NRL to reap $1.2b from TV rights

[pussycat]

Many of your figures are for RL, not NRL.

Length of telecast means a great deal:

hmmmmm...... means a great deal eh ?

ask Australias broadcasters wether they agree or not

VFL 594 Hrs a year ... 250 Mill dollars a year
NRL 384 Hrs a year ... 260 Mill dollars a year

We're talking about the most watched sport on TV Dave! Get with the program. The AFL have it, easily, as you so eloquently demonstrated! =D> =D> =D>

There talking about number of viewers that watch a particular sport. The only thing we can gain from your maths logic is that more people than any other switch your game off midway through a match. Though that might'nt be totally accurate, in the time it takes to play a game many viewers might of past away - bored to death

[pussycat]

Dave, if an average of 100 people watched 16hrs of program A over the weekend, and an average of 100 people watched 27 hrs of program B, which program was the most watched? which program most likely had the highest peak audience, or more viewers?

Thats an easy one , the entertaining match, the one where 99% of the viewers watched the entire game

[eelofwest]

Oh let me make up the NRL money figures lets see

1025 million TV rights + 100 million online rights + 60 million NZ rights = 1.185 billion close to 1.2 billion you nearly made it.

Yeah Pies but they stated double the last deal for online which was 90m*2 = 180m at the least, and also 60m for online rights........... we got 75m 5 years ago.

1.025B + 180M Online rights + 100m minimum NZ sky, (will be 150m imo)= 1.3b at the least, and there we have it at the least the NRL has already surpassed the AFL in TV deals and it TV ratings.......... =D> =D> =D>

[Xman]

hmmmmm...... means a great deal eh ?

ask Australias broadcasters wether they agree or not

VFL 594 Hrs a year ... 250 Mill dollars a year
NRL 384 Hrs a year ... 260 Mill dollars a year

We're talking about the most watched sport on TV Dave! Get with the program. The AFL have it, easily, as you so eloquently demonstrated! =D> =D> =D>

There talking about number of viewers that watch a particular sport. The only thing we can gain from your maths logic is that more people than any other switch your game off midway through a match. Though that might'nt be totally accurate, in the time it takes to play a game many viewers might of past away - bored to death

peaks and troughs are a fact in any TV product, even programs as short as an hour. This is the exact reason programs like big brother etc code their ratings. If TV show ratings were level and without peaks they wouldn't bother coding them.

The NRL have had an artificial advantage over the AFL for years because of their far shorter TV broadcast. Now coding brings it closer together but the NRLs coverage is still shorter than the AFLs coded game alone.

And if we're talking about how many people watch a particular sport as an estimation of popularity then why compare two sports that have a different number of games on TV, per round, proportion of games in prime time, proportion of games played concurrently etc... For a measure of popularity it just doesn't stack up with so many different conditions.

All we know for sure is millions watch 27hrs of AFL per weekend and a comparable audience watch only 16hrs of RL. Therefore the most watched product is clearly the AFL.

[Xman]

Oh let me make up the NRL money figures lets see

1025 million TV rights + 100 million online rights + 60 million NZ rights = 1.185 billion close to 1.2 billion you nearly made it.

Yeah Pies but they stated double the last deal for online which was 90m*2 = 180m at the least, and also 60m for online rights........... we got 75m 5 years ago.

1.025B + 180M Online rights + 100m minimum NZ sky, (will be 150m imo)= 1.3b at the least, and there we have it at the least the NRL has already surpassed the AFL in TV deals and it TV ratings.......... =D> =D> =D>

They said double the amount, not double the total. They were getting 15m per year for 6 years. Double is 30m/yr for 5 years or 150m. Take away a minimum of 50m for naming rights and its about 100m for online rights. Its probably even less given the AFL had a naming rights deal of 50m per year 5 years ago.

[eelofwest]

We're talking about the most watched sport on TV Dave! Get with the program. The AFL have it, easily, as you so eloquently demonstrated! =D> =D> =D>

There talking about number of viewers that watch a particular sport. The only thing we can gain from your maths logic is that more people than any other switch your game off midway through a match. Though that might'nt be totally accurate, in the time it takes to play a game many viewers might of past away - bored to death

peaks and troughs are a fact in any TV product, even programs as short as an hour. This is the exact reason programs like big brother etc code their ratings. If TV show ratings were level and without peaks they wouldn't bother coding them.

