Talking Footy

Truthsayer wrote:

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:

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.

Onions wrote:

It was closed down because Foxtel lost the ******* rights, you stupid merkin!!!

Onions wrote:

******* liar.

Truthsayer wrote:

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.

Truthsayer wrote:

Mr Pussycat, the previous AFL channel closed down because Fox Sports lost the rights to it. Fox Sports have always had the rights to the NRL so that's not an excuse. Had they retained the rights to the AFL the channel would have gone on.

The AFL played games in Japan, England and the United States in the 80's. That crowd at the MCG for State of Origin has never been duplicated, and it never will because the NRL aren't playing it there anymore. They settled for Etihad Stadium and now that they are moving the Origin games to weekends they have to move to AAMI Park which is smaller still.

The AFL will have all nine games on Free to Air next year. That is true. But it's a first. They have never had all the games on television before in their history.

The NRL need to expand or die and they refuse to. I keep hearing these rumours about Western Australia but I am yet to see a link about it. South Australia is essential to a realistic expansion but I am seeing nothing there. One can't expand within two states and yet that is what the NRL is doing to their peril.

Onions wrote:

Fox Footy lasted longer than six ******* months, dunderhead! And people ******* watched it! There were complaints that it was shutting down!! dunderhead! Truthsayer was right. It shut because they didn't have any games to show. Seven and Ten grabbed the ******* lot!

Truthsayer wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Footy_Channel

The future of the channel was placed in doubt after the awarding of the AFL rights from 2007 to the Seven Network and Network Ten. On 23 August 2006, Foxtel announced the Fox Footy Channel would cease broadcasting at the conclusion of the current AFL season and be replaced with Fox Sports 3. Foxtel CEO Kim Williams stated "It's not financially viable to continue operating a 24-hour-a-day (Australian rules) football channel when we can only get three live games a week and not on the terms we have sought." [4] The channel ended after a replay of the 2006 AFL Grand Final at 4.00am. Seven and Ten later, came to terms with Foxtel and four games per round will be shown on pay-TV, through the Fox Sports channels.