By Paul J
December 5th 2009 @ 2:29am
Loading ...Related coverage
What to do with the Melbourne Storm?
Melbourne Storm coach Craig Bellamy overseeas a training session in Melbourne, Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2009. Melbourne Storm will play the Parramatta Eels in this weekends NRL Grand Final. AAP Image/Julian Smith
The independent commission is almost upon us – the annual NRL CEO meeting focused on developing a core set of values within the clubs; and the fantastic 2009 NRL season provided growth in TV ratings, crowd figures and memberships. Things seem to be moving in the right direction for rugby league.
Yet there is one question that still troubles rugby league like an itch you just can’t scratch: what to do with the Melbourne Storm?
In their relatively short twelve year existence, the Storm have had incredible success on the field.
Five grand final appearances, with three wins and a regular at finals time, ensure they have been undoubtedly the team of the decade.
The irony is not lost on many Rugby League fans that their own teams, some whom have been in existence since 1908, can not beat a team from the AFL capital of Australia.
While the NRL hierarchy could not have dreamed of such immediate on field success for their expansion team, the success off the field is less flattering.
The Storms crowd figures still hover around 13K, and most people in Melbourne still get confused as to which rugby code – apparently there are two of them – the Storm represents.
To try and calculate how successful the Storm have been, you can try to compare them to the two AFL expansion teams – the Sydney Swans and the Brisbane Lions.
The main ingredient for expansion appears to be time, and the Swans and Lions have been in existence for longer than the Storm; 27 and 22 years respectively.
The AFL must feel pleased with the great inroads these teams have made into rugby league heartlands.
This year, the Swans had average crowds of 30K and an average Sydney free to air TV audience of 86K. The Lions, considering the smaller population of Brisbane, had more success with average crowds of 29K and an average Brisbane free to air TV audience of 90K.
Of course these figures are put into perspective when compared to the accumulative rugby league crowd and TV viewing figures in Sydney and Brisbane, but they represent a considerable lead over the figures that the Storm produce for the NRL in Melbourne.
Worryingly for the NRL, the Storm is reported to record annual losses of $6 million.
Part of the process that allowed rugby league to finally get an independent commission is that News Ltd will sell the Storm and leave the game. However, they will still keep a 66% ownership in the highly profitable Brisbane Broncos.
Storm CEO, Brian Waldron, has been given the task to find private investors to become the new owners of the Storm.
Reports state that part of the transfer of ownership will have News Ltd drip feed about $20 million back into the Storm over the next 5 years.
This will encourage potential buyers for the viability of the Storm in the short term, but leaves no guarantees for the long term.
One change in the Storm’s fortunes will be their move into the new rectangular stadium at the Olympic Park precinct next year.
Leaving the old 1956 Olympic training venue for a state of the art modern stadium will most certainly help, but cautious estimates have predicted that this may only cut the Storms annual losses in half to approx $3 million.
The one area where the Storm must improve to ensure their survival is in free to air television broadcasting.
One of the many examples of how poorly the NRL negotiated its last TV broadcast rights deal is that Channel 9 does not show regular Storm games at prime time in Melbourne.
Conversely ,the AFL have negotiated TV contracts that has forced Channels 7 and 10 to show Swans and Lions games in prime time to Sydney and Brisbane audiences, which has greatly incresed their exposure.
How the curious Melbournian – who may wish to see what all the fuss is about regarding Inglis and Slater – is then expected by the NRL to stay up to watch a midnight Storm broadcast is anyone’s guess.
The fact that the Storms on field success has not been backed by free to air prime time coverage can only been seen as a real opportunity lost by the NRL.
Promisingly for the Storm, on the rare occasion Channel 9 risked a primetime broadcast of a Storm game in Melbourne – as in round 2 against the Broncos – the Storm posted a decent TV audience of 203K.
The next free to air primetime Storm TV broadcast into Melbourne was not until the preliminary final – again against the Broncos – and the Storm posted an audience of 324K. And this on the day of the AFL grand final.
However, only four other Storm games were shown by Channel 9 in Melbourne during the entire NRL season. They were shown outside of prime time and recorded average viewing audiences of just 21K.
How the NRL have still not managed to negotiate a fairer TV deal for the Storm in Melbourne after twelve years is mind boggling.
Worryingly for fans, when David Gallop was asked a question at the annual fan forum in regards to improving the TV situation for the Storm, he answered that the NRL had to be careful to avoid the “Swans / Master Chef situation” where the AFL finds the Swans games in Sydney regularly out rated by an SBS cooking show.
Hopefully, this was nothing more than a little verbal backhand directed at a rival code.
Is the Storm’s future better placed by the NRL setting the immediate goal of free to air primetime Storm games in Melbourne,with an average audiences of 100K – even if they are out rated by Master Chef – or by continuing with midnight games getting average audiences of 21K?
How can the NRL expect the people of Melbourne to get a better understanding and appreciation of rugby league if they never get to see it?
Thankfully the independent commission has stated that the next TV broadcast rights deal will be a priority.
Surely negotiating free to air prime time Storm games into Melbourne will be recognised as one of the main areas for improvement.
With the new HD digital channels such as One HD, 99 and 7 Two now available, this should be a much easier task.
And most interestingly, the fact the NRL has suggested they will join the AFL by implementing a fixed season schedule to coincide with their next TV rights deal suggests that they plan to schedule Storm games so they won’t clash with any AFL fixtures.
Only time will tell how quickly the Storm can become profitable, if at all.
With the introduction of the Super 15 rugby franchise – the Melbourne Rebels – Melbourne will be set to join Sydney and Brisbane by being an increasingly crowded sporting market, represented by all four football codes.
However, if the enduring presence of the Swans and Lions are expansion models to be followed, then it would seem obvious that a decent stadium, prime time free to air coverage and a significant increase in marketing and junior development, obtained from lucrative TV broadcast rights deal,s is how to ensure the growth and survival of the Melbourne Storm.
Get Australia's best NRL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
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...
(189)
Crosscoder said | December 5th 2009 @ 5:43am | Report comment
In a nutshell, persevere,as it is a long term committment.Agree FTA TV at decent hours for the club is vital.
Ignoring the 2nd biggest market in Australia ,is to do so at the code’s peril.Especially as so much has already and is currently being expended on grassroots development.A niche market is all that can be expected and required.
The Swans had many financially troubled years in the early stages.They looked at the future not the present.
It has been stated by Gallop, the presence of an NRL team in Melbourne ,has been a factor in assisting in securing decent TV contracts.Imagine what the contracts would be worth on that basis,if the contracted station actually showed the Storm at decent hours on FTA.Channel 9 needs a good kick up the rear end.
The SOO and G/F and semi final TV ratings in that city ,should have been a wake up call,there is interest in that city.
oikee said | December 5th 2009 @ 5:10pm | Report comment
The Storm’s future is secured. Trust me, the living breathing spectical that we call Origin is a global giant waiting to be ignited. The passion fericousness, the beauty the streagth the poetic, the will-power, the heart and soul of this courageous game we love is well and truely something to be marvelled at, revered, and admired.
Their is no stoping rugby league as this game is a piece of all of us, its a instinct that every human has and evolved over time, but that primevel instinct comes out in this game. Its gladatorial and sense of being above other nations with sheer brutality and accausion, and the sense everything Australian, is pure Poetry in motion.
This is the game we all love and want to be part of, and is why rugby league will thrive in this country. Origin is the sheer beauty and brutality of sport we all have inside, but only a very few can acheive this greatness.
Origin from 2006 has embeded its humbleness into the Victorian Scyche on the Melbourne public, and vertually anyone else who witness’s this great contest. So rugby league is already ingrained in the Victorian Public. They would want to be the last City to miss this great spectical. Cheers. the Storm will be fine.
oikee said | December 5th 2009 @ 6:47pm | Report comment
Crosscoder, if you look at Origin 2007, game 1.,,, check out Steve Price after Thurston Kicks the winning Feild gaol, look at, and think about Passion, Commitment, and sheer pleasure of playing origin for Queensalnd, he never even looked once at Thurston, …. even though he just kicked Queensland to Victory, now thats passion. Lets not Forget. …
And then 3 minutes later, he came up with a winning charge down, ??? Steve Price, Petro Chivonciva are 2 of the greatest players we have ever seen, the respect these 2 guys have, is beyond immortal. They are Champions. Cheers.
There is no player or code that comes close to this status. Simply, Origin Rocks. Rugby league is king.
Bay35Pablo said | December 6th 2009 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
(tears running down face over manic laughter)
“There is no player or code that comes close to this status. Simply, Origin Rocks. Rugby league is king.”
That state of delusion is scary oikee. One hopes you are kidding.
The best passion I have seen in any code was Socceroos v Argentina at the SFS, world cup qualifier in 1993(?). When we scored – the crowd (which I was in) went mental like I had never seen. After that, Aloisi kicking the penalty to qualify for 2006, when I was in a CBD pub (which also went mental). I was at the 2005 GF when my mighty Tigers won which was awesome, and have been at a number of Origins going back almost 20 years. But those 2 soccer moments were at the top of my memories. And that’s from a union fan.
Ealesy’s kick to win the Bledisloe, and the greatest test match of all time were also good ….
Suffice to say, keep dreaming oikee. Maybe we can all chip in and buy you a ticket to see a Merseyside or Rio Plate derby live.
oikee said | December 7th 2009 @ 6:55am | Report comment
Each to their own Bay35, each to their own. You find excitement with a extra time shoot-out, mine is the passion of origin, which is 3 times a year, seems to me i have more passion than you maybe.
Realist said | December 22nd 2009 @ 12:32am | Report comment
Bay35Pablo,
Perhaps the reason you were inspired deeply by those events is because they were unforseen, improbable (due to Australia’s underdog status in those sports) and different to what you’ve become accusotmed to seeing?
I was captivated by the Australian diver who won gold at Beijing because it was unforseen and highly improbable. Diving is not a sport I enjoy watching, but I still think the moment he won gold was great. See my point?
Barking Glider said | December 5th 2009 @ 5:43am | Report comment
“the two AFL expansion teams – the Sydney Swans and the Brisbane Lions.”
Sorry, the Swans and Lions are not expansions teams. They are relocated Melbourne teams. They are Melbourne clubs living in Sydney and Brisbane.
What was it that TV commentator said when the Swans won the flag? “Old Bloods have waited a lifetime!”.
Gatto Nero said | December 5th 2009 @ 6:14am | Report comment
Glider – so in that sense the Storm are just the relocated Western Reds?
Barking Glider said | December 5th 2009 @ 6:32am | Report comment
huh? I’m not sure why you’ve brought up the Western Reds but the Storm are not a relocated Reds club. Most of their 1998 players came from elsewhere.
The Brisbane and Sydney AFL teams took their Melbourne history with them. They still trade on it whenever they are in Melbourne and when they are in the finals.
The Storm shouldn’t be compared with imported Melbourne VFL teams that are now in Sydney and Brisbane. Tbe Storm serve as an example of what the AFL are now attempting via their GSW and GFC teams. Let’s see in 10 years time if GWS and GFC are doing as well as the Storm have done. Don’t forget the Storm did it without the money and AFL support that will put into GSW and GFC.
Pippinu said | December 5th 2009 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
I think that is a fair enough point – in the strictest sense – both Brisbane and Sydney do not represent expansion teams (although the original Bears probably did).
Barking Glider said | December 5th 2009 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
Good point. In comparison to the Bears (the AFL’s one and only example of an expansion club into a non AFL state), the Storm have done remarkably well.
chris said | December 5th 2009 @ 7:44am | Report comment
I can’t believe posts like this always leave out the elephant in the room…the Storm doesn’t have a Leagues club. (and nor did the now defunct Western Reds & Adelaide Rams). The Storm are not on a level playing field with NSW clubs because they are not propped up by a Leagues club handing them an annual multi-million dollar ‘grant’ to prop up an unprofitable football operation. It is widely reported that the Broncos are the only football operation in the NRL that is profitable – so the Storm making a loss is hardly unique.
RL people have to accept that any team not attached to a Leagues club, or to a rich private backer, will need to be assisted – in theory the Storm could become consistently profitable as a football operation but they’d be achieving something no RL club in NSW has achieved.
Barking Glider said | December 5th 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
I can’t believe you haven’t realised its 2009, not 1989.
Which NRL clubs in NSW are in 2009 “propped up by a Leagues club handing them an annual multi-million dollar ‘grant’ to prop up an unprofitable football operation”?
The few Leagues Clubs left that give money to their football club are barely giving anything.
chris said | December 5th 2009 @ 10:15am | Report comment
thanks for the tip – i know the year is 2009. I can’t believe you think RL clubs in NSW somehow moved off the tit of Leagues Clubs and their pokie revenue – exactly when did that happen. Yes they’ve had this source of revenue reduced but it is still a key underpinnig if the NRL competition – no pokies no NRL.
Which club you ask? Well here is a 2009 article talking about slashing of league’s club grant by $1m for Parramatta…so by definition the Parramatta grant for 2008 was more than $1m which is NOT “barely giving anything” is it now? So without much looking at all I’ve given you one club in 2008 – can’t be bother tracking and spoon feeding to you widely known and non-controversial data to support my comment – RL clubs rely on substantial and ongoing support from Leagues club grants whether or not you like to admit it, And my point is tht the Storm doesn’t, and never will, have this sort of support.
Leagues Club losses a warning to NRL clubs
BY Dean Ritchie
March 05, 2009
NRL chief executive David Gallop said Parramatta Leagues Club’s heavy annual loss was a timely reminder that football teams cannot continue to rely on grants from licensed clubs.
Parramatta Leagues Club announced a record $7.8 million loss for 2008 with the grant to the Eels’ footy side expected to be slashed by $1million by next season.”
Barking Glider said | December 5th 2009 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Really? I went and found that story http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,25138535-5003409,00.html and it says “The Daily Telegraph understands Parramatta Leagues outlayed $5 million to rugby league last season – primarily to the Eels”
You reckon the Eels are getting by on $5 million? You need more than $15 million for a NRL club.
chris said | December 5th 2009 @ 10:40am | Report comment
you’ve just prove my point for me – thanks. Without that $5m grant would Parramatta be able to field a team – no they wouldn’t. That’s my point – this NSW RL team has access to funds not available to the Storm.
Also you are probably exaggerating – I’ve seen reports that a RL team costs around $10m to run – and even if you’re correct about $15m who cares – it doesn’t support your point – it supports my point if anything.
Barking Glider said | December 5th 2009 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
I haven’t got all day to look on google but I found this from 2005 “the bottom line is that to run an NRL club you need an absolute minimum of $16 million,”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/League/Bears-Central-Coast-Stadium-stake-for-sale/2005/03/08/1110160830484.html
If Leagues Clubs vanished tonight the NRL clubs would survive. You were attempting to portray that NRL clubs live and die on the support of a Leagues Club. Over the past five years the NRL clubs have been getting less and less from their Leagues clubs thanks and how many NRL cubs have died without that support, or less support? None. They’ve found other options.
chris said | December 5th 2009 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
the article you linked doesn’t say $16m….and again you’re missing my main point and attempting to muddy the water with an irrelevant red herring argument about whether it costs $10m or 15m to run a RL team…
by your own admission Parra Leagues gives their RL team about $5m annually…. if they turned the pokie machines off today hen the Parra football operation all of a sudden has to find $5m …and find it annually….doesn’t this kind of line up very nicely with the annual $6m losses made by the Storm?!…can’t you see that…. RL teams operating outside NSW without League Clubs have always struggled – Western Reds, Adelaide Rams, Melbourne Storm….. so all this talk of ever returning to WA is absolute nonsense…and the future of the Storm is sketchy at best…they are inherently unprofitable unless subsidised or supported privately…
Barking Glider said | December 5th 2009 @ 3:02pm | Report comment
“the bottom line is that to run an NRL club you need an absolute minimum of $16 million,” There you go. I quoted it again for you. http://www.smh.com.au/news/League/Bears-Central-Coast-Stadium-stake-for-sale/2005/03/08/1110160830484.html
There are football clubs in all codes in all states, including NSW, which don’t have a Leagues Club. Most football clubs in Australia don’t have a Leagues Club. There is no NRL club solely reliant on a Leagues Club.
Yet for some reason you think that NRL clubs in NSW can’t survive without a Leagues Club.
oikee said | December 5th 2009 @ 5:20pm | Report comment
You guys quit arguing, it looks as if we dont get a independent commission, rugby league will be in trouble. Obviously all the money is gone, and we need someone running the game because clubs are in Jeopody. With the Commission, league will be ok, and grow. Simple.
