Battle of Brisbane - Won

[Digga Hole]

no they dont.

cumulatively they stay in the same positions, typical AwFuL man.

explain this, why do Foxsports pay double the cash for AFL games vs RL games which have to compete with other AFL games on FTA and also dont rate as well as the NRL?

enjoy your moment in the sunshine re. value of TV deals.

commercial reality will come to play eventually.

the sport with the most viewers will get the most money eventually

I said "about" the same, if you want to argue that 1.2m is significantly more than 1.1 then go ahead have fun.

In regards to value.

1. 3 hours v 2 hours is 50% more product.
2. More breaks (including after goals, tho this is more for FTA) and therefore more ads (much to the dislike of many viewers)
3. The competition (including 3 FTA networks + Foxtel) for the rights at the time of the AFL deal v's the News Limited/NRL situation.

TV executives can source TV ratings, it's not that hard. You need to look further than gross ratings numbers for your answer to NRL TV contract value. Ranting against the AFL isn't the answer.

 

[Digga Hole]

Why keep comparing it to the Storm?

Are the NRL trying to put another team down there? I must of missed it.

The AFL has been trumpeting from the rooftops that they are going to have a second team in both Sydney and Brisbane.

Well I can't wait to see how it will work after your arse was handed to you.

Any new side will mean that one game a week will be head to head against a League game. That will mean further reamings like last Friday.

Than we have mongs saying that AFL is as popular as League in Queensland. ROLF

I don't think anyone has said that. Clearly it isn't the case, but Queensland is a big market.

NSW & Victoria have 10 plus teams each in the two competitions, Qld has 4. There is room.

In regards to the WS team, there is the belief, backed up by many NSW'men that Sydney is 2 separate cities in many ways. The Swans are seen as a Eastern suburbs team, so maybe there is room for an equally successful Western suburbs team. No one expects to dominate Sydney, but even the sh*tty TV ratings say that maybe we can have 15% of the professional football teams in the State.

Like many many AFL fans, I am not convinced that either of these teams can be a success.

However, if the AFL can show that they have a decent business plan (they haven't yet, at least to the public), and it can be resourced without destroying the current competition and teams, then why not have a go.

 

[Brycey]

Digga Hole, its not about how many people are in WS or the perecentage of the market.

Have you been to WS. They either don't speak English or they are a little rough around the edges and AFL is that game played by 'twinkies'. Thats the mentality, and as a Liverpool boy I am not exaggerating.

You should put a team in Darwin before you put one in WS, its not going to be pretty.

 

[Digga Hole]

Digga Hole, its not about how many people are in WS or the perecentage of the market.

Have you been to WS. They either don't speak English or they are a little rough around the edges and AFL is that game played by 'twinkies'. Thats the mentality, and as a Liverpool boy I am not exaggerating.

You should put a team in Darwin before you put one in WS, its not going to be pretty.

Tassie for mine.

Rightly or wrongly the AFL seem to have been encouraged by the 60,000+ turnouts for the Swans at ANZ. I don't know if they have researched where these people come from, although it seems obvious that they should have.

I think what some of the anti-AFL ratings posts have shown is that both Qld and NSW fans are happier watching local teams than interstate teams (no great surprise). I would be almost certain that a significant reason for these teams is to appease the Tv stations in regrds to NSW and Qld broadcasting. If this costs the AFL money in the short term then we can accept that. Hopefully it won't be a drain in the future.

 

[Brycey]

DH - from the sounds of recent articles with quotes from tv reps, it seems the guys at Ch & & Ch 10 are getting sick of getting poor ratings in QLD and NSW. Fair enough the over 3 capital cities bring in figures, but when you're asking top dollar and the broadcaster has a 55% of the population area not getting good coverage questions have to be asked.

I honestly believe that the AFL will get the same deal they have now when tv rights are re-newed.

 

[t-ba]

DH - from the sounds of recent articles with quotes from tv reps, it seems the guys at Ch & & Ch 10 are getting sick of getting poor ratings in QLD and NSW. Fair enough the over 3 capital cities bring in figures, but when you're asking top dollar and the broadcaster has a 55% of the population area not getting good coverage questions have to be asked.

I honestly believe that the AFL will get the same deal they have now when tv rights are re-newed.

