Talking Footy

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

What do you mean you dont have to put a spin on information? Xman and yourself have done nothing but make excuses for the short comings of the AFL.

The second Brisbane side will be strong first up and I wouldn't be surprised if a second Brisbane team come in next year. The G.Cst made the semi's in there 1st or 2nd year and the third year they made the final. Perth may not be as strong first up, but Melboure did get to GF in there 2nd year. There main players are mostly Queenslanders. Qld & to a lesser extent NSW both have strong second tier competitions.

Short comings? All you've got is payTV and that is purely dictated by subscription rates which everyone knows are miles ahead in NSW.

The AFL have over double the crowds, revenue and media interest. They're streaks ahead in the total tv ratings. What exactly are the AFL short in?

You might have us with crowds.

Revnue - Not for long.

News Ltd is nearabout the biggest media company in the world. The back pages of its papers are full of league.

Your subscription rates are behind - due to a lack of interest.

Your richest club, by far, earns about what our average club does. The AFL is a billion dollar industry, double the NRL. Even with a better tv deal your way way behind. Seriously, where else are the NRL going to get their increase in revenue from? They have few members, few crowds, poor exposure and poor sponsorship.

6 hr of FTA AFL today. How many hours of FTA NRL? Another 6 hrs of AFL tomorrow. How many NRL? Every SA, WA, Qld and NSW AFL club is shown to their home state on FTA every week. Some NRL clubs get only a few FTA games per year.

That's the reason for the difference in payTV subscriptions.

XMan try to stick with reality. 12 months ago the Swans were in receivership, The Suns and GWS get$20 each year to keep afloat. According to your own Eddie McGuire half your clubs need handouts just to survive - 'It's a welfare state'

pussycat wrote:

XMan try to stick with reality. 12 months ago the Swans were in receivership, The Suns and GWS get$20 each year to keep afloat. According to your own Eddie McGuire half your clubs need handouts just to survive - 'It's a welfare state'

Your code only has one team that makes a profit, the rest survive on a shoe string budget. Some don't evn have a full complement of support staff like a CEO.

The AFL is flush with cash, easily enough to support all clubs when and where needed. The swans have a revenue comparable to the broncos, the NRLs richest clubs!

The "welfare state" comments were from Kennet. They arent for clubs to survive you clown. Theyre for clubs to compete equally in regards to facilities and support staff etc.

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

What do you mean you dont have to put a spin on information? Xman and yourself have done nothing but make excuses for the short comings of the AFL.

The second Brisbane side will be strong first up and I wouldn't be surprised if a second Brisbane team come in next year. The G.Cst made the semi's in there 1st or 2nd year and the third year they made the final. Perth may not be as strong first up, but Melboure did get to GF in there 2nd year. There main players are mostly Queenslanders. Qld & to a lesser extent NSW both have strong second tier competitions.

Short comings? All you've got is payTV and that is purely dictated by subscription rates which everyone knows are miles ahead in NSW.

The AFL have over double the crowds, revenue and media interest. They're streaks ahead in the total tv ratings. What exactly are the AFL short in?

You might have us with crowds.

Revnue - Not for long.

News Ltd is nearabout the biggest media company in the world. The back pages of its papers are full of league.

Your subscription rates are behind - due to a lack of interest.

Your kidding yourself on the Revnue. The TV deal only makes up about a third of the AFL revenue. The NRL is going to have to tripple its crowds and sponsership to get in front of the AFL even with a TV deal on parity. As for me spinning information. I have seen a lot of spin comming from you, however at the end of the year when the AFL has more accumulative rating numbers, we will both know whos right. Until that day keep believing what you believe whatever I say wont change your mind.

Pussycat,

The AFL Players wanted 25 to 27% on the total AFL revenue to pay their wages. They didn't get that much instead they accepted 1.144 billion dollars over 5 years. Lets say they got 25% of the total revenue. That means that they AFL is earning about 4.5 billion over 5 years in revenue. Even with the NRL getting 1.2 billion over 5 years, I cant see them generating another 3.3 billion through sponsership, sales and memberships. Good luck with global domination, many would say you sound like the NRL's answer to the AFL zealot.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/AFL/more-ne ... 6222655902



http://www.theage.com.au/AFL/AFL-news/p ... 1gr0r.html

The players want a set 25-27 per cent of overall revenue in a three-year deal.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/AFL/AFL-news/p ... z1y3OirOZx

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

Short comings? All you've got is payTV and that is purely dictated by subscription rates which everyone knows are miles ahead in NSW.

