Sydney Sharks

[The Great Dane]

broncos are the only nrl club comparable to afl clubs in terms of football operations generated revenue.
2018
broncos revenue was $46mill
Nth meLbourne was $39.6mill
biggest club in country was was WC eagles with a staggering $86.3million. Someone tell me again how tv grants are worth more than fanbase!

I doubt that anybody sensible would say that.

What they were probably saying is that because of TV grants you don't need a large fanbase to survive anymore, and that is true.

 

[The Great Dane]

All good - you are an 'out-of-the-box' thinker.

O.T. But I like some of your ideas, especially reducing the number of players on the field to 12 or 11 to increase defensive fatigue and open up the play. I think it would make the game more entertaining much the same way that reducing from 15 to 13 did.

I've always thought that @T-Boon was a bit like George Lucas or Tim Burton in that he has own kind of genius, but he isn't always capable of recognising a great idea from a terrible one, so he needs people to filter the genius from the garbage for him to stop things from getting out of hand.

 

[T-Boon]

I've always thought that @T-Boon was a bit like George Lucas or Tim Burton in that he has own kind of genius, but he isn't always capable of recognising a great idea from a terrible one, so he needs people to filter the genius from the garbage for him to stop things from getting out of hand.

I’ll take that. You have a happy new year while I recover from your brutal insult in another thread (actually I think just realised that was another member who also has a Canberra flag picture)

 

[T-Boon]

All good - you are an 'out-of-the-box' thinker.

O.T. But I like some of your ideas, especially reducing the number of players on the field to 12 or 11 to increase defensive fatigue and open up the play. I think it would make the game more entertaining much the same way that reducing from 15 to 13 did.

I appreciate that (although I doubt I came up with the idea of going to 11aside), you have always been an open minded contributor with great ideas about Queensland and the Brisbane area.

 

[T-Boon]

All you people have a very happy new year, even you bastards that give me grief for my brilliant ideas.
Go the Sydney Sharks!

 

[tri_colours]

All you people have a very happy new year, even you bastards that give me grief for my brilliant ideas.
Go the Sydney Sharks!

f**k the Sydney Sharks.

Go Easts!

Happy new year!

 

[flippikat]

If the roles were reversed and the AFL were based in NSW and QLD, then they would have spent fortunes trying to crack the WA, SA, and VIC markets, because realistically those markets are more or less just as important markets as the NSW and QLD markets in the Australian context.

If the AFL was an eastern seaboard sport (NSW/Qld) and the top tier originated in Sydney (say, traditionally a Sydney club comp, plus Newcastle instead of Melbourne clubs plus Geelong), if they had the same expansion attitude to the AFL we know then 1982 would have had a Melbourne & Brisbane team added.. then Adelaide & Perth in 1988.

No fluffing around with Illawarra, Canberra, Gold Coast - just straight to the state capitals.

That's the difference.

 

[tri_colours]

If that is al It was nrl would have gone to 4 qtrs a long time ago. Fox revenue mainly comes from subscriptions not advertising in game so the advertising opportunities in game has little to no bearing on what they pay.

because qlnd is worth more long term (afl desperately tried to get a team to relocate to tassie) but given the option of a second Sth qlnd team or tassie they went for the best long term growth potential, which isn’t tassie. You might not have noticed but they have had a two clubs per major state vision for a very long time.

ps where do you get 10k hours extra content from? Their game runs for an hour longer than ours and they play 198 reg season tv games which is exactly the same as us. So in fact they only have 198 hours extra content in a regular season.

My post says minutes! You quoted me saying minutes. In a previous post I may have accidently said hours . It pretty apparent I wasn't talking about years of advertising. You even quoted me saying minutes. I guess you were just struggling to come up with a decent point.

 

[Perth Red]

My post says minutes! You quoted me saying minutes. In a previous post I may have accidently said hours . It pretty apparent I wasn't talking about years of advertising. You even quoted me saying minutes. I guess you were just struggling to come up with a decent point.

