Crowds in 2006 - AFL vs NRL

[Rob]

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.

Ah! Now we're onto something.

Saturday afternoon:
AFL around 1m
NRL - 0 (no saturday afternoon games)

Saturday night
AFL around 1m
NRL around 200k maximum....after 4 rounds of NRL the highest rating game on Pay TV nationally rated 169,000

Sunday
Live Sunday AFL around 1m
NRL around 200k maximum on Pay TV

Like I said, the gap is enormous, at least as much as the gap in crowds.

And that's accepting the dubious regional ratings, and the dubious comparisons of NSW and Qld NRL and Vic, WA and SA AFL, which obviously do not compare TV ratings nationally.

pcpp, you've been owned.

 

[pcpp]

Like I said, the gap is enormous, at least as much as the gap in crowds.

And that's accepting the dubious regional ratings, and the dubious comparisons of NSW and Qld NRL and Vic, WA and SA AFL, which obviously do not compare TV ratings nationally.

pcpp, you've been owned.

Yes I got owned

Firday Night Football is the fairest comparison of all.

When NRL wins the FNF battle, you claim that the regional ratings are "dubious", and they don't compare TV ratings nationally.

Surely if AFL has double the fans of RL in Australia, they would have a showing on the top 40 pay TV lists? AFL even has a dedicated channel.

Also good to see you claiming that the one AFL game on Pay TV is worth a million while three NRL games back to back is a combined total of maximum 200k (even though last year, at least 39 games were over 200k).

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.

I don't know too much about radio ratings, but care to enlighten me on the ratings.

 

[Rob]

Yes I got owned

How about some fair comparisons?

Firday Night Football is the fairest comparison of all. Where both football codes get a fair showing.

No they don't, as the AFL doesn't get shown at the same time in Brisbane and Sydney (ditto for the NRL elsewhere, but we both know it wouldn't actually get any viewers anyway). And in Perth, the AFL is on a 3 or 4 hour delay. I bet the NRL is not delayed anywhere near that much in Sydney or Brisbane.
Combined with the fact that NRL games on FN's are hand picked by 9 to rate. AFL FNF matchups are usually dull encounters involving 2 sh*t teams.

When NRL wins the FNF battle, you claim that the regional ratings are "dubious", and they don't compare TV ratings nationally.

They are dubious as they are biased heavily towards NSW and Queensland - both places where AFL FNF or Sunday afternoon AFL (i.e 4-6) is not even shown. And the million or so people who live in WA and SA country are not covered at all.

Surely if AFL has double the fans of RL in Australia, they would have a showing on the top 40 pay TV lists? AFL even has a dedicated channel.

Why? AFL matches on Pay are generally up against an AFL match on FTA. Usually a superior one. And AFL fans generally don't need Pay TV to follow the AFL, they get multiple live matches every week. You'd have to be a pretty big diehard fan to get Pay TV just for the AFL.

But for your benefit, and to prove AFL is the most watched sport on Pay TV as well:

http://www.oztam.com.au/documents/2006/B2_20060430.pdf

Fox Footy had 1.269m viewers (all of which are different people) last week.

Even if all 8 NRL games drew the unusually high 150k viewers on pay TV (and the even more unusual situation of those 150k being completely different people for every game), it would still fall well short.

Give it up, the NRL gets it's arse caned in every possible measure.

 

[littleduck]

always remember RL payTV broadcast revenue is now worth $55 million per year...

 

[FuManchu]

always remember RL payTV broadcast revenue is now worth $55 million per year...

whats FTA revenue after the new contract negotiated last year for RL compared to the new AFL contract?

 

[littleduck]

whats FTA revenue after the new contract negotiated last year for RL compared to the new AFL contract?

$100 mil per year -v- $150 mil per year... and both brands of football are tickled pink with the chink coming there way.

 

[FuManchu]

$100 mil per year -v- $150 mil per year.

why is FTA revenue greater for AFL then if RL is a better FTA ratings winner

 

[littleduck]

why is FTA revenue greater for AFL then if RL is a better FTA ratings winner

who said RL was a better FTA ratings winner? its pretty similar overall. RL gets better high end ratings, while AFL gets better middle of the road ratings due to greater # of games on FTA.

