At the end of the day, that is true.

But it doesn't change the fact if AFL gets more it will still be inequitable.

People throwing around crowd figures for the AFL in this context lack a clue.

Hint for the likes of Sal...

There are:
1. Crowds; and
2. TV ratings.

When we discuss TV ratings, number one is IRRELEVANT to the discussion. This seems to be a very common error on this forum.

Yeah it is baffling at times when you look at subscription and FTA TV viewing figures. I for one find them inaccurate, but it is however a level playing field and is inaccurate for all sports. It does though, and without question, show that RL IS THE MOST VIEWED sport on telly full stop.

The deals are clearly not just based on these figures. It doesn't help that RL isn't shown all over the shop live as the figures would be even more impressive.

I guess the TV monies doesn't bother me as much as it does others. Some have seemed to almost take it personally, when they shouldn't.

I certainly take the continued abuse of the great game by News Limited personally and to be honest fail to see how any true rugby league fan, with the game's best interests at heart, could feel otherwise.

No offence to you personally.

The FA Cup final is like the GF and it was on FTA - so as a % of the total population it is about 13%.

Of the 22m who live in Australia at the 2010 - 5.2m live in Victoria which AFL country, 2.1m in WA, 1.6m in SA - so in reality your 3.3m viewers comes from 6.9m in NSW and 4.2m in Queensland. i.e. 30%!!

You compare to La Liga - 14 teams in La Liga have a higher home attendance than any NRL club in Sydney - seems some don't quite have their facts quite right



In Spain the 2 major cites have soccer teams with weekly attendances not unlike the AFL - soccer is a religion in Spain and Italy - add to that the 1m Brits that live on the Costa - part of the dynamic

- and it is no surprise TV ratings are sky high.

I suppose the point that is strange is this - given the interest in the game why do so few people attend games?

Only some one with their head in the sand would believe that attendances have nothing to do with the TV deal. No TV company wants to show games with half empty stadia - it is one of the issues we have with the CC and FTA coverage in the UK.

All this we are get done over by a television company - it is just a "Heads I win, tails you lose" if RL doesn't get a significantly better deal than the AFL.

Head in the sand says the conflict denier.

lol

Once again you have you head in the sand - TV companies buy sporting rights to sell subscriptions and advertising.

Just maybe the potential revenue streams that come from AFL coverage are better and have greater potential than that of RL. Rules is in every major city in Australia, RL is played in 3 - one of which is Melbourne. So as a TV company where are you likely to get new subscribers from in Adelaide, Perth a sport with no representation or a sport that has an established following?

It is not all about existing viewers?

Dally's back

didn't realise you knew so much about tights!!

Another one with the Dally thing... lol

Has nothing else clearly but to attack the man. Wrongly. Check with RB.

Unfortunately, as above, you fail on every count.

A rules follower in Leeds.

You made the statement that Football in the U.K couldnt get above 3mill...How would an England - Scotland soccer game rate....prolly similar to the Origin percentages.


Or 2.2M (ish) combined...with a million from the other states...hardly unrealistic considering the massive amount of media and other coverage Origin and the NRL GF gets and, more importantly, in line with similar high profile sporting events in Australia and elsewhere...imho of course.


Nope, not me.


Because they are watching the telecast is the obvious answer

...and the why isnt the topic of his thread.

For me (and considering the thread title) the important question would be: Why are the media companies allowed to underpay for Rugby League rights in Australia?

I believe WestCoaster, Eels Fan and dm may have a few ideas.

So people who aren't as bothered by what you claim as "continued abuse" are not "true" rugby league fans with the game's best interest at heart?

Why should people be made to look "lesser" or "inferior" on the back of what is only your opinion?



This is all starting to sound a bit vichy.

1. Posts designed to try and wind someone else up will lead to a ban for a certain amount of days.

One can only think that the aforementioned media companies view it as a lesser product to invest in. Why? You tell me.

Everyone can have a few ideas, but not all are "true" fans apparently.




I can hear Gutterfax and his SADORLF line coming soon.

The number of Brits living in Spain is falling but even those ex-pats that do still live here have little or no interest in Spanish football. If you visit the many British 'colonies' along the coast you'll see people reading British newspapers, reading about British football. It's the same with the television. Most ex-pats have Sky and are far more interested in Manchester United and Arsenal than Atlético Madrid or Real Madrid.
How many clubs are there in Sydney? There are only two cities in Spain with two top flight football teams. Those two cities happen to be the two biggest, Madrid (3,273,049 inhabitants) and Barcelona (1,621,537). Maybe there are too many teams in Sydney.

Aye, but then you type wiv a landarrrn accent and are therefore worthy of suspicion






I was thinking the same..wasnt one of his best tho, imho.

Oh and talking of wind ups, denier has multiple meanings:
[urlhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/denier[/url

Hmmm, a mod inducing a poster to go off topic...





Not sure RL is viewed as a lesser 'product', if it was the SL War wouldnae happened and news wouldnt be fighting so hard to keep an influence within the sport...taken for granted maybe...hasnt Manly just started a thread about neins treatment of RL.

A constant theme since the Afl deal has been the NRL 'reminding' media companies that its not much good gaining subscribers in less populated markets if you're hemmoraging in the two biggest...

I have mentioned it here quite a few times, it seems that you are one of the few who can't and refuses to see the conflict.

