Peter V'landys - New NRL/ARLC Chairman

[The_Wookie]

Incorrect Auckland is also a capital city, NRL is even stevens...
Nobody mentioned only in Australia

Nobody mentioned inventing capital cities either.

Yep you got it

people seem to forget the nrl is an international club competition

Unless something has occurred that Im not aware of Auckland isnt a capital city, it hasnt been since 1865. Wellington is the capital city of New Zealand. Its not even the capital of a province - provinces were abolished in 1876.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

The NBL’s top 14 earners from the 2021-22 season: Matt Dellavedova and Bryce Cotton top the list

The rapid growth of the NBL has put the league’s top players on wages comparable to our AFL and NRL stars. Check out the eye-watering salaries some are on.
Matt Logue

The rapid growth of the NBL has put the league’s top players on wages comparable to our AFL and NRL stars.
The Logue Down column can reveal the NBL’s top 14 earners from last season, which highlights the competition’s strength in world-class talent.

The figures obtained by News Corp include the total value of a player’s package, not just what is included under the softcap.

These additional costs include agent fees and marquee allowances.

NBA champion and Boomers veteran guard Matthew Dellavedova heads the list on $900,000 to $1 million, which includes marketing and ambassador roles.

Dellavedova used his one-year stint with United as a springboard back to the NBA, where he has signed a one-year deal at the Sacramento Kings worth $4.1 million (AUD).

He averaged a modest 10.59 points, 4.93 assists and 2.96 rebounds for United, but he provided the league with invaluable exposure.

Dellavedova is one of at least six players that took home over $500,000 in player salary last season.

SCROLL DOWN FOR THE LIST OF THE HIGHEST SALARIES

This season’s marquee player, Boomers and NBA veteran Aron Baynes, is on a contract worth between $750,000 to $850,000 at the Brisbane Bullets, which includes an NBL ambassador role. Baynes has already attracted two sellout crowds.

This highlights how the NBL has grown in quality in recent seasons, paving the way for player salaries to significantly rise.

Since 2016, the salary cap has increased 55 per cent, from $1.1 million to $1.7 million this season.

The minimum salary has also risen 74 per cent over a six-year period to help the NBL punch above its weight compared to domestic heavyweights like the AFL and the NRL that operate under significantly bigger salary caps due to multimillion dollar broadcast deals.

The NBL only has 10 teams and 120 players compared the AFL’s 18 team and the NRL’s 16 team competitions.

Despite this difference in depth and financial backing, the top 10 NBL players are earning between $400,000 to $1 million a season.

It’s understood there are at least a further six NBL players in the $300,000 to $400,000 bracket last season.

For context, eight AFL players are earning between $900,000 and a million-plus, with Richmond star Dustin Martin the highest earner on between $1.2 to 1.3 million over two seasons.

In the NRL, eight players also take home over a million a season, including two-time premiership-winning Penrith halfback Nathan Cleary as the highest earner on $1.3 million a season.These additional costs include agent fees and marquee allowances.

NBA champion and Boomers veteran guard Matthew Dellavedova heads the list on $900,000 to $1 million, which includes marketing and ambassador roles.

Dellavedova used his one-year stint with United as a springboard back to the NBA, where he has signed a one-year deal at the Sacramento Kings worth $4.1 million (AUD).

He averaged a modest 10.59 points, 4.93 assists and 2.96 rebounds for United, but he provided the league with invaluable exposure.

Dellavedova is one of at least six players that took home over $500,000 in player salary last season.

SCROLL DOWN FOR THE LIST OF THE HIGHEST SALARIES

This season’s marquee player, Boomers and NBA veteran Aron Baynes, is on a contract worth between $750,000 to $850,000 at the Brisbane Bullets, which includes an NBL ambassador role. Baynes has already attracted two sellout crowds.

This highlights how the NBL has grown in quality in recent seasons, paving the way for player salaries to significantly rise.

Since 2016, the salary cap has increased 55 per cent, from $1.1 million to $1.7 million this season.

The minimum salary has also risen 74 per cent over a six-year period to help the NBL punch above its weight compared to domestic heavyweights like the AFL and the NRL that operate under significantly bigger salary caps due to multimillion dollar broadcast deals.

The NBL only has 10 teams and 120 players compared the AFL’s 18 team and the NRL’s 16 team competitions.

