Talking Footy

I would strongly suggest that the bias exists in your NRL clouded eyes. Ask yourself why NRL is only televised in two states on Free to Air and AFL is televised in all states. Also you failed to understand what I said about Foxtel's transmission of Free to Air signals on it's platform. Say that in one room someone watches Nine on Free to Air direct. That counts (for the sake of argument). In another room someone watches Nine via Foxtel. That doesn't count. Do you understand what I am saying now?

I am indeed fortunate to know someone who has a box. No coincidence at all. Also, they don't manipulate AFL ratings because they don't watch AFL at all. They are soccer fans. The point about multiple televisions and two readings of the box is still valid however.

The AFL has more to lose because it has more to begin with. More broadcast rights money, more coverage, a wider audience and bigger attendances. You can send me all the big cities you want. They will be watching a bit of AFL as well as NRL (yes more NRL I grant you in New South Wales outside of the Riverina region). The small towns from South Australia that I refer to don't watch NRL at all. It's a very pertinent difference.

Truthsayer wrote:

I would strongly suggest that the bias exists in your NRL clouded eyes. Ask yourself why NRL is only televised in two states on Free to Air and AFL is televised in all states. Also you failed to understand what I said about Foxtel's transmission of Free to Air signals on it's platform. Say that in one room someone watches Nine on Free to Air direct. That counts (for the sake of argument). In another room someone watches Nine via Foxtel. That doesn't count. Do you understand what I am saying now?

I am indeed fortunate to know someone who has a box. No coincidence at all. Also, they don't manipulate AFL ratings because they don't watch AFL at all. They are soccer fans. The point about multiple televisions and two readings of the box is still valid however.

The AFL has more to lose because it has more to begin with. More broadcast rights money, more coverage, a wider audience and bigger attendances. You can send me all the big cities you want. They will be watching a bit of AFL as well as NRL (yes more NRL I grant you in New South Wales outside of the Riverina region). The small towns from South Australia that I refer to don't watch NRL at all. It's a very pertinent difference.

OK, on the programs watched. I really am not to bothered about it as even if there are double ups, that can go both ways.

I just took a look at another thread where you suggested that you don't make predictions as it is a fools game. However you are happy to make statements that you can't back up. Please let us all know how you personally know that people will be watching AFL. However you also know that nobody in Melb, Adel and Perth or any regional area will watch league.

You ask me to myself why rugby League is not televised, I will answer you with a question, if there is no following for league, then why was there 18% of the viewers (ozTAM) of the origin serious from Melb, Adel and Perth.

To close, please refer to the figure of AFL viewers in Brisbane and Sydney when AFL and League are on at the same time (Friday Night live v AFL Friday Night Game)

Do not refer to individual games to make a point, Mr Dog. It's a smoke screen because one can just grab a game to make a point but ignore the bigger picture. State of Origin was only shown in Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth because it is an event in it's own right and not just because it's another game of rugby league. I make statements from my own personal experience. If you wish to question my personal experience then perhaps you should be prepared to defend your own.

It stands to reason that where there are local grass roots clubs in either sport there will be people watching it on television. I note Mr Pussycat's mention of rugby league competitions on Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth, and yet outside of State of Origin there is no television coverage given. Perhaps you should get the NRL to pressure the Nine Network to show NRL games in prime time against the AFL in those cities and see what happens?

Truthsayer wrote:

You are not correct, Mr Pussycat. It has nothing to do with what you are suggesting, and to predict how the ratings would look should everyone be counted is a fool's game. Surveys are no good unless the represent the entire demographic surveyed. In television that must be all 22 million of us without exception. I can not understand how the TV networks can consider such a system to be satisfactory with so many holes.

maybe because they know a heck of a lot more about it then you

Truthsayer wrote:

I would strongly suggest that the bias exists in your NRL clouded eyes. Ask yourself why NRL is only televised in two states on Free to Air and AFL is televised in all states. Also you failed to understand what I said about Foxtel's transmission of Free to Air signals on it's platform. Say that in one room someone watches Nine on Free to Air direct. That counts (for the sake of argument). In another room someone watches Nine via Foxtel. That doesn't count. Do you understand what I am saying now?

