Cool, assuming thats aimed at me, which bit of the C.o.I am I denying?

It wasnt at you but feel free...

Sorry bud, crossed wires and urgent need for caffine.

It will be, Would a drop in attendences be acceptable if the tv money more than covered it?

Balancing act. Defeats the purpose of showing it if crowds are low. I have never personally gone to a Monday pm game...I have a conflict. I generally tape it on iq.

Dunno, havent you and others argued that attendnce at the elite level is the key factor in assessing the popularity of a sport, even though this ignores (real) participation rates and cultural significance and can also be influenced by other factors.

As WC states, 'its a balancing act"...one which has been tipped in favour of the TV companies and against RL in Australia since the SL war. Imho of course

Key factor? No a important one and certainly more important than, what could be seen as flawed, tv ratings.

If your getting more fans in attendences and more cash for tv deals something is very wrong.

Yeah the conflict you keep ignoring...

TV ratings - capturing all the regionals in Australia - are a better indicator than gates.

Otherwise, sports like union and soccer wouldn't be more than half a billion behind the sports that do rate - rugby league, followed by AFL...

Which part of 77 out of 100 top pay TV programs and biggest FTA televiser is a struggle?

Counting only 5 capital cities has been shown to be seriously flawed.

Why? Check out the top 20 population centres in the country sometime...

There is a reason why the AFL uses 5 capital cities. Because it skews ratings and makes them look closer to the NRL than they actually are...

But I wouldn't expect that to be pointed out here.

Why am I ignoring the conflict of interest subject?

Are you saying the way tv ratings is collected is a 100% indication?

You have just pointed out the 5 cities subject, so why wouldn't you expect them to point be pointed out? Have you surprised yourself by doing it?

Can you re-phrase in English.

You wouldn't expect to be pointed out.

It just has been pointed out.

Are you surprised?

Pointed out by someone else was what was meant. Clearly.

Like you erstwhile moderator.

But no. Alas. I was required to do so.

Aren't you a member of this board? Why should you not bring it up?

Fwiw It has been brought up before, it was pointed out that while been the best available way to collect the ratings it is flawed.

Anyway we come full circle every month.

Regarding 'conflict of interest' when will it, in your opinion, be resolved?

When News Ltd leaves the game obviously.

Though I have my doubts even then given the on-going conflicts which will exist in certain key personnel, including the CEO.

Foxtel have made it clear they paid a fortune for the AFL solely on one basis. A hope that they will sell more subscriptions in three centres - Vic, WA, SA - to justify it. They have said this before and it failed. Miserably.

They continue to choose to ignore obvious CURRENT ratings which confirm the position the NRL is in. 77 out of 100 is as damning a statistic as anyone could find in media analysis.

And btw, the 5 capital cities ratings isn't the best way to judge Australian ratings at all. It is the one that favours AFL; so people favouring the AFL use it.

There are separate figures available within a week which give the entire picture.

There is no justification for not including regionals. Without them, the picture is for obvious and self evident reasons, incomplete.

If people choose to use the incomplete ratings to form an opinion, it is liable to be attacked with some gusto by those who actually understand the issue.

It certainly is, but on that basis would it be a better idea for the Nrl not only to have the tv ratings but to have sides in the 5 cities?

As discussed in the now disapeared thread, attendance can be affected by a whole heap of factors...maybe the Afl Att. figures are inflated because some games arent televised live...unlike the NRL of course.

As for more tangible evidence, Hudds 1895 (i think) posted a link to a report which said that advertising rates at nein were down........for everything but Rugby League.


Back to the (obvious) conflict of interest.

The five cities argument is, as Baldrick once said : a dead herring. Stinks as badly as well.

If news arent careful they could end up losing the two biggest states...States which have bigger populations than the other three combined.

The NRL will have sides in all but one by next round of expansion. Say 2013 or 2014. Perth is a certainty as it should be.

Hopefully the AFL may have a team in the country's capital by then. lol

Discussion of Adelaide has gone up dramatically in NRL circles within the last 12 months.

(The Canberra example in itself begins to show how artificial the 5 city construct is to begin with. Although you clearly bought it... The AFL would give its eye teeth to have teams with the regional spread of NRL. Major population areas like North Queensland, (previously) Gold Coast, Central Coast, Newcastle, Woollongong have NO AFL whatsoever - the NRL is deprived of NO comparable regional areas.)

Officially News involvement will cease with the IC formation. As I said in the sentence above your question, I still have reservations.

News had announced they would be out by 30 April (they had already missed multiple exit dates previously). The last date passed without a whimper in News Ltd press. Wonder why? Because they want to keep wringing money out of their best product as long as possible...

I don't think you understand why I was questioning the the tv ratings, it has nothing to do with the five cities.

It's how they collect the information.

The only method that could be "flawed" could be FTA as pay TV can take the information directly.

Unfortunately for your argument, this suggests the pay TV figures for rugby league are one of the very BEST indicators available.

If you are really suggesting the methodology of TV ratings for FTA is flawed, then you form about .0000000001% of the population given they are used by every advertiser and company in this country. Sure they are based on a sample but there is no reason whatsoever to think the sample is favoured towards rugby league.

Get writing to the Ombudsman.

lol

Argument? This is discussion.

What you fail to grasp is I don't study TV ratings, I wouldn't even know where to look if I wanted to.

When it's been raised on here in the past the points for and against haven't been put across that well and it's turned into a bit of a blood bath.

All I'm doing is trying to understand your point.

Fair enough.

All true rugby league fans should be outraged by the prospect of being dudded again because of what is a completely unfair situation. The example utilised by Roy Masters, since quoted by both myself and joedynamo, of writing a cheque out and running around the table to collect it is precisely what has occurred previously.

It is a disgrace and needs to be brought to the attention of the RL public in all parts of the world. Ultimately, the strength of the Australian game should assist the world game which benefits all RL fans. Hence, the anger should be universal.

It is not a matter of the Australian game being better than the British or other nonsense.

Ratings are used all around the world, but it's only RL that gets treated differently.

Why?

When they say 100 million watched the NFL superbowl, no one questions them.

When RL has a match beamed to 3.5 million in 2 states, everyone jumps up and down.

At least RL puts its figures out AFTER the game, not like others.

www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 1ewm9.html For those who won't read the actual article, the headline (which can't be seen once posted) is "NEWS WON'T RULE OUT ANOTHER REBEL COMP"... Dirty pricks... Have a read of this and see how much of what I have said over the last few pages you now disagree with. News want first and last rights on the game UNTIL 2027 in exchange for merely doing the right thing and getting out. What a farce of the highest order.

www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 1ewm9.html For those who won't read the actual article, the headline (which can't be seen once posted) is "NEWS WON'T RULE OUT ANOTHER REBEL COMP"... Dirty pricks... Have a read of this and see how much of what I have said over the last few pages you now disagree with. News want first and last rights on the game UNTIL 2027 in exchange for merely doing the right thing and getting out. What a farce of the highest order.