2021 NON AFL Thread - finance, ratings, participation etc.

[Aucklander]

Has anyone else noticed a big rugby league bias on the foxsports website? Regularly more front page RL stories than any other sport and their lead story at the moment is about an over the hill Karmichael Hunt playing in a local Queensland cup game.

Nope. Lead story right now is about AFL. Not hard to click on the AFL tab and get all the news you need.

 

[Gigantor]

So one AFL game, at 50% ground capacity, was almost as much as a full round of NRL?

 

[NoobPie]

Brutal!

My view on V’landys’ remarks about the AFL? I grew up watching rugby league. Never in a million years would I have watched the AFL ahead of it. But when the Swans versus Lions clashed with North Queensland against St George Illawarra on Saturday night, my channel hopping stayed on the AFL.

On Sunday afternoon I was in the mood for some serious watching of football. At 1pm, I put on the AFL and stayed on it for the rest of the day. Partly because there was no NRL on until 4pm.

The NRL had a triple-header on Saturday that followed pre-game expectations. The AFL had a quadruple header that was edge-of-your-seat stuff. The NRL had a double-header on Sunday but the AFL had a triple-header.

As a nationwide product, if V’landys wants to make direct comparisons, his competition is still significantly inferior. And that’s coming from someone who used to agree with him.

 

[Gigantor]

Who wrote it?

 

[The_Wookie]

from 9

"
Sunday Afternoon NRL Live was a dominant timeslot winner in Sydney and Brisbane.

Sunday Afternoon NRL Live secured a peak audience of 649,000 (Metro: 387,000 / Regional: 263,000) and an average audience of 439,000 (Metro: 264,000 / Regional: 175,000)."

 

[Kwality]

from 9

"
Sunday Afternoon NRL Live was a dominant timeslot winner in Sydney and Brisbane.

Sunday Afternoon NRL Live secured a peak audience of 649,000 (Metro: 387,000 / Regional: 263,000) and an average audience of 439,000 (Metro: 264,000 / Regional: 175,000)."

Is the FTA metro/regional mix steady or is 40% high?

 

[The_Wookie]

Is the FTA metro/regional mix steady or is 40% high?

regionals are normally around 62-67% of the metro audience. Proportion is the same here.

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[NoobPie]

Weekend TV ratings Friday March 26, 2021

The return of a new season of The Living Room lifted 10’s Friday TV ratings week-on-week, but not enough get 10 into double figures

www.mediaweek.com.au

917K (average of 3 hours) just pips the NRL Sydney derby 907K (average over 2 hours)

Meanwhile, speaking of pips, the top 4 clash between Melb city and the Wanderers got 11K nationally on a friday night!

 

[Cmarsh]

Weekend TV ratings Friday March 26, 2021

The return of a new season of The Living Room lifted 10’s Friday TV ratings week-on-week, but not enough get 10 into double figures

www.mediaweek.com.au

917K (average of 3 hours) just pips the NRL Sydney derby 907K (average over 2 hours)

Meanwhile, speaking of pips, the top 4 clash between Melb city and the Wanderers got 11K nationally on a friday night!

Baffling how the a-league maintains any commercial viability.

 

[Rob]

Weekend TV ratings Friday March 26, 2021

The return of a new season of The Living Room lifted 10’s Friday TV ratings week-on-week, but not enough get 10 into double figures

www.mediaweek.com.au

917K (average of 3 hours) just pips the NRL Sydney derby 907K (average over 2 hours)

Meanwhile, speaking of pips, the top 4 clash between Melb city and the Wanderers got 11K nationally on a friday night!

But they're one of the biggest sporting brands in Australia!

No Cookies | The Advertiser

No Cookies

www.adelaidenow.com.au

That was 8 years ago, but as the chairman says...."The measure of the success of this club will be in five or ten year periods, not just this season"

If not for Pippen94 I probably wouldn't have posted that. But I know he's a big fan.

