Talking Footy

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

The NRLs Internet deal would be about $50 mil, half of their naming and Internet rights which was $100m

marcus doing a few of these [-o< [-o< [-o<

NRL .... biggest media deal in the land

You've got absolutely no evidence to the contrary!

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

The NRLs Internet deal would be about $50 mil, half of their naming and Internet rights which was $100m

marcus doing a few of these [-o< [-o< [-o<

NRL .... biggest media deal in the land

You've got absolutely no evidence to the contrary!

Wait some random guy from the internet, just posted on a credible website that the NRL got 50 million for its online component for the next 5 years. Im going to run with that fact with all my future postings. Thats what Dave would do.....

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league ... 2dc5j.html

This is a few days old but it is saying, suprise suprise

The five-year sponsorship and online rights agreements with Telstra, which are believed to be worth more than $150 million, were announced on December 12,

It is also suggesting that the NRL may not get to much more for their Kiwi component TV deal.

piesman2011 wrote:

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league ... 2dc5j.html

This is a few days old but it is saying, suprise suprise

The five-year sponsorship and online rights agreements with Telstra,which are believed to be wort h more than $150 million, were announced on December 12,

It is also suggesting that the NRL may not get to much more for their Kiwi component TV deal.

Even so, this says it all: ,which are believed to be worth

Raiderdave wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

no .... its not unknown at all
the NRL confirmed the online rights for 2013-16 were double their present deal , thats $180 Million
that does contain naming rights .. but not the sharing revenue with telstra ( as no one yet knows how much that could end up being but ova 20 Mill is certain )
so its around 180 million with the shared revenue


end of

Your kidding right Dave? You cant even get the dates right its not 2013-16, its 2013-17. Do you have an issue will numbers? Its not uncommon. Maybe you can figure this out. Double is 150 million. I will give you a clue as to why. It has something to do with the length of the contract. However how much telstra added to the 1.025 billion is unknown due to Other factors such naming rights, how much of this doubled is due to estimated sharing revenue and how money of this double is due to the fox online money for the tablet rights. The latter was already payed into the 1.025 billion. Who knows how much the NRL currently have as a total?

we know

its presently 1.205 Bill with the kiwis to come
the VFL will be numb 2 very shortly

deal with it

Yep the Fat lady is warming her vocals and ready to sing, wont be long now dave.........................

Got em running scared already.

piesman2011 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

heres the key phrases in the above

double the 2007 agreement of 90 mill.... no mention of anything else
&
putting it at around 180 million

& thats .. that

HaHa your kidding im sure you are.

Heres the key points that you fail to see.
1. The article is some randoms dribble and the writer doesnt even write for a credible newspaper. Firstly get me a credible newspaper.
2. He is not quoting numbers, he is using numbers he is not sure of "reportedly 90 million" and then making up his own numbers "180 million"
3. You are then using those numbers as "facts" (sic). Because in your head if someone writes something that you like online then it must be right (still in your head)

Here are two much better sources, with much better stats.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/telstra_t ... pRLxklpovK

Telstra is set to sign a sponsorship and digital rights agreement worth more than $100 million with the Australian Rugby League Commission

http://www.smh.com.au/business/telstra- ... 2b9y9.html

TELSTRA has sealed a mobile broadcasting rights and sponsorship deal with the National Rugby League worth about $100 million

1. Better sources, due to credibility.
2. There figures are better particularly the first source which uses the words worth more than $100 million. It is a guess but by using the words "worth more than" they have made it factual. The second article uses the words "about $100 million".

Thus endeth the lesson.

how the F do you know .... what he knows ?
oh thats right

you don't

How do you know what I know? maybe I have the insider knowledge.
Hang on did I just use the exact same weak arse argument that you just tried to use. That has to be the weakest shit I have seen in a long time. Thats just admitting you dont have a clue. Hang on a minute did you write that article? Is your name Josh Taylor?

