|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xAFL troll is doing his best work . It's that magical combination of bitter old people with too much time on their hands who discovered the internet. No offence to any forum members over 50/60 but it's an epidemic aha Facebook has become a weird old peoples home in the last few years too of bewildered seniors who have unleashed themselves into a world they do not understand but are determined to be a part of. Selfish baby boomers who want one last tiny bite of the cherry. I wonder if the next generation of kids will rebel against all this. Leave him to spend his days logging in and out of 4 accounts to have conversations with himself while he touches himself when someone responds. It's all he has. Do people actually waste their time on facebook? We are on an anonymous internet forum dedicated to a game of grown men kicking a ball better than we can, discussing hypotheticals on how many people will watch it. Perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And Everyone Blamed Clive
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xAFL troll is doing his best work . It's that magical combination of bitter old people with too much time on their hands who discovered the internet. No offence to any forum members over 50/60 but it's an epidemic aha Facebook has become a weird old peoples home in the last few years too of bewildered seniors who have unleashed themselves into a world they do not understand but are determined to be a part of. Selfish baby boomers who want one last tiny bite of the cherry. I wonder if the next generation of kids will rebel against all this. Leave him to spend his days logging in and out of 4 accounts to have conversations with himself while he touches himself when someone responds. It's all he has. Do people actually waste their time on facebook? I prefer to waste my time here
Winner of Official 442 Comment of the day Award - 10th April 2017
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xAFL troll is doing his best work . It's that magical combination of bitter old people with too much time on their hands who discovered the internet. No offence to any forum members over 50/60 but it's an epidemic aha Facebook has become a weird old peoples home in the last few years too of bewildered seniors who have unleashed themselves into a world they do not understand but are determined to be a part of. Selfish baby boomers who want one last tiny bite of the cherry. I wonder if the next generation of kids will rebel against all this. Leave him to spend his days logging in and out of 4 accounts to have conversations with himself while he touches himself when someone responds. It's all he has. Do people actually waste their time on facebook? I prefer to waste my time here While is a very low benchmark, virtually all pursuits can be ranked above facebook.
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xAFL troll is doing his best work . It's that magical combination of bitter old people with too much time on their hands who discovered the internet. No offence to any forum members over 50/60 but it's an epidemic aha Facebook has become a weird old peoples home in the last few years too of bewildered seniors who have unleashed themselves into a world they do not understand but are determined to be a part of. Selfish baby boomers who want one last tiny bite of the cherry. I wonder if the next generation of kids will rebel against all this. Leave him to spend his days logging in and out of 4 accounts to have conversations with himself while he touches himself when someone responds. It's all he has. Do people actually waste their time on facebook? I prefer to waste my time here While is a very low benchmark, virtually all pursuits can be ranked above facebook. Well the borderline schizofrenic behaviour of talking to ones own multi continues to prove otherwise I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xAFL troll is doing his best work . It's that magical combination of bitter old people with too much time on their hands who discovered the internet. No offence to any forum members over 50/60 but it's an epidemic aha Facebook has become a weird old peoples home in the last few years too of bewildered seniors who have unleashed themselves into a world they do not understand but are determined to be a part of. Selfish baby boomers who want one last tiny bite of the cherry. I wonder if the next generation of kids will rebel against all this. Leave him to spend his days logging in and out of 4 accounts to have conversations with himself while he touches himself when someone responds. It's all he has. Do people actually waste their time on facebook? I prefer to waste my time here While is a very low benchmark, virtually all pursuits can be ranked above facebook. Well the borderline schizofrenic behaviour of talking to ones own multi continues to prove otherwise I'm afraid. The word is schizophrenic, and you'd be making an excellent point, if it were true.
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAFL troll is doing his best work . It's that magical combination of bitter old people with too much time on their hands who discovered the internet. No offence to any forum members over 50/60 but it's an epidemic aha Facebook has become a weird old peoples home in the last few years too of bewildered seniors who have unleashed themselves into a world they do not understand but are determined to be a part of. Selfish baby boomers who want one last tiny bite of the cherry. I wonder if the next generation of kids will rebel against all this. Leave him to spend his days logging in and out of 4 accounts to have conversations with himself while he touches himself when someone responds. It's all he has. Do people actually waste their time on facebook? I prefer to waste my time here While is a very low benchmark, virtually all pursuits can be ranked above facebook. Well the borderline schizofrenic behaviour of talking to ones own multi continues to prove otherwise I'm afraid. The word is schizophrenic, and you'd be making an excellent point, if it were true. Aha I have no idea what happened to that spelling and it is true. Whether it applies to you personally or not is for you to know and me to only comment on because in my head 2016 is over and work is just something between me and holidays.
|
|
|
|
|
Australian Football dude
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 274,
Visits: 0
|
I agree with you, pippinu. Great minds hey?
|
|
|
|
|
bitza
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Fair post about the WAFL & TV rights But it still does not prove what the production cost are. If games are played just before the mens games and at the same stadiums, cost will be minimal (e.g pay the camera crew for an extra two hours work, where the quality of their work is not as crucial etc.) Also, cost of production are in no way tied to tv ratings. It cost the same amount of money to produce and broadcast every game at SFS. But the Derby games rate more. That does not mean it cost more. I do believe the FFA are crazy they way they are going about selling the game. But you cannot confirm to know that 5x60k is the avg FTA rating for WAFL games and that must be the base cost. AFL already got $2.4B dollars, and it would have been a bit rich of them to ask for a few million more after that, for a relatively new product. FYI, i sincerely wish the female afl players all the best. Personally i hate the game and wont watch it, but i am not shallow enough to wish them ill will. Just wish the AFL could be a little more positive like me when talking about football and not try to crush it in the media all the time.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI agree with you, pippinu. Great minds hey? Are you trying to make things better?
|
|
|
|
|
And Everyone Blamed Clive
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI agree with you, pippinu. Great minds hey? Are you trying to make things better?
Winner of Official 442 Comment of the day Award - 10th April 2017
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
I was just reflecting on how the standard of the 442 forum has declined over the last 8 years. This was my first blog on 442 exactly 8 years ago - the quality strikes me as exceptional. http://forum.insidesport.com.au/251107/BLOGKeepingItInReserveFFTArticle#bm251108These days, people appear to lack all civility, and only excel in ad hominems.
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
Fuck yourself with a cactus if you have a problem with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Clinton
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
Unfortunately you had declined before you left 11-12-2009 and only got worse when you started your Mister Football account 3 days later. Ever since we have had to put up with your war on football. Its a really strange purpose in life that you have chosen since you must be trawling through this site and the roar for 3-4 hours every single day. It wouldn't be so bad if you added to the discussion but all your posts are subtle and sneaky, tactically posting to make discussion negative, dropping false facts to make things worse than they are, attempting to change the focus of every discussion to code wars, using multiple accounts to mislead other forumers and support your agenda. And at 8 years, you need some help. If your going to waste your life with this negativity than at least have a little honor about the way you post.
|
|
|
|
|
The_Wookie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 346,
Visits: 0
|
+xFair post about the WAFL & TV rights But it still does not prove what the production cost are. If games are played just before the mens games and at the same stadiums, cost will be minimal (e.g pay the camera crew for an extra two hours work, where the quality of their work is not as crucial etc.) Also, cost of production are in no way tied to tv ratings. It cost the same amount of money to produce and broadcast every game at SFS. But the Derby games rate more. That does not mean it cost more. I do believe the FFA are crazy they way they are going about selling the game. But you cannot confirm to know that 5x60k is the avg FTA rating for WAFL games and that must be the base cost. AFL already got $2.4B dollars, and it would have been a bit rich of them to ask for a few million more after that, for a relatively new product. FYI, i sincerely wish the female afl players all the best. Personally i hate the game and wont watch it, but i am not shallow enough to wish them ill will. Just wish the AFL could be a little more positive like me when talking about football and not try to crush it in the media all the time. We do know that the SANFL are paying $1,000,000 a year for production costs for one game a week, 17 rounds a year and all finals, on either 7mate or 7s main channel - and from next season all broadcasts will be Saturday afternoon on the main channel in the absence of AFL matches. This cost is greatly reduced by sponsorship and advertising to a sum "slightly more than the $100,000 a season" the SANFL were paying the ABC. (The Average rating for SANFL games in 2016 was 27,000 in Adelaide only, rising to 74,000 a game during finals.) The WAFL has an identical deal to the SANFL, but in WA. The VFL deal is slightly different in that all matches are guaranteed on 7's main channel on a Sunday at midday. No announcement has ever been made about the VFL paying production costs, but its produced by the same company that does the others so Id assume similar terms apply. In all three cases, the matches are produced by an independent tv company ( Eddie McGuires JamTV) and on sold to whichever channel will take the package.
