NRL Grand Final out-rates the AFL

[gostk86]

i accept that the AFL outrates the NRL..

but its funny they only beat the NRL by 200 000 nationally..

and all we hear is AFL is the only true Australian Sport..

One would think that the AFL should outrate the NRL by much much more

Hmm interesting developments for the NRL especially with TV rights to be negotiated by a indepandent commission

 

[Redb#]

i accept that the AFL outrates the NRL..

but its funny they only beat the NRL by 200 000 nationally..

and all we hear is AFL is the only true Australian Sport..

One would think that the AFL should outrate the NRL by much much more

Hmm interesting developments for the NRL especially with TV rights to be negotiated by a indepandent commission

There was no Sydney team in the AFL Grand Final. It was played by two Vic teams on a sat arvo. The last time a Sydney team was in the AFL GF it easily beat the 2009 ratings for the AFL GF, that is the equivalent benchmark against the NRL GF with a Melbourne team.

It's a tired argument as it is not apples with apples.

Both Grand Finals rated well, leave it that.

As for TV rights the AFL has every right to be bullish about its own rights as the NRL, considering overall the AFL TV footprint is still considerably larger.

The NRL might catch up a bit as the comp is probably in better shape than 5 years when the last rights were negotiated. It is perhaps where the AFL was 5 years ago reaping some benefit from expansion.

Either way $780M is still plenty to keep the AFL rolling along no matter what the NRL do and vice-versa.

 

[gostk86]

There was no Sydney team in the AFL Grand Final. It was played by two Vic teams on a sat arvo. The last time a Sydney team was in the AFL GF it easily beat the 2009 ratings for the AFL GF, that is the equivalent benchmark against the NRL GF with a Melbourne team.

shouldnt matter to the only true home grown sport.

2005 GF rated even better than 2009..so it shows RL doesnt need a Melb to rate well

It's a tired argument as it is not apples with apples.

Both Grand Finals rated well, leave it that.

agree..but just wanted to throw that in

As for TV rights the AFL has every right to be bullish about its own rights as the NRL, condisering overall the AFL TV footprint is still considerably larger.

The NRL might catch up a bit as the comp is probably in better shape than 5 years when the last rights were negotiated. It is perhaps where the AFL was 5 years ago reaping some benefit from expansion.

Either way $780M is still plenty to keep the AFL rolling along no matter what the NRL do and vice-versa.

I would say AFL should get 850 mil next time around..I cant see the justification for 1 billion when the extra teams will hardly add many viewers..

For NRL, with independance like the AFL..throwing in Origin and Internationals I would say 700-750 mil should be the total..

 

[Redb#]

I would say AFL should get 850 mil next time around..I cant see the justification for 1 billion when the extra teams will hardly add many viewers..

For NRL, with independance like the AFL..throwing in Origin and Internationals I would say 700-750 mil should be the total..

Maybe... maybe not.

What will be funny is some NRL fans will go see you didn't get $1B, when the AFL gets $850M or $900M or higher.

Assuming GC and WS add no immedate value which is debatable expecially for GC17, the AFL has another 5 years to bed them down before the next rights. Having already taken the diffiuclt expansion decisions it starts to reap rewards when success comes a-knocking.

As for RL's Origin that is probably worth more dont know the numbers, Internationals not so sure. Even if you add the extra hours of TV coverage for these games it is still well short of the AFL's TV time footprint for a whole season.

As for your national game comments re AFL, you cant have it both ways, arguing its not national on one hand (as most NRL fans will suggest) and then on the other say, see its national but not working well.

Another tired argument.

 

[Hoops]

shouldnt matter to the only true home grown sport.

2005 GF rated even better than 2009..so it shows RL doesnt need a Melb to rate well



agree..but just wanted to throw that in



I would say AFL should get 850 mil next time around..I cant see the justification for 1 billion when the extra teams will hardly add many viewers..

For NRL, with independance like the AFL..throwing in Origin and Internationals I would say 700-750 mil should be the total..