 

[Gigantor]

Weekend TV ratings Friday March 26, 2021

The return of a new season of The Living Room lifted 10’s Friday TV ratings week-on-week, but not enough get 10 into double figures

www.mediaweek.com.au

917K (average of 3 hours) just pips the NRL Sydney derby 907K (average over 2 hours)

Meanwhile, speaking of pips, the top 4 clash between Melb city and the Wanderers got 11K nationally on a friday night!

Actually, these days anytime the A-League surpasses 10k in ratings is a reason to celebrate.
We should not forget the huge streaming numbers the A-League are getting, according to some soccer experts, should multiply that by 5 or 6.

 

[BobbyMorri]

The head of a sport can make all kinds of outlandish statements about multiculturalism and "moments that bring a nation together." But those statements look pretty foolish when the sport is soccer and the nation is Australia.


And I'm sure Gillon McLachlan and Nick Hockley are about to make a public comment on that issue any moment now.

what I find amusing is that soccer thinks it brings Australia together when almost everybody - me included, and I find soccer boring - barracks for wherever they think their roots are during the world cup. go Ireland, or maybe Germany, or maybe England. I forget.

cool, whatever rocks your boat.

 

[Kwality]

cool, whatever rocks your boat.

Here is something that should draw viewers:
Women’s Super League agrees ‘landmark’ multimillion-dollar TV deal with BBC, Sky Sports (watoday.com.au)

The Women’s Super League, which features a host of Matildas stars, will benefit from prominent free broadcasts in Britain for the first time after the BBC and Sky Sports agreed to a “landmark” three-year, multimillion-dollar TV rights deal.

The BBC will broadcast 22 live games, with a minimum of 18 shown on BBC One or BBC Two from next season. Sky Sports will show up to 44 matches. It has been reported the deal is worth about £8 million ($14.3 million) a season.

note: the story is not behind Nines pay wall probably due to hacking of Nine.

 

[The_Wookie]

thread cleaned up. No posts have been deleted - simply moved to more apropriate threads.

 

[BringBackTorps]

I did. In simple terms, a code invests in a stadium because 1. they want to and it will benefit them 2. They can afford to. Simple.

It's not "simple". And it's not fair for the taxpayer.

I am saying that other sports can & should follow the example of the AFL, & contribute significant amounts to stadia funding.
The taxpayer should be protected- & no double standards, to "punish" the AFL, simply because it is well managed/ has financial strength, & has, by FAR, the largest average crowds in Australia.

I gave examples (in post#37, of transferred Docklands' Thread) of how the NRL could do this stadium funding itself directly, by cutting grants to NRL clubs; &/or diverting the exhorbitant profits of NRL clubs' affiliated vile pokie dens to RL stadia development.
Other sports can also contribute significant amounts to stadium funding, if they insist on their own rectangular stadia.

Sydney clearly has a surplus of rectangular stadia. Return On Investment abysmal if any new stadia/major refurbishments are done.

There is no justification, on economic grounds etc., cultural grounds (UNESCO principles- see below), & protecting the taxpayer, for FA (& other sports) in its current demands for new soccer stadia to be built.

And Wembley is not an "oval". It would never have hosted a cricket match for example. It is not an oval in the Aussie sense.

You are being semantic. Wembley is not rectangular, it is much larger than the usual soccer ground, & has a general oval configuration- & hosted, very successfully many tier 1 soccer matches for c. 60 years. Ditto the Rome & Munich oval Olympic stadia, but not for such a lengthy time.

Do you now if other Olympic oval stadia, or general oval stadia, also have tier 1 soccer matches played on them (not inc. Australia)?

If top British, Italian, & German soccer clubs are happy to play on these oval stadia (similar to West Ham, at the London Olympic stadium), then the much smaller, & less significant, Australian soccer clubs should be accepting also.


The NSW govt. is spending c. $1.3b on Bankwest stadium & SFS (inc. demolition & other costs)- very generous, since the stadia that were bulldozed were fine for poor to modest crowds.

If other codes are unwilling to spend significant amounts on stadia, then, to protect the taxpayer etc., all stadia in Australia should be oval- so AF ("the unique Australian game", & Australia's biggest sport), & cricket can be played there also. This is the most economically efficient configuration for new stadia- maximise ROI.



