Dunno, havent you and others argued that attendnce at the elite level is the key factor in assessing the popularity of a sport, even though this ignores (real) participation rates and cultural significance and can also be influenced by other factors.

As WC states, 'its a balancing act"...one which has been tipped in favour of the TV companies and against RL in Australia since the SL war. Imho of course

Key factor? No a important one and certainly more important than, what could be seen as flawed, tv ratings.

If your getting more fans in attendences and more cash for tv deals something is very wrong.

Yeah the conflict you keep ignoring...

TV ratings - capturing all the regionals in Australia - are a better indicator than gates.

Otherwise, sports like union and soccer wouldn't be more than half a billion behind the sports that do rate - rugby league, followed by AFL...

Which part of 77 out of 100 top pay TV programs and biggest FTA televiser is a struggle?

Counting only 5 capital cities has been shown to be seriously flawed.

Why? Check out the top 20 population centres in the country sometime...

There is a reason why the AFL uses 5 capital cities. Because it skews ratings and makes them look closer to the NRL than they actually are...

But I wouldn't expect that to be pointed out here.

Why am I ignoring the conflict of interest subject?

Are you saying the way tv ratings is collected is a 100% indication?

You have just pointed out the 5 cities subject, so why wouldn't you expect them to point be pointed out? Have you surprised yourself by doing it?

Can you re-phrase in English.

You wouldn't expect to be pointed out.

It just has been pointed out.

Are you surprised?

Pointed out by someone else was what was meant. Clearly.

Like you erstwhile moderator.

But no. Alas. I was required to do so.

Aren't you a member of this board? Why should you not bring it up?

Fwiw It has been brought up before, it was pointed out that while been the best available way to collect the ratings it is flawed.

Anyway we come full circle every month.

Regarding 'conflict of interest' when will it, in your opinion, be resolved?

When News Ltd leaves the game obviously.

Though I have my doubts even then given the on-going conflicts which will exist in certain key personnel, including the CEO.

Foxtel have made it clear they paid a fortune for the AFL solely on one basis. A hope that they will sell more subscriptions in three centres - Vic, WA, SA - to justify it. They have said this before and it failed. Miserably.

They continue to choose to ignore obvious CURRENT ratings which confirm the position the NRL is in. 77 out of 100 is as damning a statistic as anyone could find in media analysis.

And btw, the 5 capital cities ratings isn't the best way to judge Australian ratings at all. It is the one that favours AFL; so people favouring the AFL use it.

There are separate figures available within a week which give the entire picture.

There is no justification for not including regionals. Without them, the picture is for obvious and self evident reasons, incomplete.

If people choose to use the incomplete ratings to form an opinion, it is liable to be attacked with some gusto by those who actually understand the issue.

It certainly is, but on that basis would it be a better idea for the Nrl not only to have the tv ratings but to have sides in the 5 cities?

9.37646484375:10