Newscorp And Rugby League

[LeagueXIII]

Gus Gould was saying on twitter last night that the NRL DID negotiate with News Ltd.

Could it be possible that the NRL just said sorry no deal we want more money and then did a deal with 9 and flexed their muscles, rather than all this blindsiding crap that News is going on with.

Smith is a tough negotiator he believes league is undervalued and is hell bent on seeing it get what it deserves.

 

[RoosTah]

No, let's cut off our nose to spite our face . . . dope

To be frank you could say the same for Fox here... Fairfax today shows that the NRL dominates the most watched programs on Foxtel by a significant margin, and that up to 20 percent of its subscribers have Foxtel specifically for the NRL.

Cutting the NRL loose and trying to jam AFL down everyone's throats like News Ltd is proposing to do simply because the NRL is prioritising FTA (and make no mistake, they this deal was on the cards regardless of what their propaganda unit is trying to make you believe) is truly ridiculous.

Fox couldn't get Melbournians to embrace the Storm and the NRL, so the idea they'll be able to convert Sydney-siders and Qlders into AFL fans is ridiculous.

Most people I know who buy the Tele only get it for the League coverage, and they won't waste their money on it if it's full of AFL, so if you want to talk cutting your nose off to spite your face...

 

[Albert Rosenfeld]

I never pegged you for a corporate suck up.

Dickhead.

Its the corporations -- big ones like Channel 9 and huge ones like News Corp -- that keep the NRL operating, including playing the players who entertain us. We need to keep as many of them as possible on board in funding the game.

Or do you really think its the people paying $20 a head for a ticket who keep the clubs afloat?

If you think the latter then you are the biggest dickhead.

Moreover if it wasn't for News Corp we wouldn't have the very good commentators that Fox Sports employs in the game. We wouldn't have Andrew Voss in a job because the 2GB bully and mate of Channel 9's Gyngell, Ray Hadley, is jealous of Voss and got him sacked from Channel 9 so that Voss wouldn't succeed the ailing Ray Warren. Without News Corp we wouldn't have Matty Johns and his team in a job.

We need both Channel 9 and News Corp, and I hope that the NRL has not pissed off the Murdoch family forever, because Lachlan Murdoch is our game''s most powerful fan, and probably the reason that News Corp still owns his favourite club, the Brisbane Broncos.

 

[Brutus]

Rugby league has finally told News "you do not own our game anymore so f**k off!"

 

[Brutus]

To be frank you could say the same for Fox here... Fairfax today shows that the NRL dominates the most watched programs on Foxtel by a significant margin, and that up to 20 percent of its subscribers have Foxtel specifically for the NRL.

Cutting the NRL loose and trying to jam AFL down everyone's throats like News Ltd is proposing to do simply because the NRL is prioritising FTA (and make no mistake, they this deal was on the cards regardless of what their propaganda unit is trying to make you believe) is truly ridiculous.

Fox couldn't get Melbournians to embrace the Storm and the NRL, so the idea they'll be able to convert Sydney-siders and Qlders into AFL fans is ridiculous.

Most people I know who buy the Tele only get it for the League coverage, and they won't waste their money on it if it's full of AFL, so if you want to talk cutting your nose off to spite your face...

Fox or News have not tried to get Melbournians to embrace the Storm.

They've done f**k all.

 

[POPEYE]

To be frank you could say the same for Fox here... Fairfax today shows that the NRL dominates the most watched programs on Foxtel by a significant margin, and that up to 20 percent of its subscribers have Foxtel specifically for the NRL.

Cutting the NRL loose and trying to jam AFL down everyone's throats like News Ltd is proposing to do simply because the NRL is prioritising FTA (and make no mistake, they this deal was on the cards regardless of what their propaganda unit is trying to make you believe) is truly ridiculous.

Fox couldn't get Melbournians to embrace the Storm and the NRL, so the idea they'll be able to convert Sydney-siders and Qlders into AFL fans is ridiculous.

Most people I know who buy the Tele only get it for the League coverage, and they won't waste their money on it if it's full of AFL, so if you want to talk cutting your nose off to spite your face...

