Talking Footy

Beaussie wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:00 am

Terry wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:23 pm

As stated by SMH AFL reporter Vince Rugari, "The AFL must be concerned that the supposedrapid growth of the game in NSW is not being borne out in the stands". He could also add in the Sydney TV ratings. It appears Dr Lawson was right. The AFL basically tell lies to try and sell the game. Unfortunately for them people in the educated northern states aren't bubble dwelling idiots!!!

Noticed that Vince Rugari couldn’t bring himself to report today in the SMH the positive news regarding the 15th place Swans drawing their biggest crowd of season 2019 at the SCG yesterday. Not one mention of the crowd in his articles today despite its significance. Reporting that fact does not fit with his AFL doom and gloom in NSW agenda I guess.

Vince reminds me of you Terry with his selective reporting of facts and a focus on negatives. Shithouse sports journalist in my opinion.

leeroy*NRL* wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:35 pm

lol twice the subscriptions

pussycat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:05 pm

You keep repeating that as though it means something. You haven't a clue how many people with PTV didn't watch the Canberra match .

And the fact that you would even contemplate for a minute that the NRL have twice the subscribers says it all.

leeroy*NRL* wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:35 pm

lol twice the subscriptions

pussycat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:49 pm

What you said is that the NRL had a 50% advantage when it comes to subscriptions. Even when it was pointed out to you it was 10% or even less! And any advantage they do have is due to higher interest levels.

NlolRL wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:58 pm

pussycat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:49 pm

What you said is that the NRL had a 50% advantage when it comes to subscriptions. Even when it was pointed out to you it was 10% or even less! And any advantage they do have is due to higher interest levels.

1. 100% of the population have access to FTA TV and the AFL are clearly ahead on FTA. This shows greater levels of interest. Foxtel ratings are influenced by subscription rates because only subscribers can watch.

2. 30% sub rate is 50% more than 20% sub rate.
1 and a half apples is 50% more than one apple.
$1.50 is 50% more than $1.
1.5mil people is 50% more than 1 mil people.
150 cms is 50% taller or longer than 100cms

Do you get the grade 1 maths yet?

notaleaguefan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:39 pm

leeroy*NRL* wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:35 pm

lol twice the subscriptions

got any proof of this as the afl fox footy regularly beats the NRLOL shows on fox

in the past league may have had twice the subscriptions, due to exclusively being on fox and your owner is the owner of fox it self, then AFL coming on to fox far later, will have had a big change in suscriptions

pussycat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:31 pm

NlolRL wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:58 pm

pussycat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:49 pm

What you said is that the NRL had a 50% advantage when it comes to subscriptions. Even when it was pointed out to you it was 10% or even less! And any advantage they do have is due to higher interest levels.

1. 100% of the population have access to FTA TV and the AFL are clearly ahead on FTA. This shows greater levels of interest. Foxtel ratings are influenced by subscription rates because only subscribers can watch.

2. 30% sub rate is 50% more than 20% sub rate.
1 and a half apples is 50% more than one apple.
$1.50 is 50% more than $1.
1.5mil people is 50% more than 1 mil people.
150 cms is 50% taller or longer than 100cms

Do you get the grade 1 maths yet?

Only a limited number of games are shown on FTA. So less subscriptions means less interest.

What does the PTV % for Canberra on Friday night have to with anything professor? Yes, 30% of the ratings in that game came from PTV.

In the Richmond game 20% of the ratings come from PTV .
10% less . So What? That has nothing to do with subscription levels - absolutely nothing!



I know how to change channels professor

pussycat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:31 pm

NlolRL wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:58 pm

pussycat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:49 pm

What you said is that the NRL had a 50% advantage when it comes to subscriptions. Even when it was pointed out to you it was 10% or even less! And any advantage they do have is due to higher interest levels.

1. 100% of the population have access to FTA TV and the AFL are clearly ahead on FTA. This shows greater levels of interest. Foxtel ratings are influenced by subscription rates because only subscribers can watch.

2. 30% sub rate is 50% more than 20% sub rate.
1 and a half apples is 50% more than one apple.
$1.50 is 50% more than $1.
1.5mil people is 50% more than 1 mil people.
150 cms is 50% taller or longer than 100cms

Do you get the grade 1 maths yet?

Only a limited number of games are shown on FTA. So less subscriptions means less interest.

What does the PTV % for Canberra on Friday night have to with anything professor? Yes, 30% of the ratings in that game came from PTV.

In the Richmond game 20% of the ratings come from PTV .
10% less . So What? That has nothing to do with subscription levels - absolutely nothing!



I know how to change channels professor

AFLcrap1 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:58 pm

pussycat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:31 pm

NlolRL wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:58 pm

1. 100% of the population have access to FTA TV and the AFL are clearly ahead on FTA. This shows greater levels of interest. Foxtel ratings are influenced by subscription rates because only subscribers can watch.

2. 30% sub rate is 50% more than 20% sub rate.
1 and a half apples is 50% more than one apple.
$1.50 is 50% more than $1.
1.5mil people is 50% more than 1 mil people.
150 cms is 50% taller or longer than 100cms

Do you get the grade 1 maths yet?

Only a limited number of games are shown on FTA. So less subscriptions means less interest.

What does the PTV % for Canberra on Friday night have to with anything professor? Yes, 30% of the ratings in that game came from PTV.

In the Richmond game 20% of the ratings come from PTV .
10% less . So What? That has nothing to do with subscription levels - absolutely nothing!



I know how to change channels professor

Oh dear . Poor Vicderpians
Loler you simpleton .
If 30% of the 100% of the ratings came from PTV in a game
& 20% of the 100% of th total ratings for another game came from ptv .
The difference is 10%
I think you've failed grade 1 maths

AFLcrap1 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:12 pm

Lol when discussion the total ratings for a game then 30% is only 10% more than 20%
It's simple
A word you should be familiar with .

NlolRL wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:59 pm

pussycat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:31 pm

NlolRL wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:58 pm

1. 100% of the population have access to FTA TV and the AFL are clearly ahead on FTA. This shows greater levels of interest. Foxtel ratings are influenced by subscription rates because only subscribers can watch.

2. 30% sub rate is 50% more than 20% sub rate.
1 and a half apples is 50% more than one apple.
$1.50 is 50% more than $1.
1.5mil people is 50% more than 1 mil people.
150 cms is 50% taller or longer than 100cms

Do you get the grade 1 maths yet?

Only a limited number of games are shown on FTA. So less subscriptions means less interest.

What does the PTV % for Canberra on Friday night have to with anything professor? Yes, 30% of the ratings in that game came from PTV.

In the Richmond game 20% of the ratings come from PTV .
10% less . So What? That has nothing to do with subscription levels - absolutely nothing!



I know how to change channels professor

the afl only had 20% ptv ratings but over 250k more total viewers. This shows there was far more interest in the game overall. Therefore the fact it had less ptv ratings is ALL due to having less subscriptions, otherwise ptv would also have rated higher. It cant be any other way