John Brady (NRL director of media & communications) on expansion

[Brutus]

John - just ONE game at a decent hour per week in Melbourne and Perth. That is all we ask.

Just one...

Or is it still all about Pay TV subscriptions ffs.

 

[TheRam]

You would think after reading that drivel, once the Independent Commission gets up and running, there will be a redundancy package waiting for John Brady,

Guaranteed.

What a load of rubbish. Primetime is where the action is Mr Brady. Why do you think that the AFL DEMAND this for their outpost teams? There is no excuse for not demanding that all games be shown live or near live now that there are multiple channels. Talk about piss weak answers. The guy must be a absolute buffoon or a condescending git.

As for expansion, who the hell cares what he has to say on it. by the time those decisions come around he won't be having a say in it me thinks.

Sorry I just don't have any time for these losers on the NRL board anymore.

 

[Brutus]

Why interview John Brady?

Better off talking to Mario Fenech about those issues.

 

[LeagueXIII]

I think a lot of people forget the waffle is there for a reason.

As much as we ask the questions, the people within the NRL must be very careful what they say. There would be cause for legal action by bid teams if there were committed statements by the NRL or anyone in it at any time before the NRL is ready to proceed.

That's right, must keep it top secret. Just because other codes announce the expansion of their codes well in advance no reason why we should:sarcasm:

News Ltd looking to cash in on their last deal before they exit the game.

 

[Stewie]

I noticed that foxtel shows live Afl to Rugby League states only(NSW/QLD/ACT) while it's delayed on free to air in these areas. Maybe it's possible for the NRL to bargain with channel 9 to do the same for our game and allow free to air Rugby League games to be played live on Foxtel to WA/VIC/SA/NT/TAS only. I know it will only benefit people that have Foxtel but it might work until they get the ratings they need. I work in W.A and there's nothing worse than staying up til midnight or 2am to watch Friday night or even Sunday football.

 

[bobmar28]

It shouldn't matter. The AFL gets destroyed in the northern states but they keep showing it due to how important the game is to their bottom line in the Melbourne market.

If the NRL stands up for itself, we will find exactly the same happens in reverse - The networks will be prepared to get killed in Melbourne in order to maintain their market share in Sydney alone, and that's before considering the millions in SEQ, QLD as a whole and regional NSW


All we have to do is DEMAND gaurenteed coverage levels like Vlad and his crew do.

I'm sure AFL will be on digital channels in NSW/QLD soon.

 

[Goddo]

Well, on TV broadcast, it looks like it will be out of the NRL's hands: the media companies will have to show it live:

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/tv-stations-told-to-play-fair-over-footy-rights-20100921-15jxe.html

Under changes to the anti-siphoning laws to be unveiled before Christmas, free-to-air television stations will be required to broadcast sport live or hand it over to pay TV.

However, the stations will have the option of broadcasting the event live on one of their secondary digital channels, instead of their main channel, giving them the best of both worlds.


Only if they choose to hoard the event and not run it live at all will they have to allow pay TV to broadcast it under a ''use-it-or-lose-it'' provision.

 

[Rockin Ronny]

Hey guys. I'm one of the blokes who runs that site (although my co-blogger Nick F gets credit for that interview!).

To be honest I'm a bit surprised about the negative response about Brady's comments. Obviously he's not giving much away, but to the extent that he is emphasising the fact that the NRL will need to be absolutely convinced about the merits of any expansion team, that's entirely appropriate in my opinion. Obviously there are lots of us (myself included) who get pretty excited about the prospect of new teams in new areas, but there has to be a very solid business case to justify turning that into a reality, and I think that is what Brady is emphasising here.

bullsh*t.
That interview was the same old crock from a bunch of directionless idiots who have zero strategic plan for the game's future - just a healthy interest in what's best for themselves and News Limited.

Listen to is comment about the previous TV deal:
"When we did ours we actually brought revenues forward, increased revenues and everybody said it was an outstanding result."

This is laughable. It was an outstanding result for News Limited and Foxtel because they got to control their prime asset (rugby league) and paid SFA for the rights to do so. Everyone who wasn't a News lackey and who had an IQ over 10 knew what that was - it was a fraud.

 

[Serc]

Sensational news, good find there Goddo

 

[madunit]

Pathetic, even looking forward, they have no intention of improving the games coverage.

Why enter a team in a state and not show their games prior to midnight?

Why, knowing this, knowing the fans anger over this, do they opt to bow down to the network as this spineless f**k is doing?

They have a product, a very bloody successful one at that. Nine want it.

NRL has the bargaining power, they should f**king use it.

 

[Billythekid]

I understand they have to be careful with what they say but what that means is that interviews like this say absolutely nothing. The entire thing could of consisted of um, ah, hmm, herp, derp and it would of told us just as much.

There is one point that i really take contention with. That is the notion that somehow showing games into Melbourne after midnight is in anyway preferable to prime time.

Firstly when the NRL has been shown into Melbourne it has been able to pull off decent ratings. Certainly no worse than the terrible movies that are currently shown in its place.

Secondly the NRL is not in the same position as basketball. Basketball is a fringe sport at best in Australia and it's position in our sporting landscape has always been on a knifes edge. The NRL is the most popular sport along with AFL and networks essentially need us (or the AFL).

Thirdly the games in Melbourne are supposed to be shown before midnight. This was a part of the last tv contract, you know, use it or lose it. Nine continually breaks their contractually obligations with the NRL and the NRL do nothing about it.

There is no reason to believe that the NRL currently cares about improving the coverage of the game in non heartland states.