AFL got 50% more than NRL bcoz AFL have been succesful (with a large helping hand from its rival) in their national expansion plans.

 

[pcpp]

No they don't, as the AFL doesn't get shown at the same time in Brisbane and Sydney (ditto for the NRL elsewhere, but we both know it wouldn't actually get any viewers anyway). And in Perth, the AFL is on a 3 or 4 hour delay. I bet the NRL is not delayed anywhere near that much in Sydney or Brisbane.

No.

They all get shown at 8:30pm. It is irrelevant if its shown on a 3 or 4 hour delay.

They are dubious as they are biased heavily towards NSW and Queensland - both places where AFL FNF or Sunday afternoon AFL (i.e 4-6) is not even shown. And the million or so people who live in WA and SA country are not covered at all.

Regional SA and WA aren't covered. Regional VIC were covered, and it has a population of about 1.4 million people. Even if you doubled regional VIC's ratings on FNF, they still wouldn't compare to the NRL.

Why? AFL matches on Pay are generally up against an AFL match on FTA. Usually a superior one. And AFL fans generally don't need Pay TV to follow the AFL, they get multiple live matches every week. You'd have to be a pretty big diehard fan to get Pay TV just for the AFL.

They have double the support of the NRL (according to you)... why not a single game in the top 40?

Fox Footy has 3 games EXCLUSIVELY live... surely the 6 teams EACH WEEK that are featured have plenty of support to warrant a purchase?

But for your benefit, and to prove AFL is the most watched sport on Pay TV as well:

http://www.oztam.com.au/documents/2006/B2_20060430.pdf

Fox Footy had 1.269m viewers (all of which are different people) last week.

How is that proof?

If it had 1.269 million viewers, how did it not get a game in the top 40?

Considering RL is shown on Fox Sports 1, and has 2 million viewers, and had 39 of the top 40 games.

Your logic is ridiculous.

Even if all 8 NRL games drew the unusually high 150k viewers on pay TV (and the even more unusual situation of those 150k being completely different people for every game), it would still fall well short.

Unusually high 150k? The NRL 39 of the top 40 games on Pay TV... the 40th rated 230k.

TV ratings don't discriminate between different people. A person might as well watch TV from 6:00-10:00 and they would still count.

 

[happy hawker]

This is ridiculous. The AFL crushes the nRL in total tv viewers and no amount of creative statistic manipulation can say otherwise.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

why is FTA revenue greater for AFL then if RL is a better FTA ratings winner

Don't know but maybe because there are more ad's

 

[pcpp]

This is ridiculous. The AFL crushes the nRL in total tv viewers and no amount of creative statistic manipulation can say otherwise.

It's not "creative statistic manipulation". This is called common sense.

NRL rates just as well, if not better on Friday Nights compared to AFL.

NRL has 39 of the top 40 Pay TV shows.

"Creative" statistic manipulation is claiming that the 3 NRL games on Saturday Night are counted as simply one 200k ratings block.

And also, i'd like to see the evidence that AFL gets 1 million on Saturday afternoon (that Rob claims).

 

[zero]

It's not "creative statistic manipulation". This is called common sense.

NRL rates just as well, if not better on Friday Nights compared to AFL.

well yeah, NRL FNF is shown into a larger market than AFL FNF. it makes sense that it would get a larger number of people.

what would the ratings be like if both were shown throughout the country head to head?

the AFL grand final and NRL grand finals are shown live around the country, and the AFL game outrates the NRL game every year.

it could come about that AFL gets FNF into NSWQLD yet, that hasnt been resolved in the new agreement as yet.

 

[FuManchu]

who said RL was a better FTA ratings winner? its pretty similar overall. RL gets better high end ratings, while AFL gets better middle of the road ratings due to greater # of games on FTA.

AFL got 50% more than NRL bcoz AFL have been succesful (with a large helping hand from its rival) in their national expansion plans.

how many RL FTA games a week are there?

