By Bruce Walkley
September 18th 2008 @ 6:56am
Sydney and Brisbane viewers still on the outer
The AFL’s vision, or stupidity, depending on your viewpoint, in trying to invade rugby league territory in western Sydney is copping a caning from the cavalier way in which its television “partners” are being allowed to treat core followers of Australian football in the NSW capital, as well as Brisbane.
Take last Saturday night, for example. Collingwood, with arguably the biggest following outside Victoria of any Melbourne-based team, played St Kilda for the right to be only one game away from the grand final.
Early in the week the AFL’s website listed live coverage of the game by Channel Ten, starting at 7pm, but by Wednesday newspaper TV guides told viewers they would be getting a 6.30pm movie called Matilda, in which “a young girl with the world’s worst parents is taken under the wing of the world’s nicest teacher”, with the AFL coverage delayed by 90 minutes, starting at 8.30pm.
Presumably this change of plan resulted from what The Age described, in a report quoting AFL chief operations officer Gillon McLachlan, as “recent requests from broadcasters in Sydney and Brisbane to relax the contractual obligation for Friday and Saturday night matches to be aired in prime time”.
Interestingly, Ten and its affiliates did show the Collingwood-St Kilda game live on both the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast, although Brisbane city viewers had to put up with the same treatment as their Sydney counterparts.
Canberra, the Far South Coast, Dubbo, Orange, Wollongong, Tamworth, Taree, Newcastle and Wagga Wagga all got the game live, and so did Queensland centres Cairns, Toowoomba, Mackay, Rockhampton and Townsville.
On Friday night Sydney got the other semi-final between the Swans and the Western Bulldogs live on Channel Seven, for obvious reasons, and so did the rest of NSW, through Seven’s Prime affiliates.
Gold Coast viewers also got live coverage, but there was a 60-minute delay in Brisbane, Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Toowoomba and Cairns, as well as on the Sunshine Coast.
This week the Friday night preliminary final between Geelong and the Western Bulldogs, which starts at 7.40pm, will be on 60-minute delay on Seven and its affiliates throughout all the above-mentioned areas of NSW and Queensland, including the capital cities and, worst of all, the Gold Coast, which the AFL is supposed to be courting assiduously.
Fox Sports viewers will be “treated” to an 11.30pm replay.
Even worse for Sydney and Brisbane viewers, the Saturday night match between Hawthorn and St Kilda, which begins at 7pm, will be on a two-hour delay in both capitals on Ten, with the pre-game coverage starting at 8.30pm.
It will be live everywhere else in Queensland and nearly everywhere else in NSW.
Since Seven and Ten won’t show the games live, can capital city viewers at least watch them on pay-TV’s Main Event Channel 518? “No, again we have been advised that our channel isn’t required for the finals this weekend,” was Main Event’s response to an email query.
The Fox Sports replay kicks off at 11.45pm.
So, while we wait for the Government and/or the AFL to bring in use-it-or-lose it rules, it’s back to steam radio. Thank goodness for good old ABC NewsRadio at 630 on the AM band in Sydney and ABC936 in Brisbane, which will broadcast both games live.
The NRL must be rubbing its hands in glee at the AFL’s acquiescence in this shabby treatment of the northern capital cities’ viewers by its TV “partners”, who of course will justify their actions by pointing to ratings. I wonder what Matilda rated last week? How will Stuart Little go in Ten’s 6.30pm slot this week?
And what will potential GC17 members on the Gold Coast think about forking out their cash after being put on an hour’s delay?
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, in some of the most interesting speculation about 2009, we have coach Paul Roos confirming that Sydney are eyeing Daniel Kerr and Alan Didak to boost their midfield and forward stocks.
The real question facing the Swans, though, is how many of their 30-plus brigade to cut, as well as big-hearted but blundering local Lewis Roberts-Thomson, who surely must go after his deficiencies were so cruelly exposed against the Bulldogs last week.
I can’t see too many high draft picks being handed over for that lot, unless they trade Barry Hall to Adelaide.
The mail from Melbourne is that Didak will stay at Collingwood, despite everything, so Kerr (if he doesn’t come to terms with West Coast or go to Carlton) and two or three well-credentialled but underrated players in the Ted Richards mould could be the Swans’ main targets.
This week’s picks: Cats by 25, Saints by 3. Last week 1 from 2, total so far 117/182.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(127)
Michael C said | September 18th 2008 @ 9:00am | Report comment
As a partial aside - - the story today about Jake Ryan - a Bali bombing ‘victim’ who won the O&M B&F the other day - - he had a severed heel and abdominal shrapnal injuries but being young he wasn’t about to give up footy……..and finally this year he managed to keep his body together and took out the B&F. Interestingly, born and bred on the Gold Coast - where his parents still live - he was a Collingwood supporter but is ready to switch allegiance to the Gold Coast club (even their ‘gay’ mascot).
Re. tv - - - the sooner the AFL has a NSW and QLD team each week playing domestically and ‘away’ - - the better. The sooner that ‘tomorrow’ is started to be ‘built’ the better.
The Cougar said | September 18th 2008 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Good story Michael C re Jake Ryan, but what’s O&M?