I assume you accept the validity & legality of the UNESCO Protection Of Cultural Heritage Principles' Convention. (ie UNESCO-defined "Intangible Items Of Cultural Heritage"). We are Signatories to the UNESCO 2003 Convention.

AF is a very important part of the "cultural heritage" of Australia for millions of people- some believe it is the most important cultural heritage of Australia.

AF, & the AFL, are entitled to expect acknowledgement of this very important UNESCO Cultural Heritage principle from the Aust. & all State govts., Councils, Schools etc.- & for govt. etc. practices, policies, & laws to be cogniscent of, & respectful towards, Australia's Intangible Items Of Cultural Heritage.

Until recently, Homebush, a modern stadium successfully hosting NRL GF's, SOO, big soccer & RU matches etc. was going to be demolished, & converted into a rectangle- at enormous cost (c.$1.2b+?), because it is so "old" (built 2000!). AF could no longer be played there.
Why did the NSW govt. reverse the policy to demolish Homebush?

Is this fair & reasonable for the taxpayer?

And fair for AF, & the AFL (noting GR AF is growing very strongly in NSW & ACT- & there is a shortage of GR AF facilities in Sydney's NS & ES)?
In contrast, GR club male contact RL is collapsing in Greater Sydney (excluding the Penrith District RL comp.).GR male contact RU is in similar dire straits also, & the A League attracts poor to modest crowds (like RL & RU).
Why, with the initial plans to demolish Homebush, was AF, & our unique cultural heritage, being discriminated against, re ability to host very large AFL crowds (the SCG capacity is only a paltry -for the AFL- c. 48k) in Australia's biggest city?

 

[robbieando]

You are being semantic. Wembley is not rectangular, it is much larger than the usual soccer ground, & has a general oval configuration- & hosted, very successfully many tier 1 soccer matches for c. 60 years.

Wembley was a former greyhound racing track that hosted English International matches and Cup Finals until it was demolished in 2000.

You are being highly semantic in claiming that the ground was an oval (it wasn’t) and when it was demolished it was replaced with a rectangular stadium in 2006 on the same spot.

Ditto the Rome & Munich oval Olympic stadia, but not for such a lengthy time.

Munich’s Olympic Stadium has not been used for Soccer since 2005 as it was replaced by a rectangular stadium which the two Munich clubs moved to (even when 1860 Munich moved out of the new stadium a few years back they moved to the stadium in use before 1972 which is another rectangular stadium).

As for Rome, both clubs that are currently playing at the Olympic Stadium are looking to build their own purpose built rectangular stadiums as the fans dislike the sight lines provided by a field surrounded by an athletic track.

Do you now if other Olympic oval stadia, or general oval stadia, also have tier 1 soccer matches played on them (not inc. Australia)?

Very few. The majority of examples are from Eastern Europe and even then they are moving towards rectangular stadiums more and more such as the new National stadiums in Warsaw and Budapest.

If top British, Italian, & German soccer clubs are happy to play on these oval stadia (similar to West Ham, at the London Olympic stadium), then the much smaller, & less significant, Australian soccer clubs should be accepting also.

West Ham is the exception to the rule and they are contracted to keep the athletic track. Their fans hate it and the club would get rid of it the moment their contact allowed it.

Clubs like Juventus, VfB Stuttgart, Werder Bremen, Udinese and Real Sociedad have converted their stadiums from athletic tracks to rectangular stadiums within the last 10 to 15 years with others such Zenit and Espanyol moving to rectangular stadiums from athletic tracks.

So no clubs in Europe clearly aren’t happy to play on athletic tracks as you claim. So why in the hell should they be accepting because you say so. If anything using your logic AFL should be happy with using rectangular stadiums in states that the sport in not the first preference.

 

[Pippen94]

It's not "simple". And it's not fair for the taxpayer.

I am saying that other sports can & should follow the example of the AFL, & contribute significant amounts to stadia funding.
The taxpayer should be protected- & no double standards, to "punish" the AFL, simply because it is well managed/ has financial strength, & has, by FAR, the largest average crowds in Australia.

