Talking Footy

Raiderdave wrote:

Topper wrote:

You can't formalise anything until the regional viewers are counted correctly and accurately. At present they are not. NZ don't matter to Australian advertisers. How much money can they make from a Warriors game being shown on NZ television? Nothing. A Trans Tasman strategy involves two deals and not one. See my signature otherwise.

NZ broadcasters do pay the NRL tough Tipsy .. current deal .. 12 Mill a year , new deal tipped to be 20 mill a year
& if the NRL rates well there & continues to increase its ratings there .. as it is presently

guess what
they pay more next time round

Unlike the Nine, Fox Sports and Telstra contracts, which expire at the end of next season, the Sky NZ deal has already concluded. Sky has made it clear it wants to pay less than the current $14 million a year, and has cited depressed ratings figures in this Rugby World Cup year.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z1iCftV12X

enarelle wrote:

"Culmative" is just further proof that things "add up" differently in the alternate AFL world. Some cannot spell it and at least one does not know what it means.

NRL cannot kick broadcast rights can for as much as AFL

by: James Chessell
From:The Australian
June 25, 201112:00AM

ON any rational analysis, the NRL's media rights are not worth as much as the AFL's.

This will not stop many members of the extended rugby league family - including the odd commentator and club chairman - from making unrealistic claims about the the game's value. But strip away the emotion, ideology and historic grievances and you are left with good news and bad news as far as the NRL broadcast rights are concerned.

There are several reasons why the NRL is less valuable. The most obvious is that a free-to-air broadcaster cannot show as many ads. This is because a game of rugby league is not only shorter but contains less tries than goals and therefore fewer breaks in play.

While AFL is not big in NSW or Queensland, it is a more national game, which is important. For example, a company such as Telstra will always pay more for mobile and internet (IPTV) rights if it can market them across the country. Having the AFL is often the reason Seven finishes the week on top for all mainland capital cities combined.

National reach counts. NRL tragics talk about the code's Sydney and Brisbane audiences - which are very strong - but they forget that both AFL grand finals last year outrated the NRL equivalent (2.8 million and 2.7 million v 2.1 million) for the capital cities. Last year's NRL finals games averaged almost 700,000 metro viewers compared with more than 900,000 per AFL finals game, according to Goldman Sachs. These are the numbers FTA broadcasters care about. Not curious "cumulative audience" figures quoted in some newspapers (including The Australian) in March.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sp ... 6081603237

Beaussie wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Topper wrote:

You can't formalise anything until the regional viewers are counted correctly and accurately. At present they are not. NZ don't matter to Australian advertisers. How much money can they make from a Warriors game being shown on NZ television? Nothing. A Trans Tasman strategy involves two deals and not one. See my signature otherwise.

NZ broadcasters do pay the NRL tough Tipsy .. current deal .. 12 Mill a year , new deal tipped to be 20 mill a year
& if the NRL rates well there & continues to increase its ratings there .. as it is presently

guess what
they pay more next time round

Stop posting BS.

We've been over this before. Sky actually wants to decrease their investment in the NRL.

Unlike the Nine, Fox Sports and Telstra contracts, which expire at the end of next season, the Sky NZ deal has already concluded. Sky has made it clear it wants to pay less than the current $14 million a year, and has cited depressed ratings figures in this Rugby World Cup year.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z1iCftV12X

Beaussie wrote:

enarelle wrote:

"Culmative" is just further proof that things "add up" differently in the alternate AFL world. Some cannot spell it and at least one does not know what it means.

Mythbusted

NRL cannot kick broadcast rights can for as much as AFL

by: James Chessell
From:The Australian
June 25, 201112:00AM

ON any rational analysis, the NRL's media rights are not worth as much as the AFL's.

This will not stop many members of the extended rugby league family - including the odd commentator and club chairman - from making unrealistic claims about the the game's value. But strip away the emotion, ideology and historic grievances and you are left with good news and bad news as far as the NRL broadcast rights are concerned.

There are several reasons why the NRL is less valuable. The most obvious is that a free-to-air broadcaster cannot show as many ads. This is because a game of rugby league is not only shorter but contains less tries than goals and therefore fewer breaks in play.

While AFL is not big in NSW or Queensland, it is a more national game, which is important. For example, a company such as Telstra will always pay more for mobile and internet (IPTV) rights if it can market them across the country. Having the AFL is often the reason Seven finishes the week on top for all mainland capital cities combined.

National reach counts. NRL tragics talk about the code's Sydney and Brisbane audiences - which are very strong - but they forget that both AFL grand finals last year outrated the NRL equivalent (2.8 million and 2.7 million v 2.1 million) for the capital cities. Last year's NRL finals games averaged almost 700,000 metro viewers compared with more than 900,000 per AFL finals game, according to Goldman Sachs. These are the numbers FTA broadcasters care about. Not curious "cumulative audience" figures quoted in some newspapers (including The Australian) in March.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sp ... 6081603237

enarelle wrote:

Topper on this you are actually right. The amazing thing with the TV ratings that it has taken the AFL crew so long to work out that OZ Tam,Nielsen,Repucom etc are actually NRL subsidiaries put in place to manipulate the TV ratings in favour of the NRL. Otherwise who could believe that these supposedly independent organizations would show the NRL in front of the AFL. Has to be a conspiracy doesn't it?

One area where we cannot dispute the AFL easily beats the NRL and all other codes is the area of paranoia. I think they have more than the rest of us put together.

However,like most covert operations they have gone overboard by "showing" that the NRL has gone from 10m behind to 15m in front over the last five years. You would have thought they would have waited until their were alot less AFL games being played or alot more NRL being played before "creating" these figures. A 25M change when the number of games is the same is outrageous.