NRL to reap $1.2b from TV rights

[Stewie]

"confirmed it was double" but unwilling to announce an actual figure? hmmmm something's not quite right here. The nRL according to the Australian Financial Review only got about $100 million.

[piesman2011]

it did ... its double the old deal ......90 mill x 2 is.... 180 million

& since when has 180 million .... been smaller then 150 million


Ah spewie .. no wonder Sth Aust was dead last in the recent testing of school children nationally on maths reading & science
if you're anything to go by

double 90 is 180 million maybe its a 12 year deal. Or we could say that it is some where between 100-150 (double 15 million a year to 30 million a year) million over 5 years even the posters on LU agree with this you try hard troll.

where does this say its 150 Million ?

Telstra and the Australian Rugby League Commission (ARLC) today signed a five-year rights deal for the broadcasting of live matches on mobiles and tablets for close to AU$180 million.

the 150 mill is a calculation based on an assumption that is wrong according to the above media statement.

we are currently at approx 1.205 Billion
remove naming rights as thats not part of the VFL's 1.253 bill , so... approx 50 million ..... but add at least 20 million because revenue from a sharing arrangement with telstra for non telstra customers to access NRL games on phones & tablets etc .. is not included in this 180 million figure

so its 1.175 Billion
with the Kiwis to come

even if the NZ'ers didn't increase their present deal , we'd match the VFL figure
but of course .... what are the chances of that ?

game ova

You have taken your quote out of context. Heres the whole picture.

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.

The reporter (not an expert) assumes that the last deal was for 90 million (even this is possible speculation) over 6 years will double to 180 million but fails to realise the new deal is for 5 years. Two other reports say close to 100 million over 5 years. So its any where from 100 million to double 15 million a year. Which over 5 years is 150 million.

Game set match.

[Raiderdave]

double 90 is 180 million maybe its a 12 year deal. Or we could say that it is some where between 100-150 (double 15 million a year to 30 million a year) million over 5 years even the posters on LU agree with this you try hard troll.

where does this say its 150 Million ?

Telstra and the Australian Rugby League Commission (ARLC) today signed a five-year rights deal for the broadcasting of live matches on mobiles and tablets for close to AU$180 million.

the 150 mill is a calculation based on an assumption that is wrong according to the above media statement.

we are currently at approx 1.205 Billion
remove naming rights as thats not part of the VFL's 1.253 bill , so... approx 50 million ..... but add at least 20 million because revenue from a sharing arrangement with telstra for non telstra customers to access NRL games on phones & tablets etc .. is not included in this 180 million figure

so its 1.175 Billion
with the Kiwis to come

even if the NZ'ers didn't increase their present deal , we'd match the VFL figure
but of course .... what are the chances of that ?

game ova

You have taken your quote out of context. Heres the whole picture.

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.

The reporter (not an expert) assumes that the last deal was for 90 million (even this is possible speculation) over 6 years will double to 180 million but fails to realise the new deal is for 5 years. Game set match.

how the F.uck do you know what he fails to realise

he didn't assume the last deal was worth 90 mill
it was reported it was

all this says at the top is the new deal was doubled from 90 to 180 mill ( the NRL confirmed as much )
end of

[Xman]

Yet both Telstra and the NRL stated they weren't releasing details. Many reports had the deal at 100m or just over, not near 200m

[Raiderdave]

Yet both Telstra and the NRL stated they weren't releasing details. Many reports had the deal at 100m or just over, not near 200m

the NRL confirmed it was double their old deal
their old deal was 90 mill

end of

[Drac]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 2bpf7.html

Quote from the a/g CEO that brokered the deal:

''I had an hour-long teleconference, with two of the most senior executives at Telstra, and two of our commissioners, to try and settle an in-principle agreement for the five-year, hundred-million plus deal,'' he says.

If the deal was $180m logic dictates that he would have said "over $150m". But he didn't. He used the term "hundred-million plus". The other big hint is that they refuse to publicly release the dollar value of the deal. We all know if they had beaten the AFL's deal they'd be shouting it from the rooftops. But they didn't. They had to combine digital rights and naming rights and they STILL couldn't match what the AFL got.

end of

[Raiderdave]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 2bpf7.html

Quote from the a/g CEO that brokered the deal:

''I had an hour-long teleconference, with two of the most senior executives at Telstra, and two of our commissioners, to try and settle an in-principle agreement for the five-year, hundred-million plus deal,'' he says.