Possibly even a bit lower. The Broadcasters aren't going to throw more money at the AFL purely because there are two new sides in regions that have so far punished them for showing AFL. It will be a 'wait and see' approach in regards to rewarding the AFL more money for the new sides.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

Tassie for mine.

Rightly or wrongly the AFL seem to have been encouraged by the 60,000+ turnouts for the Swans at ANZ. I don't know if they have researched where these people come from, although it seems obvious that they should have.

I think what some of the anti-AFL ratings posts have shown is that both Qld and NSW fans are happier watching local teams than interstate teams (no great surprise). I would be almost certain that a significant reason for these teams is to appease the Tv stations in regrds to NSW and Qld broadcasting. If this costs the AFL money in the short term then we can accept that. Hopefully it won't be a drain in the future.

I don't know where you got that idea from, the Raiders, Melbourne, NTH QLD, Bris, Gold Coast and the NZ Warriors all rate well against any other team, RL fans will watch any RL game, AFL fans mostly watch their own, so I think you have it backwards.

 

[Digga Hole]

I don't know where you got that idea from, the Raiders, Melbourne, NTH QLD, Bris, Gold Coast and the NZ Warriors all rate well against any other team, RL fans will watch any RL game, AFL fans mostly watch their own, so I think you have it backwards.

Thats kind of what i meant. Any teams rate in either sports heartland, only local teams rate in non-heartland.

In regards to our next TV deal, It maybe the same, less or more, I don't really know. What does seems clear is that the AFL thinks that it will be more with 2 new than without them.

My bigger issue with this is stadiums. Expansion teams into non-heartland areas have only managed to do so successfully to date via existing stadiums developed for other sports eg. Swans SCG, Lions now the Gabba, Warriors in Union heartland. In places where these stadiums have been substandard, the teams have struggled to attract good crowds (Bears at Carrara, Storm in Melbourne).

WS is kind of sorted with ANZ, and this is one reason why the AFL will give it a go. ANZ maybe too big (NRL crowds seem to think it lacks atmosphere even half full), but it is there, and throwing money around at tennants.

The Storm, thanks in part to Melbourne Victory (Disclosure: I am a MVFC member) and also to the chance of a S14 team, are getting a new stadium. Once this is finished, around December 2009, we will see if they can improve crowds (they aren't currently terrible, but could be a lot better).

GC is th issue for stadiums. The 2016 deal is an issue, but it is the side issue. The funding of a new stadium at Cararra is the major items. A new team cannot compete financially in the AFL from Cararra. Estimations for a revamp vary between $100m and $300m. So who will pay??

The AFL thought the State Government should and would. The Qld Gov used to have a poker machine tax to fund stadiums (it built Suncorp, the Gabba & Skilled). What the AFL didn't count on was Anna Bligh changing legislation and directing this funding to hospitals. Big Problem!!

Regardless of the tax change, how many stadiums of this value in this country have been built for 1 team, in 1 sport. The only possible one is Skilled, and even that is in a heartland area, can be used by an A-League team, or even a Union team at some stage in the future. This GC stadium will only ever have one team.

The Storm and Victory had a tough fight to get 31,000 seats for their two team stadium in Melbourne. This is for the third string stadium in Victoria. Why would the GC get one of similar value, for only one team, that will be only the fourth string stadium in the state!!

 

[dgsfan]

OK reading this thread has made me feel a little sad to be a league supporter. Not because of the form the game is in (probably the best in a really long time), but because of some of the supporter's attitudes. On of the points being that the AFL claims to be national, but somehow the NRL doesn't. By simply having the word "National" in the name of our game we are. Like it or not, both the AFL and NRL are trying to be national.

easy, because AFL talks itself up, it gets a tv deal it doesnt deserve

its time RL as a game got a fair TV deal.

if we got a deal which was fair in comparison, id be more than happy.

we get more viewers and around half the amount of cash, WTF is that about?

as more people publicise the problem and journalists talk about it, hopefully the situation will correct itself.

and im sick of rival sports talking BS about themselves. let afl grow all it wants to, but the way it talks now youd think it had made a massive impact in nsw and qld

That's about the first sensible thing you've said all night. We get a TV deal that's representative of the status of our game. No way in hell should the AFL be getting such a better deal than us, especially when they get abysmal TV ratings in Sydney and Brisbane. I still still think it's a bit hypocritical, though, because league would probably fetch the same results in Melbourne under the same circumstances, and we DO claim to be national.