 

[pcpp]

well yeah, NRL FNF is shown into a larger market than AFL FNF. it makes sense that it would get a larger number of people.

I agree. But apparently, AFL has double the support of NRL across Australia according to Rob! Surely AFL games in Melbourne would double the ratings of NRL games in Sydney?

what would the ratings be like if both were shown throughout the country head to head?

I don't know, we will never see.

We might see how the ratings in NSW and QLD will compare next year, when Seven shows AFL and Nine shows NRL in those states.

the AFL grand final and NRL grand finals are shown live around the country, and the AFL game outrates the NRL game every year.

Barely.

Both got 4 million+ people when you invlude regionals.

it could come about that AFL gets FNF into NSWQLD yet, that hasnt been resolved in the new agreement as yet.

I thought it was one of the major points in the new AFL FTA contract that AFLFNF is shown in NSW and QLD.

 

[Drummond]

Drummond's input into this debate:

AFL:

NRL:

 

[zero]

Barely.

Both got 4 million+ people when you invlude regionals.

advertisers dont include regionals. the 5 capital ratings are the important one where advertising dollar is concerned.

I thought it was one of the major points in the new AFL FTA contract that AFLFNF is shown in NSW and QLD.

it is, but personally i think the AFL will end up allowing it to be sold to foxtel in NSWQLD. now what 7 will have to give up to see that happen i dont know...

 

[pcpp]

advertisers dont include regionals. the 5 capital ratings are the important one where advertising dollar is concerned.

I know.

But I think it's fair that you include regionals to judge popularity throughout Australia... not just the people living in cities.

it is, but personally i think the AFL will end up allowing it to be sold to foxtel in NSWQLD. now what 7 will have to give up to see that happen i dont know...

Why would the AFL do that?

They never gave up on Saturday Night games in Brisbane + Sydney, don't see why they would on the big Friday game.

 

[zero]

Why would the AFL do that?

They never gave up on Saturday Night games in Brisbane + Sydney, don't see why they would on the big Friday game.

because 7 really, really dont want to do it. friday night is as important a slot as there is on TV. if 7 show AFL live into NSW and QLD, they are basically conceeding the slot, giving a guaranteed 4th spot. if they dont have to show it, they can show a movie or whatever, and fight it out for 2nd spot after the NRL. the AFL arent in the habit of ing off their broadcast partners.

whether the AFL can force 7 to show it live on FTA remains to be seen. its looking pretty good at the moment, though.

saturday night is a different situation, because there is no FTA NRL on saturdays.

 

[Rob]

No.

They all get shown at 8:30pm. It is irrelevant if its shown on a 3 or 4 hour delay.

Irrelevant if it's shown on delay? You're a twat. The last FNF game shown at 7:30 last year averaged 170k in Perth. It usually averages around 100-120k shown at 8:30. People simply don't want to watch it if the game is already over before it starts on TV. Me included. I rarely watch FNF because I know the result before it even starts on 9.

Regional SA and WA aren't covered. Regional VIC were covered, and it has a population of about 1.4 million people. Even if you doubled regional VIC's ratings on FNF, they still wouldn't compare to the NRL.

Whatever you reckon. But given the AFL isn't shown in those areas, how can you compare the 2?

They have double the support of the NRL (according to you)... why not a single game in the top 40?

Fox Footy has 3 games EXCLUSIVELY live... surely the 6 teams EACH WEEK that are featured have plenty of support to warrant a purchase?

Actually, they're generally different games in each state. For example, West Coast v Fremantle was shown live on Fox Footy (up directly against Essendon v Richmond on 10) in all centres except WA, where it was shown live on Channel 10. That takes away Fox Footy's biggest market for that game.
Hard to get games rating highly when they're not shown in the markets where they will rate the highest. And when most football fans will be watching the bigger drawing game on FTA at the same time. i.e fans in Victoria will be far more likely to be watching Essendon v Richmond on Channel 10 than Fremantle v West Coast on Fox. If the Fox game was exclusive, no doubt it would rate better.

