|
Australian Football dude
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 274,
Visits: 0
|
+x+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. Not sure I've moved anything round. Just responded to your not really relevant tit bit and then added a cheeky bit more value with my comparison with the VFL grand final in Melbourne and the HAL Grand Final which is more relevant to the discussion at hand. If I was an FTA provider looking at buying rights that are similcast on fotxtel, I'd be asking myself "this HAL business, if we was to purchase the rights to this, what it is the absolute peak viewers we could get watching it each week if we marketed the bejeebus out of it....hmmm, might have a squizzle at the GF ratings....ooooh ouch...268,000! strewth....yeah, naaah".....then i'd submit a bid offering to cover the production costs and show it on one of the auxiliary channels
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strikers94
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 149,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+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. Not sure I've moved anything round. Just responded to your not really relevant tit bit and then added a cheeky bit more value with my comparison with the VFL grand final in Melbourne and the HAL Grand Final which is more relevant to the discussion at hand. If I was an FTA provider looking at buying rights that are similcast on fotxtel, I'd be asking myself "this HAL business, if we was to purchase the rights to this, what it is the absolute peak viewers we could get watching it each week if we marketed the bejeebus out of it....hmmm, might have a squizzle at the GF ratings....ooooh ouch...268,000! strewth....yeah, naaah".....then i'd submit a bid offering to cover the production costs and show it on one of the auxiliary channels Well, originally this thread was about A-League television ratings but you've consistently turned the conversation towards another sport. It's very disruptive.
|
|
|
|
|
Victory>Heart
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Ok, no more chat re: Mr Football. Enough. He adds nothing but slabs of words that add nothing to the discussion.
Silence.
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xOk, no more chat re: Mr Football. Enough. He adds nothing but slabs of words that add nothing to the discussion. Silence. Its reasonably simple, he is either paid to post undet multi names, or is one very sick bunny. I suggest you don't read their post.
|
|
|
|
|
Clinton
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xOk, no more chat re: Mr Football. Enough. He adds nothing but slabs of words that add nothing to the discussion. Silence. Its reasonably simple, he is either paid to post undet multi names, or is one very sick bunny. I suggest you don't read their post. Nah he was just as crazy obsessed with the A-league before he turned, its a spectrum disorder
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
People need to get a grip.
The Australian Football Dude is definitely another dude.
Fair dinkum, the paranoia and conspiracy theories I come across on a daily basis - it defies all logic (despite the hilarity it provides everyone else).
|
|
|
|
|
azzaMVFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Ahh .. a thread of Mr Football multis replying to each other. Great.
|
|
|
|
|
Australian Football dude
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 274,
Visits: 0
|
Like pip just said, we're not multis......we do share a pod together at afl house though
|
|
|
|
|
robbos
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Midfielder, I think both!!!!
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xLike pip just said, we're not multis......we do share a pod together at afl house though Ha, that's quite funny - hot desking!
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAhh .. a thread of Mr Football multis replying to each other. Great.
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAhh .. a thread of Mr Football multis replying to each other. Great. That was the 1,000th reply. Wasted bruh.
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xMidfielder, I think both!!!! You could be right...
|
|
|
|
|
Australian Football dude
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 274,
Visits: 0
|
Honestly, we've raised with the head of the Unit for the Suppression of Soccer that dropping key facts on a little soccer forum is poor use of our time. We've said the people here are all ready batsh1t paranoid and fevered in their hatred of Australian football. They certainly don't respond well to hard truths.
Anyway, boss told us to keep plugging away, so here we are...
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
 :laugh:
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
Footballking55
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHonestly, we've raised with the head of the Unit for the Suppression of Soccer that dropping key facts on a little soccer forum is poor use of our time. We've said the people here are all ready batsh1t paranoid and fevered in their hatred of Australian football. They certainly don't respond well to hard truths. Anyway, boss told us to keep plugging away, so here we are... Really, we don't care about AFL, and have no need or desire to seek to obfuscate and deflect on your forums. I presume they exist? That you continue to be here says more about your worries and paranoia than any alleged worries or concerns on our parts.
|
|
|
|
|
Australian Football dude
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 274,
Visits: 0
|
But I'm paid to be here footballking55
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xHonestly, we've raised with the head of the Unit for the Suppression of Soccer that dropping key facts on a little soccer forum is poor use of our time. We've said the people here are all ready batsh1t paranoid and fevered in their hatred of Australian football. They certainly don't respond well to hard truths. Anyway, boss told us to keep plugging away, so here we are... Really, we don't care about AFL, and have no need or desire to seek to obfuscate and deflect on your forums. I presume they exist? That you continue to be here says more about your worries and paranoia than any alleged worries or concerns on our parts. I can't speak for the Australian Football Dude, but personally, I actually follow the A-League.
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAhh .. a thread of Mr Football multis replying to each other. Great. Nahhh no multis here. Just four or five different people all bringing up Mister Football's famous women's AFL rating comparisons, all at the exact same time.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
|
crimsoncrusoe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Don't feed the troll.
It thrives on people acknowledging its existence.
Back to the thread.Were there ratings for the Bris vs AU game?
Also how is the W-League doing?
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+xDon't feed the troll.It thrives on people acknowledging its existence.Back to the thread.Were there ratings for the Bris vs AU game?Also how is the W-League doing? Br v AU 61k.
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xDon't feed the troll.It thrives on people acknowledging its existence.Back to the thread.Were there ratings for the Bris vs AU game?Also how is the W-League doing? Br v AU 61k. That's great.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
It will be interesting to see how ratings go this weekend with another day - night test being on. I hope the derby rates well.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
With all the rain, there's no one on the wing facing the camera, that generally looks bad on TV and can have a big impact on whether people switch off or not.
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWith all the rain, there's no one on the wing facing the camera, that generally looks bad on TV and can have a big impact on whether people switch off or not. Hopefully you switch off then fuck off hey
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xWith all the rain, there's no one on the wing facing the camera, that generally looks bad on TV and can have a big impact on whether people switch off or not. Hopefully you switch off then fuck off hey Why would I do that?
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Australian Football dude
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 274,
Visits: 0
|
Not bad, not bad at all
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Last year some round on the Friday night SBS 39... Fox 40 ..
I still wonder aloud how Fox can beat a FTA station.... SBS need to do some real soul searching as to what they are doing wrong.
Expecting a decent ratings for the derby tonight ..
BTW on the other issue I agree don't feed the troll... and the best way to do that is not to read their posts and never react no matter what they post...
|
|
|
|