Nine and Fox Sports to retain NRL rights

[OXY-351]

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

What I meant was that during a live game of both AFL and NRL, which has the capacity for more advertising air time?

 

[Bucking Beads]

AFL because they get 1 ad after each goal.

 

[Anonymous person]

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.

so youre ok with 2-3 players from a club getting $800k a season, and the rest - many of whom could be origin/international representative players - sitting on their current under $200k-$250k? yeh, im sure that will go down VERY well.

you cant just pay 2-3 players from each club an extra $400k a year and expect the other 22-23 players in the squad to not want a bigger slice of pie.

sure it might stop those 2-3 players from leaving, but it will make the other 22-23 far more likely to leave.

what is more likely to happen though, is that extra $800k will be split up over the 25 players wages, meaning the difference in salaries is very little compared to the $1mil+ a year they can get in Union/AFL.

 

[Bucking Beads]

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.

That is 5 more years of AFL dominating free to air tv.

 

[Steve]

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.

Yep. Don't underestimate the importance of the 9/Foxtel last right of refusal clause. In 5 years time if they're outgunned by 7/10 there'll be no coming back for Gyng then.

In light of that I can live with this deal (I just hate that some clubs will continue to suffer around Origin time and the quality of the football will diminish for two months every year). The deal is no worse than the current arrangement and from a selfish point of view I attend all of our homes games and I have Foxtel so I can always watch us live nearly every week. But for those in NSW and fans in QLD who don't follow Brisbane it'll be a hard pill to swallow.

I don't begrudge the ARLC for chasing the money. Could you have imagined the futore if they hadn't cracked the $1 billion? We'd all be calling for their heads if they'd come up short.

 

[Nashy]

Announce Perth now, inclusion in 5 years, with a new contract.

I'm pretty sure I read a while ago 9 has first dibs based on money. So the others must have been lower, so 9 by a dud contract default wins.

I hope that BS isn't in this contract. However, anyone involved in the administration of RL seems to be ****ing useless, so I don't expect much more come 5 years.

 

[gUt]

That is 5 more years of AFL dominating free to air tv.

Just because they get more games doesn't mean they dominate RL. The 3 highest rating football programs are RL matches.

They can show as many games on 7 mate or wherever they like, doesn't mean anyone's watching, especially in NSW and Qld. Pretty sure figures back that up too.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Just because they get more games doesn't mean they dominate RL. The 3 highest rating football programs are RL matches.

They can show as many games on 7 mate or wherever they like, doesn't mean anyone's watching, especially in NSW and Qld. Pretty sure figures back that up too.

They are still dominating the coverage on Free to Air TV. Eventually all this live AFL will get watched by kids and it will make a difference.

 

[Coxy]

They are still dominating the coverage on Free to Air TV. Eventually all this live AFL will get watched by kids and it will make a difference.

^^^ This.

It makes their game more accessible to a wider market. Hell, I find myself watching AFL games on a Saturday night when I've got a few beers and nothing else to do (although usually doesn't last long before I watch a movie or something).

 

[subsbligh]

^^^ This.

It makes their game more accessible to a wider market. Hell, I find myself watching AFL games on a Saturday night when I've got a few beers and nothing else to do (although usually doesn't last long before I watch a movie or something).

Do you think low socio economic working class grass roots families (i.e Rugby League heartland) can afford Foxtel.

In Brisbane the fan base is distorted because we are pretty much guaranteed a FTA game each week. Imagine being a Raiders fan or a young kid in a working class family in Canberra. What's on telly on the weekend... not the Raiders.

 

[Coxy]

Do you think low socio economic working class grass roots families (i.e Rugby League heartland) can afford Foxtel.

In Brisbane the fan base is distorted because we are pretty much guaranteed a FTA game each week. Imagine being a Raiders fan or a young kid in a working class family in Canberra. What's on telly on the weekend... not the Raiders.

