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.

Goddo

Bench
Messages
4,257
I was expecting $850m, but I think it will be closer to $950m after seeing how much Telstra paid for AFL.
 

bobmar28

Bench
Messages
4,304
If all 3 FTA stations really do want a piece of RL action, and if they all offer a decent deal, FOX may have no choice then to go record deal for the NRL.

Although I can't imagine one FTA going for the lot. But spread over the 3 - various nights on different stations, Origin, Test, Finals etc broken up, maybe Fox will be left with nothing.

That.s my dream anyway. I hate paying to watch sports.


But the question is, what is a comparable deal to the AFL? The AFL DOES cost more to run then the NRL. Extra teams and running costs, etc etc etc.

So does the NRL actually need to be close to have a similar % if you catch my drift?


So, the equation is:

(AFL / NRL) x telecast rights,sponsers etc / teams, running costs, marketing, player and Offical payments etc = %(?)


For instance, an $800m deal for NRL may be equal to AFL deal after the above equation is applied.

A $900m deal might actually be ahead if you catch my drift.


Maybe the NRL need $1.1B to match if you all can see my point.


And maybe, just maybe, I'm way off the mark - no pun intended...or was it? - but until the mathematicians here can apply the necessary equation, we'll never know.

Considering the higher costs of running an AFL team one billion would probably put us way ahead of them.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,955
If all 3 FTA stations really do want a piece of RL action, and if they all offer a decent deal, FOX may have no choice then to go record deal for the NRL.

Although I can't imagine one FTA going for the lot. But spread over the 3 - various nights on different stations, Origin, Test, Finals etc broken up, maybe Fox will be left with nothing.

That.s my dream anyway. I hate paying to watch sports.


But the question is, what is a comparable deal to the AFL? The AFL DOES cost more to run then the NRL. Extra teams and running costs, etc etc etc.

So does the NRL actually need to be close to have a similar % if you catch my drift?


So, the equation is:

(AFL / NRL) x telecast rights,sponsers etc / teams, running costs, marketing, player and Offical payments etc = %(?)


For instance, an $800m deal for NRL may be equal to AFL deal after the above equation is applied.

A $900m deal might actually be ahead if you catch my drift.


Maybe the NRL need $1.1B to match if you all can see my point.


And maybe, just maybe, I'm way off the mark - no pun intended...or was it? - but until the mathematicians here can apply the necessary equation, we'll never know.

You make a good point. AFL has larger team squads, apparently more admin costs for some reason, and at least 2 money pits in GC and GWS (not including the Melbourne teams on deaths door) draining money.

We need to be at a point where we can exceed or match player salaries and get on TV nationally. That's the goal, not raw $.
 

BunniesMan

Immortal
Messages
33,700
Considering the higher costs of running an AFL team one billion would probably put us way ahead of them.
No...considering their teams have a shitload more income coming from memberships and crowds. Taking into account their advantages in income from that, and their higher costs, it probably evens out. We need 1.25 to match them. Getting 20% less would not put us on the same level financially in any way shape or form.
 

Quidgybo

Bench
Messages
3,054
So, the equation is:

(AFL / NRL) x telecast rights,sponsers etc / teams, running costs, marketing, player and Offical payments etc = %(?)
I agree with your general premise, but the equation is not that simple. Only some things are less expensive in the NRL, for example player wages due to the smaller squad sizes. But many costs are directly comparable such as marketing and development. If the AFL can afford to spend $100m on development and we can only afford to spend $60m then we're at a massive disadvantage over the long term.

But none of this changes the point that the NRL rates better and so it should be able to command more in absolute terms regardless of how its costs compare to the competition. We might be able to run on less but that's not relevant to how much we're worth.

Leigh.
 
Last edited:

BDGS

Bench
Messages
4,102
You make a good point. AFL has larger team squads, apparently more admin costs for some reason, and at least 2 money pits in GC and GWS (not including the Melbourne teams on deaths door) draining money.

We need to be at a point where we can exceed or match player salaries and get on TV nationally. That's the goal, not raw $.

and Port power or whatever their name is too.
 

BDGS

Bench
Messages
4,102
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...mmission-is-getting-there-20110430-1e1z5.html

ARL chairman John Chalk yesterday broke his silence on the stalled negotiations for the independent commission as yet another supposed new dawn for rugby league goes by today without the new governing body being in place.
News Ltd had trumpeted today as being the day it would walk away from its joint ownership of the sport, but the independent commission is still not ready because the media giant, the ARL, the QRL and the NRL clubs have not been able to agree on several key issues.
Chalk said he was keen to see people with rugby league in their blood on the commission, not necessarily captains of industry.

