Nine and Fox Sports to retain NRL rights

[Kimlo]

**** Gynell, ****ing prick.

I actually never go to Broncos games, been once and the reason for that is because I don't want to attend a night time games, if we had Sunday games a few times a year I'd be there all the time.

It's just ridiculously unprofessional for them to say that. I can't believe the IRLC didn't gain some form of control over scheduling and broadcasting with this new contract. Having to watch the Broncos EVERY Friday night for the next 5 years sucks massive balls.

 

[Anonymous person]

So for those whinging about the new deal, would you rather better FTA coverage (i.e more games, and more live games), less money for the deal, no increase is salary cap and see players like Hunt, Folau etc lost to other codes or overseas?

how does showing a saturday game, even delayed, mean the NRL would get less money? I wouldve thought that showing 1 extra delayed game on FTA would be good for both the NRL and channel 9.

also, from what ive seen the "huge salary cap increase" that we've been hearing about is only going to be about $800k a year. so basically a team can afford to give 3-4 players a bit extra a year. players like Thurston/Smith/Cronk/Slater/Marshall/Barba would be able to command almost all of that money themselves. the way it had been talked up it seemed as if the salary cap was going to increase to $7-$8million, not a puny $5mil. thats barely going to register a difference on the 'stopping players leaving for AFL/Union/overseas' meter.

out of this deal the NRL got over twice the money as the last deal, broadcasts no extra games, and barely increases the salary cap. where the hell is the rest of that money going? it really does look like the only good things to come from this deal are:

1. HD origins and GF from 2014 onwards.
2. Foxtel getting the digital distribution rights as opposed to telstra who literally did sweet FA with them.
3. teeny tiny increase in the salary cap.
4. nine/foxtel giving up their first/last bid rights.

so really, apart from digital distribution, nothing much changes for the fans. we still get the same old crappy FTA coverage, will still see our best players leave to join other codes, and still have no HD broadcasts for 99% of the year. add to that the 7.15pm kickoff for the grand final, and it looks to me like we got royally screwed.

 

[Ari Gold]

We should demand the NRL give us a larger grant than the other teams if we play every Friday. I mean, if Gygnell is going to say we get all this money we should get more than the team who gets a bunch of day games.

 

[Kimlo]

We should demand the NRL give us a larger grant than the other teams if we play every Friday. I mean, if Gygnell is going to say we get all this money we should get more than the team who gets a bunch of day games.

Yes and no. We get a lot of free advertising/exposure for our sponsors due to having games every Friday night, it's a big selling points for the Broncos to use in attracting sponsors.

That being said I agree, we should argue to high hell that we get more Saturday or Sunday games or we want more money than other clubs.

 

[Bull Shark]

The fans will never be happy. For every upside, there is a downside, and vice-versa.

The game needs to generate revenue in order to compete with other codes and retain it's players. The main way they can generate revenue is by selling the broadcasing rights. Now either a pay TV network broadcasts the games, which means the fans have to pay to watch the games, or a FTA network broadcasts the game, which means they have to recoup the money via advertising.

If they are going to broadcast the game on FTA, then they need to maximize the advertising dollars they can get by broadcasting the games in the best manner for this (eg, best games in prime time, most probably delayed). Unfortunately if the NRL want the maximum deal possible, they have to bow to this pressure. It's like anything in life, the more people pay for something, the more they expect, and quite rightly imo.

So for those whinging about the new deal, would you rather better FTA coverage (i.e more games, and more live games), less money for the deal, no increase is salary cap and see players like Hunt, Folau etc lost to other codes or overseas? Then instead of whinging threads like this there would be whinging threads about how the game needs to do more to keep it's players. Or would you rather all the games to be shown on pay tv, and have to subscribe to it to even see any games?

Well at least one person gets it.

this post should be 'stickied'

 

[ningnangnong]

We should demand the NRL give us a larger grant than the other teams if we play every Friday. I mean, if Gygnell is going to say we get all this money we should get more than the team who gets a bunch of day games.

Perhaps one day each club will negotiate their own TV deal. We'd be in the money then!

 

[OXY-351]

how does showing a saturday game, even delayed, mean the NRL would get less money? I wouldve thought that showing 1 extra delayed game on FTA would be good for both the NRL and channel 9.

Maybe Fox were prepared to pay more for Saturday games. Maybe 9 didn't want any Saturday games. I'm not sure. My main point was that if you want the maximum deal in terms of dollars and sell your product, you have to accept the terms of those making that offer, especially when the number of potential bidders on your product is quite low.

Sure the NRL could have opted to sell the rights for cheaper in order to get better coverage, and maybe they should have, but people will whinge either way. Who knows what 9's offer would have been if they were told they had to broadcast x number of games live at a time that suited the NRL. Who knows what the ch7/ch10 bid that included 4 live FTA games a week was. Maybe it was significantly less thas the 9 bid.