I am indeed fortunate to know someone who has a box. No coincidence at all. Also, they don't manipulate AFL ratings because they don't watch AFL at all. They are soccer fans. The point about multiple televisions and two readings of the box is still valid however.

The AFL has more to lose because it has more to begin with. More broadcast rights money, more coverage, a wider audience and bigger attendances. You can send me all the big cities you want. They will be watching a bit of AFL as well as NRL (yes more NRL I grant you in New South Wales outside of the Riverina region). The small towns from South Australia that I refer to don't watch NRL at all. It's a very pertinent difference.

the AFL pays for this to occur ... 2 of those states would not take AFL if they had a choice
the NRL has not had an opportunity to enforce this same arrangement in its next TV contract
NRL will be televised on FTA stations .. the main station in NSW & QLD & secondary channels certainly in VIC .. WA from 2013 as they have NRL teams or will have at some stage in the life of that deal ... & most likely in SA & TAS too ..... & they will be LIVE

this will only increase the NRL's present ratings

no ifs
no buts .......

Raiderdave wrote:

Truthsayer wrote:

I would strongly suggest that the bias exists in your NRL clouded eyes. Ask yourself why NRL is only televised in two states on Free to Air and AFL is televised in all states. Also you failed to understand what I said about Foxtel's transmission of Free to Air signals on it's platform. Say that in one room someone watches Nine on Free to Air direct. That counts (for the sake of argument). In another room someone watches Nine via Foxtel. That doesn't count. Do you understand what I am saying now?

I am indeed fortunate to know someone who has a box. No coincidence at all. Also, they don't manipulate AFL ratings because they don't watch AFL at all. They are soccer fans. The point about multiple televisions and two readings of the box is still valid however.

The AFL has more to lose because it has more to begin with. More broadcast rights money, more coverage, a wider audience and bigger attendances. You can send me all the big cities you want. They will be watching a bit of AFL as well as NRL (yes more NRL I grant you in New South Wales outside of the Riverina region). The small towns from South Australia that I refer to don't watch NRL at all. It's a very pertinent difference.

the AFL pays for this to occur ... 2 of those states would not take AFL if they had a choice
the NRL has not had an opportunity to enforce this same arrangement in its next TV contract
NRL will be televised on FTA stations .. the main station in NSW & QLD & secondary channels certainly in VIC .. WA from 2013 as they have NRL teams or will have at some stage in the life of that deal ... & most likely in SA & TAS too ..... & they will be LIVE

this will only increase the NRL's present ratings

no ifs
no buts .......

Hahaha, ok, so the AFL pays to have its games televised in NSW and QLD according to you, but still gets record tv rights deals (the lastest nearly 3 times larger than the NRL). You're hilarious Raider.

NRL is not shown before midnight anywhere other than NSW and QLD for a reason. Why you ask... well it's obvious isn't it, nationwide, there is very little interest in the game of Rugby League.

Beaussie wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Truthsayer wrote:

I would strongly suggest that the bias exists in your NRL clouded eyes. Ask yourself why NRL is only televised in two states on Free to Air and AFL is televised in all states. Also you failed to understand what I said about Foxtel's transmission of Free to Air signals on it's platform. Say that in one room someone watches Nine on Free to Air direct. That counts (for the sake of argument). In another room someone watches Nine via Foxtel. That doesn't count. Do you understand what I am saying now?

I am indeed fortunate to know someone who has a box. No coincidence at all. Also, they don't manipulate AFL ratings because they don't watch AFL at all. They are soccer fans. The point about multiple televisions and two readings of the box is still valid however.

