78 replies to this topic

[duke]

holdencaulfield2007, on May 1 2011, 03:58 PM, said:

Popularity. The more popular a sport the more interested the Pay-TV companies are. And the more they will pay for the privilege of showing it. Foxtel is going to have a dedicated AFL channel. That would not happen if the AFL was only of moderate interest.

So by your logic it's worth more than the EPL, NBA and MLB?

LOL

And why are 77 of the top 100 shows on Pay TV Rugby League?

Edited by duke, 01 May 2011 - 04:03 PM.

[holdencaulfield2007]

duke, on May 1 2011, 04:01 PM, said:

So by your logic it's worth more than the EPL, NBA and MLB?

In Australia, of course it is. And worth more than the NRL also. That is because it is more popular. The fact is that until now the FTA stations have  cherry picked the most popular AFL games of the week and Pay-TV get the less popular. The Pay-TV companies have been so desperate to get any AFL they have accepted it but they have now got their way and been given permission to telecast all games. See how the ratings go when Pay-TV gets to show Collingwood V Carlton. THe AFL will blow away the NRL on Pay-TV!

[duke]

holdencaulfield2007, on May 1 2011, 04:15 PM, said:

In Australia, of course it is. And worth more than the NRL also. That is because it is more popular. The fact is that until now the FTA stations have  cherry picked the most popular AFL games of the week and Pay-TV get the less popular. The Pay-TV companies have been so desperate to get any AFL they have accepted it but they have now got their way and been given permission to telecast all games. See how the ratings go when Pay-TV gets to show Collingwood V Carlton. THe AFL will blow away the NRL on Pay-TV!

All talk/. Fact is that Rugby League is the highest rating sport on FTA and Pay TV.

[holdencaulfield2007]

duke, on May 1 2011, 04:43 PM, said:

All talk/. Fact is that Rugby League is the highest rating sport on FTA and Pay TV.

I said previously that the big AFL matches have not been shown on Pay-TV. Now they will be. I repeat,see which rates better from next year.

[Mr Sideshow]

duke, on May 1 2011, 04:01 PM, said:

And why are 77 of the top 100 shows on Pay TV Rugby League?
All talk/. Fact is that Rugby League is the highest rating sport on FTA and Pay TV.

The simple reason why the NRL games rates  better than the AFL games on PayTV is most AFL games are not exclusive to PayTV,meaning they are both on FTA and on PayTV.
Example Week 17 Metro figures:
1 Live: NRL Rabbitohs V Dragons Fox Sports 2 277,000(payTV game only)
2 Live: AFL Port Adelaide V Gold Coast Fox Sports 1 194,000(paytv game also shown in Bris and Adel on FTA)
3 Live: NRL Bulldogs V Rabbitohs Fox Sports 2 186,000(paytv game only)
4 Live: AFL Fremantle V North Melb Fox Sports 1 154,000(payTV game also shown in Perth on FTA).

In the end more people watched  those AFL games when you combine the FTA and PAYTV numbers

NRL the highest rating sport on tv , LOL! a myth started by the rugby league media.

And with Foxtel paying so much for the next AFL Rights  , WHY ?
Go back to when Foxtel  started the Fox Footy channel for the AFL years ago.
Foxtel weren't able to get many games of AFL on paytv and only the poorer games,  so they created the Fox Footy Channel.
It was something to try and win over AFL fans in the AFL states who already had so much footy on FTA compared to the NRL, they only had the 2 games on FTA back then.
But the Fox Footy channel failed to win over AFL fans to take up PayTV , this was said by Kim Williams, the Foxtel CEO  when he was on White Line Fever program when they aired its final show on Fox footy channel.
Willams said they need more games and , better quality of games  to have people to buy their boxes

And thats what its all about, Foxtel sees more growth in the AFL states to sell their boxes , from next year they now have 5  games and the rest live also.
And anyone bitching about foxtel  paying  so much for tv rights like  the AFL rights , well its the NRL , AFL and the movie channels that keep  foxtel and Austar  in this country going......

[minty]

I am so excited by this news, this deal is pure gold to AFL followers, who cares if Duke or a couple of his mates cancel if the price goes up, certainly not me and definitely not Foxtel/Austar? The number of additional subscribers will more than cover Duke and his mates skulking off and cancelling their paytv (most wont anyway, just hollow threats).