For the AFL to comply with Channel 7’s request “to relax the contractual obligation for Friday and Saturday night matches to be aired in prime time” DURING the finals seems to be ridiculous.
John Ryan said | September 18th 2008 @ 11:25am | Report comment
As the AFL nongs on here are always telling me about RL in WA where I live, AFL in Sydney and Brisbane DONT rate,I think the repeated movie and a rerun of Iron Chef beat the AFL.
Maybe 7 and 10 are getting tired of running 4th 5th or whatever,as for West Sydney and GC i have no problem with the AFL throwing money away on markets that don,t show the slightest interest in AFL,hope they don,t have money invested in Lehman Bros
Pippinu said | September 18th 2008 @ 11:34am | Report comment
Yeh but if 7 and 10 want the contract badly enough, and it stipulates showing the games live into those markets - then bad luck about ratings - it quite simply should be shown as per the contracted terms.
My guess is that the 9 contract with the NRL has no such stipulation.
Michael C said | September 18th 2008 @ 11:48am | Report comment
The Cougar -
O&M - - Ovens and Murray footy league,
it’s one of the major country footy leagues - - teams (in final ladder order this year) : Wangaratta ,Corowa Rutherglen,Lavington ,Wodonga ,Yarrawonga ,Albury ,Wangaratta Rovers , North Albury ,Wodonga Raiders & Myrtleford.
Apparently one of the local tele networks even broadcasts the O&M B&F vote count!!!!
If ever a non-AFL fan wanted to see what ‘local footy’ is all about - - get to an O&M match - - you’ll probably find it easier to understand footy on that basis than by watching the Sydney Swans too often!!!
—————–
back on topic - -agreed - relaxing during the finals seems rather completely amazing - - other to suggest that the broadcast partners hedge their bets until both Syd and Bris teams are out - - again, a compelling reason for the AFL to double the number of clubs representing those markets.
————–
John Ryan - - between NSw and QLD there are about 80 players in the AFL this season - - -how many WA, SA, Vic and Tassie players were there in the combined NRL and Super 14 lists?
There’s a big difference between not showing the ’slightest interest in AFL’ and having enough players to field to full ‘native’ clubs. And we know that the focus on the 2 new clubs is going to increase the representation from those two great states (NSW & QLD)……………..(I recognise that there’s a handful of Vics being ‘fast-tracked’ in the NRL to attempt to gain some local leverage in Victoria).
The_Ozibloke said | September 18th 2008 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
Why can’t the schedulers at 7/10 split their nightly programming of sports/movies/shows, given they now have a HD channel to go with their old analogue signal.
Would it not be benficial, and provide the general public greater options, to have for instance the movie showing on 10 (Channel 10 digital) and the AFL on 1 (10 HD up in Brisbane) or vice-versa. I would have thought that that would have been one of the benefits of broadcasting with simulataneous channels? Or even that Sony/LG/etc, and any other maker of HD TVs or set top boxes would be pushing a programming setup like that, to drive their sales up!!!.
We only have a few years left of analogue signal, and I can’t predict if Channel 10 (or others) will eventually have more than 1 HD version of itself, but why not get the public watching either of two programs at the same time (if the alternative is pushing back a ‘live’ broadcast or an event).
It won’t be the best option, as some people will miss out on 1 of the shows (if big, burly AFL watches wanted to see Matilda for instance as well as last Saturday’s night game)…but it could be an option to try.
I just believe the commercial stations could be embracing what’s available to them…bring on the non-ratings period, and an alternative to re-runs of re-runs!
Millster said | September 18th 2008 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
My comment is on the original post not the responses to it.
FTA TV is just that, free to air. It relies on advertising revenue (driven by ratings) as its way for bringing us the programs we want to watch. So if its commercial judgement is that AFL matches into certain states should take second fiddle to a film called Matilda, I say that’s their commercial imperative and prefer not to rant and rave about it. At the most basic level, to be able to watch FREE in such quality and within a few hours of the event a game that happens a thousand kilometers or more away is a privilege not a right.
The fact that a game of AFL played between two Melbourne suburban teams got the 8.30 slot ahead of a blockbuster movie in my humble opinion should be warmth enough the hearts of our AFL-crazy bretheren.
Overall, while I appreciate there is a bit of ‘chicken and egg’ in it, it’s not right for AFL commentators to deride TV stations for going about their business and making their own commercial judgements. A bit of introspection about why they are in the position where such calls are made I think would be time better spent.
Out of interest, what time slots do Channel 9 allocate to NRL semis in Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth? Especially ones not involving the Storm?
Michael C said | September 18th 2008 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
Millster -
for reference
NRL semis into Melb
Friday night - - 12.10 am sat morning to 2.30am
Sat night - - 11.25 pm
which game is involving the Storm?? I wouldn’t have a clue.
Adel - & Perth -
Fri 12.10am Sat morning
Sat 11.50pm
obviously, the relative ‘delay’ is far greater into Adelaide and more so to Perth.
Okay, without looking, given Storm played last Sunday, I’ll assume they play Sat night, and that would explain Melbourne going to it at 11.25 pm rather than 11.50!!!!!
So - - very true, if an 8.30 start is deemed something to complain about - then it’s not too bad.
