RL independence day arrives - NRL Independent Commission announced for November 1

[Gippsy]

Bloody hell the next TV rights deal is important. If we get a billion dollar deal it will shore up the game making it virtually impossible for anyone to try and start a rival competition.

 

[adamkungl]

The clubs are being f**king idiots. Without clubs joining a rival competition, it can't possible exist anyway. Yeah, a few players might be lured by potential $$$, but look how well the Hunter Mariners went down in 97. Farked.

Despite News' involvement, SL never would have happened if it wasn't for clubs like Brisbane, Canterbury, Cronulla and Penrith signing. If the clubs don't want a rival comp, DONT JOIN THE f**king THING.

 

[Perth Red]

Easy to say until a multi million $ cheque is dangled in front of desperate CEO's faces!

It is a legal issue re News not agreeing to a non competition clause rather than an intent one I feel. Mind you it once again shows how weak our game is at the moment, could you imagine the AFL allowing a situation where Fox could threaten a take over?

 

[LineBall]

The clubs are being f**king idiots. Without clubs joining a rival competition, it can't possible exist anyway. Yeah, a few players might be lured by potential $$$, but look how well the Hunter Mariners went down in 97. Farked.

Despite News' involvement, SL never would have happened if it wasn't for clubs like Brisbane, Canterbury, Cronulla and Penrith signing. If the clubs don't want a rival comp, DONT JOIN THE f**king THING.

I agree with you about not wanting another rival competition - but the clubs that originally joined superleague must have had a perception (rightly or wrongly) that their treatment by the ARL's administration was significantly hampering their interest and the game's interests.

As long as the new commission is doing its job, looking after all levels of the game, and has a long term vision for where the game is heading, then the chances of a break away league forming are slim.

 

[Gippsy]

Easy to say until a multi million $ cheque is dangled in front of desperate CEO's faces!

It is a legal issue re News not agreeing to a non competition clause rather than an intent one I feel. Mind you it once again shows how weak our game is at the moment, could you imagine the AFL allowing a situation where Fox could threaten a take over?

I could be wrong but I think the reason it would never happen in AFL is that the players are contracted to the AFL, not the clubs as is the case with NRL. A big difference if trying to set up a rival competition.

Either that or everyone knows it's a dopey game and just couldn't be bothered.

 

[Parra]

could you imagine the AFL allowing a situation where Fox could threaten a take over?

It would be easier to do a SL with Aussie Rules than any other sport. There is no need to setup fake representative or international matches. No international boards or rules to worry about.

Why would anyone bother?

 

[docbrown]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...eague-commission/story-e6frg7mf-1226053533401



Seems odd that News Ltd are only prepared to offer a guarantee of 5 years that they wont start up another competition...

Are they just being intentionally difficult?

I said some time ago on either this thread or another that their concern is about the financial implication.

Say if they sign it and later on the clubs become disatisfied with the IC and decide to form their own comp. Can News Limited broadcast it? And if they do, can the IC sue them? Or would that automatically rule out News Limited's involvement in broadcasting League in Australia?

Regardless I don't care about News Limited's financial concerns and their arguments about withdrawing are bullshit. They need to sign it and it needs to be permanent.

Who's to say after five years News Limited doesn't undergo another management shift with new idiots and they start thinking to themselves: Hey how can we get these Rugby League rights for cheaper? Hey let's own it again!

Despite News' involvement, SL never would have happened if it wasn't for clubs like Brisbane, Canterbury, Cronulla and Penrith signing. If the clubs don't want a rival comp, DONT JOIN THE f**king THING.

But if clubs have a falling out with the IC over some issue they may be able to breakaway themselves and News could pick them up. That was partly what happened the first time. Some clubs thought that they could be better off under Super League's banner.

I mean in five years time if the NRL has been apathetic and dragged its feet on expansion, what's to stop News Limited from attracting previous/current denied franchise bidders to set up a new comp? I mean they could take the clubs they own an interest in - Melbourne & Brisbane - set up Perth, Adelaide, Central Coast, Central Qld, Sunshine Coast, Wellington and then pick up a disenchanted Sydney club side or two.

They wouldn't even have to foot the bill for the clubs, the franchise bidders would.

If News Limited wants to put finite time limit on it - fine - 25 years. If the NRL hasn't got its shit together by then, then it deserves to be f**ked over.

 

[Quidgybo]

Surely if we learnt anything from the SL war, it's that legal agreements like this mean nothing. They can always be worked around one way or another. As such I see no point in demanding this, especially if we negotiate away something to get it. If we're going negotiate away anything, let's get something real for it, not some ephemeral goodwill gesture.

Leigh.

