2018-2022 Media Deal $ Value

[taipan]

Is it correct the NRL, now has close to $100m in the Bank? Or is this another Buzz bull sh*tter.

 

[Stallion]

So first your argument is that the boom TV era of the 70's, 80's and 90's was responsible for the so far unsubstantiated claim that the bears have a widespread supporter base. Then when I challenged you pointing out that Newtown played in that era you change your story that only the late 80's and 90's count.... right.

After weeks of asking you still haven't produced a scrap of evidence other than you child-like tantrums and insults. All of your opinions are asserted as fact which are anything but.. they are an emotional storm of someone stuck 30 years in the past.

I think I'll take this opportunity to take the advice of others and put you on ignore from this point forward so that I can enjoy threads without your catch-phrases clogging them up.

No Mr Dodgy. You used Newtown as an example of a club that was part of that whole era. It clearly WAS NOT! Misconstruing facthe to suit your flawed arguments are one of your big traits alongside false assertions.

 

[Cumberland Throw]

Rumours are seven might go early on an Afl fta renewal..

De couple it from fox contract might be smart play

 

[Perth Red]

Is it correct the NRL, now has close to $100m in the Bank? Or is this another Buzz bull sh*tter.

UnlikeLY. It’s very hard to know if there were was cash surplus left at the end of the last deal. I suspect not. Last year on paper the nrl made a $42mill surplus. Again my experience is what is produced in financial reports is rarely the full picture. It’s hard to know how much of that$42mill surplus is actually sitting in the bank.

 

[Perth Red]

Rumours are seven might go early on an Afl fta renewal..

De couple it from fox contract might be smart play

Didn’t smith try that and got slated for it?

 

[Cumberland Throw]

Daily telegraff..

Nrl have 100m in bank

nrl are going for an overdraft ..

Repeat story every 3-4 years .

 

[taipan]

UnlikeLY. It’s very hard to know if there were was cash surplus left at the end of the last deal. I suspect not. Last year on paper the nrl made a $42mill surplus. Again my experience is what is produced in financial reports is rarely the full picture. It’s hard to know how much of that$42mill surplus is actually sitting in the bank.

Surely some one making a public comment "there's close to $100m in the Bank" ,even though overblowing it ,must have a sauce(sic)that there is money rolling around in decent numbers.

 

[taipan]

Didn’t smith try that and got slated for it?

As an individual ,yes and not working FTA and Pay as partners.If we have to crawl up Rupe's ringoto max our revenue do business with the devil.

 

[Perth Red]

Surely some one making a public comment "there's close to $100m in the Bank" ,even though overblowing it ,must have a sauce(sic)that there is money rolling around in decent numbers.

Probably glanced at annual report and looked at bottom line which does show a supposed surplus from 13-17 of $60mill and a surplus in 17 of $42mill. On paper it does look like they have have that much surplus over the last 6 years but if it’s actually cash in the bank is impossible to say.

 

[Perth Red]

As an individual ,yes and not working FTA and Pay as partners.If we have to crawl up Rupe's ringoto max our revenue do business with the devil.

I’m amused you still believe this to be true. As someone whose been on boards and works with a board I can assure you that no deal of this magnitude and public profile gets done without a farm committee constantly overseeing it and feeding back to the full board. Not to mention the very serious money the commission were paying a consultancy firm to lead the negotiations. There is absolutely no way Smith did this deal and strategy without full commission knowledge and approval, and if by some half baked chance he did then the whole commission should have been sacked with him for lack of governance.

 

[taipan]

I’m amused you still believe this to be true. As someone whose been on boards and works with a board I can assure you that no deal of this magnitude and public profile gets done without a farm committee constantly overseeing it and feeding back to the full board. Not to mention the very serious money the commission were paying a consultancy firm to lead the negotiations. There is absolutely no way Smith did this deal and strategy without full commission knowledge and approval, and if by some half baked chance he did then the whole commission should have been sacked with him for lack of governance.

No need to be amused.When we compare what the AFL got and we got ATT.We were more tham matching them with ratings.How come Gil didn't go it alone? The announce a deal on his own at a press conference? Prudence perhaps, or a clue as to how to deal with News.

