21,818.

[little_aza]

im surprised you even answered.

as a RL fan, do you get happy when you see State of origin getting 10 million viewers, and absolutely destroying AFL.

you know RL has 4 of the most watched programs every year, AFL only has 1. indeed, origin this year (each game) got similar ratings to the AFL grand final.

Or 1 origin game in brisbane gets more viewers than the entire Brisbane lions AFL season.

pretty impressive stuff eh mate?

mate, it makes me proud that we do well on tv. when it comes to the box, we own afl - thank god.

but unfortunately clubs dont get money from admission tickets when games are watched on tv. when it comes to attendance, we lag waaaaaaay behind, which is a great pity.

 

[dallymessenger]

mate, it makes me proud that we do well on tv. when it comes to the box, we own afl - thank god.

but unfortunately clubs dont get money from admission tickets when games are watched on tv. when it comes to attendance, we lag waaaaaaay behind, which is a great pity.

good, glad to have made you so happy.

i know anytime someone talks about AFL all i have to do is mention stuff like that and they go all quiet.

imagine it, in brisbane the whole season of the lions means less than a single origin game.

and AFL claims to be a national sport.

what a joke

 

[Teddyboy]

:lol::lol:



everyone needs to f**k off with the anti-sydney tripe

In a perfect world it be great (in a perfect world the All-Blacks and the British Lions would be playing Rugby League)but it's not so if Arko had a vison back in the early 80's about League as did Super League then there must of been truth about Sydney having too many clubs back then.

 

[little_aza]

good, glad to have made you so happy.

i know anytime someone talks about AFL all i have to do is mention stuff like that and they go all quiet.

imagine it, in brisbane the whole season of the lions means less than a single origin game.

and AFL claims to be a national sport.

what a joke

you're talking about television - you're not talking about crowds.

we might own them on tv, but the fact still remains that they get more crowds - crowds are wat rakes in the cash.

tv viewing doesnt mean that much when the NRL gets basically nothing from its rights compared to the AFL - we may get more viewers, but we dont get $780000000 for it.

and about the national sport thing - only when we get a team in perth will we be a true national sport - atm, the nrl is a 2-state sport, with dabbles in vic and NZ.

 

[griff]

you're talking about television - you're not talking about crowds.

we might own them on tv, but the fact still remains that they get more crowds - crowds are wat rakes in the cash.

tv viewing doesnt mean that much when the NRL gets basically nothing from its rights compared to the AFL - we may get more viewers, but we dont get $780000000 for it.

and about the national sport thing - only when we get a team in perth will we be a true national sport - atm, the nrl is a 2-state sport, with dabbles in vic and NZ.

TV revenue smashes crowd revenue.

And NRL has teams in 7 of the top 10 cities in Australia, AFL only has teams in 5. Which is more national?

 

[Knightmare]

The only major city we are missing is Perth. Adelaide doesn't have much projected growth. Aside from that we have:

Brisbane
Gold Coast
Newcastle
Sydney
Canberra
Melbourne

covered, and only 1 of those isn't a Rugby League town.

 

[KalgoorlieRed]

Now if Dally had said a crowd in Sydney of 40,000 I'd be impressed!

 

[little_aza]

TV revenue smashes crowd revenue.

And NRL has teams in 7 of the top 10 cities in Australia, AFL only has teams in 5. Which is more national?

thats a dodgy arguement, mate. what are you calling the top 10 cities??

in terms of population (in order) the top 10 cities in australia are: sydney, melbourne, brisbane, perth, adelaide, newcastle, gold coast, canberra, hobart, wollongong.

if you look at it that way, AFL has 15 teams there....(plus a MASSIVE influence in tassie)
and the NRL has 14

if u include top 11 cities, geelong is on the list - AFL has australia covered.

in 2007, the AFL crowds totalled 7050945 in 8 states/territories, NRL was 3331994 in 4 states/territories.

 

[little_aza]

The only major city we are missing is Perth. Adelaide doesn't have much projected growth. Aside from that we have:

Brisbane
Gold Coast
Newcastle
Sydney
Canberra
Melbourne

covered, and only 1 of those isn't a Rugby League town.

im a storm supporter til the day i die, but im a realist - where i live, league gets into the headlines as much as lawn bowls. melbourne is hardly 'covered'. the 9 AFL teams pulled about 3800000 - us at the storm managed about 130000.

like i said earlier..the AFL has our patch more covered than what we have theirs. the swans pull an average of 35000 a game - HIGHER than ANY league team last year (including brisbane) - thats DOUBLE the average in sydney. the lions almost got the same as the broncos, and higher than ANY other club.

AFL is a massive threat to our beautiful game. the teams in western sydney and the gold coast will hurt us a lot. and unlike the league clubs in sydney, the AFL has truckloads of cash to pump into them.

 

[griff]

thats a dodgy arguement, mate. what are you calling the top 10 cities??

in terms of population (in order) the top 10 cities in australia are: sydney, melbourne, brisbane, perth, adelaide, newcastle, gold coast, canberra, hobart, wollongong.

if you look at it that way, AFL has 15 teams there....(plus a MASSIVE influence in tassie)
and the NRL has 14

if u include top 11 cities, geelong is on the list - AFL has australia covered.

in 2007, the AFL crowds totalled 7050945 in 8 states/territories, NRL was 3331994 in 4 states/territories.

