Is channel nine running/ruining the game?

[Knight87]

They paid 15 million per year for RL for a long time.

Infact, it was less than that.

From Wikipedia:

Broadcasting Rights

"In 1998 Packer's Nine Network secured the free-to-air broadcasting rights for the NRL until 2007 for $13,000,000 a year. In 2001 C7 unsuccessfully attempted to buy the pay television NRL rights until 2006 for $72,000,000 per annum. After News resigned these rights, and acquired the AFL broadcast rights, C7 was shut down in March 2002 , leaving Fox Sports as the only Australian pay television sports network. As a result of the failure of C7, its owners commenced legal proceedings against parties, including Fox Sports, Foxtel and the NRL Partnership, for damages of $1 billion. This matter is still before the courts.
The free to air rights were renewed in 2005 until 2012 for an amount of $40,000,000 a year."



So, from 1998 to 2006 (9 years, inclusive), Ch9 was only paying $13 million/year (which was only a $1.6 million/year increase on the previous FTA rights, which had been $11.4 million/year dating back to 1994). I don't know if you think that's a lot or not, but it doesn't sound like a lot at all. Considering, that from 2007-2011 (5 years, inclusive), they've been made to pay $40 million/year, which is more than triple the amount (per year) they were paying the previous 9 years, even when ratings and crowd attendances were starting to dramatically increase again post-Super League.

 

[butchmcdick]

I think that Ch10 would do a good job, if they had the FTA rights. I mean, look at the amount of exposure they give the Sydney Swans in the AFL (something Ch7 didn't do before Ch10 got the rights with Ch9 in 2002). If it wasn't for Ch10, Sydney people on a Sat Night would still be waiting till close to midnight to watch the Swans play.

At least Ch10 could show their Sunday game leading into their news, which would mean that it would be live (since it'd start at 3pm, Ten News at 5pm) and we wouldn't have to put up with 50 or so ads.

Problem is, which ppl would Ch10 choose as commentators for their coverage and also if they had a Footy show (not like the current one in Ch9)?

Didn't the AFL stipulate when they sold the rights for their game that whoever won had to broadcast games live into new markets eg QLD and NSW ? I would have thought when we sold the rights to our game we would have made the same sort of demands.

 

[Knight87]

well, the NRL should've tabulated a similar sort of clause in the contract, especially for Melbourne, if they knew that Ch9 Melbourne were going to intend showing their FTA Friday Night games after midnight. I mean, that is pretty pathetic when you think about it. The Sydney Swans and Brisbane Lions get a lot more coverage than the Melbourne Storm do. At least Swans and Lions fans get to see their respective team's matches at decent hours of the day and night.

 

[El Diablo]

Didn't the AFL stipulate when they sold the rights for their game that whoever won had to broadcast games live into new markets eg QLD and NSW ? I would have thought when we sold the rights to our game we would have made the same sort of demands.

well the NRL did put some stipulations in there. one was that games must be shown before 12am in Melbourne

http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/new...l-a-mark/2007/05/18/1178995418201.html?page=2

However, Nine's telecast of last night's St George Illawarra versus Titans match was due to begin at 1.10am, following the movie Election, a flick about a girl bribing classmates with muffins to be elected school captain. The after-midnight start is in breach of the existing NRL contract, which says Nine must televise games in Melbourne before midnight.

this made Gallop come out with this after 9 ignored the agreement

Angry Gallop's threat to Nine: use it or lose it


Gallop was just all talk as the problem still persists and 9 haven't lost anything

http://www.melbournestorm.com.au/default.asp?sec=1&ssec=1&pg=1746

Storm delayed reaction
Monday, April 14, 2008
Source: mX (Melbourne)

Melbourne Storm has urged the NRL to take Channel 9 to task, alleging the rugby league broadcaster has breached its agreement twice by failing to show Storm games in Melbourne before midnight.

Last Friday week's clash with the Brisbane Broncos didn't air until 12.15am and last Friday's night's grand final re-match against Manly was scheduled to be aired at 12.10am on Melbourne screens.

An NRL spokesman confirmed to mX that although there were provisions for the game to be aired after 12pm if shows ran late. Nine is obliged to schedule matches before midnight.

