TV rights thread part 4

[Parra]

bullshit

That's it? They'd keep those rights, even if they lost the contract? Because you just think they would?

Hardly matters now, but it is a strange assertion you are making.

 

[El Diablo]

There will always be an apologist like you to stick up for Channel 9. Here's a tip - they don't need you.

Rugby League doesn't need some halfwit yawnion idiot like you

 

[El Diablo]

That's it? They'd keep those rights, even if they lost the contract? Because you just think they would?

Hardly matters now, but it is a strange assertion you are making.

it's not an assertion

it's a f**king fact

 

[Parra]

Rugby League doesn't need some halfwit yawnion idiot like you

Funny how you presume to speak on behalf of an entire code just because you like it. And how you feel the need to disparage things you don't.

Back your opinions and stop hiding behind juvenile insults and pretending to speak for a collective.

 

[dogslife]

I'm not holding my breath that anything's going to change in 5 years anyway. Between them 9 and Fox will probably still offer the most money, the IC's eyes will light up and the fans will be f**ked over for another 5 years

 

[Parra]

it's not an assertion

it's a f**king fact

How would the person asserting those rights even know when to do it? They are not party to the contract and would have no rights to even see it. The only reason we even know the time that these contracts run is because the entities involved choose to tell us. They could easily tell us and everyone else nothing at all. And they'd be well in their rights to do so.

 

[El Diablo]

Funny how you presume to speak on behalf of an entire code just because you like it. And how you feel the need to disparage things you don't.

Back your opinions and stop hiding behind juvenile insults and pretending to speak for a collective.

back them up?

have you been in a coma :crazy:

it's been posted a million times. even in the article posted today

and others http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/n...e-and-fox-sports/story-e6frfgbo-1226455264763

Crucially, Nine and Fox waived their "first and last" rights over the next broadcast bid, while News Limited (publisher of The Daily Telegraph agreed to waive similar rights that ran to 2027.

 

[Parra]

back them up?

have you been in a coma :crazy:

it's been posted a million times. even in the article posted today

and others http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/n...e-and-fox-sports/story-e6frfgbo-1226455264763

You are missing the point. If 10 had won this bid in 2012, News Ltd would have lost the F&L rights there and then anyway. As it stands, News win this bid, but had to forgo the F&L rights as part of the deal. Which is good. But if they failed in this current bid, they'd have no F&L rights anyway.

I am reading your comments as suggesting that even if 10 had won in 2012, News would retain F&L rights in future deals, even though they wouldn't be the current broadcaster.

 

[El Diablo]

You are missing the point. If 10 had won this bid in 2012, News Ltd would have lost the F&L rights there and then anyway. As it stands, News win this bid, but had to forgo the F&L rights as part of the deal. Which is good. But if they failed in this current bid, they'd have no F&L rights anyway.

I am reading your comments as suggesting that even if 10 had won in 2012, News would retain F&L rights in future deals, even though they wouldn't be the current broadcaster.

you really are stupid

Fox and 9 would have not lost first and last rights next bid if they failed to retain the NRL

9 had them till 2018 and Fox till 2027. they chose to give them up as the ARLC were going to go with Ten and that was the clincher that stopped them from deciding to do so

just like when 7 lost the AFL rights to 9 they retained the first and last rights for the next bid and won them when they matched Packer's $780 million bid

 

[thorson1987]

You are missing the point. If 10 had won this bid in 2012, News Ltd would have lost the F&L rights there and then anyway. As it stands, News win this bid, but had to forgo the F&L rights as part of the deal. Which is good. But if they failed in this current bid, they'd have no F&L rights anyway.

I am reading your comments as suggesting that even if 10 had won in 2012, News would retain F&L rights in future deals, even though they wouldn't be the current broadcaster.

And that is exactly what would have happened.

It was part of the deal for News LTD to get out of the game.

 

[Parra]

On the assumption that they continued to win each bid.

Why do you think that the details of any contract should be made available to a third party? If 10 won the rights this time how would News even know when the deal ends? Or what extension or get-out clauses exist? F&L rights are a boon for the incumbent and useless for anyone else.

 

[El Diablo]

wtf are you on about?

incumbent's don't get first and last rights automatically

you're making Bunniesderp look like Einstein

 

[OFFSET ALPINE]

Rubbish back @ you.

My girlfriend works for the Southport Sharks, they're genuinely well supported on the coast.

Total bullshit...you go to Sharks for a feed or a punt...and you have to see fifty irrelevant seagulls fighting over a potato chip (AFL training) if you eat out on the terrace.
No-one on the Coast even knows they exist - compared to Burleigh Bears,Southport Tigers,PBC,Keebra et al.
They are as irrelevant as Soccer...Coast is RL heartland.
Sadly the lame duck Gallop - a totally failed administrator - never lifted one finger in the past eight years to provide a simple NRL response to the insidious AUSKICK which infiltrated our schools unchallenged...
This virtual freebie AUSKICK has created a genuine and well-earned dribble of interest from the kids for what's known in the schools on the Coast as AFL...but NRL thrives despite the neglect from those dopes Gallop,Carr,QRL & CRL's Terry Quinn.

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

And that is exactly what would have happened.

It was part of the deal for News LTD to get out of the game.

For me, that is the most important part of this whole thing. Stuff the extra money... News were going to be exploiting league until 2027.

 

[Cumberland Throw]

Good point

We are still waiting for RL aus kick. It's only been 10 years

On another point
Can we please f**k off the CRL. What does it even mean ?

How come the QRL can run a whole state but it f**kon NSW, berowra and umina are run by total separate bodies

I thought we were getting rid of the myriad of RL's

f**k me how hard is it.

 

[Lockyer4President!]

Good point

We are still waiting for RL aus kick. It's only been 10 years

On another point
Can we please f**k off the CRL. What does it even mean ?

How come the QRL can run a whole state but it f**kon NSW, berowra and umina are run by total separate bodies

I thought we were getting rid of the myriad of RL's

f**k me how hard is it.

Iirc someone, prob ECT, said talks of a merger stalled since the CRL want to have equal say by the NSWRL won't agree to it

 

[unforgiven]

On the assumption that they continued to win each bid.

Why do you think that the details of any contract should be made available to a third party? If 10 won the rights this time how would News even know when the deal ends? Or what extension or get-out clauses exist? F&L rights are a boon for the incumbent and useless for anyone else.

It has nothing to do with being the incumbent rights holder. News had 1st and last rights until 2027 and nine until 2018, they had these right regardless if they were the incumbent rights holder or not. News recieved theirs orginally through the NRL partnership agreement, these were extended when the ARLC was formed has part of the deal for news to give up ownership of the game. I think the F&L rights of nine were negoiated during a pervious broadcast rights negoiation.

 

[Parra]

wtf are you on about?

incumbent's don't get first and last rights automatically

you're making Bunniesderp look like Einstein

You added the word automatically. Not me. Why do you need to precede a petty insult with an outright lie?

What you are suggesting is that someone other than the current TV rights holder would have the right to veto someone else's bid in the future.

 

[unforgiven]

You added the word automatically. Not me. Why do you need to precede a petty insult with an outright lie?

What you are suggesting is that someone other than the current TV rights holder would have the right to veto someone else's bid in the future.

Not to veto, but to match their bid. They definately had this right.

 

[Parra]

Not to veto, but to match their bid. They definately had this right.

And you are sure that this extended even if they were not the current rights holder?