Re: Wellington : Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:38 pm  

In the hope of trying to shut you up with your incesant guess work as to the status of the RUWC on the global stage I found this article on the Lloyds website. I know you may get upset that it doesn't mention Australian TV stations or 2 state sports, but it does mention that the Rugby World Cup is now the 3rd largest sporting event on the planet. About Lloyds: Lloyd's is the world's leading insurance market providing specialist insurance services to businesses in over 200* countries and territories. In 2009, 84** syndicates are underwriting insurance at Lloyd's. From its first beginnings in Edward Lloyd’s Coffee House in 1688, Lloyd’s has been a pioneer in insurance. Starting with its roots in marine insurance, Lloyd’s has grown over 300 years to become the world’s leading market for specialist insurance. So, we have the most well known and respected Insurance organisation discussing the RWC here A couple of things to look at in the article and maybe re-read to yourselves a couple of times. The start of the second paragraph and the 13th. Sorry, but in the global sporting world when it comes to advertising and sponsorship as well as overall profit, you may as well compare the Rugby World Cup to kabbadi if you want to see the impact of the Rugby League World Cup or 4 Nations when looking at GLOBAL Presence and revenue streams. I have no doubt that skill levels, as well as revenue streams and attendance figures make the NRL far bigger than Superleague and the Guiness Premiership.....and probably Super 14........But face FACTS guys....you can play with your calculators all you like. If Lloyds (who end up covering all the insurance for most events like this) say it, I would tend to believe them rather than some misguided anoracks

In the hope of trying to shut you up with your incesant guess work as to the status of the RUWC on the global stage I found this article on the Lloyds website. I know you may get upset that it doesn't mention Australian TV stations or 2 state sports, but it does mention that the Rugby World Cup is now the 3rd largest sporting event on the planet. About Lloyds: Lloyd's is the world's leading insurance market providing specialist insurance services to businesses in over 200* countries and territories. In 2009, 84** syndicates are underwriting insurance at Lloyd's. From its first beginnings in Edward Lloyd’s Coffee House in 1688, Lloyd’s has been a pioneer in insurance. Starting with its roots in marine insurance, Lloyd’s has grown over 300 years to become the world’s leading market for specialist insurance. So, we have the most well known and respected Insurance organisation discussing the RWC here A couple of things to look at in the article and maybe re-read to yourselves a couple of times. The start of the second paragraph and the 13th. Sorry, but in the global sporting world when it comes to advertising and sponsorship as well as overall profit, you may as well compare the Rugby World Cup to kabbadi if you want to see the impact of the Rugby League World Cup or 4 Nations when looking at GLOBAL Presence and revenue streams. I have no doubt that skill levels, as well as revenue streams and attendance figures make the NRL far bigger than Superleague and the Guiness Premiership.....and probably Super 14........But face FACTS guys....you can play with your calculators all you like. If Lloyds (who end up covering all the insurance for most events like this) say it, I would tend to believe them rather than some misguided anoracks