 

[Ray Mosters]

My guess would be that they dont intend on ever setting up a rival comp, but they would like to have the threat of it being a possibility floating about during negotiations with the IC

Something like "Ok fine, you can go with Fetch TV as your PayTV provider, but the Broncos and Storm wont be part of your competition, and we will take our 150m a year that would have gone on your broadcast rights and form a SuperLeague"

 

[docbrown]

My guess would be that they dont intend on ever setting up a rival comp, but they would like to have the threat of it being a possibility floating about during negotiations with the IC

Something like "Ok fine, you can go with Fetch TV as your PayTV provider, but the Broncos and Storm wont be part of your competition, and we will take our 150m a year that would have gone on your broadcast rights and form a SuperLeague"

We have a winner!

 

[applesauce]

They are only able to own 1 club under the new IC. How will they get the Storm?

 

[kurt faulk]

.

the only reason news started the stupid league was to have league content ready for their pay tv introduction. it's unfortunate quayle and arthurton had given exclusive rights to packer for peanuts for 5 years. in necessity murdoch had to go after league otherwise foxtel would have crashed and burned before it even started.

foxtel is now very well established. there is no reason for another takeover bid. nobody is blocking them out of league content. they will just pay for broadcasting rights, nice and simple.

.

 

[Pj,Rj,Hj]

I could be wrong but I think the reason it would never happen in AFL is that the players are contracted to the AFL, not the clubs as is the case with NRL. A big difference if trying to set up a rival competition.

Either that or everyone knows it's a dopey game and just couldn't be bothered.

Players are contracted to their clubs but the AFL owns the identies of the clubs. So if the non Vic teams formed a break away Aussie Rules League, they can't go by the same name, logo or colours.

 

[docbrown]

they will just pay for broadcasting rights, nice and simple.

.

It's the matter of how much they pay that's the issue.

 

[axl rose]

We have a winner!

Close, he forgot to add the part where FOX will beam the new league around the world and Broncos players will be on billboards in China.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...le-out-another-rebel-comp-20110520-1ewm9.html

News won't rule out another rebel comp
Brad Walter
May 21, 2011

NEWS LTD is refusing to guarantee it will not start another Super League war because of uncertainty over the future of broadcast rights.

While News has offered to sign a non-compete clause for five years after its exit from the game, the Rupert Murdoch-owned media company will not guarantee that it will never form a Super League-type breakaway competition again.

Murdoch's rebel competition in 1997 generated content for Fox Sports, as he did not have the broadcast rights to any major sports at the time pay television was introduced in Australia.

News has been granted the first and last rights of refusal on pay-television rights until 2027 as part of the deal to hand over control of the game to an independent commission, but the stand-off over the terms of the non-compete clause has become one of the major delays to the formation of the new body.

The ARL and NRL clubs have rejected News Ltd's five-year offer as being worthless, as there are no genuine pay-television rivals likely to bid when the new broadcast rights deal is negotiated by the independent commission.

However, after the next five-year deal the landscape could change significantly - as has already been indicated by Telstra's $30 million-a-year deal with the AFL to stream all matches live on mobile phones and tablets, and broadcast one match per week live to its T-Box set-top box customers.

According to a recent report on Australian sports rights compiled by Goldman Sachs analysts, the introduction of the National Broadband Network will create new opportunities. ''The Australian television viewing landscape is undergoing a transformation,'' the report says.

''Technology is driving this transformation - the digitisation of media has enabled content delivery across multiple platforms.''

 

[Knownothing]

News Limited are simply retaining their commercial options, which is what their shareholders would expect them to do. The only way to stop them, would be to pay them to agree to a perpetual non-compete clause. That would cost a motzah, of course, so it won't happen.

My betting would be on some kind of hybrid code competition in five years time.

 

[adamkungl]

I wish the clubs would stop wasting their time with this non-compete clause. Why don't they form an agreement with each other preventing the formation of a rebel competition. Same outcome, less effort. Without say half of the clubs, a rebel comp can't event exist. And even with them, it will die in the arse anyway ala SL97. No matter what News does, a rebel comp will need about 75% of the current clubs to actually be a success.

The power here lies entirely in the hands of the clubs without News signing anything, why don't they just move on ffs

 

[Parra]

One the government finishes building the fibre network the line between TV and online content will all but disappear. The opportunity for clubs to run their own dedicated HD online channels or for other media companies to enter the market will be there.

This sort of thing could substantially devalue the TV rights, as the new players in the market avoid annoying things like broadcast licence fees, taxes and infrastructure costs.

You can see why any media company could not tolerate restrictive clauses in this environment.

Which gives News Ltd a difficult choice. Honor their current deal, or pay a penalty to break it early.

Which is exactly how it should be.

The clubs are not wasting their time with this non-compete clause at all. They are protecting their future rights and income.

 

[Goldfields_Titans]

News could just set up 12 brand new clubs like they did with Hunter, Adelaide and Perth. They have the readies.