Re: TV Deal : Sun May 22, 2011 2:22 am  

Sorry to answer for another poster but...

The game rates more than AFL.
Ergo it should get paid more.
It probably won't because of the conflict (even with the IC).
Even so, it should still get close to $1 billion because there is almost no reason why it should not get more than the AFL based on the FACTS of ratings.

Re: TV Deal : Sun May 22, 2011 2:23 am  

Rooster Booster wrote:

I think we'll be fine, we always will. In this country RL is very significant on any sporting radar. Even if we get less than AFL. So what, we'll still grow and teams will get a few more quid.

At the end of the day, that is true.

But it doesn't change the fact if AFL gets more it will still be inequitable.

Re: TV Deal : Sun May 22, 2011 2:29 am  

People throwing around crowd figures for the AFL in this context lack a clue.

Hint for the likes of Sal...

There are:
1. Crowds; and
2. TV ratings.

When we discuss TV ratings, number one is IRRELEVANT to the discussion. This seems to be a very common error on this forum.

Re: TV Deal : Sun May 22, 2011 2:40 am  

Yeah it is baffling at times when you look at subscription and FTA TV viewing figures. I for one find them inaccurate, but it is however a level playing field and is inaccurate for all sports. It does though, and without question, show that RL IS THE MOST VIEWED sport on telly full stop.

The deals are clearly not just based on these figures. It doesn't help that RL isn't shown all over the shop live as the figures would be even more impressive.

I guess the TV monies doesn't bother me as much as it does others. Some have seemed to almost take it personally, when they shouldn't.

Re: TV Deal : Sun May 22, 2011 2:48 am  

I certainly take the continued abuse of the great game by News Limited personally and to be honest fail to see how any true rugby league fan, with the game's best interests at heart, could feel otherwise.

No offence to you personally.

Re: TV Deal : Sun May 22, 2011 7:03 am  

joedynamo wrote:

Our friends from the SH have really got to ya, ay Sal
Surprised you'd stoop to posting outright falsehoods, or is this another of your Greg Inglis has never played 5/8 moments?

The FA cup final drew 8 million in the uk..
Event games quite often draw big TV audiences...Are you trying to suggest that Origin isnt an event?

Source pls, or is that just your opinion.

...Or NSW 6.9m and Qld 4.3...maybe you just forgot to include the regional areas.

Nope...

Prolly 'cos, as usual, you arent aware of the facts.

Is there some dynamic you'd care to explain Sal?

The FA Cup final is like the GF and it was on FTA - so as a % of the total population it is about 13%.

Of the 22m who live in Australia at the 2010 - 5.2m live in Victoria which AFL country, 2.1m in WA, 1.6m in SA - so in reality your 3.3m viewers comes from 6.9m in NSW and 4.2m in Queensland. i.e. 30%!!

You compare to La Liga - 14 teams in La Liga have a higher home attendance than any NRL club in Sydney - seems some don't quite have their facts quite right

In Spain the 2 major cites have soccer teams with weekly attendances not unlike the AFL - soccer is a religion in Spain and Italy - add to that the 1m Brits that live on the Costa - part of the dynamic - and it is no surprise TV ratings are sky high.

I suppose the point that is strange is this - given the interest in the game why do so few people attend games?

Re: TV Deal : Sun May 22, 2011 7:08 am  

WestCoaster wrote:

People throwing around crowd figures for the AFL in this context lack a clue.

Hint for the likes of Sal...

There are:
1. Crowds; and
2. TV ratings.

When we discuss TV ratings, number one is IRRELEVANT to the discussion. This seems to be a very common error on this forum.

Only some one with their head in the sand would believe that attendances have nothing to do with the TV deal. No TV company wants to show games with half empty stadia - it is one of the issues we have with the CC and FTA coverage in the UK.

All this we are get done over by a television company - it is just a "Heads I win, tails you lose" if RL doesn't get a significantly better deal than the AFL.

Re: TV Deal : Sun May 22, 2011 7:10 am  

Head in the sand says the conflict denier.

lol

Re: TV Deal : Sun May 22, 2011 7:16 am  

WestCoaster wrote:

At the end of the day, that is true.

But it doesn't change the fact if AFL gets more it will still be inequitable.

Once again you have you head in the sand - TV companies buy sporting rights to sell subscriptions and advertising.

Just maybe the potential revenue streams that come from AFL coverage are better and have greater potential than that of RL. Rules is in every major city in Australia, RL is played in 3 - one of which is Melbourne. So as a TV company where are you likely to get new subscribers from in Adelaide, Perth a sport with no representation or a sport that has an established following?

It is not all about existing viewers?

Re: TV Deal : Sun May 22, 2011 7:17 am  

WestCoaster wrote:

Head in the sand says the conflict denier.

lol

Dally's back didn't realise you knew so much about tights!!