What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

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!

NRL 2017 TV RATINGS!

I

insert.pause

First Grade
Messages
6,446
Perth Red said:
I'm struggling to see how that is worth $20million a year? Do online adds really generate that sort of income?
Click to expand...
It wont be worth that during this rights cycle, but it puts the NRL in the box seat to make the transition to producing their own content in the next deal. The AFL website is also far more popular and therefore more valuable to Telstra. The NRL website is currently underutilised, there's a clear market for online NRL content that the NRL aren't tapping into beyond it's social media reach. The NRL will now have complete control over it's fate.
 
Perth Red

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
66,836
taipan said:
Where do you get $20m pa.It may well be more with the NRL running the show.
Click to expand...

Return on investment, if you're putting in $20mill a year for next 5 years then you'd hope to see the current $4mill digital generates in revenue significantly increased, it will need to go up at least $20mill to recoup the expenditure post 5 years of spending $100millionwouldn't you say?
 
taipan

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,437
Perth Red said:
Return on investment, if you're putting in $20mill a year for next 5 years then you'd hope to see the current $4mill digital generates in revenue significantly increased, it will need to go up at least $20mill to recoup the expenditure post 5 years of spending $100millionwouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

The same point can be argued with fumble ball and the cast of thousands in their media set up.

I suggest the NRL would not have invested such money unless they firstly looked at the AFL situation ,checked out from the experts the long term changes to social media,the fact they are going it alone and not including Telstra.Smith was a big advocate of technology.It would have happened regardless who was CEO,and that includes Bernie Gurr a smart up to date businessman with an accounting background.He was also the accountant in Oz for Duran Duran tour.

You don't spend money and employ large numbers of journos, if you can't see money in it.More and more advtg revenue is going into these new technologies, to the detriment of the print (ask Fairfax) and even the Telegraph.That's why the asking prices for the print papers is skyrocketing ,they have to make up the ad shortfall.

I would say as a layman the expenditure is not going to bring huge profits in immediately.Starting up costs for equipment fixed costs and employing journos have to be taken into account.Telstra paid the NRL for the privilege,they considered it profitable.

I listened to Greenberg tonight on League Life and he stated they are spending thousands of dollars on new technology for the doctors on the sideline to handle issues such as concussion.

This is where some of the NRL is going.I don't have a problem with it, if we can keep up to scratch with fumble ball and not get left at the starting gate with technology .
 
Last edited:
taipan

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,437
Perth Red said:
Some elements already are: $50mill advance of payment, changing schedule from Monday to Friday 6pm, Fox simulcast etc.
Click to expand...


The $50m is to keep the clubs heads above water 2017 until the 2018 rest of the new TV deal kicks in.A very small part of nigh on 130% of whatever the final salary cap will be over 5 years..
Trust you are not suggesting clubs should be screwed on cash flows and delay player payments?
The very reason they ensured Grant stuck to his guns on the 130% payment.
 
Perth Red

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
66,836
I'm not suggesting anything, someone suggested ignorantly something about me thinking the deal had started as a jibe, just showing up their lack of understanding by stating some of the elements that had already started, including some of the money being paid.

Oh it was you lol
 
taipan

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,437
Perth Red said:
I'm not suggesting anything, someone suggested ignorantly something about me thinking the deal had started as a jibe, just showing up their lack of understanding by stating some of the elements that had already started, including some of the money being paid.

Oh it was you lol
Click to expand...


LOL not suggesting ,try your post 29th March" I'm struggling to see how that is worth $20m per year."

Seriously you bag anything that is planned ,before it is either actually in play or concluded.How can you struggle if you don't know the elements and the details ,I certainly cannot .

" Some of the elements" wow $50m out of how much $1.9bn.Prone to exaggerate ole son.
 
I

insert.pause

First Grade
Messages
6,446
Clubs are now bitching about having to pay to support their own websites under the new digital network.

They currently pay $130k p.a. and the NRL want them to pay $178k p.a. and they will also receive a share of ad revenue.

Doing anything in the game is like pulling teeth, and it's because there are too many agendas at play. The game will continue to be left behind in all areas until it unites and starts working together.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...-million-digital-venture-20170330-gva930.html
 
I

insert.pause

First Grade
Messages
6,446
Allowing for non broadcast revenue of about $150m, which would be in line with last year, $590m total revenue would suggest broadcast revenue of $440m p.a. or $2.2bn over 5 years? Where's the extra $200m coming from?


As revealed in The Australian yesterday, the NRL tabled an offer that would have given 26 per cent of the game’s revenue for next season, equivalent to total player payments of $9.59 million across each of the 16 clubs based on total revenue of $590m.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...e/news-story/fe037fd5f516cd31831c5ab433f1f67b
 
I

insert.pause

First Grade
Messages
6,446
SMH reporting the same $590m revenue figure, which is a lot more than the broadcast deal, even allowing for non broadcast revenue increases. Wonder where all the extra cash is coming from?

$1.8bn - $360m p.a
$150m non broadcast revenue

=$510m p.a.
Leaving a difference of $80m a year before factoring in;

Radio, NZ & international rights ?
 
taipan

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,437
insert.pause said:
SMH reporting the same $590m revenue figure, which is a lot more than the broadcast deal, even allowing for non broadcast revenue increases. Wonder where all the extra cash is coming from?

$1.8bn - $360m p.a
$150m non broadcast revenue

=$510m p.a.
Leaving a difference of $80m a year before factoring in;

Radio, NZ & international rights ?
Click to expand...



There's got to be an investigation.

How much for sports bet sponsorship?
How much merchandise sales?
 
I

insert.pause

First Grade
Messages
6,446
taipan said:
There's got to be an investigation.

How much for sports bet sponsorship?
How much merchandise sales?
Click to expand...
The Sportsbet deal was included in last year's non broadcast revenue.

The $590m revenue figure must be legit since it's reported across both news & Fairfax, and has probably come from the figures the NRL gave the rlpa.

It's a hell of a lot of money to come seemingly from thin air.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top