I guess it’s more the timing and whether we read anything into it.
(and the fact that Collingwood are now out as well!!)
Millster said | September 18th 2008 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Thanks MC. Case closed then. The original poster is, in light of this evidence, just whinging about what is actually a pretty sweet situation. Especially considering that all games from this weekend on are now involving only VIC teams. Tell our mate Bruce to try following a code where domestic games are only PayTV or web-stream, and overseas games are predominantly (albeit live) at times like 3am and 4.30am also on Pay and/or web with the exception of the few that get carried by SBS.
Redb said | September 18th 2008 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
What happened Ryan ?, got booted off another forum and have come back to infect this board with your puerile drivel once more. Here’s some stats to show the AFL’s presence in NSW and QLD the two states you said no-one is interested.
2008 attendances
AFL
Brisbane lions - 309,405 for an average of 28,128.
Sydney Swans - 361,100 for an average of 32,827.
NRL
Manly - 164,325, ave 13,694
Cronulla - 155,581, ave 12,965
So basicially the Sydney Swans have the equivalent interest of two major NRL Sydney clubs who made the finals. That’s a good niche. The TV ratings also reflect a team followed by the equivalent of two big NRL Sydney teams.
Melbourne Storm - 149,686, ave 12,474.
By comparison the Storm have about half the support in Melbourne that the Swans have in Sydney.
I wont embarass you or the Storm with giving the AFL clubs crowds and averages, suffice to say the Storm are last in comparison to the other 10 AFL clubs, the lowest being North Melb who ave 27,667. So Storm are half of one AFL club and have no TV ratings to speak of.
Brisbane Broncos - 401,108, ave 33,426.
Lions are a respectable second to the Broncos. Hardly no interest.
Heres the link knock yourself out.
http://stats.rleague.com/rl/rl_index.html
NOTE - the AFL crowd stats come from a rugby league website.
Redb
The Link said | September 18th 2008 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
“So basicially the Sydney Swans have the equivalent interest of two major NRL Sydney clubs who made the finals.”
Nope, just attendence, they’re two different things.
Redb said | September 18th 2008 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
The Link,
The comment was no interest. Is that right?
Redb
Michael C said | September 18th 2008 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
The Link -
how else do you establish ‘interest’ and further to that, the qualitative measure of ‘level of interest’.
I’d suggest primary indicators are :
A. purchase of membership (very, very club specific)
B. attendance
C. purchase of merchandise DIRECT from club
then falling away to tuning in on tele - - - which is a superficial and indistinct direction of interest in many cases - - - but indirectly benefits via broadcast rights.
I don’t think you can separate attendance from ‘interest’,
And you surely can’t suggest that attendance and interest are two different things……………….how many disinterested folk attend regularly?
Redb said | September 18th 2008 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
The link,
I’m happy to say that 2 Sydney NRL teams would get much higher TV ratings than a single Swans game, to clarify, the equivalent support was more as a percentage of support. An NRL game might get 400,000 viewers, Swans 100,000 - so 25%. (Swans worth 2 clubs out of 8 NRL clubs).
But hardly no interest.
Redb
Towser said | September 18th 2008 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
http://www.footy-boots.com/england-v-croatia-on-free-to-air-tv-4910/
Interesting topic.
You may say that what happens in England or elsewhere in the world has no bearing on Australia.
In terms of the diverse sporting market you may be correct,but in the treatment of viewers by TV stations no country will be exempt from “who puts up the most money” antics & possible shoddy treatment of fans.
Think yourself lucky that you can see free to air AFL at all because in England where the National football team is iconic the last crucial World Cup qualifier against Croatia away match was claimed by Setanta over the ITV & BBC.
The home match last November on the BBC was watched by 11 million viewers.
The away match the other day was watched by 1.55 million viewers on Setanta.
Lot of fans missing out there.
It could happen here with Pay TV. The FA in England couldn’t resist the larger cash bag from Setanta,why would any organisation be any different. Money talks & for sporting bodies nowadays the viewing audience walks.
Just one of many articles on the subject above
Redb said | September 18th 2008 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
Towser,
One could be churlish and suggest in light of the laissez faire approach of English futbol and its fan acceptance of same, they deserve it.
Redb
Towser said | September 18th 2008 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
Redb
I doubt whether many English fans would agree with you on that knowing my own family members.
Deserve such treatment that is.
The point being that Setanta could offer the AFL more than any free to air channel when the next TV deal comes up,if they saw mileage in it.
Then its your choice whether to pay up or miss out wherever you live in Australia.
The Link said | September 18th 2008 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
Guys, you don’t just establish interest from attendence figures, that’s my point. Fair enough its an indicator, but not the only one. Of course its above zero in Syd / Bris.
For example you could look at Rugby in NZ and say there’s not much interest due to poor attendence at some S14 games.
The AFL has developed a good attendence culture in Syd/Bris, granted. Whereas the NRL has a more TV viewing culture in Sydney in particular. Looking at either in isolation does not prove ‘interest’.
For the record the Storm are doing well compared to other NRL sides and this is how they are judged. If you told me pre Super League that a Melbourne side would average >10k consistently I would’ve thought you’re from Mars.