The AFL has more to lose because it has more to begin with. More broadcast rights money, more coverage, a wider audience and bigger attendances. You can send me all the big cities you want. They will be watching a bit of AFL as well as NRL (yes more NRL I grant you in New South Wales outside of the Riverina region). The small towns from South Australia that I refer to don't watch NRL at all. It's a very pertinent difference.

the AFL pays for this to occur ... 2 of those states would not take AFL if they had a choice
the NRL has not had an opportunity to enforce this same arrangement in its next TV contract
NRL will be televised on FTA stations .. the main station in NSW & QLD & secondary channels certainly in VIC .. WA from 2013 as they have NRL teams or will have at some stage in the life of that deal ... & most likely in SA & TAS too ..... & they will be LIVE

this will only increase the NRL's present ratings

no ifs
no buts .......

Hahaha, ok, so the AFL pays to have its games televised in NSW and QLD according to you, but still gets record tv rights deals (the lastest nearly 3 times larger than the NRL). You're hilarious Raider.

NRL is not shown before midnight anywhere other than NSW and QLD for a reason. Why you ask... well it's obvious isn't it, nationwide, there is very little interest in the game of Rugby League.

absolutely ...we'll pay a penalty to have our game televised in the Sthn States as the AFL does , .. & still crack 1 Billion easily
our penalty will be a lot less though , because our game already shows signs of being far more popular on TV down there .. then the AFL is up here
the Storm on ... at a decent time already mops the floor with the Swans & make that regular as it will be in 2013... & its an easy win to the Storm

Keep dreaming sunshine.

Beaussie wrote:

Keep dreaming sunshine.

you'll wake up .. around May next year .. to your worst nightmare

a cashed up NRL
with the best sporting prouct there is televised nationally from 2013
attendances & TV ratings continuing to rise
while the AFL's continue to fall
our Expansion plans announced .. The Reds & the Bombers

we're near unstoppable now
we'll be a runaway train in the next 5 years

Raiderdave wrote:

Truthsayer wrote:

I would strongly suggest that the bias exists in your NRL clouded eyes. Ask yourself why NRL is only televised in two states on Free to Air and AFL is televised in all states. Also you failed to understand what I said about Foxtel's transmission of Free to Air signals on it's platform. Say that in one room someone watches Nine on Free to Air direct. That counts (for the sake of argument). In another room someone watches Nine via Foxtel. That doesn't count. Do you understand what I am saying now?

I am indeed fortunate to know someone who has a box. No coincidence at all. Also, they don't manipulate AFL ratings because they don't watch AFL at all. They are soccer fans. The point about multiple televisions and two readings of the box is still valid however.

The AFL has more to lose because it has more to begin with. More broadcast rights money, more coverage, a wider audience and bigger attendances. You can send me all the big cities you want. They will be watching a bit of AFL as well as NRL (yes more NRL I grant you in New South Wales outside of the Riverina region). The small towns from South Australia that I refer to don't watch NRL at all. It's a very pertinent difference.

the AFL pays for this to occur ... 2 of those states would not take AFL if they had a choice
the NRL has not had an opportunity to enforce this same arrangement in its next TV contract
NRL will be televised on FTA stations .. the main station in NSW & QLD & secondary channels certainly in VIC .. WA from 2013 as they have NRL teams or will have at some stage in the life of that deal ... & most likely in SA & TAS too ..... & they will be LIVE

this will only increase the NRL's present ratings

no ifs
no buts .......

The AFL pays for fucking NOTHING, you slanderhead! They know there are fans of the AFL who want to fucking see it!! Where's the NRL knocking on Nine's fucking door in Melbourne? Fucking NOWHERE!! Because the NRL doesn't give a shit about what goes on outside it's fucking heartland!

No ifs! No fucking buts!

Beaussie wrote:

Keep dreaming sunshine.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/04/30/a- ... -nrl-fans/

Entering a brave new world for NRL fans
I would like you to think back for a moment. How old were you on March 31st, 1995? For that was the last day that rugby league in this country enjoyed freedom. We haven’t had it since.

