Trying to understand the mess - the NRL stakeholders

[Goddo]

Reading through a few posts I thought it might be an idea to start one examining the tangled mess that is the NRL corporate relationships.

We all talk of the TV deal and restructuring the game, but who are the powers that be that really decide this stuff? Who are the major stakeholders in the NRL these days and what exactly is their current relationship to the NRL and their intentions?

The ones that came to mind were
PBL - Channel 9 free to air, part owner
News Corp part owner- Fox Sports pay TV, Daily Telegraph (wtf is their angle?)
Telstra - Online content, monopoly in telecommunications advertising, part owner. Their new CEO is currently reviewing their relationship with the NRL
Harvey Norman - Major advertising dollars
Toyota - Major advertising dollars
Bunderberg Rum
Coca Cola
AAMI

Are these companies actually good for the NRL, protecting it? What are they likely to do at the next Media deal 2013?

How do we get more parties involved to protect the game from these interests?

 

[Quidgybo]

A couple of corrections, PBL Media and Telstra are not part of owners of the NRL - they are strictly media partners and sponsors. If you're only talking corporate then you've missed at least two stakeholders...

The ARL - half owner of the NRL, governing body of the game in Australia (and in turn consisting of multiple stakeholders - NSWRL, QRL, CRL)
The Clubs - The identities that the majority of the fanbase affiliates with over the long term

And given that anywhere up to 10% of the NRL's television income comes from New Zealand (over $8m per season) and a significant minority of players are drawn from there, you could probably throw in...

Sky Television New Zealand - television rights holder
NZRL - governing body of the game in New Zealand

Beyond corporate partners that there is at least two other very important stakeholders...

The Players - the providers of the on field entertainment (and some of the off field too) and the game's biggest single cost
The Fans - the people who pay the bills (either directly at the gate or thru buying sponsors products)

Leigh.

 

[Goddo]

Wow, the New Zealand market is worth that much? How is a second Kiwi team not firmly on the agenda and everyone is talking Perth, Central Coast, Brisbane and even PNG?

What I'm sort of interested in is the corporates and their sometimes dodgy relationships with the game. I thought PBL, News Corp and telstra were all jointly half owners of the game through a joint investment. Thats where it is a bit strange. everyone thinks News 1/2 owns the game but they don't.

 

[Quidgybo]

News Ltd *do* own 50% of the NRL. The other 50% is owned by the ARL.

Foxtel is jointly owned by Telstra (50%), News Ltd (25%) and Consolidated Media Holdings (25%).

Fox Sports is jointly owned by News Ltd (50%) and Consolidated Media Holdings (50%).

Leigh.

 

[Quidgybo]

Wow, the New Zealand market is worth that much? How is a second Kiwi team not firmly on the agenda and everyone is talking Perth, Central Coast, Brisbane and even PNG?

New Zealand is easily the NRL's third biggest market after NSW and Queensland. That is all too quickly forgotten when discussion turns to how we can increase revenue and the value of our television rights in 2013.

Leigh

 

[Goddo]

I am happy to say after reading that I am all for Cronulla Relocating to Wellington or the introduction of the Orcas at the next TV deal now. Screw the Bears.

 

[Bastard Squad]

I am happy to say after reading that post that I am all for StGeorge-illawarra relocating to another planet without air or water as long as they take their supporters with them.

 

[sharko]

New Zealand can barely cope with the Warriors as it is.
They are a one team town but their supporters abandon them in droves as soon as the going gets hot.
Warriors are massive under achievers, their crowds for their circumstance are dreadful, they should be like the Broncos crowds, and their finacial situation remains parlous without the support of a multi millionaire.

New Zealand do not deserve a another team, if they want watch league, which they seem to, thenthey can watch additional Australian teams.

 

[Goddo]

New Zealand can barely cope with the Warriors as it is.
They are a one team town but their supporters abandon them in droves as soon as the going gets hot.
Warriors are massive under achievers, their crowds for their circumstance are dreadful, they should be like the Broncos crowds, and their finacial situation remains parlous without the support of a multi millionaire.

New Zealand do not deserve a another team, if they want watch league, which they seem to, thenthey can watch additional Australian teams.

Don't you think a second team would help though? two teams competing against each other and the Australian teams.
They are huge under achievers. So are Canberra. But they love the rugby codes, and the super 14s new team will be australian, so maybe expansion in the NRL isn't crazy.
Same could be said of any teams crowds if they don't perform.

 

[_Johnsy]

To simplify it, NRL = news Ltd.

 

[MTK]

Don't you think a second team would help though? two teams competing against each other and the Australian teams.

By that argument, we ought to base a second team in the Shire... Or a second Melbourne team...?? :?

The NZ TV dollars may equal $8mil (I've no idea), but adding a second team isn't going to double it... probably not even increase the value by much at all.

 

[Rockin Ronny]

News Ltd *do* own 50% of the NRL. The other 50% is owned by the ARL.

Foxtel is jointly owned by Telstra (50%), News Ltd (25%) and Consolidated Media Holdings (25%).

Fox Sports is jointly owned by News Ltd (50%) and Consolidated Media Holdings (50%).

Leigh.

