Seven and Ten discuss trumping Nine's bid

[Fred Nerk]

Quote 1


Quote 2


In response to your first quote, a number of us pointed out that the comparison between NRL & AFL on Fox is not comparing apples with apples. For example all AFL games involving WA & SA teams are FTA (live) in WA & SA and similar arrangements exist in other states.

This was further illustrated by the FTA figures provided by Dan26 showing weekly (FTA) viewers for AFL at 5million+ and FTA viewers for NRL at under 2million.

Most NRL games are exlusively on Fox. If you dont have Fox, you dont see your team most weeks (at all).

Blind Freddy would understand that showing 5 games a week on FTA and covering the home state teams on FTA would likely diminish the viewing audience for Fox. One suspects (as stated earlier) that if Fox Footy had a "super saturday" (as per NRL on Fox Sports) with no FTA competition and had say Essendon v Collingwood, then West Coast v Adelaide then Sydney v Brisbane it might outrate (Nationally) the NRL.

Instead of responding intelligently to any of these comments you instead disappear and when someone mentiones said disappearance you revert to calling them morons.

There's a few facts for you, looking forward to your response.

Cheers

look mate I don't care what your excuses are. Some nong asked for facts ,then when I provided them, he called it a lie.

Why would I not call him and any other numbnut that agrees with him a moron?

you can go on with your "but if's" all day long, but in the end they mean nothing.

and your mate Dan26's figures are proof of nothing. A source to backup his numbers would help.

 

[Guido]

Why not give an extra couple of weeks? There is absolutely no commercial reason as to why they could not have had extra time.

The original terms of the last bidding rights was 14 days from receiving a rivals offer.

Should Demetriou have agreed to extend the deadline, Nine could argue that doing so provided preferential treatment to Seven/Ten, and had it not happened, its original offer would have been more likely to land the rights. Not necessarily legal dispute territory, but I've seen court cases fought over a lot less.

 

[Eagle87]

look mate I don't care what your excuses are. Some nong asked for facts ,then when I provided them, he called it a lie.

Why would I not call him and any other numbnut that agrees with him a moron?

you can go on with your "but if's" all day long, but in the end they mean nothing.

and your mate Dan26's figures are proof of nothing. A source to backup his numbers would help.

1. There is a substantive difference between an excuse and an explanation. Given the explanation, the NRL out-rating AFL on Fox is obviously not indicative of very much. I agreed with your figures, but they do not prove your point (which were along the lines that Foxtel doesn't want/need AFL).

2. Dan26's figures are based on OzTam ratings figures - if you really want to check them they are at oztam.com.au.

Cheers.

 

[Rob]

The original terms of the last bidding rights was 14 days from receiving a rivals offer.

Should Demetriou have agreed to extend the deadline, Nine could argue that doing so provided preferential treatment to Seven/Ten, and had it not happened, its original offer would have been more likely to land the rights. Not necessarily legal dispute territory, but I've seen court cases fought over a lot less.

Do you really think the AFL turned down the request because it was afraid of legal action from 9?

 

[teams]

4 days to go.

 

[Fred Nerk]

1. There is a substantive difference between an excuse and an explanation. Given the explanation, the NRL out-rating AFL on Fox is obviously not indicative of very much. I agreed with your figures, but they do not prove your point (which were along the lines that Foxtel doesn't want/need AFL).

Well Foxtel survived quite well before they showed any AFL games. They do not need them.

2. Dan26's figures are based on OzTam ratings figures - if you really want to check them they are at oztam.com.au.

Cheers.

Oztam give out the top 20 shows of the week. From this Dan26's figures cannot be proved.

 

[Eagle87]

Well Foxtel survived quite well before they showed any AFL games. They do not need them.

Well Foxtel survived because its owners ploughed many billions of dollars in to carry a loss making business so that one day it would be able to make a profit by having lots of sports like AFL.

Oztam give out the top 20 shows of the week. From this Dan26's figures cannot be proved.

Oztam provide various different types of reports including top 20 shows and various summary reports. I believe a search of their website, together with a search of related articles will verify Dan26's figures. Do you dispute them?

I mean do you have any reason to believe that AFL doesnt have 2.5 times the viewers on FTA that NRL does?

Cheers

 

[Dan26]

Well Foxtel survived quite well before they showed any AFL games. They do not need them.



Oztam give out the top 20 shows of the week. From this Dan26's figures cannot be proved.