After sending the ARL broke in courtroom battles and forcing many rugby league sides to the wall, News Ltd got what it wanted – cheap rugby league content on its pay TV network and ownership of the NRL.

There are league fans today who have never seen a ‘free’ rugby league, they cannot even imagine it.

1995 was also significant for the AFL. After recommendations from the Crawford Report the AFL Commission gained complete freedom and independence, and the last two AFL broadcast deals have shown what a free Independent Commission can achieve.

Under News Ltd ownership rugby league simply treads water while News Ltd allows rugby league, the number one sport on its pay TV network, to be undersold for its own benefit.

The joint leadership of a self interested global media corporation and the two archaic self interested state bodies has been of tremendous detriment to the growth of the game.

The wonderful news for rugby league fans is this will not last forever. You will soon see a new rugby league, one with even more potential than the old pre-1995 rugby league that News Ltd coveted so much. Rugby league will finally win back its freedom through the ARL Commission.

The question is, what can an independent commission do for rugby league when negotiating later this year with potentially three FTA Networks, Foxtel, and Telstra?

They can negotiate with networks Nine and Ten, who have saved their reserves by not making a serious bid on AFL, and also industry leading Seven, who did not pay more for AFL now that Seven/Ten did five years ago.

They can negotiate with Foxtel where they are the number one rating sport and crucial to Foxtel’s survival, and to the new player Telstra, who are already the major sponsor of the NRL.

Many AFL fans will scoff at the suggestion that the NRL could sign a TV deal equal to or greater that the AFL. They either don’t remember a pre 1995 rugby league, or in the days before the internet knew little of it.

But think about this for a moment. How much revenue would the AFL Commission have gained in their latest broadcasting rights agreement if they had been selling the sport that rated number one on Foxtel, had the highest accumulative TV figures in the country, and had a regular season, final series, State of Origin, Internationals, National Youth Competition, and the Indigenous All Star game to sell?

Would they have got more than $1.2 billion?

If the much anticipated ARL Commission comes to fruition in the coming months rugby league fans will need to learn a long forgotten skill.

How to think big. Really big.

Onions wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Truthsayer wrote:

I would strongly suggest that the bias exists in your NRL clouded eyes. Ask yourself why NRL is only televised in two states on Free to Air and AFL is televised in all states. Also you failed to understand what I said about Foxtel's transmission of Free to Air signals on it's platform. Say that in one room someone watches Nine on Free to Air direct. That counts (for the sake of argument). In another room someone watches Nine via Foxtel. That doesn't count. Do you understand what I am saying now?

I am indeed fortunate to know someone who has a box. No coincidence at all. Also, they don't manipulate AFL ratings because they don't watch AFL at all. They are soccer fans. The point about multiple televisions and two readings of the box is still valid however.

The AFL has more to lose because it has more to begin with. More broadcast rights money, more coverage, a wider audience and bigger attendances. You can send me all the big cities you want. They will be watching a bit of AFL as well as NRL (yes more NRL I grant you in New South Wales outside of the Riverina region). The small towns from South Australia that I refer to don't watch NRL at all. It's a very pertinent difference.

the AFL pays for this to occur ... 2 of those states would not take AFL if they had a choice
the NRL has not had an opportunity to enforce this same arrangement in its next TV contract
NRL will be televised on FTA stations .. the main station in NSW & QLD & secondary channels certainly in VIC .. WA from 2013 as they have NRL teams or will have at some stage in the life of that deal ... & most likely in SA & TAS too ..... & they will be LIVE

this will only increase the NRL's present ratings

no ifs
no buts .......

The AFL pays for ******* NOTHING, you slanderhead! They know there are fans of the AFL who want to ******* see it!! Where's the NRL knocking on Nine's ******* door in Melbourne? ******* NOWHERE!! Because the NRL doesn't give a **** about what goes on outside it's ******* heartland!