If the deal was $180m logic dictates that he would have said "over $150m":

he did ..............
is reading an issue for you ?

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.

[Xman]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 2bpf7.html

Quote from the a/g CEO that brokered the deal:

''I had an hour-long teleconference, with two of the most senior executives at Telstra, and two of our commissioners, to try and settle an in-principle agreement for the five-year, hundred-million plus deal,'' he says.

If the deal was $180m logic dictates that he would have said "over $150m":

he did ..............
is reading an issue for you ?

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.

Dunce, all they said was it was worth double. Double what? the amount per year? The years? The rest is just speculation by the author.

Again, why say over 100m when its just under 200m?

[Raiderdave]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 2bpf7.html

Quote from the a/g CEO that brokered the deal:
If the deal was $180m logic dictates that he would have said "over $150m":

he did ..............
is reading an issue for you ?

Today, Telstra and the ARLC wouldn't disclose the value of the new deal, but said , 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.

Dunce, all they said was it was worth double. Double what? the amount per year? The years?

?

double the 2007 agreement of 90 million
see here ..

that it was worth double the 2007 agreement

we have another illiterate flogball fan with reading difficulties it seems

[eelofwest]

he did ..............
is reading an issue for you ?

Dunce, all they said was it was worth double. Double what? the amount per year? The years?

?

double the 2007 agreement of 90 million
see here ..

that it was worth double the 2007 agreement

we have another illiterate flogball fan with reading difficulties it seems

Xman is making an assumption that because the previous deal was done over 6 years you have to mark the 90m down to 70m which is how he comes to his 150m.

It clearly states that it is worth double the 90m put up last time, no were does it mention time frames or anything like that so its safe to say its 180m mate.

[pussycat]

Evidence? Your pathetic code didn't even release the figure of the Telstra deal! Why? Because they knew it was a pathetic number as it even includes naming rights
Couldn't even match Telstra's AFL deal of over $150 million who don't even hold the naming rights of the AFL.

They did mention it was more than twice the size of the previous deal. Which was $90m. =D> =D> =D> Well done ARL commision, you've inflicted a serious butt-kicking upon the dreamers in AFL land.

[Stewie]

Evidence? Your pathetic code didn't even release the figure of the Telstra deal! Why? Because they knew it was a pathetic number as it even includes naming rights
Couldn't even match Telstra's AFL deal of over $150 million who don't even hold the naming rights of the AFL.

They did mention it was more than twice the size of the previous deal. Which was $90m. =D> =D> =D> Well done ARL commision, you've inflicted a serious butt-kicking upon the dreamers in AFL land.

They didn't release an actual figure. Why? Because they know the final figure is fucking crap compared to the AFL's. It wouldn't have been double the $90 million deal.

[pussycat]

I would assume, the reason they haven't given an exact amount is because at this stage it is unknown. The current amount is double that of the last contract. but the future amount ,for royalties to the NRL over that time cannot possibly be known.

[Xman]

I would assume, the reason they haven't given an exact amount is because at this stage it is unknown. The current amount is double that of the last contract. but the future amount ,for royalties to the NRL over that time cannot possibly be known.

So why are RL fools claiming victory over a total thats unknown?

[ParraEelsNRL]

I would assume, the reason they haven't given an exact amount is because at this stage it is unknown. The current amount is double that of the last contract. but the future amount ,for royalties to the NRL over that time cannot possibly be known.

So why are RL fools claiming victory over a total thats unknown?

For us to be up anywhere near your sports deal after the last two deals says we have a victory anyway you look at it dopey, live with it. People like you said we RL fans are dreaming if you think it'll get anywhere near the Vfl. Well it has and it's closing on bettering it. If we want to gloat, we bloodywell will, you guys have given it to some of us online for a fucking decade, it's nice to have to shoe on the other foot for once.

And, we have just caught up after winning back our freedom, the next deal will blow your Vfl away.