Balmain_Boy
Guest
- Messages
- 4,801
Who gives a shit how well union rates, it still sucks as a sport.
Honestly Sully would you wait up till 1am to watch your Sharks play every week ? of course this would have had an impact on ratings. From what I heard they never gave S12 a chance at a regular time slot to know how it would fair in the ratings
Tighthead said:LOL
He said "huge", not competent.
Well then, I hope that you don't consider the Kangaroos test ratings 'huge' then, because they were beaten by the Bledisloe last year.
The 2003 World Cup Final was also the most watched program in Australia this century. I'd call that pretty huge. LOL.
I said where league DIRECTLY faces Union. Union has a wider base worldwide - places like Argentina, Romania, South Africa. Read the statement.
Twickers, at 75000, is smaller than Wembly, which League test used to get over 90k to!
And if Union is king, why do the Pommy union only play n the south of England? At one venue?
Union wouldn't jag a decent crowd in england outside the Greater London Area.
Also on stadiums; EXCLUSIVE League grounds (such as Knowlsley Road, Wilderspool etc are generally bigger than domestic exclusive Union grounds in the UK - the biggest of which that I can see is The Stoop). I exclude grounds such as JJB which are shared by socer teams.
Now, unless you are going to use facts, rather than heresay and silly taunts, don't reply. I'm quite happy to be PROVEN wrong. You have to prove it first.
Misty Bee said:And I caught a snippet of a story on grandstand last week about League making great headway in Argentina as well.
Misty Bee said:Well, Troll, disprove it.
Misty Bee said:You obviously know zip about marketing
I said where league DIRECTLY faces Union. Union has a wider base worldwide - places like Argentina, Romania, South Africa. Read the statement.
So why are you arguing then, you agree that union is more popular worldwide.
Twickers, at 75000, is smaller than Wembly, which League test used to get over 90k to!
No, Twickers is 82,000. Wembley doesn't exist anymore. When was the last time league got 90k to a test in the UK. When was the last time league got over 50k to a test in the UK. Union gets at least 4-5 crowds of this size a year in test matches.
And if Union is king, why do the Pommy union only play n the south of England? At one venue?
Because the RFU own Twickenam. Why would they spend some of their profit playing their games elsewhere when Twickenham is the home of English Rugby, a purpose built stadium, and regularly sells out.
Union wouldn't jag a decent crowd in england outside the Greater London Area.
Except for tests played in Scotland, Wales etc
And if Union is king, why do the Pommy union only play n the south of England? At one venue?
Because the RFU own Twickenam. Why would they spend some of their profit playing their games elsewhere when Twickenham is the home of English Rugby, a purpose built stadium, and regularly sells out.
League always got 90k at Wembly for Ashes tests or WC finals.
So they don't ever see the need to play the sport in other large cities such as Manchester and Liverpool? So it's either aristocratic snobbery, or lack of audience. fact is that League tests have sold out in more English cities BY FAR than Union.
Since when are Scotland and Wales in England????
In the UK, League argualbly is king as well.
Thanks for proving that you have nothing on the Warriors exposure issue. I'll claim victory on that one. As always, I'm happy to be proven wrong
Tighthead, you are out of your league
Everlovin' Antichrist said:... BIG SNIP...
Totals:
AFL: 1,048,000
League: 1,136,000
....BIG SNIP....
People like you make assumptions based on AFL having more coverage than League, and that's fine. But when they're head-to-head, League smacks AFL's arse.
South Coast Saint said:But that doesn't justify the rediculous demands of _Johnsy.
Misty Bee said:Union kills league on a international stage. end of storey
Plaese explain?
South Coast Saint said:Everlovin' Antichrist said:... BIG SNIP...
Totals:
AFL: 1,048,000
League: 1,136,000
....BIG SNIP....
People like you make assumptions based on AFL having more coverage than League, and that's fine. But when they're head-to-head, League smacks AFL's arse.
