The TV rights thread part II

[BuffaloRules]

Whilst it would be fantastic if we got more than the AFL we don't really need to. They have so much money tied up because it costs so damn much to run an AFL club. That plus they are trying to expand into areas they aren't really wanted and will have to spend 10's of millions to stay afloat.

I would like to see the NRL have some money to spend on RL in developing areas too, like VIC and WA.

There is a disparity between what their top players earn, and ours so you would hope that this will not be the case when the new TV deal is in place.

 

[Collingwood Storm]

I think the 1.4 billion is just a "Aim for the stars land on the moon" figure they are putting out there. IMO the NRL should be happy with 1billion+(not including contra).

Precisely, some reports mention that the NRL put 3 scenarios to the clubs... ~$1bil, ~$1.2bil, ~$1.4bil and the grants and salary cap at each level that the tv rights would be.

So this suddenly becomes, 'The NRL will be getting $1.4bil for TV rights.'?

If anything is to be learnt from the media around the AFL TV rights negotiations, it's that there is still a long time to go and the media usually have NFI up until a week or two before the deal is finalised.

 

[Brutus]

Rugby League is no longer a set of waring factions. When we all sing from the same hymn sheet our true value as Australias biggest television sport emerges.

If we are capable of $1-1.4B now, imagine how much our game will be worth when we include Perth, Adelaide, Wellington, more Qld sides. We haven't even hit our peak yet and we are already being touted as worth more than the AFL.

I know it's not good to look back in the past, but I can't help thinking how much our game has been dudded in previous years.

And the people responsible.

And where we'd be now has we always received our true value.

 

[Brutus]

Precisely, some reports mention that the NRL put 3 scenarios to the clubs... ~$1bil, ~$1.2bil, ~$1.4bil and the grants and salary cap at each level that the tv rights would be.

So this suddenly becomes, 'The NRL will be getting $1.4bil for TV rights.'?

If anything is to be learnt from the media around the AFL TV rights negotiations, it's that there is still a long time to go and the media usually have NFI up until a week or two before the deal is finalised.

You don't like it Mr AFL boy?

 

[Ray Mosters]

That number is massive... I wouldnt and probably still dont think its actually possible without gutting the sport and stuffing it full of advertising.

But then again, I thought $1B was good value for the AFL and they smashed that, and they did it without compromising one little bit on coverage or scheduling.

Who knows, maybe $1.4B is within the realm of possibility.

 

[BuffaloRules]

I know it's not good to look back in the past, but I can't help thinking how much our game has been dudded in previous years.

And the people responsible.

And where we'd be now has we always received our true value.

Well, on the upside if the NRL has survivied on the smell of an oily rag for the past 10 years, then imagine what they can do when they have some money in the bank?

 

[Packy]

My breath is not held.

 

[babyg]

 

[The.X.Factor9]

You don't like it Mr AFL boy?

AFL trolls aside brutus, I think we should be realistic; 1.4 billion is just speculation. I find it excellent that we are finally talking up our code for the spectacle it is, right now I don't think everyone should get too excited.

Also the media beat up a lot of things, they have NFI they should just STFU, and let the NRL do its thing.

As I stated above 1billion plus(without contra) would be excellent for the NRL, it is cheaper to run the NRL than it is to run the AFL.

 

[docbrown]

What's a line out?

Lol typo, meant line drop out.

Though that said, if we had union lineouts & scrums, we could fit in about 4 minutes of ads each time

 

[docbrown]

Precisely, some reports mention that the NRL put 3 scenarios to the clubs... ~$1bil, ~$1.2bil, ~$1.4bil and the grants and salary cap at each level that the tv rights would be.

So this suddenly becomes, 'The NRL will be getting $1.4bil for TV rights.'?

If anything is to be learnt from the media around the AFL TV rights negotiations, it's that there is still a long time to go and the media usually have NFI up until a week or two before the deal is finalised.

You need to read between the lines.

By presenting those 3 options, LEK are saying that they're looking at $1 Billion Minimum.

If they thought $800 million was realistic they would have presented that.

Remember - Colin Smith was the man responsible for the AFL's $780 million deal 6 years ago.

Anything over $680 million is a greater increase %-wise over the AFL's deal.

Anything over $840 million is doubling our previous deal % wise.

$1 Billion sets us on a massive era of national development the likes of which have never been seen before in the history of our game.

 

[Quidgybo]

You need to read between the lines.

By presenting those 3 options, LEK are saying that they're looking at $1 Billion Minimum.

Exactly. And by putting those particular three figures out there now we're putting pressure on the bidders by implying they shouldn't come to use with anything less than $1b. Going a step further you could read it as saying we'll start off asking for $1.4b and expect to get talked down but we'll be satisfied if the networks meet us half way (because $1.2b is actually what we think we can get).

Leigh

 

[Dragonwest]

I just hope we include the contra and internet rights in the deal so the headlines are in comparison to what the AFL put out. But when break it down the AFL only got $960 million for their tv rights.

 

[Perth Red]

ONLY $960mill?

anything close to a bill will make our game unstoppable over the next decade as long as the IC doesn't just throw it all at struggling clubs.

 

[Billythekid]

ONLY $960mill?

anything close to a bill will make our game unstoppable over the next decade as long as the IC doesn't just throw it all at struggling clubs.

We have managed to get by on way less than half of that for the last 10 years. I really don't see how we could waste a billion dollars just propping up clubs.

 

[Perth Red]

This is RL! Yeh it would be hard to see even for us. Club grants of around $7-10mill should be what we are aiming for and should make every club sustainable if they also are forced to meet min criteria such as memberships, stadium facilities, income levels etc.

 

[Parra]

You need to read between the lines.

By presenting those 3 options, LEK are saying that they're looking at $1 Billion Minimum.

If they thought $800 million was realistic they would have presented that.

Remember - Colin Smith was the man responsible for the AFL's $780 million deal 6 years ago.

Anything over $680 million is a greater increase %-wise over the AFL's deal.

Anything over $840 million is doubling our previous deal % wise.

$1 Billion sets us on a massive era of national development the likes of which have never been seen before in the history of our game.

Imagine that, a consultant you pay tells you what you want to hear.

 

[El Diablo]

Imagine that, a consultant you pay tells you what you want to hear.

stick to Yawnion you nuffy

 

[Parra]

stick to Yawnion you nuffy

You can believe the Daily Telegraph all you like.

I don't.

 

[docbrown]

Imagine that, a consultant you pay tells you what you want to hear.

Do you really think they'd even be discussing $1,000,000,000+ if they didn't believe they could get it?

LEK have an image to preserve which is why they're considered the best of the best. How long do you think they'd last if they fail to deliver on expectations they created?

Some people on here need to take a chill pill.