Waldron said it was a clear breach of the agreement and if the league cared about spreading the NRL gospel in Melbourne, it was bound to hold Channel 9 accountable.

"I've spoken to the NRL and they are well and truly aware of this situation and as the people responsible for looking after the future of the game I would hope they did act," Waldron told mX.

"I'm disappointed, really disappointed, after all the inroads we have made for the game down here that we can't get appropriate coverage.

"But it's not for us to do anything, it is the NRL's deal so our hands are tied. But they really should do everything in their power to make sure the deal is upheld."

Waldron said he had made NRL boss David Gallop aware of his concerns as early as last year.

Nine was investigating the situation last Friday and would not comment on whether the broadcast agreement had been breached.

what kind of CEO lets the rights holder get away with breaching the contract?

David Gallop it seems

 

[Knight87]

I mean, even Perth gets to see the Sunday game at the same time we do, yet Melbourne (which have an NRL team) don't get decent coverage.

 

[El Diablo]

and it looks like 9 will again be breaching the agreeent on Friday

http://www.ebroadcast.com.au/cgi-bi...NEY+RABBITOHS&fta=1&fox=0&opt=0&time=12.00+am

TV Show Name: FRIDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL LATE: BRISBANE BRONCOS V SOUTH SYDNEY RABBITOHS
Broadcast Date: Friday 25 April 2008
Channel: Free to Air / Nine
Broadcast Time: 12.00 am
Classifications: Sport, NA (CC) WS
Timeslot Duration: 150 mins

 

[mark123]

They should give those games where 9 cannot meet their obligations to sbs or the abc, as they said they would. And ch9 should screen no less than a certain number of adverts (even in the form of bottom of scrolling screen text during a show) to inform people of where they can watch the game.

This needs to be rectified immediately.

Seriously, who at the nrl thinks of this sh!t? Its like they want league to fail in Melbourne.

NRL: We the fans want a power-keeping water-tight contract. We want this contract to be tighter than a fish's butt, and the ability to take it to 100m+ under water without leakage. Someone(s) at the news/ch9/telstra are going to have to get serious or at least pretend things are riggy-didg between the nrl and them.

Someone else one day is going to come in and start another comp. Seriously, the nrl is fast becoming a weak-willed puss-ball. Its almost as if no one cares whats going on underneath the surface, as long as on the surface the dollars/ratings/subscribtions are trickling in quickly for pay tv.

And thats a pretty foolish way to run a competition/business/kitchen call it what you like. I thought you all had business sense, but I guess every one is human - taking the easy way. Pull your socks up and be real again. Strengthen the core of RL once more.

 

[Knight87]

and it looks like 9 will again be breaching the agreeent on Friday

http://www.ebroadcast.com.au/cgi-bin/TV/detail?date=Friday_25_April&chan=9&state=Melbourne&descrip=FRIDAY+NIGHT+FOOTBALL+LATE%3a+BRISBANE+BRONCOS+V+SOUTH+SYDNEY+RABBITOHS&fta=1&fox=0&opt=0&time=12%2e00+am

Yeah, I know that sucks, but what I was mainly referring to was it sucks even more if the game involves your own team, and when your team appears on FTA, you can't even see your own team at a decent time. Even if you have Foxtel in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia (who already get to see the Ch9 Sunday game at the same time as NSW/QLD viewers) and Tasmania, although the Ch9 Sunday game is normally replayed at 6pm (AEST), you still won't get to see the Friday Night games until very late. This Friday's Brisbane vs Souths match won't be on Fox Sports till 10:30pm (and that's earlier than normal, cause theres only one FN match, but when there's two, I think it's on a lot later than 10:30pm).

And yes, I believe that the next TV rights contract (commencing in 2012) should be very watertight, which clearly specifies what will happen and what will not happen, not all this 50/50 crap that allows the parties negotiating it to have all these loopholes in it so they can clearly sidestep their way around situations they supposedly believe doesn't suit them.

 

[LeagueXIII]

If league got what it truly deserves, why would any club be in financial trouble, money could be put into the international game, the pacific islands, into developing new teams in WA and Wellington etc.