|
|
|
|
|
jatz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 361,
Visits: 0
|
+xFair post about the WAFL & TV rights But it still does not prove what the production cost are. If games are played just before the mens games and at the same stadiums, cost will be minimal (e.g pay the camera crew for an extra two hours work, where the quality of their work is not as crucial etc.) Also, cost of production are in no way tied to tv ratings. It cost the same amount of money to produce and broadcast every game at SFS. But the Derby games rate more. That does not mean it cost more. I do believe the FFA are crazy they way they are going about selling the game. But you cannot confirm to know that 5x60k is the avg FTA rating for WAFL games and that must be the base cost. AFL already got $2.4B dollars, and it would have been a bit rich of them to ask for a few million more after that, for a relatively new product. FYI, i sincerely wish the female afl players all the best. Personally i hate the game and wont watch it, but i am not shallow enough to wish them ill will. Just wish the AFL could be a little more positive like me when talking about football and not try to crush it in the media all the time. I do not think costs are quite the point. There are 4 basic levels. 1. We will broadcast your sport, but you have to pay us to do it, as we do not think ratings will cover costs. 2. We will broadcast your sport, and while we will not make you pay costs, we are not going to give you anything. 3. We will broadcast your sport, and will do a deal for you to get something, but it will not be huge. 4. We will pay through the nose to get you on our channel. W-league is an example of 1 (I believe, as I think FFA pay for it to be shown, may be wrong), SANFL and WAFL are others. WBBL and the new AFLW are examples of 2. Frankly this is a great deal for the AFL, could easily have been a 1. Netball is an example of 3. NRL and AFL are 4. The ratings SBS are getting puts the A league firmly in the 2. camp. 3 - 5 times the ratings SBS get put it in 3. This is the problem the FFA has, how much of an increase the A league ratings will get on a major FTA is speculation, and there is a limit to how much they will spend on speculation. I think they have to look at it as Pay TV for the coin, FTA for the reach.
|
|
|
|
|
jatz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 361,
Visits: 0
|
+xFair post about the WAFL & TV rights But it still does not prove what the production cost are. If games are played just before the mens games and at the same stadiums, cost will be minimal (e.g pay the camera crew for an extra two hours work, where the quality of their work is not as crucial etc.) Also, cost of production are in no way tied to tv ratings. It cost the same amount of money to produce and broadcast every game at SFS. But the Derby games rate more. That does not mean it cost more. I do believe the FFA are crazy they way they are going about selling the game. But you cannot confirm to know that 5x60k is the avg FTA rating for WAFL games and that must be the base cost. AFL already got $2.4B dollars, and it would have been a bit rich of them to ask for a few million more after that, for a relatively new product. FYI, i sincerely wish the female afl players all the best. Personally i hate the game and wont watch it, but i am not shallow enough to wish them ill will. Just wish the AFL could be a little more positive like me when talking about football and not try to crush it in the media all the time. Although, I must admit to always thinking prior to deals being announced that the amounts being talked about are pie in the sky, and then the deals are for even more, so what the hell do I know.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xFair post about the WAFL & TV rights But it still does not prove what the production cost are. If games are played just before the mens games and at the same stadiums, cost will be minimal (e.g pay the camera crew for an extra two hours work, where the quality of their work is not as crucial etc.) Also, cost of production are in no way tied to tv ratings. It cost the same amount of money to produce and broadcast every game at SFS. But the Derby games rate more. That does not mean it cost more. I do believe the FFA are crazy they way they are going about selling the game. But you cannot confirm to know that 5x60k is the avg FTA rating for WAFL games and that must be the base cost. AFL already got $2.4B dollars, and it would have been a bit rich of them to ask for a few million more after that, for a relatively new product. FYI, i sincerely wish the female afl players all the best. Personally i hate the game and wont watch it, but i am not shallow enough to wish them ill will. Just wish the AFL could be a little more positive like me when talking about football and not try to crush it in the media all the time. I do not think costs are quite the point. There are 4 basic levels. 1. We will broadcast your sport, but you have to pay us to do it, as we do not think ratings will cover costs. 2. We will broadcast your sport, and while we will not make you pay costs, we are not going to give you anything. 3. We will broadcast your sport, and will do a deal for you to get something, but it will not be huge. 4. We will pay through the nose to get you on our channel. W-league is an example of 1 (I believe, as I think FFA pay for it to be shown, may be wrong), SANFL and WAFL are others. WBBL and the new AFLW are examples of 2. Frankly this is a great deal for the AFL, could easily have been a 1. Netball is an example of 3. NRL and AFL are 4. The ratings SBS are getting puts the A league firmly in the 2. camp. 3 - 5 times the ratings SBS get put it in 3. This is the problem the FFA has, how much of an increase the A league ratings will get on a major FTA is speculation, and there is a limit to how much they will spend on speculation. I think they have to look at it as Pay TV for the coin, FTA for the reach. Good post, hard to disagree with. We already know that SBS tried giving away their rights to the Friday night game, but failed, so we already have clear evidence that the A-League resides in that second group. If the FFA can get one game per round on commercial FTA at zero cost to themselves, then that has to be viewed as a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Australian Football dude
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 274,
Visits: 0
|
+xFair post about the WAFL & TV rights But it still does not prove what the production cost are. If games are played just before the mens games and at the same stadiums, cost will be minimal (e.g pay the camera crew for an extra two hours work, where the quality of their work is not as crucial etc.) Also, cost of production are in no way tied to tv ratings. It cost the same amount of money to produce and broadcast every game at SFS. But the Derby games rate more. That does not mean it cost more. I do believe the FFA are crazy they way they are going about selling the game. But you cannot confirm to know that 5x60k is the avg FTA rating for WAFL games and that must be the base cost. AFL already got $2.4B dollars, and it would have been a bit rich of them to ask for a few million more after that, for a relatively new product. FYI, i sincerely wish the female afl players all the best. Personally i hate the game and wont watch it, but i am not shallow enough to wish them ill will. Just wish the AFL could be a little more positive like me when talking about football and not try to crush it in the media all the time. Hi Bitza, just for clarification the "60k X 5 = 300k", related to the ratings that the HAL would get if their FTA ratings increased 5 fold based on the average on Viceland. I used it in response to someone claiming that FTA main channel will have a 3 to 5 fold impact on ratings. My point was to demonstrate that, even with these ratings (which an FTA provider would need to take on a lot of faith), it is unlikely an FTA provider would pay anything for it. You are very correct in that ratings are independent of costs. I'm sure the derbies would rate OK, but there are only 6 of them, not 27 I do not have direct knowledge of the production costs of sporting broadcasts, so I can only speculate.The Wookie's SANFL example implies a roughly $50,000 a match production cost. Now you need more cameras in Australian football than soccer but the SANFL is semi-professional so I would suspect that the full costs of covering an A League game would be around this if an FTA is doing one game a week. For a start, that "talent" would cost a lot more for the HAL than SANFL. The other cost that is very important to consider is the "opportunity" cost. This is what I was alluding to earlier with MacGyver and Hawaii 5-0. I don't know what these cost 10 but, it's fair to say, if it is any serious money then they probably were initially intentioned for Saturday nights. Bottom line is though they could do simpsons' bonanzas every saturday night and their costs will be close to zero. So new "content" only becomes worth while if it increases the viewers (and so advertising) relative to what it costs the network. Also, Saturday nights are lower ratings nights than Fridays. This is why SBS plays the HAL on Viceland, even though it offered to the FFA to play saturday night games on the main channel if they were given them. I think that it is good of you to wish the AFL Womens well. It's important to remember though that the HAL (as with the NRL, ARU, CA etc) are competitors for TV monies, sponsorship, fans and athletic talent to the AFL. The AFL's duties are to promote the interests and development of Australian football...I'm not sure about "crushing" but they aren't going to go out of their way to be positive about other codes