Despite this difference in depth and financial backing, the top 10 NBL players are earning between $400,000 to $1 million a season.

It’s understood there are at least a further six NBL players in the $300,000 to $400,000 bracket last season.

For context, eight AFL players are earning between $900,000 and a million-plus, with Richmond star Dustin Martin the highest earner on between $1.2 to 1.3 million over two seasons.

In the NRL, eight players also take home over a million a season, including two-time premiership-winning Penrith halfback Nathan Cleary as the highest earner on $1.3 million a season.

And while the NBL can’t financially compete with the big dollars on offer in Europe or China, the league remains respected.

Players can earn decent money, and be guaranteed to be paid on time and in full, unlike many overseas competitions.

The flip side of having top end players who are well paid is that the majority of the remaining squad players have salaries that are closer to the minimum wage.

Despite this, the NBL’s playing standard continues to improve. The league is attracting world-class imports and star locals, sparked by the return of NBA champion and Boomers veteran Andrew Bogut to the Sydney Kings in 2018.

The NBL is arguably the second-best league in the world outside of the NBA, especially from an exposure standpoint.

Player salaries have long been a taboo subject in the NBL due to the Players’ Association desire to keep the figures private for the players.

This stance has long given clubs an unfair advantage over the players, who have no knowledge of their market value.

However, individual player salaries are made available to every club at the end of the year.

The secrecy around player wages is why former players like Bogut has called for greater transparency for the betterment of the game.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/the-nbls-top-14-earners-from-the-22122-season-matt-dellavedova-and-bryce-cotton-top-the-list/news-story/827948b9839a0789c55a9a51301a4f5c

 

[Wb1234]

Nobody mentioned inventing capital cities either.



Unless something has occurred that Im not aware of Auckland isnt a capital city, it hasnt been since 1865. Wellington is the capital city of New Zealand. Its not even the capital of a province - provinces were abolished in 1876.

Hahha your actually correct

 

[The_Wookie]

I don't give a f**k what the broadcasters want. We need to do what's best for rugby league. If that means taking less money for a shorter season then so be it.

Cool, if you need me ill be over here in reality and not wishful thinking.

I'm responding to your personal attacks to set the record straight.

What personal attacks exactly.

Read it again until you've understood my point and stop taking everything out of context.

I dont believe I did. You said the season should be reduced, I said it wont happen, you said it will increase value for broadcasters and I said that it wont. Thats it.

It's better to have a shorter season consisting of matches that pull strong crowds and ratings from start to finish than one that goes on forever and becomes stale. The Big Bash League have found out that drifting on for too long was a massive mistake.

Spin it however you want, but there's no doubt that the middle third of the season is marred by Origin taking centre stage and impacting onfield results. Fans don't look forward to attending a match when their team's Origin players are absent. It's often a guaranteed loss for their team and a dour encounter. Nor do they particularly enjoy watching it on TV for the aforementioned reasons. That's the point I was making about a shorter season with a dedicated window for Origin and Tests providing better value for the broadcasters and fans.

Ill note thats not reflected in the tv ratings at all.

Which game will draw more viewers and a higher attendance?

A) A match between two full strength teams with the focus on the NRL?

OR

B) A game played during the middle of the season, with all focus in the media on Origin, and teams depleted because their Origin players are absent or banged up?

History says tests draw about as well as your average Thurdsay/Friday night fixture on television.

I know which one will draw better ratings and attendances. Sponsors want people watching the team they've invested in. Broadcasters also want the same things because more eyeballs equal more money from advertising. So yeah, I stand by my claim that 16 rounds of full strength NRL teams competing against one another will generate better ratings and attendances than the mess we have at the moment.

Your game can afford to have a 22 round season as you don't have any representative matches. Our game has Origin and Tests and if we properly accommodated them in a 16 round NRL season then we would still be playing over a longer period than AwFuL.

And you'd lose 40-50 games worth of revenue. The league, clubs and players just wont accept it, even if you can.

Why do you think your game pulled Origin from its season over 20 years ago?

Not least because attendances and tv ratings dropped off. In fact thats the official reason.

Because of player welfare and the impact it had on clubs. Origin would have made money for AwFuL, but it chose to forfeit it for the good of the clubs and players.



Yes you have. You've taken my comments out of context by focusing on one or two words and ignoring the overall message.

ive quoted entire paragraphs dude.

