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.

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
Could anyone imagine Demetriou saying "We don't expect as much as NRL because we're ratings poison in Sydney and Brisbane"? It's just unbelievable Gallop would say something so stupid before negotiations.

not really

he has said on radio that forcing 9 to show games at a good time in Melbourne would devalue the rights because it would rate poorly

the AFL rates sh*t in Sydney but say it adds value to their rights

there are so many contradictions Gallop makes. people have pointed out the expansion one a few times in this thread

we've also had gems like this http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/schedule-a-big-selling-point-for-nrl-20091119-iots.html

The NRL says it's willing to take a pay hit on its new television rights agreement if it means they can have a fixed calendar of matches.

even Massoud talks us up more than Gallop

Why NRL deserves bumper TV deal


it seems he has completely ignored this http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/528801

Clubs fear Gallop has sold the game short
SMH
Last updated 09:50 11/07/2008

NRL chief executive David Gallop and Hollywood actor Russell Crowe kicked back and took a long drag on the peace pipe yesterday but serious concerns remain about comments from the game's leading official that the AFL deserves its superior broadcast deal.

Gallop responded to the South Sydney owner's criticism of the game's $500 million television rights agreement compared to the AFL's $780 million deal by highlighting that the rival code offered bigger crowds in more capital cities and generated more advertising revenue because it was a longer game.

Many of the NRL's stakeholders were bewildered by those statements, with Rugby League Players Association chief executive Matt Rodwell claiming Gallop should be more "aggressive" in promoting the code. "I thought the comments were very defensive," Rodwell said. "You'd love to see the chief executive of the NRL being more aggressive and making the point we are the No.1 television sport in the country in terms of ratings. When it comes to taking on the AFL next time, I'd like to see him push that the NRL is the game people watch the most on TV.

"He's the leader of the game, and he's entitled to his opinion. [But] the game's in a lot stronger bargaining position than what's often perceived."

One club chief executive, who asked not to be named, echoed a familiar sentiment when he said: "It's disturbing when the man who runs the game is talking it down to justify how bad our current television deal is. It certainly makes it difficult for him to enter the next negotiation process from any position of strength."

Indeed, the AFL hit the jackpot at the end of 2005 when Channel Seven paid a whopping $780 million for the rights over five years - or $156 million a season.

Apologists for rugby league's deal - worth around $85 million a season over six years - often point out that it was a deal forced by the hand of Channel Nine owner Kerry Packer on his death bed.

"There were two broadcasting heavyweights who drove up the price back then," St George Illawarra chief executive Peter Doust said yesterday.

Since then, the deals of the two major football codes have been inexorably compared against each other. When Crowe described league as "the poor cousin" of Australian sport on Triple M on Monday night, it attracted a strong rebuke from the NRL.

"The AFL has teams in more states and draws crowds more than twice the size of ours," Gallop said in a statement. "Television is sold on the basis of five capital city audiences and we do not have that footprint. It also isn't a solution for us to simply throw a team in those areas where we have limited interest in our code.
Ad Feedback

"Also, the AFL has an extra game on free to air; its games go for 20 per cent longer than a league game and (it follows that they) allow for greater advertising revenue."

Broncos chief executive Bruno Cullen said he agreed with Gallop that the AFL commands more from its broadcast deal - but that itself was proof it was time for the NRL to consider becoming a national competition.

"We need to seriously investigate in the next five to 10 years how we go about placing teams in Adelaide and Perth," Cullen said.

"If we don't, the restrictions are always going to be there because we aren't a national competition.

"I agree with David that AFL can command more because it goes into more capital cities. We need to start doing the same."

That was irrelevant, another CEO said on condition of anonymity: "We might not have geographic dominance, but we have demographic dominance. We will dominate the eastern seaboard, and in the next 20 years that's all that matters."

Asked if he had devalued the NRL's bargaining power for the next round of broadcast negotiations after admitting the AFL was the number one football code, Gallop said: "I was just stating the facts, well-established facts. I can't see how stating reality is a problem. I fully expect by 2012 when the rights are up again for the NRL to be in a very strong position."

As for his relationship with the Oscar winner, Gallop said: "Russell and I have smoked the peace pipe today. He's got a big investment in the game and deserves his say as much as anyone."

get rid of him ASAP
 

BIKER_DRAGON

Juniors
Messages
1,894
Wille is over the top excited too.

willie.jpg
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
the players need to back up their talk

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23785192-10389,00.html

Darren Lockyer said:
In 2005, the NRL re-signed with Nine (all free-to-air games) and Fox Sports (pay) until the end of 2012 for a reported total of $500 million over six years. That was a long time to sign away the game's best income stream.

