Crowds in 2006 - AFL vs NRL

[MickZu]

Hardly relevant, even though "they shouldn't be combined" for whatever reason, it doesn't give either code any distinct advantage or disadavantage unless you're trying to say that ozTAM, RegTAM and ATR somehow conspiring to deliberately advantage rugby league (it's a conspiracy!)

WOW!!
You generalised that from my response?
That must be a conscience thing because I didn’t say a word!

 

[pcpp]

Brisbane 16th on the ladder.

The week to week national ratings of the AFL smash the RL. There is a reason for the AFL not the nRL getting 780 million over 5 years. To use SOO and GF to prove anything other than the nRL get a few high rating games a year is ridiculous.

Friday 28th

NRL - Sydney 383K + Brisbane 229K + Regionals 455k = 1.067 million

AFL - Melbourne 466K + Adelaide 129K + Perth 110 K + Regionals 113k = 818,000

Total = NRL wins by 249K

Friday 7th (Friday 14th, 21st non ratings period)

NRL - Sydney 341K + Brisbane 219K +Regionals 482K = 1.042 million

AFL - Melbourne 377K + Adelaide 100K + Perth 81K + Regionals 125K = 683K

NRL wins by 359,000.

Source: http://www.pbl.com.au, http://oztam.com.au (cities), http://www.agbnielsen.net/whereweare/dynPage.asp?father=223&lang=english&id=228&country=Australia (regionals)

WOW!!
You generalised that from my response?
That must be a conscience thing because I didn’t say a word!

Would you like to tell me what relevance your response had?

 

[Moss Rocket]

This is a thread full of desperate (and i wonder why?) NRL people wanting to tell the AFL that they are bigger, and AFL fans who just know they are. TV money, crowds, TV. The AFL is so far out ahead, they could afford to run back and pick the NRL up as it trips over. Winning a Logie (NRL Footy Show) is the only claim for fame!

 

[pcpp]

This is a thread full of desperate (and i wonder why?) NRL people wanting to tell the AFL that they are bigger, and AFL fans who just know they are. TV money, crowds, TV. The AFL is so far out ahead, they could afford to run back and pick the NRL up as it trips over. Winning a Logie (NRL Footy Show) is the only claim for fame!

Ok, find me one person in this thread who thinks the NRL is bigger than the AFL in Australia.

If you'd actually read the thread... Everyone in this thread thinks AFL is bigger sport than RL in Australia.

 

[MickZu]

Friday 21st

NRL - Sydney 383K + Brisbane 229K + Regionals 455k = 1.067 million

AFL - Melbourne 466K + Adelaide 129K + Perth 110 K + Regionals 113k = 818,000

Total = NRL wins by 249K

Friday 7th (Friday 14th not in Top 20)

NRL - Sydney 341K + Brisbane 219K +Regionals 482K = 1.042 million

AFL - Melbourne 377K + Adelaide 100K + Perth 81K + Regionals 125K = 683K

NRL wins by 359,000.

Source: http://www.pbl.com.au, http://oztam.com.au (cities), http://www.agbnielsen.net/whereweare/dynPage.asp?father=223&lang=english&id=228&country=Australia (regionals)



Would you like to tell me what relevance your response had?

Basically, your money is not worth the paper it's printed on.

 

[finders]

This is a thread full of desperate (and i wonder why?) NRL people wanting to tell the AFL that they are bigger, and AFL fans who just know they are. TV money, crowds, TV. The AFL is so far out ahead, they could afford to run back and pick the NRL up as it trips over. Winning a Logie (NRL Footy Show) is the only claim for fame!

Yep you said it
Isnt it pathetic that these thugby urgers keep coming on to an AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL forum ply their lies and S***.

AR wins hands down in all sectors. More exciting to watch, huge crowds, the ONLY truly national game, great TV ratings, more media coverage and greater participation rates.

Now can you all go back to the bumsniffers and let us enjoy our wonderfull game!