Re: Wellington : Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:19 pm  

gutterfax wrote: In the hope of trying to shut you up with your incesant guess work as to the status of the RUWC on the global stage I found this article on the Lloyds website. It's "incessant" for a start. Have some pride, or use a spell check. You're trying to take the intellectual high ground, it would help if you weren't an idiot. There is no guesswork on my part, only commonsense. If I see a figure of 4.5 billion for 48 matches, I know that equates to an average audience per game of 98 million. When the few countries that actually have a real interest in Union have a total population of about 150 million (taking into account that there are only 5 million Nazi sympathisers in South Africa who give a toss about Union) I can see that the figures bandied about are complete garbage. Union isn't Soccer. People don't watch Union internationals when their team isn't playing. England v France in a Union world cup is not going to garner a worldwide audience like England v France would in a Soccer World Cup. The audience outside England and France for a Union world cup match between England and France is miniscule. The same cannot be said for Soccer. It's not histrionics, it's commonsense. Union is not a sport most of the planet crave. The vast majority of the planet aren't waiting with bated breath for Australia v South Africa in a Union world cup. If that match happens in the Soccer World Cup, the audience in any continent bar Australia and Antarctica will dwarf the Union equivalent. Like comparing the audience for the Super Bowl to Yeovil v Torquay in Conkers. Asia - Stuff all interest, total population 4 billion. Europe - GB and Frogland (120 million), total population 830 million. Africa - 5 million Hitler clones in South Africa, total population 1 billion. North America - Stuff all interest, total population 530 million. South America - Stuff all interest - population 380 million. Oceania - Big in NZ and a few islands, limited interest in Australia, total population stuff all. If they knocked a zero off and said the average audience per game was 9.8 million, I wouldn't argue at all. But they don't say that do they? gutterfax wrote: I know you may get upset that it doesn't mention Australian TV stations or 2 state sports, but it does mention that the Rugby World Cup is now the 3rd largest sporting event on the planet. That doesn't make it actually true. There isn't a person/company on the planet that can tell me that without me ripping off a few guffaws, let alone an insurance company. gutterfax wrote: About Lloyds: Lloyd's is the world's leading insurance market providing specialist insurance services to businesses in over 200* countries and territories. In 2009, 84** syndicates are underwriting insurance at Lloyd's. From its first beginnings in Edward Lloyd’s Coffee House in 1688, Lloyd’s has been a pioneer in insurance. Starting with its roots in marine insurance, Lloyd’s has grown over 300 years to become the world’s leading market for specialist insurance. I care. gutterfax wrote: So, we have the most well known and respected Insurance organisation discussing the RWC here Respected insurance organisation. lol That's like being a respected village idiot. gutterfax wrote: A couple of things to look at in the article and maybe re-read to yourselves a couple of times. The start of the second paragraph and the 13th. Can one re-read without reading? gutterfax wrote: Sorry, but in the global sporting world when it comes to advertising and sponsorship as well as overall profit, you may as well compare the Rugby World Cup to kabbadi if you want to see the impact of the Rugby League World Cup or 4 Nations when looking at GLOBAL Presence and revenue streams. Why did you mention the RLWC, it has nothing to do with this discussion. Deflection, another Union troll trait. 99.999% of Rugby League fans are not in any doubt as to the size/worldwide interest in the Rugby League World Cup. The same cannot be said of Union fans and their world cup. 3rd biggest sporting event.... LOL gutterfax wrote: I have no doubt that skill levels, as well as revenue streams and attendance figures make the NRL far bigger than Superleague and the Guiness Premiership.....and probably Super 14........ Of course you have no doubt, even a Union fan has to admit that Rugby League in Australia, or "two states" as you call it, is bigger than Super 14 (lmao - S14 doesn't even come close in any category other than crowd average thanks to the Southern African "master race") or Guinness or Top 14 etc etc The NRL's TV deal is almost to the $ the same as SANZAR's deal. That's 2 states (your words) versus the whole of Southern Hemisphere Rugby Union. The problem is that the next NRL TV deal is that it will leave SH Union well behind. We won't be selling 5 years worth of our premier matches for 10 million dollars... gutterfax wrote: But face FACTS guys.... Champ, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the clacker and gave your prostate a rub. gutterfax wrote: you can play with your calculators all you like. We use them, you avoid them. gutterfax wrote: If Lloyds (who end up covering all the insurance for most events like this) say it, I would tend to believe them rather than some misguided anoracks Yes, of course. And do you believe everything the IRB tell you? Of course you do, you're a putz.