I get your drift, all I'm saying is the NRL needs Murdoch, or someone like him but not easily found, exponentially more than he needs the NRL. He doesn't have to dominate the game any more than he needs a Jeep, his fluttering eyelids at the AFL is nothing more than a bluff in a friendly game he is a champion of

Making things worse than they need be is the big danger . . . Murdoch must be left with the feeling of accomplishment he is accustomed to if Rugby League is to make the most of a precarious position

 

[RoosTah]

Fox or News have tried to get Melbournians to embrace the Storm.

Precisely. But I go down to Melbourne for work almost every month and they all still think Union and League are the same thing!

Seriously, this who News corp threat for a campaign against Rugby League is a massive beat up - they don't have anything like the type of influence over people's tastes that they are claiming.

Sport is like religion - you can't just tell people to follow something else.

 

[POPEYE]

Fox or News have tried to get Melbournians to embrace the Storm.

Who says Melbournians don't embrace the Storm . . . how to their crowds compare to 'embraced' teams

 

[Eddie Lab]

I dont get why Steve Mascord would be comfortable if league gets less money.

How is it acceptable that the top rating sport gets less?

The deal so far is much more fan friendly;
- no more Monday night
- more live FTA then in past 20 years
- NRL controls structure of season
- SoO restructure
- shorter season
- more money from FTA then what AFL got.

I saw a comment recently comparing the situation to a game of cricket. so far AFL is all out for $2.5b and NRL is 1 for $925m, so lets wait for NRL's innings to be complete before asking "why did they take less money"

 

[RoosTah]

I get your drift, all I'm saying is the NRL needs Murdoch, or someone like him but not easily found, exponentially more than he needs the NRL. He doesn't have to dominate the game any more than he needs a Jeep, his fluttering eyelids at the AFL is nothing more than a bluff in a friendly game he is a champion of


Making things worse than they need be is the big danger . . . Murdoch must be left with the feeling of accomplishment he is accustomed to if Rugby League is to make the most of a precarious position

I don't think that's quite right. The NRL needs two things: money and exposure.

With the channel 9 deal the NRL have secured a deal that is almost as large as its previous deal, but gives the game 4 live matches that will reach all Australians. For all Fox's bluster, after 20 years it still only reaches 30% of the country.

So in a sense this is already something of a win as it'll still easily clear $1bn. The game still has networks it can talk to, and both ESPN and Bein Sports are increasing their presence here. Word is that ESPN has made themselves available to the NRL in light of the stoush with Fox. They're not a poor organisation and their networks are currently available on services like Fetch here - which are substantially cheaper than Foxtel.

If the NRL were to secure a deal with them, they'd both hammer Fox's subscriber base AND massively boost subscribers to services like Fetch. To add to that, they'd also have a cheap Pay TV service that would be much more accessible to low socio economic sections of society. Ergo, they're audience and exposure would increase again.

From the other end of this, Foxtel needs content. Without the NRL it faces a massive church. Murdoch knows this, which is precisely why his Lieutenants are out bashing the NRL. Make no mistake - the actions of the News Ltd mastheads in undermining the NRL reflects fear and weakness and NOT strength.

Fox is trying to scare Smith and the NRL into thinking it is in mortal danger without them, but the reverse is true. If Fox come to the NRL with a minor deal that only targets the remaining games, then it is demonstrably in the NRL's interest to give those 4 games to a provider like ESPN, Bein or even another FTA. The only play Fox has here is to offer to buy all the games, with a simulcast of 9s.

Let's remember that there's still more than 2 years to play on this. The fact that News Ltd has come out so aggressively at such an early stage suggests to me they know that time isn't on their side.

 

[strong_latte]

Who says Melbournians don't embrace the Storm . . . how to their crowds compare to 'embraced' teams

Crowds aren't bad, but they're comparable with a side like The Force in Super Rugby, and they don't tell you everything. The Swan's have solid crowds in Sydney - similar to the Tahs at Rugby's peak - but the TV ratings are still low. Same for the storm in Melbourne.

 

[Albert Rosenfeld]

The NRL has only one card to play if it wants an amount of $1.7 million or higher -- it has to expand by at least two teams, to ensure Fox Sports have at least five games. The NRL's former TV negotiator, Colin Smith, has publicly advocated this move.

The NRL must also give Fox Sports at least one unused Prime Time, which is probably Monday night (though I feel that five nights of rugby league is overkill, and probably difficult for teams' recovery and scheduling).