How is that proof?

Because they're facts. You might try using them sometime.

If it had 1.269 million viewers, how did it not get a game in the top 40?

Considering RL is shown on Fox Sports 1, and has 2 million viewers, and had 39 of the top 40 games.

Of course, and all people that watch FS1 watch the NRL, which takes up about 10% of their programming.

Unusually high 150k? The NRL 39 of the top 40 games on Pay TV... the 40th rated 230k.

The highest rating game in the first 4 rounds had 169k viewers. As you can see, all but a tiny handful of NRL games draw under 150k:

http://blogs.smh.com.au/entertainment/archives/the_tribal_mind/004347.html

If you can't be stuffed following the link, it only includes AFL games played on Saturday in round 1, which was Geelong v Brisbane, which averaged 104,000 (The Collingwood v St Kilda game mentioned was a practice match). Going back to my previous point, this game was not shown on Fox Footy in Queensland, it was on 10. Another 150,000 people watched the game in Brisbane on Channel 10 which obviously aren't included in the pay TV figure, ensuring that game far outrated any NRL game on Pay TV all year.

TV ratings don't discriminate between different people. A person might as well watch TV from 6:00-10:00 and they would still count.

Ratings for an individual show, no. Reach, yes. It measures how many different people watch.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Statistical manipulation is still being used here.

The bottom line is that AFL crowds draw far more people overall than NRL crowds, that the average Swans game in Sydney and the average Lions game in Brisbane are either above or on a par or slightly less than the NRL average crowds in those same cities. The important thing about this last aspect is not the total crowd, but merely the fact that AFL can draw so many people in RL cities. Sure, if there were less RL teams in Sydney/Brisbane the average would rise, and if there were more AFL teams in Sydney/Brisbane the average would drop. The key is that AFL even COMPETES with NRL in Sydney/Brisbane! Swans 30,000, Sydney NRL games, say, 10,000 ave. Total meaning 30,000 v 40,000. Lions 30,000, Broncos 35,000. Brisbane is easier cos its head to head against another one-city team.

The fact that RL internationals for a few years have been moved to smaller stadiums is a travesty or testament of how poor RL is attended. A marquee RL event that only draws 20,000 max. Very bad.

The real measure is crowds.

Mention is also often made of bringing in SOO, Internationals, and other rep footy games into the overall figures. This is manipulation still. Both comps have roughly 16 teams each, both comps run roughly 22 rounds of footy. Both comps have about 10 teams located in one city (melb/syd). Overall crowd figures - AFL. Ave crowd figures - AFL. In Sydney, ave - AFL. In Brisbane, head to head, neck-and-neck, sometimes Lions sometimes Broncos get better attendances. Canberra, Newcastle, Illawarra, Nth Qld, are like the Adelaide/Perth/Tassie of the NRL. All smallish cities/regions that draw roughly the same sorts of crowds (20,000-35,000) for AFL, (20,000 for NRL). Isolating Melbourne only AFL crowds and Sydney only NRL crowds, for H&A comp games, AFL > NRL. By a large margin.

I dont even know why the TV ratings matter so much. Sure, a lot of RL fans are sitting at home and watching games on Foxtel, but so what? Is it something that proves "if all those people went to the games more, then NRL would get bigger crowds than AFL"? Is that the gist of the pro-RL arguers here?

The mere fact they dont attend WHILE AFL crowds in those same cities DO get healthier crowds is indicative of something more important. Plus, as mentioned before, if Roosters are playing Raiders in Sydney on a saturday night as the only game, no one in Sydney would be stuffed or cared to support the Roosters as though they were a SYDNEY team. It's only meant, supposedly, for the eastern suburbs tribal suburban team supporters to attend, however, the best crowds they get are often doctored and feature about 10,000 people. Even if there are 50,000-100,000 innercity Sydney people watching the game live on foxtel, what does it prove? That ONLY IF people went to the game there would be bigger crowds? Yeah, ok, but they DONT.