No ifs! No ******* buts!

oh dear
ring up the AFL & ask them yourself ....

when you actually know something... about anything
then comment
til then your posts have has much relavence & meaning as the F@rt I just squeezed out.. phew .... eggs for brekkie

You just fucking wish what you said was true, kid!

Onions wrote:

You just ******* wish what you said was true, kid!

wot .. that my f@rts smell like eggs this morning ?

they do .. no kidding

pussycat wrote:

Beaussie wrote:

Keep dreaming sunshine.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/04/30/a- ... -nrl-fans/

Entering a brave new world for NRL fans
I would like you to think back for a moment. How old were you on March 31st, 1995? For that was the last day that rugby league in this country enjoyed freedom. We haven’t had it since.

After sending the ARL broke in courtroom battles and forcing many rugby league sides to the wall, News Ltd got what it wanted – cheap rugby league content on its pay TV network and ownership of the NRL.

There are league fans today who have never seen a ‘free’ rugby league, they cannot even imagine it.

1995 was also significant for the AFL. After recommendations from the Crawford Report the AFL Commission gained complete freedom and independence, and the last two AFL broadcast deals have shown what a free Independent Commission can achieve.

Under News Ltd ownership rugby league simply treads water while News Ltd allows rugby league, the number one sport on its pay TV network, to be undersold for its own benefit.

The joint leadership of a self interested global media corporation and the two archaic self interested state bodies has been of tremendous detriment to the growth of the game.

The wonderful news for rugby league fans is this will not last forever. You will soon see a new rugby league, one with even more potential than the old pre-1995 rugby league that News Ltd coveted so much. Rugby league will finally win back its freedom through the ARL Commission.

The question is, what can an independent commission do for rugby league when negotiating later this year with potentially three FTA Networks, Foxtel, and Telstra?

They can negotiate with networks Nine and Ten, who have saved their reserves by not making a serious bid on AFL, and also industry leading Seven, who did not pay more for AFL now that Seven/Ten did five years ago.

They can negotiate with Foxtel where they are the number one rating sport and crucial to Foxtel’s survival, and to the new player Telstra, who are already the major sponsor of the NRL.

Many AFL fans will scoff at the suggestion that the NRL could sign a TV deal equal to or greater that the AFL. They either don’t remember a pre 1995 rugby league, or in the days before the internet knew little of it.

But think about this for a moment. How much revenue would the AFL Commission have gained in their latest broadcasting rights agreement if they had been selling the sport that rated number one on Foxtel, had the highest accumulative TV figures in the country, and had a regular season, final series, State of Origin, Internationals, National Youth Competition, and the Indigenous All Star game to sell?

Would they have got more than $1.2 billion?

If the much anticipated ARL Commission comes to fruition in the coming months rugby league fans will need to learn a long forgotten skill.

How to think big. Really big.

This article is just incredibly wishful, and misleading.

There has been rugby league on free to air throughout this period. It may not be all games, but then that has been true of the AFL as well. This will change in 2012 with the new AFL deal.

I remember rubgy league pre 1995. It was struggling. Pay packets were low compared to the AFL and players were disgruntled. News Limited were seen by some as the white knights who would boost the game's finances in much the same way World Series Cricket did to that sport. With the cricket it worked. With rugby league it did not.

I would be interested to see what attendances were like back in the day and compare them to now. I suspect that there is little difference between the two. I am prepared to be proved wrong.

It is also misleading to talk down Channel Nine's interest in AFL. They want a slice and for five years they had it. They wanted to keep it, but Seven outbid them and Nine weren't allowed to match it even though they wanted to. Since then, Seven has reaped the rewards of revenue through advertising. This is something that they have decades of experience in, which is more than can be said for Channel Ten.

I believe I made this point before. If the NRL is Foxtel's biggest rating sport ahead of the AFL, why is it that the AFL is getting it's own channel? If it's so popular, surely the NRL would rate their own channel as well? The fact that they don't speaks volumes against the assertion that Foxtel considers the NRL their most important client.

A very poor article.