Talking Footy

Beaussie wrote:

AFLsforPussies wrote:

AFL games in Sydney are all put on digital off shoot channel 7mate because they don't rate well enough here.

So if the A league was shown on 7mate as well it would be fine.

The article is suggesting all A-League games nationwide on a secondary channel. You really think the A-League will be fine with that? Seriously.

AFLsforPussies wrote:

Beaussie wrote:

AFLsforPussies wrote:

AFL games in Sydney are all put on digital off shoot channel 7mate because they don't rate well enough here.

So if the A league was shown on 7mate as well it would be fine.

The article is suggesting all A-League games nationwide on a secondary channel. You really think the A-League will be fine with that? Seriously.

7mate would probably get more viewers than SBS anyway. The AFL has no issue with broadcasting on offshoot channels in non AFL states. So why not the A league.

I honestly think the A league would do better on a commercial offshoot channel.

King-Eliagh wrote:

For the A-league rights Channel seven should not offer more than one goat, two hens eggs and a few seeds for planting beans.

Very interesting times indeed for football. I think it’s a win-win for the sport no matter what happens from here. Let the networks battle it out, regardless of who gets the rights and how much they show, it’ll increase the rights value, maybe double and allow the game to grwoth to the next level. Foxtel has been good for the A-league and vice versa. I think that partnership of 5 live games per week will continue. I think the FTA component, if we do get out of the SBS deal, could be either on OneHD, 7TWO, 7mate, GEM or GO. I don’t think the main channels will risk it with football just yet, plus all of channels 7,9 and 10 are all stocked up with summer sport already.

A brief look at the figures, and AFL gets $250m pa, compared to the FFA who gets $40m pa. Majority of both comes from Fox.
AFL gets over 6 times the FFA’s yearly rights. Fox rates AFL at approx 200k viewers per game, and AL rates approx 70k.
That’s just less than 3 times more viewers. Crowds are about 13k average at AL, and 32k for AFL. That’s 2.5 times bigger crowds for AFL. Sponsorship dollars are of course bigger for AFL as they’re on FTA and they’ve had that exposure for years.
The AFL gets 6 times more money than FFA.

Now let’s look at NRL. They get $200m yearly for TV rights compared to $40m for football. That’s 5 times more exactly.
They’re average crowds are around 18k compared to 13k for AL. Ratings on Fox are about 250k for NRL compared to 70k for AL.
That’s 3.5 times more viewers for NRL. Again they’ve got much bigger sponsorship revenues due to constant FTA exposure.
So NRL crowds are within 5k of AL, and the ratings are 3.5 times bigger, but they get 5 times the TV revenue.

So a few points to consider, IMO the value of the current TV deals in place for both AFL and NRL are slightly inflated, and not worth those price tags on the figures alone. But I guess that’s business, and I think that both the bidding between networks sparks competition, and both sport’s long standing business relationships with those TV networks definetely help them to get a higher value of TV dollars.

By the same token, I think the football rights are too low. But both AFL and NRL are now proven FTA products after decades on the main channels. Football if marketed well by 1 of the FTA stations, the rights are worth double the current $40m per year, with Fox once again paying the majority share of the moeny. But someone needs to be willing to take a chance on the sport as a whole, just like Packer did with cricket in the 70’s. And by the sounds of it, they’re all interested in at least having a chat about the rights.

Football in Oz isn’t what it was a decade ago, its gone way beyond that, and everybody’s starting to realise this including the networks. And it’s still has a long way to go, the growth potential is a large one.

eelofwest wrote:

asanchez said | March 21st 2015 @ 12:41am | Report comment

Very interesting times indeed for football. I think it’s a win-win for the sport no matter what happens from here. Let the networks battle it out, regardless of who gets the rights and how much they show, it’ll increase the rights value, maybe double and allow the game to grwoth to the next level. Foxtel has been good for the A-league and vice versa. I think that partnership of 5 live games per week will continue. I think the FTA component, if we do get out of the SBS deal, could be either on OneHD, 7TWO, 7mate, GEM or GO. I don’t think the main channels will risk it with football just yet, plus all of channels 7,9 and 10 are all stocked up with summer sport already.

A brief look at the figures, and AFL gets $250m pa, compared to the FFA who gets $40m pa. Majority of both comes from Fox.
AFL gets over 6 times the FFA’s yearly rights. Fox rates AFL at approx 200k viewers per game, and AL rates approx 70k.
That’s just less than 3 times more viewers. Crowds are about 13k average at AL, and 32k for AFL. That’s 2.5 times bigger crowds for AFL. Sponsorship dollars are of course bigger for AFL as they’re on FTA and they’ve had that exposure for years.
The AFL gets 6 times more money than FFA.