Redb said | September 18th 2008 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
Towser,
The AFL is currently listed on the Federal Government’s anti-siphoning list and as free to air channels currently in Australia do bother to show games (not always to everyones satisfaction timing wise) then that will not change for some time.
I do agree pay TV is looming as a threat to free to air coverage generally, however the AFL would be mad to effectively sell out its fans in a such a way. The AFL is many things but it understands Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth have about 30% pay TV penetration at the moment, thus they would be giving away 70% of their audience, aint going to happen.
In saying that, TV is still not as vital to fans in supporting their teams as attending the game itself. The AFL is less reliant on TV revenue than other codes, it uses extra TV money to grow the game, so it’s still important but the be all and end all.
Redb
Peter said | September 18th 2008 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
Redb
(Swans worth 2 clubs out of 8 NRL clubs).
That has to be the most nonsensical crock of S^#! That has come form your retarded keyboard.
So by your definition every NRL supporter of the 8 Sydney clubs are watching the average game of 400,000?
Maybe just the fans of the TWO teams competing plus a few causals or actually watching the game Reb.
Did that ever cross your mind?
Swannies worth 2 NRL clubs in terms of TV ratings????????????
Have the men in the white coats taken you away in the van yet, it’s only a matter of time.
Michael C said | September 18th 2008 @ 4:00pm | Report comment
Peter -
come now - - a Friday night in front of the tele during winter watching what ever game is on - - - is hardly the sole domain of just the fans of the 2 competing clubs!!!!!!
Now that’s a crock assertion.
A ‘few casuals’ - - - what a load of nonsense. More than a few - - however, granted,…………
…………..that REdb’s assertion of an even split of 8 into 400,000 is a stretch too far the other way as well.
However - - - with low attendance and minimal club membership - - - it’s pretty difficult to establish just what supporter base is more ‘casual’ tv vs hard core rusted on.
Dave said | September 18th 2008 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
Towser
Amazing that the English FA have given the fans just that..FA. In the 2006 WC there were around 20million watching some of the games in England. Now down to 1.5m. Incredible to think that they are that desperate for the dollar. No doubt they expect everyone to go down to the local to watch!
BTW How are the ticket sales going for the Socceroos match?(sorry its not on topic but.just interested)
Redb said | September 18th 2008 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
Peter,
Or are those crowd figures on the rugby league website a crock of shite too? The TV ratings for the Swans whilst not even close to NRL ratings are on average about 25% of TV sports ratings in Sydney. 2 out of 8 is also 25%.
If you want do the research and prove me wrong not just bang away in indiginant rage or stupor.
Or are you suggesting the Swans only get crowds, no TV ratings?
The point was to demonstrate that there is support and its roughly the equivalent of 2 Sydney NRL teams.
Redb
Peter said | September 18th 2008 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
Mic
That might be the Melbourne Friday Night AFL culture, but do you know if thats the Sydney FN Culture? I Dont. But as has been said all to often the past couple weeks ….Sydney Ain’t Melbourne. What I do know is that Melbourne watch more TV than Sydney, even its population is lesser.
By as far as Redb’s assertion of an even split of 8 into 400,000. I DONT THINK SO.
Redb said | September 18th 2008 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
MC,
The 400,000 was an example of TV ratings for a game between two NRL teams in Sydney.
Redb
True Tah said | September 18th 2008 @ 4:14pm | Report comment
Dave,
That is really surprising about the English FA selling rights to Setanta, talking about pissing your constituants off, any supporters of the English futbol team have a right to be pissed off…surely the FA doesn’t need Setanta pay-TV money to remain viable?
Westy said | September 18th 2008 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
Link……that is what I find humouress. Those who say Melbourne Storm is unsuccessful. This is true against the awesome AFL crowds in Melbourne but relative to Sydney NRL teams like the Roosters/ Penrith/ Cronulla/StGeorge/Wests Tigers/ etc The Storms regular 10000 to 13000 loyal fans is a veritable treasure trove of support. That is relative to most Sydney NRL clubs Melbourne is a success. This is the paradox . Parramatta got 8000 and 6000 to their last two games. News LTD subsidy has been falling every year and it is now half of the sum Parramatta Leagues Club grants the EELS. They even have budgeted to break even by 2012 coinciding with the new rectangular stadium. NRL clubs have relatively few members but Melbourne has the most and increased them again this year.Maybe other NRL clubs should hire ex AFL club executives.
Bruce Walkley said | September 18th 2008 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
Spot on, Michael C, about the O&M. I’ve spent a lot of time in Wang over the years and it’s a great footy town. The Pinsent bottle shop’s a ripper if you’re into NE Vic wines. The Ozibloke is on the right tram, too - airing the games on the HD channel wouldn’t worry non-fans, and the fans would just have to fork out for an HD decoder (they’re getting cheaper by the day, almost). Otherwise let Main Event show the games, even if they want us to pay a few bucks for it. But don’t just say “Please AFL, let us off the hook because we don’t like the ratings.” And Setanta’s just about the best value for money going around if you’re interested in European and South American soccer - their reviews of the WC qualifiers are great, with commentators who actually talk in normal voices as they provide information and opinions, instead of shouting at each other.