Meanwhile, a Hawthorn v Adelaide game as the only game on in Melbourne on a Saturday night would get about 30,000 crowd, with probably about 50,000-100,000 Melbourne people watching on foxtel or fta.

The public transport or travel issue in Sydney is but shouldnt be a justification. SOO everyone will pack in there. CLub games never get the same passion or excitement. Sydney only cares about big events and the Swans falls into that too. However, that's all the AFL really needs to "win" Sydney, because meanwhile hardly any RL people actually go and attend the RL anyway in Sydney to challenge the AFL. With only Sydney/Brisbane/Canberra/Regionals, the NRL is struggling against the AFL.

Assumptive crowd figures for a weekend...

Brisbane Lions - 30,000, Broncos - 35,000
Swans - 30,000, bunch of sydney nrl games - 55,000
Crows/Port - 35,000, Newcastle - 20,000
Fremantle/Eagles - 35,000, Nth Qld - 20,000
Roos in Canberra - 8,000, Raiders - 12,000 (meanwhile Brumbies 30,000)
Hawks in Tassie - 20,000, St George in Wollongong - 20,000
bunch of melbourne afl games - 90,000, storm - 10,000

Overall, what does that say? That AFL in every major city and region around australia gets bigger crowds, or in RL heartland areas gets competitive crowds, sometimes winning, sometimes losing (brisbane). Meanwhile, Swans are getting a healthy 30,000 in sydney, while all of sydney nrl getting only 15,000 more. But the reverse not true in Melbourne, where 90,000 attend afl games, but only 10,000-15,000 attend the storm.

RL's presence is trapped in NSW regionals and Brisbane/Sydney, where the crowds in the latter are only barely beating or not beating AFL crowds. AFL is quite happy and strong with a team in Sydney and a team in Brisbane. Their lions are neck-neck with nrl's only-team broncos. 30,000 v 35,000 would take that every time. While 30,000 v 55,000-60,000 max (sydney) versus 90,000 v 10,000-15,000 max (melbourne).

It doesnt bother AFL if Ch9 spends 100 or 200 million on the NRL rights if these crowd figures are in vogue. But the AFL would worry if the swans were only getting 5,000-10,000 per game while the NRL in Sydney were always getting 90,000 total....regardless of the tv rights.

Crowds drive the tv interest, not the other way around. If there are 1 million people watching RL games on tv each week and 0 attended each game, while the AFL got only 100,000 people watching on tv each week but 50,000-90,000 attended every game each week....the NRL would be pulled off the air, or at least, the NRL would be in crisis mode. But the AFL would still be healthy without that tv interest because tv stations would still try to buy the product knowing the great potential in it to attract more tv watchers.

Also, Littleduck, whats the point the NRL upgrading RL stadiums to hold more than 30,000 or 50,000 if still only 14,000 ave attend anyway? Ok, yeah in Nth Qld, Penrith, or Wollongong, increasing from 20,000 to 30,000 would be good, and youd get probably 5,000 increase now, 25,000 not 20,000, but there'd be no point going to 50,000 in those places, and meanwhile the SFS can hold 45,000 and homebush 70,000 yet no regular game hardly approaches 20,000 in either stadium.

----------

How about one you pro-RL arguers actually tell me what it is you are trying to argue, prove, or assert, because so far the way its going, us pro-AFL people say something, you guys refute it, then we say it another way, you refute it another way, and the whole time we dont really know what the hell you guys are actually trying to say, assert, conclude, prove.

So please, can one of you actually tell us what the point of all these posts youre writing actually are?

 

[littleduck]

Statistical manipulation is still being used here.

The bottom line is that AFL crowds draw far more people overall than NRL crowds, that the average Swans game in Sydney and the average Lions game in Brisbane are either above or on a par or slightly less than the NRL average crowds in those same cities. The important thing about this last aspect is not the total crowd, but merely the fact that AFL can draw so many people in RL cities. Sure, if there were less RL teams in Sydney/Brisbane the average would rise, and if there were more AFL teams in Sydney/Brisbane the average would drop. The key is that AFL even COMPETES with NRL in Sydney/Brisbane! Swans 30,000, Sydney NRL games, say, 10,000 ave. Total meaning 30,000 v 40,000. Lions 30,000, Broncos 35,000. Brisbane is easier cos its head to head against another one-city team.