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xFair post about the WAFL & TV rights But it still does not prove what the production cost are. If games are played just before the mens games and at the same stadiums, cost will be minimal (e.g pay the camera crew for an extra two hours work, where the quality of their work is not as crucial etc.) Also, cost of production are in no way tied to tv ratings. It cost the same amount of money to produce and broadcast every game at SFS. But the Derby games rate more. That does not mean it cost more. I do believe the FFA are crazy they way they are going about selling the game. But you cannot confirm to know that 5x60k is the avg FTA rating for WAFL games and that must be the base cost. AFL already got $2.4B dollars, and it would have been a bit rich of them to ask for a few million more after that, for a relatively new product. FYI, i sincerely wish the female afl players all the best. Personally i hate the game and wont watch it, but i am not shallow enough to wish them ill will. Just wish the AFL could be a little more positive like me when talking about football and not try to crush it in the media all the time. Hi Bitza, just for clarification the "60k X 5 = 300k", related to the ratings that the HAL would get if their FTA ratings increased 5 fold based on the average on Viceland. I used it in response to someone claiming that FTA main channel will have a 3 to 5 fold impact on ratings. My point was to demonstrate that, even with these ratings (which an FTA provider would need to take on a lot of faith), it is unlikely an FTA provider would pay anything for it. You are very correct in that ratings are independent of costs. I'm sure the derbies would rate OK, but there are only 6 of them, not 27 I do not have direct knowledge of the production costs of sporting broadcasts, so I can only speculate.The Wookie's SANFL example implies a roughly $50,000 a match production cost. Now you need more cameras in Australian football than soccer but the SANFL is semi-professional so I would suspect that the full costs of covering an A League game would be around this if an FTA is doing one game a week. For a start, that "talent" would cost a lot more for the HAL than SANFL. The other cost that is very important to consider is the "opportunity" cost. This is what I was alluding to earlier with MacGyver and Hawaii 5-0. I don't know what these cost 10 but, it's fair to say, if it is any serious money then they probably were initially intentioned for Saturday nights. Bottom line is though they could do simpsons' bonanzas every saturday night and their costs will be close to zero. So new "content" only becomes worth while if it increases the viewers (and so advertising) relative to what it costs the network. Also, Saturday nights are lower ratings nights than Fridays. This is why SBS plays the HAL on Viceland, even though it offered to the FFA to play saturday night games on the main channel if they were given them. I think that it is good of you to wish the AFL Womens well. It's important to remember though that the HAL (as with the NRL, ARU, CA etc) are competitors for TV monies, sponsorship, fans and athletic talent to the AFL. The AFL's duties are to promote the interests and development of Australian football...I'm not sure about "crushing" but they aren't going to go out of their way to be positive about other codes Good post. The commercial FTAs aren't going to pay good money to put something on the main channel that is only going to rate as high as something which costs them nothing and is sitting on a secondary channel.
|
|
|
|
|
Davo1985
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 1
|
+x+x+xFair post about the WAFL & TV rights But it still does not prove what the production cost are. If games are played just before the mens games and at the same stadiums, cost will be minimal (e.g pay the camera crew for an extra two hours work, where the quality of their work is not as crucial etc.) Also, cost of production are in no way tied to tv ratings. It cost the same amount of money to produce and broadcast every game at SFS. But the Derby games rate more. That does not mean it cost more. I do believe the FFA are crazy they way they are going about selling the game. But you cannot confirm to know that 5x60k is the avg FTA rating for WAFL games and that must be the base cost. AFL already got $2.4B dollars, and it would have been a bit rich of them to ask for a few million more after that, for a relatively new product. FYI, i sincerely wish the female afl players all the best. Personally i hate the game and wont watch it, but i am not shallow enough to wish them ill will. Just wish the AFL could be a little more positive like me when talking about football and not try to crush it in the media all the time. Hi Bitza, just for clarification the "60k X 5 = 300k", related to the ratings that the HAL would get if their FTA ratings increased 5 fold based on the average on Viceland. I used it in response to someone claiming that FTA main channel will have a 3 to 5 fold impact on ratings. My point was to demonstrate that, even with these ratings (which an FTA provider would need to take on a lot of faith), it is unlikely an FTA provider would pay anything for it. You are very correct in that ratings are independent of costs. I'm sure the derbies would rate OK, but there are only 6 of them, not 27 I do not have direct knowledge of the production costs of sporting broadcasts, so I can only speculate.The Wookie's SANFL example implies a roughly $50,000 a match production cost. Now you need more cameras in Australian football than soccer but the SANFL is semi-professional so I would suspect that the full costs of covering an A League game would be around this if an FTA is doing one game a week. For a start, that "talent" would cost a lot more for the HAL than SANFL. The other cost that is very important to consider is the "opportunity" cost. This is what I was alluding to earlier with MacGyver and Hawaii 5-0. I don't know what these cost 10 but, it's fair to say, if it is any serious money then they probably were initially intentioned for Saturday nights. Bottom line is though they could do simpsons' bonanzas every saturday night and their costs will be close to zero. So new "content" only becomes worth while if it increases the viewers (and so advertising) relative to what it costs the network. Also, Saturday nights are lower ratings nights than Fridays. This is why SBS plays the HAL on Viceland, even though it offered to the FFA to play saturday night games on the main channel if they were given them. I think that it is good of you to wish the AFL Womens well. It's important to remember though that the HAL (as with the NRL, ARU, CA etc) are competitors for TV monies, sponsorship, fans and athletic talent to the AFL. The AFL's duties are to promote the interests and development of Australian football...I'm not sure about "crushing" but they aren't going to go out of their way to be positive about other codes Good post. The commercial FTAs aren't going to pay good money to put something on the main channel that is only going to rate as high as something which costs them nothing and is sitting on a secondary channel. If fta want to exist in thw future they will be p8shing live aport hard. no one is going to be watching re runs with ads through them qhe they can access that contwnt and more online. we are no longer in the same environment say of 5 years ago. If fta ignore paying even a premium for live sport they will slowly but surely go bust. Tge figures are already showing an alarming drop of viewers of fta. Tje only thing.thats keeping their ratings up is sport as it is sometimes.the only platform to view it. All other tv shows can easily be accessed online and if they cant get their "the block" fix they will watch sometbing else that is entirely similar. With sport its not as easy if people are invested in a particular sport or club.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xFair post about the WAFL & TV rights But it still does not prove what the production cost are. If games are played just before the mens games and at the same stadiums, cost will be minimal (e.g pay the camera crew for an extra two hours work, where the quality of their work is not as crucial etc.) Also, cost of production are in no way tied to tv ratings. It cost the same amount of money to produce and broadcast every game at SFS. But the Derby games rate more. That does not mean it cost more. I do believe the FFA are crazy they way they are going about selling the game. But you cannot confirm to know that 5x60k is the avg FTA rating for WAFL games and that must be the base cost. AFL already got $2.4B dollars, and it would have been a bit rich of them to ask for a few million more after that, for a relatively new product. FYI, i sincerely wish the female afl players all the best. Personally i hate the game and wont watch it, but i am not shallow enough to wish them ill will. Just wish the AFL could be a little more positive like me when talking about football and not try to crush it in the media all the time. Hi Bitza, just for clarification the "60k X 5 = 300k", related to the ratings that the HAL would get if their FTA ratings increased 5 fold based on the average on Viceland. I used it in response to someone claiming that FTA main channel will have a 3 to 5 fold impact on ratings. My point was to demonstrate that, even with these ratings (which an FTA provider would need to take on a lot of faith), it is unlikely an FTA provider would pay anything for it. You are very correct in that ratings are independent of costs. I'm sure the derbies would rate OK, but there are only 6 of them, not 27 I do not have direct knowledge of the production costs of sporting broadcasts, so I can only speculate.The Wookie's SANFL example implies a roughly $50,000 a match production cost. Now you need more cameras in Australian football than soccer but the SANFL is semi-professional so I would suspect that the full costs of covering an A League game would be around this if an FTA is doing one game a week. For a start, that "talent" would cost a lot more for the HAL than SANFL. The other cost that is very important to consider is the "opportunity" cost. This is what I was alluding to earlier with MacGyver and Hawaii 5-0. I don't know what these cost 10 but, it's fair to say, if it is any serious money then they probably were initially intentioned for Saturday nights. Bottom line is though they could do simpsons' bonanzas every saturday night and their costs will be close to zero. So new "content" only becomes worth while if it increases the viewers (and so advertising) relative to what it costs the network. Also, Saturday nights are lower ratings nights than Fridays. This is why SBS plays the HAL on Viceland, even though it offered to the FFA to play saturday night games on the main channel if they were given them. I think that it is good of you to wish the AFL Womens well. It's important to remember though that the HAL (as with the NRL, ARU, CA etc) are competitors for TV monies, sponsorship, fans and athletic talent to the AFL. The AFL's duties are to promote the interests and development of Australian football...I'm not sure about "crushing" but they aren't going to go out of their way to be positive about other codes Good post. The commercial FTAs aren't going to pay good money to put something on the main channel that is only going to rate as high as something which costs them nothing and is sitting on a secondary channel. If fta want to exist in thw future they will be p8shing live aport hard. no one is going to be watching re runs with ads through them qhe they can access that contwnt and more online. we are no longer in the same environment say of 5 years ago. If fta ignore paying even a premium for live sport they will slowly but surely go bust. Tge figures are already showing an alarming drop of viewers of fta. Tje only thing.thats keeping their ratings up is sport as it is sometimes.the only platform to view it. All other tv shows can easily be accessed online and if they cant get their "the block" fix they will watch sometbing else that is entirely similar. With sport its not as easy if people are invested in a particular sport or club. But his point remains valid, there is endless free stuff that actually rates better than the A-League - that is the biggest obstacle to the FFA getting money out of the commercial FTAs.