I gave examples, in post#114 above, of how the NRL could do this stadium funding itself directly, by cutting grants to NRL clubs; &/or diverting the exhorbitant profits of NRL clubs' affiliated pokie dens to RL stadia development.
Other sports can also contribute significant amounts to stadium funding, if they insist on their own rectangular stadia.

Sydney clearly has a surplus of rectangular stadia. Return On Investment abysmal if any new stadia/major refurbishments are done.

There is no justification, on economic grounds etc., cultural grounds (UNESCO principles- see below), & protecting the taxpayer, for FA in its current demands for new soccer stadia to be built.




You are being semantic. Wembley is not rectangular, it is much larger than the usual soccer ground, & has a general oval configuration- & hosted, very successfully many tier 1 soccer matches for c. 60 years. Ditto the Rome & Munich oval Olympic stadia, but not for such a lengthy time.

Do you now if other Olympic oval stadia, or general oval stadia, also have tier 1 soccer matches played on them (not inc. Australia)?

If top British, Italian, & German soccer clubs are happy to play on these oval stadia (similar to West Ham, at the London Olympic stadium), then the much smaller, & less significant, Australian soccer clubs should be accepting also.


The NSW govt. is spending c. $1.3b on Bankwest stadium & SFS (inc. demolition & other costs)- very generous, since the stadia that were bulldozed were fine for the modest crowds.

If other codes are unwilling to spend significant amounts on stadia, then, to protect the taxpayer etc., all stadia in Australia should be oval- so AF ("the unique Australian game"), & cricket can be played there also. This is the most economically efficient configuration for new stadia- maximise ROI.



I assume you accept the validity & legality of the UNESCO Protection Of Cultural Heritage Principles' Convention. (ie UNESCO-defined "Intangible Items Of Cultural Heritage"). We are Signatories to the UNESCO 2003 Convention.

AF is a very important part of the "cultural heritage" of Australia for millions of people- some believe it is the most important cultural heritage of Australia.

AF, & the AFL, are entitled to expect acknowledgement of this UNESCO Cultural Heritage principle from the Aust. & all State govts.- & for govt. practices, policies, & laws to be cogniscent of, & respectful towards, Australia's Intangible Items Of Cultural Heritage.

Until recently, Homebush, a modern stadium successfully hosting NRL GF's, SOO, big soccer & RU matches etc. was going to be demolished, & converted into a rectangle- at enormous cost (c.$1.2b+?), because it is so "old" (built 2000!). AF could no longer be played there.
Why did the NSW govt. reverse the policy to demolish Homebush?

Is this fair & reasonable for the taxpayer?

And fair for the AFL (where GR AF is growing very strongly in NSW & ACT- & there is a shortage of GR AF facilities in Sydney's NS & ES)?
In contrast, GR club male contact RL is collapsing in Greater Sydney (excluding the Penrith District RL comp.). RU is in dire straits also, & the A League attracts modest crowds (like RL & RU).
Why, with the plans to demolish Homebush, was AF, & our unique cultural heritage, being discriminated against, re ability to host very large AFL crowds (the SCG capacity is only a paltry -for the AFL- c. 48k) in Australia's biggest city?

The delusion here is real. Look at TV ratings to understand which sport is most popular. NRL gets ten times the audience not even counting fox where the sport always out does afl.

If you want to talk grassroots soccer shits over every one else. On that sport the highest crowd for derby in a league exceeds that of manufactured afl equivalent also. Wallabies pulled bigger crowd last start for bledisoe too.

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel so I think even you know you're up against it. Afl has very little heritage significance in Sydney BTW.

 

[NoobPie]

The delusion here is real. Look at TV ratings to understand which sport is most popular. NRL gets ten times the audience not even counting fox where the sport always out does afl.

If you want to talk grassroots soccer shits over every one else. On that sport the highest crowd for derby in a league exceeds that of manufactured afl equivalent also. Wallabies pulled bigger crowd last start for bledisoe too.