Redb said | September 18th 2008 @ 4:18pm | Report comment
Peter,
I wasnt actually saying there are only 400,000 NRL TV fans. The TV rating comparison is problematic, happy to concede that.
But I’m not happy to concde that there is no interest in the Swans in Sydney or Lions in Brisbane and its not just restricted to crowds.
Redb
Millster said | September 18th 2008 @ 4:24pm | Report comment
Oh god who cares about the arithmetic. The more important and interesting question raised in the last dozen posts here is this issue of interest vs attendance/viewing. That has me stumped.
So - in the AFL I’m a St Kilda man but have been to none of their games this year and have seen them twice on TV, neither for the full match. But I probably pay a bit more attention to them when I read the paper or when there is something about them on Sports tonight than I do about any other AFL club. Does that make me an AFL/Saints fan in Sydney or not?
Though I like them I’d argue no it doesn’t. Professional sports (despite the wailings of a few on here and elsewhere) these days is business and the bottom line is the ‘winning’ of my dollar through gate revenue,whether ad-hoc or membership, or indirectly through TV ratings. My having general good feelings towards a code or team is not really material in that respect. I could, for example, tell you my preferred team in the US Major League (happens to be the Colorado Rockies) and occasionally I look at how they are going in the paper but apart from the very few times I’m in the USA my ’support’ for them does not help them out one bit.
Peter said | September 18th 2008 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
No redb I’m not going to prove you wrong that 2 out of 8 is 25%. That’s kind of set in stone.
But again you say and it’s roughly the equivalent of 2 Sydney NRL teams. You just don’t get it.
You always think with your PRO-ALF hat on. Think about it this way.
Say the average AFL game rated 500,000 on Melbourne TV. And the Storm rated 150,000 on average on MElb TV. (Fact: earlier this year they rated 250,000 on FNF) Then by your logic if you divide the 10 Melbourne(inc.Geelong) teams by the 500,000 TV viewers…the storm are worth 3 AFL Clubs.
Now that just Bollocks in anyone language. It’s a flawed opinion. The storm would not be worth the ‘Holden’s Half Time’ duration of an average AFL broadcast.
You know it makes sense.
Michael C said | September 18th 2008 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
Bruce -
and Setanta could yet be the greatest thing for AFL internationally - - back in the ESPN days, the ‘network’ capacity for people interested in the game just wasn’t there - but these days - - that’s totally different, and the small but growing international community has a focus there (that even Russell Crowe envys - - and I posted recently about a BC Canadian Rugby site that saw the irony that Canadian Rugby fans would likely see more of Mike Pyke - should he make the Swans team - on Setanta playing footy in Australia - than they could see of him on the Rugby U pitch.).
Redb -
yep, realise a ‘token representative figure’, but the implication was that for a figure of 400,000 vs Swans 100,000 that that equated to 25% and thus 2 NRL clubs which implied 12.5% or 50,000 share of the 400,000 audience.
Peter seems to suggest that the 400,000 sample audience would be almost entirely supporters of the two competing clubs.
I suggest that there is always a large population base who either being house bound by virtue of young families, or older aged, or just being sports tragics or have an interest in the result re tipping or fantasy footy team etc - - will sit home and watch irrespective of who is playing - - but, more certainly should it be a potentially interesting game.
—————-
re Peters comment “What I do know is that Melbourne watch more TV than Sydney, even its population is lesser.”
That may or may not be so - - however, a far larger proportion of people get OUT and go to the game……….perhaps Sydney has a greater ‘pub culture’?? Go to the ‘club’, the leagues club or RSL and watch the game there - - and that might make sense because of the historical presence of pokies, and cheap eats etc that used to attract Victorians to the border (north bank of the Murray) NSW towns for holidays (eg Barooga to Cobram, Moama to Echuca, the Saphire Coast in total,…….etc etc).
and so, I’d agree - - - “Sydney Ain’t Melbourne”
and thank god for that!!!!
Towser said | September 18th 2008 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
Dave
I believe slower than the Iraq game.
Maybe I’m from another era but $122 to watch a football match(top seats) seems steep to me even though it is a WC qualifier.
The top price for the Iraq match was $90.
So ticket prices may slow down people a little initially with the economy being what it is . Particularly for families.
It should pick up closer to the game. The Iraq one did as the players partaking became known. IE Cahill will play next time a drawcard by himself.
But actual figures I’ve seen none.
If I do I’ll keep you posted.
Peter said | September 18th 2008 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
Redb
I never said “that there is no interest in the Swans in Sydney or Lions in Brisbane” Their is but not enough for another 2nd Sydney Team. But I want the AFL to go ahead with the ws-whatevers because other than getting to spend tens of millions of dollars on my own (which unfortunately will never happen) the other greatest fun would be to see a man [Vlad] waste tens of millions of $$$$$.
I would love to be at that roulette table as Andy bets it (wsyd18)all on red, only for the ball to land on Black. Brilliant
Michael C said | September 18th 2008 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
Hey guys - - -
don’t forget - - - this is all based on a dingbat statement by one John Ryan……………
he scarpered quick smart and we’re left debating the qualitative vs quantitative merits of ‘interest’……….
btw -
Millster - - -
one thing you aren’t is a (financial) ’supporter’ of St.Kilda.