''There are three lots of lawyers in this and there's a lot of contracts to be dissolved,'' he said. ''There's a myriad of companies involved that need to be taken out of the equation and the lawyers have been working on it every day for three months. The rest of it is pretty much on track. The devil is in the detail.
''We've only got one shot at it and we've got to get it right.''
When asked about the stumbling blocks, such as the demand for News to sign a non-compete clause, he said they were ''toing and froing'' on the issues with the media group.
''At the moment, it's lawyers at 40 paces. It's been, at times, frustrating. But we're getting there. To me it [News's April 30 deadline] was always going to be a problem.
''We've got consensus on people and then those people need to accept positions. I certainly want them to have a feeling for sport and know about sport. They should have a feeling for rugby league and its tribalism. There's a lot of emotion involved in sport. I imagine some of the people who were approached were quite strange. They may be captains of industry, but they love the arts and sciences - we're people who run around the grass in coloured shirts and socks and footballs in our hands colliding with one another. I want people who like rugby league and are passionate about it. I don't particularly care which state they come from.''
NRL boss David Gallop said the process of forming the independent commission was frustrating for everyone, including the fans.
''Everyone's intensely interested in it, but it's important that the current issues in the game are dealt with without the restructure being a distraction,'' Gallop said. ''I think we've done a pretty reasonable job of that over the past year or so. It's been a difficult time to be involved in the administration. The good news is that the commission is the right move for the game, it's just a matter of getting all the pieces of the jigsaw together.
''It's obviously got a bit of a way to go. It's not a matter of a week away. It's a work in progress. There is a raft of contractual arrangements. Some of which are closer to completed than others. And then the dissolution of the existing bodies and then hopefully we can hit the ground running and get those eight people across all structures and strategic plans. There will be a big induction process for the eight commissioners and we are already doing some planning for that.
''We've helped put together some material for prospective commissioners but beyond that we will get involved with the contractual documents as they get done. But beyond that, it is really a matter between the ARL and News Ltd. I have a lot of people talk to me about a lot of issues but I'm not directly involved in sitting down to negotiate those issues. We have a process ready to go with external experts like Colin Smith and the group of club CEOs, so that everyone is consulted along the way.''
Former Brisbane international Shane Webcke said rugby league had always suffered from people in power wanting to preserve their spots.
''I think a big part of the reason this independent commission has been hard to get together is because of the vested interests and the long-term interests of a lot of people,'' he said. ''And the fact they want the independent commission is a credit to them because the people involved have set themselves up around the income and lifestyle derived from their positions in rugby league.
''I understand that [to relinquish power in such a circumstance is hard], but that is the challenge. People say, 'Put the game first', but if you are relying on the game to determine your income and lifestyle it would be hard to follow the call to put the game first. That's human nature.
''But it is important to get it across the line, all of the great things we've talked about [that the independent commission could bring] will drip away unless rugby league can get up and stretch it's legs.
''I've read with interest that a bloke like John Quayle - and I am talking as a Queenslander who grew up in the Quayle-Ken Arthurson era - is not guaranteed a place. If you talk to those people who know, John Quayle is unquestionably one of the great administrators in Australian sport and he also ranks highly around the world [through his involvement in the Olympic movement]. So, why isn't he an automatic selection for the commission? I don't get that.''
 

BDGS

Bench
Messages
4,102
Lots of people saying they will fold if they dont move to Adelaide oval. Vote is on tonight whether to spend the 550m of SA tax payers money on it.

I read a story yesterday that said if they move to Adelaide Oval it could spell the end for Port as well.
 

bdiddy10304

Juniors
Messages
6
I'd give it some credence as 3AW are owned by Fairfax and Channel 10 and Fairfax have a bit of a thing going on at the moment...
 

beave

Coach
Messages
15,652
So they will continue being the 3rd rate channel then......... If they don't get decent programming then they won't make any $$$ whatsoever.
 

nrlnrl

First Grade
Messages
6,861
As mentioned previously in this & other threads, changes will be noticed in One HD's programming from next Monday - mainly the night time shows on weekdays. More stuff like they're already using on Tuesdays - aimed at 25-54 year old males from what I read.

It's a business decision to adjust from being purely a sports channel ( that was rating poorly & spending too much money ), not a conspiracy to "make things easier for Fox Sports" as suggested by some.

I think the 2 NRL shows will stay, but I suppose we'll find out next week what their future holds....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top