Now let’s look at NRL. They get $200m yearly for TV rights compared to $40m for football. That’s 5 times more exactly.
They’re average crowds are around 18k compared to 13k for AL. Ratings on Fox are about 250k for NRL compared to 70k for AL.
That’s 3.5 times more viewers for NRL. Again they’ve got much bigger sponsorship revenues due to constant FTA exposure.
So NRL crowds are within 5k of AL, and the ratings are 3.5 times bigger, but they get 5 times the TV revenue.

So a few points to consider, IMO the value of the current TV deals in place for both AFL and NRL are slightly inflated, and not worth those price tags on the figures alone. But I guess that’s business, and I think that both the bidding between networks sparks competition, and both sport’s long standing business relationships with those TV networks definetely help them to get a higher value of TV dollars.

By the same token, I think the football rights are too low. But both AFL and NRL are now proven FTA products after decades on the main channels. Football if marketed well by 1 of the FTA stations, the rights are worth double the current $40m per year, with Fox once again paying the majority share of the moeny. But someone needs to be willing to take a chance on the sport as a whole, just like Packer did with cricket in the 70’s. And by the sounds of it, they’re all interested in at least having a chat about the rights.

Football in Oz isn’t what it was a decade ago, its gone way beyond that, and everybody’s starting to realise this including the networks. And it’s still has a long way to go, the growth potential is a large one.

Okay so guys i got this of the Roar.

How bloody stupid are these blokes, does anyone see any problem with his theory here?

Ill Start....he thinks the NRL and AFL get 250m a year from Fox alone, allowing him to come up with his bogus idea that the aleague is undervalued and AFL and NRL overvalued.

Comon Soccer fans back this nutjub up if you dare.....lol

Raiderdave wrote:

eelofwest wrote:

asanchez said | March 21st 2015 @ 12:41am | Report comment

Very interesting times indeed for football. I think it’s a win-win for the sport no matter what happens from here. Let the networks battle it out, regardless of who gets the rights and how much they show, it’ll increase the rights value, maybe double and allow the game to grwoth to the next level. Foxtel has been good for the A-league and vice versa. I think that partnership of 5 live games per week will continue. I think the FTA component, if we do get out of the SBS deal, could be either on OneHD, 7TWO, 7mate, GEM or GO. I don’t think the main channels will risk it with football just yet, plus all of channels 7,9 and 10 are all stocked up with summer sport already.

A brief look at the figures, and AFL gets $250m pa, compared to the FFA who gets $40m pa. Majority of both comes from Fox.
AFL gets over 6 times the FFA’s yearly rights. Fox rates AFL at approx 200k viewers per game, and AL rates approx 70k.
That’s just less than 3 times more viewers. Crowds are about 13k average at AL, and 32k for AFL. That’s 2.5 times bigger crowds for AFL. Sponsorship dollars are of course bigger for AFL as they’re on FTA and they’ve had that exposure for years.
The AFL gets 6 times more money than FFA.

Now let’s look at NRL. They get $200m yearly for TV rights compared to $40m for football. That’s 5 times more exactly.
They’re average crowds are around 18k compared to 13k for AL. Ratings on Fox are about 250k for NRL compared to 70k for AL.
That’s 3.5 times more viewers for NRL. Again they’ve got much bigger sponsorship revenues due to constant FTA exposure.
So NRL crowds are within 5k of AL, and the ratings are 3.5 times bigger, but they get 5 times the TV revenue.

So a few points to consider, IMO the value of the current TV deals in place for both AFL and NRL are slightly inflated, and not worth those price tags on the figures alone. But I guess that’s business, and I think that both the bidding between networks sparks competition, and both sport’s long standing business relationships with those TV networks definetely help them to get a higher value of TV dollars.

By the same token, I think the football rights are too low. But both AFL and NRL are now proven FTA products after decades on the main channels. Football if marketed well by 1 of the FTA stations, the rights are worth double the current $40m per year, with Fox once again paying the majority share of the moeny. But someone needs to be willing to take a chance on the sport as a whole, just like Packer did with cricket in the 70’s. And by the sounds of it, they’re all interested in at least having a chat about the rights.

Football in Oz isn’t what it was a decade ago, its gone way beyond that, and everybody’s starting to realise this including the networks. And it’s still has a long way to go, the growth potential is a large one.

Okay so guys i got this of the Roar.

How bloody stupid are these blokes, does anyone see any problem with his theory here?

Ill Start....he thinks the NRL and AFL get 250m a year from Fox alone, allowing him to come up with his bogus idea that the aleague is undervalued and AFL and NRL overvalued.

Comon Soccer fans back this nutjub up if you dare.....lol

Both the NRL n VFL get 10 times the viewers the LOL league gets overall

Based on that its the LOL league who get disproportinatley more then they should