The only game doing great is AFL, we all can see this, why fight it, embrace and learn.
Mick from Giralang said | December 6th 2009 @ 7:04am | Report comment
Poker machine support is not unique to rugby league. The AFL is propped up by $100 million in pokie revenue a yeaqr.. any argument about dependence on one-arm bandits applies equally to both codes.
Pippinu said | December 6th 2009 @ 7:34am | Report comment
Yes – AFL clubs now have gaming revenue as a major source of revenue.
chris said | December 6th 2009 @ 7:55am | Report comment
Some people here have commented that AFL clubs are equally supported by pokie revenue…nonsense. For a start the richest club in the AFL is West Coast – and it operates from WA where they don’t even have any poker machines!!!..apart from its casino there is not one machine in the whole state!!!…the WA government has not licensed pokies for WA….. and Fremantle Dockers are also another very rich club out of WA with no pokie revenue…both WA clubs don’t receive a singles cent from pokies….and I’d be pretty confident that BRisbane Lions and Swans don’t either…
AFL clubs have much higher memberships (i.e. season pass holders) than RL clubs…just two teams combined – West Coast & Collingwood -have more members that the entire NRL competition,…higher gate revenue, higher broadcast revenue, much higher memberships and more valuable sponsorships…. AFL teams don’t need pokie revenue like RL clubs – it hasn’t been a traditional revenue source for them…. if there are AFL clubs that use them (which I doubt) then they would be a far smaller percentage of their revenue than is tha case for RL clubs…
Pippinu said | December 6th 2009 @ 8:02am | Report comment
chris
fair enough about West Coast – and you’re right about having many large sources of revenue – but over the past decade – the Victorian clubs have come to rely on gaming revenue as a major souce of revenue (I didn’t say the largest).
Collingwood now has an annual turnover over in excess of $50 million, and a large chunk of that is gaming revenue – in fact, they may be one of the larges operators of machines in the whole state.
ruckrover said | December 5th 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
hard to see a long term future for the Storm – with a Super-15 Rugby team coming into Melbourne – Storm will just do well to maintain current interest – and at that rate they must according to your figures, eventually go belly up.
Woody Warambel said | December 5th 2009 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
Who is to say it won’t be the union team that folds again?
They certainly won’t be on FTA TV at any time.
BTW over the season just ended for every one person that watches Australian Super 14 teams on Pay TV five will watched the Storm. (That is the Storm beat the whole union competition by a factor of five.)
Sam said | December 6th 2009 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
The Super 14 teams get nearly all of their revenue from the broadcasting agreement with News Ltd. Most of the income for the Super 14 and Tri-Nations comes from the value of the deal in South Africa – and the there is no comparison between the status of the game there and in Australia. So I can’t see the Melbourne team folding as long as the South Africans are tuning into their rugby. Of course having good viewing figures in Aussie is still important, but not the be all and end all.
Paul J said | December 5th 2009 @ 8:26am | Report comment
ruckrover
We’ll have to wait and see what the future holds for the Storm and the Rebels.
One point i was trying to make is that the Storm – even after 12 years – all still basically neglected in the same way the Brisbane Bears once were.
The Link said | December 5th 2009 @ 10:58am | Report comment
The Storm go alright. 11-15k crowds seem not that good by AFL standards, but most A-League teams would kill for that right now. They have a little nieche in Melbourne which realistically is a best case scenario for RL there.
Compare the Storm to the Swans in 1992/3 and they stack up not too badly.
For a team born out of the messy compromise of a once in a 100 year upheaval of a sport its hard to imagine how they could be realistically better placed. It wasn’t RL finest hour and in the early years survival was the key rather than engagement with the community, but that is being re-addresed.
One things for sure, they play the most attractive Rugby Football of any team in either code in this country. They have set the standard for the Rebels on the field to meet when they get in.
chris said | December 5th 2009 @ 11:31am | Report comment
apparently the storm have a loyal core of 12k fans that show up every week.. and they need to treble that to be viable…hard to see that happening….they’ve been super-successful already and only manage crowds of just over 10K… i don’ think the new stadium will all of a sudden triple crowds especially when rugby union gets going and the Storm slips down the table…
i think it’s a case of indefinite subsidy of the Storm’ by the rest of the competition so they are a ‘national’ competition that can be sold to broadcasters,,,..or they just bight the bullet and relocate Storm to CC…
Woody Warambel said | December 5th 2009 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Link -I disagree.
Melbourne do have some of the best players & athletics in the game but they play ugly ugly football.
The tactics they employ are such things as little or no passing in their own half, repeated dummy half or one out running.
They also invented of the grapple tackle & other wrestling innovations..
Good players playing ugly football.
Justin said | December 6th 2009 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
All true Woody but I think success wins in drawing crowds over playing to a somewhat boring game plan.
Corey said | December 6th 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment
Link, 11-15k is pitiful- it means league is the least supported footy code in crowd attendance in Melbourne- even behind the soccer team, which is pretty bad in Australia.
The Link said | December 6th 2009 @ 7:54pm | Report comment
Gents – disagree on the Storm’s playing style, some of the football played in the semis this year for example was pretty good. The prelim against the Broncs sticks out in the mind in particular.
Since when do you need crowds of 35k+ to run a sporting team in Australia?
Corey – The Victory should be getting bigger crowds than the Storm by all rights, Soccer in Melbourne has a long popular history, unlike RL in the southern capital.
11-15k is not all that bad, just ask Clive Palmer, who would kill for such crowds
Springs said | December 6th 2009 @ 8:49pm | Report comment
At the moment Union gets 0k.
oikee said | December 5th 2009 @ 11:42am | Report comment
Maybe we see how the Storm go next year, With a new stadium for Melbourne punters, might bring in some new fans and also fans who would go, but did not want to sit in the stands of Olympic park. Dont underestamate what good stadium can do for a team. Hopefully they get a decent buyer who knows how to run a club. The Storm are a goldmine, if you know what your doing. I think Greg Inglis alone will attract more fans, this guy is unbeleivable.
Justin said | December 6th 2009 @ 4:31pm | Report comment
Goldmine is currently dropping 6m per year and Inglis isnt a new player just quietly…
Rod said | December 5th 2009 @ 4:56pm | Report comment
Storm will be going nowhere.
Matter of fact, the Storm when compared to the A League are doing very well, only the Victory at the moment average higher, yet we don’t hear of all these A League clubs with years of history if you consider they were around in the NSL being talked down in the same way.
If you look at all Rugby Clubs world wide (Union and League), the Storm hold their own easily.
Sam said | December 5th 2009 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
I thought it was a great article Paul. Well written. I was wondering about your TV viewing figures though, do they include Foxtel viewing? News Ltd must be pretty happy that when you live in Melbourne and want to watch any of the other football codes (except AFL) you really *have* to get Foxtel. It must bring them in quite a large amount of money for a city of 4 million. That is probably why they are happy to take a loss. I agree that the NRL need to be more aggressive about getting their sport on prime time in Victoria though. I’m not sure about the Melbourne Super 14 team and what effect that will have. I don’t actually think it’ll reduce their slice of the rugby union/league pie but rather increase the size of the pie itself (if that makes sense). I do think that the new stadium will help as well. As for crowd numbers, Foxtel show the Storm games in Melbourne live don’t they? Surely that influences (as well as that league is a sport very easy to watch on tv) the size of the crowds?
Paul J said | December 6th 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Thanks Sam
The figures are for FTA in Melbourne, Sydney & Brisbane only – do not include FTA in regonals or Pay TV.
Pay TV takes up about 30% on the market although it is stronger in Sydney & Brisbane (RL states).
If the Storm get FTA prime time coverage in Melbourne in 3 years time – when the NRL start their next TV rights deal – and are playing out of a new stadium it will mean that the Storm 2013 will be where the Brisbane Lions were in about 1998.
The next TV rights deal will be all important
oikee said | December 5th 2009 @ 5:27pm | Report comment
Sam, thanks for your intelligent veiw.
M1tch said | December 5th 2009 @ 8:37pm | Report comment
News ltd actually put a fair bit of money into junior development, Storm’s losses would be something like 3-4 mil. News is actually leaving at a good time as the junior program in Victoria is doing well.
21k for a midnight timeslot is okay in my book, Storm would be a 80-120k team if had some tv air time as Swans..
Rod said | December 5th 2009 @ 9:25pm | Report comment
It’d be a bit silly to remove the Storm now seeing as the Vic Government and the ARL only just started to pump $23 million into junior development last year.
People can moan all they like and they can even pray for the Storm to move, it ain’t gonna happen, they are here to stay.
Billo said | December 5th 2009 @ 11:38pm | Report comment
Melbourne Storm are one of the great success stories of Australian sport, in terms of their achievements both on and off the field.
On the field it goes without saying, but it’s useful just to consider that off the field they have had no central support from the NRL in terms of draft picks or salary cap concessions, unlike the Brisbane and Sydney AFL clubs. They have had no support from Channel 9, because of the NRL’s incompetence in negotiating TV contracts and its failure to ensure that 9 complies with its commitments under the contract. They have played in what is almost certainly the worst stadium that any major sports club has had to play in throughout Australia. And they have had very limited coverage by the major newspaper in Melbourne throughout their existence.
And yet as the article points out, when they have been shown in Melbourne in prime time, they have achieved very good ratings.
They now have the chance to move into a purpose-built stadium, and they have some of the best known sportsmen in Australia on their books. They also have some of the best juniors in rugby league, to judge from their successes at the lower grades.
I think they have been a model for other new clubs, in any code, to learn from.
Corey said | December 6th 2009 @ 12:22am | Report comment
Channel 9 are the Storms worst enemy, showing games that late is ridiculous and unfair on WORKING-CLASS fans who sometimes have to get up on an early morning the next day to earn a dollar. Stop showing it at ridiculous hours. Sydney and Brisbane AFL teams are doing well in crowd attendances, not necessarily in TV ratings. That’s where Rugby League falls down in comparison to AFL, crowd figures. The average TV audiences are fairly similar (and this shows the passion league fans have, considering that the AFL games are shown across the country whereas league is only shown in NSW and QLD- with Melbourne up real late). Melbourne Storm need to push membership and possibly some sought of TV deal with channel 9 now.
Mick from Giralang said | December 6th 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Why is an operating deficit of $5 million considered a ” loss” in relation to the Melbourne Storm, when AFL regards pumping $200 million into GWS, which won’t turn a genuine profit for many, many years, as an “investment”? It’s because AFL is in the hands of people who genuinely have its long term future at heart — rugby league sadly, is not in that position yet.
If the Storm’s achievements had been duplicated by an AFL expansion team, the AFL would rightly be holding it up as a jewel in the crown of their game.
It’s time true supporters of rugby league realise that in the short term, a $5 million investment to secure our game in AFL heartland is money that has already reaped rich reward, and in the long term has the potential to reach even greater heights .
It’s laughable that the future of the Storm is even being questioned in rugby league circles.
Pippinu said | December 6th 2009 @ 7:37am | Report comment
It’s a fair comparison – and it does have to be viewed as an investment.
Both will carry risk – but equally, potentially long term rewards.
MyGeneration said | December 6th 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
I agree Mick. Surely the value that the Storm already bring to the comp in terms of TV revenue already offsets the $5 million loss. Take away the Storm and what’s that going to do to the next rights deal? “We’d like you to bid on TV rights to our national competition, which doesn’t include Melbourne by the way.” Hopefully one of the first items on the agenda of an Independent Commission would be asserting that the existence of the Storm is non-negotiable in terms of the future of the competition.
Bay35Pablo said | December 6th 2009 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
Which was why the Rebels got the gig ahead of the Southern Kings for Super 15.
chris said | December 6th 2009 @ 8:20am | Report comment
probably one main difference is GWS have proof that it can be done…..if GWS duplicate the Swans success then they know they can be a viable operation…. it’s worked before in NSW – and they know it will take time (20 years or more) so will be patient…. i think GWS will become a success in half the time it took the Swans… have a second AFL team in NSW is a major bonus the Swans didn’t have – the intra-State games are the biggest games – Wcoast v Freo, Adel v Port Adel …GWS v Swans games will be a major bonus to each club…
what can the Storm look to?….Western Reds (failure)…Adelaide Rams (failure)….if the Storm do it they are breaking new ground…. if GWS do it then they are going to be replicating success of Brisbane Lions and Sydney Swans before them…
MyGeneration said | December 6th 2009 @ 8:28am | Report comment
Western Reds and Adelaide Rams were sacrificed as part of the Super League/ARL settlement, and any chance they may have had for success was affected by the diffusion of resources during the split. It’s not a valid comparison, as AFL has nothing to compare with the Super League war and aftermath.
Mick from Giralang said | December 6th 2009 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
Correct MG. By any measure the Reds were a success, carving out a viable niche in only three years. In fact they performed much better than either in the Swans or the Lions in their initial years. The Reds had already introduced local playerrs into their top squad and were posting average crowds equivalent to some Sydney jobs when they were sacrificed in the Superleague settlement, as News did not want more than 14 teams.
bever fever said | December 6th 2009 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
I think the Reds were losing money but i am not sure whether it was significant, WA has produced some good NRL players and possibly the club may have suceeded.
But IMO it will be very hard work now for a new RL club to be viable in Perth, it is 4th in the football code pecking order and a fair way fourth at that.
Mick from Giralang said | December 6th 2009 @ 7:19pm | Report comment
What’s your evidence for this?
bever fever said | December 6th 2009 @ 8:41pm | Report comment
Since when do i need eveidence when i state IMO.
Undeniably at grass roots level RL is forth by a long way in the pecking order in WA, any level you choose actually
I live in Perth, i follow sports and have a interest in the grass roots of sports.
RL has bugger all clubs and bugger all juniors and from a extremely low base has made some progress of late but is still a distant 4th.
Mushi said | December 7th 2009 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Actually the lions still routinely post losses as well Chris after what, 20 to 30 years?
Hardly some fail safe blue print for commercial domination.
Mushi said | December 7th 2009 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
And yet the anti-News crowd contend that News has never invested anything in the game. If fudnign the operating loss is considered an investment by the AFL why is it not seen as an investment by News?
oikee said | December 6th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
Hopefully somewhere down the road, Melbourne can add another team,. Could be 20 years away, but it would be a success if driven by the right people. Anyhow, rivalry in rugby league crosses boarders as well, St George, Broncos, Manly, all have a fiece rivalry with Storm.
They would never drop the Storm, the club is to successful. In 10 years time, they will be the biggest club in the game. I think they are around number 4 now.
Corey said | December 6th 2009 @ 11:56am | Report comment
They are no where near number 4, and they won’t have a second team in 10 years, there are too many places vying for an expansion team in the NRL at the moment. Brisbane doesn’t even have a second team and they have the most members and crowd attendances out of any team. Melbourne need better time slots, and need a major membership-drive. No matter what people think about crowd attendances or membership numbers (there are some that believe the money from these are not that important in comparison to sponsors), crowd is the most important factor in sponsors coming on. I talked to a marketing agent who told me that a sponsor will look at membership numbers very highly (because the members are the ones who constantly wear their brand on the supporters jersey), they also look at the crowd, because the marketers believe the higher the crowd attendance the better it looks for a team as a company and therefore the company that supports the team.
tifosi said | December 6th 2009 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
Woolworths and Coles are also big pokie machine owners,
Go figure !!
bever fever said | December 6th 2009 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
Remains to be seen in Melbourne whether the new rugby team steals support from the league team.
I am sure that some supporters will follow both, some only one code.
I know a few Force followers here in Perth would drop the Force if a league team ever came to town.
The Force here in Perth are basically followed by the ex-pat population of kiwis, saffas and a few poms, is their a big enough australian rugby culture in Melbourne or will their team be run/supported by expats as Perths is ?.
Anakin said | December 6th 2009 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
It makes me laugh when ppl compare the Storm’s crowd figures to those in Sydney. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – set up Sydney games with supporters from respective teams forced to go through one set of turnstiles only (that is, split actual supporters as they come in the gate) and let’s see which teams gain the most support.
Of 12,000 supporters, I think it’d be reasonable to say no more than a hundred or so of those are there to support the opposition. So that’s 12,000 die hard STORM supporters. How many of the 20-25,000 crowds that some Sydney clubs get can honestly boast they have more than 50% of that crowd base??
