What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The TV rights thread

Who would you like to see get the rights providing the price is right?

  • Seven

    Votes: 57 20.5%
  • Nine

    Votes: 49 17.6%
  • Ten

    Votes: 110 39.6%
  • Rights split between FTA channels

    Votes: 147 52.9%

  • Total voters
    278
Status
Not open for further replies.

Mong

Post Whore
Messages
55,692
Coverage might not always be great but FTA is a godsend for sport. Look at the codes without it, Rugby Union and A-league, no surprise they trail along way behind the other codes in terms of interest, they do not get the exposure.

Now if we can transfer FTA to other states other than heartland ones, we'd be laughing.


That's my point, FTA do whatever they like, an earlier suggestion to move all games to them is nothing short of ridiculous.

How long would it be before we would be back to gettting one hour highlight packages passed of as televised games.

The same set up as the AFL with every game on fox would be awesome, although would want the simulcast games to be the FTA live games so they are not ruined by countless ads.
 

ozjet1

Guest
Messages
841
seriously ... you are a muppet

read what you said

Dropping teams in that aren't ready
ummm HELLO

Teams that will need money spent on them
ummmmm HEEEEELLLOOOOOOO

you may as well have been talking about the AFL instead of your lame @ssed attempt at having a dig at the NRL you wombat

maybe you should pull Andy Dimetrious d--K out of your mouth & talk some sense for once ;-)

you dont get it............have NFI.

they arent ready because they're not going to compete for a premiership this year? is this your reasoning?

you expect a team to be dropped in an expansion market and left to fend for themselves? is this your definition of ready too? the task of introducing a new club into a new market is a long-term process.

we've been aware for years of the AFL's concrete plans to introduce new teams. the case with the NRL is still speculative. there is risk in any new market expansion for any business in any industry. funding is required for any start-up and growth in a new market, it doesnt matter what you're selling. the AFL have completed a whole lot of lead-up work. they have approached it systematically in both cases, in an attempt to make it a success. they have sold their rights off the back of this.

in contrast, expecting the same windfall for a NRL half-arsed new market expansion project, within the uncertainty that the game still currently experiences? with a formation of an IC which is still maintaining the politiking that goes on in the current administration? f**king ludicrous!

mate, id love for rugby league to get there with it. it shouldve proactively worked towards it properly several years ago. but the BS in the game has held it back. simply putting together a reactionary & hastily-prepared project in time for the next rights and not doing the essential years of groundwork to ensure the success in the new market wont benefit the team or the game down the track.

Look at it objectively.
 
Messages
21,880
Apologies if this has been covered earlier but,

To simplify this whole scenario.

1. NRL have the highest sports TV ratings in the country.
2. We have more games to broadcast than the AFL do.
3. We have additional representative fixtures.
4. We have the ability to split SOO games, International games, Finals games & NRL round games.

So why should we be getting anything less than fumbleball gets (excluding the negotiator) ?

Everything correct except for point 2.

Unless we add 2 more teams they will have more games than us ( even if we include rep games)
 

Red Bear

Referee
Messages
20,882
Apologies if this has been covered earlier but,

To simplify this whole scenario.

1. NRL have the highest sports TV ratings in the country.
2. We have more games to broadcast than the AFL do.
3. We have additional representative fixtures.
4. We have the ability to split SOO games, International games, Finals games & NRL round games.

So why should we be getting anything less than fumbleball gets (excluding the negotiator) ?
Afl coverage = three hours (live), RL Two. That's a key difference.
Ad's every goal compared to every try, is also a difference.
Longer half time plus the two quater times. All adds up unfortunately.

Not to say we dont deserve far more than we currently get, but the AFL has a few key advantages when comparing the actual games
 

Raiderdave

First Grade
Messages
7,990
you dont get it............have NFI.

they arent ready because they're not going to compete for a premiership this year? is this your reasoning?

you expect a team to be dropped in an expansion market and left to fend for themselves? is this your definition of ready too? the task of introducing a new club into a new market is a long-term process.

we've been aware for years of the AFL's concrete plans to introduce new teams. the case with the NRL is still speculative. there is risk in any new market expansion for any business in any industry. funding is required for any start-up and growth in a new market, it doesnt matter what you're selling. the AFL have completed a whole lot of lead-up work. they have approached it systematically in both cases, in an attempt to make it a success. they have sold their rights off the back of this.

in contrast, expecting the same windfall for a NRL half-arsed new market expansion project, within the uncertainty that the game still currently experiences? with a formation of an IC which is still maintaining the politiking that goes on in the current administration? f**king ludicrous!

mate, id love for rugby league to get there with it. it shouldve proactively worked towards it properly several years ago. but the BS in the game has held it back. simply putting together a reactionary & hastily-prepared project in time for the next rights and not doing the essential years of groundwork to ensure the success in the new market wont benefit the team or the game down the track.