When plenty of people voiced that opinion at the time, the NRL responded by saying it had a 65 per cent increase in the game's existing payments from TV.

The Players' Association did its best to have an input into those negotiations in 2005 without, as I understand it, much of a hearing from the NRL.

Darren Lockyer said:
The players need to have an observer on the next negotiations and I can't see why the best price wouldn't be achieved by selling the games in three packages – NRL, State of Origin and Test matches.
 

Brutus

Referee
Messages
26,354
He's just stating facts though. Facts that everyone knows and aren't in dispute.

AFL broadcasts do go for longer, and they have got a higher five capital city rating than league. We can stick our heads in the sand about those things and their effect on whether our TV rights deal can get as high, or we can just be honest...

Do you realise that AFL rates appallingly where about half the Aussie population lives? An extra hour of a broadcast in these areas equates to another hour of appalling ratings. Gallop should be making light of this.

And the only reason they have a five capital city rating is because Gallop refuses to grow a set by ensuring decent coverage in melbourne. Doing some groundwork in Perth with the aim of re-establishing a team there would also help the TV deal down the track.

These are facts that can be easily argued against.

Gallop is a disgrace for bringing this up again. They are obviously still talking us down.

Imagine how much the cricket mob could get from a TV deal with 5 day tests!!!!!! Stupid arguement.

I would love to see Roy Masters and David Gallop go one-on-one in a proper debate about this very important issue.
 
Last edited:

E.T.D

Juniors
Messages
103
You can't get away from the fact that AFL has 35-40 minutes per game dedicated to advertising whereas an NRL game is pushing to get 20 minutes worth of advertising per telecast.

Both codes should still get a nice boost to their TV rights the next time around, but with the AFL negotiation due to be complete by year's end, we'll get a good idea of the media landscape by the time the NRL starts their negotiations.

I think the AFL's rights will go from $156m per year to $200m per year. The NRL's rights will probably go from $83m per year to $130m.
 

Cletus

First Grade
Messages
7,171
You can't get away from the fact that AFL has 35-40 minutes per game dedicated to advertising whereas an NRL game is pushing to get 20 minutes worth of advertising per telecast.

Both codes should still get a nice boost to their TV rights the next time around, but with the AFL negotiation due to be complete by year's end, we'll get a good idea of the media landscape by the time the NRL starts their negotiations.

I think the AFL's rights will go from $156m per year to $200m per year. The NRL's rights will probably go from $83m per year to $130m.

True, but that doesn't matter for Paytv. But I'm sure Gallop will do his best to keep the costs down for Foxtel.
 

ParraEelsNRL

Referee
Messages
27,714
You can't get away from the fact that AFL has 35-40 minutes per game dedicated to advertising whereas an NRL game is pushing to get 20 minutes worth of advertising per telecast.

Easily fixed, stop the clock when a try is scored until the game kicks off again and stop the clock when the ball is out of play, it's dead time and they can put a quick 30 sec ad in or a pop up one.

The people running RL just couldn't be bothered with these little things that would help generate more money.

Both codes should still get a nice boost to their TV rights the next time around, but with the AFL negotiation due to be complete by year's end, we'll get a good idea of the media landscape by the time the NRL starts their negotiations.

We'll get screwed again.

I think the AFL's rights will go from $156m per year to $200m per year. The NRL's rights will probably go from $83m per year to $130m.

They don't deserve that much, I have no idea what we'll get.
 
Messages
15,664
You can't get away from the fact that AFL has 35-40 minutes per game dedicated to advertising whereas an NRL game is pushing to get 20 minutes worth of advertising per telecast.

I will ask the same question to you that the brains on BF couldnt answer.
Does it matter if a AFL game goes for 10 hrs if no one is watching in the two of the three biggest viewing regions?
 

m0nty

Juniors
Messages
633
Population of Australia = 21 million

Population of those 5 smog filled sh*t locations called capital cities = 11 million

Population of the lucky rural and regional areas = 10 million.

AFL is only in the 5 sh*t locations.

League is in both.

So tell me, how is AFL national and League isn't???????

Actually, Sydney (4.2M), Melbourne (3.8M), Brisbane (1.9M), Perth (1.5M) and Adelaide (1.1M) adds up to 12.5 million.

NSW rural (2.3M), ACT (0.3M) and Queensland rural (2.3M) only adds up to 4.9M. League can't claim the other rural areas.
 

m0nty

Juniors
Messages
633
One thing bugs me about that PDF that was posted on page 2.

If the overall revenue for commercial TV networks dropped by 4.4% in 2009, where is this extra money for increased footy TV rights going to come from?
 

ibeme

First Grade
Messages
6,904
One thing bugs me about that PDF that was posted on page 2.

