NRL investigating games over 3 X 30 minute periods

[Eels Dude]

If the games are going to be 10 mins longer (12.5%) , are the players and the salary cap going to get a 12.5% payrise ?

How would you feel if you had to work an extra 12.5% per week of hours with no increase in pay. I hope they are considering that too.

Yes that makes sense because players are paid by the minute, and only work 80 minutes a week for their club

They may only spend that amount of time on the field every week, however the amount of time they spend training and doing other things for the club is not going to change. And that easily outweighs actually playing time in case you didn't know.

I don't think you'll find players demanding overtime when a game goes to golden point.

 

[Copa]

You missed the point, completely.

They are extending the game time and adding extra breaks to increase the tv coverage time and get more money for the tv deal.

So you would be totally happy for the NRL to get millions, maybe tens of millions extra on a new tv deal and give NONE of it to the players ? That's my point.

i think you missed the point... it'd probably drive an increase in the salary cap ...

 

[BeeeeeRad]

You missed the point, completely.

They are extending the game time and adding extra breaks to increase the tv coverage time and get more money for the tv deal.

So you would be totally happy for the NRL to get millions, maybe tens of millions extra on a new tv deal and give NONE of it to the players ? That's my point.

As long as the money is split evenly around the clubs after the NRL decide what is happening with it I dont care if it directly goes to players or not. It could go to increasing the salary cap in the future, or it could go into expanding the NRL interstate, as long as it helps the future of rugby league then I don't particurly mind.

 

[Eels Dude]

You missed the point, completely.

They are extending the game time and adding extra breaks to increase the tv coverage time and get more money for the tv deal.

So you would be totally happy for the NRL to get millions, maybe tens of millions extra on a new tv deal and give NONE of it to the players ? That's my point.

You've completely missed the point.

Obviously this idea is about getting more revenue into the game, enabling a much better tv deal because of changes, and therefore being able to raise the salary cap by a significant margin in a few years time. Thus enabling the players to be paid more.

 

[T to the T]

It's an interesting idea

More RL
Differentiates us further from Yawnion
More money from advertising

People talk about how change will move RL from recognition but isn't that what RL has done, continuously evolve making us light years ahead of Yawnion who are trying to now rush-implant their silly ELV's which make Yawnion more like RL

I kind of like this idea, 12.5% more RL (Players fitness will be in question however they are going to have '2' breaks now and also I'm sure the 17 will raise to 19 with more inter-changes.

Possibly one of the first decent ideas out of NRL HQ in years.

Just get Perth and CC Bears in soon as well!

 

[Rastus_in_Melbourne]

I just love how fans here seem to think that the game we have is the game we had in 1897 - in 1908 - in 1958 - in 1988 and in 1998.

The whole nature of Rugby League in its creation and development is CHANGE!!!

Exactly.

I've seen tries go from 3 to 4 points,

40/20 kicks introduced,

the interchange rules changed and changed again,

being back 5 metres in defence become being back 10,

catching the ball on the full in the in goal a 20 metre tap where it used to be a free for all.

That's just the stuff I remember that I've seen change. People need to be open minded enough to realise the game wasn't perfect out of the box and that it can be improved.

 

[Rastus_in_Melbourne]

i think you missed the point... it'd probably drive an increase in the salary cap ...

As it should.

 

[Rastus_in_Melbourne]

You've completely missed the point.

Obviously this idea is about getting more revenue into the game, enabling a much better tv deal because of changes, and therefore being able to raise the salary cap by a significant margin in a few years time. Thus enabling the players to be paid more.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

[Rastus_in_Melbourne]

As long as the money is split evenly around the clubs after the NRL decide what is happening with it I dont care if it directly goes to players or not. It could go to increasing the salary cap in the future, or it could go into expanding the NRL interstate, as long as it helps the future of rugby league then I don't particurly mind.

Fair enough.

I'm not saying it should all go to the players as it may be coming across, but IMO they have to get a bigger cut of any increase.

 

[JW]

The whole nature of Rugby League in its creation and development is CHANGE!!!

Spot on. The game's done nothing but change since 1895 and its never been afraid to do it. Thats what we're about - striving to improve the game to make it the ultimate form of Rugby.

 

[T to the T]

The only change of time span in RL I could accept is 3x30, as long as we don't go down the 4x20 route then I am happy

 

[cheese]

The fans reaction here shows why the game is in trouble. We have to evolve and move with the times if the game is going to survive.

I'd be in favour of 4 x 20 minute quarters so the players don't have to play any longer but the coverage can be expanded. AFL and NFL do it so why can't we? It used to happen in the midweek games from memory and no one complained.

You all want your cake and eat it too but unless changes are made for next season, the game will continue to wither on the vine.

ding ding

The whole reason the AFL eclipses us for TV revenue in the Australian is market is that they get ad spaces after every goal. We can't compete with that at the moment, it's as simple as that.

Even if this idea isn't "the one", at least the discussion of it is a step in the right direction.

 

[hellteam]

This would be unfair. One team would get to run with the wind twice.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

I can't believe so many people are just discarding this idea. I believe it has merit. It is a good way to maximise revenue in a game that is struggling.

Not to mention that it could be taken further and still make the game heavily reliant on stamina.

3 periods or 4 quarters, doesn't really matter, but cut down the interchange to 4 or 6 players, and you'll have a tougher game than it is currently. Forwards will still be buggered, and the backs will be fresh all the time. Makes for a much more entertaining game to watch potentially.

 

[Tap Twist Snap]

This would be unfair. One team would get to run with the wind twice.

Get rid of the toss and let the home team pick which way they want to run. That would give the home team a real advantage of playing at home.

 

[Ziggy the God]

If this means that the NRL will earn more income, and thus keep the existing clubs AND expand, then I am all for it.

 

[Eels Dude]

Thanks for agreeing with me.

You attacked the idea and said it was unfair that the NRL makes more money and that the players do not get paid more.

I said it will be the players who'll reap the benefits as more money into the game will equal more money for the players and a rising of the salary cap.

I would ask how this "agreeing with you" but I know you just couldn't think up a better response and so resorted to making a comment like a tool, merely because you're a tool.

 

[JW]

This would be unfair. One team would get to run with the wind twice.

Quite true, but I suppose we won't really know just how much of an advantage it'll prove to be until we trial it (if it ever comes to that).

I know its a different beast, but people accept that the advantages/disadvantages that come with first use of the pitch in Cricket are just part of the game.

 

[Eels Dude]

ding ding

The whole reason the AFL eclipses us for TV revenue in the Australian is market is that they get ad spaces after every goal. We can't compete with that at the moment, it's as simple as that.

Even if this idea isn't "the one", at least the discussion of it is a step in the right direction.

I don't think that should make a difference given that 2 of the 3 games on free to air are shown on delay, allowing ad breaks at will, and often extended ad breaks, and a couple of Fox games are delayed also.

The sunday game on Channel 9, for example, is an 80 minute game broadcasted over 120 minutes. They have no intro, no halftime summary, and no fulltime summary... Give or a take a few minutes, they potentially have up to 40 minutes television advertising in the space of 2 hours.

I don't think the AFL would be getting that during a match.

 

[thug jimmy]

If the games are going to be 10 mins longer (12.5%) , are the players and the salary cap going to get a 12.5% payrise ?

How would you feel if you had to work an extra 12.5% per week of hours with no increase in pay. I hope they are considering that too.

the players who think rugby league is a job should boot off to france with sonny.

its not a job, appreciate you play a sport you love for a living. god forbid you have to REALLY WORK for a living.