Re: TV Deal : Wed May 11, 2011 9:15 am  

Already is, has been since 1908.

Re: TV Deal : Wed May 11, 2011 9:42 am  

Rooster Booster wrote:

Does the AFL get more purely because it's shown in the five cities as opposed to the NRL in two?

That's the only logical explanation I can come to as to why a sport that is watched on telly by so many more, gets paid less. Is it the reach?

The only logical explanation is the one relating to the conflict of interest which you seem to ignore...

Re: TV Deal : Wed May 11, 2011 9:43 am  

Sheldon wrote:

Aren't fox desperate for subscribers in Vic, sa and wa?

Yeah the non-existent ones they keep paying overs for...

Re: TV Deal : Wed May 11, 2011 9:44 am  

gutterfax wrote:

Objective, subjective and imaginative are three words often used to describe the thoughts of TV execs, Advertising Budget holders and the media in General. Only ploiticians are more self serving IMO.

As much as a sane person would look at straight viewing figures to assess the value of a sport.....I don't know many people in Media, TV and Sport promotion who are sane....

Hard to respond when you mangle someone's quotes...

Higher than what? Everything is the answer. Rugby league is the highest rating sport in Australian television.

Re: TV Deal : Wed May 11, 2011 9:46 am  

Catalancs wrote:

Seems like AFL and rugby league are set to move up a notch or two. Where does this leave soccer and union? How far is union from being classed as a minority sport?

In reality nothing ever changed. The big three sports in Australia have been the same since 1908 as stated: rugby league, cricket and Australian Rules (in no particular order)...

Re: TV Deal : Wed May 11, 2011 9:48 am  

http://www.smh.com.au/business/foxtel-r ... 1eh74.html Article mentioned earlier. Roy Masters is the best analyst of this stuff in Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/foxtel-r ... 1eh74.html Article mentioned earlier. Roy Masters is the best analyst of this stuff in Australia.

Re: TV Deal : Wed May 11, 2011 10:30 am  

WestCoaster wrote:

The only logical explanation is the one relating to the conflict of interest which you seem to ignore...

Eh? Sorry don't get what you're on about geezer. Apparently I'm ignoring something, but I don't know what? Just tell me instead of suggesting something inaccurately.

Re: TV Deal : Wed May 11, 2011 10:54 am  

You're working in Australia at a RL club but you can't see the conflict?

Bahahahaha.

Re: TV Deal : Wed May 11, 2011 10:58 am  

Rooster Booster wrote:

Eh? Sorry don't get what you're on about geezer. Apparently I'm ignoring something, but I don't know what? Just tell me instead of suggesting something inaccurately.

Read the Masters article if you really can't work out what conflict is involved in any discussion involving News Limited and rugby league TV deals.

Concentrate on this bit...
"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."

Re: TV Deal : Wed May 11, 2011 10:59 am  

Naa, naa, it doesn't exist.