TV pays top-rating NRL half as much as AFL

[Razor]

News owns 50% of Fox Sports and 50% of the NRL. Of course they're going to give themself a discount. When News leaves the game, it will be a massive boost for the game

 

[fourplay]

News owns 50% of Fox Sports and 50% of the NRL. Of course they're going to give themself a discount. When News leaves the game, it will be a massive boost for the game

What makes you think they are going to leave ???

 

[LeagueXIII]

That's what worries me. How the hell are we going to rid ourselves of these parasites. Even if the puppets leave who is to say they won't replace them with other puppets, it's the "men" in the shadows who are the problem.

 

[Mikeo]

With NRL FNF going live this season, the AFL will be hard-pressed to get even close to the NRL ratings on Friday night. Over the past few years the delayed NRL FNF has outrated AFL FNF comfortably.

On PayTV the NRL slaughters the AFL.

Of the two codes, four of the top 5 rating matches Australia-wide in 2006 on FTA TV were Rugby League matches and that's with the League matches either not being on in SA and WA or being on at ridiculous times.

The quality of the NRL v the quantity of AFL.

No one spin-doctors and bastardises TV statistics more than paranoid Rugby League idiots who have no idea how to follow two games.

Firstly, the AFL was (and will be in 2007) delayed at 8:30 pm on Friday nights too. Why only state that only the NRL was?

Secondly, the NRL game is the match of the round. The AFL is not, and in some cases, could actually be the least important game of the round depending on what game has been fixtured at the start of the season. Why not mention this? Is there some reason, why this is not mentioned?

Thirdly, you are obviously creating some made-up stats by adding together regional figures to free-to air figures. Overlapping (spill) of the Regionals and Metro Figures occur a lot in NSW and Qld very Little in Vic and not at all in any of the other states, because their is only one market included in the Ratings for those states (SA, Tas and WA), If you don't believe me have a look at the coverage maps for both OZTam and the Regionals.
http://www.oztam.com.au/pdf/tv_ratings/metro_coverage_maps.pdf
http://www.regionaltvmarketing.com.au/Portals/www.regionaltvmarketing.com.au/documents/RTV%20guide%202006.pdf
You can't just add up the Metro and Regional figures to get a representation of what people are watching nation wide esp for a leagues as localised as the AFL & NRL.
But I know it wont stop you RL guys using the "if you add the metro + Regionals ratings" argument. I mean for christs sake the Gold Coast is counted both as part of NNSW AND as part of Brisbane in the metro figures. Gosford and all up past Wyong is counted twice too, (but only if you are stupid enough too add the figures together)

Fourthly, The regional populations of WA and SA (combined 897,000)are also not released in any official figures. From oztam, a very small regional figure is counted as part of the capital city total for both but not very much.

Population of WA: 1,952,280
Population of Perth: 1,477,815
Regional population of WA: 474,465

Population of SA: 1,552,500[/b]
Population of Adelaide: 1,129,269
Regional population of SA: 423,232


Your figure for the NRL Grand Final "nearly" matching the AFL Grand Final uses a made-up number that I have never seen quoted in any official publication. It also does not take into account that the NRL GF was played in prime time. I actually believe that if the AFL was played in prime time, the figures in NSW and Qld would be less because it would be going head to head with the NRL. But if you play the AFL GF on a Sunday night with no competition (like the NRL) then the figures would be astronomical, as we all know. Why do you think the NRL play it during the evening? You need to compare apples with apples. You don't do this because you are selective and bias.

More people watch the AFL on TV than the NRL. You can play around with the numbers, you can be selective with the figures you display. You can choose to ignore some figures and not ignore others. You can do whatever you want with the figures until you find a stats that suits your agument. And you will do this, no doubt. But it won't change the fact that the AFL is by far the biggest league in the country both at the ground and on television.

 

[Lego_Man]

News doesnt care about doing the best for the game - at the moment they can just milk it as a cash cow with minimal risk. The AFL consistently shows a bolder and more dynamic approach, because they are in charge of themselves and their own direction. Anyway the ridiculous thing is that we have to wait till 2015 for the crunch time when News will finally have their debt paid off. But even then who knows what will happen, i'm not sure of the details of the contract that they have with the NRL.

 

[griff]

More people watch the AFL on TV than the NRL. You can play around with the numbers, you can be selective with the figures you display. You can choose to ignore some figures and not ignore others. You can do whatever you want with the figures until you find a stats that suits your agument. And you will do this, no doubt. But it won't change the fact that the AFL is by far the biggest league in the country both at the ground and on television.

The mian argument is about pay TV. Despite NRL dominating pay TV ratings and AFL rating about the same as the Lifestyle food channel, NRL gets far less money for the rights due to News Ltd misusing its market power. It's nothing short of a scandal. Where is the ACCC?