gutterfax wrote: In the hope of trying to shut you up with your incesant guess work as to the status of the RUWC on the global stage I found this article on the Lloyds website. It's "incessant" for a start. Have some pride, or use a spell check. You're trying to take the intellectual high ground, it would help if you weren't an idiot. There is no guesswork on my part, only commonsense. If I see a figure of 4.5 billion for 48 matches, I know that equates to an average audience per game of 98 million. When the few countries that actually have a real interest in Union have a total population of about 150 million (taking into account that there are only 5 million Nazi sympathisers in South Africa who give a toss about Union) I can see that the figures bandied about are complete garbage. Union isn't Soccer. People don't watch Union internationals when their team isn't playing. England v France in a Union world cup is not going to garner a worldwide audience like England v France would in a Soccer World Cup. The audience outside England and France for a Union world cup match between England and France is miniscule. The same cannot be said for Soccer. It's not histrionics, it's commonsense. Union is not a sport most of the planet crave. The vast majority of the planet aren't waiting with bated breath for Australia v South Africa in a Union world cup. If that match happens in the Soccer World Cup, the audience in any continent bar Australia and Antarctica will dwarf the Union equivalent. Like comparing the audience for the Super Bowl to Yeovil v Torquay in Conkers. Asia - Stuff all interest, total population 4 billion. Europe - GB and Frogland (120 million), total population 830 million. Africa - 5 million Hitler clones in South Africa, total population 1 billion. North America - Stuff all interest, total population 530 million. South America - Stuff all interest - population 380 million. Oceania - Big in NZ and a few islands, limited interest in Australia, total population stuff all. If they knocked a zero off and said the average audience per game was 9.8 million, I wouldn't argue at all. But they don't say that do they? gutterfax wrote: I know you may get upset that it doesn't mention Australian TV stations or 2 state sports, but it does mention that the Rugby World Cup is now the 3rd largest sporting event on the planet. That doesn't make it actually true. There isn't a person/company on the planet that can tell me that without me ripping off a few guffaws, let alone an insurance company. gutterfax wrote: About Lloyds: Lloyd's is the world's leading insurance market providing specialist insurance services to businesses in over 200* countries and territories. In 2009, 84** syndicates are underwriting insurance at Lloyd's. From its first beginnings in Edward Lloyd’s Coffee House in 1688, Lloyd’s has been a pioneer in insurance. Starting with its roots in marine insurance, Lloyd’s has grown over 300 years to become the world’s leading market for specialist insurance. I care. gutterfax wrote: So, we have the most well known and respected Insurance organisation discussing the RWC here Respected insurance organisation. lol That's like being a respected village idiot. gutterfax wrote: A couple of things to look at in the article and maybe re-read to yourselves a couple of times. The start of the second paragraph and the 13th. Can one re-read without reading? gutterfax wrote: Sorry, but in the global sporting world when it comes to advertising and sponsorship as well as overall profit, you may as well compare the Rugby World Cup to kabbadi if you want to see the impact of the Rugby League World Cup or 4 Nations when looking at GLOBAL Presence and revenue streams. Why did you mention the RLWC, it has nothing to do with this discussion. Deflection, another Union troll trait. 99.999% of Rugby League fans are not in any doubt as to the size/worldwide interest in the Rugby League World Cup. The same cannot be said of Union fans and their world cup. 3rd biggest sporting event.... LOL gutterfax wrote: I have no doubt that skill levels, as well as revenue streams and attendance figures make the NRL far bigger than Superleague and the Guiness Premiership.....and probably Super 14........ Of course you have no doubt, even a Union fan has to admit that Rugby League in Australia, or "two states" as you call it, is bigger than Super 14 (lmao - S14 doesn't even come close in any category other than crowd average thanks to the Southern African "master race") or Guinness or Top 14 etc etc The NRL's TV deal is almost to the $ the same as SANZAR's deal. That's 2 states (your words) versus the whole of Southern Hemisphere Rugby Union. The problem is that the next NRL TV deal is that it will leave SH Union well behind. We won't be selling 5 years worth of our premier matches for 10 million dollars... gutterfax wrote: But face FACTS guys.... Champ, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the clacker and gave your prostate a rub. gutterfax wrote: you can play with your calculators all you like. We use them, you avoid them. gutterfax wrote: If Lloyds (who end up covering all the insurance for most events like this) say it, I would tend to believe them rather than some misguided anoracks Yes, of course. And do you believe everything the IRB tell you? Of course you do, you're a putz.

