Talking Footy

Beaussie wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Beaussie wrote:

Xman, can we please open a new BS file? So sick of this dumbarse and his rubbish.
The final published GF ratings here are supported by OzTAM and AGB Nielsen. I challenge you to prove they are wrong. Go on, I've even posted the links in this thread for ya.

Your BS never ceases to amaze me.

I have the links I need

ThinkTV eh?

Challenge and links are still there dumbarse. Prove my numbers are wrong. Can't can ya.

I already have D head

how bout you post em again .. with another 25K added to the VFL
within 5 minutes

4,128,000
then it was
4,153,000



folks
watch em magically be 4,557,000 within the hour

yr a comedian Bearsy
leave the collation of TV ratings to people who know what they're doing .. K mate

The butthurt has well and truly got the better of our AFL fans on this site.

They thought with the Swans and Haw in the GF they would blow us away in the ratings.........how wrong they were...

They went all in Dave expecting a huge AFL ratings win.......

And like maverick we took that away from them with a royal flush.... =D>

eelofwest wrote:

The butthurt has well and truly got the better of our AFL fans on this site.

They thought with the Swans and Haw in the GF they would blow us away in the ratings.........how wrong they were...

They went all in Dave expecting a huge AFL ratings win.......

And like maverick we took that away from them with a royal flush.... =D>

Both you and Dave are therefore completely disagreeing with the final official and independent ratings figures. Why is that?

We all know whose butts are really hurting!

It really is an astonishing world of denial they seem to occupy. Any fact or figure that doesn't support their bizarre version of reality is somehow incorrect or fudged (and possibly fudgey wudgeyed). When NSWRL were doing well on Fox ratings they were perfectly accurate, but when AFL finals came around suddenly the Fox ratings weren't correct.

In Australia the AFL Grand Final rated higher than the NSWRL GF.

Drac wrote:

It really is an astonishing world of denial they seem to occupy. Any fact or figure that doesn't support their bizarre version of reality is somehow incorrect or fudged (and possibly fudgey wudgeyed). When NSWRL were doing well on Fox ratings they were perfectly accurate, but when AFL finals came around suddenly the Fox ratings weren't correct.

In Australia the AFL Grand Final rated higher than the NSWRL GF.

it did ... by about 100K veiwers
but the VFL GF ... was beaten by RL's SOO III in Australia

& if you include all of the NRL's markets in Australasia & the VFL's
we don't have sides in WA & SA... & you lot .. don't have one in NZ

the bumbleathon GF .. comes in ... 4th

butthurt ... butthurt indeed

Raiderdave wrote:

Drac wrote:

It really is an astonishing world of denial they seem to occupy. Any fact or figure that doesn't support their bizarre version of reality is somehow incorrect or fudged (and possibly fudgey wudgeyed). When NSWRL were doing well on Fox ratings they were perfectly accurate, but when AFL finals came around suddenly the Fox ratings weren't correct.

In Australia the AFL Grand Final rated higher than the NSWRL GF.

it did ... by about 100K veiwers
but the VFL GF ... was beaten by RL's SOO III in Australia

& if you include all of the NRL's markets in Australasia & the VFL's
we don't have sides in WA & SA... & you lot .. don't have one in NZ

the bumbleathon GF .. comes in ... 4th

butthurt ... butthurt indeed

BS. Try using all the ratings next time

Drac wrote:

It really is an astonishing world of denial they seem to occupy. Any fact or figure that doesn't support their bizarre version of reality is somehow incorrect or fudged (and possibly fudgey wudgeyed). When NSWRL were doing well on Fox ratings they were perfectly accurate, but when AFL finals came around suddenly the Fox ratings weren't correct.

In Australia the AFL Grand Final rated higher than the NSWRL GF.

Well whatever way you want to spin it, one thing wont change, The NRL , once again had 4 of the top 5 programs

pussycat wrote:

Drac wrote:

It really is an astonishing world of denial they seem to occupy. Any fact or figure that doesn't support their bizarre version of reality is somehow incorrect or fudged (and possibly fudgey wudgeyed). When NSWRL were doing well on Fox ratings they were perfectly accurate, but when AFL finals came around suddenly the Fox ratings weren't correct.

In Australia the AFL Grand Final rated higher than the NSWRL GF.

Well whatever way you want to spin it, one thing wont change, The NRL , once again had 4 of the top 5 programs

but not the top program and probably less than 1/4 of the top 30.

The other programs? It's hardly fair to include them! its like compairing apples with oranges. Your games have been coded differently to maximise ratings . =D>

pussycat wrote:

The other programs? It's hardly fair to include them! its like compairing apples with oranges. Your games have been coded differently to maximise ratings . =D>

And your game is far shorter giving it an artificial advantage anyway..

How long is the pre and post game in an NRL match given the game is supposedly 90 minutes with a half time break, and the telecast only 120?

An AFL match telecast of 3 hrs has 2hrs 15 of match and half time, so 45 minutes pre and post. This would be way longer than the NRLs pre and post.

Rugby league is rugby league And AFL is AFL. Thats just the way it is.

Just Because your game is like a drawn out funeral procession.

your game is pathetic and you are your excuses are just as pathetic.


You were telling me the other week most quarters go for 30m . So thats 2hours
The two quarter times + the long break = about 30m leaving about 30min of shit- or some might consider it to be the most exciting part of the match

pussycat wrote:

Rugby league is rugby league And AFL is AFL. Thats just the way it is.

Just Because your game is like a drawn out funeral procession.

your game is pathetic and you are your excuses are just as pathetic.


You were telling me the other week most quarters go for 30m . So thats 2hours
The two quarter times + the long break = about 30m leaving about 30min of shit- or some might consider it to be the most exciting part of the match

Ouch my game is pathetic. Way to get all emotional about it. Your just sooking because you had to change your signature. Your signature should read AFL the most watched, attended, televised and richest sport in Australia. Jealous much?

That's why RL gets paid more per minute on TV than the vFL, cause the vfl is the biggest and the bestest

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

That's why RL gets paid more per minute on TV than the vFL, cause the vfl is the biggest and the bestest

More per minute!

The best ever!

How about selling more minutes!

pussycat wrote:

Rugby league is rugby league And AFL is AFL. Thats just the way it is.

Just Because your game is like a drawn out funeral procession.

your game is pathetic and you are your excuses are just as pathetic.


You were telling me the other week most quarters go for 30m . So thats 2hours
The two quarter times + the long break = about 30m leaving about 30min of shit- or some might consider it to be the most exciting part of the match

As I said, the NRLs shorter running time gives them an artificial advantage. For the AFL to get a similar average ratings we need a higher peak audience because our game is 50% longer. Yet despite this we win easily showing we are far more popular. So you sook about splitting the coverage! how pathetic!

Sorry pussycat, you excuses are desperation indeed.