting
For godsake get your headout of the sand
and remove your f******n hand.

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

pookus wrote:

The commercial networks obviously believe the numbers. They paid more for the AFL.

did they

950 Million for 594 hrs of annual coverage for 5 years
925 Million for 384 hrs of annual coverage for 5 years

hmmmm think I know whos considered more valuable

do you poopuss ?

Oh poor us! The cash plus the coverage! How will we ever cope?

oh but you forgot 2 new waste of space cash hoovering sh.it teams destroying the credibility of your comp as well marcus .. .
yes
the VFL just has it all eh

Buddy you sold your soul for that cash. You know it. You got less simple. The fact that the networks didn't want any extra content speaks volumes. Channel 7 got behind AFL expansion 9 just knocked yours straight on the head. Now the ratings are showing what happens when you put coverage and live games as a priority. The nrl will see minimal ratings growth over the next five years while the AFL with expansion will continue. A stunning win for the AFL this year in the first year of a great balanced deal.

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

did they

950 Million for 594 hrs of annual coverage for 5 years
925 Million for 384 hrs of annual coverage for 5 years

hmmmm think I know whos considered more valuable

do you poopuss ?

Oh poor us! The cash plus the coverage! How will we ever cope?

oh but you forgot 2 new waste of space cash hoovering sh.it teams destroying the credibility of your comp as well marcus .. .
yes
the VFL just has it all eh

It's called expansion. You should try it sometime.

Besides they've got higher crowd averages than your team!

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Oh poor us! The cash plus the coverage! How will we ever cope?

oh but you forgot 2 new waste of space cash hoovering sh.it teams destroying the credibility of your comp as well marcus .. .
yes
the VFL just has it all eh

It's called expansion.
:

ah no
its called a cluster f.uck ....

No, that's the NRL and their dismal fans! smashed by the AFL in every measure.

pookus wrote:

Buddy you sold your soul for that cash. You know it. You got less simple. The fact that the networks didn't want any extra content speaks volumes. Channel 7 got behind AFL expansion 9 just knocked yours straight on the head. Now the ratings are showing what happens when you put coverage and live games as a priority. The nrl will see minimal ratings growth over the next five years while the AFL with expansion will continue. A stunning win for the AFL this year in the first year of a great balanced deal.

NRL ... 925 Million minus ... well nothing much
VFL... 950 Million minus ... 220 Million for 2 waste of space teams that add nothing to your comp

now I know you struggeld with the other maths assignment , plenty of these going on
.. you are a victorian so an uneducated gimp

but try that one above for size
who wins there ?

Raiderdave wrote:

pookus wrote:

Buddy you sold your soul for that cash. You know it. You got less simple. The fact that the networks didn't want any extra content speaks volumes. Channel 7 got behind AFL expansion 9 just knocked yours straight on the head. Now the ratings are showing what happens when you put coverage and live games as a priority. The nrl will see minimal ratings growth over the next five years while the AFL with expansion will continue. A stunning win for the AFL this year in the first year of a great balanced deal.

NRL ... 925 Million minus ... well nothing much
VFL... 950 Million minus ... 220 Million for 2 waste of space teams that add nothing to your comp

now I know you struggeld with the other maths assignment , plenty of these going on
.. you are a victorian so an uneducated gimp

but try that one above for size
who wins there ?

925m minus half for their club grants, with little to no revenue from anything else.

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

pookus wrote:

Buddy you sold your soul for that cash. You know it. You got less simple. The fact that the networks didn't want any extra content speaks volumes. Channel 7 got behind AFL expansion 9 just knocked yours straight on the head. Now the ratings are showing what happens when you put coverage and live games as a priority. The nrl will see minimal ratings growth over the next five years while the AFL with expansion will continue. A stunning win for the AFL this year in the first year of a great balanced deal.

NRL ... 925 Million minus ... well nothing much
VFL... 950 Million minus ... 220 Million for 2 waste of space teams that add nothing to your comp

now I know you struggeld with the other maths assignment , plenty of these going on
.. you are a victorian so an uneducated gimp

but try that one above for size
who wins there ?

925m minus half for their club grants, with little to no revenue from anything else.

half eh

6.6 Million X 16 is wot marcus ......

calculator on the blink again
f me
your maths is getting worse .. if thats possible
do victorians even go to school

Your maths is quite convenient . AFL got more than billion cash from the networks champ and your minute per dollar argument is a farce.You refuse to take into account other revenue but you add costs to the equation. The expansion was already paid for nothing to do with size of deal. The expansion teams reduced the value of the deal as they have made the networks show them live. This is sacrifice cash for growth. This is also the power of the AFL. We tell them when we play our games who will be on tele and the way we want it televised. Imagine the AFL letting channel seven air an add that says better than any ticket can buy you . What a farce hey but as gyngell said we just bought the game.