Re: Wellington : Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:28 pm  

How very scientific and thanks for the spelling correction. I find it's a good sign when you and your mates pick up on something as trivial and unconnected to the debate....it means you're losing.

Still awaiting documented proof from reputable sources to back up your assertation that the IRB/TV companies lied.

Re: Wellington : Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:38 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

How very scientific and thanks for the spelling correction. I find it's a good sign when you and your mates pick up on something as trivial and unconnected to the debate....it means you're losing.

You tell yourself whatever you have to mate. Let it be noted that I didn't pick you up on the missing "n" in Guinness.

I must be getting soft.

gutterfax wrote:

Still awaiting documented proof from reputable sources to back up your assertation that the IRB/TV companies lied.

So, if I posted an article from an insurance company that said the Union world cup didn't have 4.5 billion viewers you'd suddenly agree?



Why don't you post proof from a reputable, independent source that the last Union world cup had 4.5 billion viewers?

That means any source that isn't just quoting the IRB.

While you're here, the game called "Rugby Union", is it just "Rugby" or is it "Rugby Union"?

What's the official word.

Re: Wellington : Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:40 pm  

Try looking up, "putting Rugby first" moron.

Re: Wellington : Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:57 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

How very scientific and thanks for the spelling correction. I find it's a good sign when you and your mates pick up on something as trivial and unconnected to the debate....it means you're losing.

Still awaiting documented proof from reputable sources to back up your assertation that the IRB/TV companies lied.

33 million real audience > RU calculator >4 billion

Re: Wellington : Tue Apr 20, 2010 11:23 pm  

dally messenger wrote:

33 million real audience > RU calculator >4 billion

You are simply making yourself look stupid by not responding to the request for documented proof.

I accept that you are in "hate union" mode, but for your side of the debate to carry any credibility, you need to find proof. Your opinion, whilst often insightful and interesting in other RL matters is dragging you down to the level of others on these boards who have driven real fans away with their constant and childish antics. Because someone watches a different game as well as league, they are marked a union troll.........it's not very big and it certainly isn't very clever. Be careful or you may well get tarred with the same brush.

Re: Wellington : Tue Apr 20, 2010 11:30 pm  

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/busin ... 26242.html "The final match of one of the biggest international sporting events last year, the Rugby World Cup, drew only 33 million viewers globally, according to Initiative. " So, the final had 33 million viewers but the tournament averaged 98 million per game? LOL Even if every 2007 Union world cup game had the same audience as the final, that totals 1.5 odd billion. Where did the other 3 billion come from? Commonsense is not an option for Union fans....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/busin ... 26242.html "The final match of one of the biggest international sporting events last year, the Rugby World Cup, drew only 33 million viewers globally, according to Initiative. " So, the final had 33 million viewers but the tournament averaged 98 million per game? LOL Even if every 2007 Union world cup game had the same audience as the final, that totals 1.5 odd billion. Where did the other 3 billion come from? Commonsense is not an option for Union fans....

Re: Wellington : Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:02 am  

gutterfax wrote:

well, I'm not sure that him being shown up as an inaccurate opinionated child twice in 3 pages is giving you value for money here Dally.
Firstly he bickered over the list I posted......then said I googled to get it, belittled the fact that I have actually discussed this with NZRL in a professional capacity and lastly, got totally OWNED by not reading a post correctly......typing what he thought was a clever response,,,,then trying to make it look like he was goading me with his kitty kitty remark.

All in all....he has been shown up (by a relative league newbie.....only 9 years of following the game)as a keyboard warrior with a chip on his shoulder regarding the historical treatment of League by Union.....who has read a few books and believes himself to be the font of all RL knowledge.

Still......it's your money

You can try and spin it whichever way you want...

"Us".

Re: Wellington : Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:07 am  

How far out of the closet has guttertroll now come...???



Not a troll.



Delusional fellow.

"Us"...