RL independence day arrives - NRL Independent Commission announced

[Perth Red]

first and last broadcasting rights until 2027

ouch!
Wonder if they really know the amount Storm are asking for or if it is just speculation? I find it hard to believe they would have been shown the agreement?

 

[taipan]

Shocking...

Absolutely diabolical and criminal.I should have been arraigned ,and held for questioning.

 

[Parra]

In regards the the F&L agreement. If 9/news lose the rights this time round (2013-2018 rights) and the F&L is broken, is it then broken forever or just for this deal?

ouch!
Wonder if they really know the amount Storm are asking for or if it is just speculation? I find it hard to believe they would have been shown the agreement?

A bit late to worry about details now. You start asking those sorts of questions and you'll get a label slapped on you. As long as something is called an Independent Commission it is worth the cost. Whatever it is.

 

[CC_Roosters]

So whats the expectation. Do we wake up towmorrow morning to independance headlines in the DT and SMH?

 

[andrew057]

What I find really interesting is the staunch stance News took in regards to the first and last rights to the TV deal. Makes me think thre is basically zero chance they would lose the next round of TV rights.

 

[siv]

Storm originally wanted $30 mil - so to get $26 mil has been a good deal for News Ltd

 

[jc155776]

First and last rights is not a bad thing. Will always get best value because news have the option to always offerore then the previous offer if they want.

 

[Gippsy]

a $26 million funding package for Melbourne Storm


Over what sort of timeframe?

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

What I find really interesting is the staunch stance News took in regards to the first and last rights to the TV deal. Makes me think thre is basically zero chance they would lose the next round of TV rights.

Does it matter...
Only two things are important..
1.We get top$$$$ for our product ,no matter who buys the rights.
2.Broadcast OZ wide live ,or at a decent time.

 

[Desert Qlder]

The main concern for me would be the implication F&L rights would have on future Internet TV rights.

There's little question the future broadcasting of the game lies there, so I'd be unconcerned if News retains rights of subscription broadcast for as long as they want. What must remain free from legal dispute is the games ability to negotiate lucrative Internet TV rights. Whether they outsource the distribution or do it themselves.

Internet TV will come upon us faster than most believe, and I'm amazed that sporting bodies in this country have not realised the potential. The constant deferment to Foxtel, as if it is the only way one will watch Live Sport in ten years time is of unceasing annoyance to me.

I'd love to know the legal framework around the latest F&L rights. If it affects Internet TV then the formation of the IC truly would be a terrible deal.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ay--startup-of-commission-20111211-1opup.html

Handover issues delay start-up of commission
Greg Prichard
December 12, 2011

THE league world should know in the next few days if the independent commission will be in place before Christmas or further delayed until the new year.

Roy Masters revealed in the Herald on Saturday that a planned announcement of the official withdrawal of News Ltd from co-control of the game – "on Tuesday, December 13, in the offices of Pitt Street law firm Kemp Strang, with representatives of the ARL, QRL, NSWRL, News Ltd, the NRL and all of its 16 clubs attending" – had been pushed back.

Masters cited "legal complications, including the details of a new contract for NRL chief executive David Gallop" as the reason for the latest delay of the handover. A copy of an email from the Wests Tigers chairman, Dave Trodden, to fellow club chairmen outlined the situation.

It read: "The proposed date for establishment of the ARL Commission has been deferred to a future date, which is to be fixed. There are several approvals from various parties that remain outstanding, and as soon as these are satisfied the establishment of the ARL Commission will take place. All parties are working together to complete these tasks as soon as possible."

The Herald has since been told that several of the game's major sponsors have concerns with legal issues related to the handover that need to be resolved before anything can become official.

People involved in the machinations behind the handover say none of this is any threat to the commission being established soon, but the latest delay can only be described as a negative after it appeared to be a good bet at the beginning of December that the commission would be operating by the middle of the month.

The aim of those involved was to give the eight commissioners a week to get the feeling they were in charge before they broke up for Christmas and came back in the new year to tackle the game's biggest issues. That would have allowed the game the chance to close the year by publicly parading those who have been handed the responsibility of ensuring it reaches its potential.

The identity of the commissioners has been known for some time but, apart from some comments from chairman John Grant, they haven't been in a position to say much.

Late last month, a source who played a major role in ensuring the commission became a reality told the Herald: "This was never going to be a walk in the park, making this happen, and even after it became clear it was going to happen there was still an enormous amount of work to be done on the legal side of things before it could become official.

"A lot of contracts have had to be unravelled but a lot of ground has been made up over the past few weeks. It will be a good PR move to have the commission in place before Christmas."

That may still happen, but time is running out. It is understood lawyers have been busy working on matters on behalf of the ARL and News Ltd in the past few days.

It will soon become clear whether enough ground has been made up on issues that still need to be resolved, or whether the commission won't be up and running until some time in January.