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel so I think even you know you're up against it. Afl has very little heritage significance in Sydney BTW.

Delusion? Dude you are so terrorised by the ascendency of the AFL you can't even quiet your mind enough to understand what you are actually responding to

Surely theres a wanderers game coming up that you and 8,000 others across the whole country are going to watch?

 

[NoobPie]

Wembley was a former greyhound racing track that hosted English International matches and Cup Finals until it was demolished in 2000.

You are being highly semantic in claiming that the ground was an oval (it wasn’t) and when it was demolished it was replaced with a rectangular stadium in 2006 on the same spot.



Munich’s Olympic Stadium has not been used for Soccer since 2005 as it was replaced by a rectangular stadium which the two Munich clubs moved to (even when 1860 Munich moved out of the new stadium a few years back they moved to the stadium in use before 1972 which is another rectangular stadium).

As for Rome, both clubs that are currently playing at the Olympic Stadium are looking to build their own purpose built rectangular stadiums as the fans dislike the sight lines provided by a field surrounded by an athletic track.



Very few. The majority of examples are from Eastern Europe and even then they are moving towards rectangular stadiums more and more such as the new National stadiums in Warsaw and Budapest.



West Ham is the exception to the rule and they are contracted to keep the athletic track. Their fans hate it and the club would get rid of it the moment their contact allowed it.

Clubs like Juventus, VfB Stuttgart, Werder Bremen, Udinese and Real Sociedad have converted their stadiums from athletic tracks to rectangular stadiums within the last 10 to 15 years with others such Zenit and Espanyol moving to rectangular stadiums from athletic tracks.

So no clubs in Europe clearly aren’t happy to play on athletic tracks as you claim. So why in the hell should they be accepting because you say so. If anything using your logic AFL should be happy with using rectangular stadiums in states that the sport in not the first preference.

The point is several of the biggest soccer clubs in Europe played in oval stadiums for decades.... I.e clubs that actually filled those stadiums....whether or not they were ideal

If it was good enough for them surely oval stadiums are good enough for a sport that rarely attracts even 20k in this country?

 

[Gigantor]

An interesting aspect about the A-League currently is that there are games where there are more at the ground watching the game than might be watching the broadcast...and there aren't all that many at the ground.

There was a time when I had high hopes for the A-League, About a decade ago I was of the firm belief that by 2021, the A-League would achieve the average attendances the VFL was able to get in 1921, which was 16,325.

Those hopes have been dashed, with the A-League currently averaging around one-third of that.

I was way, way wrong in my estimation.

 

[Cmarsh]

An interesting aspect about the A-League currently is that there are games where there are more at the ground watching the game than might be watching the broadcast...and there aren't all that many at the ground.

There was a time when I had high hopes for the A-League, About a decade ago I was of the firm belief that by 2021, the A-League would achieve the average attendances the VFL was able to get in 1921, which was 16,325.

Those hopes have been dashed, with the A-League currently averaging around one-third of that.

I was way, way wrong in my estimation.

Speaking of matters a-league, Macarthur FC's entry this season has been without alot of fanfare. They are going quite well onfield, currently top 4, but there doesnt seem to be much interest in them. Just over 3k for their home game yesterday.
Don't see the crying need for a 3rd a-league team in Sydney. Their entry seemed to have a "well Melbourne has 3 teams so we better give Sydney 3 teams" vibe about it.

 

[Kwality]

And it's not fair for the taxpayer.

Which version of 'the taxpayer' are you claiming to represent?

 

[Rob]

Speaking of matters a-league, Macarthur FC's entry this season has been without alot of fanfare. They are going quite well onfield, currently top 4, but there doesnt seem to be much interest in them. Just over 3k for their home game yesterday.
Don't see the crying need for a 3rd a-league team in Sydney. Their entry seemed to have a "well Melbourne has 3 teams so we better give Sydney 3 teams" vibe about it.

Didn't they just pick the 2 teams that offered to pay the biggest licence fee?

 

[Kwality]

Given the Swans were sold twice ....