The Storm gets half their games at ‘home’ in Melbourne – yet Sydney clubs are blessed with the ability to drive 1/2 hr down the road and watch their team on an ‘away’ game more often than not. What this effectively does – when one adds in “opposition” supporters, is boost the crowd numbers for Sydney teams. Suffice to say, any comparison of the Storm;s crowd figures with any teams other than those outside Sydney metro is a mute point as far as I’m concerned.
It also amuses me that we keep comparing AFL to Rugby League. Surely the SuperLeague war PROVED that RL is the better TV product .. or the whole saga would have happened with the AFL not the ARL. Simple fact is, AFL’s expansive game is better watched live, and Rugby Leagues big hits and close contact combat is better watched up close (on TV). The fact that the NRL hasn’t negotiated a better TV deal – for all clubs, let alone the pathetic effort it has put into Victorian coverage – is a major blight on the game.
My final point is the revenue figures etc for Storm are not accurate, and arguably never will be. Melbourne Storm is owned by Valimanda Ltd … whose financial records are not required by law to disclosed for public access … and they provide the football club (Melbourne Storm) with a ‘grant’ each year. What this means, is that Valimanda can rake in as much as they like, and it is not reflected in the Storms revenue figures per se – only the grant they provide back to the Storm is; alongside revenue from miscellaneous activities. So how much does the Melbourne Storm really pull in?? I dare so we’ll never know.
chris said | December 6th 2009 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
ah that old chestnut…”RL is a better TV product”… yeah whatever…. millions of AFL followers would disagree …so many RL supporters love to hang on to this myth probably to explain away why rl crowds are so small… and meanwhile in the real world the AFL keeps getting paid the most for its broadcast rights…and excuses for this from RL supporters keep o coming – the Super League war, News LTD blah blah blah….soon there’ll be no more excuses and RL will still be getting paid less for their supposedly better “TV product”….the answer is very simple – RL get paid less because it is worth less….the next deals will bear that out – and even in 30 yrs time we’ll have one-eyed RL fans going “yeah but we have better TV product”…yeah whatvever…
M1tch said | December 6th 2009 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
lol, the Super League was real!!!
Its not a myth or something that went on for a week or so
Heres the thing, I would say AFL is worth more due to its favourable treatment by its broadcasters by which i mean its shown at a decent hour..
AFL will get bigger deals because its national..simple as that..
When RL is national again, who knows but the gap will be smaller!
Corey said | December 12th 2009 @ 5:54pm | Report comment
RL needs to get national for the comp. to be more financially profitable. If there was a team in Perth and possibly NT (a joint venture with PNG) than the revenue would skyrocket as they broadcasters now have a much wider fan base. There are a fair few expats around all Australia that love league but never get to watch it, due to Channel 9’s broadcasting. Even in Adelaide I know of some Brits who love their league but never get to watch it. There are figures out on the average broadcasting (i think the average per year for an NRL club is 13.4 vs 14.9mill for the AFL), now that might seem like a major difference, but take into respect that a lot of the NRL games are only shown on pay TV and that the game is broadcast to NSW and QLD only (unless Melbourne are playing- but this is shown in the early hours of the morning), than Rugby League has a very high viewer rating. Hopefully this changes into crowd attendances as well, because the atmosphere is much better at the game and it also makes it look better for the TV.
Realist said | December 22nd 2009 @ 1:24am | Report comment
Hey Chris,
The aggregate television ratings for the NRL outrated the AFL this year! Not bad for a sport that you claim is “worth less”, is it mate?
Redb said | December 22nd 2009 @ 1:30am | Report comment
prove it.
Where are the numbers? What report?
Has it been published or are you talking about the NRL ‘commissioned’ secret study?
chris said | December 22nd 2009 @ 5:57am | Report comment
Be real realist!! Listen up – you might learn something…
Roy Masters (whose article on this probably brought this to your attention) has been bent out of shape for years by the AFL’s superior broadcast deal which he argues is unjust. For years on this topic of TV audiences he’s written articles that are filled with errors, distortions or just plain lies – and more than once his own newspaper has come out only days later with another article from a different journalist correcting his falsehoods and distortions (e.g. Masters falsely claimed the AFL TV audience for the 2009 grand final was less than the NRL’s grand final only to be corrected days later by a journalist at his own paper).
Anyway on this latest error-ridden and distorted offering from Roy Masters there are several things to say:
1. The article’s headline claims that League outrates AFL – it then goes on to explain that RL numbers include State of Origin and the Toyota Cup and that on a pure comparison on club games the AFL outrates RL. Distortion 101 – a Roy Masters special. A more honestly presented article would not have had such a misleading title. At least here for the first time I can recall we see Roy Masters actually admitting that the AFL regular season does in fact outrate the NRL regular season – and that to try to reach the AFL figure you have to fudge it by topping up the NRL numbers with SOO and Toyota Cup..
2. Roy claims that the NRL outrated the AFL for the FIRST time ever in 2009 (using his bogus comparison). To claim it as the first time ever is very revealing – what it says is that in every other previous season the AFL season (plus NAB Cup) has outrated the NRL season including SOO and Toyota Cup. That’s nothing to brag about. Not a great track record for the NRL at all. That’s a hell of a lot of second places to the NRL – and where was Roy’s article’s then? – did he ever concede the AFL’s number one position? No he didn’t – year after year he wrote articles about how the NRL outrates the AFL, normally selectively quoting NSW/QLD stats or pay TV stats and deliberately ignoring the overall picture.
3. Roy concedes the AFL outrates the NRL in the regular season and then says that this is “an impressive result considering the AFL season is shorter by two weeks.” The AFL season is shorter than the NRL season by FOUR weeks – another basic error/lie by Roy (funny these lies/errors are always in his favour!!).
4. The NRL stats are also boosted by the NRL night Grand Final (verses AFL day GF) and by the large effect on ratings by the Storm playing in the final series (verses AFL where it was all Victorian from preliminary finals onwards which reduced the AFL audience). The Storm will not always be in the finals and this will harm the NRL numbers.
5. Roy never acknowledges that the AFL broadcasts are longer. For the AFL it is 8 x 3 hour matches = 24 hours per week, the NRL is 8 x 2 hours = 16 hours. And this extra length does matter in terms of advertising revenue for broadcasters.
Articles like this from Roy Masters are laughable – a transparent attempt to appeal to the common perception by many disgruntled RL who think their games gets a raw deal. Like Gallop is quoted as saying in this article, I can’t wait for the NRL to get back to the negotiating table for the next broadcast deal. Again their deal will be less than the AFL deal and again there’ll be a round of excuses and rationalisations!!
Be real realist….. if you’re going to be claiming that RL outrates AFL lets hear the truth…
Realist said | December 22nd 2009 @ 8:04pm | Report comment
redb,
The study was commissioned by the NRL. Your mate Chris knows about it, as you can see by glancing over the fulmination he published under my comment.
Chris,
“The article’s headline claims that League outrates AFL – it then goes on to explain that RL numbers include State of Origin and the Toyota Cup and that on a pure comparison on club games the AFL outrates RL. Distortion 101 – a Roy Masters special.”
The study concluded that the AFL’s NAB Cup and AFL Premiership season, both of which are administrated by the AFL, were outrated by three rugby league competitions that are governed by 2 or 3 different bodies, thus meaning it’s fair to say that rugby league outrated AFL.
“Roy concedes the AFL outrates the NRL in the regular season and then says that this is “an impressive result considering the AFL season is shorter by two weeks.” The AFL season is shorter than the NRL season by FOUR weeks – another basic error/lie by Roy (funny these lies/errors are always in his favour!!).”
The AFL’s aggregate television ratings are boosted by the higher amount of matches they broadcast on terrestrial television: the NRL broadcast three matches per round, whereas the AFL broadcast four matches. Only two NRL matches per weekend are broadcasted on terrestrial television shorter rounds. Overall, the AFL broadcasts over 20-plus more matches than the NRL via terrestrial television — terrestrial television is the most accessible media AV media platform in Australia to watch broadcast sport.
The NRL’s superior ratings on Fox Sports are influenced by the extra match it shows per week, though this hurts its aggregate ratings because a) only a third of Australians subscribe to pay television and b) not all pay television subscribers have access to have Fox Sports.
The dispairty between rugby league and “AFL” would be even more lopsided if the ratings from the AFL’s extra matches on terrestrial television were deducted from the score — you’d probably see the NRL come out on top if you did this!
chris said | December 22nd 2009 @ 8:46pm | Report comment
Realist – please you disappoint me..
Look Roy Masters has been prattling on for years about his conspiratorial thesis that News Ltd is somehow ripping off RL even though it outrates the AFL … and then in direct contradiction of years of wailing about the NRL outrating the AFL this week he comes out and says the NRL ourated the AFL for the FIRST time!!…he has directly contradicted about 10 articles he’s written in the last few years…..clearly you can’t take anything Roy Masters says seriously… his articles on this topic are full of errors, half-truths and distortions – as he demonstrates in this latest pathetic senile effort.
And now you seem to be sold on Roy’s latest senile theory – that the AFL outrates the NRL because of the free-to-air versus paytv split. Finally after years of lies Roy has finally conceded that the AFL season proper does in fact outrate the great ‘TV game’ of RL on a direct comparison of its season proper – but that major concession comes with Roy’s apologist spin and a fudging of numbers by adding the SOO figures.
Look believe what you want. Both the NRL and AFL choose and negotiate the split of free to air and pay TV,,.,,. and both get the best deals they can negotiate at the time. AFL gets a better much better broadcast deal for a reason – and none of the twisted logic of Roy Masters, or anyone in this forum, makes a bean of difference to that reality. I’ve had this same conversation with RL fans before the last broadcast deal…
chris said | December 22nd 2009 @ 9:02pm | Report comment
Also on your pay TV points you ignore the fact of RL currently has much far greater penetration into NSW/QLD versus WA/SA/Vic – so of course the NRL audience is much higher – it should be!! This is a common furphy Masters plays upon… pay TV penetration will increase in WA/SA/Vic and this advantage to the NRL will be diminish – it is temporary. More distortion.
Realist said | December 23rd 2009 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
chris,
My last argument was based entirely on the amount of NRL and AFL matches that are broadcast on terrestrial television. The reason I raised this point is because the aggregate — I’m starting to think you don’t know the definition of the word — ratings for the AFL and NRL entails the amount of people who watch the games that are broadcast on television. Pointing out this fact does not make me — nor any one else who points it out — a conspiracy theorist who is echoing “Roy’s senile theory”.
Do you seriously believe the aggregate ratings for the NRL and AFL are not affected by the ratio of matches on terrestrial television and DVB-S (digital subscription television)? If so then you’re incapable of forming a proper judgement on this issue.
Here is a simple example to help you understand the absurdity of your argument.:
—
Johnny batted 3 innings, scoring 10, 14 and 53, respectively: an aggregate of 77.
Elliot batted 2 innings, scoring 40 and 35, respectively: an aggregate of 75.
Johnny’s friend, Chris, comes out and says Johnny is a better batsman than Elliot because he scored two more runs than him. Elliot’s friend, Realist, says the aggregate is deceiving because it does not measure each player’s average. Chris tells Realist he is “disappointed” in him for believing the aggregate scores of the batsman are incomparable because one played an extra innings than the other.
chris said | December 23rd 2009 @ 5:05pm | Report comment
Gee Realist… thanks for dumbing it down for me!!… now I get it!!…
Look – Roy Master’s article is not worth wasting my breath on, and nor should I even bother wasting my time engaging backslappers like you who can’t be bothered, or are not capable of, discerning his spin from fact. This will be my last lengthy post on this nonsense.
Going back to your first post Realist, these 2009 results from the NRL mean little in the scheme of things – they actually reinforce why the sport of RL is “worth less” – according to Roy aussie rules rates much higher in the 5 capital cities (even its season runs for a month less): combine that with 24 hrs of weekly broadcast time verses 16 hrs then is it any wonder the AFL’s deal is considerably more. Roy doesn’t get it and nor, it seems, do you. Roy’s article is fluff and spin.
As for the pay TV/free-to-air you seem so hung up on… the NRL chose this split so don’t whine about this please . This split was the NRL’s choice, as it was the AFL’s choice – and they both chose a split knowing full well the penetration of pay tv…and having made this choice, the NRL has never managed a season that has outrated the AFL – and nor did they this season…to make it up to the AFL numbers Roy has added the SOO and Toyota Cup viewing numbers to claim what any impartial bystander would see is a hollow ‘victory’.
so this season was similar to many others… the NRL were outrated by the AFL once again…only this season the deranged Roy Masters was on hand to write a distorted article fudging the stats because he could see this one-off opportunity to make this curious claim that the “NRL outrated AFL for the first time”…nonsense!!..anyway if that sort of victory pleases RL fans they should enjoy it while it lasts…the Storm will inevitably slip and in the AFL interstate teams will rise again so this distortion won’t be reported very often …
Realist – if you really think RL outrated the AFL then bully for you…. meanwhile in the real world the most significance consequence of ratings are the value of the broadcast deals…. everything you say, or I say, is just talk.,…please pay attention the next round of broadcast negotiations and watch for the excuses and inevitable rationalisations from RL people…
I live in a RL state and get a bit sick of hearing nonsense in the local media about RL being this great TV game that outrates the AFL…and yet every time the broadcast deals are up RL gets less than the AFL – a LOT less….and then the excuses and conspiracy theories come thick and fast – SuperLeague, News Ltd etc etc….and there’ll be more excuses next time trust me – it’ll be that the new RL commission isn’t working yet or it hasn’t negotiated what RL is really worth – blah blah ….. the real reason of course is that Rugby League IS worth less – and this fact will be borne out in the next deal and all future deals….
chris said | December 23rd 2009 @ 5:19pm | Report comment
Also Realist, since when did Toyota Cup games or State of Origin games become NRL games….or when did NAB Cup games become AFL games for that matter. If you can’t see Roy Masters spin for what it is then I feel sorry for you.
Dogs Of War said | December 23rd 2009 @ 5:46pm | Report comment
ROy is just highlighting that NRL has multiple arms that rate. Because “AFL” only has the premiership and it’s pre season comp, whose fault is that the AFL isn’t maximising it’s product for the audience. Currently the NRL rights are for ALL the products that Roy counted, so why isn’t it fair to use those figures when that’s what the rights are payign for. Same goes for the AFL.
Also given that Foxtel pays more for AFL per game, yet the NRL games are the ones that bring the money in, I can’t see how you can think that’s justified. Would be acceptable if the shoe was on the other foot?
Anyway, the real story will play out next round of rights, with AFL expecting a huge increase. While the NRL is looking for something to assist it in making sure the comp is financed correctly now News Ltd isn’t dealing with itself (well that’s assuming the independent commission has happened by then).
Either way Chris, the figures presented were totals of all viewed games. Not times the amount of hours, or broken down into timeslots, or excuses that a particular game was shown at 1am in Melbourne. Just pure figures of who watched a game when it was on. So if AFL is so dominate, why are the figures even close?
Realist said | December 24th 2009 @ 12:36am | Report comment
Why do you keep on fulminating over Roy’s article? The point I raised — that the aggregate number of persons who watched the NRL and AFL on terrestrial television audience is not an accurate gauge of either competition’s worth — was argued by ME, NOT ROY! The fact you keep on bringing up Roy’s article suggests you’re unable to counter my point.
Neither I, nor Roy, are saying that the AFL’s broadcast deal with Seven and Ten doesn’t include more matches (and more time overall) on television than the NRL’s broadcast deal with Nine. We both understand that the AFL’s extra matches and extra time on Seven and Ten equates to more time for the broadcasters to run advertising breaks (this doesn’t necessarily equate to more revenue for the broadcaster though, as an advertiser might prefer to advertise their product during the commercial breaks of rugby league’s televised matches if they draw higher ratings than the AFL’s televised matches).
Here is the point you are struggling to grasp: the aggregate viewing audience for the NRL and AFL matches on terrestrial television, respectively, cannot be used to argue that the AFL is worth more because it does not offer any information about the average viewing number for each NRL and AFL match. The aggregate audience for the NRL and AFL matches on terrestrial television offer little insight on the worth of each sport because one airs 4 matches per round, whereas the other airs 3 (some times 2). The NRL might hold four more rounds during its season, but the AFL airs more matches over the season: the NRL’s extra four rounds equate to 9 matches, compared to AFL’s extra match per round equating to 22 matches. This means the AFL broadcasts 13 more matches — even more if substract the 3 or so matches that aren’t televised by Nine during the split rounds — on terrestrial television. In other words, the AFL’s extra 13 matches could be the reason its aggregate is higher.
