Did Gallop sell us short?

[Razor]

Gallop did not sell the NRL short.

When this new deal was signed, we all applauded as it was not only a large increase on what we already had but it came into effect earlier and gave the NRL the additional dollars at least 12 months earlier than the last deal.

This resulted in the inclusion of the Gold Coast Titans.

No the News Ltd media and Channel 9 applauded the deal.

And yes it is a huge increase but still a pathetically small amount.

 

[jed]

10 has the V8's, and 7 has tennis and golf in summer (non-ratings), but all other Australian sport will be held by 9 or will be shown on SBS & Foxtel.

While 9's offer is large, 7 & 10 cannot afford to let the AFL rights slip out of their grasp, leaving them with no cricket, league, soccer or afl. They've paid hansomely for first/last rights, and will take it up.

The other advantage a 7 & 10 win would have for the AFL is that games could be shown live & near live on commercial television in all markets, compared with a 9 win which would still see the AFL pushed back to late night in two of the three largest markets.

 

[russ13]

Someone said:

..The NRL grand final will never get 4 million+ capital-city viewers like the AFL grand final can, and it does not have the ability to rate outside Sydney or Brisbane. That's why the AFL gets more, not because of a grand News Ltd. conspiracy.

The last NRL GF (nation wide) rated 4.321 million even with Adelaide & Perth not taking the game live.

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?t=104804&page=14&pp=15

 

[LeagueXIII]

Well the AFL last time signed a deal for $500m lets hope that our next deal in 2012 is worth $780m.

 

[tommytomlin]

Someone said:




The last NRL GF (nation wide) rated 4.321 million even with Adelaide & Perth not taking the game live.

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?t=104804&page=14&pp=15

Those are not capital-city ratings, which is what I was referring to. The NRL Grand Final had a peak capital city of 2.8 million, the AFL Grand Final had a peak capital city rating of just over 4 million viewers.

 

[nqboy]

I think we were sold short, the opposition did not even get to bid to drive up the price.

And the lack of national prime time coverage is a disgrace.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

DID Gallop sell us short?

YES he did, let Kerry threaten him with everything, i'm sure AFL would rate it's socks off in NSW and QLD on a Friday night.

 

[SalfordRedsWA]

Cant 7/10 cover international League?

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

Cant 7/10 cover international League?

Prob not, Kerry prob has a little line in his contract thats says he's the only fella that can do sh!t, i wish the fans of RL in Aus could get the money together to show the old merkin whats what.

If it rates in the biggest states, why sell it short.?

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Those are not capital-city ratings, which is what I was referring to. The NRL Grand Final had a peak capital city of 2.8 million, the AFL Grand Final had a peak capital city rating of just over 4 million viewers.

So you don't rate country viewers?

Why would you consider them ignorable?

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

I think nine have whacked the price up knowing that 7/10 will have to take it off them or have nothing in the Winter.

And I for one hope they do because that forces 9 to get fully behind League.

 

[LeagueXIII]

I remember in about 1994, when league was covered by ten we had a midweek cup, premiership games , a show on Sundays called Late Night League, matches were shown live in Melbourne, Seven covered all the rep games and there were numerous radio stations covering games. What the f*** happened??

 

[Cheesie-the-Pirate]

Did Gallop sell us short?

Almost certainly not.

I'm with tommy here. It is impossible to deny that the AFL is in a stronger position than the NRL in terms of its ability to attract ratings.

AFL may well be beaten by Iron Chef and 20 year old movies in Sydney. But the question is: how would NRL do in Melbourne, or worse still Perth or Adelaide? I think we all know the answer to that question, and it isn't pretty.

AFL have been undertaking their expansion project for nearly a quarter of a century now. Meanwhile, the NRL's only remaining adventure into AFL country is the 8 year old Storm.

In the end, there are main factors here:

Firstly, the AFL rights are plainly worth more. AFL is more national and draws bigger national audiences. Particularly in capital cities which is where it counts.

Secondly, the AFL had a bidding war on its hands. It knew that 7/10 and 9 would fight it out for the rights. For the NRL Seven were never guaranteed of bidding.

Thirdly, the AFL had the advantage of the bar being set very high in the last rights deal. With 9/10/Foxtel's huge splash to take coverage away from the incumbent 7 it was established that AFL rights were worth the big biccies. We all know that the last NRL rights deal was simply abmismal.

With any luck, when the next TV deal comes we can get a better deal again.

But I'm entirely happy with this one because it seems to me that the NRL saw a great deal in all the pervailing circumstances and took it.

 

[Surandy]

So you don't rate country viewers?

Why would you consider them ignorable?

Because including them would stuff his argument up.

 

[Iafeta]

Well...considering I'm thinking you're leaving the market that is New Zealand out of your equation....I don't place much stock in this statement.

I'd think New Zealand TV rights would be sold separately to Sky TV against the major free to air networks in New Zealand (TVNZ (1 & 2), TV3, Prime). I don't know if they're inclusive to this deal.

 

[tommytomlin]

So you don't rate country viewers?

Why would you consider them ignorable?