And, re being a ‘fan’, well, the FANatic doesn’t really apply either.
You might one day buy a St.Kilda scarf at K-Mart……….but………….only 1/16th (or in future 1/18th) of the ‘club’ portion of that purchase will get back to St.Kilda.
Anyone opting to watch on tele (who IS a ‘ratings’ household) - - can impact the ratings figures and thus the value proposition around broadcast rights (the rest of us are purely incorporated via statistical extrapolation - - in reality what I watch actually has no bearing, because I’m not measure - - I’m purely guesswork).
At other times, we can log onto websites, hit specific page tabs, click on ads now and then off our preferred code/club website
And, most directly we can go to games with our membership and buy a raffle ticket from the cheersquad and order our jumper, scarf and mug from the club website.
I’ve chosen the last path - - and chosen that ahead of less specific forms of support - - even a club nominating AFL membership, and certainly ahead of a PayTV subscription.
Millster said | September 18th 2008 @ 4:46pm | Report comment
But Bruce - no-one is letting anyone off the hook. In Brissie and Sydney you’re still getting your games free and in great quality at 8.30pm on a Friday and Saturday night when the networks could be showing something actually relevant to the majority in those markets like a major film. We’re not talking about them being shown in the wee hours - in fact the game is still on when the TV starts its broadcast of it. Remember the overall context too which is that you are unquestionably live in your core AFL markets, which is where you will get 90+% of your viewers.
Also in those non-core markets, why, for the sake of one measly hour or so of delay, and when they have forked out a mint for the rights, should the networks then be compelled to cede those rights to Main Event or any other alternative carrier, or forced to dick around with their alternative HD feed? It’s just nonsense. No workaround is needed buddy. There is no major drama that needs to be rectified. Quite the contrary… you are in a totally blessed situation, and you don’t seem to realise it.
I really really implore you to consider the reverse situation. Channel 9 in Melbourne saying “oh lets cut short this evening because we need to bring you live this - oh so exciting and relevant to you Melbourne folk - NRL fixture between Penrith and Balmain”
Seriously Bruce, in that light I hope you can see why I regard your article to be just a complete farce.
Millster said | September 18th 2008 @ 4:53pm | Report comment
MC - I do have a Saints scarf somewhere already and it will come out if they make the GF. But I would have watched that anyway so even that doesn’t constitute an increase in my ‘participation’ in the code.
Michael C said | September 18th 2008 @ 4:55pm | Report comment
Towser -
that’s a real issue - -
just today the Herald Sun carried a story about a Footscray(Bulldogs) family for who $76 for adults and $19 for kids would be prohibitive of them taking the family to see the Doggies in a preliminary final (don’t underestimate how big a thing it is to go to a prelim - - - if you win, the ability to chant ‘We’re in the grand final’………..ah, sheer magic……anyway).
But $122 for the WC qualifier…………..what is the price for kids and concessions?
There really does seem a little too much of this ‘revenue raising’ going on - - -I’m starting to warm to those people who have a go about it.
Dave said | September 18th 2008 @ 5:09pm | Report comment
Towser
Looks like l’m going to have to set aside $250 for a family ticket to the Japan game in Melb. If the game is a dead rubber they may well struggle to entice the casual fans particularly if Pim allows all the 1st teamers to head back to Europe for a break and leaves the Olympic squad to play. 100,000 tickets will seem like an awful lot to sell if thats the case.
True Tah
l have read several articles in the English media about how the game (of football) has sold its soul to the highest bidder. No doubt the other professional sports associations in England would do the same, could be wrong though.
John Ryan said | September 18th 2008 @ 5:33pm | Report comment
I don,t want to get into the slanging match again, but so far as ding bats go you Michael C and Rebd or whatever he calls himself,would would qualify as two of the most ignorant, stupid, rude know alls,it has ever been my misfortune to read.
For the benefit of Sir Echo I was not kicked of any other forums as most I read don,t have idiots like you on them,I read what is said on these forums but don,t comment a course which I think a lot of people wish you and your mate would take.
Bruce Walkley said | September 18th 2008 @ 6:00pm | Report comment
Millster, as I said in my article, it’s ABC NewsRadio for me - if I can’t see it live I’d rather listen than wait to watch.
Thomas said | September 18th 2008 @ 6:12pm | Report comment
To any WCE fans out there: Their is an online petition to bring Ben Cousins back to WCE! If you want this to happen please sign the petition and send it to your friends to do the same! http://www.bringbackben.com.au
westy said | September 18th 2008 @ 7:07pm | Report comment
Bruce Walkeley…….I say this quite genuinely but the ABC’s News Radio’s decision to broadcast AFL only does exactly the same thing to people in outback NSW and QLD that you complain of in your article about the television stations. For your information News radio average audience quite is low anyway and drops alarmingly in NSW and QLD but it is national in extent.. This is not some anti AFL diatribe. It is a plea for News radio to reverse their obstinate refusal to relay other local ABC NRL broadcasts in those states.