They have about 10 000 extra hours at club level.

haha nice backtrack. So you think tv pays afl tens of millions of $’s more for 198 hours of content? Please. If that’s the case then let’s expand by 4 teams and give them an extra 70 hours of content in reg season.

 

[tri_colours]

haha nice backtrack. So you think tv pays afl tens of millions of $’s more for 198 hours of content? Please. If that’s the case then let’s expand by 4 teams and give them an extra 70 hours of content in reg season.

Here is the post you quoted

[You can fantasies , you can make up all the reasons you like. They get more money because they offer the networks thousands of more advertising minutes, as well as offering a lot more programming....,]

And replied to - post 75


30sec adds in prime get close to a $1000.


That not how it works out. Some teams, some regions are a lot more equal then others. A Brisbane 2 side for example would draw many more viewers and be worth a lot more to the networks than a Perth side.
If you don't belief me right a letter to V'landys or Gyngell.

 

[The Great Dane]

That not how it works out. Some teams, some regions are a lot more equal then others. A Brisbane 2 side for example would draw many more viewers and be worth a lot more to the networks than a Perth side.
If you don't belief me right a letter to V'landys or Gyngell.

Brisbane 2 probably would average more viewers per game than Perth initially, however they won't draw as many unique viewers, and that is where the real money is.

Though there are some exceptions of companies that are running targeted campaigns, by and large 50k viewers each seeing the ad once is more valuable to advertisers than 10k each seeing an ad 5 times.

Also V'landys has proven he's a numpty and Gyngell's main concern was what was in the best interests of the Nine network and not what was in the best interests of the sport of RL, and the keeping the NRL's broadcasting rights and production costs as cheap as possible while still maintaining high ratings is in their best interests. Channel Nine are not the NRL's friends or supporters, they are it's businesses partners, and they will f**k the NRL over for a buck if/when the opportunity presents it's self.

 

[Perth Red]

Here is the post you quoted

[You can fantasies , you can make up all the reasons you like. They get more money because they offer the networks thousands of more advertising minutes, as well as offering a lot more programming....,]

And replied to - post 75


30sec adds in prime get close to a $1000.


That not how it works out. Some teams, some regions are a lot more equal then others. A Brisbane 2 side for example would draw many more viewers and be worth a lot more to the networks than a Perth side.
If you don't belief me right a letter to V'landys or Gyngell.

how many more adds on avg run in an afl game than in an nrl game on Ch9? I genuinely have no idea as I do t watch either sport on fta.
Fox makes no difference, they rely on subscriptions and as we know nrl is the most watched sport on fox.

you seem to be at odds with yourself! On one hand you say afl continually gets significantly bigger tv deals than us because of more content yet then suggest aggressive expansion which would give us more content to sell shouldn’t happen? Which is it?

 

[tri_colours]

how many more adds on avg run in an afl game than in an nrl game on Ch9? I genuinely have no idea as I do t watch either sport on fta.
Fox makes no difference, they rely on subscriptions and as we know nrl is the most watched sport on fox.

you seem to be at odds with yourself! On one hand you say afl continually gets significantly bigger tv deals than us because of more content yet then suggest aggressive expansion which would give us more content to sell shouldn’t happen? Which is it?

Its not that hard! adds after every goal , 3 x the breaks and yes , yes, YES foxtel advertise during these aswell , They have twice as many games on FTA .

Have I ever shown or stated any interest in aggressive expansion? ever?????

 

[tri_colours]

Brisbane 2 probably would average more viewers per game than Perth initially, however they won't draw as many unique viewers, and that is where the real money is.

Though there are some exceptions of companies that are running targeted campaigns, by and large 50k viewers each seeing the ad once is more valuable to advertisers than 10k each seeing an ad 5 times.

Also V'landys has proven he's a numpty and Gyngell's main concern was what was in the best interests of the Nine network and not what was in the best interests of the sport of RL, and the keeping the NRL's broadcasting rights and production costs as cheap as possible while still maintaining high ratings is in their best interests. Channel Nine are not the NRL's friends or supporters, they are it's businesses partners, and they will f**k the NRL over for a buck if/when the opportunity presents it's self.

