Rumours and Stuff

[Poupou Escobar]

Happy to back up my claims with more evidence than a photo involving John Grant.

Anyway, here's my evidence

http://www.nospam47.com/au/football...gue-soocer-football/dpim7r919oa6189ftqcou2jao



So the AFL gets $2.5 billion over 6 years ($417m per year) and the NRL gets $1.8 billion over 5 years ($360m per year),

Per game (including Origins and the GF), in the NRL it is $1.76 million a game. For the AFL (including GF) it is $2.01 million per game.

Don't they have bigger squads to fund and more minutes of game time to sell? There's nothing wrong with the NRL's broadcast deal.

 

[Bazal]

It totally is. In both cases merkins trot out "Well actually, the statistics show..." and completely miss what the statistics don't show.

Yes, merkins are scared of feeling scared. Being expected to tackle a bloke twice your size who is running straight at you is akin to being unarmed in a situation where others are tooled up. They are both situations where a person knows they will be powerless and unequal. A serious injury happens unexpectedly and is just the result of bad luck. Most people cope easily with the idea of bad luck, which is why we still drive cars, fly in planes, and send our kids to American high schools.

This post should be archived as one of the most Pou posts ever made.

All those words to say absolutely nothing but still pretend to be arguing something.

 

[El Diablo]

Well none of that is the AFL's fault and when I talk "AFL" or "NRL", I'm referring to the sport as a whole, not just each sports governing body.

so where is that source to back up your claim about broadcasting?

 

[El Diablo]

Happy to back up my claims with more evidence than a photo involving John Grant.

Anyway, here's my evidence

http://www.nospam47.com/au/football...gue-soocer-football/dpim7r919oa6189ftqcou2jao



So the AFL gets $2.5 billion over 6 years ($417m per year) and the NRL gets $1.8 billion over 5 years ($360m per year),

Per game (including Origins and the GF), in the NRL it is $1.76 million a game. For the AFL (including GF) it is $2.01 million per game.

you haven't included the money the NRL got for NZ and international rights

 

[Poupou Escobar]

This post should be archived as one of the most Pou posts ever made.

All those words to say absolutely nothing but still pretend to be arguing something.

Do you think people are wrong to be more scared of them (or their kids) having frontal collisions with larger people than the remote chance of a serious knee injury?

There's a chance (however remote) of serious injury in any sport. Are people just outright wrong to play sport? I don't get your point. You seem to be saying that anyone whose appetite for risk is different from yours is wrong.

What did you mean when you said this:

Which is funny because AFL actually accounts for more serious injuries than rugby league or rugby union...at an amateur level, anyway.

Parents are worried about tackles, but not so much about ACLs it seems.

Is it really so hard to understand their concerns? Or do you paraphrase Stalin? Rupturing your ACL is a tragedy. Getting bashed every time you run the ball is a statistic.

 

[Bazal]

Do you think people are wrong to be more scared of them (or their kids) having frontal collisions with larger people than the remote chance of a serious knee injury?

There's a chance (however remote) of serious injury in any sport. Are people just outright wrong to play sport? I don't get your point. You seem to be saying that anyone whose appetite for risk is different from yours is wrong.

What did you mean when you said this:

Is it really so hard to understand their concerns? Or do you paraphrase Stalin? Rupturing your ACL is a tragedy. Getting bashed every time you run the ball is a statistic.

My point that there is a certain irony in parents flocking to AFL because of the big bad rugby tackles when they are actually more likely to be injured playing AFL.

You, for some reason, tried to muddy the issue with gun nonsense while actually agreeing with my core premise. People are more scared of the tackles than actual injury

 

[Chipmunk]

Don't they have bigger squads to fund and more minutes of game time to sell? There's nothing wrong with the NRL's broadcast deal.

I didn't say there was.

 

[Chipmunk]

you haven't included the money the NRL got for NZ and international rights

I also haven't included the rights the AFL get from NZ and other countries either.

AFL - http://www.afl.com.au/tv-radio/international-broadcast-partners

NRL - https://www.nrl.com/news/2017/10/23/landmark-international-rights-deal-with-fox-sports/

I'd suggest the AFL isn't giving those International Broadcast rights away for free to those 11 TV Broadcasting companies in the link above.

Given that the NRL international deal is with Fox Sports, have they in fact given their International rights away for 'Free' (included in the money Fox Sports already pays them)? There has been nothing in the news that this deal with Fox is in addition to the money they will already pay to the NRL. Happy to be proven wrong though.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

My point that there is a certain irony in parents flocking to AFL because of the big bad rugby tackles when they are actually more likely to be injured playing AFL.

You, for some reason, tried to muddy the issue with gun nonsense while actually agreeing with my core premise. People are more scared of the tackles than actual injury

And some people are more scared of being unarmed than the increased risk of getting killed. In both cases some people just don't understand how someone else has a different appetite for one risk over another.