|
|
|
|
|
Strikers94
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 149,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xFair post about the WAFL & TV rights But it still does not prove what the production cost are. If games are played just before the mens games and at the same stadiums, cost will be minimal (e.g pay the camera crew for an extra two hours work, where the quality of their work is not as crucial etc.) Also, cost of production are in no way tied to tv ratings. It cost the same amount of money to produce and broadcast every game at SFS. But the Derby games rate more. That does not mean it cost more. I do believe the FFA are crazy they way they are going about selling the game. But you cannot confirm to know that 5x60k is the avg FTA rating for WAFL games and that must be the base cost. AFL already got $2.4B dollars, and it would have been a bit rich of them to ask for a few million more after that, for a relatively new product. FYI, i sincerely wish the female afl players all the best. Personally i hate the game and wont watch it, but i am not shallow enough to wish them ill will. Just wish the AFL could be a little more positive like me when talking about football and not try to crush it in the media all the time. Hi Bitza, just for clarification the "60k X 5 = 300k", related to the ratings that the HAL would get if their FTA ratings increased 5 fold based on the average on Viceland. I used it in response to someone claiming that FTA main channel will have a 3 to 5 fold impact on ratings. My point was to demonstrate that, even with these ratings (which an FTA provider would need to take on a lot of faith), it is unlikely an FTA provider would pay anything for it. You are very correct in that ratings are independent of costs. I'm sure the derbies would rate OK, but there are only 6 of them, not 27 I do not have direct knowledge of the production costs of sporting broadcasts, so I can only speculate.The Wookie's SANFL example implies a roughly $50,000 a match production cost. Now you need more cameras in Australian football than soccer but the SANFL is semi-professional so I would suspect that the full costs of covering an A League game would be around this if an FTA is doing one game a week. For a start, that "talent" would cost a lot more for the HAL than SANFL. The other cost that is very important to consider is the "opportunity" cost. This is what I was alluding to earlier with MacGyver and Hawaii 5-0. I don't know what these cost 10 but, it's fair to say, if it is any serious money then they probably were initially intentioned for Saturday nights. Bottom line is though they could do simpsons' bonanzas every saturday night and their costs will be close to zero. So new "content" only becomes worth while if it increases the viewers (and so advertising) relative to what it costs the network. Also, Saturday nights are lower ratings nights than Fridays. This is why SBS plays the HAL on Viceland, even though it offered to the FFA to play saturday night games on the main channel if they were given them. I think that it is good of you to wish the AFL Womens well. It's important to remember though that the HAL (as with the NRL, ARU, CA etc) are competitors for TV monies, sponsorship, fans and athletic talent to the AFL. The AFL's duties are to promote the interests and development of Australian football...I'm not sure about "crushing" but they aren't going to go out of their way to be positive about other codes Good post. The commercial FTAs aren't going to pay good money to put something on the main channel that is only going to rate as high as something which costs them nothing and is sitting on a secondary channel. If fta want to exist in thw future they will be p8shing live aport hard. no one is going to be watching re runs with ads through them qhe they can access that contwnt and more online. we are no longer in the same environment say of 5 years ago. If fta ignore paying even a premium for live sport they will slowly but surely go bust. Tge figures are already showing an alarming drop of viewers of fta. Tje only thing.thats keeping their ratings up is sport as it is sometimes.the only platform to view it. All other tv shows can easily be accessed online and if they cant get their "the block" fix they will watch sometbing else that is entirely similar. With sport its not as easy if people are invested in a particular sport or club. But his point remains valid, there is endless free stuff that actually rates better than the A-League - that is the biggest obstacle to the FFA getting money out of the commercial FTAs. 'Endless free stuff', sure. However there are not an endless number of national competitions, which is what the big networks want. The Queensland Cup out-rates AFL preliminary finals in Queensland yet the QRL doesn't have a billion dollar tv deal. Why? It's not a national comp and has limited appeal. Why is this thread filled with bitter AFL zealots anyway?
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xFair post about the WAFL & TV rights But it still does not prove what the production cost are. If games are played just before the mens games and at the same stadiums, cost will be minimal (e.g pay the camera crew for an extra two hours work, where the quality of their work is not as crucial etc.) Also, cost of production are in no way tied to tv ratings. It cost the same amount of money to produce and broadcast every game at SFS. But the Derby games rate more. That does not mean it cost more. I do believe the FFA are crazy they way they are going about selling the game. But you cannot confirm to know that 5x60k is the avg FTA rating for WAFL games and that must be the base cost. AFL already got $2.4B dollars, and it would have been a bit rich of them to ask for a few million more after that, for a relatively new product. FYI, i sincerely wish the female afl players all the best. Personally i hate the game and wont watch it, but i am not shallow enough to wish them ill will. Just wish the AFL could be a little more positive like me when talking about football and not try to crush it in the media all the time. Hi Bitza, just for clarification the "60k X 5 = 300k", related to the ratings that the HAL would get if their FTA ratings increased 5 fold based on the average on Viceland. I used it in response to someone claiming that FTA main channel will have a 3 to 5 fold impact on ratings. My point was to demonstrate that, even with these ratings (which an FTA provider would need to take on a lot of faith), it is unlikely an FTA provider would pay anything for it. You are very correct in that ratings are independent of costs. I'm sure the derbies would rate OK, but there are only 6 of them, not 27 I do not have direct knowledge of the production costs of sporting broadcasts, so I can only speculate.The Wookie's SANFL example implies a roughly $50,000 a match production cost. Now you need more cameras in Australian football than soccer but the SANFL is semi-professional so I would suspect that the full costs of covering an A League game would be around this if an FTA is doing one game a week. For a start, that "talent" would cost a lot more for the HAL than SANFL. The other cost that is very important to consider is the "opportunity" cost. This is what I was alluding to earlier with MacGyver and Hawaii 5-0. I don't know what these cost 10 but, it's fair to say, if it is any serious money then they probably were initially intentioned for Saturday nights. Bottom line is though they could do simpsons' bonanzas every saturday night and their costs will be close to zero. So new "content" only becomes worth while if it increases the viewers (and so advertising) relative to what it costs the network. Also, Saturday nights are lower ratings nights than Fridays. This is why SBS plays the HAL on Viceland, even though it offered to the FFA to play saturday night games on the main channel if they were given them. I think that it is good of you to wish the AFL Womens well. It's important to remember though that the HAL (as with the NRL, ARU, CA etc) are competitors for TV monies, sponsorship, fans and athletic talent to the AFL. The AFL's duties are to promote the interests and development of Australian football...I'm not sure about "crushing" but they aren't going to go out of their way to be positive about other codes Good post. The commercial FTAs aren't going to pay good money to put something on the main channel that is only going to rate as high as something which costs them nothing and is sitting on a secondary channel. If fta want to exist in thw future they will be p8shing live aport hard. no one is going to be watching re runs with ads through them qhe they can access that contwnt and more online. we are no longer in the same environment say of 5 years ago. If fta ignore paying even a premium for live sport they will slowly but surely go bust. Tge figures are already showing an alarming drop of viewers of fta. Tje only thing.thats keeping their ratings up is sport as it is sometimes.the only platform to view it. All other tv shows can easily be accessed online and if they cant get their "the block" fix they will watch sometbing else that is entirely similar. With sport its not as easy if people are invested in a particular sport or club. But his point remains valid, there is endless free stuff that actually rates better than the A-League - that is the biggest obstacle to the FFA getting money out of the commercial FTAs. 'Endless free stuff', sure. However there are not an endless number of national competitions, which is what the big networks want. The Queensland Cup out-rates AFL preliminary finals in Queensland yet the QRL doesn't have a billion dollar tv deal. Why? It's not a national comp and has limited appeal. Why is this thread filled with bitter AFL zealots anyway? As someone else pointed out, the SANFL, WAFL and VFL pay a Commercial FTA to broadcast their matches. That's the point isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
Strikers94