Funny too how Duke thinks it unfair that he may now have to pay extra because of the new AFL deal yet what about everyone with no interest in NRL, how much less would we have been paying for Fox Sports over the years if they didn't have exclusive rights to the NRL?

No Duke & friends, Fox Sports isnt just for your limited pleasure, and if that means a price increase so be it, suck it up or make good your threat and cancel. Who knows, without Fox Sports you could actually attend a live NRL game, it may even help push that games attendance figure past 6,000 .

[minty]

Oh yeah i forgot to add but the picture of Tiger in my Avatar was taken just after he was told all AFL games from 2012 will be shown live on Foxtel/Austar .

[duke]

birdyblitz, on May 2 2011, 10:12 AM, said:

Oh yeah i forgot to add but the picture of Tiger in my Avatar was taken just after he was told all AFL games from 2012 will be shown live on Foxtel/Austar .

LOL

Nobody in the USA has heard of AFL. Nobody in any other country has.

[duke]

birdyblitz, on May 2 2011, 10:08 AM, said:

I am so excited by this news, this deal is pure gold to AFL followers, who cares if Duke or a couple of his mates cancel if the price goes up, certainly not me and definitely not Foxtel/Austar? The number of additional subscribers will more than cover Duke and his mates skulking off and cancelling their paytv (most wont anyway, just hollow threats).

Funny too how Duke thinks it unfair that he may now have to pay extra because of the new AFL deal yet what about everyone with no interest in NRL, how much less would we have been paying for Fox Sports over the years if they didn't have exclusive rights to the NRL?

No Duke & friends, Fox Sports isnt just for your limited pleasure, and if that means a price increase so be it, suck it up or make good your threat and cancel. Who knows, without Fox Sports you could actually attend a live NRL game, it may even help push that games attendance figure past 6,000 .

Foxtel currently pay less for Rugby League than AFL. If Rugby League was off Fox then prices would actually jump seeing it is very profitable for them.

[duke]

Mr Sideshow, on May 1 2011, 09:21 PM, said:

The simple reason why the NRL games rates  better than the AFL games on PayTV is most AFL games are not exclusive to PayTV,meaning they are both on FTA and on PayTV.
Example Week 17 Metro figures:
1 Live: NRL Rabbitohs V Dragons Fox Sports 2 277,000(payTV game only)
2 Live: AFL Port Adelaide V Gold Coast Fox Sports 1 194,000(paytv game also shown in Bris and Adel on FTA)
3 Live: NRL Bulldogs V Rabbitohs Fox Sports 2 186,000(paytv game only)
4 Live: AFL Fremantle V North Melb Fox Sports 1 154,000(payTV game also shown in Perth on FTA).

In the end more people watched  those AFL games when you combine the FTA and PAYTV numbers

NRL the highest rating sport on tv , LOL! a myth started by the rugby league media.

And with Foxtel paying so much for the next AFL Rights  , WHY ?
Go back to when Foxtel  started the Fox Footy channel for the AFL years ago.
Foxtel weren't able to get many games of AFL on paytv and only the poorer games,  so they created the Fox Footy Channel.
It was something to try and win over AFL fans in the AFL states who already had so much footy on FTA compared to the NRL, they only had the 2 games on FTA back then.
But the Fox Footy channel failed to win over AFL fans to take up PayTV , this was said by Kim Williams, the Foxtel CEO  when he was on White Line Fever program when they aired its final show on Fox footy channel.
Willams said they need more games and , better quality of games  to have people to buy their boxes

And thats what its all about, Foxtel sees more growth in the AFL states to sell their boxes , from next year they now have 5  games and the rest live also.
And anyone bitching about foxtel  paying  so much for tv rights like  the AFL rights , well its the NRL , AFL and the movie channels that keep  foxtel and Austar  in this country going......

Selectively using metro figures.

You might not be aware that millions don't live in Capital cities

http://assets.astra....ASTRAWeek18.pdf

http://www.thinktv.c...eek_16_2011.pdf

[minty]

duke, on May 2 2011, 11:58 AM, said:

Selectively using metro figures.

You might not be aware that millions don't live in Capital cities

http://assets.astra....ASTRAWeek18.pdf

http://www.thinktv.c...eek_16_2011.pdf

And you might not be aware that a great number of those millions follow AFL but obviously cant get to as many live games as their Metro cousins, doesn't take rocket science to figure a large number without Fox Sports will now get it .

