Talking Footy

I learnt that in my last year in primary school, imbecile! BYE!!!

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

NSWAFL wrote:

Note - the ratings Debbie is relying on are full of holes.

Why would the throng be full of holes when it is NZ's equivalent of our ratings sites?

Isn't the Throng part of News Ltd?

In any case the Throng is not the official tv ratings source for NZ tv ratings. I've seen some of their rubbish posted in Australia about the AFL vs NRL GF ratings. I wouldn't take anything they post on their blog sites as worthy of serious consideration. I call BS against the Throng.

In 2009, NRL games on Sky drew average audiences of 46,221 per game, rising to 60,779 in 2010 but falling markedly to 30,847 this year, a drop of 49.2%. More worryingly, Warriors matches, which drew an average 107,163 viewers in 2009, and 181,200 last season, now sit at just 90,200, a 50.2% drop. Those numbers contrast markedly to booming figures for Australian satellite channel Fox.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/486 ... a-big-dive

Still yet to find anything that supports Raider's claim that NRL rates better than Rugby in NZ.

Beaussie wrote:

In 2009, NRL games on Sky drew average audiences of 46,221 per game, rising to 60,779 in 2010 but falling markedly to 30,847 this year, a drop of 49.2%. More worryingly, Warriors matches, which drew an average 107,163 viewers in 2009, and 181,200 last season, now sit at just 90,200, a 50.2% drop. Those numbers contrast markedly to booming figures for Australian satellite channel Fox.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/486 ... a-big-dive

Still yet to find anything that supports Raider's claim that NRL rates better than Rugby in NZ.

Wow, didn't they make the GF too?

How will they go when they don't make the finals?

The letters "RS" come to mind!

Decision: bs point to Raiderdave

Raiderdave leading the way with BS points.