But lets be smug merkins and judge them anyway. Statistics are for analysing sports (and possibly other things too), not for telling people how to live their lives.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I didn't say there was.

So, pro-rated by various categories (per player or per minute sold) the deals are comparable. And that's if we even care how big the AFL's collective dick is. Do our teams have to play against theirs?

 

[Chipmunk]

So, pro-rated by various categories (per player or per minute sold) the deals are comparable. And that's if we even care how big the AFL's collective dick is. Do our teams have to play against theirs?

AFL is played for 4 x 20 minutes Quarters and NRL is played for 2 x 40 minute Halves. Both sports are for 160 minutes.

Per player? Your clutching at straws now... If the NRL could use it's entire 30 man squad in each match, do you think they'd get more money on their Broadcast deal?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

My point is why should they care? They have enough money to pay their players, just like the AFL does.

And their broadcast goes for much longer than ours. That is what they are selling, not in-play minutes.

This article (from 2011) is interesting: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...9e1abff2d?sv=e1756d9628a27c93eb36657687a515c1

NOT so long ago, AFL coaches would ask for no more than total commitment for 120 minutes.
This year, as match lengths spiral to record levels, it can take as long as 139 bruising minutes to get the job done.

Five matches have stretched beyond 130 minutes, including the clash between Gold Coast and Brisbane in Round 7, which clocked in at a ridiculous 138:03.

At a time when other sports are looking for shorter formats to maintain the interest of fans, the average length of an AFL game has risen every year since 2006.

 

[El Diablo]

I also haven't included the rights the AFL get from NZ and other countries either.

because they don't get any

they have to give it away for free. you think some other country would pay for AFL? lol

 

[Bazal]

And some people are more scared of being unarmed than the increased risk of getting killed. In both cases some people just don't understand how someone else has a different appetite for one risk over another.

But lets be smug merkins and judge them anyway. Statistics are for analysing sports (and possibly other things too), not for telling people how to live their lives.

The only smug merkin in all of his, as usual, is you. Nothing wrong with finding an irony in the issue, no matter how hard you want to pretend there is.

They can put their kids in whatever sport they want, I just think it's ironic that the more dangerous sport has the increasing participation rate. Everything else you've said is your own smug desire to be right in an argument you created

 

[Bazal]

because they don't get any

they have to give it away for free. you think some other country would pay for AFL? lol

Judging by how much the bars in Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia pay to broadcast it, some merkin is definitely paying for it

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The only smug merkin in all of his, as usual, is you. Nothing wrong with finding an irony in the issue, no matter how hard you want to pretend there is.

They can put their kids in whatever sport they want, I just think it's ironic that the more dangerous sport has the increasing participation rate. Everything else you've said is your own smug desire to be right in an argument you created

I can't argue with any of that. Life indeed seems 'ironic' if you're not grasping all the factors.

 

[Bazal]

I can't argue with any of that. Life indeed seems 'ironic' if you're not grasping all the factors.

Lol. Go on then, I'm bored. Tell me what factors I'm not grasping...

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I already told you. For some people the guaranteed risk of a 45 kilo 7-year-old trampling your kid is less desirable than the remote risk of a crippling knee injury. It seems perfectly understandable to me, and not in the least ironic.

Similarly, I can understand why some would prefer the risk of being surrounded by people with weapons if it meant they could have one of their own, to the other understandable preference for being unarmed but having a reduced chance of encountering a hostile actor (or actress) with a gun.

Personally, I would prefer my kid getting trampled than busting his knee and I have no desire to own a gun where I live. But I don't think it's 'funny', 'ironic' or stupid for people to prefer different risks. And you're right, I guess that does make me smug. But I would've kept it to myself if you hadn't felt the need to judge the AFL-preferring parents.

 

[hindy111]

Who was added to pur 30 man squad?
Hoping it was Mahoney. Also does this meam know one debuts outside of the 30?

 

[Bazal]

I already told you. For some people the guaranteed risk of a 45 kilo 7-year-old trampling your kid is less desirable than the remote risk of a crippling knee injury. It seems perfectly understandable to me, and not in the least ironic.

Similarly, I can understand why some would prefer the risk of being surrounded by people with weapons if it meant they could have one of their own, to the other understandable preference for being unarmed but having a reduced chance of encountering a hostile actor (or actress) with a gun.

Personally, I would prefer my kid getting trampled than busting his knee and I have no desire to own a gun where I live. But I don't think it's 'funny', 'ironic' or stupid for people to prefer different risks. And you're right, I guess that does make me smug. But I would've kept it to myself if you hadn't felt the need to judge the AFL-preferring parents.

Oh so the thing I'm missing is opinion. Right.

There's is a difference between finding irony in something and judging someone. I eagerly await you to tell me how that sentence is wrong, too. Lol