 

[Hoops]

Hardly relevant, even though "they shouldn't be combined" for whatever reason, it doesn't give either code any distinct advantage or disadavantage unless you're trying to say that ozTAM, RegTAM and ATR somehow conspiring to deliberately advantage rugby league (it's a conspiracy!)

It gives a huge advantage for RL.
You do know what Regional Spill is don't you? Its when people living in Metro markets can pick up regional stations and that data is included in the Regional (ATR) ratings
Regional spill cannot occur in Perth or Adelaide because their is no regional ratings in SA and WA - (another reason why it's pro NRL), or Tasmainia because their is no Metro Ratings and the NT doesn't have any ratings.The majority occurs in Brisbane with one ATR market (Qld) and Sydney with two ATR markets (N-NSW and S-NSW), putting the combined sample area population of ATR plus OzTam above ABS population figures that both rating bodies base their sample size figures on. This is despite Western NSW and Western Qld not included in the Regionals where the majority combined would be pro-AFL anyway. It also occurs in Melbourne with one ATR market (Vic) but not to the same extent.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Again, this page proves again that the only people logically and fairly arguing this thread's topic are the pro-AFL people.

Honestly, pcpp, you're a smart person, but you're using your data mistakingly, biasedly, unfairly.

You're basically agreeing that AFL is by far bigger than NRL, yet immediately want to continue to try to 'prove' that NRL is bigger than what it is, or, bigger than AFL (tv ratings, at least).

Nothing against you personally, but even I (not being as clever as you) can acknowledge where the argument is won and lost.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Ok, find me one person in this thread who thinks the NRL is bigger than the AFL in Australia.

If you'd actually read the thread... Everyone in this thread thinks AFL is bigger sport than RL in Australia.

In which case PCPP what is the argument about? You are not a troll but you seek out some tv ratings which are higher than AFL's relying on SOOs when you must know a SA V. Vic SOO marketed as you market yours would work just as well if not better given what you yourself regard as the self evident truth of AR's wider popularity. If AFL, as League does, needed state wide support to guarantee a blockbuster crowd it would market SOO's as well. you must know this.

What is the argument about when everyone recognises AFL is bigger and RL is sufficiently popular to pull crowds and ratings for a few marquee games per year? Why are you sifting through media data to try to prove an argument you accept yourself is lost? I don't understand that.

 

[cos789]

A bit less overall than RL in Brisbane...
.

Back the truck up .
A bit more than NRL in Brisbane

.

 

[cos789]

Syd v Coll in sydney is better attended than Syd v Bris in sydney.

.

I don't believe so . But then i don't really care .
Are you trying to say that is the basis of some rivalry claim ?
All that says to me is that everybody loves to beat Collingwood .
I'll be at Subiaco watching the mighty Eagles crunch the Pies .
They could have sold out the stadium twice over .

.

 

[Exe Gesis]

In which case PCPP what is the argument about? You are not a troll but you seek out some tv ratings which are higher than AFL's relying on SOOs when you must know a SA V. Vic SOO marketed as you market yours would work just as well if not better given what you yourself regard as the self evident truth of AR's wider popularity. If AFL, as League does, needed state wide support to guarantee a blockbuster crowd it would market SOO's as well. you must know this.

What is the argument about when everyone recognises AFL is bigger and RL is sufficiently popular to pull crowds and ratings for a few marquee games per year? Why are you sifting through media data to try to prove an argument you accept yourself is lost? I don't understand that.

This is where the hammer hits the nail.

Also, pretty much 50% of all AFL games feature a state vs state match-up, 5 of the 6 states involved. Most of those interstate games featuring on tv in other states, particularly RL heartland states, still get great tv ratings that are unadulterated by any hidden data.

Yet, in RL, only three teams provide interstate rivalries to the predominantly NSW clubs. Most of those games, all of them in fact, do not rate at all around Australia. Only 2 of the 6 states, and in RL heartland states, even the RL tv/crowd figures are often challenged, or just beating AFL tv ratings/crowds in those same states.