[duke]

All talk.

[minty]

duke, on May 2 2011, 11:54 AM, said:

Foxtel currently pay less for Rugby League than AFL. If Rugby League was off Fox then prices would actually jump seeing it is very profitable for them.

Is that a fact you could maybe link or just your opinion, much like saying no-one in any country in the world has heard of AFL, not one single person, anywhere, other than Aus...........?

[duke]

birdyblitz, on May 2 2011, 12:19 PM, said:

Is that a fact you could maybe link or just your opinion, much like saying no-one in any country in the world has heard of AFL, not one single person, anywhere, other than Aus...........?

Which part is it you don't believe?

Perhaps you could tell me what other country plays AFL

[doodlefeatures]

duke, on May 2 2011, 12:21 PM, said:

Which part is it you don't believe?

Perhaps you could tell me what other country plays AFL

Give it's the Australian Football League, and not a sport, no other country would 'play' AFL.  What other countries 'play' EPL?

And why are league folk so concerned about the AFL and the new AFL rights deal?

Edited by doodlefeatures, 02 May 2011 - 12:24 PM.

[minty]

duke, on May 2 2011, 12:21 PM, said:

Which part is it you don't believe?

Perhaps you could tell me what other country plays AFL

Mate you are really clutching at straws and digging the provebial hole you find yourself in deeper and deeper .

I never said AFL is played in another country, and i'm not about to. It was never about that and just for now i will play along with your little game, feed you so to speak. You said no-one has HEARD of AFL in any country other than Australia, not is it played. Obviously someone, somewhere other than Aus has heard of it.

Dont try and squirm out and try and make yourself look clever by asking me what other country PLAYS AFL. Like i said it just makes you look foolish. Dont take this the wrong way, i really am trying to help you out.

[minty]

duke, on May 2 2011, 11:54 AM, said:

Foxtel currently pay less for Rugby League than AFL. If Rugby League was off Fox then prices would actually jump seeing it is very profitable for them.

duke, on May 2 2011, 12:21 PM, said:

Which part is it you don't believe?

Both. I know the AFL rights cost close to a billion dollars but i dont know how much of it Foxtel/Austar are paying or how much they pay for the NRL, and if NRL was off Fox Sports where is proof the price of Austar would go up.

Stop playing games and anwser the simple question, is either of the above statements fact (link it) or simply your opinion?

Here's a simple example, i have an opinion that more people attended AFL matches live in 2010 than people attended NRL matches live in 2010, it's just my opinion so you are free to take it or leave it, but if i pass it off as a fact i would need to provide proof. That is all i am asking you, you are entitled to your opinion but that doesn't make it a fact.

Edited by birdyblitz, 02 May 2011 - 12:57 PM.

[duke]

birdyblitz, on May 2 2011, 12:48 PM, said:

Both. I know the AFL rights cost close to a billion dollars but i dont know how much of it Foxtel/Austar are paying or how much they pay for the NRL, and if NRL was off Fox Sports where is proof the price of Austar would go up.

Stop playing games and anwser the simple question, is either of the above statements fact (link it) or simply your opinion?

Here's a simple example, i have an opinion that more people attended AFL matches live in 2010 than people attended NRL matches live in 2010, it's just my opinion so you are free to take it or leave it, but if i pass it off as a fact i would need to provide proof. That is all i am asking you, you are entitled to your opinion but that doesn't make it a fact.

I said that Fox were already paying more for AFL

http://www.smh.com.a...ge#contentSwap1

[holdencaulfield2007]

duke, on May 2 2011, 11:52 AM, said:

LOL

Nobody in the USA has heard of AFL. Nobody in any other country has.

Absolute rubbish. ESPN show it live in the UK.  I was in the USA in 1991 and I watched an AFL game on cable TV. You are clutching at straws!

[duke]

holdencaulfield2007, on May 2 2011, 08:55 PM, said:

Absolute rubbish. ESPN show it live in the UK.  I was in the USA in 1991 and I watched an AFL game on cable TV. You are clutching at straws!

LOL

Victards are truly deluded. Nobody knows jack **** about your game. Find it here please http://www.espn.go.com/

[holdencaulfield2007]

duke, on May 2 2011, 09:01 PM, said:

LOL

Victards are truly deluded. Nobody knows jack **** about your game. Find it here please http://www.espn.go.com/

No need to get abusive just because people pull you up on the inaccurate rubbish that you keep posting.