We have the situation where remote aboriginal communities in North QLD and NT have to use scarce resources to get their own radiot relay transmissions. People in the bush and regional centres would also like the opportunity of listening to ABC broadcasts of their choice and no not all these people are on the internet. That is the point.
Redb said | September 18th 2008 @ 8:05pm | Report comment
Peter,
i can only conclude that your have your PRO NRL hat on when you say you would be happy for the AFL to waste millions on western Sydney. For the record I dont think western Sydney will be anywhere near ready by 2012 for an AFL team, if at all. I’d wait until more evidence of growth was around and look at 2016 or 2018.
Perhaps the NRL will waste millions trying to prop up 4-5 Sydney NRL clubs as it desperately tries to defend its turf. Gallop has already offered financial assistance, i wonder what strings News Ltd will attach.
One thng is for sure, the AFL wont be buying Homebush - sorry no money to be wasted there.
Redb
Michael C said | September 18th 2008 @ 8:47pm | Report comment
John Ryan -
“I don,t want to get into the slanging match again,”
okay - so don’t.
“would qualify as two of the most ignorant, stupid, rude know alls,it has ever been my misfortune to read.”
at least - on my behalf, I generally have - and provide - some reference, source, or experience upon which I base my opinion or observation - - that does not actually qualify as either ‘ignorant’ nor ’stupid’. Rude - - well. I generally try not to be too offensive - however. I realise I can be a little verbose - if that qualifies as ‘rude’ in your book - - then; I apologise.
And now to prove yourself to NOT being ignorant. stupid or rude we search for the supported proposition or theory of your post - - -
and - - surprise. surprise - there is none!!!!
There’s a difference between half way reasoned discussion/debate and just plain ignorant rants - - - one day you might figure that out.
Right - rant over (see, at least I can identify my own - - - - ah, must be time for a ’smiley’
jimbo said | September 18th 2008 @ 10:59pm | Report comment
What’s wrong with watching “Matilda” and the Iron Chef?
Peter said | September 19th 2008 @ 10:45am | Report comment
Redb
“i can only conclude that your have your PRO NRL hat on”
LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
That comment is so way of the mark I don’t know where to begin.
For the record Redb I have NEVER been to an NRL game in my life NOR do I intend to.
Just because I ridicule the AFL for decision making doesn’t make me a NRL follower. [Far from it]
No I think the NRL in Sydney is stuffed. As my Econimics teacher once say to me ” Boy, Your heading down the world famous creek, in a chicken wire canoe without a paddle and a life jacket.”
That way lies ahaed for Sydney NRL clubs. BUT DONT assume that its the Mongrook game that will move up the order.
Millster said | September 19th 2008 @ 11:25am | Report comment
Bruce - Regarding your ability to hear the game live on ABC radio - even there I hope Westy’s comments make you realise just how privileged and favoured you are as a die-hard AFL fan that you have an option to hear your game 100% live even though you are in a ‘double-minority’ situation (in that minority of fans that are extreme enough that they can’t wait 90 minutes to see a game, and in a minority AFL state). The more I think about it the more I believe the AFL’s media penetration in the non-core states to be almost unbelievably strong. From an objective point of view the market seems to me to be massively over-serviced.
Redb said | September 19th 2008 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
Peter,
So your just anti-AFL then.
Don’t assume that someone who is anti AFL will offer a balanced view of the AFL’s potential or otherwise.
Fair enough.
Redb
Redb said | September 19th 2008 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
Millster,
privileged?
What your effectively saying is the AFL should keep to its home patch and not expand. Turn that around and apply it to the NRL, Super 14 and A League. Let’s just keep things as they are eh? Ok, Melb Victory and Storm should pack up their bags now and stop taking up space in the sporting media in Vic.
The Northern Territory is not a rugby league stronghold it is more AFL than RL, so they make a choice.
Redb
Millster said | September 19th 2008 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
RedB - you are reading things into my post. I’m not saying the AFL should not expand, or any other league. What i’m saying is far simpler than that.
I’m just reminding Bruce that the AFL’s overall media coverage is nothing short of sensational - even in its non-core markets - and that to have live radio coverage and near-live high-quality free TV coverage on major prime-time weekend movie nights in states where it is not the dominant game is a situation that should NEVER EVER be complained about.
So all I’m saying is well played to the AFL, which has worked itself, and its fans, into an amazingly privileged position with respect to media. I don’t object to this at all. I just object to hearing anyone still find a way to whinge about it.
Redb said | September 19th 2008 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
Millster,
Fair enough..
Redb
Pippinu said | September 19th 2008 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
I think it is fair enough to say that the AFL’s TV coverage is pretty damn good. Two free to air stations plus Fox, no one else would come within coo-ee of that sort of coverage.
Michael C said | September 19th 2008 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
Millster -
service whether via Radio Australia or ABC News or the print handicap ‘network’ etc etc,
what it probably tells you is that Australian Football HAS traditionally had a great non-core presence (especially in ‘pockets’) throughout the non-core Aust Footy states than did any of the other codes.
