Talking Footy

leeroy*NRL* wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:49 pm

FAR FROM IT>>

in fact the network has got to be losing money airing the Game in Syd and Bris

the same would go for Ch9 and R.L airing games into southern states.

which would be factored in to the deal by both networks. I'm sure they were fully aware of what to expect when they signed the dotted line

NlolRL wrote: Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:58 am

leeroy*NRL* wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:49 pm

FAR FROM IT>>

in fact the network has got to be losing money airing the Game in Syd and Bris

the same would go for Ch9 and R.L airing games into southern states.

which would be factored in to the deal by both networks. I'm sure they were fully aware of what to expect when they signed the dotted line

that would be correct.

NlolRL wrote: Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:58 am

leeroy*NRL* wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:49 pm

FAR FROM IT>>

in fact the network has got to be losing money airing the Game in Syd and Bris

the same would go for Ch9 and R.L airing games into southern states.

which would be factored in to the deal by both networks. I'm sure they were fully aware of what to expect when they signed the dotted line

Disagree
The AFL spruiked about a 9th game ...how it would mean big $$$ to them because of the increase in viewers .
That situation has not really happened & going by this year it's going backwards .
I don't think ch 7 is happy
Lol it's not ..as seen by the media boss asking for rule changes Due to tanking ratings
RL is nothing like that

CH 9 knew that without a local team in WA or SA..ratings were very low for RL as they always have been
There was no promise of an increase because some new unwanted unasked for teams were introduced .
They paid for what they knew would rate in the 1st & 3rd biggest ad markets .

AFLcrap1 wrote: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:20 am

NlolRL wrote: Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:58 am

leeroy*NRL* wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:49 pm

FAR FROM IT>>

in fact the network has got to be losing money airing the Game in Syd and Bris

the same would go for Ch9 and R.L airing games into southern states.

which would be factored in to the deal by both networks. I'm sure they were fully aware of what to expect when they signed the dotted line

Disagree
The AFL spruiked about a 9th game ...how it would mean big $$$ to them because of the increase in viewers .
That situation has not really happened & going by this year it's going backwards .
I don't think ch 7 is happy
Lol it's not ..as seen by the media boss asking for rule changes Due to tanking ratings
RL is nothing like that

CH 9 knew that without a local team in WA or SA..ratings were very low for RL as they always have been
There was no promise of an increase because some new unwanted unasked for teams were introduced .
They paid for what they knew would rate in the 1st & 3rd biggest ad markets .

Disagree. A 9th game will still involve more viewers than only 8 games. Say the 9th game was the suns v collingwood or the giants v westcoast. These would be additional viewers.

There's no way ch7 and fox expected instant high ratings for new teams. if they did that's on their stupidity.

Oh and the low scoring and rule changes has nothing to do with an extra game

Lol yes it does
The already limited unco player pool was diluted even more by adding two new teams .
So those who were not in the top echelon of unconess got a gig ...diluting the already limited talent even further .
Hence the game becoming a low scoring ugly mess that viewers are turning off in droves .

AFLcrap1 wrote: Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:01 am

Lol yes it does
The already limited unco player pool was diluted even more by adding two new teams .
So those who were not in the top echelon of unconess got a gig ...diluting the already limited talent even further .
Hence the game becoming a low scoring ugly mess that viewers are turning off in droves .

you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about

The defensive strategies introduced by coaches have created the current 'ugly' congested play, it has nothing to do with 2 extra teams. It all depends on the strategies employed by the coaches. One of the worst games this year was between Geelong and Collingwood, 2 of the better teams this year. That's because both coaches flooded the defense like there was no tomorrow, turning the game into a complete mess. Whereas we have seen 'attractive' games between the bottom sides that have been more interesting, free flowing, and higher scoring.

The congestion and flooding creates mistakes or 'fumbles' because the limited time and space to pass or receive the ball creates errors. That's why the coaches do it, to create turnovers. An uncongested game almost always appears more skillful because players have time to execute their skills correctly.

