Talking Footy

Truthsayer wrote:

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.

AFL will have just 4 matches on FTA and 9 matches on Pay tv- just going to 30% of the audience. Im not sure thats a good thing.

The NRL will expand, but it is utterly ridiculous to say 'they need to expand or die.'

http://waredsrugbyleague.com.au/nrl-2013/

http://www.brisbanebombers.com.au/home

http://www.pngnrlbid.com/

http://www.cqnrlbid.com.au/2010/04/cq-n ... heck-list/

http://centralcoastbears.com.au/

http://www.nrl.com/tabid/10874/newsId/6 ... fault.aspx

http://www.footyfootyfooty.com/2010/11/ ... jason.html



http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=105678128000

Raiderdave wrote:

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!

Im sorry
but 4 people coudn't melt down a switchboard if they tried

it closed because it was unpopular

And yet Foxtel is launching a new dedicated AFL channel from next season. Go figure. Not only do Foxtel pay the AFL more $$$ for their broadcast rights, they also offer a 24hr dedicated AFL channel. What has the NRL got from their owners News Ltd/Foxtel?

I'll just say this on the links you have provided.

* Only one relates to a proposal in Australia outside of the NRL states, and that is Western Australia. I note that it was supposed to launch it's proposal early this year. What was the response?
* Central Queensland doesn't have the population base required to support an NRL side. That will never get off the ground.
* Going outside Australia is in one way a good move, but in another it undermines it's grass roots. I'm not convinced that Papua New Guinea's economy could support an NRL side. Further, more travel to New Zealand would provide headaches for the Australian clubs in terms of paperwork. I wonder what the New Zealand government's position is on this? This isn't the same as the Super 15.

To close this post, I can tell you that all the AFL matches will be shown on both Free To Air and Pay TV. It's part of the new broadcast regulations. The NRL are subject to the same regulations regarding broadcasting on Free to Air. Expect a lot of content on 7mate (AFL) and GO! (NRL) in 2012.

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.

That's it. Even with the end of Fox Footy Channel, the AFL moved to Fox Sports 1 pushing you know which game off to Fox Sports 2 and 3. Wonder why that was? Clearly Foxtel knew which product deserved Fox Sports 1 as a priority.

Late today I opened up my Excel Spreadsheet and did some calculations, which I found somewhat perplexing. What I counted was the ratings for all games in both AFL and NRL on Fox Sports.

Now given that the NRL puts more games on I was not surprised at the totals to Round 18 for the AFL and Round 20 for the NRL;
*AFL: 11,897,000
*NRL: 19,110,105

However when I divided those numbers by the total games shown (72 for the AFL and 90 for the NRL) I found these averages;
*AFL: 165,236
*NRL: 212,335

The reason I found this result perplexing is because as already indicated, the AFL is getting it's own channel back next year. You would have thought that with results like this the NRL would have one right now. But they don't.

I fail to understand the thinking of Foxtel in particular on this if they are guided by ratings, particularly as this would be nationwide including areas that Free to Air doesn't count (the regional areas that NRL fans are so keen to push).

Would someone mind explaining Foxtel's thinking here?

Beaussie wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

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!

Im sorry
but 4 people coudn't melt down a switchboard if they tried

it closed because it was unpopular

And yet Foxtel is launching a new dedicated AFL channel from next season. Go figure. Not only do Foxtel pay the AFL more $$$ for their broadcast rights, they also offer a 24hr dedicated AFL channel. What has the NRL got from their owners News Ltd/Foxtel?

Very little! but thats because they are our owners.

Truthsayer wrote:

Late today I opened up my Excel Spreadsheet and did some calculations, which I found somewhat perplexing. What I counted was the ratings for all games in both AFL and NRL on Fox Sports.

Now given that the NRL puts more games on I was not surprised at the totals to Round 18 for the AFL and Round 20 for the NRL;
*AFL: 11,897,000
*NRL: 19,110,105

However when I divided those numbers by the total games shown (72 for the AFL and 90 for the NRL) I found these averages;
*AFL: 165,236
*NRL: 212,335

The reason I found this result perplexing is because as already indicated, the AFL is getting it's own channel back next year. You would have thought that with results like this the NRL would have one right now. But they don't.

I fail to understand the thinking of Foxtel in particular on this if they are guided by ratings, particularly as this would be nationwide including areas that Free to Air doesn't count (the regional areas that NRL fans are so keen to push).

Would someone mind explaining Foxtel's thinking here?

We are taken for granted by News Ltd, the owner/controler of both organisations.

Foxtel is driven by subscriptions not ratings. They are pampering to the AFL states because they want to increase the subcibers in this area.

Beaussie wrote:

That's it. Even with the end of Fox Footy Channel, the AFL moved to Fox Sports 1 pushing you know which game off to Fox Sports 2 and 3. Wonder why that was? Clearly Foxtel knew which product deserved Fox Sports 1 as a priority.