If the overall revenue for commercial TV networks dropped by 4.4% in 2009, where is this extra money for increased footy TV rights going to come from?

They'll be pumping more in to secure quality and spend less on the rest. Other sports should be concerned.
 

Borat.

Juniors
Messages
1,352
Actually, Sydney (4.2M), Melbourne (3.8M), Brisbane (1.9M), Perth (1.5M) and Adelaide (1.1M) adds up to 12.5 million.

NSW rural (2.3M), ACT (0.3M) and Queensland rural (2.3M) only adds up to 4.9M. League can't claim the other rural areas.

yes we can!
 

TheRam

Coach
Messages
13,907
Good onya El Diablo you are spot on mate. Whatever the AFL get, we should get equal if not more. Gallop unfortunately is working for the AFL not for the NRL. My fear is that even the IC will not fix this though because he is still the one that will be negotiating the deal anyway.

Bartman you are a total goose on this one. Sorry, but successful businesses don't have people like Gallop in anyway, shape or form, minimizing their product prior to negotiation time.

Think about for a second champ, when was the last time you heard an exec of Pepsi come out and say, "we sell our product cheaper because Coke is better or has a greater market share then us"? Even if it is or were true, you just never ever say it, privately, let alone PUBLICALLY...Gallop you fu*king idiot!!!
 

typicalfan

Coach
Messages
15,488
Actually, Sydney (4.2M), Melbourne (3.8M), Brisbane (1.9M), Perth (1.5M) and Adelaide (1.1M) adds up to 12.5 million.

NSW rural (2.3M), ACT (0.3M) and Queensland rural (2.3M) only adds up to 4.9M. League can't claim the other rural areas.
We can't claim Perth or Adelaide but AFL can't claim rural QLD or the ACT which is a larger population pool and only minimal areas of NSW rural because they can't count Newcastle or Wollongong which is the vast majority of the population in rural NSW.


So we can claim 14.8 million at least whereas AFL can claim the 12.5 you mentioned really and thats about it.

If we add to that the SOO ratings that may be sold seperately next time around the NRL should be doing well.
 

m0nty

Juniors
Messages
633
We can't claim Perth or Adelaide but AFL can't claim rural QLD or the ACT which is a larger population pool and only minimal areas of NSW rural because they can't count Newcastle or Wollongong which is the vast majority of the population in rural NSW.


So we can claim 14.8 million at least whereas AFL can claim the 12.5 you mentioned really and thats about it.

If we add to that the SOO ratings that may be sold seperately next time around the NRL should be doing well.
Ah yes, but there's also Vic rural, SA rural, WA rural and Tasmania as well. It's about even when you get down to it.
 

Ashman

Juniors
Messages
38
Actually, Sydney (4.2M), Melbourne (3.8M), Brisbane (1.9M), Perth (1.5M) and Adelaide (1.1M) adds up to 12.5 million.

NSW rural (2.3M), ACT (0.3M) and Queensland rural (2.3M) only adds up to 4.9M. League can't claim the other rural areas.

Around 40% of NSW residents live outside of Sydney and 60% of Queensland live outside of Brisbane. Over 70% of Victora, SA and WA population live in their respective capital cities.

There is nearly a 2 million people difference when comparing NRL and AFL regional areas. So its not as even as you think.

That is why State of Origin is such a juggernaut and should be valued as such in the next TV deal. It is a dead set goldmine for Rugby League thanks to its combined audience with capital and regional viewers.
 

fourplay

Juniors
Messages
2,237
When David Gallop sat down for that apparent dinner with David Leckie I wonder if he had a list prepared of why the AFL should get more money?

It's like a real estate agent pointing out that his competitors house down the street is much better than the one he is selling.

Anyway I heard that the NRL has outsourced the negotiations this time around to a 3rd party firm.. is that true? Please tell me it is.. Gallop should be no where near the negotiation table.
 

m0nty

Juniors
Messages
633
Vic rural 1.4M, SA rural 0.4M, WA rural 0.6M and Tasmania 0.5M.

So let's do the sums. We'll call NT a draw.

Sydney 4.2M, Brisbane 1.9M, NSW rural 2.3M, ACT 0.3M and Queensland rural 2.3M = 11M.

Melbourne 3.8M, Perth 1.5M, Adelaide 1.1M, Vic rural 1.4M, SA rural 0.4M, WA rural 0.6M and Tasmania 0.5M = 9.3M.

Given that the AFL has encroached on NRL territories far more in TV terms than the NRL has in AFL territories, that makes up for the discrepancy and gives you the roughly equivalent Australian viewership figures for both codes as per the big study that came out late last year. In other words, because the AFL has forced the networks to show its product on FTA and the NRL hasn't sacked up to Nine in Melbourne.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top