Fair comments, but 15,000+ average for NRL in Sydney and not 10,000.

The fact that RL internationals for a few years have been moved to smaller stadiums is a travesty or testament of how poor RL is attended. A marquee RL event that only draws 20,000 max. Very bad.

I disagree. I think it's great that highly populated regional centres who have recently invested $10s of millions in upgrading their football stadium a modern world class boutique venue of 20-25,000 capacity are given the odd Test Match. [/quote]

The real measure is crowds.

RL at the elite level attracts 750,000 per season in Queensland.. AFL at the elite level attracts about 370,000 per season in Queensland.. there is no contest and there never has been a close contest on that measure.

Mention is also often made of bringing in SOO, Internationals, and other rep footy games into the overall figures.

They are RL football games at the elite level.. they should count.

This is manipulation still.

True, but no matter how you present figures you can still argue spin. You cannot be 100% objective.

Both comps have roughly 16 teams each, both comps run roughly 22 rounds of footy. Both comps have about 10 teams located in one city (melb/syd). Overall crowd figures - AFL. Ave crowd figures - AFL. In Sydney, ave - AFL. In Brisbane, head to head, neck-and-neck, sometimes Lions sometimes Broncos get better attendances. Canberra, Newcastle, Illawarra, Nth Qld, are like the Adelaide/Perth/Tassie of the NRL. All smallish cities/regions that draw roughly the same sorts of crowds (20,000-35,000) for AFL, (20,000 for NRL). Isolating Melbourne only AFL crowds and Sydney only NRL crowds, for H&A comp games, AFL > NRL. By a large margin.

True.

I dont even know why the TV ratings matter so much.

Go say that to Dave Gallop or Andy Demetrio and you'll get a blank stare...

Sure, a lot of RL fans are sitting at home and watching games on Foxtel, but so what? Is it something that proves "if all those people went to the games more, then NRL would get bigger crowds than AFL"? Is that the gist of the pro-RL arguers here?

No...

The mere fact they dont attend WHILE AFL crowds in those same cities DO get healthier crowds is indicative of something more important. Plus, as mentioned before, if Roosters are playing Raiders in Sydney on a saturday night as the only game, no one in Sydney would be stuffed or cared to support the Roosters as though they were a SYDNEY team. It's only meant, supposedly, for the eastern suburbs tribal suburban team supporters to attend, however, the best crowds they get are often doctored and feature about 10,000 people. Even if there are 50,000-100,000 innercity Sydney people watching the game live on foxtel, what does it prove? That ONLY IF people went to the game there would be bigger crowds? Yeah, ok, but they DONT.

RL are over the moon with their constantly growing average NRL crowds, growing aggregate NRL crowds, growing crowds for representative fixtures, growing crowds for NRL Finals... there is nothing whatsoever for RL to be dissatisfied with.



.....
[to be continued]

 

[littleduck]

The public transport or travel issue in Sydney is but shouldnt be a justification.

It is one obvious factor...

SOO everyone will pack in there. CLub games never get the same passion or excitement.

As expected... clubs play for 6 months, rep teams are isolated games.. its natural for there to be more passion for rep games.

Sydney only cares about big events and the Swans falls into that too. However, that's all the AFL really needs to "win" Sydney, because meanwhile hardly any RL people actually go and attend the RL anyway in Sydney to challenge the AFL.

Sydney attends events yeah... but RL crowds in Sydney are consistently good across the board... no other code has ever achieved the week in week out attendances in winter in sydney.

With only Sydney/Brisbane/Canberra/Regionals, the NRL is struggling against the AFL.

codswallop. RL is market leader across the markets it competes against AFL, ie QLD NSW VIC.

Assumptive crowd figures for a weekend...