At the end of the day, the coverage of the game today and over the past few years has been far better than it previously once was. I can remeber a time in the 90s when the Friday game was delayed, and the covereage of the Sunday game was an hours worth of highlights (inlcusive of ads) between 6:30 and 7:30. I'm not sure why people on here would be whinging about getting to see the broncos games live on FTA most weeks.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Why exactly should the fans be happy with this deal?? You only have to compare it with the AFL deal to realize the fans got bent over. Sure the game needed money and that is great but surely the fans deserve more. I don't think delayed sport is anyway acceptable and the NRL should have thought the same thing. Nothing has improved as a fan of the Broncos IMO. We will get more Friday night games and if they do happen to get a Sunday game it will be delayed. Channel 9 didn't improve the deal for FTA viewers at all so why can't they be pissed off??

 

[Porthoz]

I guess we'll never know how much difference there was between the bids from Ch.7/10 and Nine, but the biggest problem was that all that Nine needed to do was to match the others bid.

Also, without knowing how much more a scheduling set by Nine will pay, as compared to a scheduling set by the NRL, we can't make outlandish comments either way imo.

How much would we be willing to sacrifice to have the NRL dictating terms instead of Nine? 50 million, 100, 250?

This will definitely hurt the Broncos membership drive, because I see myself giving up my membership just after I received my 5 year pin... :glare:

 

[OXY-351]

also, from what ive seen the "huge salary cap increase" that we've been hearing about is only going to be about $800k a year. so basically a team can afford to give 3-4 players a bit extra a year. players like Thurston/Smith/Cronk/Slater/Marshall/Barba would be able to command almost all of that money themselves. the way it had been talked up it seemed as if the salary cap was going to increase to $7-$8million, not a puny $5mil. thats barely going to register a difference on the 'stopping players leaving for AFL/Union/overseas' meter.

You seem to contradict yourself there. Those players you mention are exatly the type of ones that the game needs to stop other codes form poaching. In most cases, a team usually only has 1, maybe 2 in some rare cases, of those type of players (salary cap rorting aside) who are superstars of the game and would genuinely attract interest from rival codes.

Are you saying that you don't think an extra $4-500K a season on top of what those players currently get paid (still leaving some of the extra cap for other players at the club) wouldn't be enough to stop players from going to rival codes? That would put some of them up around the million dollar mark. I'm fairly sure that would do more than "barely register an interest" from them.

 

[OXY-351]

You only have to compare it with the AFL deal to realize the fans got bent over.

Apples and Oranges. What's the advertising potential in a game of AFL compared to NRL, especially a live game?

Channel 9 didn't improve the deal for FTA viewers at all so why can't they be pissed off??

I think we as fans do have a reason to be annoyed, and I'd much prefer every game each round to be shown live on FTA, but who knows at what other costs to the game that might come at. You might win in one area, but lose in another. This deal might be able to avoid situations in the future where the likes of Folau or Hunt (although he may have had other reasons) were lost to the Broncos or the game.

 

[Porthoz]

I'm not sure why people on here would be whinging about getting to see the broncos games live on FTA most weeks.

Here's a few answers:
- Because I'd like to go to the games and take my family during day light on the weekend.
- Because I have Foxtel IQ HD and could see the Broncos games live in HD without commercials interruption.
- Because I can record all the games on my DVR and/or Foxtel IQ and watch when I want to.

I could go on, but you get the gist...

Like you said, maybe this was the best deal the NRL could get.
Or maybe the IRLC forgot the fans preference and just went flat out for the highest cash amount.
Maybe the IRLC weren't allowed to accept a lower offer than Nine and go with a more attractive package (for the fans) of Ch. 7/10.

What I certainly cannot accept is what that Gyngell prick said, but I guess money rules... :001_unsure:

 

[Ari Gold]

Whilst I completely agree that the money is important, I think the corresponding increase in the cap is WAY too small. Would seriously love to know where that money is going to go.

 

[Kimlo]

I always knew the IRLC were going to be ****tards about the cap. They're probably going to raise it my 800k a year over 5 years.
Raising the salary cap is THE most important factor in raising the quality of the game, if the cap was raised to 7 million next year (absolutely no reason not to) then we could easily see all three of Hunt, Folau and SBW back in the game permanently...

 

[Bucking Beads]

Apples and Oranges. What's the advertising potential in a game of AFL compared to NRL, especially a live game?

I would have thought advertising dollar regardless of live or not would have been huge in the NRL

I think we as fans do have a reason to be annoyed, and I'd much prefer every game each round to be shown live on FTA, but who knows at what other costs to the game that might come at. You might win in one area, but lose in another. This deal might be able to avoid situations in the future where the likes of Folau or Hunt (although he may have had other reasons) were lost to the Broncos or the game.