RL in Sydney has problems. There are about 10 Sydney teams. All of which are very tribal/suburban. Most of those teams do not represent Sydney per se at all. When the Roosters, Souths, Tigers, Sea Eagles, for instance, play at the SFS, hardly anyone attends due to this. Only St George, Parramatta, and Canterbury are highly supported Sydney teams. Yet, put a St George v Canberra game on at Homebush as the only game in Sydney for that round, and the crowd would limp its way to 10,000-15,000 in a 70,000 capacity stadium. But put that game in Wollongong or Kogarah, and the crowd would bustle its way to 15,000-20,000 easy in a 20,000 capacity oval.

Or, put a St George v Parramatta game on in Homebush, Sunday afternoon, and it would max out at the 30,000 range. Only a finals or double-header featuring those two teams would bring a 50,000-70,000 crowd. Though, have there been any 50,000+ crowds in the last 5 years in finals featuring St-George/Parramatta/Canterbury against each other?

In Brisbane, the Broncos represent the whole of Brisbane. So anyone and everyone's team is Brisbane. Much like the Swans in Sydney. They get great 30,000+ crowds consistently because of this. If the old QRL teams like Valleys, Souths, Wynnum, etc, were all part of the NRL landscape in Brisbane, the crowds per game would nose-dive, like they do in Sydney, to 5,000-15,000 crowds.

Put one Sydney team to represent the whole of Sydney in the NRL, and my guess is that crowds would still limp because the ARL/NRL culture has always been based on years of NSWRL club tradition/tribalism/suburbia. Sydney would not be able to rally behind one or two Sydney teams only. Not for a long time anyway. Eventually though, I am sure that crowds would return to get their RL fix and you'd see crowds of 30,000+ at the SFS consistently. Why NRL crowds work in Brisbane is because when the ARL/NRL formed expansion teams, Brisbane entered on the basis that it was supposedly of worse standard than Sydney, and only needed one team. So they got used to the idea quickly, so the "Broncos" worked. If, however, the ARL/NRL truly formed around 6-8 Sydney teams, and 4-6 Brisbane teams, + Illawarra, Canberra, Auckland, Nth Qld, GC, Melbourne, and carried on for years like this, the reduction in Brisbane of teams to a single "Broncos" team would not have worked, and taken years for crowds to rebuild.

What's interesting to hypothesize....if you put another AFL team in Western Sydney you would probably find that both this team and the Swans would attract an average crowd of 15,000-30,000. Meaning they'd still be averaging more than Sydney RL teams. Why? is a rhetorical question.

So, what's important to note is that AFL is well-placed to expand even more into a far more truer National Comp, with bustling crowds in RL heartland states, because new expansion teams there will work like the Broncos worked. They only need a team in Canberra, GC, Darwin, Tassie, and Western Sydney, and RL will be in a state of decay with tv ratings and crowd figures. Whereas, RL, cannot expand. They stuffed up the Perth opportunity, lost it now to RU. Adelaide wont budge. Nor will Melbourne really. All they have is the regional towns in NSW and QLD to maintain viability. The future of RL, purely to survive, is centered, I believe, around the NRL reducing Sydney teams in favor of regional townships from the South to North Coast of NSW and some country QLD and NSW teams.

RL will never threaten AR Australia wide, and the tv ratings, even if RL gets larger ratings, unadulterated even, will never be able to give a full and proper vision of this reality. Tv ratings only blur the 'hopelessness' into a semblance of health and respectability. I'm not hating on RL fans, but I really can't see RL having a lasting and AR-RU threatening future in Australia. It will only remain in a healthy survival mode in NSW/QLD regional areas. That's its long-term future, with only 2-4 Sydney teams max. Actual cities like Sydney and Brisbane, will in the long-term slowly become AR popular. RL will rely, as it usually does, on SOO, Finals, GF, internationals for bustling crowds of 30,000-50,000 as one-off events that will attract the larger RL community from city-wide.