The rest of the tripe i just read is basically just repeating Gallops old schtick. All the same stuff about not putting dots on the map, getting the balance right etc.

 

[Perth Red]

It's the lack of passion for the game, the bold statements about wanting to take the game to new audiences, expand beyond our traditional markets, vision for being the countries number one code in all areas etc that annoys me. Sure it might be seen as bluster and talking the game up but what's wrong with that?

I could live with them saying no expansion in 2013 due to needing to use any extra $'s to solidfy the competition IF they in the next breath said that they have a blueprint for the next 25 years that will include investment in non NRL cities, guaranteed NRL games in new areas, FTA TV National coverage etc etc.

To the interviewer I have to say the questions were a bit soft and not really very probing. For example I'd have asked him: "S14, AFL and Aleague have all expanded their comps prior to the next TV deal being negotiated to force a greater increase in $'s why does the NRL feel it better to wait and see and let the TV deal drive expansion rather than expansion drive the TV deal?"

 

[Scarves]

"There wasn’t a stunning bid from the people of the Gold Coast. It was really the leftovers of a Queensland bid. Whereas this time around the Gold Coast community rallied for some time to get a team and built up a groundswell of public support for it, commercial support for it and got to a point where they said “come on, you’ve got to take us”. At the same time our comp was at a point finally where it could look at that, so those two things had to align."

This is the expansion plan for all to see.

Expansion will require a stunning bid. A bid that had a groundswell of massive community support. A bid that Australian Rugby League needs to be part of. A bid that adds value to the game of Rugby League in this country. A bid that adds excitement & anticipation to Rugby League in Australia. A bid that is internally financially viable long term. A bid that comes at a time of cash rich economic prosperity. A bid that becomes a local community asset. A bid in an area that the game desperately needs to have represented at the elite level. A bid too good to refuse.

Of the current potential bidders, in 2010 I don't see any of them tick all these boxes. Perhaps in 3-5 years, some may get closer, but I like the idea of growing the game as it currently is. Developing the game into something that provides hope for the supporter. Growing the game into something of a juggernaught that demands attention. I think we should get on track to develop these attributes before we expand for the sake of an exciting shiny novelty.

The NRL is right in my opinion, our game does not have the cash war chest to waste infinity type money on a desirable map dot. All proposed bids need to be continually watched, assessed and considered because there's no time like the right time.

 

[Red&BlackBear]

CCBears have unprecedented community support. Commercial support. Sponsor and corporate support. Private and public support. Equity and sustainability. All the boxes were ticked by us 4 months ago. Our bid at the moment is infinitely stronger than the GCtitans bid when they were accepted in. On top of it all, our aces are still up our sleeves!

 

[Goddo]

CCBears have unprecedented community support. Commercial support. Sponsor and corporate support. Private and public support. Equity and sustainability. All the boxes were ticked by us 4 months ago. Our bid at the moment is infinitely stronger than the GCtitans bid when they were accepted in. On top of it all, our aces are still up our sleeves!

Yes, but you add nothing in terms of TV revenue, new sponsorship dollars and so on.

This is why the Bears are an excellent short to mid term bid, but longer term are weaker than their rivals. Perth, Queensland, Adelaide, Wellington all offer more in this regard that the Central Coast - that said, the Bears bid floors all of these in other areas (community support, club structure, existing juniors, stadium, et cetra). Thats not to say this won't change.

I think that was his point - none of the current bids are awesome in all respects - they all have a few things that could be better. This is in contrast to Gold Coasts successful bid, which was great in all areas (in the end).

I still think the Bears are a good idea, but the comp is well and truely out of balance in NSW, which is a problem that will need to be looked at. Its the elephant in the room for the Bears, but not of their making.

 

[GCR]

Yes, but you add nothing in terms of TV revenue, new sponsorship dollars and so on.

The main reason for adding new teams is to gain an extra game per round to sell - that's where the money is, so it doesn't really matter where they come from. A Perth/Adelaide team wouldn't have a hope in hell of rating well in their home markets anyway, so they wouldn't add anything extra to the TV deal.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Exactly and this is why the NRL won't add any new teams until AFTER the next TV deal, unlike other codes who add teams BEFORE their TV deals to add value eg. the AFL, who are always look to maximise potential revenue.

Now why would the NRL delay naming new teams.....................mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Brutus]

Exactly and this is why the NRL won't add any new teams until AFTER the next TV deal, unlike other codes who add teams BEFORE their TV deals to add value eg. the AFL, who are always look to maximise potential revenue.

Now why would the NRL delay naming new teams.....................mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Well if that's the case then this would be more scandalous than anything else that has occured in the game's history.

The people running the code deliberately trying to undersell the product.

It's been alleged to have occured several times in the past and there's nothing to suggest it won't happen again.

I cannot believe they will not look at adding new teams BEFORE the next tv deal is signed.

Brady and co. seem to think that adding new teams will not neccesarily mean more money, well the AFL seem to have a very different view on that.

 

[Brutus]

The main reason for adding new teams is to gain an extra game per round to sell - that's where the money is, so it doesn't really matter where they come from. A Perth/Adelaide team wouldn't have a hope in hell of rating well in their home markets anyway, so they wouldn't add anything extra to the TV deal.

Rubbish. Perth would open up an entirely new market for RL.

Central Coast already has RL viewers. A new team wouldn't add many more.

There has been very good pay tv numbers in Melbourne for Storm matches over the past 5 years.

 

[juro]

Perth would probably bring more new viewers to the NRL, given time and exposure. Central Coast would probably rate better in the short term but has less potential to grow.