Re: TV Deal : Fri May 20, 2011 11:11 am  

Can you re-phrase in English.

Re: TV Deal : Fri May 20, 2011 11:24 am  

WestCoaster wrote:

There is a reason why the AFL uses 5 capital cities. Because it skews ratings and makes them look closer to the NRL than they actually are...

But I wouldn't expect that to be pointed out here.

You wouldn't expect to be pointed out.

It just has been pointed out.

Are you surprised?

Re: TV Deal : Fri May 20, 2011 11:27 am  

Pointed out by someone else was what was meant. Clearly.

Like you erstwhile moderator.

But no. Alas. I was required to do so.

Re: TV Deal : Fri May 20, 2011 11:38 am  

WestCoaster wrote:

Pointed out by someone else was what was meant. Clearly.

Like you erstwhile moderator.

But no. Alas. I was required to do so.

Aren't you a member of this board? Why should you not bring it up?

Fwiw It has been brought up before, it was pointed out that while been the best available way to collect the ratings it is flawed.

Anyway we come full circle every month.

Regarding 'conflict of interest' when will it, in your opinion, be resolved?

Re: TV Deal : Fri May 20, 2011 11:43 am  

When News Ltd leaves the game obviously.

Though I have my doubts even then given the on-going conflicts which will exist in certain key personnel, including the CEO.

Foxtel have made it clear they paid a fortune for the AFL solely on one basis. A hope that they will sell more subscriptions in three centres - Vic, WA, SA - to justify it. They have said this before and it failed. Miserably.

They continue to choose to ignore obvious CURRENT ratings which confirm the position the NRL is in. 77 out of 100 is as damning a statistic as anyone could find in media analysis.

Re: TV Deal : Fri May 20, 2011 11:47 am  

And btw, the 5 capital cities ratings isn't the best way to judge Australian ratings at all. It is the one that favours AFL; so people favouring the AFL use it.

There are separate figures available within a week which give the entire picture.

There is no justification for not including regionals. Without them, the picture is for obvious and self evident reasons, incomplete.

If people choose to use the incomplete ratings to form an opinion, it is liable to be attacked with some gusto by those who actually understand the issue.

Re: TV Deal : Fri May 20, 2011 11:51 am  

WestCoaster wrote:

When News Ltd leaves the game obviously.

Though I have my doubts even then given the on-going conflicts which will exist in certain key personnel, including the CEO.

And when will news ltd be out of the game? When the ic comes in?

Foxtel have made it clear they paid a fortune for the AFL solely on one basis. A hope that they will sell more subscriptions in three centres - Vic, WA, SA - to justify it. They have said this before and it failed. Miserably.

They continue to choose to ignore obvious CURRENT ratings which confirm the position the NRL is in. 77 out of 100 is as damning a statistic as anyone could find in media analysis.

It certainly is, but on that basis would it be a better idea for the Nrl not only to have the tv ratings but to have sides in the 5 cities?

Re: TV Deal : Fri May 20, 2011 11:55 am  

Sheldon wrote:

Key factor? No a important one and certainly more important than, what could be seen as flawed, tv ratings.

As discussed in the now disapeared thread, attendance can be affected by a whole heap of factors...maybe the Afl Att. figures are inflated because some games arent televised live...unlike the NRL of course.

As for more tangible evidence, Hudds 1895 (i think) posted a link to a report which said that advertising rates at nein were down........for everything but Rugby League.

If your getting more fans in attendences and more cash for tv deals something is very wrong.

Back to the (obvious) conflict of interest.

Roy Masters wrote:

It has been hard for the NRL to achieve a just price when it has been ruled by News Ltd directors who sit on one side of a table making an offer and then run around the other side of the table to gleefully accept it.

The five cities argument is, as Baldrick once said : a dead herring. Stinks as badly as well.

If news arent careful they could end up losing the two biggest states...States which have bigger populations than the other three combined.

Re: TV Deal : Fri May 20, 2011 12:03 pm  

The NRL will have sides in all but one by next round of expansion. Say 2013 or 2014. Perth is a certainty as it should be.

Hopefully the AFL may have a team in the country's capital by then. lol

Discussion of Adelaide has gone up dramatically in NRL circles within the last 12 months.

(The Canberra example in itself begins to show how artificial the 5 city construct is to begin with. Although you clearly bought it... The AFL would give its eye teeth to have teams with the regional spread of NRL. Major population areas like North Queensland, (previously) Gold Coast, Central Coast, Newcastle, Woollongong have NO AFL whatsoever - the NRL is deprived of NO comparable regional areas.)

Officially News involvement will cease with the IC formation. As I said in the sentence above your question, I still have reservations.

News had announced they would be out by 30 April (they had already missed multiple exit dates previously). The last date passed without a whimper in News Ltd press. Wonder why? Because they want to keep wringing money out of their best product as long as possible...

Re: TV Deal : Fri May 20, 2011 12:08 pm  

I don't think you understand why I was questioning the the tv ratings, it has nothing to do with the five cities.

It's how they collect the information.