NlolRL wrote: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:45 am

AFLcrap1 wrote: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:20 am

NlolRL wrote: Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:58 am

which would be factored in to the deal by both networks. I'm sure they were fully aware of what to expect when they signed the dotted line

Disagree
The AFL spruiked about a 9th game ...how it would mean big $$$ to them because of the increase in viewers .
That situation has not really happened & going by this year it's going backwards .
I don't think ch 7 is happy
Lol it's not ..as seen by the media boss asking for rule changes Due to tanking ratings
RL is nothing like that

CH 9 knew that without a local team in WA or SA..ratings were very low for RL as they always have been
There was no promise of an increase because some new unwanted unasked for teams were introduced .
They paid for what they knew would rate in the 1st & 3rd biggest ad markets .

Disagree. A 9th game will still involve more viewers than only 8 games. Say the 9th game was the suns v collingwood or the giants v westcoast. These would be additional viewers.

There's no way ch7 and fox expected instant high ratings for new teams. if they did that's on their stupidity.

Oh and the low scoring and rule changes has nothing to do with an extra game

Gee pal you're the bloke that goes on and on and on and on and on and on about concurrent games meaning lower tv ratings. Newsflash - concurrent games are caused by having 2 new teams.

So which is it?? 2 new teams mean less ratings or 2 new teams mean more ratings?????? You've twisted yourself into a pretzel with this one pal.

Ok......here we go again...…..stroke, stroke stroke lololololo!!!!!!!!

Terry wrote: Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:35 am

NlolRL wrote: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:45 am

AFLcrap1 wrote: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:20 am

Disagree
The AFL spruiked about a 9th game ...how it would mean big $$$ to them because of the increase in viewers .
That situation has not really happened & going by this year it's going backwards .
I don't think ch 7 is happy
Lol it's not ..as seen by the media boss asking for rule changes Due to tanking ratings
RL is nothing like that

CH 9 knew that without a local team in WA or SA..ratings were very low for RL as they always have been
There was no promise of an increase because some new unwanted unasked for teams were introduced .
They paid for what they knew would rate in the 1st & 3rd biggest ad markets .

Disagree. A 9th game will still involve more viewers than only 8 games. Say the 9th game was the suns v collingwood or the giants v westcoast. These would be additional viewers.

There's no way ch7 and fox expected instant high ratings for new teams. if they did that's on their stupidity.

Oh and the low scoring and rule changes has nothing to do with an extra game

Gee pal you're the bloke that goes on and on and on and on and on and on about concurrent games meaning lower tv ratings. Newsflash - concurrent games are caused by having 2 new teams.

So which is it?? 2 new teams mean less ratings or 2 new teams mean more ratings?????? You've twisted yourself into a pretzel with this one pal.

Ok......here we go again...…..stroke, stroke stroke lololololo!!!!!!!!

1 more game per round meant 8 games every round are now shown concurrently?

Are you ok pal??????? What the hell are you on about?????? Comprehension and grammar not your forte'?????? Maybe too much time doing laps lololoololo!!!!!!!!

Terry wrote: Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:19 pm

Are you ok pal??????? What the hell are you on about?????? Comprehension and grammar not your forte'?????? Maybe too much time doing laps lololoololo!!!!!!!!

If we had 8 games not 9 we would still have 5 concurrent games Terry, so they are not the primary cause at all you dunce

Pal, you don't seem to have comprehended my enquiry. You blame poor ratings on concurrent games. You then claim 2 new teams brings bigger ratings. However 2 new teams is the cause of your concurrent games. Get it???? Nah...….didn't think so lololololololol.

the AFL stated a 9th Game added $50million towards the Broadcast deal per year.

so over 6 years = $300million

( I am unable to find the source for this )

You would have just a couple. It would certainly cut back on your excuses.

Terry wrote: Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:02 pm

Pal, you don't seem to have comprehended my enquiry. You blame poor ratings on concurrent games. You then claim 2 new teams brings bigger ratings. However 2 new teams is the cause of your concurrent games. Get it???? Nah...….didn't think so lololololololol.

We already had concurrent games. The additional game brings another concurrent game

pussycat wrote: Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:10 pm

You would have just a couple. It would certainly cut back on your excuses.

we'd still have 5 rather than 8