If our mate was so brilliant dealing with media organisations ,he'd still be there,News Ltd or not.Obviously knows banking well ,but sport administration in this country with strong influence from the media (News),he appeared to be a duck out of water.
My view is hardly that of a Robinson Crusoe.So you are being amused by decent numbers.

 

[Perth Red]

No need to be amused.When we compare what the AFL got and we got ATT.We were more tham matching them with ratings.How come Gil didn't go it alone? The announce a deal on his own at a press conference? Prudence perhaps, or a clue as to how to deal with News.

If our mate was so brilliant dealing with media organisations ,he'd still be there,News Ltd or not.Obviously knows banking well ,but sport administration in this country with strong influence from the media (News),he appeared to be a duck out of water.
My view is hardly that of a Robinson Crusoe.So you are being amused by decent numbers.

Imo and it’s just an opinion as no evidence, but he became the patsy for a news Ltd response. I’m not sure what the original strategy was in regards to locking in nine before fox but it was clear there was one and the commission would have signed off on it. When news got pssed to the level they did the arlc needed a scapegoat and Smith was it. I’d love to know what the original thinking was, but I can assure you it would have come from the consultants, agreed by the ceo and signed off by the commission. That’s how these things work.

Hi is by no means the first and certainly won’t be the last ceo to take a very large golden handshake to take the fall for some poor decision making by the company

 

[titoelcolombiano]

No Mr Dodgy. You used Newtown as an example of a club that was part of that whole era. It clearly WAS NOT! Misconstruing facthe to suit your flawed arguments are one of your big traits alongside false assertions.

Let's see what I actually said:

Newtown were part of that era and don't have widespread support so the argument of being part of the comp and on TV in the 70's, 80's and 90's doesn't stand alone as evidence that the Bears have widespread support. I've also got news for you, next year, the 1990 was 30 years ago.

'part of that era' and 'part of that whole era' are very different statements. I noticed that you snuck the 'whole' in there to fit your narrative.

Putting your changing of the subject aside, being on TV during that period isn't evidence of widespread support and you've failed to come up with anything other than emotional outbursts.

 

[tri_colours]

Growing digital revenues drive NRL to $46 million profit

March 1, 2019
Finance / Marketing / Sport / Technology / Venues /
The successful integration of its in-house digital and sponsorship strategy has resulted in the NRL reporting a $42.8 million profit and total consolidated revenue of $500 million for the 2018 season.

Following a $3.7 million net loss in 2017, the rugby league’s governing body has attributed the growth to digital revenue, which increased $17 million from $6.6 million to $23.6 million, along with sponsorship and wagering, up from $73 million in 2017 to $78.9 million last year.

NRL’s new broadcast deal with Nine and Fox Sports recorded $318 million, while non-broadcast revenue also grew by 21% or $30.9 million last year, backed by reduced cost.

Commenting on the results, Australian Rugby League Commission Chairman, Peter Beattie stated "this is a great result in the first year of the new broadcast cycle.

“We are now a $500 million revenue business.

“To put that into perspective, in 2017 we were a $350 million revenue business, while when the Commission was formed in 2012 our turnover was $180 million.

“This is extraordinary growth and more importantly, as a result, we have been able to deliver more money to clubs, states and grassroots rugby league than ever before.”

The NRL’s 2018 highlights:

• Total match attendances (2.2%)
• Club memberships (5.2%)
• Australian and New Zealand television audiences (1.1%)
• Registered players (3.6%)
• Top-rating program on Australian television in 2018, with 3.52m viewers tuning in to the opening Holden State of Origin match, while the inaugural Women’s State of Origin attracted a cumulative peak audience of 919,711
• The first NRLW season attracted a cumulative audience of 1.85 million and matches boasted the highest average audience (67,948) of any women’s football competition in Australia last year
• Crowds increased to 3,252,238 and cumulative television audiences across the Telstra Premiership rose to 116,2015,132 – vindicating the increased investment by broadcasters
• Subscribers to the NRL Telstra Live Pass increased and the number of match streams grew by 89%
• More than 830,000 fans signed up for an NRL Digital account, with video on demand views increasing by 53% on the new NRL Digital network
• Club memberships increased to 332,996, led by Brisbane (36,420), South Sydney (29,189), Parramatta (25,145) and Melbourne (25,105).
• Newcastle experienced the biggest growth, up 35% to 18,017, while nine other clubs posted record membership figures.
• NRL clubs received a $65.8 million increase in distribution of funds, with their annual grants rising from $8.4 million in 2017 to $13.1 million per club last year.
• Besides the 42% increase in funding to clubs from $156.9 million in 2017 to $222.8 million last year, funding to states and affiliates rose 16% to $38.1 million, while the NRL devoted $35.1 million for development