Jesus Christ you Rugby League trolls are pathetic. The AFL's free to air TV figures average about 5 million per round comapred to the NRL's 2 million. The 5 million figure has been quoted by the AFL numerous times at then end of the season (when the crowd and TV figures were released). As if it needs proving anyway. With 5 games on fre to air each round it should be blatantly obvious that the figure is acceptable.

Whenver a league fans sees a figure that puts AFL ahead they say, "LINKS, PROVE IT, LINKS, I WANT EVIDENCE." You know just utter crap posts desiged to prolong the argument, because they don't want to believe the truth.

It's sooo pathetic. It's not up to me to prove what everyone already knows. It's not up to me to prove what is universallay agreed to be true. If YOU disagree with the norm, and you disagree with the majority, then it's up to YOU to prove otherwise.

So, if YOU think that the NRL's overall TV figures for all types of TV are higher than the AFL then you need to prove it. I don't need to prove anything. You are the one disagreeing with the norm, so it's up to you to prove it. I'm not going to spend half an hour digging up a link to prove what I already know. You prove otherwise if you disagree.

 

[Tezmyster]

Well Foxtel survived quite well before they showed any AFL games. They do not need them.

After looking at your profile...

Fred Nerk
BigFooty Member

Join Date: May 2005
Club: Mighty Ducks
Posts: 173

All I'm going to say is please don't jinx the NHL, I mean Foxtel are surviving now with it being shown on ESPN right? Doesn't mean it's better now it's not there. Same with AFL, without Foxfooty covering some of the games live back to back with FTA it just wouldn't be the same.

 

[Crow-mo]

do morons breed like Rabbits around here?

Seems some don't like the facts even when shown it.

See if I care

you have a funny definition of facts.

 

[Fred Nerk]

Jesus Christ you Rugby League trolls are pathetic. The AFL's free to air TV figures average about 5 million per round comapred to the NRL's 2 million. The 5 million figure has been quoted by the AFL numerous times at then end of the season (when the crowd and TV figures were released). As if it needs proving anyway. With 5 games on fre to air each round it should be blatantly obvious that the figure is acceptable.

Really?

You seem to be basically admitting you have nothing. As you should.

Whenver a league fans sees a figure that puts AFL ahead they say, "LINKS, PROVE IT, LINKS, I WANT EVIDENCE." You know just utter crap posts desiged to prolong the argument, because they don't want to believe the truth.

Another admittance of having nothing.

It's sooo pathetic. It's not up to me to prove what everyone already knows. It's not up to me to prove what is universallay agreed to be true. If YOU disagree with the norm, and you disagree with the majority, then it's up to YOU to prove otherwise.

You really are quite pathetic, son. You're now expecting someone else to do the work for you knowing fully well it can't be done.

You have nothing.

So, if YOU think that the NRL's overall TV figures for all types of TV are higher than the AFL then you need to prove it. I don't need to prove anything. You are the one disagreeing with the norm, so it's up to you to prove it. I'm not going to spend half an hour digging up a link to prove what I already know. You prove otherwise if you disagree.

Now you're asking me to prove something when you just harped on about others having to prove you wrong after you make outlandish claims.

Yo're not playing with a full deck, Dan.

 

[Dan26]

Fred Nerk,

Stop beign a typical RL troll. It's boringly pathetic and predictable. It happesn all the time, the AFL has the bigger TV rights deal and bigger ratings, this gets mentioned in a post, and the RL troll (who is stupidly protective of his sport) goes into a provocative tirade of asking for: "LINKS, PROOF, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU, PROVE IT, WAAAAAA, WAAAAAA, IT'S NOT FAIR I WANT PROOF!!"

This formula has been followed numerous times, and you are no different here.

If you think RL gets bigger TV ratings then prove it. It's not up to me to prove it, because the AFL is universally accepted to be the biggest and most watched code. If you disagree, prove otherwise. What's next? Do I have to prove that the grass is green?

Unless you can prove that RL gets bigger TV ratings overall than the AFL (which you won't be able to) we will all have to agree that the AFL is the most watched sport (which it is.) This is accepted by everyone so if you don't agree, prove me wrong. Until you do this, you, my friend, have nothing.

 

[Alex99]

Fred Nerk,

Stop beign a typical RL troll. It's boringly pathetic and predictable. It happesn all the time, the AFL has the bigger TV rights deal and bigger ratings, this gets mentioned in a post, and the RL troll (who is stupidly protective of his sport) goes into a provocative tirade of asking for: "LINKS, PROOF, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU, PROVE IT, WAAAAAA, WAAAAAA, IT'S NOT FAIR I WANT PROOF!!"

This formula has been followed numerous times, and you are no different here.