It truly is a pathetic situation, a disgrace. If anyone thinks that Gallop has league's interests above News' they need their head read.

 

[Knight87]

So, it's safe to assume on here that the majority of people believe that the NRL is not achieving to it's maximum potential, correct? And a lot of this is attributed to David Gallop and the parties involved with him (News Limited and Channel 9)?

 

[Parra]

Didn't the AFL stipulate when they sold the rights for their game that whoever won had to broadcast games live into new markets eg QLD and NSW ? I would have thought when we sold the rights to our game we would have made the same sort of demands.

The rugby league morons did not sell the TV rights, they sold the whole game!

Thanks to Peter "Turncoat" Moore & John Ribot.

Honorable mentions (but no-one cared if they went anyway) to:

Canberra Raiders
Penrith Panthers
Cronulla Sharks

And without Kerry "Softcock" Packer the whole fiasco could have been avoided. When the time came to stick - he bailed out.

 

[Knight87]

The rugby league morons did not sell the TV rights, they sold the whole game!

Thanks to Peter "Turncoat" Moore & John Ribot.

Honorable mentions (but no-one cared if they went anyway) to:

Canberra Raiders
Penrith Panthers
Cronulla Sharks

And without Kerry "Softcock" Packer the whole fiasco could have been avoided. When the time came to stick - he bailed out.

What do you mean by that (the bit highlighted in bold)?

So, you think that it would've been perfectly acceptable for News Limited to just barge into the game, hijack the game, and take full 100% control of everything in the process without going down without a fight?

 

[Knight87]

And no, I don't believe in the last few years, that Ch9 has been good for the game. Their coverage, exposure and promotion of the game has been woeful, not to say the least. It's no wonder the AFL are having a very big laugh at us, at our expense (one thing they're definitely laughing at is the crappy TV and Radio rights deal we received). Employing people such as Paul Harragon for supposedly staying loyal to the ARL during SL war is nepotism at its very worst. The list can go on and on. But, I think the recent incident that has sorta tipped the iceberg for me was the recent "Team of the Century" night. I know it's already been mentioned in other threads, but if that was AFL, I can 100% guarantee you that Ch7, Ch10 or Fox would've had a complete show devoted to that momentus occasion, rather than this cheap man's version of cutting back and forth to the event, only showing a minute at a time, and then even simplifying their coverage of the event even more, just because there was someone (ie Ray Hadley) there that they're not on good terms with. All of this, while people were sitting through the painful "That's Gold" segment and letters on 'how to get laid' to the Chief were being read. Completely pathetic. I'm sure to all those mad AFL Melbournians that if the AFL were ever dishing up tripe like that, they wouldn't stand for that and wouldn't be made to swallow that crap either.

 

[mark123]

Men like K Packer and indeed R Murdoch are money men.

I like money too - to see the figures increase on my statements. Watch my investments grow. You work hard to make your money grow. Money is HARD to earn - but its EASY to spend and lose.

So you bail when you see a loss coming. If you can avoid it, you do.

The problem with everything about rugby league and money is that with money, you bail. With league, you don't.

And thats where the two ideals differ. You almost need someone who loves league so much he doesn't care about the money.

Money comes to those who treat it kindly. Those who stroke it and create more money from the money they have by creating employment and products and services for people to buy. Men like Packer. Money goes quickly from other types who just like to spend it and squander it or in other words - treating it poorly.

League is a "user" of money. It flows mostly to the players, sports biggest expense. Whats more League is a nurturer of money as well. In that it grows money for its owners from paytv subscriptions and advertisements of all kinds. This is a problem because to maximise the owners profits (for their purposes of growing their own money) one must minimize the money being spent on league, whilst maximizing the money made from league.

Thats whats happening in our game.

And at the end of the day, the game is not living for the game, its living for a company and ultimately a few rich men.

Therefore this is the picture of leagues problem. Its not a sport when you see it on the balance sheet.

Beneath the surface the game could be going to sh!t and nothing will be done about it as long as the money keeps rolling in on the other side of the hill.