Bullshit. The only threads you participate in are the ones that involve V'landys and broadcast rights. You're going to get discussion about AwFuL in this thread and the ones on broadcast rights for obvious reasons.

Im also in crowds, membership and sponsorship threads from time to time, and I read a good deal more.

Like that post of yours where you listed games and attendances without mentioning when they happened?

which post was that exactly.

Your response was "open your eyes". Maybe you should practice what you preach.

Im generally happy to be corrected by anyone with a contstructive input.

I've never seen you talk about them in the threads I've read. You totally ignored them when I suggested reducing the NRL season to accommodate Origin and Tests.

Tests havent really come up in most of the threads ive been involved in at the time. And I didnt ignore them, I dont think its a realistic proposition to reduce the season by a third.

 

[Iamback]

I think 22 would be a good number if we ever get to 20 sides (not that I think it will happen btw) You would still have more games than what you are selling now and it still gives you more room for a dedicated rep period and/or extended final series.

The rep games wouldn't start until ESL ended though. So better to get the extra revenue

 

[Bukowski]

I believe memory loss is a Covid symptom

You sure?

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

You sure?

Of what?

 

[Colk]

You sure?

Can’t remember?

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

I dont believe I did. You said the season should be reduced, I said it wont happen, you said it will increase value for broadcasters and I said that it wont. Thats it.

I never said playing fewer games will lead to us getting more revenue from the broadcasters. What I said is ratings and attendances will improve, which will increase the value of each game because the broadcasters can recoup more money from advertising.

It costs a lot of money to film and broadcast a football game. The broadcasters would save a significant amount by covering fewer games, especially if they draw higher ratings.

Clubs will also save money on stadium rental fees by playing fewer games. Attendances will increase in a competition that has fewer meaningless games.

Ill note thats not reflected in the tv ratings at all.

Is there an actual source that publicises the TV ratings for every game?

How many NRL games from the Origin period are among the highest rating games of the season?

History says tests draw about as well as your average Thurdsay/Friday night fixture on television.

Cool. So a six week period reserved for Tests at the end of the season will be valuable content for the broadcasters to make up for the loss of eight NRL rounds. Throw in three weeks for Origin and you've got nine weeks of representative matches plus 16 rounds of NRL plus four weeks of finals. Twenty-nine weeks of content for the broadcasters and less drain on the players.

Not bad, hey?

And you'd lose 40-50 games worth of revenue. The league, clubs and players just wont accept it, even if you can.

Clubs will also save 40 or 50 games worth of stadium rental fees. Playing 8 home games instead of 12 will more likely than not lead to an increase in attendances.

Not least because attendances and tv ratings dropped off. In fact thats the official reason.

But it was content for the broadcasters and brought in money through gate receipts, did it not?

You're saying we should play lacklustre games in the Origin period with teams depleted of their star players. I don't recall seeing an Origin-impacted NRL game drawing anything but a low crowd.

ive quoted entire paragraphs dude.

You've taken my comments out of context. You started going on about lower broadcast rights and accused me of saying we would still get the same money as we do now if we decreased the season by one-third, even though I said in my first post it would lead to less money from the broadcasters.

Tests havent really come up in most of the threads ive been involved in at the time. And I didnt ignore them, I dont think its a realistic proposition to reduce the season by a third.

That's a fair assessment and one I agree with. It's certainly not going to happen without something drastic changing, but it doesn't change the fact our game is too brutal to be played over 25 rounds plus finals and Origin. Players are suffering the consequences for it without being properly remunerated.

What I disagree with is your absurd insistence that we keep nine teams in Sydney with an annual grant that's currently 130% of the salary cap to prevent them from going belly up. I'd rather see the extra $5m that will be going to each club under the new deal distributed to the players as they're the ones risking chronic health problems such as Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy. I'd be surprised if any footballers don't have some form of brain damage from all the hits they take.

 

[The_Wookie]

Is there an actual source that publicises the TV ratings for every game?

Oddly enough there is. They even post here sometimes.

How many NRL games from the Origin period are among the highest rating games of the season?

all 3. Tests and rep fixtures are not however amonst them

Cool. So a six week period reserved for Tests at the end of the season will be valuable content for the broadcasters to make up for the loss of eight NRL rounds.

It wont make up for the loss of 60 odd NRL matches - not in revenue, not in membership, not in attendance, not in hospitality.