Hunt and Folau left because of astronomical money was offered that won't really be offered again by AFL. Sure we might lose the odd player to Union but really that isn't a major sticking point with me. Most of this money will be used to keep those useless Sydney teams that should be cut loose afloat.

 

[Coxy]

AFL doesn't have to offer ridiculous money to its players to retain them, because there's nowhere else they can go. A select few have had short careers in the NFL as kickers, but that's it. None has successfully converted to either Rugby code or soccer (and in this country why would you?) to my knowledge.

The NRL faces competition from Australian and international Rugby and English Super League. I don't think the AFL is a threat again, I think the experiment has been done for expansion purposes and while Hunt has been semi successful Folau, as predicted, is simply a source of ridicule.

I definitely expected a jump in cap higher than $5.5 million. I had $6 million in mind in the first year, potentially growing to $7 million by 2016. Considering that'd be a total outlay of $119 million (assuming a 17th team comes in around then), that's about the equivalent of half the annual revenue from the TV rights (and that's not the sole source of funding for the cap - gate takings, memberships, merchandise, sponsorship etc).

Anyway, I don't begrudge the game the payday it's got. I just still think it's ludicrous that there are delayed telecasts. Yes I know it was worse 15 years ago with the 1 hour highlights Sunday and delayed game Friday night, but that's not the point. 15 years ago there was just 5 free to air networks, pay TV was little more than a novelty for your rich nitwits, and the internet was about porn.

These days there's 30-odd FTA digital channels, pay TV is still overpriced crap but widely accessible, and the internet...well, it's still about porn, but most people have fast enough connections to watch porn (and sport) in HD pretty comfortably. Most people have IQ or equivalent PVR type personal recorders so they can watch non-live shows and skip the ads, so having ads on a delayed telecast is pointless. If I'm watching a delayed game I'll record it and watch it a further half hour or an hour behind so I can skip the ads.

In game advertising is the key product these days, something that gets shown regardless of the medium, and regardless of when it's viewed. Channel 9 wastes this opportunity by cross promoting its own crappy content and rubbish sports betting.

The fans could still have won with live games on free to air, and, heaven forbid, both games live on Friday night on separate digital channels, and the networks could still have made a motza on advertising.

So yes, the deal sucks because the NRL bent over for Nine to ram its outdated advertising mentality up its arse hole.

 

[gUt]

Someone on LU said succinctly, this is the last of the old-world deals. 5 more years people. 5 years of consolidation at all levels from pro to grass roots.

In 5 years RL in this country writes its own contract.

 

[Kimlo]

AFL doesn't have to offer ridiculous money to its players to retain them, because there's nowhere else they can go. A select few have had short careers in the NFL as kickers, but that's it. None has successfully converted to either Rugby code or soccer (and in this country why would you?) to my knowledge.

The NRL faces competition from Australian and international Rugby and English Super League. I don't think the AFL is a threat again, I think the experiment has been done for expansion purposes and while Hunt has been semi successful Folau, as predicted, is simply a source of ridicule.

I definitely expected a jump in cap higher than $5.5 million. I had $6 million in mind in the first year, potentially growing to $7 million by 2016. Considering that'd be a total outlay of $119 million (assuming a 17th team comes in around then), that's about the equivalent of half the annual revenue from the TV rights (and that's not the sole source of funding for the cap - gate takings, memberships, merchandise, sponsorship etc).

Anyway, I don't begrudge the game the payday it's got. I just still think it's ludicrous that there are delayed telecasts. Yes I know it was worse 15 years ago with the 1 hour highlights Sunday and delayed game Friday night, but that's not the point. 15 years ago there was just 5 free to air networks, pay TV was little more than a novelty for your rich nitwits, and the internet was about porn.

These days there's 30-odd FTA digital channels, pay TV is still overpriced crap but widely accessible, and the internet...well, it's still about porn, but most people have fast enough connections to watch porn (and sport) in HD pretty comfortably. Most people have IQ or equivalent PVR type personal recorders so they can watch non-live shows and skip the ads, so having ads on a delayed telecast is pointless. If I'm watching a delayed game I'll record it and watch it a further half hour or an hour behind so I can skip the ads.

In game advertising is the key product these days, something that gets shown regardless of the medium, and regardless of when it's viewed. Channel 9 wastes this opportunity by cross promoting its own crappy content and rubbish sports betting.

The fans could still have won with live games on free to air, and, heaven forbid, both games live on Friday night on separate digital channels, and the networks could still have made a motza on advertising.

So yes, the deal sucks because the NRL bent over for Nine to ram its outdated advertising mentality up its arse hole.

Great post Coxy, 100% agree with all of it.