Exactly, I agree completely (although, given my current line of work I see an amazing number of people dependent on handouts who still have foxtel...go figure). But the point stands, there is a need for all teams to have coverage on free to air TV. How they can make that happen without sacrificing advertising revenue, I don't know.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Do you think low socio economic working class grass roots families (i.e Rugby League heartland) can afford Foxtel.

In Brisbane the fan base is distorted because we are pretty much guaranteed a FTA game each week. Imagine being a Raiders fan or a young kid in a working class family in Canberra. What's on telly on the weekend... not the Raiders.

And in Sydney and Canberra all GWS and Sydney Swans games are shown live on tv. GWS also play games in Canberra. You can also use that argument for the Gold Coast who has high unemployment at the moment so Foxtel would be in decline. Meaning young Titans fans won't be able to see their team play either.

 

[vertigo]

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.

The most exciting thing about the next contract will be expansion and what the NBN has to offer.

Theoretically TV and Pay TV could be extinct in the deal after next.

 

[OXY-351]

I still must be missing something. You guys are arguing that more games should be shown on FTA, which I completely agree with, however most on here whinge about the current FTA coverage as it is, and I'm not sure how anyone expects that to change, even if another channel was broadcasting it.

Unfortunately Channel 9 aren't showing the games because they want to bring quality coverage to the fans each week. They are in business and want to show the games because they know it will bring a lot of viewers to their network, and this brings greater advertising power, cross promotion of their shows, viewers watching shows following the games etc (I'm sure channel 9 hopes the sunday arvo viewers will stick around for the news etc). Without this, it wouldn't be ecomonically viable for 9 to pay so much for the broadcasting rights, however these are the sort of things fans hate.

It's a shame, but I'm not sure they really care about the fans that much at all. As much as everyone whinges about the coverage, they still watch it, and I think channel 9 knows this. Even if all the games were on FTA, how many do you think would be live and at a convenient time for both home viewers and those wanting to attend the games? The reason why AFL games can be successfully shown live is because they have more of an opportunity to advertise during the match. The NRL doesn't have as many regular breaks in play to allow this.

At the end of the day, someone needs to pay for the coverage, and if people aren't prepared to pay for it out of their own pocket by having pay TV, then they are at the mercy of the advertising dollar and the evils that come with that.

 

[Bucking Beads]

I still must be missing something. You guys are arguing that more games should be shown on FTA, which I completely agree with, however most on here whinge about the current FTA coverage as it is, and I'm not sure how anyone expects that to change, even if another channel was broadcasting it.

Most of the whinging about channel 9 currently is the delayed game on Sunday and the commentators are shit. We knew the commentators would have stayed the same but at the very least wanted live football at all times. Delayed games are not on. Did you miss the point where Channel 10 offered to show 4 FTA games live each week??

 

[Big Pete]

From what I gathered, 9 were more concerned about it being a lead into the news rather than it being delayed. Which means the NRL can discuss scheduling a game for 4pm, which is what I'm hoping for.

 

[Bucking Beads]

From what I gathered, 9 were more concerned about it being a lead into the news rather than it being delayed. Which means the NRL can discuss scheduling a game for 4pm, which is what I'm hoping for.

That would be fine if it actually happens. I'll be happy with that if it happens but I doubt it will.

 

[OXY-351]

Delayed games are not on. Did you miss the point where Channel 10 offered to show 4 FTA games live each week??

No I didn't miss that, but do any of us know how much the offer from channel 10 was? imo you can't show live league without compromising the amount of advertising revenue you can make from it, and in turn the amount you can afford to pay for it.

What's to say the channel 10 offer was even in the ball park of channel 9s? Sure if it was close to what 9 was willing to pay, then I would say they should have based it on the quality of the TV coverage (which it sounds on face value that 10 would have been better), but if it wasn't even in the ballpark, then the NRL really had very little choice but to go with the highest bidder. The NRL was stuck between a rock and a hard place. There has been so much talk about this "billion dollar" TV deal that if they failed to negotiate it, they would be seen as failing.