Show us on TV or show us the money: Raiders

[Green Machine]

just a stupid one.

But not racist

such as?

there are plenty that have mentioned it

I think the OP has a valid point. The fact that some clubs get huge exposure and some clubs very little is a massive inequity in a competition that is *supposed* to be equitable. Exposure becomes its own feedback loop.

I agree with that. All clubs are franchises of the NRL and the NRL should look to promote all clubs. Clubs who get regular FTA exposure are able to command larger sponsorship agreements. Clubs who get regular FTA exposure are able to negotiate with sponsors who are after national exposure,

 

[macavity]

there are plenty that have mentioned it

shouldn't be hard for you to find one then?

 

[parano1a]

18 Brisbane
15 St George-Illawarra
13 Parramatta
11 Wests Tigers
10 Canterbury, Penrith,
9 Newcastle,South Sydney
8 Manly, North Queensland
7 Gold Coast
6 Melbourne
5 Sydney Roosters
4 NZ Warriors
2 Canberra, Cronulla.

A more accurate figure for Melbourne would be 0. Not sure why you'd include replays screened between 12-2.30am in the team's home city as primetime FTA coverage... I'm sure the phone sex companies are paying top dollar for advertising there.

 

[Non Terminator]

Become a better, more consistent team and FTA will have no choice but to show your games. I don't see why the NRL should compensate the Raiders for lack of FTA exposure because you guys are so damn inconsistent...

:lol:
Oh.
You're serious.

 

[MsStorm]

A more accurate figure for Melbourne would be 0. Not sure why you'd include replays screened between 12-2.30am in the team's home city as primetime FTA coverage... I'm sure the phone sex companies are paying top dollar for advertising there.

Nil is exactly right, except for the grandfinal.

 

[Loudstrat]

80% of their squad? :lol:

Way to kill your argument in the first line.

Bred not bought. Did the Dogs get it down to 80%> Wow! Well done Greenberg

 

[skeepe]

What are the numbers for fta games per team in 2009?

A better way to guage the way it's worked out for all clubs is to look at the 3 years since the latest TV deal - that forced 9 to show a minimum of 2 games for each team - came into force.

Brisbane Broncos - 52/72 = 72% (average position 6th)
Parramatta Eels - 37/72 = 51% (average position 8th)
Wests Tigers - 36/72 = 50% (average position 9th)
Canterbury Bulldogs - 36/72 = 50% (average position 8th)
St George-Illawarra Dragons - 34/72 = 47% (average position 7th)
Manly Sea Eagles - 33/72 = 46% (average position 3rd)
South Sydney Rabbitohs - 28/72 = 39% (average position 10th)
Gold Coast Titans - 27/72 = 38% (average position 9th)
Penrith Panthers - 27/72 = 38% (average position 13th)
Sydney Roosters - 23/72 = 32% (average position 10th)
Newcastle Knights - 23/72 = 32% (average position 10th)
Melbourne Storm - 21/72 = 30% (average position 2nd)
North Queensland Cowboys - 20/72 = 28% (average position 10th)
Cronulla Sharks - 14/72 = 19% (average position 10th)
New Zealand Warriors - 9/72 = 13% (average position 9th)
Canberra Raiders - 6/72 = 8% (average position 11th)

The Raiders are the only team to have received the bare minimum of 2 matches every year.

At the current rate of exposure, the Raiders will reach the Broncos figure of 52 matches in 2032, by which time the Broncos will have had 450.

This also, once again, blows the myth that it's related to being successful right out of the water. The average position is the average of the final ladder positions for each team as at round 26. Also seems to indicate just how close the competition really is, with most teams sitting around the 9th-10th mark, which I found interesting.

 

[Paullyboy]

80% of their squad? :lol:

Way to kill your argument in the first line.

Good rebuttle, feel free to discredit it with facts if you can.

I'm expecting you to come back and say, "oh no it's only like 75%, lol u r a n00b, pwnt!" or something along those lines, which in turn will effectively prove my point for me.

 

[_Johnsy]

Paully

I think you’ll find a large majority of posters, if not all are advocating for Canberra to receive more FTA games.

If other teams developed their own and didnt rely on cheque-books you'd see the Raiders dominating.

No, but we are the only ones who don't exacerbate the problem by chasing after everyone elses players.

Canberra went over the top retaining our own players because scum Sydney clubs are too lazy to do their own development work and force the price up on our own players.

Some clubs buy about 80% of their squad, others have a bit of respect for the game of rugby league and do the hard yards through junior development.

Then you come up with this demand to a poster when all you have offered is a lack of medicine induced rants based on opinion. Considering you have slowly changed your stance, they have a stench of a confused post frontal lobotomy patient.
To be honest mate you need to show a clearer understanding of the mechanics of player turn over in NRL, as it stands it appears you have nil.

 

[King Tigerman]

they should make it that every side has at least 2 home games on free to air OR next contract renewal have it so regional sides have all their games on free to air in their local market (even if its an 11.30 replay)

 

[Joker's Wild]

Piss off. I wasn't being racist. You get involved in all thses debate. Go and cry to someone who cares,

You infered that the term "Pacific Islander" was a negative by attaching it to a team you clearly hate.

Pretty much the definition of racist mate

 

[Paullyboy]

Paully

I think you’ll find a large majority of posters, if not all are advocating for Canberra to receive more FTA games.