The only way you can find out whether the terrestrial commercial television networks ought to invest more into the AFL than the NRL is by looking at the average ratings for the NRL and AFL matches that are aired on terrestrial television.
Your complaint about the NRL’s aggregate being propped up by the inclusion of SOO and Toyota Cup is negated by the fact they fall under the NRL deal. I find it very hypocritical on your behalf to argue that the NRL deal’s inclusion of the SOO and Toyota Cup “fudges” the statistics” after you said th extra 13 matches that the AFL deal allows it to air on terrestrial television is “fair”. You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you’re going to say that we must compare apples with oranges because the NRL chose apples while the AFL chose oranges, then don’t cry ‘foul’ when people compare apples with oranges.
I’m not hung up by the pay TV/free-to-air deal. The only reason I brought it up is because it affects the aggregate audiences for the NRL and AFL.
chris said | December 24th 2009 @ 6:52am | Report comment
Realist
You were the one linking value to the audience not me – and you’ve bought into Roy Masters latest senile spin in doing so – “look look everyone the NRL outrates the AFL in 2009″. Bottom line is that the article by Masters is pure spin and in reflects very poorly on anyone who takes it seriously. You say that it is legitimate to headline the article by a ‘comparison’ that lumps Toyota Cup and SOO in when the AFL has no equivalent broadcast – please!! And the really sad thing thing when you think about it is that even when these are added the NRL is still in second place every year ( other than in 2009) and is way behind where it matters which is the 5 capital city figures. This article is massive spin – if the NRL could have the AFL’s viewing stats and spread they’d do it in a heartbeat.
Yes the next broadcast deal will once again show which game is worth more – the News Ltd conspiracy theory and the Super League War excuses will be gone but there’ll be other excuses why RL deal is less.
chris said | December 24th 2009 @ 7:01am | Report comment
DogsofWar
The figures are not close. The AFL dominates the 5 city capital. Even Gallop tried to come out and explain this when Russell Crowe attacked him – RL people won’t hear it; they just keep repeating the mantra “RL is a better TV game than AFL. We have the best product.” and meanwhile in the real world the AFL keeps getting the bigger TV audience and dollars.
Redb said | December 24th 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
Still no numbers Realist.
Masters numbers are wrong.
Pick 4 or 5 rounds in the 2009 season and compare the AFL and NRL total cumulative audience. The AFL has 5 Free to air games to NRL 3 games.
These are the real ratings, extrapolate them out and you’ll see there is no way the NRL season is close to the AFL season.
Round 14 – AFL 3,401,000 NRL 1,685,000
Round 15 – AFL 2,652,000 NRL 1,047,000
Round 16 – AFL 2,724,000 NRL 1,573,000
Round 17 – AFL 3,214,000 NRL 1,749,000
Round 18 – AFL 2,741,000 NRL 1,048,000
In just 5 rounds the total cumulative audience for the AFL is 14,732,000 compared to the NRL 7,102,000.
An average of AFL 2,946,000 per round to NRL 1,402,000.
Total cumulative ratings for the AFL season is 65 million and NRL 40 million., nowhere near 120M.
NRL has 5 games on Foxtel to the AFL’s 4 games. Due to higher penetration in Sydney/Brisbane for Foxtel, the NRL averages about 50-100K more than an AFL game. At best 100K more, that is only 500K more per week at absolsute best and Foxtel games rate at best 350K against free to air games which reguarly get to 600K to 800K .
Therefore the average adjusted for the Foxtel difference would be an extra 500K oper round for the NRL.
AFL 2,946,000 – NRL 1,902.000 (not adding actual foxtel ratings). Still 35% shy of the AFL.
Masters numbers show a modest advantage for the AFL season over the NRL season (not incl the rep stuff,etc). They are simply BS.
But I’m happy to be proven wrong with the numbers and source of data.
Redb
chris said | December 24th 2009 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
Don’t both Redb – we all know that Rugby League is a much better TV game than AFL…and that many more people watch RL on TV than AFL… and we know the AFL “fluked” its better broadcast deal (yes Roy Masters actually used the word “fluked” in one of his mindless articles)…. the AFL’s better deal was due to the Super League war, News Ltd ripping off RL…. and the AFL got very lucky because Packer bid the price up…..
why fight it Redb? – it’s almost an article of faith with RL supporters that even though comparatively few of them actually bother going to games they believe there is a massive legion of armchair fans watching on TV…armchair RL fans that easily out-number AFL fans…. facts and logic can’t dissuade them from this view. There’ll be someone exactly like Realist after then next broadcast deal trying to explain the inconvenient truth that RL earns less on its broadcast deal despite being “the better TV game”……
what I think was significant here was at least here is an admission by the biggest spin doctor of them all that this was the first time NRL beat AFL’s TV audience….. so for 2008 and prior AFL was ahead? Could have fooled me!!…and anyone reading articles from RL journos over the years!! According to RL journos their game has always been ahead on the TV ratings…… so why are they so excited about outrating the AFL for the “first” time – weren’t they always outrating the AFL?!
Springs said | December 24th 2009 @ 3:00pm | Report comment
Wow, for some reason I’ll just believe RedB’s assertions that Masters is wrong. I will also believe for some reason that RedB’s figures are obviously right, just because he says so.
Realist said | December 27th 2009 @ 12:09am | Report comment
Redb,
Why are you telling me to compare the avuerage cumulative terrestrial television audiences for the AFL and NRL over five rounds? The criteria you’re using won’t reveal anything about the worth of each competition because its variables are not controlled: the AFL broadcasts 5 matches on terrestrial television at viewable hours across Australia’s five major capital cities, whereas the NRL only has 3 matches broadcasted into Sydney and Brisbane during primetime viewing hours. This means there are at least 2 major variables at play that affect the result. No scientist would accept your criteria because it fails to meet the standards of the scientific method.
“NRL has 5 games on Foxtel to the AFL’s 4 games. Due to higher penetration in Sydney/Brisbane for Foxtel, the NRL averages about 50-100K more than an AFL game. At best 100K more, that is only 500K more per week at absolsute best and Foxtel games rate at best 350K against free to air games which reguarly get to 600K to 800K .
Therefore the average adjusted for the Foxtel difference would be an extra 500K oper round for the NRL” — Redb
If you’re going to argue that the greater penetration of pay television in Sydney and Brisbane distorts the subscription television ratings for the NRL and AFL, then have enough integrity to admit that the disparate terrestrial television deals for the AFL and NRL grants the former a huge advantage over the former. The AFL’s figures look fairly ordinary when you take the following facts into consideration:
1. The AFL’s 5 terrestrial television games are broadcasted into Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth at prime time viewing hours, with Brisbane and Sydney showing all but one of the matches after midnight.
2. The NRL’s 3 terrestrial television games are broadcasted at a viewable timeslot in Brisbane and Sydney only — GTV (Nine Melbourne) shows a few matches before midnight, but this is not the norm.
3. Viewers in Adelaide and Perth are unable to watch the NRL’s 3 terrestrial television matches at a prime time viewing hour — the broadcast time for the matches is delayed until the early hours of the morning.
The aforementioned facts should lead to the AFL outrating the NRL by a ratio of 2:1 per match (at least). They don’t.
AFL: 14,402,000 viewers / 25 games over 5 rounds = 576,080
NRL: 7,102,000 viewrs / 15 games over 5 rounds = 473,466
The AFL’s inability to kill the NRL in the ratings looks even grimmer when you acknowledge the following fact: the few NRL matches that Nine have broadcasted into Melbourne during prime time viewing hours have rated very well. This means the AFL’s slight lead over the NRL would decrease signifantly if Nine broadcasted all of its matches into Melbourne at a viewable timeslot. The margin would decrease even more if the matches were shown in Adelaide and Perth at the same time they’re televised in Brisbane and Sydney. It’s fair to say the NRL might outrate the AFL if the television deals for both competitions were equal to one another.
Realist said | December 27th 2009 @ 12:21am | Report comment
“facts and logic can’t dissuade them from this view.” — Chris
Now there’s the pot calling the kettle black! It’s hard to do anything other than laugh at the aforementioned comment because it was made by a man who doesn’t understand how to read statistics. What I find even funnier is the fact he and Redb ignore the factors of the respective terrestrial television deals for the NRL and AFL that affect the ratings of the matches they air on that platform, yet they have the audacity to alter their logic by 180 degrees and ignore the pay television ratings because the respective pay television deals for the AFL and NRL favour the latter. It’s impossible to reason with people who continuously alter their logic whenever it doesn’t suit their agenda. chris and Redb have done this throughout the debate.
chris said | December 27th 2009 @ 7:08am | Report comment
ah yes… that old chestnut – “It’s fair to say the NRL might outrate the AFL if the television deals for both competitions were equal to one another.” … ladies and gentlemen here we get the standard pathetic defense of RL supporters when pressed on this issue – the resort to this unfalsifiable claim (in practice)…. people making this claim know full well that the NRL & AFL will NEVER have equivalent broadcast times across the board…why would they?!… so this is the great excuse that keeps on giving….
one consolation to realists (small r) is that nonsense like this from RL supporters is swept away by cold hard facts, in particular the discrepancy in the broadcast deals…. the NRL negotiates whatever deal it wants at the next negotiation, including scheduling……. IF the NRL has a game that does/could outrate the AFL then they should get a deal close to or exceeding the AFL deal….. until this happens then all your excuses and theorising mean nought to me, other than to demonstrate that you are a deluded try hard which is somewhat ironic given the name you’ve given yourself….. and if the NRL does outrate the AFL but nevertheless gets paid less then who cares..
when Gallop has been pressed on why the last NRL deal didn’t include requirements for Channel 9 to broadcast into WA, SA, Vic he has been very honest….he said the NRL could have done that but doing so would have resulted in a lower value… ie Channel 9 would have had to factor in lower ratings and lower revenue for WA, SA and Vic broadcasts than they would otherwise achieve with their normal programming….. so unless the NRL wants to take less for its deal then forget about RL ever having a national broadcast equivalent to the AFL broadcast…..
Realist said | December 27th 2009 @ 7:25pm | Report comment
“ah yes… that old chestnut – “It’s fair to say the NRL might outrate the AFL if the television deals for both competitions were equal to one another.” … ladies and gentlemen here we get the standard pathetic defense of RL supporters when pressed on this issue – the resort to this unfalsifiable claim (in practice)…. people making this claim know full well that the NRL & AFL will NEVER have equivalent broadcast times across the board…why would they?!… so this is the great excuse that keeps on giving….” — chris
I never said the AFL and NRL need to broadcast their games alongside one another at the exact same time in order to be equal. I said the deals need to include the same amount of games as one another and need to be broadcasted into Australia’s 5 largest cities at a suitable time.
Your interpretation of my claim is a straw-man.
“one consolation to realists (small r) is that nonsense like this from RL supporters is swept away by cold hard facts, in particular the discrepancy in the broadcast deals…” — chris
There are two problems with your statement.
They are:
1. A ‘discrepancy’ is a difference between two things that should be the same. Referring to the disparity between the NRL and AFL terrestrial television deals as a ‘discrepancy’ is akin to saying they’re of equal worth to one another and should receive equal payment.
2. The current AFL deal was bolstered by Kerry Packer’s malevolent attempt to drain Kerry Stokes of his financial resources. The AFL fanatics’ refusal to acknowledge this fact when they talk about their deal’s worth reveals everything I need to know about their objectivity. The likelihood of Channel 9’s new boss following in Packer’s footsteps and offering anywhere as much money for the next AFL deal is slim. Only the most fanatical AFL fans would say their next deal will be worth more than $1billion.
“the NRL negotiates whatever deal it wants at the next negotiation, including scheduling……. IF the NRL has a game that does/could outrate the AFL then they should get a deal close to or exceeding the AFL deal…..” — chris
The next NRL deal is going to be different to the current one: the RLIF now has control over all television deals for Test matches; the rights for SOO and NRL Premiership are going to be sold separately to one another. The AFL does not have anything that can match SOO. Kerry Stokes has come out and admitted that the Seven Network is interested in the SOO and Test matches because they believe it’ll fit in nicely with their coverage of the AFL. Channel 10 has expressed interest over the rights for the NRL Premiership. This means Channel 9 will have a lot of competition on their hands when negotiations begin for the next deal.
“until this happens then all your excuses and theorising mean nought to me, other than to demonstrate that you are a deluded try hard which is somewhat ironic given the name you’ve given yourself….. and if the NRL does outrate the AFL but nevertheless gets paid less then who cares.. ” — chris
Considering you don’t know the meaning of aggregate, average and discrepancy — as I’ve pointed out during our debate — I’m going to pass off your fulmination as the most ironic statement you’ve made so far.
“when Gallop has been pressed on why the last NRL deal didn’t include requirements for Channel 9 to broadcast into WA, SA, Vic he has been very honest….he said the NRL could have done that but doing so would have resulted in a lower value… ie Channel 9 would have had to factor in lower ratings and lower revenue for WA, SA and Vic broadcasts than they would otherwise achieve with their normal programming….. so unless the NRL wants to take less for its deal then forget about RL ever having a national broadcast equivalent to the AFL broadcast…..” — chris
Another reason Gallop accepted Nine’s offer before the previous one was set to expire — as opposed to waiting until the previous deal expired so he could negotiate with the other networks — was because Nine agreed to pay out the rest of their previous deal at the same price as the new one, but only if Gallop signed exclusively with Nine before the other networks were allowed to negotiate with the NRL. If my understanding is correct, Gallop accepted Nine’s terms and conditions because the NRL needed the extra money that Nine was offering to add onto the remainder of their previous deal. This won’t happen when the next deal is negotiated because the NRL isn’t as desperate for the money.
chris said | December 28th 2009 @ 5:59am | Report comment
Realist I’m not really concerned about twisting myself into knots (like you’ve done) and putting up lengthy posts trying (unsuccessfully) to win debating points….. having said that I must respond to one of your more bizarre assertions – ‘discrepancy’ is exactly the right word to use – I was arguing against the charge that NRL & AFL are equal worth… so discrepancy (even by your definition which I don’t necessarily accept) is accurate and entirely appropriate,,,,
As i said Im not going to engage you in lengthy exchanges and follow you down every rabbit hole to counter your nonsense… you come out with almost every apologist offering I’ve heard on this topics – none of it was original nor was any of it persuasive….you may as well be arguing black is white….
all I can say I guess is the classic line “look at the score board”…. this is one cold, hard and accurate measure of worth… but when the NRL once again get far less for their broadcast right people like you will be there offering excuses and subscribing to bizarre conspiracy theories offered by pathetic ‘journalists’ like Roy Masters,,,
chris said | December 28th 2009 @ 9:35am | Report comment
one more point – “…Kerry Packer’s malevolent attempt to drain Kerry Stokes of his financial resources.”… this line more than any other somes up the type of genius I’m dealing with…. KP could have very easily wound up with the AFL rights had his bid been a throw away offer so off the mark and excessive – KP could have very easily been ‘draining’ himself…. and anyway let’s look at Channel 7 since they won the AFL rights – do they look ‘drained’ to you?!
and you have to laugh at your wishy washy account of why the NRL doesn’t insist on WA, SA and Vic broadcasts as the AFL deal does into NSW/QLD…. it’s all to do with ratings my friend…. the NRL was, and is, in a position to include scheduling obligations but doesn’t do it…. and the ONLY reason they don’t is money – it has nothing to do with your waffle about the last Channel 9 deal…
when the next AFL & NRL deals role around please pay attention…
chris said | December 28th 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
sums up
Realist said | December 28th 2009 @ 11:04pm | Report comment
chris,
Are you capable of upholding an argument without contradicting yourself?
Yesterday you said the NRL’s current deal allows the stations of the Channel Nine Network in Adelaide, Perth and Melbourne to screen their allocated NRL matches whenver they want.
“when Gallop has been pressed on why the last NRL deal didn’t include requirements for Channel 9 to broadcast into WA, SA, Vic he has been very honest….he said the NRL could have done that but doing so would have resulted in a lower value… ie Channel 9 would have had to factor in lower ratings and lower revenue for WA, SA and Vic broadcasts than they would otherwise achieve with their normal programming….. so unless the NRL wants to take less for its deal then forget about RL ever having a national broadcast equivalent to the AFL broadcast…..” — Chris
Now your’e saying the NRL can control the broadcast time of those matches.