South Coast Saint said:Well blow me down and call me Charlie. I've never been so glad to admit to being wrong. I'll have to investigate that but it appears you are correct on the Friday Night footy thing. Although I was actually right in the details of my statement.
Well, you're only right because AFL gets much more FTA coverage than NRL. If the Fox ratings were factored in, it would be closer than most people think and if League had the same amount of League matches on FTA as AFL have, I have little doubt that League would win. People tend to forget that Qld Country and NSW country combined more than match Adelaide, Perth and Tasmania ratings-wise.
South Coast Saint said:I'm still not convinced that just because NRL FNF outrates AFL FNF that makes NRL the dominant winter television code. The fact that AFL is on at a decent hour on free to air much more than league and has cumulatively a much greater audience makes it the dominant TV code. Sorry, it does. NRL figures are obviously in much better shape than I thought they were (making the mistake that I openly admit of taking OzTAM ratings and forgetting the regionals). But in the end we still have a long way to go before we can claim to be the dominant TV code.
I disagree, and I disagree vehemently.
The only reason that AFL cumulatively has more viewers than the AFL (and I've seen nothing to prove that) is because they have sometimes twice as many matches on FTA as Rugby League does.
That and the fact that AFL states are so damn insular that they can't just run League games at reasonable hours because they're shit scared that it will actually rate.
The proof is that for the past 3 years the NRL Grand Final has rated higher in Melbourne than the AFL Grand Final did in Sydney. Yet, one would assume the opposite to be true because the Swans average crowd is triple the Storm's average crowd.
And State of Origin is played near or after midnight everywhere but NSW and QLD.
Why?
Becuase they're scared of Rugby League.
The crowd average is up significantly and the FTA ratings are going up again.
AFL has been arrogant and assumed that they rule the roost and there's no argument that they do when it comes to bums on seats. But they don't in my opinion, on TV.
South Coast Saint said:On to other things:
I find it funny being called a troll (not by Everlovin' Antichrist I don't think). I certainly am not. I'm a dedicated Saints fan. I love my league. On many other forums I am always an advocate of league over the insults of AFL and RU fans. I just think it is silly to make constant assertions about the inferiority of other sports. What does it achieve for us to be ignorant of the opposition's true position?
Actually, I believe that for far too long we have given AFL respect, respect it doesn't deserve.
AFL gets all the breaks in FTA TV. There is saturation coverage of AFL everywhere, live games for the home team in both Sydney and Brisbane but the Storm can't even get a delayed FTA game in Melbourne and if they do put a game on FTA it's always at or after midnight.
AFL runs TV, yet Rugby League regularly beats it. Everything is in AFL's favour, yet League regularly outrates it. Four of the top five Football matches on FTA TV in 2004 were Rugby League matches, yet those ratings were garnered from NSW and QLD only in the case of SOO, and NSW, QLD and Victoria only in the case of the Grand Final.
SOO is the bargaining tool in the TV ratings war to beat them all. 3 games that all put up Grand Final-esque ratings. They won't put it on in the southern states any more simply because it will rate. It rated 3 million odd Australia-wide last year for all 3 matches, in 3 states only. Only oone AFL match rated more, the Grand Final.
Respect is earned and AFL has earned nothing. It has tried to take over in NSW and QLD yet hasn't. It didn't even take over in QLD with the dominant AFL side since the turn of the century. And even then, they were regularly outrated by League match not involving a QLD side. As for Sydney their support is waning year by year. The ratings over the past few seasons have been abysmal and so far this year they're still heading downward. Their current losing streak will add to their woes.
AFL has had it far too easy for too long and still can't put League away. That's exactly why their honcho Demetriou has been sounding off about expansion to Western Sydney, the Gold Coast and New Zealand. Neither would work but he still is saying they're his options.
He has no options. League will have a Gold Coast side inside 2 years, killing AFL aspirations there, and if the AFL move a Melbourne side to Western Sydney it will draw like Club Union. At best it will halve the Swans support. Can anyone see the Swans allowing a second Sydney team when they're lucky to pull 30k to a once a fortnight match?
