Comments on: Rugby league, the sky is falling

By: Treizistes

Treizistes — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:38:38 +0000

Fishmonger, you are right in one way in regards to the PAY TV situation, but what you didn’t add to your little tale is the fact that the AFL in conjunction with Fox sports can split each game state by state, so, in effect, if one South Aussie team is playing, in South Australia, you’ll see that team, in WA, if one of the home teams are playing, you’ll see one of the home teams, this happens in every state for the AFL and it does not happen for Rugby League, thus, the AFL can maximize all its ratings every week end.

This gives the AFL a false position if you can see what I am saying because the RL games are played when fox say and you’ll damn well watch it or go without, no such thing as maximizing the ratings, it’s take it or leave it, half the time when you do get to have the red button for RL and choose between two games, it doesn’t work for about first 15/20 minutes after the game has started, who’s going to use it then when they have missed out on the first quarter of the game?

By: matta

matta — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:09:31 +0000

Westy - your reply makes no sense…?

Why would the number of club have anything to do with my point?

By: Michael C

Michael C — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:15:32 +0000

Crosscoder -

the top Pay TV programs is a little misleading - -

NRL proponents often forget that the 2 states that follow the code invariably have the same programming, thus, the Pay TV matches are the same where ever you go.

In the AFL, the pay tv and fta matches are very much varied across the country. This simply means that the potential AFL audience for each match will be split - - so, it’s not too hard to figure that the NRL individual matches will rate higher.

We also know that NSW is the most ‘mature’ pay tv market - - the value proposition for ‘growth’ is less there. The lack of NRL ‘footprint’ outside of NSW and QLD goes against the NRL on that count.

The other factor - each NRL game goes for 80 mins (recently I think I mentioned 90 mins on another thread - - I forgot that NRL games were so short!!!) - - -so, 8 games a week at 80 mins - - that’s 640 mins of match action. AFL has 8 games a week of 80 mins plus time on, effectively, each game is 120 mins of scoreboard clock time so to speak - i.e. most quarters still run to about 29-32mins - that provides 960 mins of match action - - - that’s actually 320mins difference - - each week, i.e. 50% more ‘content’ per week.

So - - be very careful about trying to join dots between the NRL and AFL broadcast rights packages.

By: Michael C

Michael C — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:04:35 +0000

Crosscoder -

you don’t have to ‘hate’ to admit it at all.

The AFL has not only pushed memberships, but, the flow on is attendances - - and that’s rather greatly facilitated by ground rationalisation - - such that teams with 30-40K members can invariably get most of their people in for home games.

The trade off has been ground rationalisation, although, at least, many of those old suburban venues are returned as training facilities and ‘converted’ into community facilities (esp of late Arden St and Whitten Oval). But - - you lose that history etc. And also, the AFL has let down clubs forced into unfavourable stadium deals at Telstra Dome - - again, on the weekend, Geel have 24.8K at Kardinia Park, and clear $700K. Nth Melb have 46K at TD (with the 8K NOT attending all being ‘ticketed’ seats - - i.e. no shows, therefore, paid for, so - a technical sell out) and only clear $200K.

So - in that case, you damn well need a heap of members!!!! (just illustrating the road ain’t entirely paved with gold!!!!).

By: Westy

Westy — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 09:03:54 +0000

Matta……….Rugby has got 4 professional teams. To test your theory go ask your state colleagues to name a club rugby player. You see the drop from the Wallabies to the next level is enormus and after that it is shitsville.

By: matta

matta — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 02:04:09 +0000

sorry didn’t finish my point…

I thing you would struggle to find someone out side the ’sports mad’ in a non league state that could name a League Player. Yeah go to the pub and ask a bloke to name some and “That big fucker..Manson” would probably get a mention or they could rattle off some names they have heard on Sports Tonight but go ask a receptionist or the like and you will likely get nothing back…

On the same hand when I explain I play Rugby every one knows Tuquri, Gregan, Palu etc…

My point is the roles of the two Rugby codes have flipped to non Union or League people.

By: matta

matta — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:55:05 +0000

Was thinking about this last night.. there is no question the League has been the big losers of the last 15 odd years…

I was thinking back to about 1990 I was about 15 living in Adeladie so naturally Aussie Rules was the bigget thing but Rugby and League were still followed. Everyone knew who that Wallabies were and had perhaps caught a radom day time test on the ABC but ask most people to name a player and they might say “ah that bloke with the Italian name…Capalianesse or somthing”…

On the flip side Lewis, Maninga and Bella where household names and the SOO was pushed live into SA..

I know the ‘reports’ say League is more popular the Rugby based on player numbers etc…but step outside NSW and QLD League strong holds and people really dont care about it anymore!

By: Crosscoder

Crosscoder — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:43:18 +0000

Hate to admit it but firstly the AFL got it right with pushing memberships.If each club had 15-20,000 members for starters there is a guaranteed source of income.
The next Tv contract must also reflect a decent increase as Roy Masters has stated 63 of the top 100 Pay Tv games were rugby league ones.Admittedly ch10 and 7 paid overs for the AFL,but ch9 inview of their programming paid unders for the rugby league.
There will be at least some good news,the current under 20 youth competition on trial without payment on Fox, and proving an outstanding success, will no doubt get a decent contract from next year.
It is all well to talk about more 3rd party payments to elite players,but as Mat Giteau and Mark Gasnier found out it is not a given,and can come back to bite them.
Of course there is a concern with the French rugby union(although they have been poaching french rugby league players for decades during the amateur years).The main concern is the buying power of the hugely successful and growing by 2 next wednesday English Super league clubs.It is a darn side easier for a NRL player to go to the ESL and enjoy the sights of Europe than it is for an NRL player to switch to French union and enjoy the sights of Europe.

By: cosmos forever

cosmos forever — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:30:20 +0000

Agree with lots of your points, but removing third party payments from the cap is exactly the same as removing the cap. Large clubs would simply pay a component through the cap and then pay further amounts disguised as third party. This would immediately re-value a huge number of players up and have the same effect - disadvantage to clubs without money.

By: The Answer

The Answer — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:46:32 +0000

The moment of clarity should be applauded Tony, sadly I’m not sure how much room there is for that on many of these threads.