Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
That's my point, boasting about how much growth our game has and including PNG is not exactly going to get anyone to bothered.
There was no boasting about PNG.
PNG is barely mentioned. Paragraph after paragraph is about the undeniable positives of the NRL yet you literally found 3 letters to lodge a negative response too. Somehow you find a way to knock even the passing mention of PNG & run some negative comparison to the possible opinions of fans of others codes.
We can't sugar coat what an impost PNG is going to have on our game.
What Stokes really said
Seven West Media chairman Kerry Stokes. Picture: Supplied
Now, let’s get this straight once and for all: Seven West Media chairman Kerry Stokes has absolutely nothing against the National Rugby League competition expanding its national footprint.
He just reckons the NRL just shouldn’t bother trying to expand its national footprint on the continent’s west coast.
For those who missed it, the billionaire media magnate met with the NRL’s boss Peter V’landys and the Australian Rugby League Commission during their flying visit to the west coast capital to launch the comp’s latest expansion outfit, the Perth Bears, this month.
But what hasn’t been revealed is what was said over dinner … until now.
Diary is reliably informed that Mr Stokes was complimentary towards the NRL throughout the convivial repast … before politely – yet matter-of-factly – informing Mr V’landys that Perth is an Aussie Rules town, and it’s going to stay an Aussie Rules town.
Now, naturally, Mr Stokes has a vested interest in that position, given that Seven retains the $1.5bn broadcast rights to the AFL … and that sort of comment could be seen as an inflammatory warning shot from a protective media proprietor.
But we’re assured it was not.
It was purely his pragmatic evaluation.
It’s hard to fault Mr Stokes’s logic, given that the expansion appears to be largely driven more by the NRL’s desire to sell the television rights to a game in yet another timezone – and timeslot – and less by any thought of whether the club would actually appeal to local sports fans.
And despite all the hype and fervid speculation that the move might tempt Seven to make a wild play to win the NRL rights – and bump up the price – we hear the network isn’t all too fussed.
Several well-placed senior Seven executives told Diary the channel might look at buying a State of Origin or one-off match somewhere but that the network simply can’t afford to have a stab at any more than that – and quite frankly, it didn’t want to.
Indeed, Seven spent much of the off-season poaching just about all of Nine’s top AFL talent, from its Footy Classified show’s star presenters Kane Cornes, Caroline Wilson and Craig Hutchison to Eddie McGuire’s Melbourne-based sports reporter son Xander McGuire.
It seems Seven is an Aussie Rules channel and, as Mr Stokes might say, it’s going to stay an Aussie Rules channel.
An alternative way would be to show either the Bear or the storm every Saturday night. Have PayTV simulcast the match with FTA provider. Then those markets don't get the Sunday FTA game.
Yep
What a small world this twat lives in.f**k Vlandys has really got the AFL types on edge
For an executive of a media company to peddle such crap is petty amusing
I agree but don’t think it’s likely for the same reason the AFL gave up Saturdays. The big money is in exclusive content for paytv providers and super Saturday is likely worth the big bucks. I’d say we’re far more likely to see something like a Monday night game on fox than we are to see FTA on Saturday.
I reckon most people get PTV so A) they can watch their team every weekend and B) so they can watch as many games as they like when they like. I dont think having Sat night on FTA really changes that at all. They have a mentality that exclusive Saturday nights drives subscriptions but not at all convinced by that argument.
I'm all for it, so what if we got a bit less from TV. Ultimately it would pay off.
I'd at least take offers for both and compare. I reckon it'd be worth taking $30 million less per year for the longterm growth it would provide. At the very least it would keep Fox honest with paying for exclusive Saturday rights. And show its not a given.
Doesn't 9 own the rights to Saturday night now? And just onsold it to Fox?
