Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[Slim 293]

anyone know how to watch footy for free??

cheers

Saturday night at 1930AEDT on 9GEMHD.

 

[Adam84]

Saturday night at 1930AEDT on 9GEMHD.

I prefer 1830AEST thanks

 

[Slim 293]

I prefer 1830AEST thanks

That's a second class timezone... not true east coast elite time.

 

[Adam84]

That's a second class timezone... not true east coast elite time.

r/RemindMe in 3 weeks when you all come crawling back to us

 

[Adam84]

Nine has a new Chief Executive as of last week, which has probably slowed a few things down from a contract negotiation perspective I imagine.

Also, Nine have a few big issues on their plate to deal with; how to respond to the $2.7billion offer from CoStar to purchase Domain from Nine, howto proceed with the purchase of OptusSport which was rumoured late last year, sign-off on rugby broadcast rights and how the restructure of Nine as a whole will work with Stan coming back in-house. I'd say all these are linked In some form or another.

 

[Ignoto]

Good write up for the code in the Guardian today, but specifically on TV/Video numbers which I haven't seen reported else where - https://www.theguardian.com/sport/b...elping-to-prime-wallabies-for-lions-challenge

Free-to-air viewers on Nine have risen 36% with double-digits growth on Stan – vital growth with a new broadcast deal on the table from 2026.

 

[Derpus]

anyone know how to watch footy for free??

cheers

Firestick

 

[PhilClinton]

Good write up for the code in the Guardian today, but specifically on TV/Video numbers which I haven't seen reported else where - https://www.theguardian.com/sport/b...elping-to-prime-wallabies-for-lions-challenge

Is the omission of 'Stan Sports' and instead simply saying 'Stan' when discussing double digit growth a deliberate choice?

I literally don't know anyone who has signed up for Stan Sports this year and in fact as I mentioned previously a number of people have dropped it. Obviously my experience is limited to my circle though.

 

[JRugby2]

He's likely relying on the data that Stan/ Nine make publicly available - or just making his source happy by being deliberately vague.

For whatever reason - they rarely provide detailed breakdowns of stan vs stan sport audience numbers.

I'd guess that if we're seeing growth on FTA audience numbers, we're probably also seeing that for rugby on Stan to some degree - hence them reporting double digit growth - whether it be via more subscribers, or the same number just watching more games

 

[Wilson]

Is the omission of 'Stan Sports' and instead simply saying 'Stan' when discussing double digit growth a deliberate choice?

I literally don't know anyone who has signed up for Stan Sports this year and in fact as I mentioned previously a number of people have dropped it. Obviously my experience is limited to my circle though.

I'd say your anecdotal evidence is probably irrelevant, as is usually the way with anecdotal evidence when there are hard numbers involved.

It's the author who says 'Stan' instead of 'Stan Sports', not a direct quote from anyone internal, so it's likely just an editorial choice for brevity. Also, it seems to be in reference to ratings numbers for games, rather than subs:

Fans like what they’ve seen so far. Free-to-air viewers on Nine have risen 36% with double-digits growth on Stan – vital growth with a new broadcast deal on the table from 2026. The rugby style has been rugged and expansive, with most games unfolding at breakneck speed and teams prioritising attack, kicking for corners in a quest for converted tries rather than chipping away with penalty kicks or field goals.

Those ratings numbers are internal from Stan and only quoted through a filter, so it's always going to have a positive spin (e.g. what might only be 10-11% being described as 'double-digit'), but even still it is very good signs. If their weren't good indicators we probably wouldn't be hearing anything at all.

 

[fatprop]

Is the omission of 'Stan Sports' and instead simply saying 'Stan' when discussing double digit growth a deliberate choice?

I literally don't know anyone who has signed up for Stan Sports this year and in fact as I mentioned previously a number of people have dropped it. Obviously my experience is limited to my circle though.

I pay for Stan Sports for 3 month's ish each year, to cover the Super Rugby and 6 Nations, I will watch Aus tests on Gem and the other games by highlights on Youtube

 

[JRugby2]

I'd say your anecdotal evidence is probably irrelevant, as is usually the way with anecdotal evidence when there are hard numbers involved.

It's the author who says 'Stan' instead of 'Stan Sports', not a direct quote from anyone internal, so it's likely just an editorial choice for brevity. Also, it seems to be in reference to ratings numbers for games, rather than subs:


Those ratings numbers are internal from Stan and only quoted through a filter, so it's always going to have a positive spin (e.g. what might only be 10-11% being described as 'double-digit'), but even still it is very good signs. If their weren't good indicators we probably wouldn't be hearing anything at all.

They also got a huge bump in subscribers last year post olympics - so 10% could equal a decent aggregate increase, relatively speaking of course.

 

[Wilson]

They also got a huge bump in subscribers last year post olympics - so 10% could equal a decent aggregate increase, relatively speaking of course.

Even if it's only ratings and not subscribers that's a very good sign - people signing up for the Olympics/Aus open then deciding to keep their subs going and stay on for the rugby is exactly the sort of conversion Stan would want to see as they build out their suite of sports.

 

[Braveheart81]

Is the omission of 'Stan Sports' and instead simply saying 'Stan' when discussing double digit growth a deliberate choice?

I literally don't know anyone who has signed up for Stan Sports this year and in fact as I mentioned previously a number of people have dropped it. Obviously my experience is limited to my circle though.

I think you're reading too much into this. It's talking about rugby viewership, not general TV viewership so saying Stan vs Stan Sport means the same thing.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Given Qld v NSW was identical ratings on publically available data, I reckon what this shows is absolutely no-one was watching the Super round last year

 

[Crashy]

Good to see some positive news about the game for a change.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Personally I wouldn’t have Stan at all if the rugby wasn’t on Stan Sport. With rugby on almost all year around I can’t be bothered getting it turned off.

 

[Slim 293]

I keep Stan all year round because it's still one of the best streaming services for kids shows and movies...

Stan Sport runs from February to November.

 

[Dctarget]

Yeah maybe I could save a month here or there but between Super, Sevens, RC, EOYT, 6N and June tours there's always something.

 

[Adam84]

I'd say your anecdotal evidence is probably irrelevant, as is usually the way with anecdotal evidence when there are hard numbers involved.

It's the author who says 'Stan' instead of 'Stan Sports', not a direct quote from anyone internal, so it's likely just an editorial choice for brevity. Also, it seems to be in reference to ratings numbers for games, rather than subs:


Those ratings numbers are internal from Stan and only quoted through a filter, so it's always going to have a positive spin (e.g. what might only be 10-11% being described as 'double-digit'), but even still it is very good signs. If their weren't good indicators we probably wouldn't be hearing anything at all.

Yeah I've seen 17% growth on Stan referenced in other articles as well, I think it was by Super Rugby Chairman when he was talking about ratings growth in Fiji and New Zealand as well, so a bit of legitimacy to the subject there