Throw in three weeks for Origin and you've got nine weeks of representative matches plus 16 rounds of NRL plus four weeks of finals. Twenty-nine weeks of content for the broadcasters and less drain on the players.

Not bad, hey?

You arent going to play anywhere near enough rep fixtures that rate to make up for the loss of broadcasters. It cant just be "content", but rateable content.

Clubs will also save 40 or 50 games worth of stadium rental fees. Playing 8 home games instead of 12 will more likely than not lead to an increase in attendances.

How? by reducing supply you expect to increase demand?

But it was content for the broadcasters and brought in money through gate receipts, did it not?

Most clubs make bugger all in gate.

You're saying we should play lacklustre games in the Origin period with teams depleted of their star players. I don't recall seeing an Origin-impacted NRL game drawing anything but a low crowd.

Im saying that 40-60 games of NRL rates higher than whatever rep fixtures youd replace it with.

You've taken my comments out of context. You started going on about lower broadcast rights and accused me of saying we would still get the same money as we do now if we decreased the season by one-third, even though I said in my first post it would lead to less money from the broadcasters.

Literally said that they wont reduce the rounds because of the broadcast rights. Your insistence that an increased rep season will somehow add value despite a material loss of club fixtures is what i disagree with,

What I disagree with is your absurd insistence that we keep nine teams in Sydney with an annual grant that's currently 130% of the salary cap to prevent them from going belly up.

The comp makes the money because of the clubs, the league has a responsibility to look after the geese that lay the golden eggs if the geese need looking after.

Im not a fan of getting rid of clubs.

 

[Canard]

We should play less games because I don't like watching more then a few games a season.

And I don't give a f**k what other people want

 

[bad boy bubby]

This thread has become another soap opera, just like every thread the Donkey gets a hold of.
I'm not complaining though, it saves me 10 bucks, or more, a month instead of getting a streaming platform to wind down from after work.
The pictures in my brain have the Donk as Cam from Modern Family. Once you imagine him this way it doesn't leave.

Sorry PR, back to Pistol Pete!
Edit: actually not only Cam, but also his alter ego Fizbo the Clown plays a prominent part
Double edit: he wouldn't know who Sofia Vergara is

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Imagine the sht show if pistol Pete had got an extra $200mill in the tv deal lol it would be on for young and old.

I must admit, I'm not as up-to-date with this as I'd like. But isn't all the squabbling because the NRL increased their revenue due to the new TV deal?

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

We should play less games because I don't like watching more then a few games a season.

And I don't give a f**k what other people want

No one said this. No one.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Oddly enough there is. They even post here sometimes.

The OzTam ratings are an extrapolation of 12,000 people's viewing habits.

OzTam don't know what I watch as I'm not one of the 12,000 people on their panel.

all 3. Tests and rep fixtures are not however amonst them

What do you mean by "all three"?

There's four NRL games during an Origin-impacted round.

Origin is a representative fixture and its three games regularly feature among the most viewed programs on TV.

It wont make up for the loss of 60 odd NRL matches - not in revenue, not in membership, not in attendance, not in hospitality.

How much do the broadcasters pay for the middle-third of the NRL season?

If we divide the assumed 23-28 broadcast deal of $400 per annum by 216 (204 NRL season games + 9 NRL Finals + 3 Origins) then each match is worth about $1.85m.

That would equate to about $111m less per annum, although that's lumping the value of NRL games played during the Origin period with the rest of the season, finals and Origin.

In 2015 the State of Origin was valued at $100m a year.

Origin would be worth a lot more than $100m per annum in 2023.

You arent going to play anywhere near enough rep fixtures that rate to make up for the loss of broadcasters. It cant just be "content", but rateable content.

If Tests rate as well as Thurs/Fri games -- which is what you said in a previous post -- then a Six Nations tournament featuring Australia, New Zealand, Tonga, Samoa, PNG and Fiji could make good coin.

How? by reducing supply you expect to increase demand?

Too much of a good thing isn't always a winning formula. NFL generate over $10B per annum from 2023 onwards with a 17 week competition that has a four week final series, one exhibition game and a few pre-season matches. It's easily the most lucrative sports league in America. The NBA is next highest at $5B pa, but each team plays 82 games in a season.

Most clubs make bugger all in gate.

That's because most clubs draw shit attendances.