Brisbane Lions - 30,000, Broncos - 35,000
Swans - 30,000, bunch of sydney nrl games - 55,000
Crows/Port - 35,000, Newcastle - 20,000
Fremantle/Eagles - 35,000, Nth Qld - 20,000
Roos in Canberra - 8,000, Raiders - 12,000 (meanwhile Brumbies 30,000)
Hawks in Tassie - 20,000, St George in Wollongong - 20,000
bunch of melbourne afl games - 90,000, storm - 10,000

Overall, what does that say? That AFL in every major city and region around australia gets bigger crowds, or in RL heartland areas gets competitive crowds, sometimes winning, sometimes losing (brisbane).

AFL isnt in every region around Australia...

Meanwhile, Swans are getting a healthy 30,000 in sydney, while all of sydney nrl getting only 15,000 more.

what?

But the reverse not true in Melbourne, where 90,000 attend afl games, but only 10,000-15,000 attend the storm.

The pulling power of the G is year round and all roads and public transport arteries in melb lead to the G. being a year round venue means the G has 10s of thousands of members. they dont pay to see AFL games. AFL has a great crowd before the first paying customer walks thru the gate. boutique suburban NRL venues dont have that luxury.

..
[to be cont[

 

[littleduck]

Crowds drive the tv interest, not the other way around.

Rubbish. A viewer doesnt tune in based on the likely crowd.

If there are 1 million people watching RL games on tv each week and 0 attended each game, while the AFL got only 100,000 people watching on tv each week but 50,000-90,000 attended every game each week....the NRL would be pulled off the air, or at least, the NRL would be in crisis mode.

Obviously if no 1 showed it would be crisis time... but the reality is people are continuing to show up in record numbers.

But the AFL would still be healthy without that tv interest because tv stations would still try to buy the product knowing the great potential in it to attract more tv watchers.

Doesnt make sense.

Also, Littleduck, whats the point the NRL upgrading RL stadiums to hold more than 30,000 or 50,000 if still only 14,000 ave attend anyway? Ok, yeah in Nth Qld, Penrith, or Wollongong, increasing from 20,000 to 30,000 would be good, and youd get probably 5,000 increase now, 25,000 not 20,000, but there'd be no point going to 50,000 in those places, and meanwhile the SFS can hold 45,000 and homebush 70,000 yet no regular game hardly approaches 20,000 in either stadium.

The Bulldogs average over 20k at Telstra Stadium. The Roosters average over 20k at SFS.

You know as well as I do that nearly every NRL venue around the country has been recently upgraded or about to be upgraded. You also know just as well as I do that such upgrades to comfort and capacity are justified considering the growth in RL crowds.

How about one you pro-RL arguers actually tell me what it is you are trying to argue, prove, or assert, because so far the way its going, us pro-AFL people say something, you guys refute it, then we say it another way, you refute it another way, and the whole time we dont really know what the hell you guys are actually trying to say, assert, conclude, prove.
So please, can one of you actually tell us what the point of all these posts youre writing actually are?

Simple. RL crowds in this nation are pretty darn good, but AFL crowds are even better. That's how it is. RL crowds arent disgraceful based on AFL crowds. They are still pretty bl00dy good in any1s language.

RU and Soccer would love RL crowds and ratings, and so would nearly every other sport in the land.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Simple. RL crowds in this nation are pretty darn good, but AFL crowds are even better. That's how it is. RL crowds arent disgraceful based on AFL crowds. They are still pretty bl00dy good in any1s language.

RU and Soccer would love RL crowds and ratings, and so would nearly every other sport in the land.

So...the gist of the whole thread or the pro-NRL posters, for all these pages, is simply - "afl > nrl in crowds and tv/radio ratings, but nrl is not a gimp product"...?

Ok, well no one's really at odds then if this is all the gist is. All pro-afl and pro-nrl people therefore acknowledge that AFL/AR > NRL/RL but that the nrl and rl product has its problems but is still in a productive economic position.

So what are we arguing anymore about in essence? Is there anything else? (Not me as in you and I, but pro-nrl v pro-afl.)