Quote ="Rooster Booster"So people who aren't as bothered by what you claim as "continued abuse" are not "true" rugby league fans with the game's best interest at heart? Why should people be made to look "lesser" or "inferior" on the back of what is only your opinion? This is all starting to sound a bit vichy. 1. Posts designed to try and wind someone else up will lead to a ban for a certain amount of days.'" Naaa, no one cares forums.leagueunlimited.com/showt ... p?t=365874 2,878 replies in this thread. forums.leagueunlimited.com/showt ... p?t=352299 2,069 replies in this thread. Read and educate yourself. And vichy, lol, talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel. You sure you're a fan of RL?

Quote ="Rooster Booster"So people who aren't as bothered by what you claim as "continued abuse" are not "true" rugby league fans with the game's best interest at heart? Why should people be made to look "lesser" or "inferior" on the back of what is only your opinion? This is all starting to sound a bit vichy. 1. Posts designed to try and wind someone else up will lead to a ban for a certain amount of days.'" Naaa, no one cares forums.leagueunlimited.com/showt ... p?t=365874 2,878 replies in this thread. forums.leagueunlimited.com/showt ... p?t=352299 2,069 replies in this thread. Read and educate yourself. And vichy, lol, talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel. You sure you're a fan of RL?

Ummmm, because news owns half of the game, they own part of Foxsports along with Telstra, so when they go to buy the games, they are selling them to themselves.

They are profit driven, why would they pay as much as they should if they can get away with buying it off themselves cheaper?

Wouldn't that help them with their profits, the one and only thing they care about?

LUNDEN as in LUNDENWIC




yum, denier and sheen.





fair call

Quote ="eels fan"I have mentioned it here quite a few times, it seems that you are one of the few who can't and refuses to see the conflict.'" Erm, only very recently when you've had a friend to join with again. Why not since you joined? Go back through your posts and see where you mention a conflict of interest, let's say even as recent as 6 months ago. There's been this conflict for years and years, so you must have surely? Your "seeming" is tainted, confused and ill informed; you are forcing words into people's mouth now and telling them what they believe or think. Quote ="eels fan"Naaa, no one cares forums.leagueunlimited.com/showt ... p?t=365874 2,878 replies in this thread. forums.leagueunlimited.com/showt ... p?t=352299 2,069 replies in this thread. Read and educate yourself. And vichy, lol, talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel. You sure you're a fan of RL? '" Erm, who said no-one cares? You're making stuff up now. Strange. Vichy was a line you used a hell of a lot with your former friend on here remember? Quote ="eels fan"Ummmm, because news owns half of the game, they own part of Foxsports along with Telstra, so when they go to buy the games, they are selling them to themselves. They are profit driven, why would they pay as much as they should if they can get away with buying it off themselves cheaper? Wouldn't that help them with their profits, the one and only thing they care about?.'" Thanks for the good answer. Haven't you just highlighted why we won't get as much money, which EVERYONE knows anyway?

Quote ="eels fan"I have mentioned it here quite a few times, it seems that you are one of the few who can't and refuses to see the conflict.'" Erm, only very recently when you've had a friend to join with again. Why not since you joined? Go back through your posts and see where you mention a conflict of interest, let's say even as recent as 6 months ago. There's been this conflict for years and years, so you must have surely? Your "seeming" is tainted, confused and ill informed; you are forcing words into people's mouth now and telling them what they believe or think. Quote ="eels fan"Naaa, no one cares forums.leagueunlimited.com/showt ... p?t=365874 2,878 replies in this thread. forums.leagueunlimited.com/showt ... p?t=352299 2,069 replies in this thread. Read and educate yourself. And vichy, lol, talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel. You sure you're a fan of RL? '" Erm, who said no-one cares? You're making stuff up now. Strange. Vichy was a line you used a hell of a lot with your former friend on here remember? Quote ="eels fan"Ummmm, because news owns half of the game, they own part of Foxsports along with Telstra, so when they go to buy the games, they are selling them to themselves. They are profit driven, why would they pay as much as they should if they can get away with buying it off themselves cheaper? Wouldn't that help them with their profits, the one and only thing they care about?.'" Thanks for the good answer. Haven't you just highlighted why we won't get as much money, which EVERYONE knows anyway?

lol, power does things to people all the time.

Oh, and why didn't I mention it years ago?

Well if you see when I actually started posting in this part of the forum even though I have been a member for 4 and a half years, I didn't post much until the last 12/18 months know all.

And as for vichy and me using it a lot in here, how about you use your new found mod powers and prove it?

Or are you a PW clone that states stuff but never ever backs it up? (btw, if you think being a jerk to me so I'll tell you what I really think so you can remove me is going to work, you must try harder)

So Roosterbooster, why isn't there a conflict in the NRL in regards to the TV rights?

It seems to only people who can't see it are AFL fans and people from the UK.

Heck, even union fans at PR can see it and they hate RL.

Please read this again:

[iErm, only very recently when you've had a friend to join with again. Why not since you joined? Go back through your posts and see where you mention a conflict of interest, let's say even as recent as 6 months ago. There's been this conflict for years and years, so you must have surely?[/i



God, that'd take too long. So you never said it? I'll believe you.



I'm not being a jerk to you at all. You appear not to be able to handle opposing arguments when they appear and name call or make insinuations.




God, that'd take too long. So you never said it? I'll believe you.



I didn't say there wasn't a conflict. Where did I say that? Now you back that up???? Check the first paragraph of this reply. The bit in italic that says [iThere's been this conflict for years and years,[/i