So your going with the single online pretend news paper over two crediable print newspapers. Good luck with any credibility you thought you had.
For the record whats double 15 million a year over 5 years?
Wait for it .............




the answer is........ .....



150 million and that my friend is primary school mathematics. [/quote]


shit from clay
you struggle with that [/quote]

Once again you got nothing. No logic and no understanding.[/quote]


It has said in several reports that the amount was at least double the previous amount .How's it matter if the previous deal was 1 or 50 years ago? If the previous deal was $90m then the current deal must be, at the very least $180m - So it's SILVER - SILVER - SILVER for the AFL

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

heres the key phrases in the above

double the 2007 agreement of 90 mill.... no mention of anything else
&
putting it at around 180 million

& thats .. that

HaHa your kidding im sure you are.

Heres the key points that you fail to see.
1. The article is some randoms dribble and the writer doesnt even write for a credible newspaper. Firstly get me a credible newspaper.
2. He is not quoting numbers, he is using numbers he is not sure of "reportedly 90 million" and then making up his own numbers "180 million"
3. You are then using those numbers as "facts" (sic). Because in your head if someone writes something that you like online then it must be right (still in your head)

Here are two much better sources, with much better stats.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/telstra_t ... pRLxklpovK

Telstra is set to sign a sponsorship and digital rights agreement worth more than $100 million with the Australian Rugby League Commission

http://www.smh.com.au/business/telstra- ... 2b9y9.html

TELSTRA has sealed a mobile broadcasting rights and sponsorship deal with the National Rugby League worth about $100 million

1. Better sources, due to credibility.
2. There figures are better particularly the first source which uses the words worth more than $100 million. It is a guess but by using the words "worth more than" they have made it factual. The second article uses the words "about $100 million".

Thus endeth the lesson.

how the F do you know .... what he knows ?
oh thats right

you don't

How do you know what I know? maybe I have the insider knowledge.
Hang on did I just use the exact same weak arse argument that you just tried to use. That has to be the weakest shit I have seen in a long time. Thats just admitting you dont have a clue. Hang on a minute did you write that article? Is your name Josh Taylor?

So your going with the single online pretend news paper over two crediable print newspapers. Good luck with any credibility you thought you had.
For the record whats double 15 million a year over 5 years?
Wait for it .............




the answer is........ .....



150 million and that my friend is primary school mathematics. [/quote]


shit from clay
you struggle with that [/quote]

Once again you got nothing. No logic and no understanding.[/quote]


It has said in several reports that the amount was at least double the previous amount .How's it matter if the previous deal was 1 or 50 years ago? If the previous deal was $90m then the current deal must be, at the very least $180m - So it's SILVER - SILVER - SILVER for the AFL [/quote]


Thats the thing the deal wasnt for 90 million dollars. It was 15 million a year for 6 years which totaled 90 million dollars. Whats double 15 million a year?

Thats the thing no one gets, the deal was payed for over 6 years, not in one cash payment. The NRL and the AFL get payed a yearly amount just like you probabaly do. If the NRL double their telstra payment next year and it was 15 million last year how much do they get?

I noted the following days Fin Review, to the one you quoted, had bumped there figure up to $150m.

pussycat wrote:

I noted the following days Fin Review, to the one you quoted, had bumped there figure up to $150m.

To be fair the fin review said over 100 million and 150 million is definately over 100 million. I probabaly wouldnt really care that much but I got to do something with my spare time and arguing with RaiderDave can be fun.

More good news for the no1 code.


Plan for $2.2 million rugby league nines tournament to kick start NRL season

David Riccio
The Sunday Telegraph
February 03, 2013 12:00AM

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 6567382353



Hayne, Barba, Inglis

Jarryd Hayne, Ben Barba and Greg Inglis would be massive drawcards at the rugby league nines. Source: The Daily Telegraph

A KIWI promoter has a $2.2 million plan to kick off the rugby league season with a super Nines tournament - with the winner pocketing more money than the NRL premiers.