Beattie said the increase in non-broadcast revenue had exceeded expectations, adding "we know this is the first year of this (broadcast) cycle, which we knew would produce strong financial health for the game, but this is a result we can build on."

This is for the first year of the new contract. They Averaged 10m a year over the life of the previous contract.

What's so 'supposed' about that.?

 

[taipan]

Imo and it’s just an opinion as no evidence, but he became the patsy for a news Ltd response. I’m not sure what the original strategy was in regards to locking in nine before fox but it was clear there was one and the commission would have signed off on it. When news got pssed to the level they did the arlc needed a scapegoat and Smith was it. I’d love to know what the original thinking was, but I can assure you it would have come from the consultants, agreed by the ceo and signed off by the commission. That’s how these things work.

Hi is by no means the first and certainly won’t be the last ceo to take a very large golden handshake to take the fall for some poor decision making by the company

Conversely it's my opinion.But I saw enough at both conferences the one he did announcing the lone 9 deal, and the AFL one where all participants were at the presser, and Rupes vented his spleen, and they announced their deal.
The question is Rupert would;ld not have got pissed off, if Dave hadn't gone on his one, ignoring the past deals where News was alerted .
I know how things work ,that Commissons in matters like this have the final say, but I'm proposing they said ,"if you feel that's going to get maximum values by doing it separately then we' ll trust your judgment."
It appears not to have been the case, and he had shown his ability to spend lots on entertainment, still come up with a surplus .but many areas of the game were neglected as a result.

No and he's also not on his lonesome, when it comes to going off ,making recommendations to higher authority and getting burned.He's not infallible and he fell short ,just as Gallop did at times, and Greenberg in either ignoring or making decisions that ended up like polished "turds".

He lacked the gonads to understand the influence of News, which none of us like but is the harsh reality in this country of 25m.Channel 9 is a minnow by comparison.The money (the bulk of it) comes from Rupe's pockets.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

Conversely it's my opinion.But I saw enough at both conferences the one he did announcing the lone 9 deal, and the AFL one where all participants were at the presser, and Rupes vented his spleen, and they announced their deal.
The question is Rupert would;ld not have got pissed off, if Dave hadn't gone on his one, ignoring the past deals where News was alerted .
I know how things work ,that Commissons in matters like this have the final say, but I'm proposing they said ,"if you feel that's going to get maximum values by doing it separately then we' ll trust your judgment."
It appears not to have been the case, and he had shown his ability to spend lots on entertainment, still come up with a surplus .but many areas of the game were neglected as a result.

No and he's also not on his lonesome, when it comes to going off ,making recommendations to higher authority and getting burned.He's not infallible and he fell short ,just as Gallop did at times, and Greenberg in either ignoring or making decisions that ended up like polished "turds".

He lacked the gonads to understand the influence of News, which none of us like but is the harsh reality in this country of 25m.Channel 9 is a minnow by comparison.The money (the bulk of it) comes from Rupe's pockets.

Disagree with that. That moment was finally where the nrl gave the middle finger salute to news ltd and tried to brake the rubber band. It was as obvious as the nose on Farrah’s face that the nrl were trying to get a deal done with nine and fox but fox kept delaying them. Articles around that time prove it. Fox was trying to dictate the timeline to the nrl. How many times have we heard, “we don’t have any money left” from news Ltd once they had afls deal? The nrl didn’t want a repeat of that.