“and you have to laugh at your wishy washy account of why the NRL doesn’t insist on WA, SA and Vic broadcasts as the AFL deal does into NSW/QLD…. it’s all to do with ratings my friend…. the NRL was, and is, in a position to include scheduling obligations but doesn’t do it…. and the ONLY reason they don’t is money – it has nothing to do with your waffle about the last Channel 9 deal…” — Chris
So which one is it Chris?
The Brisbane market is not supportive of any regular season AFL match on Seven and Ten that does not involve the Lions. The situation is even worse in Sydney when the Swans aren’t playing So don’t give me this crap about ratings having anything to do with it.
Realist said | December 29th 2009 @ 12:14am | Report comment
“Realist I’m not really concerned about twisting myself into knots (like you’ve done) and putting up lengthy posts trying (unsuccessfully) to win debating points…..” — chris
Chris,
All of your responses have been quite lengthy. You keep on saying you won’t respond to me, yet you do so again and again! When are you going to live up to your word?
I’ve exposed the contradictions and logical fallacies you’ve used in your arguments. You started to become abusive the moment I pointed out that the criteria you’re basing your argument on isn’t worth a grain of salt because it does not follow the scientific method.
“As i said Im not going to engage you in lengthy exchanges and follow you down every rabbit hole to counter your nonsense…” — Chris
There you go again!
What makes you think my argument is ‘nonsense’?
I’m not the one saying that 5 equals 3 — your argument is based on the assumption that 5 games are equal to 3, but only when the disparity favours the AFL — yet you have the audascity to say my argument is nonsense?
Your biased, emotional support of the AFL came out when you applied one standard for it and another for the RL. You argued that the NRL’s dominance on pay television is based solely on Foxtel and Optus TV reaching more homes in Brisbane and Sydney than they do in Adelaide and Perth, yet you went on to dismiss the NRL’s limited penetration on terrestrial television in Adelaide and Perth as a factor in the AFL’s dominance on that platform. You cannot have it both ways.
You constantly wander off-topic when I point out that your criteria is absurd because it does not use a controlled measurement to compare the television ratings for the NRL and AFL. Then you try to divert attention away from your inability to remain on-topic by asserting that I’m ‘wrong’. You don’t win arguments by saying “I’m right” and “you’re stuff is nonsense” — you win them by refuting your opponent’s points.
chris said | December 29th 2009 @ 8:43pm | Report comment
“You constantly wander off-topic when I point out that your criteria is absurd because it does not use a controlled measurement to compare the television ratings for the NRL and AFL.”
Sorry – I couldn’t help but respond to this fib…. far from wandering I directly replied to you on this tired old tactic … I called it “the excuse that keeps on giving”…..you call for a ‘controlled measurement’ in the full knowledge that in the commercial world it will never happen…. I pointed out that the NRL could make it happen but that it won’t because it’d cost too much…..
Realist said | December 29th 2009 @ 11:13pm | Report comment
“Sorry – I couldn’t help but respond to this fib…. far from wandering I directly replied to you on this tired old tactic … I called it “the excuse that keeps on giving”…..you call for a ‘controlled measurement’ in the full knowledge that in the commercial world it will never happen…. I pointed out that the NRL could make it happen but that it won’t because it’d cost too much…..” — Chris
Chris,
Neither you nor I know anything about the NRL’s likelihoood of choosing a deal that forces the holder of its commercial FTA broadcast rights to televise the game in all five capital cities of the mainland at a viewable time. However, since you assume you know what’s going to happen, I want you to go ahead and prove it. Do you have any proof or are you basing it solely on your opinion? If it’s the latter then stop acting as if anyone who doesn’t agree with your theory must be “stupid”.
The argument that I raised — that the cumulative audiences for the NRL and AFL matches on terrestrial television are incomparable because the latter broadcasts more matches on this platform — is not negated by your silly referral to the NRL choosing its deal. The fact remains that the measurement you mentioned is invalid. Your response is just a red-herring that’s meant to divert attention away from the fact I exposed your logical fallacy. That’s the point I’ve been trying to drill into your stubborn mind all of this time. I brought it because it was very stupid of you to use a measurement that does not apply to the current situation. The only reason you used this measurement is because it supports your agenda. What you did is no differen to the so-called “tricks” that you accuse Roy masters of using to “distort” the truth.
There were many factors at play in 2004/2005 that influenced Gallop’s decision. You make out it was just one sole reason and that it’ll still exist in 2013. Your black and white portrayal of the situation paints you as a biased nutjob who uses selective information to further an agenda — the very thing you said about Roy Masters.
Your last sentence exemplifies the arrogance and delusion that is inherrent with your posts. It’s based on the assumption that the black and white portrayal you’ve used to further your agenda will reappear in 2013. This is a stupid way to think because the NRL is in a far stronger position today than it was when it negotiated its last deal.
Here’s a little challenge for you. Put your money where your mouth is and “prove” my comment about the NRL and AFL deals with terrestrial television and pay television is nonsensical.
Realist said | December 30th 2009 @ 2:19am | Report comment
There’s no getting through to you is there Chris? You’ll argue that the sky is red and that anyone who says otherwise is “stupid”. You’re unable to follow a logical sequence — you started accusing me of this after I accused you of it, thus showing you argue like a kid — and you don’t know the difference between “you’re” and “your” — (thus proving you’re an idiot). I suppose.
You love to play dumb whenever you’re backed into a corner. Sorry mate, but most people will see through your cowardly tactics.
chris said | December 30th 2009 @ 6:14pm | Report comment
what we can look forward to is a continuation of warped articles by Roy on this topic as we close down towards the NRL’s next broadcast deal….. they’ll as wrong as ever – and as always they’ll be latched onto by simpletons like you….
Dogs Of War said | December 30th 2009 @ 6:18pm | Report comment
Chris we get it, you don’t like Rugby League. Now go away and talk about AFL with your mates and let us talk about the game we love.
Realist said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:47pm | Report comment
Chris,
I DO NOT USUALLY READ ROY MASTERS’ ARTICLES! Get it? Now stop accusing me of latching onto his articles!
Why are you so obsessed with Roy Masters? It’s disturbing. Get help!
All you’re capable of doing is throwing out a few insults that apply more to you than the designated recipients. You keep on calling me a “simpleton” and “delusional”, yet the only one on here who has proven to the world that they’re delusional and stupid is YOU — at no stage have you offered a single shred of evidence to substantiate any of your speculative claims. Only an idiot would uphold a speculative theory as “fact” and not offer anything to back it up!
You obviously didn’t understand my comment about being a journalist — and you say my comprehension of the English language is bad! I wasn’t “bragging” about my occupation, but letting you know that the charge you made — that my English reading comprehension is poor — is absurd because understanding the general flow of written speach is a necessity for anyone involved in journalism.
My interpretation of your writing is based on the way it is written. You’ll deny it all night long, but it’s patently evident that what you orginally wrote is different to the meaning you’re assigning to it now.
The erraticism in your writing — upholding one standard, dropping it, then holding it again — makes it impossible to view you as anything more than an insane Australian rules football fan who hates rugby league with a passion. You, my friend, need help. It must be hard for an Australian rules fan to live in a rugby league state……
Realist said | January 3rd 2010 @ 5:21pm | Report comment
” There’ll be no re-admission of a WA team in 2013, or readmission of any new teams for that matter (the current 16 teams will be in place after the next deal, again according to Gallop and the current NRL CEOs).” — chris
What he says now and what he does in the future is unbeknown to everyone, including him. Anything can happen between now and 2013. I’m not saying he will go against his word, but I’m not going go out on a limb and say he’ll stick to it.
“Look with such a low population the stats can look strange so maybe whatever small RL competition there is would look like a high rate but you’re not honestly claiming NT prefers RL to AFL, or that RL has more players?” — chris
No, I’m not claiming NT prefers RL over Aussie rules. What I’m saying is there is a large interest in rugby league in the Northern Territory.
“Victoria – ‘exponential growth’ – well duh. If you grow from almost nothing of course its ‘exponential. ANY growth would be.” — chris
Nonsense! To argue that rugby league could do nothing other than grow exponentially over 10-11 years it has been in Melbourne is ridiculous. The Storm have been in Melbourne for 10-11 years now, thus meaning there has been enough time for rugby league’s growth in Melbourne to stagnate or decline or grow exponentially. This is simple logic chris, yet you seem to be incapable of understanding it.
“contracts – wow you are dumb. ANY contract may be re-negotiated. There is nothing in our legal system preventing contracting parties from re-visiting and re-negotiating terms od ANY agreement – I don’t need to see the NRL contract.” — chris
You reckon I’m dumb because I have not read up on the intricacies of the law system’s stance on contractual agreements? That’s news to me. I bet the persons from the major dictionary companies who define the meaning of words would scoff at your definition of ‘dumb’. It would be somewhat dumb of me to make an error about contractual law after saying I am familiar with the subject, but only if the former succeeded the latter. I never claimed to be an expert on contractual law — I said I don’t know what the NRL and Channel 9 can and cannot do, which ws a rational comment to make considering I was not in a position to comment on contractual matters. The fact remains that the NRL does not have the legal clout to force Channel 9 to broadcast the NRL into Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne at a viewable hour and obtain the same money it’s currently getting — this is the is the point I was trying to make — at least not unless Channel 9 agrees to the terms, which it is not obligated to do.
There’s one thing that eats away at the heart of your argument about the NRL’s next television deal. DVB-T. The analogue shut-off is going to take place around the time the next NRL deal comes into effect. The anti-siphoning list’s stance on keeping its events off the multichannels until they’ve been shown on the networks’ main channels (the ones that simulcast their analogue services) or are simulcast alongside them (like Ten and OneHD do with the AFL) won’t exist when the Federal Government turns the analogue signals off. This means the networks will be free to air the NRL and AFL exclusively on their multichannels. It’s logical to think that Network Ten’s One HD would be interested in paying a fair bit to televise the NRL Friday night matches across Australia, live. The reason Ten will want to do this is because a) it needs content for their sports channel and b) it is unlikely to be in a position to compete with Seven for the right to broadcast the AFL’s Friday night matches. What this means is the next television deal will be different. I’m not saying the television deal for the NRL and AFL will be equal to one another, but there’s no doubt they’ll be different, thus meaning your claim about them being the same is nonsensical.
Another thing we need to take into equation is the impact of IPTV. Optus are going to upgrade their network in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne so it can reach speeds of 100 mb/s. If it were to venture into the IPTV market — which it might do as its television service will be shut down by then — then it might look to buy the internet broadcast rights for the NRL away from Telstra. It would make sense for Optus to do this because each of the cities it services with high speed cable broadcast has a team in the NRL.
chris said | December 24th 2009 @ 7:19pm | Report comment
Springs – in this article Roy says the AFL season is two weeks shorter than the NRL season when in fact it is four weeks shorter (a very easily verified error by a few mouse clicks). When Roy makes such a basic error in this article it makes you wonder how many other errors and distortions are there ,,,and it makes me wonder what editorial checks are in place – and I never trust Roy’s articles that contain financial data or viewing figures because from experience I know they ALWAYS contain errors (at best) and distortions… he is the king of spin…
also you don’t have to look very hard for Roy Masters distorted claims about RL outrating AFL in previous seasons then this year he comes out and says NRL outrated AFL for the first time – so was he fibbing then or now? …
whatever you do I suggest that you don’t stick up for Roy – even indirectly….he is past it…
Realist said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:54pm | Report comment
“realist… your stupidity is tiring me,,,
please re-read my posts, including the quotes you’ve clipped – you fail english comprehension 101…. look what I said, and what you misunderstood, is that the NRL is/was free to negotiate the terms of its agreement… it current deal does not, but could have, included scheduling requirements – and Gallop is on record as explaining why the NRL could have, but did not, do so (i.e. Ch 9 would have given the NRL less money to make up for the loss of flexibility)….. is that clear enough for you you simpleton!!?… if not I’m afraid I can’t make it any clearer… are you now going to post more comical claims that you’ve found an error or contradiction by me?…these posts yours would be funny but your constant stupidity is starting to wear a bit thin…” — Chris
Chris,
The two clauses that are written in bold text reveal I’m right. The first clause says the NRL is — key word in it being ‘is’, which means you’re speaking about the present, not the past — able to negotiate the terms of its agreement, thus meaning you’re practically saying they can change the terms any time they like. The second clause says the NRL’s current deal prevents them from forcing Channel 9 to broadcast the matches into Perth and Adelaide at a viewable hour. If the NRL have the ability to negotiate the terms of its current deal — which is what your statement implies — then they have the “ability” to change the scheduling of matches in Perth and Adelaide. If you’re now arguing that they cannot change the scheduling times of the matches in Perth and Adelaide then it means you’re wrong when you said “the NRL is/was free to negotiate the terms of its agreement…. Sorry mate, but I’m just pointing out your error. The fact you’re throwing a tantrum over it and calling me silly names does not paint you in a good light.
Oh and for the record buddy, I’m a journalist. As I just illustrated, my reading comprehension is good enough to spot your inability to attribute the right tense to the situations you write about. You made this error — a primary school student can be forgiven for making this sort of error — because your knowledge of the English language is poor.
You don’t know what will happen when the next NRL and AFL broadcast deals are negotiated. You’re not a fortune teller. Stoo stop pretending to be one.
“and as for not engaging you in your pay TV verses free-to-air nonsense,… please… why would I bother?,….more wasted effort…” — Chris
Oh and for the record matey, the reason I’ve argued with you is not because I want to “prove” that the NRL scores higher ratings, but because I wanted you to see that the criteria you’ve used to conclude that the AFL rates higher is wrong. I don’t care if the AFL draws higher ratings. All I care about is the method you use to conclude that it draws higher ratings. So far you’ve shown us that you don’t have a foolproof method to validate your conclusion. You didn’t realise that all you had to do was compare the average audience for each AFL and NRL match. You failed to do this — and you have the audascity to call me stupid!
You need to calm down and grow up.
Realist said | January 1st 2010 @ 8:40pm | Report comment
“the NRL makes the calls at all negotiations whenever they make the deals… they are in control…” — chris.
Rubbish. The NRL’s broadcast deals are not brokered until all parties are happy with the terms and conditions. This means all parties involved play a role in shaping the deal.
“they didn’t include national scheduling requirements in the last deal and logically they won’t in the next deal….and for the same reasons…outside NSW/QLD there is very little interest in RL and no teams (except the Storm)….in contrast the AFL does have teams in all States, and in Tassie & NT it has State/Territory leagues that feed to the national competition -so you would expect the AFL to once again place importance on scheduling nationally….it horses for courses…national schedling is less important for the NRL because the game is not followed nationally…simple” — chris
Your conclusions are based on faulty premisses.
1. Rugby league is quite popular in the Northern Territory — its participation rate is equal to Queensland’s. Would you like me to cite the source of my information?
2. The Western Australia Rugby League holds their own junior and senior rugby league competitions — the latter is sponsored by a reputable company, Tooheys — and fielded a team, the Western Australia Reds, in NSW’s Jim Beam Cup competition last year. The WA Reds attracted fairly large crowds to the Jim Beam Cup matches that were played at Members Equity Stadium in 2009.
The WARL is going to field the Reds in a lower age NSW competition this year — its seniors will play in the WARL’s competition — so they can develop enough juniors to fill an NRL squad should they gain re-admittance into the NRL in 2013. They want to base their prospective squad around local juniors.
The NRL games that have been played at Members Equity Stadium have drawn very good crowds.
Rugby league players from Perth have reached the NRL.
3. The governing body for Aussie Rules in the Northern Territory, AFLNT (or whatever it is called) fields a team in the QAFL statewide competition. This means the NT’s competition(s) feeds players into the team it fields in the QAFL, thus meaning the QAFL plays some role in the development of AFLNT’s best players.
4. Rugby league isn’t played in Tasmania, but this does not have any affect on the value of the NRL’s television deal: Tasmania only has 500,000 to 600,000 people and; the major commercial television networks do not have a base in Tasmania. The two major commercial FTA networks, Channel 7 and Channel 9, don’t give a rat’s backside about the viewing habits in Tasmania it does not have any stations in Tasmania — their affiliate networks rebroadcast their content into Tasmania.
5. Rugby league is growing expontentially in Victoria. Each year it records a record growth rate in junior and senior development. The strength of rugby league in will be much higher in 2013 than it was when the last deal was struck.
These facts — yes they are facts — mean South Australia is the only mainland state that does not take much interest in rugby league. There’s enough interest in Victoria and Western Australia to lobby for live terrestrial television broadcasts of NRL matches into their capital cities. This leaves Adelaide as the only major city that has “little interest” in rugby league.
