What does it mean when people say News Ltd owns the game??

[DangerMouse_007]

Just wondering what this statement means? Does it refer to TV rights? The stake they have in some clubs or the entire ownership of the NRL competition?

If they own the NRL does this mean any profit generated by the NRL goes to them? Does it mean they have official power to appoint NRL board members? Could they actually change the name of the NRL if they wanted to or shut the whole competition down?

Are they responsible for the running costs of the NRL ie marketing, paying of NRL staff, administrators and referees, the cost of junior development and the the money that goes to putting on events?

Do News Ltd inject money into clubs and the game that isn't generated by the game itself? What would happen if news ltd left the game all together? Would the game go broke?

Who owns the AFL? How is our situation different?

 

[Cletus]

They half own the NRL with PBL. I think they appoint three of the six NRL board members, which is why a noted thinker like Gordon Tallis was appointed to the board.
And News take some money out of the game each year, to cover the expenses from the SL war.

 

[Canard]

Correct me if Im wrong but I thought PBL have nothing to do with the NRL, excepting the fact that Channel Nine broadcast the NRL.

 

[DangerMouse_007]

Do PBL take anything out?

Why aren't PBL reviled like news ltd are? Were we duded by 9? People don't focus on the much bigger free to air component of the deal. Why is this? How come people dont want PBL out of the game?

 

[Canard]

Cause I dont believe they are "in" the game.

 

[DangerMouse_007]

Don't PBL have a 50% interest in fox sports?

 

[Cletus]

Correct me if Im wrong but I thought PBL have nothing to do with the NRL, excepting the fact that Channel Nine broadcast the NRL.

Yeah you're right, it's half News and half ARL. PBL own half of Fox sport.

 

[Parra]

And Fox Sport pay for the tv rights

And News controls the NRL board

And the money paid is peanuts

And PBL benefit because Kerry Packer could play all of these idiots of the break

And the footy clubs have Peter Moore and his lesser known cohorts at Penrith and Cronulla to thank for the mess.

To paraphrase the actions of Peter Moore "I want your cash, and if I have to give most of it to news ltd to get some, then so be it"

 

[DangerMouse_007]

The ARL and News control the board.

Why aren't people angry at 9 for their pissweak deal?

 

[Parra]

9 got what they got - there were no bidders left after the AFL bidding debacle.

News got what they wanted - they sold the rights to themselves.

 

[Lockyer4President!]

9 got what they got - there were no bidders left after the AFL bidding debacle.

News got what they wanted - they sold the rights to themselves.

The NRL tv rights were done before the AFL tv rights.

 

[Perth Red]

I always think ARL get let off lightly. They are 50% owners as well and yet seem to have very little accountability. It's easy to blame News, what about the ARL's role in all of this? At least News are clear in their motives for the decisions they make, what's the ARL's motives for what goes on?

 

[Nerd]

I always think ARL get let off lightly. They are 50% owners as well and yet seem to have very little accountability. It's easy to blame News, what about the ARL's role in all of this? At least News are clear in their motives for the decisions they make, what's the ARL's motives for what goes on?

Well said !

 

[Man_of_Steel_1982]

I always think ARL get let off lightly. They are 50% owners as well and yet seem to have very little accountability. It's easy to blame News, what about the ARL's role in all of this? At least News are clear in their motives for the decisions they make, what's the ARL's motives for what goes on?

You're kidding aren't you??!!

ARL = Australian Rugby League... what's their motives? Hmmm gee I wonder?

News Ltd = 50% partners in the NRL partnership until 2017. Why are they in it? Explicitly explained way back during the compromise in '97 to recover $$$ they lost during the war (which they created). Each year they take a large sum of money from the NRL as "compensation", money that would have rightfully belonged to the ARL and the further development of the game at all levels.

 

[Perth Red]

Exactly (whooosh you missed my point!)!

News are making the decisions that are negatively effecting RL because it has a financial benefit to them. Now to get these decisions through, the ARL is voting with them. If the ARL are there for the good of RL why the frick are they voting with News on these issues and doing little to push through an alternative strategy?

 

[Frailty]

I always think ARL get let off lightly. They are 50% owners as well and yet seem to have very little accountability. It's easy to blame News, what about the ARL's role in all of this? At least News are clear in their motives for the decisions they make, what's the ARL's motives for what goes on?

Bingo! ARL still own 50% as well. And let's forget, ARL also agreed to paying out News... They could have kept the fight going.

 

[Man_of_Steel_1982]

Exactly (whooosh you missed my point!)!

News are making the decisions that are negatively effecting RL because it has a financial benefit to them. Now to get these decisions through, the ARL is voting with them. If the ARL are there for the good of RL why the frick are they voting with News on these issues and doing little to push through an alternative strategy?

Because News have the money. Just like St George Illawarra, where the board is 50-50... but the CEO is always from one side. There's alot more to it than just voting for things at board level. The daily operations of the NRL are run by News stooges, Gallop, Annesley etc.
Where as any "ARL" people are geniuss like Mario (who does god knows what!?)

But seriously, I'd say the ARL probably push as much as they can without causing a spill - there's probably some people who fully agree with the TV criticism too. I'd say it's a very delicate partnership.

Things like expansion, we know the ARL's stance. Where as we saw what News did to you at the end of 97. It's also easier to "not make things happen" when you're a 50% owner, than "make things happen".

 

[bartman]

It means we all have to bend over and take whatever destructive sensationalist slant they want to put on the game in their papers... but remain continually perplexed about why they continue to pay the game money to do so.

 

[Man_of_Steel_1982]

Bingo! ARL still own 50% as well. And let's forget, ARL also agreed to paying out News... They could have kept the fight going.

... and the ARL could have gone bust. Then News could have done as they pleased and fully owned the game rather than half own it and piss off in 2017.

Though I do wish the ARL fought on... the point is we've clearly seen the news ltd agenda and as I said before, they do seem to hold the upper hand with the key administration of the NRL.

 

[Frailty]

Listen I don't know anyone who says News is good for the game. But the suggestion was the ARL aren't as angelic as some talk about here. They made sh*t decisions too, and let's not forget the louzy tv deal they made prior to super league, or the decision to not give clubs guaranteed contracts.