The nrl knew news Ltd was talking to the afl but not them. So they made the right decision to call them on it and made a deal with nine. It only became a bad deal once the nrl backtracked. Afls deal was already nearly done because news Ltd looked after them first.

Rumours are seven might go early on an Afl fta renewal..

De couple it from fox contract might be smart play

Be interesting to see how Foxtel react to that considering there stance at the last broadcast deal. I feel they would at least expect the afl to show some loyalty. After all once Foxtel ratings articles are published it will show who the real culprits are of the Foxtel’s $417mil loss.

 

[taipan]

Growing digital revenues drive NRL to $46 million profit

March 1, 2019
Finance / Marketing / Sport / Technology / Venues /
The successful integration of its in-house digital and sponsorship strategy has resulted in the NRL reporting a $42.8 million profit and total consolidated revenue of $500 million for the 2018 season.

Following a $3.7 million net loss in 2017, the rugby league’s governing body has attributed the growth to digital revenue, which increased $17 million from $6.6 million to $23.6 million, along with sponsorship and wagering, up from $73 million in 2017 to $78.9 million last year.

NRL’s new broadcast deal with Nine and Fox Sports recorded $318 million, while non-broadcast revenue also grew by 21% or $30.9 million last year, backed by reduced cost.

Commenting on the results, Australian Rugby League Commission Chairman, Peter Beattie stated "this is a great result in the first year of the new broadcast cycle.

“We are now a $500 million revenue business.

“To put that into perspective, in 2017 we were a $350 million revenue business, while when the Commission was formed in 2012 our turnover was $180 million.

“This is extraordinary growth and more importantly, as a result, we have been able to deliver more money to clubs, states and grassroots rugby league than ever before.”

The NRL’s 2018 highlights:

• Total match attendances (2.2%)
• Club memberships (5.2%)
• Australian and New Zealand television audiences (1.1%)
• Registered players (3.6%)
• Top-rating program on Australian television in 2018, with 3.52m viewers tuning in to the opening Holden State of Origin match, while the inaugural Women’s State of Origin attracted a cumulative peak audience of 919,711
• The first NRLW season attracted a cumulative audience of 1.85 million and matches boasted the highest average audience (67,948) of any women’s football competition in Australia last year
• Crowds increased to 3,252,238 and cumulative television audiences across the Telstra Premiership rose to 116,2015,132 – vindicating the increased investment by broadcasters
• Subscribers to the NRL Telstra Live Pass increased and the number of match streams grew by 89%
• More than 830,000 fans signed up for an NRL Digital account, with video on demand views increasing by 53% on the new NRL Digital network
• Club memberships increased to 332,996, led by Brisbane (36,420), South Sydney (29,189), Parramatta (25,145) and Melbourne (25,105).
• Newcastle experienced the biggest growth, up 35% to 18,017, while nine other clubs posted record membership figures.
• NRL clubs received a $65.8 million increase in distribution of funds, with their annual grants rising from $8.4 million in 2017 to $13.1 million per club last year.
• Besides the 42% increase in funding to clubs from $156.9 million in 2017 to $222.8 million last year, funding to states and affiliates rose 16% to $38.1 million, while the NRL devoted $35.1 million for development

Beattie said the increase in non-broadcast revenue had exceeded expectations, adding "we know this is the first year of this (broadcast) cycle, which we knew would produce strong financial health for the game, but this is a result we can build on."

This is for the first year of the new contract. They Averaged 10m a year over the life of the previous contract.

What's so 'supposed' about that.?

I know the first year of the new deal was over $40m.That was well publicised.
I'm responding to a comment ,think it was Beattie or Buz ,who stated there was near on $100m in the bank.IOW taking into account the 2nd year of the Tv deals.
If the 2nd year is about the same, then the $200m they wanted at the end of the 5 years 18-22 looks to be well attainable.And I'll be jumping for joy.

 

[taipan]

Disagree with that. That moment was finally where the nrl gave the middle finger salute to news ltd and tried to brake the rubber band. It was as obvious as the nose on Farrah’s face that the nrl were trying to get a deal done with nine and fox but fox kept delaying them. Articles around that time prove it. Fox was trying to dictate the timeline to the nrl. How many times have we heard, “we don’t have any money left” from news Ltd once they had afls deal? The nrl didn’t want a repeat of that.