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 149,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xFair post about the WAFL & TV rights But it still does not prove what the production cost are. If games are played just before the mens games and at the same stadiums, cost will be minimal (e.g pay the camera crew for an extra two hours work, where the quality of their work is not as crucial etc.) Also, cost of production are in no way tied to tv ratings. It cost the same amount of money to produce and broadcast every game at SFS. But the Derby games rate more. That does not mean it cost more. I do believe the FFA are crazy they way they are going about selling the game. But you cannot confirm to know that 5x60k is the avg FTA rating for WAFL games and that must be the base cost. AFL already got $2.4B dollars, and it would have been a bit rich of them to ask for a few million more after that, for a relatively new product. FYI, i sincerely wish the female afl players all the best. Personally i hate the game and wont watch it, but i am not shallow enough to wish them ill will. Just wish the AFL could be a little more positive like me when talking about football and not try to crush it in the media all the time. Hi Bitza, just for clarification the "60k X 5 = 300k", related to the ratings that the HAL would get if their FTA ratings increased 5 fold based on the average on Viceland. I used it in response to someone claiming that FTA main channel will have a 3 to 5 fold impact on ratings. My point was to demonstrate that, even with these ratings (which an FTA provider would need to take on a lot of faith), it is unlikely an FTA provider would pay anything for it. You are very correct in that ratings are independent of costs. I'm sure the derbies would rate OK, but there are only 6 of them, not 27 I do not have direct knowledge of the production costs of sporting broadcasts, so I can only speculate.The Wookie's SANFL example implies a roughly $50,000 a match production cost. Now you need more cameras in Australian football than soccer but the SANFL is semi-professional so I would suspect that the full costs of covering an A League game would be around this if an FTA is doing one game a week. For a start, that "talent" would cost a lot more for the HAL than SANFL. The other cost that is very important to consider is the "opportunity" cost. This is what I was alluding to earlier with MacGyver and Hawaii 5-0. I don't know what these cost 10 but, it's fair to say, if it is any serious money then they probably were initially intentioned for Saturday nights. Bottom line is though they could do simpsons' bonanzas every saturday night and their costs will be close to zero. So new "content" only becomes worth while if it increases the viewers (and so advertising) relative to what it costs the network. Also, Saturday nights are lower ratings nights than Fridays. This is why SBS plays the HAL on Viceland, even though it offered to the FFA to play saturday night games on the main channel if they were given them. I think that it is good of you to wish the AFL Womens well. It's important to remember though that the HAL (as with the NRL, ARU, CA etc) are competitors for TV monies, sponsorship, fans and athletic talent to the AFL. The AFL's duties are to promote the interests and development of Australian football...I'm not sure about "crushing" but they aren't going to go out of their way to be positive about other codes Good post. The commercial FTAs aren't going to pay good money to put something on the main channel that is only going to rate as high as something which costs them nothing and is sitting on a secondary channel. If fta want to exist in thw future they will be p8shing live aport hard. no one is going to be watching re runs with ads through them qhe they can access that contwnt and more online. we are no longer in the same environment say of 5 years ago. If fta ignore paying even a premium for live sport they will slowly but surely go bust. Tge figures are already showing an alarming drop of viewers of fta. Tje only thing.thats keeping their ratings up is sport as it is sometimes.the only platform to view it. All other tv shows can easily be accessed online and if they cant get their "the block" fix they will watch sometbing else that is entirely similar. With sport its not as easy if people are invested in a particular sport or club. But his point remains valid, there is endless free stuff that actually rates better than the A-League - that is the biggest obstacle to the FFA getting money out of the commercial FTAs. 'Endless free stuff', sure. However there are not an endless number of national competitions, which is what the big networks want. The Queensland Cup out-rates AFL preliminary finals in Queensland yet the QRL doesn't have a billion dollar tv deal. Why? It's not a national comp and has limited appeal. Why is this thread filled with bitter AFL zealots anyway? As someone else pointed out, the SANFL, WAFL and VFL pay a Commercial FTA to broadcast their matches. That's the point isn't it? Seems you're having trouble understanding the difference between little one-city comps and a national competition.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xFair post about the WAFL & TV rights But it still does not prove what the production cost are. If games are played just before the mens games and at the same stadiums, cost will be minimal (e.g pay the camera crew for an extra two hours work, where the quality of their work is not as crucial etc.) Also, cost of production are in no way tied to tv ratings. It cost the same amount of money to produce and broadcast every game at SFS. But the Derby games rate more. That does not mean it cost more. I do believe the FFA are crazy they way they are going about selling the game. But you cannot confirm to know that 5x60k is the avg FTA rating for WAFL games and that must be the base cost. AFL already got $2.4B dollars, and it would have been a bit rich of them to ask for a few million more after that, for a relatively new product. FYI, i sincerely wish the female afl players all the best. Personally i hate the game and wont watch it, but i am not shallow enough to wish them ill will. Just wish the AFL could be a little more positive like me when talking about football and not try to crush it in the media all the time. Hi Bitza, just for clarification the "60k X 5 = 300k", related to the ratings that the HAL would get if their FTA ratings increased 5 fold based on the average on Viceland. I used it in response to someone claiming that FTA main channel will have a 3 to 5 fold impact on ratings. My point was to demonstrate that, even with these ratings (which an FTA provider would need to take on a lot of faith), it is unlikely an FTA provider would pay anything for it. You are very correct in that ratings are independent of costs. I'm sure the derbies would rate OK, but there are only 6 of them, not 27 I do not have direct knowledge of the production costs of sporting broadcasts, so I can only speculate.The Wookie's SANFL example implies a roughly $50,000 a match production cost. Now you need more cameras in Australian football than soccer but the SANFL is semi-professional so I would suspect that the full costs of covering an A League game would be around this if an FTA is doing one game a week. For a start, that "talent" would cost a lot more for the HAL than SANFL. The other cost that is very important to consider is the "opportunity" cost. This is what I was alluding to earlier with MacGyver and Hawaii 5-0. I don't know what these cost 10 but, it's fair to say, if it is any serious money then they probably were initially intentioned for Saturday nights. Bottom line is though they could do simpsons' bonanzas every saturday night and their costs will be close to zero. So new "content" only becomes worth while if it increases the viewers (and so advertising) relative to what it costs the network. Also, Saturday nights are lower ratings nights than Fridays. This is why SBS plays the HAL on Viceland, even though it offered to the FFA to play saturday night games on the main channel if they were given them. I think that it is good of you to wish the AFL Womens well. It's important to remember though that the HAL (as with the NRL, ARU, CA etc) are competitors for TV monies, sponsorship, fans and athletic talent to the AFL. The AFL's duties are to promote the interests and development of Australian football...I'm not sure about "crushing" but they aren't going to go out of their way to be positive about other codes Good post. The commercial FTAs aren't going to pay good money to put something on the main channel that is only going to rate as high as something which costs them nothing and is sitting on a secondary channel. If fta want to exist in thw future they will be p8shing live aport hard. no one is going to be watching re runs with ads through them qhe they can access that contwnt and more online. we are no longer in the same environment say of 5 years ago. If fta ignore paying even a premium for live sport they will slowly but surely go bust. Tge figures are already showing an alarming drop of viewers of fta. Tje only thing.thats keeping their ratings up is sport as it is sometimes.the only platform to view it. All other tv shows can easily be accessed online and if they cant get their "the block" fix they will watch sometbing else that is entirely similar. With sport its not as easy if people are invested in a particular sport or club. But his point remains valid, there is endless free stuff that actually rates better than the A-League - that is the biggest obstacle to the FFA getting money out of the commercial FTAs. 'Endless free stuff', sure. However there are not an endless number of national competitions, which is what the big networks want. The Queensland Cup out-rates AFL preliminary finals in Queensland yet the QRL doesn't have a billion dollar tv deal. Why? It's not a national comp and has limited appeal. Why is this thread filled with bitter AFL zealots anyway? As someone else pointed out, the SANFL, WAFL and VFL pay a Commercial FTA to broadcast their matches. That's the point isn't it? Seems you're having trouble understanding the difference between little one-city comps and a national competition. Did you not raise the Queensland Cup in the first place?