The two obvious expansion teams are Perth and Brisbane II. There are active bids organised for these two new clubs, and they would expand the game's geographic reach (Perth) and competitive intensity (Brisbane II). Eighteen teams is the same number that the AFL have.

The nine games each week would give Fox Sports the extra game.

Personally, I would expand to twenty teams, adding also Wellington and PNG Hunters (currently equal top of the Queensland Cup). Those two choices would add to the TV rights payment for the NRL (definitely Sky Sports NZ and perhaps a PNG TV channel). Having those two teams added would improve the number and quality of players in NZ and PNG, and would thereby enhance the competitiveness of the international game.

If the NRL had ten games each week, with Fox getting six games, then the NRL might get close to $2 billion for five years, which would be roughly equal to the AFL's six year deal.

 

[RoosTah]

The NRL has only one card to play if it wants an amount of $1.7 million or higher -- it has to expand by at least two teams, to ensure Fox Sports have at least five games. The NRL's former TV negotiator, Colin Smith, has publicly advocated this move.

The NRL must also give Fox Sports at least one unused Prime Time, which is probably Monday night (though I feel that five nights of rugby league is overkill, and probably difficult for teams' recovery and scheduling).

I think the NRL could rightly argue that based on the ratings, which the NRL dominates on Fox over the AFL by a lot, that a package of all the games with 9 matches simulcast should be worth a comparable amount to the AFL deal.

Fox are talking a big game here, but time is on the NRL's side, and a few industry people I've spoken to say that the overseas players are looking at this as a pretty massive market entry opportunity. ESPN lacks some infrastructure here, but as the world's biggest sports provider they're quite capable of managing that.

The two obvious expansion teams are Perth and Brisbane II. There are active bids organised for these two new clubs, and they would expand the game's geographic reach (Perth) and competitive intensity (Brisbane II). Eighteen teams is the same number that the AFL have.

The nine games each week would give Fox Sports the extra game.

Personally, I would expand to twenty teams, adding also Wellington and PNG Hunters (currently equal top of the Queensland Cup). Those two choices would add to the TV rights payment for the NRL (definitely Sky Sports NZ and perhaps a PNG TV channel). Having those two teams added would improve the number and quality of players in NZ and PNG, and would thereby enhance the competitiveness of the international game.

If the NRL had ten games each week, with Fox getting six games, then the NRL might get close to $2 billion for five years, which would be roughly equal to the AFL's six year deal.

Going to 20 teams would stretch talent too far. But I agree with 18. Brisbane 2 and Perth are no brainers. maybe by the time of the next deal you could add another two, but I'd prefer Adelaide and Christchurch. PNG has great potential, but the safety issues and economic development mean its currently got more cons than pros.

 

[adamkungl]

Perth is a no brainer.
I think equally valid cases can be made for QLD4, Central Coast, and NZ2

 

[Parra]

Another Sydney team would be good.

 

[RoosTah]

One other thing I'd like to add here is that longer term the NRL has far greater potential than the AFL.

NZ is fertile ground for development. A team in Christchurch would get solid support and you could make a similar case for other parts of the country. Down the track we should be aiming for 3 teams in NZ - this would dramatically increase both the value of the NRL competition there AND the rights for internationals between the two countries (which would be ever more competitive).

In essence NZ is a defacto 3rd state for the NRL, and one that has a bigger population base than SA and WA combined.

The next market is of course PNG. PNG is currently still too underdeveloped, but that is changing quite rapidly. Port Morsby is moving at a rapid pace, and in 20 years time it will be a different country with a fledgling middle class. With a population similar to ours and all obsessed with Rugby League, this will add substantially to the OS TV rights and by a fertile ground for new expansion.

The AFL will always be limited to Australia though, so people who talk of the NRL only being in two states are being dreadfully myopic.

 

[Canard]

Its the corporations -- big ones like Channel 9 and huge ones like News Corp -- that keep the NRL operating, including playing the players who entertain us. We need to keep as many of them as possible on board in funding the game.

Or do you really think its the people paying $20 a head for a ticket who keep the clubs afloat?

If you think the latter then you are the biggest dickhead.

Moreover if it wasn't for News Corp we wouldn't have the very good commentators that Fox Sports employs in the game. We wouldn't have Andrew Voss in a job because the 2GB bully and mate of Channel 9's Gyngell, Ray Hadley, is jealous of Voss and got him sacked from Channel 9 so that Voss wouldn't succeed the ailing Ray Warren. Without News Corp we wouldn't have Matty Johns and his team in a job.