Then you come up with this demand to a poster when all you have offered is a lack of medicine induced rants based on opinion. Considering you have slowly changed your stance, they have a stench of a confused post frontal lobotomy patient.
To be honest mate you need to show a clearer understanding of the mechanics of player turn over in NRL, as it stands it appears you have nil.

I fail to see how my opinion changed, as a matter of fact, I think it stayed completely consistent.

The reason I brought that point up is because, as per usual, someone felt the need to go down the "Canberra are crap" path and I felt it timely to remind them that if it weren't for clubs like Canberra doing development work, their club would have about 4 players on their roster.

 

[Timmah]

Good rebuttle, feel free to discredit it with facts if you can.

I'm expecting you to come back and say, "oh no it's only like 75%, lol u r a n00b, pwnt!" or something along those lines, which in turn will effectively prove my point for me.

Really? I'm not a betting man, but surely having seen my posts on this forum (how could you not have, there's roughly 67,000 of them), do you really think that's the kind of reply I deal out? :lol:

The facts to discredit your absolutely ridiculous 80% purchased argument:

1. Luke Patten
2. Steve Turner
3. Jamal Idris
4. Josh Morris
5. Bryson Goodwin
6. Ben Roberts (played some junior footy for Wests but debuted at Dogs, so 50/50)
7. Brett Kimmorley
8. Ben Hannant
9. Michael Ennis
10. Michael Hodgson
11. Gary Warburton
12. Andrew Ryan
13. David Stagg
14. Chris Armit
15. Dene Halatau
16. Jarrad Hickey
17. Buddy Gordon
18. Ben Barba
19. Danny Williams
20. Brad Morrin
21. Blake Green
22. Junior Tia Kilifi
23. Mickey Paea
24. Heka Nanai
25. Lee Te Maari
26. Tim Winitana
27. Tim Browne
28. Daniel Harrison
29. Corey Payne (hasn't played first grade for us before, but we brought him through the lower grades)
30. Shane Neumann

10/30 of the "top squad". 66% "bought" last I checked - far less than your earlier figure of 80%. I can't imagine we're the only ones that have such a quota of purchased talent at our club, but if you wanna prove me wrong I'm happy to be corrected.

How it has anything to do with the fact the Raiders don't rate on FTA like the Eels, Broncos, Bulldogs or Dragons do... got me stumped :lol:

 

[Paullyboy]

NRL clubs are based on their top 25, so you've effectively added 5 players to help increase your percentage. I'm not sure which of those 5 would drop out of the top 25, but assuming it's the last 5 you have listed it would bring the percentage to 72% of players that your club has bought. Which is in fact very close to my initial comment.

And the reason I brought this up was because it was commented earlier by someone else (and I realise it wasn't you) that the Raiders should focus on buying players if they want to get on FTA. The entire point of me bringing this up was that I'd rather my club didn't sell it's soul for a whole new batch of players every 4-5 seasons, I'd rather even more if other clubs stopped poaching our players. If this happened, we'd have a gun team and we'd be on FTA. I appreciate the topic of the thread has changed quite a lot from the original post, but you of all people should be aware that it would be quite rare for a thread to stay on the original topic on this forum.

 

[Green Machine]

You infered that the term "Pacific Islander" was a negative by attaching it to a team you clearly hate.

Pretty much the definition of racist mate

According to who?
Tell someone who cares

 

[Billythekid]

Does it really matter if clubs are buying players as long as they are producing young players?

For example what if say the Eels bought every single player in their top 25. However in the rest of the NRL there were 100 players who had all come through the junior system of the Eels.

Now yes they wouldn't have much home grown talent but they would still be providing lots of juniors for the game.

My point being that you shouldn't necessarily only look at how many juniors are playing for one team. You should also look at how many of their juniors are running around for other clubs.

 

[Green Machine]

Getting back to the topic, in the second half of 2008 the Raiders were one of the most consistent teams in the comp. We racked up some big scores against opposition teams as well. Still, we had little exposure on Channel 9 and not one “Live” Friday match. Channel 9 (Sydney) has their favourites. In the Winfield Cup days, everyone would get a Saturday Afternoon match clubs were compensated for playing in a poor crowd drawing spot. With two “Live” television markets on a Friday night, everyone should get an least 4 “Live” Friday night games a season as a minimum,

 

[innsaneink]

According to who?
Tell someone who cares

Quite a defensive yet autistic reply to your
redneck remarks....way to go Cletus.

 

[King Tigerman]

Getting back to the topic, in the second half of 2008 the Raiders were one of the most consistent teams in the comp. We racked up some big scores against opposition teams as well. Still, we had little exposure on Channel 9 and not one “Live” Friday match. Channel 9 (Sydney) has their favourites. In the Winfield Cup days, everyone would get a Saturday Afternoon match clubs were compensated for playing in a poor crowd drawing spot. With two “Live” television markets on a Friday night, everyone should get an least 4 “Live” Friday night games a season as a minimum,

theres potentially 73 channel 9 games a year (47 friday 26 sunday) so fairly every side should get 2 friday night and 1 sunday games on channel 9

the way they do monday night games (which last year there were 24 + 1 sunday night game in the last round) is fairer every side (with the exception of auckland because they cant have a game start at 9pm their time) every side gets maximum 2 home monday night games (except last year the tiges got 3)

 

[Green Machine]

Quite a defensive yet autistic reply to your
redneck remarks....way to go Cletus.

Where have you been little girl?