^^^^^
Thanks, enjoyed reading that ... you concern about net lagging is true... 

Going to think about what you said it mostly makes sense just how to get it off the ground ... I recall a rumour a few months back that SBS were going to take a NPL match per week but have heard little since.

Maybe sitting on the fence until we hear from AAFC in November about the second div

10 are not advertising because it is not in their interest to do so at this point.  They will advertise if that advertisement gives them a financial return.  That it wouldn't is down to the FFA, not 10.  They advertise the crap out of the BBL because it gets large numbers.  Ratings were in the 750k to 1.1m range.  A 10% move either way is significant, a 20% move is huge.  They advertise to try to keep ratings up, and improve if possible.  A 20% move in ratings for some big bash games is more than double the average ratings for A-league games so far.  To get the same move in total ratings for the A-league, you would need the ratings to triple. 

So, if your a 10 executive, and you have $5 mill to spend on cross promotion, with the instruction to get as much bang for the buck as possible, where do you put it?  Do you put it into BBL and try to get a 20% shift, or do you put it into the A league, and try for a tripling?  Which league is likely to make a buck for you on the $5 mill?

Right now, it is in the interest of the FFA and the A league to boost the profile of the game, but they have other concerns, and have really dropped the ball.

The BBL figures are a long way off from us but the AFL metro average was 260 000. So if we aim to get half the AFL figures, which wouldn't be bad for a secondary station, then we need to add about 40 000. That should be the goal for now, achieving figures of between 130-150 000,

Hopefully the Sydney derby can provide us with another increase.

Seriously the AFL average is that low? I thought it would have been far higher (considering how much the AFL fans  crap on about their hegemony)

According to this; http://www.footyindustry.com/?p=4038

This is why, while by no means great, my argument is that what is more important is being able to maintain the ratings and then grow the ratings. They are not far off being ok.

For this we need to improve the product, and maintain interest, which involves things like expansion, improving quality, getting star players, developing exciting youngsters, marketing, social acceptance etc.

 

Average is arguably pulled down somewhat by games on 7 Mate that are only shown in Sydney or Brisbane for instance....probably why the average in Melbourne can be greater than the national average 

We're definitely on track to average half of what the AFL averages.

That AFL figure is amazing I throught it would be about 500K... 

That means the average is kinda OK .... 

Att. Krones !!!!

That is exactly right, AFL averages get dragged down by the fact they aren't national sports. This is why BBL rates so well, it has national coverage and this is the advantage we have, we are the only football code whose ratings and participation ratio largely aligns with the National population ratio.

The aim for us at this point would be to maintain and grow our position as the second code in every city. 

No shit Sherlock. When the states and territories comprising half the population don't give a shit then yes the others will be above the national average. Earth shattering stuff that.

Our league gets an average STV figure of 64k per game and the AFL 186k. By rights we should be getting 1/3 per game of what Fox is paying the AFL. We're not concerned with reach, it's all about subscriber numbers.

One third of their rights would equal about $140 mill per annum.

That's not a bad paypacket.

They have twice as many games though, it's why we need to expand.

The AFL tv deal consists of
Pay TV 1.3billion over 6 years
7 FTA deal 900million over 6
Telstra 300million over 6

AFL Fox deal is about 216million a year, one third of that for aleague would be about 71m which is just over what the aleague got.

I thought the Fox deal for A-League was well short of $71 mill per annum, if if had been $71m, I reckon we'd all be pretty happy about that.

^^^^^

AFL provide I think 220 * 3 hour games.... 660 hours

The A-League provide 140 * 2 hour games .... 280 hours

Pay TV from the above is 1.3 billion over 6 years so 216 million per year or 327 K per hour

A-League is 50 million per year or 178 K per hour..

178 / 327 is 54.5%

The Fox deal in dollar terms is not bad.

It does highlight the need to expand.

Where we lose out is the FTA & Telco revenue ..... however FTA would not buy and I don't necessarily think who we had in charge could have broken down the suits at the FTA networks to pay big dollars for Football...

Yes we fell short of what we are worth i think. Oh well that is what you get with DG, he undersold NRL rights for a decade.

Good points, but what happened to the telco deal?

What really falls short is the price Fox offered for the expansion teams. 

No, not how it works.
A random example.
Sevens broadcast of AFLs round 10 Sunday game. 
Collingwood v Brisbane was telecast in Vic and Qld.
West Coast and GWS was broadcast in NSW and WA
Carlton and North Melbourne was broadcast into Vic and SA.

If you are using those figures in a broadcast average, you add them up, divide by 3.  However, each city only got 1 game. 

This is normal for Sunday games and Saturday games.  The only games routinely telecast to the entire country are Fri and the the occasional Thursday game.

Its why average ratings per game for AFL is almost meaningless as a comparison to other sports, as the AFL broadcast deal is so chopped up.

A better method is to look at the average per game per city.
Mel 277
Adel 115
Perth 96
Syd 32
Bris 23
Total 543K

The TV rights are based on the 543K, not the 240K

EAD Ms Eggball

The Honduros away game should rate well- they are kicking off their local time Friday 4pm - which is Saturday morning 9am our time

Welcome back Mr Football!

I thought he was banned??

So, am I wrong?

Are the people thinking the FFA have been short changed because the A-league average ratings do not look to bad compared to the AFL average correct?
Shooting the messenger doesn't change anything.
If the FFA got a deal that 4 games were broadcast, and each city got a telecast of one game, the game of most relevance to it, so the number of people watching in each city increased by 50%.  That would seem a good deal.  However, if you then calculated the broadcast average by just dividing the number of viewers by 4, you end up with average ratings that would have over halved.

How would you view it? is it good because 50% more people watched a game, or is it bad, because average ratings dropped by over 50%

Because thats the deal the AFL have, and people keep comparing to the average, and ignoring the total.  Its a significant error.  

I wasn't trying to troll, but if you want to discuss TV ratings and where sport broadcasting is going in this country it helps to have an accurate view  Also if your going to say that the A-league has a third of the ratings of the AFL, someone is going to point out that this is due to a mathematical quirk of the AFL TV deal, and its actually closer to 1/6th.  Sorry this upsets you.

The thing for us to take from this is more about our position as second code in every city for now and the need to consolidate and grow this.

Going by those averages and our current ratings 0f 85k to 90k, we would most likely be ahead of AFL in Sydney, ahead of NRL in Melbourne and there or there abouts in the other states and that is just the a-league in its current guise not football in general.

Our key advantage will be that the sport isn't specific to a region, it is no more Sydney than it is Melbourne, so we have the opportunity to grow equally in the two key markets. We don't have to be bigger than AFL in Victoria or bigger than NRL in NSW, if we can gain a strong foothold in each region then we realistically have double the market of either code, much in the way that BBL does.

The challenge is still to maintain ratings over the course of a season and grow year on year.

bitch please

So take teh AFL figures for the round and divide it by a lower number of cities to get a higher viewing figure because half the country at any one time doesn't give a shit what's happening in each of the games

whatever

Would we beat the average viewing figures for these two cities:
Syd 32
Bris 23

I would think yes, definitely.