 

[happy hawker]

Friday 28th

NRL - Sydney 383K + Brisbane 229K + Regionals 455k = 1.067 million

AFL - Melbourne 466K + Adelaide 129K + Perth 110 K + Regionals 113k = 818,000

Total = NRL wins by 249K

Friday 7th (Friday 14th, 21st non ratings period)

NRL - Sydney 341K + Brisbane 219K +Regionals 482K = 1.042 million

AFL - Melbourne 377K + Adelaide 100K + Perth 81K + Regionals 125K = 683K

NRL wins by 359,000.

Congratulations Einstein. You covered Friday! Gold star for you. Now all you need to do is find the Saturday and Sunday figures to give a real representation of national tv ratings.

 

[monnersfan]

Slightly off topic, but some in this forum will be pleased to know that Friday Night AFL matches are from now on being screened LIVE into New Zealand, and are replayed again on Saturdays. New Zealand now enjoys over 8 hours of AFL per week on SKY Sports.

http://www.worldfootynews.com/article.php?story=20060505065644506

 

[Aucklander]

Slightly off topic, but some in this forum will be pleased to know that Friday Night AFL matches are from now on being screened LIVE into New Zealand, and are replayed again on Saturdays. New Zealand now enjoys over 8 hours of AFL per week on SKY Sports.

http://www.worldfootynews.com/article.php?story=20060505065644506

That's pretty good coverage. It will clash with the RU and RL, but still.

Interesting to see this thread still going 35 pages later. It really should have finished after the first post.

 

[littleduck]

It gives a huge advantage for RL.
You do know what Regional Spill is don't you? Its when people living in Metro markets can pick up regional stations and that data is included in the Regional (ATR) ratings
Regional spill cannot occur in Perth or Adelaide because their is no regional ratings in SA and WA - (another reason why it's pro NRL), or Tasmainia because their is no Metro Ratings and the NT doesn't have any ratings.The majority occurs in Brisbane with one ATR market (Qld) and Sydney with two ATR markets (N-NSW and S-NSW), putting the combined sample area population of ATR plus OzTam above ABS population figures that both rating bodies base their sample size figures on.

do you want a tissue?

This is despite Western NSW and Western Qld not included in the Regionals where the majority combined would be pro-AFL anyway.

codswallop.

 

[littleduck]

RL in Sydney has problems.

NEWSFLASH: The Super League war has long since finished and the game has re-united and moved onwards and upwards ever since... and continues to move onwards and upwards in every meaningful performance indicator.

There are about 10 Sydney teams. All of which are very tribal/suburban. Most of those teams do not represent Sydney per se at all. When the Roosters, Souths, Tigers, Sea Eagles, for instance, play at the SFS, hardly anyone attends due to this. Only St George, Parramatta, and Canterbury are highly supported Sydney teams. Yet, put a St George v Canberra game on at Homebush as the only game in Sydney for that round, and the crowd would limp its way to 10,000-15,000 in a 70,000 capacity stadium. But put that game in Wollongong or Kogarah, and the crowd would bustle its way to 15,000-20,000 easy in a 20,000 capacity oval.

transport is crap in sydney. people arent accustomed to travelling to the moore park area of homebush in the same way all roads in melbourne lead directly to the G.

practically every single NRL venue has recently undergone a significiant upgrade or will do in the near future. the millions spent on NRL venues (some also used for other sports) upgrades in recent years (last decade say) is in the vicinity of $2 billion, which includes the $1 billion dollar telstra stadium, the $300 million dollar upgrade of 3/4 of lang park, the $100 million dollar Robina Football Stadium, the $100 million dollar Canberra Stadium, the $100 million dollar Melbourne Football Stadium, the $50 million dollar upgrade to Ericcson Stadium in Auckland, the $5-20 mil spent on upgrades to almost every other NRL venue in Sydney, as well as Dairy Farmers in Townsville.

In Brisbane, the Broncos represent the whole of Brisbane.

in theory.

So anyone and everyone's team is Brisbane.

in theory, yes. in reality, not even close.

Why NRL crowds work in Brisbane is because when the ARL/NRL formed expansion teams, Brisbane entered on the basis that it was supposedly of worse standard than Sydney, and only needed one team. So they got used to the idea quickly, so the "Broncos" worked.

codswallop.