“and incidentally, there is nothing stopping the NRL to attempt to re-negotiate the current deal to get live broadcasts…they could try and given the right price then Ch9 would probably have a look at it…why wouldn’t they?… but it won’t happen…the NRL can’t afford to do it as Gallop has explained…” — chris
Since when have you viewed the terms and conditions of the NRL’s current terrestrial television deal? If you haven’t viewed the deal’s terms and conditions then you’re not qualified to say “there is nothing stopping the NRL to attempt to re-negotiate the current deal to get live broadcasts”.
chris said | January 2nd 2010 @ 7:15am | Report comment
wow… you are clutching..
1. WA – there is almost no interest in RL.. it is a died in the wool AFL state. I grew up there for 30 yrs so I have some idea. You want facts – most people in WA would struggle tell you the difference between Rugby Union and RL and commonly refer to both as ‘rugby’ – there are some ex-pat poms, kiwis & south africans that follow RUnion but that’s it. Gallop has several times gone on record, including in the last 3 mths, to say there is not sufficient interest in WA to go there. So don’t argue with me about WA – speak to Gallop. There’ll be no re-admission of a WA team in 2013, or readmission of any new teams for that matter (the current 16 teams will be in place after the next deal, again according to Gallop and the current NRL CEOs).
2. NT – I recall seeing participation rates for Aussie rules for NT men and it is three times the rate of Victoria. Look with such a low population the stats can look strange so maybe whatever small RL competition there is would look like a high rate but you’re not honestly claiming NT prefers RL to AFL, or that RL has more players? – if you are I suggest you take another look. And your point about NT & QLD interaction is irrelevant.
3. Victoria – ‘exponential growth’ – well duh. If you grow from almost nothing of course its ‘exponential. ANY growth would be. Whatever amateur competitions they get going the long term viability of the Storm remains in serious doubt (and please don’t give me the apologist rubbish about the new stadium – I’ve heard it). The NRL may cling to Vic through the next broadcast deal but if the Storm doesn’t stop racking up $6m annual losses you’d have to wonder how long the other clubs will support them…perhaps there’ll be some sort of indefinite subsidy arrangement.
4. contracts – wow you are dumb. ANY contract may be re-negotiated. There is nothing in our legal system preventing contracting parties from re-visiting and re-negotiating terms od ANY agreement – I don’t need to see the NRL contract. This semantic tangle is just a distraction from my substantive point – the NRL deal isn’t one with national scheduling and it could have been because the NRL negotiates the terms; if national scheduling was a must then it could have insisted on this and negotiated around this requirement but it didn’t- there isn’t a national schedule NRL for a very good commercial reason; there isn’t the demand for one and the NRL would gain nothing by doing so!!
Look what I think you should be doing is not writing to people like me. Why don’t you write to the NRL – you seem to have all the answers; if they listen to you how could the NRL they go wrong!!
What these broadcast deals do is affirm RL’s secondary position in Australian sport and then we have RL journos and RL fans on forums like this scrambling around with their apologetics and their fantasies…and then we’ll get the next deal and it’ll happen all over again… it’s an article of faith with RL that their game is the number one ‘TV game’ in Australia and the inconvenient truth that it isn’t that is periodically exposed by these broadcast deals has to be explained away by RL journos and fans…
chris said | January 2nd 2010 @ 9:02am | Report comment
also – “Sorry, but I cannot understand your logic. The ratings would increase if the matches were broadcast live into WA, SA and Victoria because they’d have a larger audience to tap into.”
of course they’d get more viewers but this is beside the point… it’s not that they’d get more viewers of the RL games but they’d get far LESS viewers than they otherwise would with their normal programming!!… how old are you… 10?…. it is very hard to have a ‘debate’ wit such a simpleton…
Realist said | January 2nd 2010 @ 9:57pm | Report comment
“of course they’d get more viewers but this is beside the point… it’s not that they’d get more viewers of the RL games but they’d get far LESS viewers than they otherwise would with their normal programming!!… how old are you… 10?…. it is very hard to have a ‘debate’ wit such a simpleton…” — Chris
Since when were we arguing about the best interest of the commercial FTA networks? Oh that’s right, we weren’t. We were talking about how many viewers the NRL could draw if their matches were broadcast into Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne at a viewable hour.
At no stage did I say the stations would receive equal (or higher for that matter) ratings if they aired the rugby league in place of a 7:30pm movie/program each Friday night, so don’t divert the debate down that road. However, since you have gone down that road, let’s look at Seven’s stance on airing its Friday night AFL matches into Brisbane and Sydney. If my memory is correct, they don’t air them at a viewable hour because it would hurt their ratings. I guess that’s just something you AFL fans don’t like to admit because it hurts your claim that Australian rules is “marketable” across Australia’s five major television markets…..
I respond directly to the tangents you raise, whereas you expect me to respond to everything you’ve thought but haven’t said. Then you call me a “simpleton” for only responding to what you said. I suppose you’ll now raise another point that you haven’t expressed, then claim it was the point I should have responded to all along.
chris said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:01pm | Report comment
there won’t be expansion in 2013… Gallop – or successor – won’t go back on this…and nor will the club CEOs,,, many RL fans may clamour for expansion to places like WA but when it comes down to reality the clubs and those in charge of the NRL (by whatever name) won’t be going anywhere like WA until at least the end of the next deal which is around 2018….. don’t take my word for it, the NRL and NRL clubs repeatedly affirm this position..
and I’d go further – common sense says they’ll never try to expand to Perth or Adel or anywhere else in Australia other than NSW/QLD – and possibly outside Aust with another NZ team…..being realistic realist the NRL will struggle to keep melbourne afloat let go ever back to places like WA & SA to lose even more money…. instead they’ll try to sure up what they have and maybe add a team in QLD & NSW…. the race to national was run (and was lost by the NRL) ten years ago…
chris said | January 1st 2010 @ 8:54am | Report comment
evidence?….scientific method?…. you are a disturbed individual…for your own sake in future I suggest you limit the use of this mindless mantra about ‘evidence’…in many situations it’s meaningless, inappropriate and desperate….I’m not sure whether you realise that not every discussion and every topic is susceptible to proof by ‘evidence’…and in many cases even if ‘evidence’ were the answer if is not readily available then calling for it is more or less a disqualifying move in any debate…you’re more or less admitting defeat against logic and reason calling for something you know will not be provided (as you have demonstrated several times)…if I make a point use reason, logic and quote public information then respond – don’t admit defeat!!..
what have done throughout is to use logic and also where possible referred to public statements…an example – Gallop has publicly stated why Ch 9 doesn’t broadcast live into Vic, WA, SA…there no interpretation or guesswork by me about his position,…..I simply referred to what Gallop has said publicly and its safe to assume he would know because he knows the detail of the broadcast deal and the negotiations…..and then from that public admission by Gallop (that less flexibility in the deal would have lowered its value) I made a very logical and reasonable inference about the reasons why – i.e. because showing live into WA, SA and Vic would hurt its overall ratings….nothing earth shattering about that conclusion….
I don’t need any so called ‘evidence’ to come to this conclusion…and I don’t need to buy into nonsense about having to run equivalent broadcasts…the statement of Gallop, the actions of Ch 9 and commercial reality allow a perfectly reasonable and logical inference …. you’re the one making unsupportable and unrealistic claims about RL matching the AFL in national broadcasts not me – you’re arguing that live broadcasts into WA, SA and Vic could deliver a bigger national TV audience for the NRL than AFL…the onus is on you buddy not me!!..where is ‘evidence’?…..there is none – all experience and logic points to the opposite conclusion…SA & WA have no teams and the people in those states don’t follow RL – switching on live broadcasts into those would be commercial suicide which is why it’ll never happen…
and as for hanging your hat on your journalistic skills… please now… the substance of my arguments has more than matched the error-ridden waffle you’ve offered…more than matched it…and the mindless and inappropriate leaning on ’scientific method’ and ‘evidence’ is just one example of the type of nonsense you dish up time again..
Dogs Of War said | January 1st 2010 @ 9:17am | Report comment
Talking of disturbed individuals, how many posts do you make in League threads as compared to AFL ones which you obviously prefer as a sport.
Something like 100 to 1 I suspect.
If that’s not fear I don’t know what is. Why not just enjoy your sport, and let us enjoy discussing ours. We don’t need your so called “facts”. I am sure you will enjoy life a lot more talking about the Swans vs West Sydney blockbusters.
Realist said | January 1st 2010 @ 11:13pm | Report comment
“i.e. because showing live into WA, SA and Vic would hurt its overall ratings….nothing earth shattering about that conclusion….” — chris,
Sorry, but I cannot understand your logic. The ratings would increase if the matches were broadcast live into WA, SA and Victoria because they’d have a larger audience to tap into.
“I don’t need any so called ‘evidence’ to come to this conclusion…and I don’t need to buy into nonsense about having to run equivalent broadcasts…the statement of Gallop, the actions of Ch 9 and commercial reality allow a perfectly reasonable and logical inference ….” — chris
Quote David Gallop. Don’t paraphrase, just quote and cite the source(s) of your information.
“you’re the one making unsupportable and unrealistic claims about RL matching the AFL in national broadcasts not me – you’re arguing that live broadcasts into WA, SA and Vic could deliver a bigger national TV audience for the NRL than AFL…the onus is on you buddy not me!!..where is ‘evidence’?…..there is none – all experience and logic points to the opposite conclusion…SA & WA have no teams and the people in those states don’t follow RL – switching on live broadcasts into those would be commercial suicide which is why it’ll never happen…”
The promising ratings for the Storm’s two or three live telecasts into Melbourne in 2009 suggest the cumulative audience for the NRL would increase if all of the Storm’s matches were televised at a prime time viewing hour. I’m not saying the ratings in Melbourne would always be as high as they were during the few times their matches were televised live into the Melbournian market, but I think they’d be much higher than they are at present.
There is interest for rugby league in Western Australia: the WA Reds drew large crowds to their Jim Beam Cup matches at Members Equity Stadium; the WARL’s junior and senior competitions have a solid core of players and are growing; the game is reaching more children each year via the WARL’s school development program; Western Australians have played in the NRL; last year’s Dragons vs Rabbitohs match in Perth drew a very large crowd. The attendance for the Dragons vs Rabbitohs game in Perth blew away the dismal numbers chalked up by the few AFL games that have been played on the Gold Coast over the last 2 or so years — one of the AFL matches on the Gold Coast that drew a poor attendance involved the Lions! These facts mean it’s not unfeasable to believe that a Perth-based NRL team could rate just as well in Perth as the Lions and Swans fare in Brisbane and Sydney.
This leaves Adelaide as the only major city that seems unlikely to take a liking to live NRL broadcasts, though even it cannot be ruled out entirely. The Cowboys vs Sharks game in Adelaide drew a respectable crowd considering the state has almost no exposure to the sport.
For the record, one of the reasons the AFL selected the offer from Seven and Ten was because Mr. Packer wasn’t going to broadcast the Friday night matches into Brisbane and Sydney until the early hours of the morning. The AFL wanted its main terrestrial television partner to broadcast the matches into all five of Australia’s largest markets at a viewable hour. Seven and Ten bowed down to the AFL’s request because they (especially the former) needed the AFL rights in order to compete with Nine, who were number 1 at the time.
Barking Glider said | December 6th 2009 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
Stop talking sense old man! Weren’t the Storm set up by Super League months BEFORE the war ended?
(Funny, I would have figured Anakin to be a Force supporter!).
Anakin said | December 6th 2009 @ 3:19pm | Report comment
?> ”RL is a better TV product”… yeah whatever…
chris – why the SuperLeague war then? It was all about TV rights!!!
If one has ever lived in both NSW & Victoria, the difference between the media is clear. NSW media are more than fair in their coverage of the AFL, the Victorian media not so. Take off the rose coloured glasses and accept the facts. Victorians are “brainwashed” (for want of a better term) into an AFL culture, NSWelshman are not so ingrained into RL. The drama’s surrounding NRL players v those from other sports is merely another example of how the NRL is treated with disdain. I’m not making excuses why the TV deal for AFL is better than the NRL’s, other than to give credit to AFL administrators and shame on RL’s. We all know Waldrons background, and look what good he’s done with the storm!
On that note, personally i couldn’t give a rats about the AFL – and I lived in Victoria! – but this argument has nothing to do with which code is supposedly better, so you can keep your crap about how good the AFL is over RL etc etc. You may note I haven’t spruiked about one being better than another, simply different. Yet another case in point how AFL is seen as holier than tho to those who support it. Give y’self an uppercut champ.
Bay35Pablo said | December 6th 2009 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
“This year, the Swans had average crowds of 30K and an average Sydney free to air TV audience of 86K. ”
Hmmm, I seem to recall it being reported on the Roar that club rugby was getting 80-100K watching the ABC club rugby game on a Saturday afternoon. As such, I don’t know how much of a kudo it is to be able to match an amateur/semi-pro comp for the 4th football code based in Sydney with the biggest professional national footbal code in Australia?
And can I suggest that if I could run $6m a year losses and have a pick of league atlent from all states I’d back myself to do well too.
Fact is the NRL want the Storm to be here to stay, but have to ensure their model can survive without News Ltd support.
The AFL gives about $7-8m in grants to each club each year. The NRL gives about $3.35m.
And which of the AFL or NRL is propping up more clubs. How many of VFL clubs should have gone to the wall over the last few years, or moved? Sheer revenue is supporting poor structure in the AFL in some ways.
I suspect that if an NRL side hit the wall tomorrow, say the Sharks as people keep suggesting, the NRL would let them fall. And the Central Coast Bears would step into the breach.
bever fever said | December 6th 2009 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
You forgot to mention that a significant amount of people watch the Swans on foxtel in Sydney in preference to free to air TV.
Barking Glider said | December 6th 2009 @ 3:59pm | Report comment
Never heard that before. Got some evidence to back that up? The way it looks most Swans fans actually go the game and don’t wach on tv at all.
Dogs Of War said | December 6th 2009 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
Considering that the Swans usually play on a Saturday night against the NRL on foxtel, and the NRL kills that timeslot, I would be very surprised if your statement was true. How about backing up your statement with some ratings off foxtel?
Mick from Giralang said | December 6th 2009 @ 7:48pm | Report comment
That’d be all the people who crowd into Sydney pubs and bars to watch the Swans and are…unfortunately… not counted in the final figures…
Well, that’s the AFL cheerleaders argument…anyone who frequents Sydney’s pubs and bars will tell a different story.
Mister Football said | January 1st 2010 @ 9:39am | Report comment
Pablo
to say “Sheer revenue is supporting poor structure in the AFL in some ways.” seems an odd thing to say.
Aren’t all professional comps in need of revenue, and lots of it?
If the AFL is successfully driving good revenue figures (and it most certainly is), then maybe it’s a good structure rather than a poor structure?
Bay35Pablo said | December 6th 2009 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
Which also makes me think – there are a number of areas clamouring to get a side into the NRL, while the AFL has to parachute pallets of cash into their expansion areas. Where are the new clubs banging on the door asking the AFL to let them in? Where is the next Dockers or Port?
Barking Glider said | December 6th 2009 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
There’s only Tasmania – and we all know how the AFL has responded to that.
Michael C said | December 7th 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Actually there’s a push from Joondallup just north of Perth for a 3rd WA team,
(not necessarily do I agree that a 3rd team in WA would be a good idea, let alone, the impact on the 2nd tier, the WAFL).
bever fever said | December 6th 2009 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
The problem the AFL have is the size of the clubs makes it hard for them to find big enough population centres to underpin new clubs.
RL does not have this problem as the cost of running a club is much less and therefore smaller centers can have team, such as Canberra and Townsville.
Southport on the GC have been banging on the door for quite a few years and have just been let in through GC17.
GWS haven’t and the club does not have grass roots support so is in the same boat as the Storm was when they went to Melbourne.
By the time these new clubs are viable/if they become viable new areas will open up such as Nth Qld, ACT, another WA team etc .
chris said | December 7th 2009 @ 12:19am | Report comment
why is it a problem the AFL is only in the major cities?…after 2012 the AFL will have an excellent spread of teams – a game played in all mainland states every weekend…..and vibrant state based competitions in NT am Tassie… how exactly is that an issue??!
you point out that in the NRL they can have tinpot towns like Townsville…so what? doesn’t say everything about what’s wrong with the NRL…. it has a team in a tiny town like Townsville yet no team in Adelaide or Perth….and how can a tiny population like Townsville support an NRL team anyway – you guessed it – pokies!!!
oikee said | December 6th 2009 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
Baypaulo, sounds good, but only 1 club would be close to ready to enter the NRL, and that is the Bears. The other areas would be prop-up teams, even another Brisbane team could be a risk. Maybe they might be ready in 5 years. I think Perth needs a team, but they are at least 5 years away from gaining entry.