|
|
|
|
|
Strikers94
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 149,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xFair post about the WAFL & TV rights But it still does not prove what the production cost are. If games are played just before the mens games and at the same stadiums, cost will be minimal (e.g pay the camera crew for an extra two hours work, where the quality of their work is not as crucial etc.) Also, cost of production are in no way tied to tv ratings. It cost the same amount of money to produce and broadcast every game at SFS. But the Derby games rate more. That does not mean it cost more. I do believe the FFA are crazy they way they are going about selling the game. But you cannot confirm to know that 5x60k is the avg FTA rating for WAFL games and that must be the base cost. AFL already got $2.4B dollars, and it would have been a bit rich of them to ask for a few million more after that, for a relatively new product. FYI, i sincerely wish the female afl players all the best. Personally i hate the game and wont watch it, but i am not shallow enough to wish them ill will. Just wish the AFL could be a little more positive like me when talking about football and not try to crush it in the media all the time. Hi Bitza, just for clarification the "60k X 5 = 300k", related to the ratings that the HAL would get if their FTA ratings increased 5 fold based on the average on Viceland. I used it in response to someone claiming that FTA main channel will have a 3 to 5 fold impact on ratings. My point was to demonstrate that, even with these ratings (which an FTA provider would need to take on a lot of faith), it is unlikely an FTA provider would pay anything for it. You are very correct in that ratings are independent of costs. I'm sure the derbies would rate OK, but there are only 6 of them, not 27 I do not have direct knowledge of the production costs of sporting broadcasts, so I can only speculate.The Wookie's SANFL example implies a roughly $50,000 a match production cost. Now you need more cameras in Australian football than soccer but the SANFL is semi-professional so I would suspect that the full costs of covering an A League game would be around this if an FTA is doing one game a week. For a start, that "talent" would cost a lot more for the HAL than SANFL. The other cost that is very important to consider is the "opportunity" cost. This is what I was alluding to earlier with MacGyver and Hawaii 5-0. I don't know what these cost 10 but, it's fair to say, if it is any serious money then they probably were initially intentioned for Saturday nights. Bottom line is though they could do simpsons' bonanzas every saturday night and their costs will be close to zero. So new "content" only becomes worth while if it increases the viewers (and so advertising) relative to what it costs the network. Also, Saturday nights are lower ratings nights than Fridays. This is why SBS plays the HAL on Viceland, even though it offered to the FFA to play saturday night games on the main channel if they were given them. I think that it is good of you to wish the AFL Womens well. It's important to remember though that the HAL (as with the NRL, ARU, CA etc) are competitors for TV monies, sponsorship, fans and athletic talent to the AFL. The AFL's duties are to promote the interests and development of Australian football...I'm not sure about "crushing" but they aren't going to go out of their way to be positive about other codes Good post. The commercial FTAs aren't going to pay good money to put something on the main channel that is only going to rate as high as something which costs them nothing and is sitting on a secondary channel. If fta want to exist in thw future they will be p8shing live aport hard. no one is going to be watching re runs with ads through them qhe they can access that contwnt and more online. we are no longer in the same environment say of 5 years ago. If fta ignore paying even a premium for live sport they will slowly but surely go bust. Tge figures are already showing an alarming drop of viewers of fta. Tje only thing.thats keeping their ratings up is sport as it is sometimes.the only platform to view it. All other tv shows can easily be accessed online and if they cant get their "the block" fix they will watch sometbing else that is entirely similar. With sport its not as easy if people are invested in a particular sport or club. But his point remains valid, there is endless free stuff that actually rates better than the A-League - that is the biggest obstacle to the FFA getting money out of the commercial FTAs. 'Endless free stuff', sure. However there are not an endless number of national competitions, which is what the big networks want. The Queensland Cup out-rates AFL preliminary finals in Queensland yet the QRL doesn't have a billion dollar tv deal. Why? It's not a national comp and has limited appeal. Why is this thread filled with bitter AFL zealots anyway? As someone else pointed out, the SANFL, WAFL and VFL pay a Commercial FTA to broadcast their matches. That's the point isn't it? Seems you're having trouble understanding the difference between little one-city comps and a national competition. Did you not raise the Queensland Cup in the first place? I believe one of your alts initially brought up the WAFFLE or SNAFFLE.
|
|
|
|
|
Australian Football dude
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 274,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xFair post about the WAFL & TV rights But it still does not prove what the production cost are. If games are played just before the mens games and at the same stadiums, cost will be minimal (e.g pay the camera crew for an extra two hours work, where the quality of their work is not as crucial etc.) Also, cost of production are in no way tied to tv ratings. It cost the same amount of money to produce and broadcast every game at SFS. But the Derby games rate more. That does not mean it cost more. I do believe the FFA are crazy they way they are going about selling the game. But you cannot confirm to know that 5x60k is the avg FTA rating for WAFL games and that must be the base cost. AFL already got $2.4B dollars, and it would have been a bit rich of them to ask for a few million more after that, for a relatively new product. FYI, i sincerely wish the female afl players all the best. Personally i hate the game and wont watch it, but i am not shallow enough to wish them ill will. Just wish the AFL could be a little more positive like me when talking about football and not try to crush it in the media all the time. Hi Bitza, just for clarification the "60k X 5 = 300k", related to the ratings that the HAL would get if their FTA ratings increased 5 fold based on the average on Viceland. I used it in response to someone claiming that FTA main channel will have a 3 to 5 fold impact on ratings. My point was to demonstrate that, even with these ratings (which an FTA provider would need to take on a lot of faith), it is unlikely an FTA provider would pay anything for it. You are very correct in that ratings are independent of costs. I'm sure the derbies would rate OK, but there are only 6 of them, not 27 I do not have direct knowledge of the production costs of sporting broadcasts, so I can only speculate.The Wookie's SANFL example implies a roughly $50,000 a match production cost. Now you need more cameras in Australian football than soccer but the SANFL is semi-professional so I would suspect that the full costs of covering an A League game would be around this if an FTA is doing one game a week. For a start, that "talent" would cost a lot more for the HAL than SANFL. The other cost that is very important to consider is the "opportunity" cost. This is what I was alluding to earlier with MacGyver and Hawaii 5-0. I don't know what these cost 10 but, it's fair to say, if it is any serious money then they probably were initially intentioned for Saturday nights. Bottom line is though they could do simpsons' bonanzas every saturday night and their costs will be close to zero. So new "content" only becomes worth while if it increases the viewers (and so advertising) relative to what it costs the network. Also, Saturday nights are lower ratings nights than Fridays. This is why SBS plays the HAL on Viceland, even though it offered to the FFA to play saturday night games on the main channel if they were given them. I think that it is good of you to wish the AFL Womens well. It's important to remember though that the HAL (as with the NRL, ARU, CA etc) are competitors for TV monies, sponsorship, fans and athletic talent to the AFL. The AFL's duties are to promote the interests and development of Australian football...I'm not sure about "crushing" but they aren't going to go out of their way to be positive about other codes Good post. The commercial FTAs aren't going to pay good money to put something on the main channel that is only going to rate as high as something which costs them nothing and is sitting on a secondary channel. If fta want to exist in thw future they will be p8shing live aport hard. no one is going to be watching re runs with ads through them qhe they can access that contwnt and more online. we are no longer in the same environment say of 5 years ago. If fta ignore paying even a premium for live sport they will slowly but surely go bust. Tge figures are already showing an alarming drop of viewers of fta. Tje only thing.thats keeping their ratings up is sport as it is sometimes.the only platform to view it. All other tv shows can easily be accessed online and if they cant get their "the block" fix they will watch sometbing else that is entirely similar. With sport its not as easy if people are invested in a particular sport or club. But his point remains valid, there is endless free stuff that actually rates better than the A-League - that is the biggest obstacle to the FFA getting money out of the commercial FTAs. 'Endless free stuff', sure. However there are not an endless number of national competitions, which is what the big networks want. The Queensland Cup out-rates AFL preliminary finals in Queensland yet the QRL doesn't have a billion dollar tv deal. Why? It's not a national comp and has limited appeal. Why is this thread filled with bitter AFL zealots anyway? As someone else pointed out, the SANFL, WAFL and VFL pay a Commercial FTA to broadcast their matches. That's the point isn't it? Seems you're having trouble understanding the difference between little one-city comps and a national competition. But the VFL rates almost as much on FTA on a Sunday arvo in Melbourne than the HAL on a Friday night nationally....surely it doesn't matter whether its a tiny one city comp or a "big" national comp?