The AFL have over double the crowds, revenue and media interest. They're streaks ahead in the total tv ratings. What exactly are the AFL short in?

You might have us with crowds.

Revnue - Not for long.

News Ltd is nearabout the biggest media company in the world. The back pages of its papers are full of league.

Your subscription rates are behind - due to a lack of interest.

Your kidding yourself on the Revnue. The TV deal only makes up about a third of the AFL revenue. The NRL is going to have to tripple its crowds and sponsership to get in front of the AFL even with a TV deal on parity. As for me spinning information. I have seen a lot of spin comming from you, however at the end of the year when the AFL has more accumulative rating numbers, we will both know whos right. Until that day keep believing what you believe whatever I say wont change your mind.

Piesman i do agree with most of what you have said especially the ratings part.
But with some balance you would have to say the NRL is a orange with coverage and the AFL a apple with coverage atm, you can hardly compare the 2 as it stands.
This talk about ratings needs to simmer down until the NRL has comparative coverage, then and only then will you see how strong the NRL rates and then we can make a comparison of apples v apples. :D

Have to agree the coverage is different so it is hard to compare. The only thing you could say is similar is the Friday night match and even that finishes at a different time and is a broadcast for the NRL. There are so many different factors involved in comparing ratings. I will say that RL in Australia is a strong and well loved product that will hopefully become financially strong and less dependent on media companies for support over the next decade.

piesman2011 wrote:

Have to agree the coverage is different so it is hard to compare. The only thing you could say is similar is the Friday night match and even that finishes at a different time and is a broadcast for the NRL. There are so many different factors involved in comparing ratings.

Have to disagree a fair bit there.
Ratings are the industry instrument for comparison.
Yes,, there are some differences like timeslots.
The major difference is the length of the games and even peak viewing patterns which favour AFL.
What media is looking is looking at are the consistantly pathetic figures for NRL outside of NSW and Qld which mean a lot more in comparison to the theatre-goer experience of SOO & GFs.

.

cos789 wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

Have to agree the coverage is different so it is hard to compare. The only thing you could say is similar is the Friday night match and even that finishes at a different time and is a broadcast for the NRL. There are so many different factors involved in comparing ratings.

Have to disagree a fair bit there.
Ratings are the industry instrument for comparison.
Yes,, there are some differences like timeslots.
The major difference is the length of the games and even peak viewing patterns which favour AFL.
What media is looking is looking at are the consistantly pathetic figures for NRL outside of NSW and Qld which mean a lot more in comparison to the theatre-goer experience of SOO & GFs.

.

Oh wow your back Mr looney good to here from you.

By the way Hows AFL in Newcastle going, striking while the irons hot????
Cos go back to bigfooty were they can handle your delusional rants, we don't want you here thank you and goodbye.

What the media are looking at at the great and ever growing TV numbers in NSW/QLD/ACT where 55% of the people live and 65% of the marketing/advertising dollars are spent. The opportunity to grow into Vic/SA/WA is all upside.

enarelle wrote:

What the media are looking at at the great and ever growing TV numbers in NSW/QLD/ACT where 55% of the people live and 65% of the marketing/advertising dollars are spent. The opportunity to grow into Vic/SA/WA is all upside.

Sure is. It's rock bottom interest at the moment!

Ho many Melburnians watched SOO1 - around 300k i believe and SOO2 366K which I believe is a 20% increase over game 1. Yep no interest.

enarelle wrote:

Ho many Melburnians watched SOO1 - around 300k i believe and SOO2 366K which I believe is a 20% increase over game 1. Yep no interest.

SOO is an event and doesn't equate to run of the mill interest. 3 times that many people from Sydney watched the swans in their recent GFs despite being shown on Saturday afternoon.

enarelle wrote:

The opportunity to grow into Vic/SA/WA is all upside.

That might be the potential but the reality is totally pathetic ratings that are so small that's statistically they are an aberation. Again, SOO is a theatre goer event and does not equate to any long term interest.
Even the ratings haveto be taken in context of what the alternatives are.
If there is shite on TV people will watch shite.

.

Con, how does AFL rate in NRL states? Watch out for the Iron Chef, them re-runs on SBS can be mighty good viewing