Im saying that 40-60 games of NRL rates higher than whatever rep fixtures youd replace it with.

Three games of Origin are worth more than 60 NRL games.

Literally said that they wont reduce the rounds because of the broadcast rights. Your insistence that an increased rep season will somehow add value despite a material loss of club fixtures is what i disagree with,

A six week window for Test matches will generate revenue from overseas. It will not be as much as the 60 NRL games it replaces, but it'll be decent coin. A Six Nations tournament could feature 15 pool games and one final. Let's value each Test at $2m. That's $32m. Add England to the series and the value will go up.

Another option is to have a Samoa vs Tonga series, PNG VS Fiji series and England vs New Zealand series simultaneously while Origin is on. That's four games per week over a three week period. Australia then plays England and New Zealand after Origin.

The comp makes the money because of the clubs, the league has a responsibility to look after the geese that lay the golden eggs if the geese need looking after.

Im not a fan of getting rid of clubs.

The players generate the money. Origin alone generates one-fifth of all revenue for rugby league. That's not just broadcast rights, but sponsorship, hospitality, gate receipts and merchandise.

So you're willing to keep nine small Sydney clubs alive?

There's not enough talent or money to support nine Sydney clubs and expand into Adelaide, Perth, New Zealand and Brisbane.

If you're going to support nine clubs in Sydney then you cannot say no to a third Brisbane team and one each for Adelaide and Perth. Not unless you want to be an irrational hypocrite with double standards.

Adding Adelaide, Perth, NZ 2 and Brisbane 3 at the expense of Sydney's three weakest teams would provide more value to the game than the model you're defending. For a start they would add value to the broadcast rights because they would give us a presence in all five metro markets and provide more derbies for Queensland viewers.

 

[Perth Red]

I must admit, I'm not as up-to-date with this as I'd like. But isn't all the squabbling because the NRL increased their revenue due to the new TV deal?

not really, they only increased it by around $12-15mill cash a year at most For the next 5 years, and that has to pay for an extra club.

It’s because negotiations are here again and the arlc is so pss weak it can’t get clubs to sign a perpetual agreement and stupidly built in a clause that clubs can vote out arlc directors.

Ergo every 5 years the clubs want more and hold the game and directors to ransom to get it.

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

Lol Comedy Central continues .

 

[The_Wookie]

Various things

You keep at it mate, Im done responding to you.

 

[Maximus]

This thread has become another soap opera, just like every thread the Donkey gets a hold of.

Caused by who? Just curious why The Wookie and Phil McGrawhan and others get passes for blatantly lying about his posts?

We should be looking at reducing the season to 16 or 18 rounds. Origin and Tests to be played at the end of the season. Stuff the broadcasters and work on drawing more revenue from gate receipts and memberships. Create a longer off-season break before pre-season training starts so players can rest.

The only way to improve player welfare is by reducing the length of the season. That will lead a reduction in revenue from broadcast rights and gate receipts. On the flip side, it might lead to better attendances and television ratings.

I already said the broadcast rights and gate receipts will take a hit if the season is reduced, so WTF are you on about with your baseless assertions?

I'm under no illusion that we'll get the same pay as we do now by reducing season, so piss off with your misrepresentation of my position. You're just looking to troll and argue for the sake of it.

I don't give a f**k what the broadcasters want. We need to do what's best for rugby league. If that means taking less money for a shorter season then so be it.

All these posts suggesting we'll get less and yet people continually repeat the lie claiming he said we'd not lose money.

He's got some pretty crazy ideas, but he adds far more than people who think it should be illegal to watch other sports or who get personally offended and rush to the thread any time someone criticises Vlandys

 

[MugaB]

Personally I’d be setting a goal for 20 cLubs, 21 game regular season. Play everyone once, rotating annually home and away and 2 magic weekends. One in Oz and one in NZ.
3 week mid season break for rep games. origin mens and womens plus 4 test matches A weekend.
that’s a 24 week regular season, ten games week plus 6 on rep weekends. content is actually more than now and less stress and fatigue on players. No bs compromised league table due to origin and irregular fixtures. Leaves room for proper test calendar in oct/nov.

No that any of the bs on here has anything to do with pistol Pete lol

See this is common sense, not the drivel that grotd twat puts out.. i dont often agree with PR, but on this i do, it's nice and consistent, has enough wiggle room to add a few event matches, and international tests, less stress on the season