Talking Footy

pussycat wrote:

Get used to running second Xman you'll be ding quiet a bit of it over the next few years.

How, we won this year, even with a cummulative count that ignores our 50% longer running time and overlapping broadcasts.

=D> =D> =D>

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Get used to running second Xman you'll be ding quiet a bit of it over the next few years.

even with a cummulative count that ignores our 50% longer running time
=D> =D> =D>

you mean the thing you said would ensure more $$$ for the VFL always ?

how'd that pan out d head

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Get used to running second Xman you'll be ding quiet a bit of it over the next few years.

even with a cummulative count that ignores our 50% longer running time
=D> =D> =D>

you mean the thing you said would ensure more $$$ for the VFL always ?

how'd that pan out d head

about as well as your cries of "regionals" and "our markets are worth so much more".....

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

even with a cummulative count that ignores our 50% longer running time
=D> =D> =D>

you mean the thing you said would ensure more $$$ for the VFL always ?

how'd that pan out d head

about as well as your cries of "regionals" and "our markets are worth so much more".....

ah no
you lot boasted ............. Oh oh oh .... we always win the metro ratings
we said .... we make up for this .. & ... surpass the VFL's ratings ... when our regionals are factored in
you lot said ..... oh , well .. the regionals don't matter cos they aren't counted properly
we said.... well , we'll see when the money is dished out
you lot said .... well even if they do put you ahead for ratings ... our games go for longer ... advertisers will pay more to broadcasters .. as they can show more adds in a VFL broadcast
we said ...well , we'll see when the money is dished out


ahhhhhhhh
who was right ?

Clean straight win for the AFL =D> =D> =D>

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

you mean the thing you said would ensure more $$$ for the VFL always ?

how'd that pan out d head

about as well as your cries of "regionals" and "our markets are worth so much more".....

ah no
you lot boasted ............. Oh oh oh .... we always win the metro ratings
we said .... we make up for this .. & ... surpass the VFL's ratings ... when our regionals are factored in
you lot said ..... oh , well .. the regionals don't matter cos they aren't counted properly
we said.... well , we'll see when the money is dished out
you lot said .... well even if they do put you ahead for ratings ... our games go for longer ... advertisers will pay more to broadcasters .. as they can show more adds in a VFL broadcast
we said ...well , we'll see when the money is dished out


ahhhhhhhh
who was right ?

we were. We got more!

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Get used to running second Xman you'll be ding quiet a bit of it over the next few years.

How, we won this year, even with a cummulative count that ignores our 50% longer running time and overlapping broadcasts.

=D> =D> =D>

Cant you see xman that by making a statement like that your admitting you have a boring, long winded game that cant compete with the NRL unless it is given special treatment

That survey, regardless of what you read into it, pits the figures for the average pre match/match/post match against your match average alone. not only that, it doesn't give any consideration to the home fans base of our 16th side.


So if you want to see this as some kind of victory, no matter how patheticly shallow the survey might be. It shows just how desperate you and your cronies must be.

On top of all that AFL has more games on FTA and almost twice the games on PTV. How pathetic are they?

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Get used to running second Xman you'll be ding quiet a bit of it over the next few years.

How, we won this year, even with a cummulative count that ignores our 50% longer running time and overlapping broadcasts.

=D> =D> =D>

Cant you see xman that by making a statement like that your admitting you have a boring, long winded game that cant compete with the NRL unless it is given special treatment

That survey, regardless of what you read into it, pits the figures for the average pre match/match/post match against your match average alone. not only that, it doesn't give any consideration to the home fans base of our 16th side.


So if you want to see this as some kind of victory, no matter how patheticly shallow the survey might be. It shows just how desperate you and your cronies must be.

On top of all that AFL has more games on FTA and almost twice the games on PTV. How pathetic are they?

Every program has a peak audience and an average lower than this. EVERY program. A shorter program will always have a higher average because the averaging result will be closer to the peak audience. Why do you think networks have begun coding the programs? For fun?

The NRL have had this "false" averaging advantage for years. Now the AFL game is coded by CH 7 (not the AFL ) the programs are more comparable. However the NRLs telecast is still shorter than the AFLs game section meaning they are still falsly advantaged

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

about as well as your cries of "regionals" and "our markets are worth so much more".....

ah no
you lot boasted ............. Oh oh oh .... we always win the metro ratings
we said .... we make up for this .. & ... surpass the VFL's ratings ... when our regionals are factored in
you lot said ..... oh , well .. the regionals don't matter cos they aren't counted properly
we said.... well , we'll see when the money is dished out
you lot said .... well even if they do put you ahead for ratings ... our games go for longer ... advertisers will pay more to broadcasters .. as they can show more adds in a VFL broadcast
we said ...well , we'll see when the money is dished out


ahhhhhhhh
who was right ?

we were. We got more!

really .... when did the NRL announce its deal had been finalised ?

oh thats right .. they haven't
whats that I can smell

fear ?

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

How, we won this year, even with a cummulative count that ignores our 50% longer running time and overlapping broadcasts.

=D> =D> =D>

Cant you see xman that by making a statement like that your admitting you have a boring, long winded game that cant compete with the NRL unless it is given special treatment

That survey, regardless of what you read into it, pits the figures for the average pre match/match/post match against your match average alone. not only that, it doesn't give any consideration to the home fans base of our 16th side.