We need a commission so that these areas can enter with confidence. At the moment, the NRL is not sure weather its Arthur, or Martha. One day its lets expand, next , no lets not, next, yes in 3 years, next, no, not until 7 years. ? No confidence what so-ever.
Gallop cant make decisions anyhow, they are getting ready to take it out of his hands.
oikee said | December 6th 2009 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
Well, we will have to wait and see, but with a commission with highly intelligent Board members, i would not be surprised to see the NRL get a better t/v deal.
When the storm crowds reach around 25-30 thousand, they are doing well. The broncos support all away teams with good crowds, and double headers are attracting around 50 thousand.
Rugby league is a good t/v product, action packed and very fast game. Anyhow, we are far from being the number 1 code. Maybe never will get their, but being a close second keeps the other code on its toe’s. We need to raise the salary cap,..
Either way, i am very happy where rugby league is, and going. The game looks good, and the players seem to be getting better each year. I watched the last 4 years of origin, and the speed and talent of the game just keeps rising with each season.
The Storm also needs a league club if they have not got one. ? That should be next on their wish list.
ScottWoodward.me said | December 6th 2009 @ 4:26pm | Report comment
Paul J excellent post, well done.
They need to drop the word INDEPENDENT. The names thrown around for the suits appear to be jobs for the boys, although Harvey Norman may be the prime sponsor should there be at least one spot for a girl.
Paul J said | December 7th 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
Thanks Scott
Ian Heads wrote an article in the SMH yesterday about how important it is to pick the best commissioners. He suggested that Shane Webcke could be one:
Shane Webcke, a highly successful businessman, ranks as one of the most interesting, intelligent and forthright players I have met in my (almost) 50 years in and around the game.
He has trodden on (official) toes in things he has said in his books but is deeply passionate about league, rails against misbehaviour by players, is both an internationalist and an expansionist – and is a tough hombre inclined to say exactly what he thinks.
As a recent retiree he would link the commission with the arcane world of the modern professional player, providing a valuable insight into that world.
Roddy said | December 6th 2009 @ 8:38pm | Report comment
The Storm are a square peg in a round hole….their premiership success delivers little real benefit to the sport, and simply alienates RL’s loyal and genuine supporter base.
The Storm were fabricated to serve the interests of big media interests, whose success is hollow and insulting to the real NSW/ QLD clubs and supporters who are the heart and soul of the sport, that grow the sport from grassroots, and which generations of supporters have made a part of their lives.
Every grand final the storm competes in creates an antipathy in this showcase event across the RL world that should be alarming to NRL management. Very big zero care factor for Storm winning NRL GF’s in the RL heartland – and ironically I don’t think its not much above zero in Melbourne even!
Rod said | December 6th 2009 @ 8:48pm | Report comment
Roddy, would the same thing you are saying apply to the Brisbane Bearlions with their 3peat?
lol.
Crosscoder said | December 7th 2009 @ 5:59am | Report comment
Chris.
You really need to delve into the early years of clubs when they are establshed ,and the circumstances swirling around them in the formative years.
When you try to draw comparisons with current crowds averages 30,000 after 25 years(eg Swans an already traditional AFL club),with the 11-15,000 the Storm gets after 10 years and being plonked down in a” foreign field”,you are drawing an extremely long bow.The overwhelming majority of the 11-15,000 are storm supporters.That was the case also in the semi final on AFL G/F dy ,when they got nearly 28,000,with a handful of broncos supporters.
For the first 10 years of the Swans existence there were many occasions when sub 10,000 crowds rolled up.then SL gave not only the Swans but AFL a great leg up,as it did for ru.The crowds ,sponsorships and TV ratings are falling.The gWS could well take away further support.
Tin pot town Townsville LOL,servicing a huge growing RL mad area .The same tin pot town ,when it plays the broncos in Brisbane gets 45,000 and a full house of 24,000 at Townsville.
A tin pot comment if I ever read one.
Roddy.
Check the grand final crowd even though Parra involved,and the TV ratings for Sydney,Brisbane and Melbourne making your comment rather weak.Even Gus Gould who was want Melbourne has swung over to their being an essential part of the NRL landscape.
As AFL has shown this” me and my backyard” attitude for clubs is outdated,you need to expand your markets,or the sponsorship and TV monies are not there.And hells bells ,the Sydney NRL clubs need all the TV money they can grasp.
More people are playing rl than at any time in its history,and it appears the same with Tv viewing.How Melbourne is therefore detrimental to the clubs and therefore the game,is laughable.
I know it must grate on the nerves for those who want to send the Storm packing,but the team is now part of the NRL and Australian sporting landscape and will continue to be so .
Barking Glider said | December 7th 2009 @ 6:49am | Report comment
The Melbourne AFL clubs aren’t spread evenly about Melbourne’s suburbs. They are all within walking distance of the city.
As for the tin pot towns, in Queensland and New South there are far more people living outside the capital cities than is the case in Victoria, SA and WA with their capital cities. That’s why regional television audiences are always brought up by NRL fans, and why the NRL won’t go back to Adelaide or Perth.
Michael C said | December 7th 2009 @ 8:42am | Report comment
and yet so often the regional figures presented have a major hole in them, as, they tend to be the QLD, Nrth NSW, Sth NSW and Vic-Tas figures……..notice something missing???
(answer hint : WA, SA, NT – - – - basically, there’s over a million people in the ‘Diary’ zone for ratings – - and these figures, because they aren’t automatically uploaded overnight, are invariably late in coming to the stats table – - and often aren’t included in what is prematurely reported).
oikee said | December 7th 2009 @ 10:17am | Report comment
I dont argue the figures M.C, i think AFL has better veiwing, but rugby league is pegging them back, And we are yet to crack 3 major Cites, you have already cracked 5. Patience my little friend, rugby league is coming to get ya.
Redb said | December 7th 2009 @ 7:55am | Report comment
I know you must think it is some sort of badge of honour that the Storm attracted 28K to its final on the AFL GF day, but its hard to imagine how the day could have been any bigger for the AFL (100k at the game, 1.5M on TV in Melb).
The NRL had options but chose the night of the AFL GF this probably cost them 5-10K fans.
I certainly look forward to the next NRL inspired the AFL are tryin to ambush us with their scheduling article.
Redb
M1tch said | December 24th 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment
I look forward to the AFL having Swans play on a friday night..but we know they dont want the embarrassment
lol
Redb said | December 24th 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
you mean like Melb Storm scheduling games whenever possible to avoid clashes with the AFL.
Only time they go prime time is when no competition exists.
Works both ways.
M1tch said | December 24th 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
Storm do get friday night matches even when afl is on,
but when there is no comp Storm get 200k..i would like to see head to head with AFL to see what Storm would get
Redb said | December 24th 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Swans still get very good crowds when the NRL is on.
chris said | December 7th 2009 @ 6:58pm | Report comment
doesn’t grate on my nerves…all i say, if you read my earlier posts, is that they will probably never be viable in their own right as a football operation….and in that respect the Storm are the same as all NSW clubs that have Leagues clubs or private backers propping them up…
Swans were very volatile and had v poor crowds at times but also had bigger crowds than Storm….. you can try to spin it but for the on-field success they’ve had the Storm crowds are very concerning…..when they slip down the table – and they will – the Storm will be playing in front of 5K…
News Ltd have headed for the door early for a reason…. they are sick of heamoraging money on the Storm
oikee said | December 7th 2009 @ 7:06am | Report comment
The Melbourne Storm are a giant in rugby league. They have best player practice, and now facilities, and management, also they are a club that other clubs want to learn from. With or without Melbourne support, this club is a leading force in the rugby league world. Sponsers will be licking their lips at this new stadium. Its a world class organisation and is here to stay.
I dare say that Perth will be set-up the same if and when they are ever included. Yes the 28 thousand who turned up for the semi final are all future Storm supporters, most of them, nearly all of them where from Melbounre, the Broncos did not travell that day, because the place was booked out. Also i would think more rugby league fans will now flock to Melbourne, same applies to Brisbane, when i go to Broncos games sometimes i feel outnumbered by other fans.
Mr cheese said | December 7th 2009 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Oikster,
I recently read summat by Peter FItzSimons on the tinternet.
Anyways, Fitzy said that the Storm lose about $6 million per year.
It’s silly. Surely they should just forget it and quit Melbourne.
oikee said | December 7th 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Mr, Cheese, the government would buy the Storm if nobody wanted them. They are worth probaly around 10 million dollars a year free tourist advertisment. And sponsers to the new stdium will fill that shortfall. Look at the Broncos and Lions, one city teams are worth big dollars. Anyhow, Fitzy, he is a dinosaur, along with Roy Masters, 2 of a kind. They should just retire from making comment, they add nothing to society.
Redb said | December 7th 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
“With the introduction of the Super 15 rugby franchise – the Melbourne Rebels – Melbourne will be set to join Sydney and Brisbane by being an increasingly crowded sporting market, represented by all four football codes.”
Whilst it is correct that Brisbane has four football codes I would suggest that the Melbourne is already a much more crowded sporting market. Melbourne has 12 professional sporting teams to Brisbane’s 4. All vying for the hearts and minds and sponsor dollars.
News Ltd invest big dolllars to support the Storm, like the Broncos they get the best of the everything football Dept wise. For a team to be in 5 out of 11 Grand Finals from a virtual startup team filled with imported NSW/QLD players this is not an accident.
So why are News Ltd exiting the Melbourne Storm but not he Brisbane Broncos? One is a good investment where its team is the dominant player, the other is a crowded sporting market where it is a small player.
Any business market with too many players squezes profit margins and potential, News Ltd is exiting because Melbourne is already too crowded. It is a very long haul to black from red and I guess it is in the best position to judge.
Fortuantely for the Storm, 2010 will their biggest year. New stadium combined with a Premiership status should see a big lift in crowds and members, general awareness.
The problem for the potential new owners is that on field success can only be sustained for so long. The natural cycle would indicate that Storm will wane in 2-3 years and once the novelty of a new stadium wears off, a losing team will see bandwagon support erode.
This will especially be true if the new owners arent as willing to invest in the football Dept resources that has kept the Storm ultra competitive. The true test for Storm and then new IC (coping with Sydney club bias) will be to prop them up in 3-4 years when the red ink once again splashes across their books.
Redb
Barking Glider said | December 7th 2009 @ 8:21am | Report comment
With that logic the GWS team is no hope.
The Link said | December 7th 2009 @ 8:31am | Report comment
Redb I think that’s a pretty fair summation.
Redb said | December 7th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Didnt mention GWS. But seeing as you brought them up it is relevant how the AFL commission will support its new teams. The question is whether the ARL commission will?
M1tch said | December 7th 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
The consordium that wants to buy the Storm, doesnt want news ltd involved in the NRL..thats why they are leaving, why else would they make sure of their survival before they exit?
Redb said | December 7th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
I’m sure there would be investors interested in buying the Broncos as well.
M1tch said | December 7th 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
Im sure there is..biggest sporting team in the country
Redb said | December 7th 2009 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Biggish city with one RL team – a crowded sporting market it is not, hence News Ltd’s ongoing involvement.
M1tch said | December 7th 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
Lachlan loves the Broncos he wont let them go
Redb said | December 7th 2009 @ 10:45am | Report comment
Why would you divest? The Broncos are an excellent brand in a market RL has all to themselves RL wise. They also lever off the SOO very well.
Mushi said | December 7th 2009 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
What like those that hold the publicly listed shares?
Paul J said | December 7th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
You haven’t mentioned the potential for the Storm if they get free to air prime time coverage with the next tv rights deal.
Redb said | December 7th 2009 @ 10:28am | Report comment
The next TV rights deal is 2013. That is 3-4 years away. Despite what many think it took the AFL until 2007 to get the Swans games on at reasonable hours, by that time the team’s decline had begun followed by the TV ratings.
oikee said | December 7th 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
And while your ratings are tumbling, you will be trying to sell your rights, so i think rugby league is in the Box Seat, you might say.
oikee said | December 7th 2009 @ 10:26am | Report comment
Redb, like the Lions in Brisbane, the Storm are safe. You have enough interest with 5 million in Melbourne to keep 3 codes alive, (soccer, rugby, league.) with no help from AFL supporters. But once your sporting market on T/V becomes saturated with other sports, you watch what happens. This is the problem with Melbourne really, you have not had a sports “free to Air” market as yet,. Sydney, Brisbane already have this. Anyhow’s, you will find out when soccer really gets its claws into the Melbourne market, your large Immigrant population will eventually drown your AFL market.
Sydney and Brisbane wont let this happen, we are league states, and have been influienced by rugby, and league all our lives, so we understand the culture, and soccer is part of that, but does not dominate. World Cup next year, watch your ratings for AFL tumble my man.
M1tch said | December 7th 2009 @ 10:40am | Report comment
afl ratings wont tumble, Lions pull crowds and pretty good ratings, swans will still be a 30k a game and 90k in ratings
oikee said | December 7th 2009 @ 11:07am | Report comment
They will tumble Mitch, the NRL is not the real threat to Melbourne, soccer is, they will have 2 teams shortly pulling crowds in Melbourne. And if people have a choice between Carlton, Crowes, verses Socceroos, Germany, ? you watch them tumble my man.
oikee said | December 7th 2009 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
Hey Mitch, it seems like the AFL is already under pressure from the world game.(football=soccer) Demertriuo is already finding out how big footy ball really is, he has now backed himself into a corner, and crying like a baby to the Melbourne public, (yes the media machine is in full cry) telling the public the game(afl) is “doomed, doomed i tell ya” if we win the world cup. ?
The NRL will just pack up shop, move to NZ and not miss a beat. We might even go to England and or, France and play our game their, ? Hey, why not, by then we will be a galioth. Might even pop the teams over to America, for a nice summer holiday. 
Mate, and you think soccer wont effect Melbourne,
The world cup waits for no-one, our soccer mates are worth more to OZ in 1 year than AFL is to OZ for 50 years.
Live and learn, live and learn. Even i know when to pull me head in, like i said, bring on the world cup.Best thing to ever happen to OZ. 
I think Sth Africa already has 30 thousand socceroonians travelling to the game. Last report was 27 thousand, before they had the draw for games. And thats 1 nation, its huge baby.
chris said | December 7th 2009 @ 6:46pm | Report comment
the AFL is under pressure – so what!!…wouldn’t you be if your lost your main 100,000 seat stadium MCG for 16 weeks!! out of a 22 week season..and also Etihad stadium….think of all the lost revenue – proabaly less of an issue for NRL because of their smaller crowds and smaller revenue (and lower running costs as well)……
the AFL can schedule matches in regional Vic, Tasi, regional WA and regional SA….it already has done many times for NAB Cup….the issue is the major losses in revenue…..soccer should provide some compensation to the AFL -you keep bragging how much money they’ll make then some of that ought to be going to the AFL/NRL to compensate for their loss of revenue….and soccer people needn’t wet their pants about getting the World Cup – i get into it as much as the next person – at the end of the A League will return after a world cup and will no be close to NRL/AFL…
i can’t believe people defend Townsville as some sort of major city worthy of entry into a national competition that lacks Perth and Adelaide….perhaps the cricket needs to kick out the Western Warriors and Adelaide Redbacks to bring in a team out of Townsville!?…. according to wiki Townsville have a 2009 population of 180K – that’s less than 1% of Australia’s population!!…and why do they have a team – pokie revenue….and RL supporters wonder why their broadcast revenue is so low -they set up team in tiny country towns like Townsville and meanwhile miss major cities like Adel & Perth!!!… RL does need and independent commission and fast!!!
Mushi said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
Perhaps they should target the heavily populated metropolis of Geelong?
chris said | December 8th 2009 @ 5:13pm | Report comment
very good point mushi!!…however you do realise that the Geelong Football Club formed in 1859?…which makes it considerably older that the game of RL itself….and that they played in front of 80K plus crowds in the 1930s ….and that now that they are a vibrant club with massive membership…..what do you reckon mushi – do you think they should play on!!?
