The TV rights thread part II

[B-Tron 3000]

It's either make way for more ads or accept a mediocre rights deal. You cant have the best of both worlds.

The TV stations have to make their money off the game some how, and with ads being their number 1 form of revenue that is obviously where the money will come from.

I am prepared to sit through more ads if it means a $1.2b tv deal is negotiated. It is little pain for a massive gain

I never said they shouldn't have more ads, but the devil is in the detail, and the guy commissioned to look into it is talking about tv timeouts.

That changes everything. It affects momentum, tiredness, and therefore interchange requirements.

They have articulated areas where extra ads can go and there are plenty of them (scrums, line drop-outs, between tries and conversion, after conversions) so why the need to stop the clock?

How bout a few more ads at halftime and pre-game, instead of listening to nongs like Fittler?

By the way, if they expect guaranteed ad breaks, I hope the league ensures that they put a limit on the amount of times a channel can get their commentators to plug their own shows! Gotta have it both ways.

 

[Mong]

TV timeouts should never be allowed.

Matching or beating the AFL deal should not be a priority at all costs situation. And these kinds of proposals should not be an acceptable outcome to do so imo.

 

[baldie]

TV timeouts should never be allowed.

Matching or beating the AFL deal should not be a priority at all costs situation. And these kinds of proposals should not be an acceptable outcome to do so imo.

agree fug the afl we should be getting the tv deal that is the best for rugby league. If we take a bigger deal now, that slows the game down & riddles it with ads, what position will we be in at the next tv deal?

Lets not destroy the flow of the game for the sake of a pissing comp.

 

[taipan]

Seven aren't coming to the table though are they?

Nine and the NRL are still in the exclusive negotiating period but have Nine actually come forward with an offer yet? Has any of this leaked out? Or would they wait till the end of the 3 month period before throwing something on the table?

The idea that Nine helped the AFL get their price with their spoiling tactics confuses the sht out of me.... Why, if Seven had to pay these overs because of Nine, are Seven only going for Origin..... If I was Stokes I'd at least break the first and last by 20% just to screw Nine...

Delete*****

 

[taipan]

I think you've just said it yourself.

Remember this Kerry Stokes who lost about $200,000,000 on being block from the NRL rights and sued 9 & Foxsports and spend millions more in legal fees.

7 can out play all of them.

Doc scrutinise my following assessment,and tell me if I am anywhere near the mark,based on your sources.
1)ch9 according to industry sources will need to cough up $120m pa to secure the NRL rights
2) Foxtel pays $42m pa for the NRL rights.They were undersold last time(as Tv ratings will confirm) and with expansion another slot,a figure of min $80m pa is not out of the question.
3) if the current court case with Optus is won by the football codes,rugby league can add another $20m pa for internet/mobile rights.
4)Competition naming rights could also be up to $20m pa.
Based on the info I have gleaned (admittedly not from the horses mouth),the $1b is looking good.

 

[TheDalek079]

disgraceful idea. if the TV stations want to show more ads, let the game continue and have the coverage delayed by half a minute each time.

I don't mind the quarter time drinks break though.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

Eh, I'll just watch it delayed on fox

 

[turbodewd]

Some of the luddites on this thread are not living in the real world. umm...HELLO...the AFL is rolling on money and doing its best to take the whole of Australia and some of you are quibbling over a 30s ad break?!

Do you want the NRL clubs to remain barely viable concerns? Seriously.

Currently NRL games are too short..if they can spread the 80min game over another 10-15min its fine by me. Currently the NRL game day experience is too short, not good bang for buck.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

One opportunity for a quick add break is during a kicker's pre kick routine. I personally would rather watch an a beer or car commercial than watch Jamie Soward prepare his dance floor, Thurston spit 15 times or Sandow scratch his left nut all to the commentary gold of Gus saying wow or pretending to argue with Rabs.

Basically, after a try show a couple of replays, whip off for a 20 second commercial and then back for the kick.

Quarter time 2 minute breaks I'd also accept.

 

[Pierced Soul]

Some of the luddites on this thread are not living in the real world. umm...HELLO...the AFL is rolling on money and doing its best to take the whole of Australia and some of you are quibbling over a 30s ad break?!

Do you want the NRL clubs to remain barely viable concerns? Seriously.

