Talking Footy

Lets say grant stuffed up and te total for the NRL broadcast deal (this includes radio and naming rates Telstra money) was 1.3 billion as you and raider dave and some people on LU are claiming. Even so if we inc the AFL naming and radio rights they end up with well over 1.3 billion. The nrl has done very well with this deal and there no shame that it came in a little less then the AFL deal.

The Telstra Premiership has recorded the best start to an NRL season on record with crowds 5.6% higher than 2012.

Saturday’s Round six game between the Rabbitohs and the Storm posted the highest audience of any program on subscription television in 2013 attracting an audience of 379,319.

This was in addition to the 32,671 fans who made it the biggest attendance for a regular season match featuring the Melbourne Storm in Sydney.

Across the Nine and Win Networks ratings have lifted 6.6% on 2013.

Fans are also engaging on-line with a 38% lift in number of unique viewers through nrl.com, further lifts of 24% across the club network and a 67% increase in people using mobile technology.

At the same time club memberships have risen to 215,000 to set yet another record for the year to date.

Other highlights across the opening rounds include:

The biggest ever attendance for Heritage Round (174,409), surpassing the previous record of 162,984 set in 2010.

The Round 4 Bulldogs v Rabbitohs game posting: the biggest attendance for a regular season stand-alone since the NRL began in 1998 (51,686)

The biggest Sydney Rugby League crowd since the St George v Souths match at the Sydney Cricket Ground in 1967 (50,153)

The Roosters and the Rabbitohs attracting the highest number of Sydney viewers recorded for a season opener since the Oz-Tam panel was introduced in 2001.

What happening with the AFL?

The_Wookie wrote:

In all of your little tirade, youve not explained to me how the AFL with 1.23b comes second to a deal worth 1.2b......while im not pythagoras im fairly sure 1.23 is bigger than 1.2.

These are John Grants words ''Broadcast funding [including New Zealand television and a new media rights deal with Telstra] is just over $1.2 billion, "

Note the word is? At the time this article was written the NRL were in discussions with NZ. Since then the NRL has signed a new deal with NZ. an increase

I dont see it that way but even if it was AFL media deal in total was 1.326 billion, with naming and radio rights. You cant catch that even with a 200 million dolar NZ deal.

Broadcast funding would'nt include naming rights

pussycat wrote:

Broadcast funding would'nt include naming rights

They mentioned Telstra deal for the NRL which had naming and online rights included into it.

''Broadcast funding [including New Zealand television and a new media rights deal with Telstra] is just over $1.2 billion,

The sponsorship part of the deal, i would image, would be classified as broadcaster funding, While the sponsorship would be in another part of the report.

This article came out prior to the NZ deal. So hes doing well if he already new that amount.

pussycat wrote:

The sponsorship part of the deal, i would image, would be classified as broadcaster funding, While the sponsorship would be in another part of the report.

This article came out prior to the NZ deal. So hes doing well if he already new that amount.

Yet they obviously knew what to expect in revenue and he commented on future earnings.

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

The sponsorship part of the deal, i would image, would be classified as broadcaster funding, While the sponsorship would be in another part of the report.

This article came out prior to the NZ deal. So hes doing well if he already new that amount.

Yet they obviously knew what to expect in revenue and he commented on future earnings.

Made the comment about a week before the deal was signed, so he would have known what the money was for the deal, they just had to hammer out a few minor details.

piesman2011 wrote:

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

The sponsorship part of the deal, i would image, would be classified as broadcaster funding, While the sponsorship would be in another part of the report.

This article came out prior to the NZ deal. So hes doing well if he already new that amount.

Yet they obviously knew what to expect in revenue and he commented on future earnings.

Made the comment about a week before the deal was signed, so he would have known what the money was for the deal, they just had to hammer out a few minor details.

Just who is clutching at straws?

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

Xman wrote:

Yet they obviously knew what to expect in revenue and he commented on future earnings.

Made the comment about a week before the deal was signed, so he would have known what the money was for the deal, they just had to hammer out a few minor details.

Just who is clutching at straws?

The guy twisting his chairman's words to mean something they dont.

Today, Telstra and the ARLC wouldn't disclose the value of the new deal, but said that it was worth double the 2007 agreement, which was reportedly worth AU$90 million, putting the deal at around AU$180 million and close to the value of the agreement Telstra had signed with the Australian Football League (AFL) for its mobile broadcast rights.


Heard it before. The media heard "double" and just made up the rest

And then NZ put in $100m and it went from close to ---------------------- Zoom----------------------- not close

pussycat wrote:

http://www.zdnet.com/au/telstra-denies- ... 000008658/

So someone blogs about the NRL telstra deal. Its not even a real newspaper. Josh Taylor the author doeesnt really look to me like a business analysis or an accountant at least his listed credentials dont list him as such and because of this he probably shouldnt be etsimating financial figures.

Unfortunately not a real source. You could have written this Pussy for all we know.