What that show is that Live NRL games that are not up against FTA competition beat the Live AFL games that have FTA competition. Cumulativly, which includes replays, they rate about the same. Not sure where the "blow" is.[/QUOTE

Do you mean the live game on FOX is up against the same game delayed on FTA? Or is it that it's up against a different game delayed on FTA?

 

[Digga Hole]

Do you mean the live game on FOX is up against the same game delayed on FTA? Or is it that it's up against a different game delayed on FTA?

Different game. The FTA channel (Ten on Saturdays) picks the better game, the other is shown at the same time on Fox. This is for the Saturday afternoon, and Saturday night slot.

The exception to this is when the Fox game involves a non Victorian side. In the home state of this team/teams the game will be shown on FTA and Fox at the same time suing the Fox broadcast.

 

[Billythekid]

It's all well and good to laugh they only got 96,000, but i'd much rather get that amount of people watching rugby league here in Melbourne showing it live as opposed to the few thousand that might watch it at midnight when it's shown here.

They might be getting sh*t numbers but at least they're trying to grow the game in "foreign" territory which is more than i can say for the NRL down here. You laugh at the AFL showing some initiative, i laugh at the jokers running the NRL given we can't even see our own Melbourne team playing live Friday night let alone any other side which is just ridiculous.

I'd kill to only have 96K people watching rugby league here if it meant we got it live because it'd be tens of thousands more than what would watch it at midnight. But i somehow can't see that happening very soon unfortunately.

^ How can anyone be laughing at the AFL figures when our game half the time is only show in 2 states. I agree that 96,000 is pathetic but at least someone is watching. How many people do we have watching in WA and Melbourne each week? I wish the NRL would get off their ass and actually do something about that situation.

 

[Billythekid]

Thank f**k for that, i didn't think it was that hard to understand but at least someone has got what i'm trying to say.

Just on the second part, i'm not trying to point out that league is struggling in Victoria. I'd love nothing more to see it build up as much as possible. I'm just trying to say that growth will be much slower and much harder if they continue (which they will) to treat the game down here with contempt in regards to what time they show it.

The AFL might be getting sh*t figures up there but at least they're showing some balls and having a crack.

Again i totally agree. I'm not gonna sit here and bag out the AFL knowing how sh*t the situation is for the NRL in Melbourne.

And yes dally i realise why your laughing, cause the AFL claim to be national.... but at least they are trying to get there. You laugh at them for their efforts but what is the NRL doing? The AFL may be moving along at a snails pace in Sydney and Brisbane but at least their moving forward.

 

[Perth Red]

RL should be thankful it is the number one sport in the biggest population area because if not we would stuffed on TV viewing figures as well. AFL has a plan that will see it CONTINUE to be the countries Number one winter sports code for at least the next decade maybe even two. The NRL is worried about a NSW tax going up, kind of sums it all up really.

 

[dallymessenger]

I said "about" the same, if you want to argue that 1.2m is significantly more than 1.1 then go ahead have fun.

In regards to value.

1. 3 hours v 2 hours is 50% more product.
2. More breaks (including after goals, tho this is more for FTA) and therefore more ads (much to the dislike of many viewers)
3. The competition (including 3 FTA networks + Foxtel) for the rights at the time of the AFL deal v's the News Limited/NRL situation.

TV executives can source TV ratings, it's not that hard. You need to look further than gross ratings numbers for your answer to NRL TV contract value. Ranting against the AFL isn't the answer.

RL has longer ads.

also as sydney is the wealthiest city, advertising rates are highest in that market off the back of that, which add value to the nrl.

nice try though you are pulling out all the usual cliches ive heard time and again from AwFuL fans.

 

[dallymessenger]

^ How can anyone be laughing at the AFL figures when our game half the time is only show in 2 states. I agree that 96,000 is pathetic but at least someone is watching. How many people do we have watching in WA and Melbourne each week? I wish the NRL would get off their ass and actually do something about that situation.

the point is that AFL is no more national than RL.

neither sport short be critsisitng the other.

since AFL typically does that, the way it continually gets beaten nationally when the sports are shown on a fair basis shows its a BS claim.

and the further question - why are ratings so poor in queensland and NSW after all the millions spent there investing in them, positive media etc?