It was an attempt to boost subscription levels in the AFL states. It didn't work so it was dumpted. Now there trying again, this time they will have a lot more AFL content..

That makes even less sense, Mr Pussycat. Where is the majority of Australia's population again according to you and your supporters? Regional New South Wales. I just don't buy your statement. Particularly that many people would go to the local pub rather than subscribe just for NRL or AFL.

It should also be noted that if the NRL goes to the independant commission and throw News Limited out of the boardroom, what would they do then?

Population figures are not hard to look up. Nor are regional rating figures!

There is only one vacancy in WA what do you expect???

As far as Foxtel goes there is a maximum subscription take up level that Pay Tv providers can expect. Fox has already reached that level in the Rugby League states. However, they feel the AFL states have fallen behind and there is more sighn ups to be gained in this area.


C.7 will show just 4 games a week next year.

My understanding is that federal broadcast laws require Seven to show all nine games. So they will. And you are ignoring Austar as a player. Foxtel has reached it's maximum? Well that would apply everywhere except maybe Western Australia only because that's the only state they have access to the regional area. In all other states that's Austar territory. So I doubt your information is accurate.

pussycat wrote:

Truthsayer wrote:

Late today I opened up my Excel Spreadsheet and did some calculations, which I found somewhat perplexing. What I counted was the ratings for all games in both AFL and NRL on Fox Sports.

Now given that the NRL puts more games on I was not surprised at the totals to Round 18 for the AFL and Round 20 for the NRL;
*AFL: 11,897,000
*NRL: 19,110,105

However when I divided those numbers by the total games shown (72 for the AFL and 90 for the NRL) I found these averages;
*AFL: 165,236
*NRL: 212,335

The reason I found this result perplexing is because as already indicated, the AFL is getting it's own channel back next year. You would have thought that with results like this the NRL would have one right now. But they don't.

I fail to understand the thinking of Foxtel in particular on this if they are guided by ratings, particularly as this would be nationwide including areas that Free to Air doesn't count (the regional areas that NRL fans are so keen to push).

Would someone mind explaining Foxtel's thinking here?

We are taken for granted by News Ltd, the owner/controler of both organisations.

Foxtel is driven by subscriptions not ratings. They are pampering to the AFL states because they want to increase the subcibers in this area.

And in turn increase their ratings.

pussycat wrote:

Population figures are not hard to look up. Nor are regional rating figures!

There is only one vacancy in WA what do you expect???

As far as Foxtel goes there is a maximum subscription take up level that Pay Tv providers can expect. Fox has already reached that level in the Rugby League states. However, they feel the AFL states have fallen behind and there is more sighn ups to be gained in this area.

So don't expect any big increase in the NRL broadcast rights. There is no incentive for Foxtel to pay more for the NRL as you have alluded too.

Beaussie wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Population figures are not hard to look up. Nor are regional rating figures!

There is only one vacancy in WA what do you expect???

As far as Foxtel goes there is a maximum subscription take up level that Pay Tv providers can expect. Fox has already reached that level in the Rugby League states. However, they feel the AFL states have fallen behind and there is more sighn ups to be gained in this area.

So don't expect any big increase in the NRL broadcast rights. There is no incentive for Foxtel to pay more for the NRL as you have alluded too.

there is if they lose the rights .. or are left with the scraps
a threat the NRL has already made

any subscriptions they gain in the Sthn states for AFL .. will be tripled by lost subsciptions in the Nthn states ..
the NRL has indicated they will negotiate a short term TV deal first up if they have to , giving Foxtel nothing to demonstrate who butters their bread
a hard lesson will be delivered if required
the NRL will get a massive increase in their pay deal because they are what keeps Foxtels doors open.

Raiderdave wrote:

Beaussie wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Population figures are not hard to look up. Nor are regional rating figures!

There is only one vacancy in WA what do you expect???

As far as Foxtel goes there is a maximum subscription take up level that Pay Tv providers can expect. Fox has already reached that level in the Rugby League states. However, they feel the AFL states have fallen behind and there is more sighn ups to be gained in this area.

So don't expect any big increase in the NRL broadcast rights. There is no incentive for Foxtel to pay more for the NRL as you have alluded too.

there is if they lose the rights .. or are left with the scraps
a threat the NRL has already made

any subscriptions they gain in the Sthn states for AFL .. will be tripled by lost subsciptions in the Nthn states ..
the NRL has indicated they will negotiate a short term TV deal first up if they have to , giving Foxtel nothing to demonstrate who butters their bread
a hard lesson will be delivered if required
the NRL will get a massive increase in their pay deal because they are what keeps Foxtels doors open.

Threats against their owners. Too funny.

Even if what you said was true, with no Foxtel involved, how would all 8 games of the NRL be broadcast per week when only 3 games are desired by FTA TV?