If you think RL gets bigger TV ratings then prove it. It's not up to me to prove it, because the AFL is universally accepted to be the biggest and most watched code. If you disagree, prove otherwise. What's next? Do I have to prove that the grass is green?

Unless you can prove that RL gets bigger TV ratings overall than the AFL (which you won't be able to) we will all have to agree that the AFL is the most watched sport (which it is.) This is accepted by everyone so if you don't agree, prove me wrong. Until you do this, you, my friend, have nothing.

Fred Nerk


Someone owns your arse until you come up with some stats.

OWNED

 

[MarkT]

Those who blame AD for who gets the rights and on what terms are off the mark. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if AD was in 9’s pocket or anyone else’s for that matter but anyone who thinks that would make a difference to who wins the rights is kidding themselves. The Commission will decide who gets the rights and whether AD has a job next year.

 

[MarkT]

Then its quiet possible we will have:
2 friday night games shown by both ch7 &10
2 sat arvo games[ch7 &10]
2 sat night[7 &10]
2 sun games-This i admit is a problem due to ch10,s motorsport commitments although the one way around it is if ch10 have a replay of the 2nd game at 5.30ish.
While this senerio would be against the norm you have to remember both ch7 & 10 are relying on each other to get the rights and to go up against each other would seem suidcidal however not if everything is shared.From equipment right down to sponser revenue.

There is no way they would split the audience. I couldn’t imagine paying $800m for half an audience in the prime broadcast time and handing every non AFL fan to ch. 9 on a platter. Seriously if this happens go and buy all the c9 shares you can get hold of. The reality is that 7/10 or 9 desperately need Fox to buy games just to be able to get all the games covered to a minimum acceptable (to the AFL) standard. Of course Fox need the content but they don’t have a bad negotiating position since the last broadcast deal upped the minimum for games broadcast to levels which it would now be unacceptable to fall below.

 

[Fred Nerk]

Fred Nerk,

Stop beign a typical RL troll. It's boringly pathetic and predictable. It happesn all the time, the AFL has the bigger TV rights deal and bigger ratings, this gets mentioned in a post, and the RL troll (who is stupidly protective of his sport) goes into a provocative tirade of asking for: "LINKS, PROOF, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU, PROVE IT, WAAAAAA, WAAAAAA, IT'S NOT FAIR I WANT PROOF!!"

This formula has been followed numerous times, and you are no different here.

If you think RL gets bigger TV ratings then prove it. It's not up to me to prove it, because the AFL is universally accepted to be the biggest and most watched code. If you disagree, prove otherwise. What's next? Do I have to prove that the grass is green?

Unless you can prove that RL gets bigger TV ratings overall than the AFL (which you won't be able to) we will all have to agree that the AFL is the most watched sport (which it is.) This is accepted by everyone so if you don't agree, prove me wrong. Until you do this, you, my friend, have nothing.

here he goes again

If I think something then I have to prove it.

If you think something then I have to disprove it.

Anyone else spot the double standards?

Now where are you getting this rubbish that I said League gets bigger TV ratings?

It gets bigger Pay TV ratings. I have proven that.

You still have nothing.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

here he goes again


It gets bigger Pay TV ratings. I have proven that.

.

If Foxfooty had the same exposure to games as Fox1 has to RL i know who would out rate who.

 

[Fred Nerk]

If Foxfooty had the same exposure to games as Fox1 has to RL i know who would out rate who.

Oh a new excuse.

It keeps getting better.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Oh a new excuse.

Not an excuse.Factual reality
Just cant admit it can you that the AFL is the most watched sport in the country

 

[MarkT]

Fred I’m not sure what you think you are proving but how about we leave it at this:

RL is so great it costs chicken feed to televise compared to AFL. Everything else you can argue until you are blue in the face but the people who write the cheques have made the judgement and at this point the one who has the best bid is the bigger RL devotee. Anything from here will only make the difference greater and that is for a live sport v a TV sport. The dollars tell the story. Even Packer thought RL is commercially second rate.

 

[Fred Nerk]

Not an excuse.Factual reality
Just cant admit it can you that the AFL is the most watched sport in the country

On Free TV which is shown into all states. When it's on Pay TV and goess head to head with RL across the nation it is beaten quite convincingly.

 

[Eagle87]

On Free TV which is shown into all states. When it's on Pay TV and goess head to head with RL across the nation it is beaten quite convincingly.

Mate, why is this hard for you to understand?