 

[Perth Red]

the point is that AFL is no more national than RL.

?

Apart from the fact that it has teams in more major cities, has FTA coverage nationally, gets talked about in National media more and gets bigger media, sponsorship and attendances?

Major cities or minor population areas, I know which I'd prefer as a national sport.

 

[dallymessenger]

Apart from the fact that it has teams in more major cities, has FTA coverage nationally, gets talked about in National media more and gets bigger media, sponsorship and attendances?

Major cities or minor population areas, I know which I'd prefer as a national sport.

bigger or smaller TV ratings ?

teams in towns with small populations doesnt mean more than a sport dominated in the major population centres.

 

[Ice777]

bigger or smaller TV ratings ?

teams in towns with small populations doesnt mean more than a sport dominated in the major population centres.

Give it a f**king rest would you? You've got serious issues if it bothers you this much mate, you were going at 12.29am this morning and you're still carrying on about it now. Did you actually sleep or did the tv ratings keep you up all night worrying? :lol:

 

[Brycey]

Thats kind of what i meant. Any teams rate in either sports heartland, only local teams rate in non-heartland.

In regards to our next TV deal, It maybe the same, less or more, I don't really know. What does seems clear is that the AFL thinks that it will be more with 2 new than without them.

My bigger issue with this is stadiums. Expansion teams into non-heartland areas have only managed to do so successfully to date via existing stadiums developed for other sports eg. Swans SCG, Lions now the Gabba, Warriors in Union heartland. In places where these stadiums have been substandard, the teams have struggled to attract good crowds (Bears at Carrara, Storm in Melbourne).

WS is kind of sorted with ANZ, and this is one reason why the AFL will give it a go. ANZ maybe too big (NRL crowds seem to think it lacks atmosphere even half full), but it is there, and throwing money around at tennants.

The Storm, thanks in part to Melbourne Victory (Disclosure: I am a MVFC member) and also to the chance of a S14 team, are getting a new stadium. Once this is finished, around December 2009, we will see if they can improve crowds (they aren't currently terrible, but could be a lot better).

GC is th issue for stadiums. The 2016 deal is an issue, but it is the side issue. The funding of a new stadium at Cararra is the major items. A new team cannot compete financially in the AFL from Cararra. Estimations for a revamp vary between $100m and $300m. So who will pay??

The AFL thought the State Government should and would. The Qld Gov used to have a poker machine tax to fund stadiums (it built Suncorp, the Gabba & Skilled). What the AFL didn't count on was Anna Bligh changing legislation and directing this funding to hospitals. Big Problem!!

Regardless of the tax change, how many stadiums of this value in this country have been built for 1 team, in 1 sport. The only possible one is Skilled, and even that is in a heartland area, can be used by an A-League team, or even a Union team at some stage in the future. This GC stadium will only ever have one team.

The Storm and Victory had a tough fight to get 31,000 seats for their two team stadium in Melbourne. This is for the third string stadium in Victoria. Why would the GC get one of similar value, for only one team, that will be only the fourth string stadium in the state!!

Government has taken a firm stand against not footing the bill for the stadium, Ron Clarke will try all he can to pay for the stadium, though it would be political suicide if he did. I thought AFL had a list of wealthy backers to pay for it.

If not then good luck. Even for AFL, its such a bad stadium to go to and the public transport there is sh*thouse.

 

[butchmcdick]

the point is that AFL is no more national than RL.

neither sport short be critsisitng the other.

since AFL typically does that, the way it continually gets beaten nationally when the sports are shown on a fair basis shows its a BS claim.

and the further question - why are ratings so poor in queensland and NSW after all the millions spent there investing in them, positive media etc?

I have never been to an AFL forum but do you think that they give this much of a sh*t about the NRL in victoria or WA taking over their market ?

Do they seem bothered about NRL at all ?

I can't see them being too worried about the NRL stealing tassie seeing as their is no local league there. Is there a local league in SA ?

You say the AFL constantly critisises league, where does that happen. It seems to me dally that you are the one who is obsessed by the evil AFL.

Also have you thought that maybye we are all a bit past this you are either an AFL or league supporter stuff. It is possible to follow teams in more than one code.

The only way your claims about who is the national sport based on tv figures would be for the two sports to go head to head nationally every week. That is not happening so until it does your argument is flawed and only based on figures for sydney and brisbane.