Case in point. Some kind of rationalization of the sydney teams. Admin said it needed to begin happening as far back as 1995. Its TWENTY YEARS ON!!! Nothing has been done!

Does this sound like a sport looking after itself? Or looking after a few rich men?

You won't have a great rugby league landscape sooner with this lot in charge. Its become a self-limiting handicap. You won't have an expansion of the international scene as much as could be possible any time soon.

Its very regrettable. It can't be allowed to continue. They might like to think they are running a tight ship, but all I can see is endless 'waste' and lost 'productivity' for our 'sport'. And thats in there somewhere, slowly being eroded away.

Did I mention we can't let this continue?

 

[LeagueXIII]

They are definately "dumbing" down the game.

Why didn't the league let Packer and Murdoch fight it, and the highest bidder gets to broadcast the game so that "rugby league is the winner" as they say.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Agree mark123, they think as business men, unlike most of us who have an emotional attachment to our team and the game, they see it as numbers. In 1995-97 revenue wasn't coming into the game due to the SL war so the answer was to rationalise as a big corporation would do. Sell it to the public as "merge or die" etc. Rather than nurture and maximise their revenue streams they just cold heartedly culled, WA, Adelaide, Brisbane, Gold Coast, wollongong, Sydney etc

 

[Knight87]

So, do you guys think some Sydney teams need to relocate, merge or fold, or are you happy enough with the current crop of 8.5 (if you count only the St George half of St George/Illawarra as part of Sydney)?

 

[mark123]

They are definately "dumbing" down the game.

Why didn't the league let Packer and Murdoch fight it, and the highest bidder gets to broadcast the game so that "rugby league is the winner" as they say.

Read my above post again. There is a part that reads:

** Money comes to those who treat it kindly. Those who stroke it and create more money from the money they have by creating employment and products and services for people to buy. Men like Packer. Money goes quickly from other types who just like to spend it and squander it or in other words - treating it poorly.

League is a "user" of money. It flows mostly to the players, sports biggest expense. Whats more League is a nurturer of money as well. In that it grows money for its owners from paytv subscriptions and advertisements of all kinds. This is a problem because to maximise the owners profits (for their purposes of growing their own money) one must minimize the money being spent on league, whilst maximizing the money made from league.

Thats whats happening in our game. **

Therein lies your problem.

I find it hard to believe people don't understand this already.

Its got nothing to do with league at all. Its how the sport is run. We don't own ourselves. When we did, all the clubs did in sydney was stab each other in the back. Its about money.

While everyone was busy squabbling someone stole us. No one in rl had control because no one in rl took control. So someone else came in and did it for you.

Soccer had the same drama all over the world until FIFA came in. Sport was growing took big and everyone was moving in a different direction. Once FIFA was put at the top of the tree, everyone finally had a direction to go.

It took some balls from the English association to allow another foreign/independant body to come in an take control of the game world-wide, but they did it and look at Soccer now. For those of you who don't know, soccer was created in england, and for a long time england basically lead the game. Except england looked after england and everyone else looked afterthemselves, but followed what england did to a great extent. Influence was misused.

Same with NRL as it is now.

Once FIFA was put in charge of the sport on a world-wide scale, things got a lot better for soccer. The world cup was an integral part of this for soccer too.

ARL/NRL need to merge. RL in Australia needs to harness its influence under one banner. Merged NRL then needs to control itself and run itself efficiently - then it needs to give away its world-wide influence of control to the International rugby league and make their control official. And they need to be legally bound or somehow rather bound to this.

Somehow its got happen.

 

[Knight87]

yeah, good point Mark, but how long do you realistically think it will be before your vision is achieved?

 

[Parra]

What do you mean by that (the bit highlighted in bold)?

So, you think that it would've been perfectly acceptable for News Limited to just barge into the game, hijack the game, and take full 100% control of everything in the process without going down without a fight?

Packer made some very solid legal threats - it is public information. The concept of the "loyalty" agreements was a result.

Then,when the going got a little bit tough, he bailed without notice and showed what his idea of "loyalty" really was.

A fight was fine. There was no way the establishment was going to lose. Unless someone blinked. That someone was Kerry Packer.