Townsville and Geelong are not comparable…Geelong are one of the oldest football clubs on the planet…they were around well before the national competition was conceived… townsville are a club added whilst expanding….and in a bold move the NRL moves into a town that has less than 1% of Australia’s population…as I said, the new independent commission can’t come quickly enough!!
Mushi said | December 9th 2009 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
As has been already pointed out you omit the fact that it generates support from the greater North Queensland region (ie it represents a larger portion) and actually hasn’t been out of the top 5 average crowds for the past half decade.
Over the period it outranked team from cities much larger such as Melbourne, Canberra and Newcastle so if you want to talk about self sufficient clubs it baffles me that you write off Townsville due to its smaller population whilst not even pausing to think of the benefits of representing a region.
Also it, like Geelong, is an area with a rugby league tradition probably dating back as far as most clubs in the NRL today.
Realist said | December 22nd 2009 @ 2:16am | Report comment
In 2009, the North Queensland Cowboys sold more season membership tickets than any other club in the NRL bar one, the Brisbane Broncos. People from the north Queensland area drive long distances to watch the Cowboys play in Townsville. The Cowboys’ home games regularly draw higher crowds than any of the Sydney clubs could dream about attracting.
Not bad for a team from a “tiny” town, is it?
Oh, and for the record, the Townsville Crocodiles are still in the NBL because they’re well supported by the community. The Geelong Supercats folded back in the mid-1990’s because the town’s people refused to support them. If a “tiny” town like Townsville can support two sporting franchises then it deserves an NRL franchise.
Rod said | December 7th 2009 @ 8:31pm | Report comment
If you ever bothered to check Chris, you’d realise the Cowboys are not just a townsville side but a side for the whole of North QLD, some people travel up to 6/8 hours each way every second week to watch them, they have since 1995.
Thats why they have had exellent crowds all these years even when they were crap.
chris said | December 8th 2009 @ 5:33pm | Report comment
what is the population of north queensland??….. if you reckon it’s strategically clever to include Townsville whilst leaving Perth & Adel then you should apply for a spot with the NRL…
I predict the new commission will end up reducing NRL teams from NSW and also reduce/freeze the salary cap….that would be a way to keep the Storm and make it affordable for non-NSW teams to enter….and ultimately it should have a long term plan which includes WA, SA & Vic… and it somehow has to deal with the issue of Leagues club grants and the unfair advantage this gives to NSW/QLD teams….. I reckon when they get business people around the table they’ll have to chip away at the vested interests in the current establishment & media…. it will be short term pain for long term gain (as it was for the VFL moving to the AFL)
Sam said | December 8th 2009 @ 5:43pm | Report comment
You think so? You think an independent commission will reduce the salary cap? This isn’t the AFL or NFL, the NRL has real competition out there. Unlike the AFL, if players in the NRL feel they aren’t earning enough money they will move to the Super League, or go play rugby union somewhere. Any independent commission is still going to have to deal with the fact that the salary cap needs to be high enough for the top talent to stay in the competition, without risking the financial security of the less profitable clubs. The NRL has real *international* competition for its top players and that really constrains things for them, it’s a tough situation.
chris said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:14pm | Report comment
yes i do think so… loss of players internationally already happens….nothing the NRL can do about it…. my money is on a reduction/freeze of the salary cap..and the loss of NSW teams… entrenched positions in RL circles won’t like it but that’s what i reckon will happen…
Sam said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:24pm | Report comment
A trickle will turn into a flood if they reduce the cap. It’ll be Christmas for the Super League if they do it. Players will go where the money is, it’s a fact of life. The NRL needs to stay internationally competitive, and any commission, independent or otherwise, is going to realise this. Fans aren’t stupid either, they will notice if the player quality is lower. Reduction of NSW teams may happen (but that wasn’t what i was disagreeing with) but I don’t think that goes hand in hand with salary cap reductions.
chris said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:49pm | Report comment
let’s be serious …RL itself has basically 2 competitions worldwide of any note – Aust and England…and i guess perhaps counting RUnion you will get SOME other sources of international poaching…compare that to soccer – they’re running a domestic comp with all the best players offshore in European leagues….
I think RL will reduce teams and also reduce/freeze the cap – and they’ll just wear the short term pain… at a lower cost base they can look to having a national comp including WA, SA an Vic in the long term…and if they have to lose a few of their very best overseas they’ll just wear it…..
the biggest adjustment to be made is to expectations of NRL fans and players….they are not playing a game where you get massive pay… it’s not soccer, golf, tennis, boxing, cricket or baseball etc etc… it’s little old rugby league
Sam said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:07am | Report comment
Yes there are only two competitions, but SL will take *all* the top the talent if they can. Why wouldn’t they? As for Rugby union, well there are a lot more than two professional rugby union leagues out there. The french have 14 teams in their top league and another 16 in the Pro D2 – all without salary caps. Even if only half of them poached a quality player, thats significant. Of course there is also the Super 14 teams, the Japanese (who seem to love spending lots of money on league players), the English and Celtic teams, the Italian league. The way union is growing, especially in Europe, means that it’s a pretty big threat – especially to outside backs. How this compares to soccer i don’t think is relevant, although I suppose the worst case scenario is that the NRL ends up like a second-tier soccer league, producing great players but only holding on to them long enough for them to be noticed by wealthier teams. You say the players will have to adjust? If they don’t have to they won’t, they’ll just leave for greener pastures.
Mushi said | December 9th 2009 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Yes Chris I think it is strategically clever to expand your business first where it will be best received and return the most value per investment.
By your thinking choosing gold coast over mexico city makes the AFL look pretty darn stupid.
Failing to take into account cultural differences when expanding (and cultural difference exist in sport across state boundaries) is a great way to run a business…if you’re trying to drum up some insolvency work.
chris said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:18pm | Report comment
fair enough… but in the end if they want really big dollars for their broadcast deal then the way not to achieve that is to ignore WA and SA…and I don’t think they’ll ever be able to bring SA & WA under the current extremely bloated and overpriced regime of the NRL…
other sports besides AFL are national and they can do it because they are lower cost….if the NRL was really serious about being national it could tomorrow but they’d have to reduce the cap a fair bit…that’s what they could do but I’m sure egos and vested interests will stop that ever happening – the cost structure will remain very high and as a result RL will never be national…i guess the most that could happen realistically is a freeze of the cap..
and before anyone points out that the AFL has a higher cost base than the NRL you have to look at structural differences to explain why they can do that…. historically very strong and reliable gate receipts, memberships not available to RL..
westy said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:03am | Report comment
The Storm’s presence in the grand final significantly expanded the national audience . Please do not start on who had the highest. i think most reaonable observers would accept the Storm’s presence in the last 4 grand finals has led to live coverage in melbourne. Without the 600000 crowd coverage for melbourne AFL would have been streets ahead.
artificial though it may have been I have a real soft spot the Storm. They have actually done alright.
Australian Rules was never a foreign code in Sydney. Long established clubs in Sydney both in East Sydney and Balmain.
Suburban competition dating back to 1900’s. Sydney had always had the opportunity to watch the VFL grand final live from the 70’s.Swans basically took 25 years .
Basically the Storm went in with NO junior or suburban infrastructure. Brentnall has built a 98 team junior competition of mini/mod and district junior teams 13 to 17 from scratch.
I spoke to some of the melbourne SG Ball National U/18 team grand finalists on a plane home to melbourne. More than half were permanent Melbourne residents. Some ex pat NZers who came over between 4 and 8 but a few dinki di Victorians and one croweater. All had AFL teams they just liked the collision.
They are not private school based. They do not attempt an elitist stategy and market themselves on the “collision” pace and impact of their game.
Waldron has got their news Limited subsidy down from 8 million to four and they have one of the highest memberships of any RL team.Their sponsors may not be huge but they do stick . I was quite surprised at Olympic park . They had 14000 enthusuastic and seemingly genuine supporters. I had a look and it is far from a basket case.
I would submit they deserve ten more years before I make final judgement but they have got a pass mark to date.
Is it going to be huge …No……..will it help in increasing capital cities audiences yes yes yes . third in melbourne with 350000 is still important when you look at national audiences.
Mick from Giralang said | December 13th 2009 @ 7:45am | Report comment
Westy, imagine the boost if they can get prime time FTA coverage in Melbourne. The Storm have accomplished all you have stated despite Channel Nine’s active suppression of the game as a TV sport, which of course should be one of its strengths. In contrast the Swans and Lions have had armchair rides into FTA coverage in Brisbane and Sydney. This issue should be a priority if the independent commission ever gets off the ground.
Redb said | December 24th 2009 @ 7:50am | Report comment
only if the team keeps winning. Look no further than the Swans to see what happens when you finish 11th!
Crosscoder said | December 9th 2009 @ 6:13am | Report comment
Chris.
News ltd are heading for the door simply to get out of half controlling a sport,when their expertise is the media.They are getting out of the sport, due to the public continually criticising the conflict of interest aspect.
That they still want to be involved in the Broncos financially,and the fact the company wants first and last rights on bidding for pay Tv for the NRL shows they know where the value in that code is.
It was News Ltd that spent hundreds of millions in the rl takeover,not on AFL nor union nor soccer.
You sound like one of the Vic pundits who predicted the storm would be lucky to get 3,000 at their games,when they first set up.
Not a case of spinning anything the Swans received a great gift thanks to SL,and on many occasions they were propped up by Willessee,the old guy with the copter ,and the AFL before they became anywhere near viable.Using your logic what will b the Swans crowds should they be at the bottom of the ladder,and it will happen sometime.More so when they have a GWS in competition.
If News wants to pump in $20m over 6 years to assist a private consortium to assist them ,as part of them getting out of the NRL good on them.
As far as a new commission wanting to reduce the cap ,you are kidding.The only reason NRL players go to the ESL and French ru is due to the restrictions of the current cap.The reason the NRL CEOs don’t want to expand immediately is to ensure when the next bigger TV contract is in placE(2013), the star players are not poached by other codes or rl teams.
Crosscoder said | December 9th 2009 @ 6:19am | Report comment
Mr Cheese
Never ever rely on Peter Fitzsimons as a reliable source when it comes to other codes.The $6m figure is actually $3.4m after tax losses according to Masters.
He was wrong on the A league,he was wrong on predicting rl’s demise after the 03 WC,he was wrong on the Storm lasting 5 years(prediction made in 03).he was even wrong on a story he did on a charity organisation called Anglicare.
Track record not good.
MyGeneration said | December 9th 2009 @ 6:28am | Report comment
Peter Fitz is not a journalist, he’s a bloviator. I don’t think he pretends to be anything else, except when he’s spruiking one of his books.
Crosscoder said | December 9th 2009 @ 6:33am | Report comment
Chris
Just to let you know the importance of the regional areas of NSW and Qld rl strength(and that includes of course the far NTH Qld).
The Tv advertsiing revenues for july to Dec 2008 as per media release from free TV AUSTRALIA
Regional NSW $194,552,699
VIC $66,354,015
Qld $111,957,125
SA $15,249,155
WA $23,620.086
Now the total for the cities of Perth and adelaide
Perth $151,777,724
Adelaide $113,088,596
So regional NSW leaves both cities for dead on revenue,and Qld regionals nearly matches Adelaide,and short of Perth.
The regionals are rl strengths ATM,so why would you not have teams in place in your own backyard,and work on Perth Adelaid down the line.
Don’t underestimate the catchment area of FNQ.From Cairns down to Townsville and a little further south.
Crosscoder said | December 9th 2009 @ 6:40am | Report comment
MyGeneration
Then the media organisation for which he contributes,should demand a refund of monies paid.Continual errors in private enterprise usually results in the sack.
He as a “bloviator” was quite prepared to hint the Roosters were up to mischief re the so called” betting furore”,because the club denied such an incident.An investigation was held by authorities ,and there was no evidence of anything untoward.Neither Fitz nor Ms Magany had the decency to report that was the case.
jus de couchon said | December 13th 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Here in London[Eouropean Super league] the idea that Leagues recent reduiculous Internationals involving made up teams is at best a joke. In their wildest fantasies why do the they think this is a way of promoting and developing an International platform to expand by exposing themselves to ridicule?
Mick from Giralang said | December 14th 2009 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Your nonsensical ravings are exposing you to ridicule.
Realist said | December 22nd 2009 @ 2:46am | Report comment
jus de couchon,
Your sport can hardly talk! The amount of Test playing nations have fielded foreigners who were born and raised elsewhere.
They are:
Japan. Quite a few Caucasians have represented Japan over the last decade
USA. The captain, flyhalf and goal kicker of the USA Eagles at the last world cup wa an Australian. I’ve scrolled over a few of the American rugby union club’s websites over the years. Quite a few of the players in their squads are from South America, Europe and Australia. I recall seeing a Tongan or Samoan running around for the Eagles too.
Australia. The Wallabies have fielded South Africans, Argentinians, Fijians, Tongans and Samoans in their sides over the last 30 or so years. A former Spring Bok went on to represent the Wallabiies during the 90’s and early 2000’s.
France. A South African played for the French rugby union team at the 1999 Rugby World Cup.
Argentina. An Argentinian was the captain, goal keeper and flyhalf for Italy during the late 90’s — an Australian called Craig Gower is playing flyhalf for them now.
Scotland. Wasn’t there an Australian playing in Scotland’s second-row a few years ago?
John Ryan said | December 24th 2009 @ 4:39pm | Report comment
Bit of bad luck for you mate this is AUSTRALIA,and to be honest I dont give a fig what happens in Rugby Union,Ridicule well mate Rugby Union knows how to expose itself to that as well,its a boring game, RL is not live with it
Crosscoder said | December 13th 2009 @ 5:17pm | Report comment
Who gives a rats kyber, what the usual run of the mill critics said.
You have to start somewhere.and if the Fiji example was anything to go by,it proved an outstanding success,and helped lift the profile of the game in that country.It has ensured an increase in the number of countries trying out for the 2103 event.Secondly due to Samoa being in the event,the game was given official approval by the PM to be played in the schools.
It ensured a reasonably competitive 2008 event and a profit and decent Tv ratings in Oz,290,000 in toto crowds and an audience globally of 19.2m,making it the most widely broadcast event in the sport’s history.despite the GFC happening at the time of the event.
As a matter of fact in the early ru WCs,there were many foreigners traipsing around in other countries’ colours ,to make their teams more competitive.That code has now stricter requirements,as will rl down the line.It will evolve in due course. eveolutionary thing
Chook said | December 14th 2009 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
get rid of them and move them to SEQ where people watch league, move 1 syd club as well while your at it
Crosscoder said | December 15th 2009 @ 5:31am | Report comment
They (Melbourne)will be staying put in the 2nd biggest market(c0mmmercial wise ) in Australia,just as the Swans remained in SAydney with all their early troubles..Even Gus Gould finally admits there presence is now a fait accompli.
No Sydney clubs will move unless in dire straits.
The Bears and possibly another SEQ side or Perth will be next cabs off the rank.I listened to Annersley on 2UE yesterday evening” all 16 clubs will be given the utmost support to survive’and the next TV contract will go a long way to ensuring that happens.
matt said | January 21st 2010 @ 10:59pm | Report comment
the storm is doomed, as is rugby in Victoria, no one watches it down here, sure the NRL got the odd big crowd for the origin games they played in Melbourne but i wouldnt be going to the well to often if i were them, it was more a novelty thing than anything else IMO.
As for the NRL GF outrating the AFL GF, the storm cant be in the GF every year, which is the only reason it rated higher, id go as far to say as it was a worse case scenario for the AFL having Geelong and St kilda playing off in the big one as they both have fairly small supporter bases, both from the same state as well, what would the NRL rate with 2 small syd teams playing off in the GF i wonder.
rugbyfuture said | January 21st 2010 @ 11:02pm | Report comment
you mean so is league in Victoria
ac said | February 1st 2010 @ 11:02pm | Report comment
As a AFL supporter to say the Storm are doomed is totally wrong. The Storm do well and have penetrated the bias that the Melbourne Media has. AFL will always be #1 in Victoria and why should not it be that way? But, i get so tired of people continually bashing the Melbourne Storm. They do pretty good. The move to the new ground will help. If channel nine showed games at 10pm then the figures would be pretty good i feel. The NRL was the big improver last year with crowds tv ratings all going up. THE AFL all went down. Where was the A-league not so good either. I just want fairness to the AFL and the NRL. I now know peoplee who love the Storm so much passion like AFL style. Best wishes to them for sure. Yes the AFL is King but allow the Melbourne storm to the priunce.