A source told the Herald yesterday: "It's all going to happen, but there's no point in talking about dates right now. Everyone is still hoping for sooner rather than later, but we're going to have to wait and see how it all shapes up over the next few days."

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Does it matter...
Only two things are important..
1.We get top$$$$ for our product ,no matter who buys the rights.
2.Broadcast OZ wide live ,or at a decent time.

Really? They are the ONLY important things? What about contra? What about getting more on free to air? What about issues like whether the TV networks are willing to tinker with the schedule to allow for things like Tests, World Sevens type events, City/Country or any other potentially beneficial event that requires changes to the NRL season? All of these things are important. People seem to think it's all about selling one set product at face value to one or two companies for $1 billion. There is a lot more to it than that.

 

[Perth Red]

I hope some of the Melbourne money is ring fenced for jnr and grass roots development and marketing, not just to pay better physios etc to make them the best team. If it is $26mil over 10 years that is ok but if it is over 5 years it would be a bit of a worry that they need so much annual income boosting.

 

[Quidgybo]

Over 5 years that's still only around $5m each year. How much are owners of the other 12 or so loss making clubs pumping into their franchises each year to keep them afloat? I've heard of Leagues club grants of $2m or more suggested in the past and that's in the heartland. $5m per year in our toughest frontier market doesn't sound excessive to me at all.

For example, the following article suggests the St George-Illwarra franchise received a grant of $2.8m from the St George Leagues club (down from $3.7m) and the Roosters got a $3.1m grant. Parramatta allegedly got $2.5m (down from $4.5m)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/n...y-cost-of-league/story-e6frfgbo-1226064379782

Leigh.

 

[Parra]

Over 5 years that's still only around $5m each year. How much are owners of the other 12 or so loss making clubs pumping into their franchises each year to keep them afloat? I've heard of Leagues club grants of $2m or more suggested in the past and that's in the heartland. $5m per year in our toughest frontier market doesn't sound excessive to me at all.

For example, the following article suggests the St George-Illwarra franchise received a grant of $2.8m from the St George Leagues club (down from $3.7m) and the Roosters got a $3.1m grant. Parramatta allegedly got $2.5m (down from $4.5m)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/n...y-cost-of-league/story-e6frfgbo-1226064379782

Leigh.

The only reasons the leagues clubs were established was to provide the income for the footy clubs. It is not a benevolent grant, no matter what the spin doctors call it. It is the very reason for the leagues clubs existence.

 

[El Diablo]

Originally

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

Really? They are the ONLY important things? What about contra? What about getting more on free to air? What about issues like whether the TV networks are willing to tinker with the schedule to allow for things like Tests, World Sevens type events, City/Country or any other potentially beneficial event that requires changes to the NRL season? All of these things are important. People seem to think it's all about selling one set product at face value to one or two companies for $1 billion. There is a lot more to it than that.

Jesus...
Contra is part of the $$$ deal..
& i cant believe you couldnt work out i was talking about FTA when i said broadcast OZ wide at a decent time..
I dont believe anyone has any problems with the broadcast time by fox.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Jesus...
Contra is part of the $$$ deal..
& i cant believe you couldnt work out i was talking about FTA when i said broadcast OZ wide at a decent time..
I dont believe anyone has any problems with the broadcast time by fox.

So you still think the NRL goes to the broadcasters and says "this is the product, how much will you give us for it?" And that the dollar amount is the only thing that matters. What if Channel Seven came and said we'll give you $1b and we'll show every game live nationwide but we want the season extended to 35 weeks plus finals but not play any Tests? Is that a good deal? Is that better than getting $800m from Nine but keeping the season as it is? The point is the dollar value is not the be all and end of this situation. Not only that but where the money goes is important too. I'd rather get $800m and see a decent percentage go to grassroots football than get $1b and see every cent go to the clubs for them to flush down the toilet.

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

& that is what the negotiators are there for.
My original reply was to Fox keeping first & last rights...
The IC will be in charge of grassroots etc .
But i dont care who gets the rights as long as they pay what they are worth...& broadcast it
THEN ..the grassroots,CRL etc can be taken care of .
THEN the game can grow in non heartland areas when the locals can actually watch a game at decent times.

So yes FIRSTLY those are the two most important things.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

& that is what the negotiators are there for.
My original reply was to Fox keeping first & last rights...
The IC will be in charge of grassroots etc .
But i dont care who gets the rights as long as they pay what they are worth...& broadcast it
THEN ..the grassroots,CRL etc can be taken care of .
THEN the game can grow in non heartland areas when the locals can actually watch a game at decent times.

So yes FIRSTLY those are the two most important things.

No. The NRL or IC have to negotitate WHAT the product is first. If a broadcaster comes along and says we'll give you your $1b but we don't want City/Country and we don't want Test matches interupting the NRL then it is absolutely crucial that those negotiating the deal don't give concessions that will damage the game. The IC has to think about what it's selling, not just for how much.