NRL TV RIGHTS

[griff]

Nine and Fox will both almost certainly get the rights again. Last time they paid well under market rates, so the hope this time is that Seven bids up the asking rate to something like what the game is worth. Nine has first and last bid rights.

Seven are currently in court suing the NRL, Nine, News, Telstra etc about the TV rights being given away for practically nothing last time. Hopefully this may mean that this time the NRL rights will be decided in a fairer way.

Aside from just money, some considerations would be guaranteed live national coverage of semis, origin, and test matches and reasonable times for other matches, and at least one FTA TV game per year per club.

 

[KNIGHTS]

If nine want to keep the rights the should at least show 3 OR 4 games a week live.

FRIDAY
GAME 1 FTA LIVE

SATURDAY
GAME 1 FOX LIVE
GAME 2 FOX LIVE
GAME 3 FTA LIVE

SUNDAY
GAME 1 FOX LIVE
GAME 2 FTA LIVE
GAME 3 FTA LIVE

The nrl is doing the rights early (this year) and is trying to get it on two channels like the afl (nine,ten) example (nine,seven).

 

[Matt M]

It may be easy to say that 9 should show so many games live, but contracts with Fox Sports prevent this from happening. The most we can expect really is 3, and that is if a 16th team is admitted.

 

[macavity]

yeah yeah we wish

but lets be realistic

the package will be whatever works best for 9 and NEWS (and by that I mean FOXTEL)

and if that means no decent FTA in non RL states, thats what will happen.

RL helps to sell subscriptions to RL fanatics in the unenlightened states, and the rest are well catered to with AFL.

guess who owns the rights to that?


I hope im wrong. I guess we will see.

It will be a happy day if the greatest game of all gets what it deserves for once.

instead of what is best for vested interests incompatible with our game.

 

[Matt M]

yeah yeah we wish

but lets be realistic

the package will be whatever works best for 9 and NEWS (and by that I mean FOXTEL)

and if that means no decent FTA in non RL states, thats what will happen.

Not necessarily, if the NRL force the contract holder to show matches in SA, WA and Vic then I'm sure channel 7 would be far more willing to sign than channel 9 as 7 have no other sports that they must show in these states, however 9 do.

 

[Nuke]

I know a few people aren't big fans of our current Ch9 commentary team, but, personally, the only thing I have against the NRL going to Ch7 is we won't have Ray Warren, Peter Sterling, Paul Vautin, Andrew Voss, ect commentating anymore. Of those, I can maybe see Vossy making the switch, but the others are very definitely voices of 9. Plus, Fatty and Sterlo have a very popular Footy Show that they wouldn't wanna leave.

And there's no way you could replace either of 'em for The Footy Show.

 

[dimitri]

there would be funnier guys willing to sign with 7 id imagine

guys like Geyer, etc etc


theres so many faces out there


im so sick of fatty etc

its time for a change

 

[thommo4pm]

If Channel 9 lost the rights to the coverage you can bet the Footy show would also finish up.
However that may be a positive, as much as I love the Footy show, both days, Channel 7's footy shows were fantastic for the AFL. I never watched them, but they had talking footy on Monday or Tuesday with a wrap of the weekends action then more shows later in the week previewing the games coming up. Then showed 3-4 games live per weekend.

There would be an abundance of commentators willing to go to 7.
Iam Maurice, Mark Geyer, Darryl Brohman, Peter Wilkins, John Gibbs would go, hell you ould even get Warren Boland, Graeme Hughes, David Fordham and more back to cover League.

Bruce McAvaney would adapt quickly enough, Roy Masters still works on 7's sportsworld, Kevin Walters appears on Sportsworld every now and again. Commentators would not be an issue.

 

[dimitri]

i agree

warren boland, graeme hughes and mark geyer would be a much better alternative and a fresh change

 

[macavity]

yeah yeah we wish

but lets be realistic

the package will be whatever works best for 9 and NEWS (and by that I mean FOXTEL)

and if that means no decent FTA in non RL states, thats what will happen.

Not necessarily, if the NRL force the contract holder to show matches in SA, WA and Vic then I'm sure channel 7 would be far more willing to sign than channel 9 as 7 have no other sports that they must show in these states, however 9 do.

you dont seem to understand.

NEWS run the NRL.

NEWS run FOX.

9 and FOX are very very close. News Ltd and PBL are very very close. They, along with Telstra, are the partners in FOXTEL.

Murdoch and Packer are close.

Think of it as a favour between mates:

The board decides what to ask for. NEWS run the board.

The NRL wont ask for anything 9 is not prepared to give.

Like good FTA slots to non-RL states.


Do you understand now?

 

[dimitri]

thats what im really worried about


thats why ch 7 should win their current court case


because this is downright ridiculous

 

[ozzy_ozman]

Roy Masters will be the channel 7 version of Phil Gould...

 

[dimitri]

at least roy masters isnt as boring as batshit

 

[macavity]

I just cant believe this obvious conflict of interest wasn't a point for the ARL to fight for in the settlement.

Disqualifying NEWS nominations from any part in broadcasting rights is the only way to ensure RUGBY LEAGUE gets the best deal.

 

[Front-Rower]

I just cant believe this obvious conflict of interest wasn't a point for the ARL to fight for in the settlement.

Disqualifying NEWS nominations from any part in broadcasting rights is the only way to ensure RUGBY LEAGUE gets the best deal.

Well when you spilt 50/50 with one of the biggest information companies/broadcasters in the world and your greatest allie is the owner of PBL, you would have to expect these type of things.