If, however, the ARL/NRL truly formed around 6-8 Sydney teams, and 4-6 Brisbane teams, + Illawarra, Canberra, Auckland, Nth Qld, GC, Melbourne, and carried on for years like this, the reduction in Brisbane of teams to a single "Broncos" team would not have worked, and taken years for crowds to rebuild.

i disagree.

What's interesting to hypothesize....if you put another AFL team in Western Sydney you would probably find that both this team and the Swans would attract an average crowd of 15,000-30,000. Meaning they'd still be averaging more than Sydney RL teams. Why? is a rhetorical question.

you're assuming alot...

So, what's important to note is that AFL is well-placed to expand even more into a far more truer National Comp, with bustling crowds in RL heartland states, because new expansion teams there will work like the Broncos worked. They only need a team in Canberra, GC, Darwin, Tassie, and Western Sydney, and RL will be in a state of decay with tv ratings and crowd figures. Whereas, RL, cannot expand. They stuffed up the Perth opportunity, lost it now to RU. Adelaide wont budge. Nor will Melbourne really. All they have is the regional towns in NSW and QLD to maintain viability. The future of RL, purely to survive, is centered, I believe, around the NRL reducing Sydney teams in favor of regional townships from the South to North Coast of NSW and some country QLD and NSW teams.

codswallop.

RL will never threaten AR Australia wide, and the tv ratings, even if RL gets larger ratings, unadulterated even, will never be able to give a full and proper vision of this reality.

true.

Tv ratings only blur the 'hopelessness' into a semblance of health and respectability. I'm not hating on RL fans, but I really can't see RL having a lasting and AR-RU threatening future in Australia. It will only remain in a healthy survival mode in NSW/QLD regional areas. That's its long-term future, with only 2-4 Sydney teams max. Actual cities like Sydney and Brisbane, will in the long-term slowly become AR popular. RL will rely, as it usually does, on SOO, Finals, GF, internationals for bustling crowds of 30,000-50,000 as one-off events that will attract the larger RL community from city-wide.

codswallop.

you sir suffer from Fishbowl Syndrome and Football Xenophobia.

 

[Hoops]

do you want a tissue?

Don't like it when facts go against you eh LD

codswallop.

Imparja Coverage

You will find that imparja gives precedence to AFL over NRL

 

[littleduck]

Don't like it when facts go against you eh LD



Imparja Coverage

You will find that imparja gives precedence to AFL over NRL

do you have a point?

 

[pcpp]

Again, this page proves again that the only people logically and fairly arguing this thread's topic are the pro-AFL people.

No, the pro-AFL people consist of mostly people who call RL supporters "thugby urgers" and a few objective ones.

You're basically agreeing that AFL is by far bigger than NRL, yet immediately want to continue to try to 'prove' that NRL is bigger than what it is, or, bigger than AFL (tv ratings, at least).

NRL isn't bigger than the AFL.

My ratings were slightly biased, but even if you include regional WA, SA and the entire NT and TAS populations, but even when you combine them together (approx. 500,000, 400,000, 100,000, 500,000 = 1.5 million), thats about the same as Vic's regional population (which was included).

TV ratings, is not the end all of sports popularity, I was only comparing them because Rob said that the gap between AFL and NRL ratings was the similar as the difference between AFL and NRL crowds, which isn't the case.

This is despite Western NSW and Western Qld not included in the Regionals where the majority combined would be pro-AFL anyway.

LOL, that's not proof.

In which case PCPP what is the argument about? You are not a troll but you seek out some tv ratings which are higher than AFL's relying on SOOs when you must know a SA V. Vic SOO marketed as you market yours would work just as well if not better given what you yourself regard as the self evident truth of AR's wider popularity. If AFL, as League does, needed state wide support to guarantee a blockbuster crowd it would market SOO's as well. you must know this.