Several factors come to the fore:
one - that stuff all Rugby state people ‘retire’ to Victoria
two - that the NSW and QLD markets ARE so fragmented, such that the ‘ex-pats’ out of those markets are less ‘unified’ in their preferences.
three - most military bases have been moved up North, so, if there were the majority of Aust military serving in southern Australia - there might be a greater ‘calling’ for such service - - as it is, it’s the opposite scenario - - -and because the AFL is such a ‘common’ point of interest - - - there not surprisingly should be a little extra coverage. It would be totally different if we were still talking VFL vs WAFL vs SANFL.
four - in those Northern type markets (well, NSW and QLd) the Rugby codes get sufficient coverage as is.
five - how long some of this extra coverage lasts in new media era coming - - who knows, for now, the AFL are best served by ensuring they don’t add too much cost or red tape to the process to keep it in place - - - -it might just be a little historic ‘relic’ that the longer is stays, the better for the AFL (especially re. those folk who don’t have terribly great access to broadband or pay tv options).
It’s not really surprising if you choose to not be surprised by it.
Michael C said | September 19th 2008 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
Pippinu -
especially with only 3 FTA networks really to choose from (in a serious commercial sense for the $$$ we’re talking about).
I just wonder, if the AFL were to go down a Monday night path (as I presume is up for discussion especially around the next broadcast rights) - - - would it be such that Channel 9 might even make a bid for the Monday night slot - - thus, they could be relatively consistant across all markets with a form of ‘Monday night football’ into every state.
I still reckon perhaps 2 Friday night games, and have the A network gets picking rights about 6 weeks out and the B network gets the other game……….and ensure that there’s a Friday night game once a week in Melbourne and the other slot effectively get’s shared around the country - - - there’s nothing better than heading off after work on Friday to the footy, see your team win and then just sit back and enjoy the rest of the weekend. (I’d prefer that to chewing nails waiting until Monday night).
Redb said | September 19th 2008 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
Word is Ch 9 are very interested in getting the AFL rights back.
Redb
Rich_daddy said | September 20th 2008 @ 12:03am | Report comment
Channel 9 getting the rights back would be a disaster. They are only interested in league and parts of Australia that currently get decent AFL coverage such as the ACT and Gold Coast will be yet again subjected to rugby league. If a station can not provide decent coverage they don’t deserve the rights.
John Ryan said | September 20th 2008 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Word is Channel 9 are to all intents and purposes broke,stock market analysts have them valued at $0,they are paying I believe $30mil a month in interest,so given that the financial markets are in turmoil,they are carrying a huge debt load,where are they going to get the money from.
About the whinge over ratings in GC and ACT,think you may find that Rugby League beats the AFL in both places by quite a margin on TV,that’s why 7 and 10 want to put it on at midnight
John Ryan said | September 20th 2008 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
Just a small mistake or large if your CH 9, its $30mil a week in interest which is $120 mil a month.
Bruce Walkley said | September 20th 2008 @ 5:48pm | Report comment
Redb, I don’t think Nine will be too keen on the AFL this time around - they don’t seem to be spending much on anything in these days of cost-cutting. Seven and Ten might even get the rights cheaper, or be able to insist on running games in Sydney and Brisbane after midnight if they want to. That’s why we need the use-it-or-lose it rule, especially as the FTA stations will all have multi-channelling available by the time the next rights agreement is signed.
Bruce Walkley said | September 20th 2008 @ 5:51pm | Report comment
Just one further thing on that - last night Ten ran the Ryder Cup from 10pm on HD and from 1.30am on the main channel. You don’t have to be Einstein to work out that’s the way to go.
Rich_daddy said | September 21st 2008 @ 10:24am | Report comment
John,
The AFL may get lower ratings, but I can’t see how a movie is ever going to beat the NRL. Also my point is, that if they have the rights to a sport they have a duty to provide good coverage in every region, regardless of ratings. The AFL is keen to grow the game, and that is not going to happen if the T.V networks play the game at midnight.
Westy said | September 21st 2008 @ 11:23am | Report comment
Bruce Walkeley………..There are some who believe channel 10 despite short term success in getting 7 to subsidise their AFL broadcast has made a mistake in its long term chance to take 2nd spot. The “national ” capital figures for Aleague may over time be superior to the fragmented national capital figures 10 achieves with the AFL. Ten could not afford its share of the AFL on current advertising revenue.It is uneconomic. Its figures in Syney/Brisbane and even Perth and Adelaide have been poor relative to seven and abysmal in Sydney and Brisbane. In television circles 10’s coverage is largely responsible for AFL’s 5% drop in Free to air coverage. AFL’s growth on pay tv is however outstanding .
Channel 10 could have picked up the Aleague very cheaply. Its investment in AFL is known as a 3rd place strategy. The ACCC may become very interested in the close negotiations between the erstwhile competitors 7 and 10. These discussions now it seems go further than arranging the division of AFL games.
Dave said | September 21st 2008 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
Just look at the ratings figures for Ch 10 AFL in Sydenee and Brisbane on Sat night. Telecasting the biggest game of the season so far and 55,000 in Syd with similar in Bris. Beaten by Iron Chef on SBS and thrashed by The Bill. The worry for a national game is that something like 70% of the viewers are from Melb only. Seems like the rest of Oz aint too interested.
Looks like its back to pay TV for the AFL in Syd and Bris.