The NRL have had an artificial advantage over the AFL for years because of their far shorter TV broadcast. Now coding brings it closer together but the NRLs coverage is still shorter than the AFLs coded game alone.

And if we're talking about how many people watch a particular sport as an estimation of popularity then why compare two sports that have a different number of games on TV, per round, proportion of games in prime time, proportion of games played concurrently etc... For a measure of popularity it just doesn't stack up with so many different conditions.

All we know for sure is millions watch 27hrs of AFL per weekend and a comparable audience watch only 16hrs of RL. Therefore the most watched product is clearly the AFL.

No matter how you twist and squirm we beat you. They also did not state double the previous annual amount either. they did state double the previous deal which was 90m.

90m x 2 = 180m Online rights
NRL 1.025b
NZ sky 100m minimum.
Total = 1.3b minimum.

Game set match, now get that ego back in that little pond/creak in Melbourne were you belong.........................

[Xman]

Except you failed hard on your first figure!

You've claimed online rights as 180 when in reality that figure is undisclosed and approximately half of it would be naming rights! try 90m at most. Its probably closer to 75M given double the previous deal per year is 150M for naming and online rights.

This leaves you at 1.1B before NZ rights.

Sorry Eels. Second place is a certainty

[piesman2011]

Oh let me make up the NRL money figures lets see

1025 million TV rights + 100 million online rights + 60 million NZ rights = 1.185 billion close to 1.2 billion you nearly made it.

Yeah Pies but they stated double the last deal for online which was 90m*2 = 180m at the least, and also 60m for online rights........... we got 75m 5 years ago.

1.025B + 180M Online rights + 100m minimum NZ sky, (will be 150m imo)= 1.3b at the least, and there we have it at the least the NRL has already surpassed the AFL in TV deals and it TV ratings.......... =D> =D> =D>

Your confused last deal was 90 million for online and naming rights and was a 6 year deal. There was only 1 deal not 2

http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/tesltr ... 6477592154

In 2007, Telstra signed a six-year deal worth $90 million for naming and new media rights but it expires this year.

The 75 million is a false report because people have been saying that 90 divided by 6 = 15 million a year so thats 75 million for 5 years there has been a lot of confusion about this. This time around the NRL got 100-150 for online + naming rights (150 being the maximum for the double claimed in one article (online newspaper)with two large print newspapers claiming 100 million +). So in terms of online rights only thats by my estimate 30-100 million I was generous and went with the maximum.

Today, Telstra and the ARLC wouldn't disclose the value of the new deal, but said that it was worth double the 2007 agreement

even on league unlimited no one is using the number 180 million for this figure apart from RaiderDave. The 180 million that one reporter stated was a misunderstanding and he assumed double the previous deal was 180 million because the previous deal was 90 million. But the 90 m was a 6 years deal (15 m a year) while the new deal is 5 years. Double 15 million a year is 30 million a year or 150 million for 5 years. This is what the reporter then assumed and the reason why he came up with the 180 million figure.

which was reportedly worth AU$90 million, putting the deal at around AU$180 million

So he has besically doubled the 90 million not realising the difference in the length of the deals, because the commision said the online rights were worth double the previous deal (see second quote) Even the 90 million dollars is not known and is assumed because the last deal was confidential.


The reporter failed to understand that the last deal was a 6 year deal and this deal is a five year deal. Even then it is hard to work what the online component is worth because when the commision was talking about the double they were only referring to the online part of the deal so if the last online component was 8 million a year then doubling that figure would be 80 million for online + naming rights. Lets also not forget that some of the online component was already payed for in the 1.025 billion by foxtel, when they bought the tablet rights to their 5 games. Maybe this was 20 million (who knows?). This I assume would be included in this doubling figure.


The article itself which makes up the 180 million figure is not even in a real newspaper its an online opinion piece

http://www.zdnet.com/au/telstra-denies- ... 000008658/
and the reporter looks about 12 years old (some kid on the internet making assumptions).

[Raiderdave]

We're talking about the most watched sport on TV Dave! . >

oh
thats old hat ..... RL won easily .. didn't ya hear

131 Million
to
123 Million

I'd suggest its you who needs to get with the program D head

Dave, if an average of 100 people watched 16hrs of program A over the weekend, and an average of 100 people watched 27 hrs of program B, which program was the most watched? which program most likely had the highest peak audience, or more viewers?

