Sorry to answer for another poster but...

The game rates more than AFL.
Ergo it should get paid more.
It probably won't because of the conflict (even with the IC).
Even so, it should still get close to $1 billion because there is almost no reason why it should not get more than the AFL based on the FACTS of ratings.

At the end of the day, that is true.

But it doesn't change the fact if AFL gets more it will still be inequitable.

People throwing around crowd figures for the AFL in this context lack a clue.

Hint for the likes of Sal...

There are:
1. Crowds; and
2. TV ratings.

When we discuss TV ratings, number one is IRRELEVANT to the discussion. This seems to be a very common error on this forum.

Yeah it is baffling at times when you look at subscription and FTA TV viewing figures. I for one find them inaccurate, but it is however a level playing field and is inaccurate for all sports. It does though, and without question, show that RL IS THE MOST VIEWED sport on telly full stop.

The deals are clearly not just based on these figures. It doesn't help that RL isn't shown all over the shop live as the figures would be even more impressive.

I guess the TV monies doesn't bother me as much as it does others. Some have seemed to almost take it personally, when they shouldn't.

I certainly take the continued abuse of the great game by News Limited personally and to be honest fail to see how any true rugby league fan, with the game's best interests at heart, could feel otherwise.

No offence to you personally.

Head in the sand says the conflict denier.

lol

Once again you have you head in the sand - TV companies buy sporting rights to sell subscriptions and advertising.

Just maybe the potential revenue streams that come from AFL coverage are better and have greater potential than that of RL. Rules is in every major city in Australia, RL is played in 3 - one of which is Melbourne. So as a TV company where are you likely to get new subscribers from in Adelaide, Perth a sport with no representation or a sport that has an established following?

It is not all about existing viewers?

Dally's back didn't realise you knew so much about tights!!

Another one with the Dally thing... lol

Has nothing else clearly but to attack the man. Wrongly. Check with RB.

Unfortunately, as above, you fail on every count.

A rules follower in Leeds.

You made the statement that Football in the U.K couldnt get above 3mill...How would an England - Scotland soccer game rate....prolly similar to the Origin percentages.


Or 2.2M (ish) combined...with a million from the other states...hardly unrealistic considering the massive amount of media and other coverage Origin and the NRL GF gets and, more importantly, in line with similar high profile sporting events in Australia and elsewhere...imho of course.


Nope, not me.


Because they are watching the telecast is the obvious answer ...and the why isnt the topic of his thread.

For me (and considering the thread title) the important question would be: Why are the media companies allowed to underpay for Rugby League rights in Australia?

I believe WestCoaster, Eels Fan and dm may have a few ideas.

So people who aren't as bothered by what you claim as "continued abuse" are not "true" rugby league fans with the game's best interest at heart?

Why should people be made to look "lesser" or "inferior" on the back of what is only your opinion?



This is all starting to sound a bit vichy.

1. Posts designed to try and wind someone else up will lead to a ban for a certain amount of days.