Talking Footy

Yes, I think afls expansion was much more about counteracting soccer. The AFL could see the potential there and realized if they didn't move into western Sydney then soccer would take over there from nrl and from there grow even more. I doubt that they were concerned with nrl really as a threat ... But they could see soccer as a threat.

Phelpsy wrote:

Yes, I think afls expansion was much more about counteracting soccer. The AFL could see the potential there and realized if they didn't move into western Sydney then soccer would take over there from nrl and from there grow even more. I doubt that they were concerned with nrl really as a threat ... But they could see soccer as a threat.

IMO the AFL saw it as 50:50:50 situation.
The AFL needed to lift their profile in Sydney, so an AFL game every week seemed to be the answer.
The AFL worked out a theoretical model based on WS and the TV rights as the underwriter.
The AFL saw WS as not being cliamed by anyone then but saw the potential danger of soccer in the WS cliaming it's rightful spot and saw also that the nrl was pretty lax out there.

The contact codes need to start working together because soccer is everyone's polical baby.

pHyR3 wrote:

So what's your point, that NRL crowds should be bigger like AFL crowds are? Well i've said a million times NRL = better on tv, AFL = better at the ground. Thus, AFL crowds > nrl crowds. So what's your point?

Speaking for myself, my point is that NRL should be packing stadiums out. Comparing the sizes of the stadiums means that naturally AFL crowds will be bigger because there's more room. TV is an excuse and you should stop falling back on it as though it's acceptable because it's not. TV viewers don't pay the bills. Clicks on the turnstiles at venues are what does that and the sooner the NRL understand that and do something about it the better.

tv viewers dont pay the bills? 1.3billion dollars begs to differ mate.

SPONSORS paid for that, you fricking goof!

NRLCrap1 wrote:

SPONSORS paid for that, you fricking goof!

sponsors > .... no you peanut brained halfwit :_<> :_<>

Broadcasters paid it
& they get it from merchants who sell their goods on TV as ads


& who pays for these goods ?
Tv veiwers of course

when will you get something ................. anything ..... right

NRLCrap1 wrote:

pHyR3 wrote:

So what's your point, that NRL crowds should be bigger like AFL crowds are? Well i've said a million times NRL = better on tv, AFL = better at the ground. Thus, AFL crowds > nrl crowds. So what's your point?

. TV viewers don't pay the bills. Clicks on the turnstiles at venues .

:_<> :_<> :_<>

gate receipts for the fumbles & bumbles would not be half of its annual TV revenue of 250 Million per year
fuck me
you seem to get dumber by the post :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

what a dead shit

pHyR3 wrote:

tv viewers dont pay the bills? 1.3billion dollars begs to differ mate.

broadcast deals do pay the bills, as the AFL and NRL have huge deals in place & are roughly the same. the NRL crawds are terrible at best. its almost on par with the A league.
crowds are another stream of income for the league and Clubs, but with crowds, comes with the sales of merchandise & food, drinks & alcohol
as with memberships as well

This was part of the reasoning the nrl gave 450000 to clubs ... So that they can become more self sufficient in generating revenue through other streams .

Raiderdave wrote:

NRLCrap1 wrote:

SPONSORS paid for that, you fricking goof!

sponsors > .... no you peanut brained halfwit :_<> :_<>

Broadcasters paid it
& they get it from merchants who sell their goods on TV as ads

AKA SPONSORS!!

Go back to your basement if you don't want to understand the real world, Dave. TV viewers pay nothing - except for those who have pay TV.

NRLCrap1 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

NRLCrap1 wrote:

SPONSORS paid for that, you fricking goof!

sponsors > .... no you peanut brained halfwit :_<> :_<>

Broadcasters paid it
& they get it from merchants who sell their goods on TV as ads

AKA SPONSORS!!

Go back to your basement if you don't want to understand the real world, Dave. TV viewers pay nothing - except for those who have pay TV.

Et tu, Rabbit? How much do you pay to watch free to air, hmmm?

NRLCrap1 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

NRLCrap1 wrote:

SPONSORS paid for that, you fricking goof!

sponsors > .... no you peanut brained halfwit :_<> :_<>

Broadcasters paid it
& they get it from merchants who sell their goods on TV as ads

AKA SPONSORS!!

ah................. no
anyone can advertise on tv during a game of football you ********* cockhead not just sponsors :_<> :_<> :_<>


who do woolworths & coles sponsor ?
the NAB bank ?

& about 5000 other business's


they all pay broadcasters to advertise on TV ... they are merchants
not sponsors

when you have nil .. zero .. zip ... knowledge about a subject you have 2 avenues

1) learn about it & comment

2) shut the fuck up & you'll avoid looking like a ***** fuckhead :_<> :_<>

NRLCrap1 wrote:

Et tu, Rabbit? How much do you pay to watch free to air, hmmm?

:_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>
I thought it would be impossible

but you haven't hit the bottom of the barrel of retardation yet

:_<> :_<> :_<>

all i know is that someone is giving the nrl 1.3 billion dollars because people watch it on tv. if no one watched it, then no money. pretty damn simple even for you guys....