And New Zealand? They'd laugh AFL out of the place inside 3 years.
Demetriou is preaching to the converted. He's telling AFL fans what they want to hear, he's not prepared to tell them the reality for one reason and one reason alone, they're not used to it. If you go to bigfooty and point out what I pointed out regarding the FNF ratings, you'd be banned. That's the sort of mentality the average AFL fan has. As far as they're concerned if AFL didn't win handsomely, it didn't happen.
Don't be offended by people assuming that you're an AFL troll. You sounded like one of the many who have passed through here over the past few years.
League always got 90k at Wembly for Ashes tests or WC finals.
So why don't they get anywhere near that number now? Why do they solely play league internationals in smaller, northern stadiums?
No, the fact is that Union Tests have sold more tickets in England BY FAR than League.
No. Scotland and Wales are NOT in England. Get a map!Since when are Scotland and Wales in England????No, the fact is that Union Tests have sold more tickets in England BY FAR than League.
Are those goalposts I hear shifting again?
Thanks for proving that you have nothing on the Warriors exposure issue. I'll claim victory on that one. As always, I'm happy to be proven wrong
Saying that league is as popular as union in NZ because the Warriors were popular when they played in the NRL final is as asinine as saying that union is more popular than league in Australia because the world cup final rated higher than any league game in history.
I've also noted that you're responding to fewer and fewer rebuttals.
Because that's all that is available!!!!!
You haven't answered my question as to why the Pommy Union side can't play outside of London. Or don't they have 3 test series like the do in League?
At one single, lonely venue. Which has been outdrawn by League at Wembly, not only for Tests, but for Challenge Cup finals as well.
No. Scotland and Wales are NOT in England. Get a map!
Again, apart from issuing standard issue Union twadle, get some facts and figures. My original statement was that League and Union were on par in Auckland. You immediately make it a national argument. There is no question that, nationally, New Zealanders chose Union. However, in Auckland alone, the other 70% are not resident - therefore don't count.
When you actually GIVE me one, and not mindless heresay that you Yawnion toffs always drag out of the cognac cabinet, I'll respond accordingly.
Misty Bee said:Honestly Sully would you wait up till 1am to watch your Sharks play every week ? of course this would have had an impact on ratings. From what I heard they never gave S12 a chance at a regular time slot to know how it would fair in the ratings
Nope, TV stations are like that. They never give programs a chance to show their ratings. That's why they don't show test patterns at 6.30pm, never gave em a chance to build a following!
only grey area is Auckland, where they are sort of on par.
South Coast Saint said:Everlovin' Antichrist said:... BIG SNIP...
Totals:
AFL: 1,048,000
League: 1,136,000
....BIG SNIP....
People like you make assumptions based on AFL having more coverage than League, and that's fine. But when they're head-to-head, League smacks AFL's arse.
Well blow me down and call me Charlie. I've never been so glad to admit to being wrong. I'll have to investigate that but it appears you are correct on the Friday Night footy thing. Although I was actually right in the details of my statement.
I'm still not convinced that just because NRL FNF outrates AFL FNF that makes NRL the dominant winter television code. The fact that AFL is on at a decent hour on free to air much more than league and has cumulatively a much greater audience makes it the dominant TV code. Sorry, it does. NRL figures are obviously in much better shape than I thought they were (making the mistake that I openly admit of taking OzTAM ratings and forgetting the regionals). But in the end we still have a long way to go before we can claim to be the dominant TV code.
On to other things:
I find it funny being called a troll (not by Everlovin' Antichrist I don't think). I certainly am not. I'm a dedicated Saints fan. I love my league. On many other forums I am always an advocate of league over the insults of AFL and RU fans. I just think it is silly to make constant assertions about the inferiority of other sports. What does it achieve for us to be ignorant of the opposition's true position?
Cheers,
SCS
Red and White Till I Die