|
|
|
|
|
Strikers94
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 149,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xFair post about the WAFL & TV rights But it still does not prove what the production cost are. If games are played just before the mens games and at the same stadiums, cost will be minimal (e.g pay the camera crew for an extra two hours work, where the quality of their work is not as crucial etc.) Also, cost of production are in no way tied to tv ratings. It cost the same amount of money to produce and broadcast every game at SFS. But the Derby games rate more. That does not mean it cost more. I do believe the FFA are crazy they way they are going about selling the game. But you cannot confirm to know that 5x60k is the avg FTA rating for WAFL games and that must be the base cost. AFL already got $2.4B dollars, and it would have been a bit rich of them to ask for a few million more after that, for a relatively new product. FYI, i sincerely wish the female afl players all the best. Personally i hate the game and wont watch it, but i am not shallow enough to wish them ill will. Just wish the AFL could be a little more positive like me when talking about football and not try to crush it in the media all the time. Hi Bitza, just for clarification the "60k X 5 = 300k", related to the ratings that the HAL would get if their FTA ratings increased 5 fold based on the average on Viceland. I used it in response to someone claiming that FTA main channel will have a 3 to 5 fold impact on ratings. My point was to demonstrate that, even with these ratings (which an FTA provider would need to take on a lot of faith), it is unlikely an FTA provider would pay anything for it. You are very correct in that ratings are independent of costs. I'm sure the derbies would rate OK, but there are only 6 of them, not 27 I do not have direct knowledge of the production costs of sporting broadcasts, so I can only speculate.The Wookie's SANFL example implies a roughly $50,000 a match production cost. Now you need more cameras in Australian football than soccer but the SANFL is semi-professional so I would suspect that the full costs of covering an A League game would be around this if an FTA is doing one game a week. For a start, that "talent" would cost a lot more for the HAL than SANFL. The other cost that is very important to consider is the "opportunity" cost. This is what I was alluding to earlier with MacGyver and Hawaii 5-0. I don't know what these cost 10 but, it's fair to say, if it is any serious money then they probably were initially intentioned for Saturday nights. Bottom line is though they could do simpsons' bonanzas every saturday night and their costs will be close to zero. So new "content" only becomes worth while if it increases the viewers (and so advertising) relative to what it costs the network. Also, Saturday nights are lower ratings nights than Fridays. This is why SBS plays the HAL on Viceland, even though it offered to the FFA to play saturday night games on the main channel if they were given them. I think that it is good of you to wish the AFL Womens well. It's important to remember though that the HAL (as with the NRL, ARU, CA etc) are competitors for TV monies, sponsorship, fans and athletic talent to the AFL. The AFL's duties are to promote the interests and development of Australian football...I'm not sure about "crushing" but they aren't going to go out of their way to be positive about other codes Good post. The commercial FTAs aren't going to pay good money to put something on the main channel that is only going to rate as high as something which costs them nothing and is sitting on a secondary channel. If fta want to exist in thw future they will be p8shing live aport hard. no one is going to be watching re runs with ads through them qhe they can access that contwnt and more online. we are no longer in the same environment say of 5 years ago. If fta ignore paying even a premium for live sport they will slowly but surely go bust. Tge figures are already showing an alarming drop of viewers of fta. Tje only thing.thats keeping their ratings up is sport as it is sometimes.the only platform to view it. All other tv shows can easily be accessed online and if they cant get their "the block" fix they will watch sometbing else that is entirely similar. With sport its not as easy if people are invested in a particular sport or club. But his point remains valid, there is endless free stuff that actually rates better than the A-League - that is the biggest obstacle to the FFA getting money out of the commercial FTAs. 'Endless free stuff', sure. However there are not an endless number of national competitions, which is what the big networks want. The Queensland Cup out-rates AFL preliminary finals in Queensland yet the QRL doesn't have a billion dollar tv deal. Why? It's not a national comp and has limited appeal. Why is this thread filled with bitter AFL zealots anyway? As someone else pointed out, the SANFL, WAFL and VFL pay a Commercial FTA to broadcast their matches. That's the point isn't it? Seems you're having trouble understanding the difference between little one-city comps and a national competition. But the VFL rates almost as much on FTA on a Sunday arvo in Melbourne than the HAL on a Friday night nationally....surely it doesn't matter whether its a tiny one city comp or a "big" national comp? Wow speak of the devil... You should give it a couple of hours between logging in as your alt and replying Pippi. Makes it too obvious otherwise. Queensland Cup games on a Sunday afternoon rate more than twice AFL prelims in QLD... It doesn't matter. National networks want national comps.