We need both Channel 9 and News Corp, and I hope that the NRL has not pissed off the Murdoch family forever, because Lachlan Murdoch is our game''s most powerful fan, and probably the reason that News Corp still owns his favourite club, the Brisbane Broncos.

Popeyes other account, we don't need to kowtow to News and sell the game for less money than it's worth just because "they have some good commentators and shit..."

They are going to pay top dollar to simulcast every game and they are trying to avoid this by talking our game down.

You corporate suckups keep falling to understand that

 

[Albert Rosenfeld]

I think the NRL could rightly argue that based on the ratings, which the NRL dominates on Fox over the AFL by a lot, that a package of all the games with 9 matches simulcast should be worth a comparable amount to the AFL deal.

Fox are talking a big game here, but time is on the NRL's side, and a few industry people I've spoken to say that the overseas players are looking at this as a pretty massive market entry opportunity. ESPN lacks some infrastructure here, but as the world's biggest sports provider they're quite capable of managing that..

You are right. Most of the quality Aussie and Kiwi players currently in the Super League would jump at the opportunities that club expansion would give them to get back into the NRL. So there would be no stretching of the talent pool in the NRL by going to eighteen clubs.

However that would create a small crisis for the Super League. First the Super League would lose many of its stars who are foreign. Second it would lose some of its currently resident English stars (e.g. Kallum Watkins, Zak Hardaker, Ryan Hall, Tom Briscoe, Chris Hill, Danny Brough, Alex Walmsley, Kyle Amor, Darrel Clark), and thus to some extent turn the Super League into a feeder league for the NRL. The Super League would probably have to retrench again down to 10 clubs because of the talent loss to the NRL.

Going to 20 teams would stretch talent too far. But I agree with 18. Brisbane 2 and Perth are no brainers. maybe by the time of the next deal you could add another two, but I'd prefer Adelaide and Christchurch. PNG has great potential, but the safety issues and economic development mean its currently got more cons than pros.

I disagree that going to twenty teams would stretch the talent pool too far.

First in the case of New Zealand, there is a rugby league talent pool in New Zealand which cannot get a regular run with the Warriors and goes to rugby union in frustration (most recently Ngani Laumape and Glen Fisiahi). Moreover, many young rugby union players who can't make the Super Rugby teams will give rugby league a shot when two professional club pathways become available.

In the case of PNG you would be using overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, PNG players who would not be in the sights of any NRL club now (Few Australian or NZ players would want to be based in PNG). The PNG Hunters would be a straight promotion into the NRL. The Hunters reserve team would play in the Queensland Cup, and provide not only backup for the NRL team, but also a talent pool that could be scouted by other NRL clubs.

I agree that the safety issue in PNG is a problem, but it could be addressed -- perhaps by creating a good security enclave around the new stadium in Port Moresby, with modern hotels and shops that offer strong police/military security to foreign visitors.

 

[Cletus]

In the case of PNG you would be using overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, PNG players who would not be in the sights of any NRL club now (Few Australian or NZ players would want to be based in PNG). The PNG Hunters would be a straight promotion into the NRL. The Hunters reserve team would play in the Queensland Cup, and provide not only backup for the NRL team, but also a talent pool that could be scouted by other NRL clubs.

I agree that the safety issue in PNG is a problem, but it could be addressed -- perhaps by creating a good security enclave around the new stadium in Port Moresby, with modern hotels and shops that offer strong police/military security to foreign visitors.

I watched Ten news last night. They had a live cross to ANZ in which they basically said you'll be lucky to get out of the game alive, showed the bottle throwing incident and footage of some fat guy who attacked a Souths fan after that game. Can you imagine what would happen if there was an incident after a PNG game? There is a massive security problem there and people get killed all the time in random attacks, there is no way known they will be in the NRL this rights deal. It just won't happen in the forseeable future because PNG is currently a basket case.

 

[insert.pause]

Last nights AFL ratings

Syd 30k Bri 16k

https://twitter.com/MediaweekAUS/status/634874093511163904

Last nights NRL ratings

Syd 425k Bri 157k

https://twitter.com/MediaweekAUS/status/634868521688633344