The offer is considered too good to refuse with all 16 clubs agreeing in principle to field their strongest sides.

That would see champions Greg Inglis, Ben Barba, Benji Marshall and Jarryd Hayne featuring in the tournament to be staged in Auckland.

An NRL CEOs conference on February 20 is expected give the proposal the green light.


The concept is the brainchild of New Zealand events organiser Dean Lonergan of Duco Events and business partner David Higgins.

They were responsible for organising the popular Fight For Life charity boxing event which featured league players Paul Gallen, Greg Bird, Willie Mason and Manu Vatuvei in December.

Under the proposal, which was first pitched to NRL clubs in July, each team would receive $70,000 for competing with the tournament winner earning $500,000.

It's a staggering purse considering last year's NRL premiers, the Melbourne Storm, received $400,000.

Lonergan said the concept was going "full steam ahead" after positive talks with the NRL, the 16 clubs and Auckland City council. Discussions with a naming rights sponsor and TV network Sky NZ are also in full swing.

"We're making great progress," Lonergan said.

"The feedback so far from the clubs and the NRL has been extremely positive, so we're moving closer to having it totally ratified."

Under the proposal, the knockout tournament would be held in the first week of February.

Some clubs fear the Nines could threaten the Annual All Stars concept - held a week later - despite Lonergan and the NRL claiming it would have no impact on the showpiece game.

"We think this tournament would only complement the All Stars," Lonergan said.

The NRL have made no secret of their desire to continue the promotion of rugby league in New Zealand and see the Nines as the perfect challenge to rugby's hugely popular Wellington Sevens tournament, which will be held this weekend.

"With the support of the NRL clubs and the talent that rugby league has, it could be bigger than the rugby's sevens," Lonergan said.

Paul Kind, director of commercial and marketing at the NRL, confirmed discussions with Lonergan and the clubs had been positive.

He said there was a plan to draw up a formal recommendation to the ARL commission after the upcoming chief executives' meeting.

Channel Nine and Fox Sports are yet to see the proposal, but it's believed both networks would support the pre-season tournament.

Further evidence that the nRL is an amateur league with clubs agreeing to play full strength squads in a meaningless tournament like this. It seems like administrators see the nRL H&A season as irrelevant and the clubs also don't care if the players are at risk of injury playing in pointless rep games.

Stewie wrote:

Further evidence that the nRL is an amateur league with clubs agreeing to play full strength squads in a meaningless tournament like this. It seems like administrators see the nRL H&A season as irrelevant and the clubs also don't care if the players are at risk of injury playing in pointless rep games.

Don't the AFL play full strength squads in there (meaningful ) pre season competition? I wonder what the prize money is there?


Three-quarters of a million for an hour and a halfs work doesnt seem all that meaningless to me

pussycat wrote:

Stewie wrote:

Further evidence that the nRL is an amateur league with clubs agreeing to play full strength squads in a meaningless tournament like this. It seems like administrators see the nRL H&A season as irrelevant and the clubs also don't care if the players are at risk of injury playing in pointless rep games.

Don't the AFL play full strength squads in there (meaningful ) pre season competition? I wonder what the prize money is there?


Three-quarters of a million for an hour and a halfs work doesnt seem all that meaningless to me

Nope. Not even close

pussycat wrote:

Stewie wrote:

Further evidence that the nRL is an amateur league with clubs agreeing to play full strength squads in a meaningless tournament like this. It seems like administrators see the nRL H&A season as irrelevant and the clubs also don't care if the players are at risk of injury playing in pointless rep games.

Don't the AFL play full strength squads in there (meaningful ) pre season competition? I wonder what the prize money is there?


Three-quarters of a million for an hour and a halfs work doesnt seem all that meaningless to me

No, the do not play full strength squads you moron. Clubs see the Nab Cup as a chance to test their youth and new recruits.