More people do watch AFL on TV than NRL but the difference is nowhere near as large as the difference in rights fees suggests. Despite the sample areas overlapping slightly the fact remains that regional markets tend to be RL mad and only looking at Oztam figures or Sweeney report figures that only sample people in the capital cities as most people do gives a very distorted view.

 

[Mikeo]

The mian argument is about pay TV. Despite NRL dominating pay TV ratings and AFL rating about the same as the Lifestyle food channel, NRL gets far less money for the rights due to News Ltd misusing its market power. It's nothing short of a scandal. Where is the ACCC?

More people do watch AFL on TV than NRL but the difference is nowhere near as large as the difference in rights fees suggests. Despite the sample areas overlapping slightly the fact remains that regional markets tend to be RL mad and only looking at Oztam figures or Sweeney report figures that only sample people in the capital cities as most people do gives a very distorted view.

I'm all for looking at regional figures. I don't like peple adding regional figures to capital city figures thereby counting the Gold Coast, Gosford and other areas twice to "boost" the NRL" figures, which the AFL can't do because there is virtually no overlapping (Geelong for instance is counted as metro and is NOT counted in regionals)not to mention 1,441,700 people not being counted in AFL territory under the "released" regional figres. See pag 7 of 12 of the regional link I provided. This figure consists of regiopnal WA, Drawin, Mildura, Griffith, Satellite, Port Pirei, Broken Hill, Loxton, MtGambier - all AFL territory. All of it is counted in regional figures but non of it is released as part of the atr ratings that we all see. WE never see what those 1.4 million people in AFL territory watched but we do get "some" people adding together NRL strongholds Twice, LOL, to come up with fictional totals.

the Pay-TV figures also do not tell the whole story. The NRL had 5 of 7 matches on pay-TV, Those are some big games. The AFL had their 3 weakest games on Pay Tv, and not only that they were non-localised games. The picture is always distorted when NRL posters discuss these things and points like that are rarely mentioned.

For example if the Eagles were playing Port and Geelong was playing Richmond at the same time, the first game would be free-to-air in perth and Adelaide, and it would be on PayTv in melbourne. Vice versa for the Melbourne game. That game would be on pay TV in SA and WA.

It meant that the games on Pay-TV were mostly non-local games, and they weren't Australia wide games either. Some Pay-TV games were live into two markets with another AFL Pay-TV game live two different market. So looking at the numbers for one Pay-TV game (i.e Port vs Eagles) is only looking at the figures in Melb, NSW and Qld because that was the only place this non-local game would have been shown on Pay because free-to-air (WA and SA) gets priority for local games! NRL games on Pay were into all markets! And they were not always "non-local" gameslike with the AFL.

As I said in my post above you need to compare apples with apples. If the AFL had 7 games per round with 5 of them on Pay-TV (and the higher subscription rates that would go along with this) and australia wode coverage for the SAME Pay-TV game it would rate higher on pay-TV thna anything else because it is the country's biggest league. As it is, it has an enourmous free-to-air exposure that benefits it's popularity.

Unfortunately "some"posters will compare apples with oranges until, they find a particular statistic that suits their code (in this forum, that being the NRL)

I wouldn't worry about "competing" with the AFL's TV figure. I'd just worry about getting the best deal for the NRL. If you compete with the AFL, the AFL will be the only winner.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

I'm all for looking at regional figures. I don't like peple adding regional figures to capital city figures thereby counting the Gold Coast, Gosford and other areas twice to "boost" the NRL" figures, which the AFL can't do because there is virtually no overlapping (Geelong for instance is counted as metro and is NOT counted in regionals)not to mention 1,441,700 people not being counted in AFL territory under the "released" regional figres. See pag 7 of 12 of the regional link I provided. This figure consists of regiopnal WA, Drawin, Mildura, Griffith, Satellite, Port Pirei, Broken Hill, Loxton, MtGambier - all AFL territory. All of it is counted in regional figures but non of it is released as part of the atr ratings that we all see. WE never see what those 1.4 million people in AFL territory watched but we do get "some" people adding together NRL strongholds Twice, LOL, to come up with fictional totals.

the Pay-TV figures also do not tell the whole story. The NRL had 5 of 7 matches on pay-TV, Those are some big games. The AFL had their 3 weakest games on Pay Tv, and not only that they were non-localised games. The picture is always distorted when NRL posters discuss these things and points like that are rarely mentioned.

For example if the Eagles were playing Port and Geelong was playing Richmond at the same time, the first game would be free-to-air in perth and Adelaide, and it would be on PayTv in melbourne. Vice versa for the Melbourne game. That game would be on pay TV in SA and WA.

It meant that the games on Pay-TV were mostly non-local games, and they weren't Australia wide games either. Some Pay-TV games were live into two markets with another AFL Pay-TV game live two different market. So looking at the numbers for one Pay-TV game (i.e Port vs Eagles) is only looking at the figures in Melb, NSW and Qld because that was the only place this non-local game would have been shown on Pay because free-to-air (WA and SA) gets priority for local games! NRL games on Pay were into all markets! And they were not always "non-local" gameslike with the AFL.