Currently NRL games are too short..if they can spread the 80min game over another 10-15min its fine by me. Currently the NRL game day experience is too short, not good bang for buck.

hey lets just change the game to gridiron as well while we're at it. stop the play after every tackle - imagine how many ad breaks we could fit in then? we'll stretch the game to 8 hours and we'll even have live ads where players spruik products on field in breaks in play.


the game shouldn't change its fabric to suit broadcasters. I for the life of me cannot fathom how the "product" which consistently is the highest ratings program on FTA or Fox has to bend over backwards to suit the broadcasters. if those merkins at nein want more ads tell em to f**k off and go to 10 or 7. I'm not against short ad breaks 10-15 seconds during goal kicks or players walking to scrums but this "guaranteed 30 sec" thing is bullshit. if all advertisers are offered is 15 secs slots during a big game are you telling me they're going to put their ads onto sbs instead cos they get 30secs?

nein already use the elague to constantly push sportstab odds - are you telling em they're doing this for free? they update the odds every 2nd set. they use the league to constantly harp on about their crappy tv shows. they're already getting plenty of free advertising

 

[Sgt. Kabukiman]

If the NRL are willing to compromise the game and the television product for the sake of a few more dollars, they've got no idea. What's the point of having more dosh to grow and develop the game if the main way of advertising the sport and bringing in new fans - televised games - is turned into an unwatchable, ad-filled abomination? I can't believe real rugby league fans are happy to watch the game be destroyed just to win a dick-measuring contest against the AFL in regards to TV rights. It's geniused.

 

[gUt]

One opportunity for a quick add break is during a kicker's pre kick routine. I personally would rather watch an a beer or car commercial than watch Jamie Soward prepare his dance floor, Thurston spit 15 times or Sandow scratch his left nut all to the commentary gold of Gus saying wow or pretending to argue with Rabs.

Basically, after a try show a couple of replays, whip off for a 20 second commercial and then back for the kick.

Quarter time 2 minute breaks I'd also accept.

For me, unless it's to win a match or in another tense situation, there's really no need to watch the goal kick live. When I watch taped replays I forward through the whole kick. Shoot to ad, come back to watch a replay of the kick without the lead up and jog back to position, play on.

 

[Kirky]

I don't see what the big deal is. After an AFL goal they can't restart the play until the broadcaster signals that the ad break is over. What would normally be a 10 second break is deliberateley stretched out to over 30 seconds. It hasn't destroyed their sport.

It's a compromise i'd be willing to make for $70 million a year.

 

[Packy]

I have no problem with more adds in live games. 15 seconds between stopages is fine.

 

[carlosthedwarf]

I watch everything on delay though my PVR. Wait half an hour, start the game, skip through the ads. Finish the game at the same time.

 

[Silent Knight]

I don't have a problem with more ads if it ensures we get a decent TV deal for once.

What I do have a problem with is the NRL proposing changes based on feedback from a Nein stooge like David Gyngell. This guy expects the NRL to pander to him, when his rotten network has done SFA to promote rugby league in non-heartland states for the past decade. We don't owe him anything. We should be dictating to him how it's going to be. Nein needs the NRL now more than the NRL needs Nein.

 

[juro]

Well we have put up with all the ads on Sunday football for so many years. Nothing could be worse than that!

 

[betcats]

If they are willing to pay enough for it then ive got no problem at all, more money will make our game better and stronger. Everyone wants a big dominant NRL but they are not willing to accept what it takes to become that.

 

[Panfas]

I think you are all screaming murder for nothing, do you think they are going to turn every game into the 2nd frinday night match? ummm, no they are not! There are already loads of adds in the live game they are just chucking in a few more FFS

I am of the opinion that the NRL should call time off for all out of bounds plays like scrums, trys, conversions etc. In effect, the actual match will go for 80 minutes, not as it currently is of 80 minutes including post try time wasting etc. What will this achieve? Well firstly longer game time resulting in more advertising revenue. Secondly, it will take away any potential time wasting. There would be allocated times for each play, say 30 seconds from when the ball goes out of play to when the scrum must be fed. Enough time for a 15 second ad. When a try is scored, you have between 90 and 120 seconds to convert the goal and kick off. You could fit in 2x 15 sec ads here or a 1x 30sec ad.

Doing this will take nothing away from the game but it will bring in more action and most importantly more $$$

 

[TheRam]

I like 15 sec adds only. That seems to me almost like blinking and I don't feel like I missed anything. Also I have said before I don't mind if we stopped the clock for kicks at goal and any other time wasting non play. The game is not compromised and the fan sees more game time.

We did try this back in the 90's I think and too many people whinged about it, but I can't remember them really having any good reasons to complain other then the coaches & players didn't like it because it meant that the game went on to long.

Well if they are promised more $$$ in their pockets this time around I don't think that there would be the same kind of backlash.