Look at it objectively.

I will when you do
the AFL teams will be abject failures long past this year ...even with eventual onfield success ... they will need AFL assistance for decades
so how is that anything to gloat about :?

the last NRL expansion team the Titans ..albeit in our backyard.. have been quite succesfull.. hardly hasty ... hardly half @ssed
&
the next 2 teams .. one in the heartland & one in Perth .. will be as well planned out & succesful as the Titans have been
& won't .. unlike the 2 new AFL teams .. be an embarrasment to their code.
 

Raiderdave

First Grade
Messages
7,990
Afl coverage = three hours (live), RL Two. That's a key difference.
Ad's every goal compared to every try, is also a difference.
Longer half time plus the two quater times. All adds up unfortunately.

Not to say we dont deserve far more than we currently get, but the AFL has a few key advantages when comparing the actual games

the bottom 2 points .. equal the top point
thats why their games go for longer

& its an overstated advantage
.... if no one in NSW & QLD are watching AFL .. wether its 3 hours , or 10
then merchants are not getting their product exposed to 63% of the advertising market in Australia

2 hours in NSW & QLD .. is equal to 3 Hours in the rest of the country
 

Quidgybo

Bench
Messages
3,054
On the point of being impossible to do a good deal without Fox, I note that 7 paid $475m for four AFL game's and claim to be still in the NRL hunt.

Fine, perhaps none of the FTA networks are willing to pay the same as Foxtel is for AFL (in the region of $600m). But with three stations in the mix, the asking price looks a lot more palatable if spread across all three networks. 3 games each for $340m each? There's the magic billion.

Perhaps Seven only take two because they already have the AFL and Nine take four. Either way, again there's the magic billion even before Origin and online rights. Perhaps all nine games on FTA is a long shot but there are certainly plenty of scenarios where Fox could see a lot less of the action (eg. only two matches) without the game suffering financially.

Leigh.
 

Quidgybo

Bench
Messages
3,054
Is every AFL game live in their new deal?
Every game is live, without ads, and potentially HD on *pay*. None of the traditional AFL markets gets all four FTA games live, but which are live and which delayed varies from market to market (either because of timezone or to act as a high rating lead into the News). I think NSW and QLD may be getting all four FTA games live on the secondary digital channels (ie. there being no advantage in delaying games to lead into the News in low ratings states)

Leigh.
 

Raiderdave

First Grade
Messages
7,990
That's my point, FTA do whatever they like, an earlier suggestion to move all games to them is nothing short of ridiculous.

How long would it be before we would be back to gettting one hour highlight packages passed of as televised games.

The same set up as the AFL with every game on fox would be awesome, although would want the simulcast games to be the FTA live games so they are not ruined by countless ads.

Yeah

they'd pay hundreds of millions & then .... not show it
good one :crazy::crazy:
 

Doug2234

First Grade
Messages
6,848
Im hoping Fox pay the same for ALL NRL games live and simulcast with FTA. no ads and in HD.. cant go wrong..
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
they won't

didn't last time and will use the same excuse next time

the only way they would is if every RL fans cancelled before the rights were done
 

_Johnsy

Referee
Messages
28,369
Everything correct except for point 2.

Unless we add 2 more teams they will have more games than us ( even if we include rep games)

Incorrect mate, they have the additional burden of a bye, which plays havoc with the draw, when each team receives 2 this year.

AFL = 187 regular season games this year (excluding finals)
NRL = 192 Regular season games this year (excluding finals)
League rep games = 3 SOO, 1 City V Country, 1 mid season test match, then add 4 nations tournament.
 
Messages
21,880
Incorrect mate, they have the additional burden of a bye, which plays havoc with the draw, when each team receives 2 this year.

AFL = 187 regular season games this year (excluding finals)
NRL = 192 Regular season games this year (excluding finals)
League rep games = 3 SOO, 1 City V Country, 1 mid season test match, then add 4 nations tournament.


Next year they have the GWS joining , so no more bye.

even if they stick to a 22 round season they will have more games.

22 x 9 = 198

but from what I understand they are looking likely to go with a 24 round season.

so 24 x 9 = 216.
 

_Johnsy

Referee
Messages
28,369
Next year they have the GWS joining , so no more bye.

even if they stick to a 22 round season they will have more games.

22 x 9 = 198

but from what I understand they are looking likely to go with a 24 round season.

so 24 x 9 = 216.

Apologies totally forgot about GWS those numbers are on 2011.
If they go with the 22 round season, we include all rep games each season, we would still have more games than them.

If the NRL were smart they would advise during negotiations that there will be 2 additional teams in 2013.
 

Mong

Post Whore
Messages
55,692
Yeah

they'd pay hundreds of millions & then .... not show it
good one :crazy::crazy:

It was worst case scenario, it's happened before.

At present they are content to ruin games by loading them up with countless ads making it near impossible to watch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top