[gravey]

duke, on May 2 2011, 09:01 PM, said:

LOL

Victards are truly deluded. Nobody knows jack **** about your game. Find it here please http://www.espn.go.com/

Sorry got to jump in here. I'm a Victorian who has lived in Sydney for more than 20 years, I spent my working life in the employ of a multi national. I will declare an interest I actually enjoy watching Australian Rules Football along with most other sports, cannot get into horse racing though, but I will never criticize people who can. In my younger years I played Australian rules football at a reasonably high level (Competition not ability), and continued to play geriatric football (over 35’s) for a while. I have played against a Japanese team in Sydney, I have played for a Canadian team against a team from Detroit, I have watched games played in England and Germany.

Many people from many countries know and participate in the game, try Googling "Australian Rules Football [insert country]" and be surprised.

While I'm cleaning my spleen the game is called "Australian Rule Football" AFL is just the elite competition in Australia. Try going to the USA and calling American Football "Grid Iron" to a Jets or a Packers fan and see how long your nose continues to point in the same direction that you are facing! Oh and by the way how many ex Australian Rules Footballers are punters in the NFL? There are a few and their heritage is noted.

In the narcissistic time in which we live I can understand why some may believe that the only reason for the purchase broadcast rights to the AFL would be to charge them more for their Austar/Foxtel subscription, but it would appear to me that it is a business decision to purchase a product that will meet a consumer demand, that is Austar/Foxtel believe that there is a market for more Aussie Rules and it will improve their customer base subsequently.

To all the naysayers of this deal I say that you should hope that this is a good business decision that will make Austar/Foxtel more profitable, which will make the provision of programming more in line with your desires more probable.

In time we will all win!

Note the terminolgy of Austar/Foxtel is not to imply a single entity, it is used to imply that one entity needs a source of progamming, while the other needs the additional distibution channel.

Graeme

[duke]

holdencaulfield2007, on May 2 2011, 10:06 PM, said:

No need to get abusive just because people pull you up on the inaccurate rubbish that you keep posting.

Inaccurate lol

You asked for a link before and I posted it. You then went silent.

[duke]

gravey, on May 2 2011, 10:08 PM, said:

Sorry got to jump in here. I'm a Victorian who has lived in Sydney for more than 20 years, I spent my working life in the employ of a multi national. I will declare an interest I actually enjoy watching Australian Rules Football along with most other sports, cannot get into horse racing though, but I will never criticize people who can. In my younger years I played Australian rules football at a reasonably high level (Competition not ability), and continued to play geriatric football (over 35’s) for a while. I have played against a Japanese team in Sydney, I have played for a Canadian team against a team from Detroit, I have watched games played in England and Germany.

Many people from many countries know and participate in the game, try Googling "Australian Rules Football [insert country]" and be surprised.

While I'm cleaning my spleen the game is called "Australian Rule Football" AFL is just the elite competition in Australia. Try going to the USA and calling American Football "Grid Iron" to a Jets or a Packers fan and see how long your nose continues to point in the same direction that you are facing! Oh and by the way how many ex Australian Rules Footballers are punters in the NFL? There are a few and their heritage is noted.

In the narcissistic time in which we live I can understand why some may believe that the only reason for the purchase broadcast rights to the AFL would be to charge them more for their Austar/Foxtel subscription, but it would appear to me that it is a business decision to purchase a product that will meet a consumer demand, that is Austar/Foxtel believe that there is a market for more Aussie Rules and it will improve their customer base subsequently.

To all the naysayers of this deal I say that you should hope that this is a good business decision that will make Austar/Foxtel more profitable, which will make the provision of programming more in line with your desires more probable.

In time we will all win!

Note the terminolgy of Austar/Foxtel is not to imply a single entity, it is used to imply that one entity needs a source of progamming, while the other needs the additional distibution channel.

Graeme

Expats playing on in a paddock somewhere is not International.

Who does the 'All Australian' team play? lol

[gravey]

duke, on May 2 2011, 10:23 PM, said:

Expats playing on in a paddock somewhere is not International.

Who does the 'All Australian' team play? lol

To all the intelligent contributors of this forum I must apologise for finding myself under a bridge in the dark and feeding the locals.

Graeme