|
|
|
|
|
Australian Football dude
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 274,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xFair post about the WAFL & TV rights But it still does not prove what the production cost are. If games are played just before the mens games and at the same stadiums, cost will be minimal (e.g pay the camera crew for an extra two hours work, where the quality of their work is not as crucial etc.) Also, cost of production are in no way tied to tv ratings. It cost the same amount of money to produce and broadcast every game at SFS. But the Derby games rate more. That does not mean it cost more. I do believe the FFA are crazy they way they are going about selling the game. But you cannot confirm to know that 5x60k is the avg FTA rating for WAFL games and that must be the base cost. AFL already got $2.4B dollars, and it would have been a bit rich of them to ask for a few million more after that, for a relatively new product. FYI, i sincerely wish the female afl players all the best. Personally i hate the game and wont watch it, but i am not shallow enough to wish them ill will. Just wish the AFL could be a little more positive like me when talking about football and not try to crush it in the media all the time. Hi Bitza, just for clarification the "60k X 5 = 300k", related to the ratings that the HAL would get if their FTA ratings increased 5 fold based on the average on Viceland. I used it in response to someone claiming that FTA main channel will have a 3 to 5 fold impact on ratings. My point was to demonstrate that, even with these ratings (which an FTA provider would need to take on a lot of faith), it is unlikely an FTA provider would pay anything for it. You are very correct in that ratings are independent of costs. I'm sure the derbies would rate OK, but there are only 6 of them, not 27 I do not have direct knowledge of the production costs of sporting broadcasts, so I can only speculate.The Wookie's SANFL example implies a roughly $50,000 a match production cost. Now you need more cameras in Australian football than soccer but the SANFL is semi-professional so I would suspect that the full costs of covering an A League game would be around this if an FTA is doing one game a week. For a start, that "talent" would cost a lot more for the HAL than SANFL. The other cost that is very important to consider is the "opportunity" cost. This is what I was alluding to earlier with MacGyver and Hawaii 5-0. I don't know what these cost 10 but, it's fair to say, if it is any serious money then they probably were initially intentioned for Saturday nights. Bottom line is though they could do simpsons' bonanzas every saturday night and their costs will be close to zero. So new "content" only becomes worth while if it increases the viewers (and so advertising) relative to what it costs the network. Also, Saturday nights are lower ratings nights than Fridays. This is why SBS plays the HAL on Viceland, even though it offered to the FFA to play saturday night games on the main channel if they were given them. I think that it is good of you to wish the AFL Womens well. It's important to remember though that the HAL (as with the NRL, ARU, CA etc) are competitors for TV monies, sponsorship, fans and athletic talent to the AFL. The AFL's duties are to promote the interests and development of Australian football...I'm not sure about "crushing" but they aren't going to go out of their way to be positive about other codes Good post. The commercial FTAs aren't going to pay good money to put something on the main channel that is only going to rate as high as something which costs them nothing and is sitting on a secondary channel. If fta want to exist in thw future they will be p8shing live aport hard. no one is going to be watching re runs with ads through them qhe they can access that contwnt and more online. we are no longer in the same environment say of 5 years ago. If fta ignore paying even a premium for live sport they will slowly but surely go bust. Tge figures are already showing an alarming drop of viewers of fta. Tje only thing.thats keeping their ratings up is sport as it is sometimes.the only platform to view it. All other tv shows can easily be accessed online and if they cant get their "the block" fix they will watch sometbing else that is entirely similar. With sport its not as easy if people are invested in a particular sport or club. But his point remains valid, there is endless free stuff that actually rates better than the A-League - that is the biggest obstacle to the FFA getting money out of the commercial FTAs. 'Endless free stuff', sure. However there are not an endless number of national competitions, which is what the big networks want. The Queensland Cup out-rates AFL preliminary finals in Queensland yet the QRL doesn't have a billion dollar tv deal. Why? It's not a national comp and has limited appeal. Why is this thread filled with bitter AFL zealots anyway? As someone else pointed out, the SANFL, WAFL and VFL pay a Commercial FTA to broadcast their matches. That's the point isn't it? Seems you're having trouble understanding the difference between little one-city comps and a national competition. But the VFL rates almost as much on FTA on a Sunday arvo in Melbourne than the HAL on a Friday night nationally....surely it doesn't matter whether its a tiny one city comp or a "big" national comp? Wow speak of the devil... You should give it a couple of hours between logging in as your alt and replying Pippi. Makes it too obvious otherwise. Queensland Cup games on a Sunday afternoon rate more than twice AFL prelims in QLD... It doesn't matter. National networks want national comps. They want national comps that people watch - like the AFL and the NRL The Queensland cup grand final (regular season not shown), rated 98,000, the GWS v Bulldogs prelim rated 77,000 in Brisbane. That aint double. Brisbane people also have foxtel connections and that prelim rated 565,000 on de foxtel The VFL Grand Final rated 266,000 in Melbourne. That got pippinued by the HAL Grand Final with 268,000 nationally on the FTA Hope that helps! :):)
|
|
|
|
|
Strikers94
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 149,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xFair post about the WAFL & TV rights But it still does not prove what the production cost are. If games are played just before the mens games and at the same stadiums, cost will be minimal (e.g pay the camera crew for an extra two hours work, where the quality of their work is not as crucial etc.) Also, cost of production are in no way tied to tv ratings. It cost the same amount of money to produce and broadcast every game at SFS. But the Derby games rate more. That does not mean it cost more. I do believe the FFA are crazy they way they are going about selling the game. But you cannot confirm to know that 5x60k is the avg FTA rating for WAFL games and that must be the base cost. AFL already got $2.4B dollars, and it would have been a bit rich of them to ask for a few million more after that, for a relatively new product. FYI, i sincerely wish the female afl players all the best. Personally i hate the game and wont watch it, but i am not shallow enough to wish them ill will. Just wish the AFL could be a little more positive like me when talking about football and not try to crush it in the media all the time. Hi Bitza, just for clarification the "60k X 5 = 300k", related to the ratings that the HAL would get if their FTA ratings increased 5 fold based on the average on Viceland. I used it in response to someone claiming that FTA main channel will have a 3 to 5 fold impact on ratings. My point was to demonstrate that, even with these ratings (which an FTA provider would need to take on a lot of faith), it is unlikely an FTA provider would pay anything for it. You are very correct in that ratings are independent of costs. I'm sure the derbies would rate OK, but there are only 6 of them, not 27 I do not have direct knowledge of the production costs of sporting broadcasts, so I can only speculate.The Wookie's SANFL example implies a roughly $50,000 a match production cost. Now you need more cameras in Australian football than soccer but the SANFL is semi-professional so I would suspect that the full costs of covering an A League game would be around this if an FTA is doing one game a week. For a start, that "talent" would cost a lot more for the HAL than SANFL. The other cost that is very important to consider is the "opportunity" cost. This is what I was alluding to earlier with MacGyver and Hawaii 5-0. I don't know what these cost 10 but, it's fair to say, if it is any serious money then they probably were initially intentioned for Saturday nights. Bottom line is though they could do simpsons' bonanzas every saturday night and their costs will be close to zero. So new "content" only becomes worth while if it increases the viewers (and so advertising) relative to what it costs the network. Also, Saturday nights are lower ratings nights than Fridays. This is why SBS plays the HAL on Viceland, even though it offered to the FFA to play saturday night games on the main channel if they were given them. I think that it is good of you to wish the AFL Womens well. It's important to remember though that the HAL (as with the NRL, ARU, CA etc) are competitors for TV monies, sponsorship, fans and athletic talent to the AFL. The AFL's duties are to promote the interests and development of Australian football...I'm not sure about "crushing" but they aren't going to go out of their way to be positive about other codes Good post. The commercial FTAs aren't going to pay good money to put something on the main channel that is only going to rate as high as something which costs them nothing and is sitting on a secondary channel. If fta want to exist in thw future they will be p8shing live aport hard. no one is going to be watching re runs with ads through them qhe they can access that contwnt and more online. we are no longer in the same environment say of 5 years ago. If fta ignore paying even a premium for live sport they will slowly but surely go bust. Tge figures are already showing an alarming drop of viewers of fta. Tje only thing.thats keeping their ratings up is sport as it is sometimes.the only platform to view it. All other tv shows can easily be accessed online and if they cant get their "the block" fix they will watch sometbing else that is entirely similar. With sport its not as easy if people are invested in a particular sport or club. But his point remains valid, there is endless free stuff that actually rates better than the A-League - that is the biggest obstacle to the FFA getting money out of the commercial FTAs. 'Endless free stuff', sure. However there are not an endless number of national competitions, which is what the big networks want. The Queensland Cup out-rates AFL preliminary finals in Queensland yet the QRL doesn't have a billion dollar tv deal. Why? It's not a national comp and has limited appeal. Why is this thread filled with bitter AFL zealots anyway? As someone else pointed out, the SANFL, WAFL and VFL pay a Commercial FTA to broadcast their matches. That's the point isn't it? Seems you're having trouble understanding the difference between little one-city comps and a national competition. But the VFL rates almost as much on FTA on a Sunday arvo in Melbourne than the HAL on a Friday night nationally....surely it doesn't matter whether its a tiny one city comp or a "big" national comp? Wow speak of the devil... You should give it a couple of hours between logging in as your alt and replying Pippi. Makes it too obvious otherwise. Queensland Cup games on a Sunday afternoon rate more than twice AFL prelims in QLD... It doesn't matter. National networks want national comps. They want national comps that people watch - like the AFL and the NRL The Queensland cup grand final (regular season not shown), rated 98,000, the GWS v Bulldogs prelim rated 77,000 in Brisbane. That aint double. Brisbane people also have foxtel connections and that prelim rated 565,000 on de foxtel The VFL Grand Final rated 266,000 in Melbourne. That got pippinued by the HAL Grand Final with 268,000 nationally on the FTA Hope that helps! :):) Ahh damage control eh Pip. Gotta keep moving the conversation around... First result on Google for 'QLD Cup outrates AFL'. The CM has these articles every year.
|
|
|
|