It's not about number of teams overall, its about having the top markets covered. The NRL has 7 of the top 10 Australian markets covered, and AFL has 5. Really Aus and NZ are a single market anyway, but then it would be 8 to 5 so we won't go into it.

 

[Knightmare]

By 'covered' I meant we have a presence in that city. AwFuL gets higher crowds because watching it on TV is hard- to fully comprehend what is going on, you have to be at the ground. League (for better or worse) is well-suited to TV. It'd the angular nature of the game and the field it's played on.

The "crowds are everything" argument has well and truly worn thin. If you add up crowd figures with TV figures, League is in front. More people watch the Storm in Victoria (at the game and on TV) than people watching the Swans in NSW or the Lions in Queensland.

 

[dallymessenger]

thats a dodgy arguement, mate. what are you calling the top 10 cities??

in terms of population (in order) the top 10 cities in australia are: sydney, melbourne, brisbane, perth, adelaide, newcastle, gold coast, canberra, hobart, wollongong.

if you look at it that way, AFL has 15 teams there....(plus a MASSIVE influence in tassie)
and the NRL has 14

if u include top 11 cities, geelong is on the list - AFL has australia covered.

in 2007, the AFL crowds totalled 7050945 in 8 states/territories, NRL was 3331994 in 4 states/territories.

:lol:

RL has 52% of the australian population, and RL areas have 65% of the advertising on FTA networks.

little wonder AFL fans get so worried about RL.

 

[j0nesy]

By 'covered' I meant we have a presence in that city. AwFuL gets higher crowds because watching it on TV is hard- to fully comprehend what is going on, you have to be at the ground. League (for better or worse) is well-suited to TV. It'd the angular nature of the game and the field it's played on.

The "crowds are everything" argument has well and truly worn thin. If you add up crowd figures with TV figures, League is in front. More people watch the Storm in Victoria (at the game and on TV) than people watching the Swans in NSW or the Lions in Queensland.

This may be true yet for some reason the NRL is unable to negotiate a better TV rights deal than the AFL. Perhaps we need delay the coverage of a few key games per week. See how that affects the Foxtel ratings?

 

[dallymessenger]

im a storm supporter til the day i die, but im a realist - where i live, league gets into the headlines as much as lawn bowls. melbourne is hardly 'covered'. the 9 AFL teams pulled about 3800000 - us at the storm managed about 130000.

like i said earlier..the AFL has our patch more covered than what we have theirs. the swans pull an average of 35000 a game - HIGHER than ANY league team last year (including brisbane) - thats DOUBLE the average in sydney. the lions almost got the same as the broncos, and higher than ANY other club.

AFL is a massive threat to our beautiful game. the teams in western sydney and the gold coast will hurt us a lot. and unlike the league clubs in sydney, the AFL has truckloads of cash to pump into them.

:lol:

 

[KalgoorlieRed]

:lol:

He's right though.

 

[Knightmare]

This may be true yet for some reason the NRL is unable to negotiate a better TV rights deal than the AFL. Perhaps we need delay the coverage of a few key games per week. See how that affects the Foxtel ratings?

Perhaps we need to get rid of News. Ltd's hold on the game. It's like an anvil attached to the back of a semi trailer.

 

[dallymessenger]

He's right though.

hes right that RL does really well on TV vs AFL.

yeah, i noticed that too.

 

[little_aza]

By 'covered' I meant we have a presence in that city. AwFuL gets higher crowds because watching it on TV is hard- to fully comprehend what is going on, you have to be at the ground. League (for better or worse) is well-suited to TV. It'd the angular nature of the game and the field it's played on.

The "crowds are everything" argument has well and truly worn thin. If you add up crowd figures with TV figures, League is in front. More people watch the Storm in Victoria (at the game and on TV) than people watching the Swans in NSW or the Lions in Queensland.

point taken - i agree about the viewing thing - afl is sh*t to watch, whereas league is awesome to watch! this shows more than anything we are getting ripped off, when afl gets $780mil.

the 'crowds are everything' arguement i think still exists though - it generates grassroots support - there's nothing like going to a game. and when double go to an afl game, we have a problem.

unfortnately, the storm dont get many tv viewers - we have friday night footy on at midnight! whereas even in league areas, AFL is often primetime.

 

[little_aza]

:lol:

RL has 52% of the australian population, and RL areas have 65% of the advertising on FTA networks.

little wonder AFL fans get so worried about RL.

unfortunately that 52% of the population does NOT translate into numbers going to games or TV rights.

my point was that AFL is a more national game than NRL. i stick by that. they have teams everywhere, we have them mostly concentrated in two states. we have ONE team in an AFL area, soon they'll have 4 in our area.

 

[Pete Cash]

The game should be marketed better. Regardless of how much we try and spin the crowds stuff it does look epic when you see AFL highlights on the news and they have a huge sold out ground and then it goes to a Rugby League story and the ground is lucky to be half full.

It is all about perception and the way the AFL aggressively pushes itself I am sure the majority would perceive they are a more successful sport. The highlights for the AFL always seems to come on first on the News, they are one foxsports 1, they get huge crowds.

Even if we beat them with TV numbers, it just isn't as noticable. I think League could easily compete with AFL, but we just don't seem to have that aggression that they do in marketing.