In NSW/Qld you have how many games a week on FTA? 2 (I believe)

In WA/SA/Vic - there are 5 (out of 8) games on FTA every week. The local teams in each of those states are on live/near live every week on FTA. The 3 games on Fox vary depending on your state. So in WA, I might get Carlton v Kangas on Fox at the same time as Eagles v Swans is live on FTA. In Vic they will be getting the Carlton v Kangas game on FTA with the Eagles v Swans game on Fox. In other words, the majority of supporters get to see their teams games on FTA (live or near live) each week and Fox gets the "left-overs".

Clearly this is different to NRL. Most weeks, if you dont have Fox, you dont see your team. This is an obvious difference. I'll type this bit very s-l-o-w-l-y, especially for you: AFL is currently almost entirely FTA and the existence of multiple different Fox Footy channels allows them to put the least favorable game on Fox in each state - so that FTA gets the best games in each local market. As a result, market penetration by Fox in places such as Perth and Adelaide is substantially lower than it is in Sydney & Brisbane. If/when Eagles/Dockers/Crows/Port games are exclusively live on Fox instead of FTA this take-up rate will change. Fox ratings will increase. This is the reason Fox is prepared to pay half the cash in the Nine/Foxtel bid.

Are you capable of understanding this?

We are not saying that NRL does not currently outrate AFL on Fox - this is clear from the figures. But the nature of the current arrangements explains why this is the case. It is not (as you seem to insinuate), indicative of some sort of NRL superiority (as far as viewers go).

A couple of bits of independent info for you:

From:

Australia's most-watched TV shows
David Dale (Sydney Morning Herald)
October 30, 2005 12:43 PM

OZTAMs list of the TOP 20 shows on TV for the period 2001 to now:

This century: the top shows since 2001
Based on OzTAM's audiences. Series figures are for the most watched episode of the year.
1 Tennis: Aus Open final 2005 - Hewitt v Safin (7) 4.04 million
2 Rugby World Cup final 2003 (7) 4.01 million
3 AFL Grand Final 2005 (10) 3.39 m
4 Australian Idol Final Verdict 2004 (10) 3.35 m
5 Australian Idol final 2003 (10) 3.30 m
6 The Block auction 2003 (9) 3.11 m
7 September 11 reportage, September 12, 2001 (9, 7, ABC) 3.10 m
8 Wimbledon day 14 2001 (9) 3.04 m
9 AFL grand final 2003 (10) 2.96 m
10 Big Brother winner announced 2004 (10) 2.86m
11 Australian Idol Live from Opera House 2004 (10) 2.86 m
12 AFL Grand Final 2004 (10) 2.80 m
13 Big Brother finale 2001 (10) 2.78 m
14 The National IQ Test 2002 (9) 2.78 m
15 World Cup Soccer final 2002 (9) 2.70 m
16 Australia Unites: Reach out to Asia 2005 (7,9,10) 2.67m
17 AFL grand final 2002 (10) 2.62 m
18 AFL grand final 2001 (7) 2.60 m
19 NRL: Grand Final 2005 (9) 2.57 m
20 Seven news Sunday 2004 (7) 2.56m

You will note from this post that all 5 AFL Grand Finals in this period are in the TOP 20 shows. You will note that this years "wildly succesfull" NRL GF is the only NRL game to make the list (at 19). This would suggest that AFL is inherently more popular.

In addition, Karen Lyon, writing in The Age on 24 June 2005 noted (in her report on the AFL's mid-season review) that On average, each match is watched by an audience of about 850,000 people.. This was the FTA figures provided to the AFL by OzTam.

Given there are 5 games per week on FTA, that equates to an audience nationally of 4.25 million per week on FTA. This was for the first half of the year and traditionally the figures are better in the second half (although I have not added up the OzTam figures in second half 2005).

In addition to all that, the NRL is just complete crap. So please go away.

Fred Nerk - Australian slang for an imaginary figure - by definition a figure without substance.

Cheers

 

[Joffaboy]

If NRL completely outrates AFL why hasn't the NRL got a 5 year $780 million deal on the table?

Seems like all the TV exec's have missed the glaringly obvious that Fred Nerk can see.

Also Foxtel was on the rocks in the Southern States before Foxfooty came along. To gain even more subscribers in AFL states Foxfooty has been made part of the basic package.

As Foxfooty gets better games expect the ratings on Foxfooty to rise.

Overall AFL completely craps on all other football codes in the ratings on a weekly basis.

Any comparision of segments of broadcasting is spurious and only used by the desperate or beaten.

 

[Fred Nerk]

Mate, why is this hard for you to understand?