The nrl knew news Ltd was talking to the afl but not them. So they made the right decision to call them on it and made a deal with nine. It only became a bad deal once the nrl backtracked. Afls deal was already nearly done because news Ltd looked after them first.



Be interesting to see how Foxtel react to that considering there stance at the last broadcast deal. I feel they would at least expect the afl to show some loyalty. After all once Foxtel ratings articles are published it will show who the real culprits are of the Foxtel’s $417mil loss.

The NRL or Dave's
recommendation to the Board?
The only obvious thing I noted, and watched the TV presentation live with Smith on his lonesome, is why the other either board members or ch9 execs weren't in attendance?
No one yet has explained why he did the presentation on his own.Was it look at me I did this? Or was it a case of the Board saying it's your baby, their absence hardly supportive .
Regardless of whether Fox was stalling or not, we made the move to grab 9 first and leave News out of the equation.Ruperts response and the fact that the AFL got an extra $500m over that period is evidence enough News were p*ssed off.And ch7/AFL and News execs there.

It was clear News was negotiating with the AFL ATT,hardly a scoop.
When there's cheese lying around ,you can smell a rat.

I do know the NRL Board wants to try and get in early on negotiations ,starting next year.Even ch9 according to the media's talking about dropping Thursday nights.Hoobloodyray.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

The NRL or Dave's
recommendation to the Board?
The only obvious thing I noted, and watched the TV presentation live with Smith on his lonesome, is why the other either board members or ch9 execs weren't in attendance?
No one yet has explained why he did the presentation on his own.Was it look at me I did this? Or was it a case of the Board saying it's your baby, their absence hardly supportive .
Regardless of whether Fox was stalling or not, we made the move to grab 9 first and leave News out of the equation.Ruperts response and the fact that the AFL got an extra $500m over that period is evidence enough News were p*ssed off.And ch7/AFL and News execs there.

It was clear News was negotiating with the AFL ATT,hardly a scoop.
When there's cheese lying around ,you can smell a rat.

I do know the NRL Board wants to try and get in early on negotiations ,starting next year.Even ch9 according to the media's talking about dropping Thursday nights.Hoobloodyray.

My understanding is that there was a committee put together to deal with the broadcast deal. Like PR has said all members of that team would of had input. At the end of the day it would of had to be a majority with the negotiating team to decide on the plan. And the majority of the committee decided on going with 9 and initially leave fox out. We needed to stick with it and hold tight. But as always we buckled.

At the end of the day we won’t know exactly what happened until Smith and others talk.

The fact that other committees members weren’t there at the press conference is hardly a big deal imo.

For the afls deal of course all news execs are going to be there because they were involved in the afl deal. No point Rupert turning up to nrls 9 deal presser.

 

[taipan]

My understanding is that there was a committee put together to deal with the broadcast deal. Like PR has said all members of that team would of had input. At the end of the day it would of had to be a majority with the negotiating team to decide on the plan. And the majority of the committee decided on going with 9 and initially leave fox out. We needed to stick with it and hold tight. But as always we buckled.

At the end of the day we won’t know exactly what happened until Smith and others talk.

The fact that other committees members weren’t there at the press conference is hardly a big deal imo.

For the afls deal of course all news execs are going to be there because they were involved in the afl deal. No point Rupert turning up to nrls 9 deal presser.

I'm also sure he wouldn't have made the announcement without the Board's approval.That being stated, it doesn't alter the fact(of course no News would be there )for a ch9 announcement.But I repeat no 9 Execs no NRL execs/board members.
The way I look at it, did he commit to the deal which was a variant to the original planned one ,leaving the Board tied to that, and their absence suggesting it's all Dave's
Ever since the NRL has made TV deal presentations since post SL,other than this one occasion,all tannouncements have included other NRL and TV execs .Thus you may consider it not a big deal, but to me and no doubt others it smacks of being very.
If at least Beattie or someone from 9 was also there , I get it.It didn't happen.