Don't forget David Gallop, former legal counsel/employee of News Limited. He was given the CEO job of the NRL, despite NO previous management experience and achieved three major things:

• Ensured that News Limited, Foxtel etc received a remarkably cheap TV rights deal meaning the game directly costing the game significant funding;
• Ensured News Limited take minimum $10 million per annum out of the game; and
• Ensured that the Bears have been excluded from top level rugby league for 10 years.

 

[Goddo]

Don't forget David Gallop, former legal counsel/employee of News Limited. He was given the CEO job of the NRL, despite NO previous management experience and achieved three major things:

• Ensured that News Limited, Foxtel etc received a remarkably cheap TV rights deal meaning the game directly costing the game significant funding;
• Ensured News Limited take minimum $10 million per annum out of the game; and
• Ensured that the Bears have been excluded from top level rugby league for 10 years.

I really really hate that "pay them back for super league" thing. They f*cked the game over big time and we pay an anual fee for the experience.

 

[MTK]

I really really hate that "pay them back for super league" thing. They f*cked the game over big time and we pay an anual fee for the experience.

There was a benefit to the whole exercise; News did save us from the unprofessional, old school cronyism of the ARL. The game has had a major shake-up and entry into the professional era.
Of course, it is a tragedy that it unfolded the way it did - it really end up costing a lot (just ask Bears and Souths (for a while) fans)

 

[Goddo]

There was a benefit to the whole exercise; News did save us from the unprofessional, old school cronyism of the ARL. The game has had a major shake-up and entry into the professional era.
Of course, it is a tragedy that it unfolded the way it did - it really end up costing a lot (just ask Bears and Souths (for a while) fans)

Saved your mob too.

 

[adamkungl]

There was a benefit to the whole exercise; News did save us from the unprofessional, old school cronyism of the ARL. The game has had a major shake-up and entry into the professional era.
Of course, it is a tragedy that it unfolded the way it did - it really end up costing a lot (just ask Bears and Souths (for a while) fans)

Under News' watch we've seen the game slowly struggle back to where the ARL already had it in 95... and its not even really there yet. Still no team in Perth. The 3rd SE QLD team that everyone is calling for already existed back then. And hey, so did the Bears. A 20 team comp may not have been sustained. Chances are the Crushers and Wests (and probably another couple of Sydney teams) would have died in the arse anyway. Better than the backstabbing, underhanded ways of the News Rugby League.

 

[Dogs Of War]

By that argument, we ought to base a second team in the Shire... Or a second Melbourne team...?? :?

The NZ TV dollars may equal $8mil (I've no idea), but adding a second team isn't going to double it... probably not even increase the value by much at all.

It may deliver one team usually in contention for the eight. So interest remains high in NZ. The main problem with Wellington is the limited night matches available, though you could always have one of the NZ teams playing each week at 2pm NZ time Sunday (so midday Sunday here), and thus for NZ TV (which should be good for an increase in the rights).

It's one of those areas that would benefit from a second team, that could in itself see more juniors involved in the game, and also break the stranglehold that Union has over there, just by having a consistent timeslot (2pm NZ time always a NZ team on the TV), and as stated, usually one of the teams playing good footy.

 

[ona2001]

It may deliver one team usually in contention for the eight. So interest remains high in NZ. The main problem with Wellington is the limited night matches available, though you could always have one of the NZ teams playing each week at 2pm NZ time Sunday (so midday Sunday here), and thus for NZ TV (which should be good for an increase in the rights).

It's one of those areas that would benefit from a second team, that could in itself see more juniors involved in the game, and also break the stranglehold that Union has over there, just by having a consistent timeslot (2pm NZ time always a NZ team on the TV), and as stated, usually one of the teams playing good footy.

Good idea. The current disquiet over rugby's restrictive rules gives the NRL a great chance to capitalise. Christchurch is a better bet IMO than Wellington; twice the size (about the same as Canberra) with a well-loved ground to play at.

Either way the Warriors need to schedule games in Wellington and the south island a lot more if the game's going to raise its profile.

 

[Western_Eel]

I really really hate that "pay them back for super league" thing. They f*cked the game over big time and we pay an annual fee for the experience.

Anyone that owns the nrl will take an annual fee, if there was no profit no one would own it then there would be no game, the arl did the same thing when they owned it, i know you all hate news but there is no difference between the arl and news ltd, infact they have actually kept teams alive when they were struggling

 

[Dogs Of War]

Good idea. The current disquiet over rugby's restrictive rules gives the NRL a great chance to capitalise. Christchurch is a better bet IMO than Wellington; twice the size (about the same as Canberra) with a well-loved ground to play at.

Either way the Warriors need to schedule games in Wellington and the south island a lot more if the game's going to raise its profile.

Would like to see if a 2nd team was put in, that they take 2/3 games to other areas in NZ to help build the interest in the game.

Geez, Warriors should be doing that now. 1 in Wellington, 1 in Christchurch. The NRL should underwrite these events (to get rid of the risk), as it will help more people embrace the game.

Also think the Warriors should play every home game on a Sunday, they help the TV viewing back in Australia, as well as give a certainty most weekends on when you can watch them. Nights just aren't on for the Warrirors. Sometimes you have to put growing the game ahead of whats good for TV.