In terms of television deals - yes. If we included country figures for both the AFL and the NRL, the difference between the two would still be the same, and the AFL would still be ahead by a million and a half, or so. The NRL has strong support in regional NSW and QLD, but its counterbalanced by the AFL's strong support in regional Melbourne, SA and WA.

Capital-city ratings are what television is driven around, because while Nine, Seven and Ten have regional affiliates, they don't get advertising money from them. Regional networks like NBN and Prime sell their own advertising. So yeah, in light of what we're discussing - they're very 'ignorable'.

 

[Razor]

If we included country figures for both the AFL and the NRL, the difference between the two would still be the same, and the AFL would still be ahead by a million and a half, or so. The NRL has strong support in regional NSW and QLD, but its counterbalanced by the AFL's strong support in regional Melbourne, SA and WA.

If you include regional areas the NRL rates higher than the AFL. QLD & NSW have large cities outside the capitals - Gold Coast, Townsville, Newcastle, Canberra, etc. The viewing figures from those areas are not included in the OzTam ratings. The other states don't have many large regional cities, and the ones they do aren't as populated as the ones in QLD & NSW.

Capital-city ratings are what television is driven around, because while Nine, Seven and Ten have regional affiliates, they don't get advertising money from them. Regional networks like NBN and Prime sell their own advertising. So yeah, in light of what we're discussing - they're very 'ignorable'.

Well if you want to go on that, the 9 Network don't own their channels in Perth & Adelaide. 10 doesn't own their Adelaide station. They are affiliates. So if ratings on channels that aren't owned by the network don't count 9 wouldn't be worried about Perth or Adelaide.

 

[Green Machine]

I'd think New Zealand TV rights would be sold separately to Sky TV against the major free to air networks in New Zealand (TVNZ (1 & 2), TV3, Prime). I don't know if they're inclusive to this deal.

This was a bit that was published when the last New Zealand TV deal was done:

THE NRL signed off on a $40 million television deal for the New Zealand broadcasting rights yesterday which will cover the funding for South Sydney's re-entry into the competition next year. Chief executive David Moffett announced the new five-year deal with existing carrier Sky TV, which reaches a third of homes in New Zealand. The deal was previously valued at $6.5 million a year but has now jumped to $8 million annually and lays the final piece down for Souths return. "This is one that's going to benefit the NRL and all 14 clubs, soon to be 15 clubs. The arrangements that we have put in place now for the next five years are going to enable us to take this game forward with a much greater degree of certainty than has been the case in the last few years," Moffett said. "The deal that we have done enables the NRL to say to all of the clubs that they have a $2.5 million grant next year and that also includes the reintroduction of South Sydney."

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

In terms of television deals - yes. If we included country figures for both the AFL and the NRL, the difference between the two would still be the same, and the AFL would still be ahead by a million and a half, or so. The NRL has strong support in regional NSW and QLD, but its counterbalanced by the AFL's strong support in regional Melbourne, SA and WA.

A million and a half what, population or viewers?

Either way, you're wrong.

Population as of 2003;

NSW: 6,682,000
Qld: 3,801,00

Combined: 10,483,000

Australia: 19,872,000.

As for the ratings, there was a 300k difference in favour of the AFL Grand Final this year, and that was with AFL being live into all states and the NRL into 3.

Capital-city ratings are what television is driven around, because while Nine, Seven and Ten have regional affiliates, they don't get advertising money from them. Regional networks like NBN and Prime sell their own advertising. So yeah, in light of what we're discussing - they're very 'ignorable'.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

The NRL has rural representation and the AFL doesn't. That is unless you consider Geelong a rural area. Rural in this case is non-capital cities.

If I think Adelaide and Perth are unworthy of being included in any stats because of their low poulations in comparison to the other cities covered by OZTAM, does that mean if I ignore them I'm right?

No, it doesn't.

 

[Green Machine]

I remember in about 1994, when league was covered by ten we had a midweek cup, premiership games , a show on Sundays called Late Night League, matches were shown live in Melbourne, Seven covered all the rep games and there were numerous radio stations covering games. What the f*** happened??

In 1994, Channel 9 covered all the games, bar the Saturday Afternoon only “Live” Telecast. Channel 9 coverage included a Friday Night one hour delayed coverage. They also gave us a 47 minute reply of the Sunday match of the day because it was important to them not to move the very important 60 minutes and Sunday Night coverage. It is funny how things turn around, that now the 4.00pm-6.00pm NRL game now allows Channel 9 to win the nightly news at least one night a week from Channel 7. They did give us “Live” State of Origin games.

In 1990, when Channel 10 went broke, Channel 9 brought all the Rugby League rights and kept the State of Origin for the 1991 season and on-sold the rest. They sold the International rights to Channel 7 and took them off Channel 7 in 1994. Late night League finished when Channel 10 stopped covering the game in 1991. A similar game rap up is now offered on Foxsport 1 on a Monday Night at 9.30pm. The midweek cup was moved to the pre-season in 1990. Once Channel 9 took over the premiership coverage in 1992, their coverage caused a lot of controversy, due to wanting teams to play in the afternoon heat at country venues because Channel 9 did not want to interrupt the nightly schedule,