So if you want to see this as some kind of victory, no matter how patheticly shallow the survey might be. It shows just how desperate you and your cronies must be.

On top of all that AFL has more games on FTA and almost twice the games on PTV. How pathetic are they?

Every program has a peak audience and an average lower than this. EVERY program. A shorter program will always have a higher average because the averaging result will be closer to the peak audience. Why do you think networks have begun coding the programs? For fun?

The NRL have had this "false" averaging advantage for years. Now the AFL game is coded by CH 7 (not the AFL ) the programs are more comparable. However the NRLs telecast is still shorter than the AFLs game section meaning they are still falsly advantaged

so..... you were arguing that the longer broadcast is an advantage for the VFL
now
you're arguing its a disadvantage

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

ah no
you lot boasted ............. Oh oh oh .... we always win the metro ratings
we said .... we make up for this .. & ... surpass the VFL's ratings ... when our regionals are factored in
you lot said ..... oh , well .. the regionals don't matter cos they aren't counted properly
we said.... well , we'll see when the money is dished out
you lot said .... well even if they do put you ahead for ratings ... our games go for longer ... advertisers will pay more to broadcasters .. as they can show more adds in a VFL broadcast
we said ...well , we'll see when the money is dished out


ahhhhhhhh
who was right ?

we were. We got more!

really .... when did the NRL announce its deal had been finalised ?

oh thats right .. they haven't
whats that I can smell

fear ?

NZ's regionals, or ratings etc were never discussed in this manner and therefore not compared.

Fact is the AFL is worth more to Ch7/Foxtel than the NRL is to Ch9/Foxtel. This is exactly what were were saying!

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Cant you see xman that by making a statement like that your admitting you have a boring, long winded game that cant compete with the NRL unless it is given special treatment

That survey, regardless of what you read into it, pits the figures for the average pre match/match/post match against your match average alone. not only that, it doesn't give any consideration to the home fans base of our 16th side.


So if you want to see this as some kind of victory, no matter how patheticly shallow the survey might be. It shows just how desperate you and your cronies must be.

On top of all that AFL has more games on FTA and almost twice the games on PTV. How pathetic are they?

Every program has a peak audience and an average lower than this. EVERY program. A shorter program will always have a higher average because the averaging result will be closer to the peak audience. Why do you think networks have begun coding the programs? For fun?

The NRL have had this "false" averaging advantage for years. Now the AFL game is coded by CH 7 (not the AFL ) the programs are more comparable. However the NRLs telecast is still shorter than the AFLs game section meaning they are still falsly advantaged

so..... you were arguing that the longer broadcast is an advantage for the VFL
now
you're arguing its a disadvantage

Its both stupid!

Ch7 do well because they get 3 hrs of great ratings. But the raw figures when this fact is not considered, favour a shorter program because of averaging. But these figures are essentailly irrelevant. The networks know the value of each product.

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

How, we won this year, even with a cummulative count that ignores our 50% longer running time and overlapping broadcasts.

=D> =D> =D>

Cant you see xman that by making a statement like that your admitting you have a boring, long winded game that cant compete with the NRL unless it is given special treatment

That survey, regardless of what you read into it, pits the figures for the average pre match/match/post match against your match average alone. not only that, it doesn't give any consideration to the home fans base of our 16th side.


So if you want to see this as some kind of victory, no matter how patheticly shallow the survey might be. It shows just how desperate you and your cronies must be.

On top of all that AFL has more games on FTA and almost twice the games on PTV. How pathetic are they?

Every program has a peak audience and an average lower than this. EVERY program. A shorter program will always have a higher average because the averaging result will be closer to the peak audience. Why do you think networks have begun coding the programs? For fun?

The NRL have had this "false" averaging advantage for years. Now the AFL game is coded by CH 7 (not the AFL ) the programs are more comparable. However the NRLs telecast is still shorter than the AFLs game section meaning they are still falsly advantaged

Some do it (the majority including the NRL don't) and they do it so they can say 'mine is bigger than yours. Even though the AFL's is actually puny- and shrivels up a little more each year

Whats false about The NRL averages? There program is worked out from go to woa. The AFL, on the other don't, they just average out the highest rating part - the actual match itself . Forget the first 15minutes were people don't even bother to turn there sets on, Gus's 'high' rating soliloquey and Stero's post match wrap up - How pathetic! Its like trying to compare the Parra Olympics with the Olympics.


What it Means, XMan. Is that the AFL game by its very is dull, boring and drawn out nature, it just drags on and on , failing to capture anyone's attention for any length of time. So Stokes is falsely inflating the rating of the AFL to try and recoup some of his money by showing poor innocent potential advertisers ratings figures, for a particular time slot, that are fudged. And dopes, like the guy at the 'Australian' who wrote that article, are just as taken in. Meaning the D will be pumping out his chest out aswell.

Doesn't the nRL start at 7.35 and when it finishes they almost instantly cut to the next game which is from kick off and without the intro?

The nRL could code it, but would it be worth it for 5 minutes? Clutching at straws Puss.

Im curious does the AFLs 123 million viewer figure include the preseason cup?