In NSW/Qld you have how many games a week on FTA? 2 (I believe)

In WA/SA/Vic - there are 5 (out of 8) games on FTA every week. The local teams in each of those states are on live/near live every week on FTA. The 3 games on Fox vary depending on your state. So in WA, I might get Carlton v Kangas on Fox at the same time as Eagles v Swans is live on FTA. In Vic they will be getting the Carlton v Kangas game on FTA with the Eagles v Swans game on Fox. In other words, the majority of supporters get to see their teams games on FTA (live or near live) each week and Fox gets the "left-overs".

Clearly this is different to NRL. Most weeks, if you dont have Fox, you dont see your team. This is an obvious difference. I'll type this bit very s-l-o-w-l-y, especially for you: AFL is currently almost entirely FTA and the existence of multiple different Fox Footy channels allows them to put the least favorable game on Fox in each state - so that FTA gets the best games in each local market. As a result, market penetration by Fox in places such as Perth and Adelaide is substantially lower than it is in Sydney & Brisbane. If/when Eagles/Dockers/Crows/Port games are exclusively live on Fox instead of FTA this take-up rate will change. Fox ratings will increase. This is the reason Fox is prepared to pay half the cash in the Nine/Foxtel bid.

Are you capable of understanding this?

We are not saying that NRL does not currently outrate AFL on Fox - this is clear from the figures. But the nature of the current arrangements explains why this is the case. It is not (as you seem to insinuate), indicative of some sort of NRL superiority (as far as viewers go).

A couple of bits of independent info for you:

From:

Australia's most-watched TV shows
David Dale (Sydney Morning Herald)
October 30, 2005 12:43 PM

OZTAMs list of the TOP 20 shows on TV for the period 2001 to now:

This century: the top shows since 2001
Based on OzTAM's audiences. Series figures are for the most watched episode of the year.
1 Tennis: Aus Open final 2005 - Hewitt v Safin (7) 4.04 million
2 Rugby World Cup final 2003 (7) 4.01 million
3 AFL Grand Final 2005 (10) 3.39 m
4 Australian Idol Final Verdict 2004 (10) 3.35 m
5 Australian Idol final 2003 (10) 3.30 m
6 The Block auction 2003 (9) 3.11 m
7 September 11 reportage, September 12, 2001 (9, 7, ABC) 3.10 m
8 Wimbledon day 14 2001 (9) 3.04 m
9 AFL grand final 2003 (10) 2.96 m
10 Big Brother winner announced 2004 (10) 2.86m
11 Australian Idol Live from Opera House 2004 (10) 2.86 m
12 AFL Grand Final 2004 (10) 2.80 m
13 Big Brother finale 2001 (10) 2.78 m
14 The National IQ Test 2002 (9) 2.78 m
15 World Cup Soccer final 2002 (9) 2.70 m
16 Australia Unites: Reach out to Asia 2005 (7,9,10) 2.67m
17 AFL grand final 2002 (10) 2.62 m
18 AFL grand final 2001 (7) 2.60 m
19 NRL: Grand Final 2005 (9) 2.57 m
20 Seven news Sunday 2004 (7) 2.56m

You will note from this post that all 5 AFL Grand Finals in this period are in the TOP 20 shows. You will note that this years "wildly succesfull" NRL GF is the only NRL game to make the list (at 19). This would suggest that AFL is inherently more popular.

In addition, Karen Lyon, writing in The Age on 24 June 2005 noted (in her report on the AFL's mid-season review) that On average, each match is watched by an audience of about 850,000 people.. This was the FTA figures provided to the AFL by OzTam.

Given there are 5 games per week on FTA, that equates to an audience nationally of 4.25 million per week on FTA. This was for the first half of the year and traditionally the figures are better in the second half (although I have not added up the OzTam figures in second half 2005).

In addition to all that, the NRL is just complete crap. So please go away.

Fred Nerk - Australian slang for an imaginary figure - by definition a figure without substance.

Cheers

This entire reply did not refute what I said. I don't know why you even bothered.

 

[Eagle87]

This entire reply did not refute what I said. I don't know why you even bothered.

Well, exactly what you "said" seems unclear.

You asserted that NRL outrates AFL when they go head to head on Fox. This is simply wrong because they never go head to head on the same basis. I have presented this is many different ways. AFL outrates NRL, AFL sells more tickets than NRL and AFL gets more dollars from TV rights than NRL.

I.E. NRL comes second!

I have never questioned the accuarcy of the NRL ratings on Fox - simply the fact that they mean nothing when compared to AFL.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

I mean the word troll is too easy? perhaps arseclown works better?

Cheers