As I said in my post above you need to compare apples with apples. If the AFL had 7 games per round with 5 of them on Pay-TV (and the higher subscription rates that would go along with this) and australia wode coverage for the SAME Pay-TV game it would rate higher on pay-TV thna anything else because it is the country's biggest league. As it is, it has an enourmous free-to-air exposure that benefits it's popularity.

Unfortunately "some"posters will compare apples with oranges until, they find a particular statistic that suits their code (in this forum, that being the NRL)

I wouldn't worry about "competing" with the AFL's TV figure. I'd just worry about getting the best deal for the NRL. If you compete with the AFL, the AFL will be the only winner.

Take it to the fight club moron, this is no place for your AwFuL whinging and whinning.

This is a thread for NRL fans to talk about the TV rights which are being screwed again, it's a place where people in the media will look to see if we give a damn, you can f**k off with your taking over the thread and get into TFC, there, you can right as much BS as you like, we like BS in TFC, with the stuff you just wrote, you'll fit in quite well for a week.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

Also dan26, I mean Mikeo or what ever, how f**king stupid do you think we are?

You write the same damn thing at BF over and over, then you pop in here with a different name and expect us to swallow it, you're a frigging idiot :lol:

 

[Mikeo]

Take it to the fight club moron, this is no place for your AwFuL whinging and whinning.

This is a thread for NRL fans to talk about the TV rights which are being screwed again, it's a place where people in the media will look to see if we give a damn, you can f**k off with your taking over the thread and get into TFC, there, you can right as much BS as you like, we like BS in TFC, with the stuff you just wrote, you'll fit in quite well for a week.

I don't really know what you're on about but this was about the TV rights which I have discussed, and are relevant to this thread. There are reasons why the disparity of the two TV deals exists, and it's entirely relevant to being posted here.

If you don't like it because it makes your code look bad that's not my problem. What kind of response were you expecting in a thread titled, "TV pays top-rating NRL half as much as AFL"

Now, would you actually like to respond the posts?

 

[Mikeo]

Also dan26, I mean Mikeo or what ever, how f**king stupid do you think we are?

You write the same damn thing at BF over and over, then you pop in here with a different name and expect us to swallow it, you're a frigging idiot :lol:

This is not about me... it's about the figures and the topic. What name I use and who I am, is largely irrelevant. What are you, Columbo or something? LOL.

So stick to the topic and give a response.

 

[El Diablo]

wtf?

why play dumb?

 

[El Diablo]

lol

nice edit

didn't want to keep up the act?

 

[Mikeo]

El Diablo, as I said, who I am, or what else I post on is irrelevant.

All that matters is what is written in this thread and that is all you should concern yourself with. Don't you agree?

I just like exposing these selective NRL TV statistics and painting the truth. What name is used to do that means nothing. Itd all about the facts, isn;t it?

 

[Mikeo]

lol

nice edit

didn't want to keep up the act?

Yeah, you're right I can't be bothered keeping up an act, not that there ever was one. I am now "Mikeo", exposer of the NRL TV myth, lol

To be honest, I just felt the urge to respond becase the one trait I hate among sporting lovers is ignorance. That and bending and mainipualting numbers to suit people;s own needs.

Why can't all the figures just be laid out in a detailed table, with no double counting, and ALL the figures (for both Pay and FTA) counted for all games and then we can all interpret them however we want. The NRL people will interpret them to suit their agenda and the AFL people vice versa, and everyone is happy.

But we don't get that. We get selective, manipulative garbage,

 

[El Diablo]

El Diablo, as I said, who I am, or what else I post on is irrelevant

so why did you at first deny it?

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

lol

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

Dan, if you want to talk about tv rights and things, do it in a thread somewhere alse, we don't want this one turning into an AFL-NRL slanging match, plenty of other places you can do it.

If you like, I'll start a thread in TFC, now all you have to do is GTF over there :lol:

 

[Mikeo]

so why did you at first deny it?

Because I didn't want this to get into a bigfooty argument which it probably will. I want it to be about the facts. I just get sick of NRL people manipulating and being selective with precious TV statistics.

I want a proper discussion, not a "you hate NRL (which i don't), go back to BF" and all that crap.

 

[Mikeo]

Dan, if you want to talk about tv rights and things, do it in a thread somewhere alse, we don't want this one turning into an AFL-NRL slanging match, plenty of other places you can do it.

If you like, I'll start a thread in TFC, now all you have to do is GTF over there :lol:

I'm serious i don't want it to turn into a slanging match, I havn't got the time or the energy, or the inclination.

This is a thread about TV rights, and everything in it is relevant to the thread.

See what I mean.. it's happened again. It's all about "me" not the facts and what has been posted, and I wanted to avoid that. How about responding to the post?