Even though AFL rates better, the NRL, has more games + Origins (which rate really well), lower production costs, less conditions on it's broadcast etc (doesn't have to screen into non-heartland areas etc). therefore should really be on par with the AFL for broadcast what it gets in broadcast rights. But an AFL game goes for 50% longer, and therefore should get 50% more in broadcast revenue. so if the NRL is worth 700-750 mil the AFL should at least be 1 billion

 

[robbieando]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-to-treat-ladies/story-e6frexni-1225711772952

fluff piece of the century...

True.

Just at what Dan Hannerbury did at his local Private Girl School to get suspended from his School.......


Threw some eggs

 

[gostk86]

Even though AFL rates better, the NRL, has more games + Origins (which rate really well), lower production costs, less conditions on it's broadcast etc (doesn't have to screen into non-heartland areas etc). therefore should really be on par with the AFL for broadcast what it gets in broadcast rights. But an AFL game goes for 50% longer, and therefore should get 50% more in broadcast revenue. so if the NRL is worth 700-750 mil the AFL should at least be 1 billion

considering FTA ratings in 2 of the biggest cities cant crack 100k, i cant see the networks throwing that much
for purley the fact the game is shown to all states means it gets national exposure..

the 50% longer argument isnt a good thing when sydney averages 86k

 

[Redb#]

considering FTA ratings in 2 of the biggest cities cant crack 100k, i cant see the networks throwing that much
for purley the fact the game is shown to all states means it gets national exposure..

the 50% longer argument isnt a good thing when sydney averages 86k

The 3 hour compared to 2 hours cannot logicailly be argued against taken in the context of the national TV audience for the respective codes.

Again you like many NRL fans you remove the enormous value of Melbourne in the AFL's TV rights. Ave 450-500K on a Friday night alone.

Your also wrong that over the journey (5 years) the ratings are under 100k for Sydney and Brisbane. Even in 2009 the ratings in those cities exceeded that mark at times.

You never take the cumulative audience for AFL games telecast which can get over 250,000 in Sydney.

eg: A Collingwood v Carlton game averaged 90,000 this year in ratings in Sydney. (average not peak). Does that compare to what the NRL would get in Sydney? of course not, but still adds to the pie.

There are also 4 AFL game shown on free to air for the entire season compared to the NRL's 3 games. Foxtel has about 15% TV audience share,a game on Foxtel is worth less than a game on free to air.

 

[dr nick]

getting 90k for 3 hours in not better than getting 120k for 2 hours.

basically the network is getting belted for an extra hour if that happens.

 

[gostk86]

The 3 hour compared to 2 hours cannot logicailly be argued against taken in the context of the national TV audience for the respective codes.

Again you like many NRL fans you remove the enormous value of Melbourne in the AFL's TV rights. Ave 450-500K on a Friday night alone.

no i didnt, the whole talk about 1 billion dollars is because of new teams in sydney and qld..where the game doesnt rate!

Your also wrong that over the journey (5 years) the ratings are under 100k for Sydney and Brisbane. Even in 2009 the ratings in those cities exceeded that mark at times.

Sydney got 100k twice and Brisbane 7 times..(better than i thought) lol
So in other words, the networks will pay much more, for potiential of swans and lions doing well over next 5 years?
I didnt know they could see the futur
The trend especially of Sydney is a worry and the team has lost more players..

You never take the cumulative audience for AFL games telecast which can get over 250,000 in Sydney.

eg: A Collingwood v Carlton game averaged 90,000 this year in ratings in Sydney. (average not peak). Does that compare to what the NRL would get in Sydney? of course not, but still adds to the pie.

I didnt a graph actually and the grand total on average for a afl game in sydney is 47 000.

There are also 4 AFL game shown on free to air for the entire season compared to the NRL's 3 games. Foxtel has about 15% TV audience share,a game on Foxtel is worth less than a game on free to air.

For the number of total FTA games AFL gets, is well double what NRL gets and the total viewings is double.

Per game its neck and neck between the codes..and NRL doesnt get FTA coverage in 4 states!

 

[dr nick]

per game? i'm not sure about that.

NRL gets outrated by AFL in FNF, also sunday arvo footy. Also gets murdered in the saturday games on fox compared to the nationwide viewers on 10 that watch SNF on FTA. Monday night footy gets something like 300k on fox (nationwide), but that's peanuts compared to any FTA AFL game (which is most of them - including ones that get doubled up on fox at the same time)