What is the argument about when everyone recognises AFL is bigger and RL is sufficiently popular to pull crowds and ratings for a few marquee games per year? Why are you sifting through media data to try to prove an argument you accept yourself is lost? I don't understand that

My argument was about that people like Rob (who g.g claimed was fair) said that the gap between AFL and NRL ratings was the similar as the difference between AFL and NRL crowds, which isn't the case.

Back the truck up .
A bit more than NRL in Brisbane

.

Read what I said again.

I said Rugby league crowds in Brisbane, overall, were above AFL crowds.

AFL crowds, are bigger than NRL (the competition) crowds.

 

[fishmonger]

Read what I said again.

I said Rugby league crowds, overall, were above AFL crowds.

AFL crowds, are bigger than NRL (the competition) crowds.

So you're counting SOO, International Tests, City vs Country events etc.

Well, Rugby league crowds may be bigger than AFL crowds, but not Australian Football crowds overall.

For that you'd need to count SANFL, WAFL, VFL, NTFL and Tasmanian crowds, which add up to almost another half a million people through the turnsdiles Australia-wide. Easily putting Australian Football ahead overall.

 

[pcpp]

So you're counting SOO, International Tests, City vs Country events etc.

Well, Rugby league crowds may be bigger than AFL crowds, but not Australian Football crowds overall.

For that you'd need to count SANFL, WAFL, VFL, NTFL and Tasmanian crowds, which add up to almost another half a million people through the turnsdiles Australia-wide. Easily putting Australian Football ahead overall.

I edited it to say Brisbane, which was what I intentionally meant.

Even if you add SOO, internationals etc., AFL crowds are bigger than RL crowds anyway.

 

[fishmonger]

I edited it to say Brisbane, which was what I intentionally meant.

Even if you add SOO, internationals etc., AFL crowds are bigger than RL crowds anyway.

I think you have to realise that the reason the NRL stages so many of the big events, like the ANZAC Test in Brisbane, is to boost the overall Rugby league crowds and milk the city's rugby league fans for all they are worth.

AFL is always going to be limited by the number of Lions matches there are (for example, there have been only 3 major AFL games in Brisbane this year, as opposed to 5 major rugby league and 6 rugby union games).

If the AFL really wanted to maximise their Brisbane crowds, they'd be encouraging more clubs to sell home games to the Gabba, and making the Collingwood vs Brisbane game (which should have been scheduled this year and is a sure fire 42,000 sell-out prospect) an annual event.

Better still, stage the next International Rules series at Suncorp Stadium and guage the response from a ground that is much better serviced by Public Transport than the 'Gabba. Maybe 30,000+ ?

 

[pcpp]

I think you have to realise that the reason the NRL stages so many of the big events, like the ANZAC Test in Brisbane, is to boost the overall Rugby league crowds and milk the city's rugby league fans for all they are worth.

Definitely not true.

They staged the 2004 Anzac test in Newcastle, because the ARL feared that they wouldn't get a crowd in a capity city.

Before 2005, the last international crowd in Brisbane was ~12,000 in 1999 at Suncorp (when the capacity was 40,000).

State of Origin has been a regular event for over 20 years.

Brisbane is probably the world's 2nd biggest RL city, scheduling regular events there definitely isn't milking. Less than 20 games a year in a population of 1.7 million when Melbourne and Sydney get 150+ games of AFL and NRL in cities of 4 million.

AFL is ...

Other than that, I agree with your other points.

 

[Mickey]

Definitely not true.

They staged the 2004 Anzac test in Newcastle, because the ARL feared that they wouldn't get a crowd in a capity city.

Before 2005, the last international crowd in Brisbane was ~12,000 in 1999 at Suncorp (when the capacity was 40,000).

State of Origin has been a regular event for over 20 years.

Brisbane is probably the world's 2nd biggest RL city, scheduling regular events there definitely isn't milking. Less than 20 games a year in a population of 1.7 million when Melbourne and Sydney get 150+ games of AFL and NRL in cities of 4 million.



Other than that, I agree with your other points.

Your ratings also don't include radio ratings for Friday nights. You should include them and see who comes out on top. I know who will.