There's no probably about it. Brisbane will bring more , a lot more to the NRL than Perth for the next 10 year , at least. And Average view is what the advertisers want. So until that changes talking about unique viewers is irrelevant! - As well as being nonsensical.

Mate, anyone who has any authority is a' numpy' according to you! He thought different to you so hes a numpy?????

So do you think 10 or7 will think differently when it coms to Gyngels remarks?

You seam like a real glass half full type of guy

 

[titoelcolombiano]

I've always thought that @T-Boon was a bit like George Lucas or Tim Burton in that he has own kind of genius, but he isn't always capable of recognising a great idea from a terrible one, so he needs people to filter the genius from the garbage for him to stop things from getting out of hand.

Happy new year mate - I hope you had a good one

 

[Perth Red]

Its not that hard! adds after every goal , 3 x the breaks and yes , yes, YES foxtel advertise during these aswell , They have twice as many games on FTA .

Have I ever shown or stated any interest in aggressive expansion? ever?????

And NRL goes to adds every stoppage, which is frequent these days. So again I ask what is the comparison in minutes of advertising per game? And Fox gets majority of its revenue from subscribers not advertising, of which it has very little during the game.

But the main point is if you are correct then it is content that is driving TV value, so lets create more content with more games each week otherwise we will always be behind AFL. We could go to ten games a week which should be far more valuable according to your thinking.

 

[Perth Red]

There's no probably about it. Brisbane will bring more , a lot more to the NRL than Perth for the next 10 year , at least. And Average view is what the advertisers want. So until that changes talking about unique viewers is irrelevant! - As well as being nonsensical.

Mate, anyone who has any authority is a' numpy' according to you! He thought different to you so hes a numpy?????

So do you think 10 or7 will think differently when it coms to Gyngels remarks?

You seam like a real glass half full type of guy

Will it? Looking at the TV audiences for NRL games involving the Broncos and not involving the Broncos the gap isnt massive so it would seem any two clubs offering new content Brisbane folks will watch on TV. Brisbane2 isnt going to bring many new Brisbane viewers to the game, just give a bit more interest for the existing ones.

I'm not against Brisbane2, its a no brainer and pure stupidity we have 9 Sydney clubs and only 1 Brisbane club, but the value is in a ninth game not in an individual club,

 

[Perth Red]

I doubt that anybody sensible would say that.

What they were probably saying is that because of TV grants you don't need a large fanbase to survive anymore, and that is true.

There's surviving and then there's thriving! From last years financials it would seem there are plenty that are still struggling just to survive, even with the massive grant increase.

 

[tri_colours]

And NRL goes to adds every stoppage, which is frequent these days. So again I ask what is the comparison in minutes of advertising per game? And Fox gets majority of its revenue from subscribers not advertising, of which it has very little during the game.

But the main point is if you are correct then it is content that is driving TV value, so lets create more content with more games each week otherwise we will always be behind AFL. We could go to ten games a week which should be far more valuable according to your thinking.

And yes, , the answer will be the same. They got more money because they have a lot more advertising. That may not always be the case. The main goal though is not to simply to get more money.

More adds , more content does not necessarily mean alot if there are few viewers watching these programs.

I didn't say that. That 'strange' statement is something you came up with all on your own.

 

[Perth Red]

I didn't say that at all, Stop putting words in my mouth.

And yes, , the answer will be the same. They got more money because they have a lot more advertising. That may not always be the case. The main goal though is not to simply get more money.

More adds , more content does not necessarily mean anything if there are few viewers watching these programs.

Which is where your argument starts to come undone, as NRL has more viewers (490k to 419k per game avg), especially on subscription driven Fox and for events like Origin. again until we can see breakdown of what that advertising time difference is between the two sports its hard to quantify how much of the FTA difference comes down to that, or how much is due to capital city reach, value of advertising space as AFL is more attractive to corporates. And if it is due to this then surely bringing in 4 new teams to have two more games to advertise in should be the NRL's goal if that is where the TV revenue value sits?