Marcus
if 131 Million people watched on sport
& 123 Million watched another

who had more veiwers ?

[Raiderdave]

Dave, if an average of 100 people watched 16hrs of program A over the weekend, and an average of 100 people watched 27 hrs of program B, which program was the most watched? which program most likely had the highest peak audience, or more viewers?

Thats an easy one , the entertaining match, the one where 99% of the viewers watched the entire game

VFL... boring as bat shit

most who start watching it ..... switch to something more interesting .... well before it ends

[Raiderdave]

If Rugby League rates even half as well as these ********* claim the nRL should have obliterated the media deal the AFL received. And they didn't. So either:

ah.....
do I need to trott out the so called .. expert analysis... from you cockheads as to why the NRL could not possibly get close to the VFL deal
impossible
not fathomable
can't happen
too many variables in the VFL's favour

how'd that pan out for yuz ?

[Xman]

oh
thats old hat ..... RL won easily .. didn't ya hear

131 Million
to
123 Million

I'd suggest its you who needs to get with the program D head

Dave, if an average of 100 people watched 16hrs of program A over the weekend, and an average of 100 people watched 27 hrs of program B, which program was the most watched? which program most likely had the highest peak audience, or more viewers?

Marcus
if 131 Million people watched on sport
& 123 Million watched another

who had more veiwers ?

All the cummulative ratings help show is the program that is watched the most. It cannot tell you the number of viewers per game, which can be used to auge popularity, because it depends on the number of matches shown. It also doesnt take into account factors like FTA, payTV, prime-time/non prime-time, concurrent games etc

The most watched is easier to work out: audience by time. Eg: a 10hr show rating 1million people is watched 10 times more than a 1hr show rating 1mil is watched.

[Raiderdave]

Dave, if an average of 100 people watched 16hrs of program A over the weekend, and an average of 100 people watched 27 hrs of program B, which program was the most watched? which program most likely had the highest peak audience, or more viewers?

Marcus
if 131 Million people watched on sport
& 123 Million watched another

who had more veiwers ?

All the cummulative ratings help show is the program that is watched the most.

ta

[Drac]

In terms of cumultive audience Days of Our Lives (airing 5 days a week 52 weeks a year) outrates the Voice.

Which one do you think the networks would rather have?

[ParraEelsNRL]

Oh let me make up the NRL money figures lets see

1025 million TV rights + 100 million online rights + 60 million NZ rights = 1.185 billion close to 1.2 billion you nearly made it.

Yeah Pies but they stated double the last deal for online which was 90m*2 = 180m at the least, and also 60m for online rights........... we got 75m 5 years ago.

1.025B + 180M Online rights + 100m minimum NZ sky, (will be 150m imo)= 1.3b at the least, and there we have it at the least the NRL has already surpassed the AFL in TV deals and it TV ratings.......... =D> =D> =D>

Your confused last deal was 90 million for online and naming rights and was a 6 year deal. There was only 1 deal not 2

http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/tesltr ... 6477592154

In 2007, Telstra signed a six-year deal worth $90 million for naming and new media rights but it expires this year.

The 75 million is a false report because people have been saying that 90 divided by 6 = 15 million a year so thats 75 million for 5 years there has been a lot of confusion about this. This time around the NRL got 100-150 for online + naming rights (150 being the maximum for the double claimed in one article (online newspaper)with two large print newspapers claiming 100 million +). So in terms of online rights only thats by my estimate 30-100 million I was generous and went with the maximum.

Today, Telstra and the ARLC wouldn't disclose the value of the new deal, but said that it was worth double the 2007 agreement

even on league unlimited no one is using the number 180 million for this figure apart from RaiderDave. The 180 million that one reporter stated was a misunderstanding and he assumed double the previous deal was 180 million because the previous deal was 90 million. But the 90 m was a 6 years deal (15 m a year) while the new deal is 5 years. Double 15 million a year is 30 million a year or 150 million for 5 years. This is what the reporter then assumed and the reason why he came up with the 180 million figure.

which was reportedly worth AU$90 million, putting the deal at around AU$180 million

So he has besically doubled the 90 million not realising the difference in the length of the deals, because the commision said the online rights were worth double the previous deal (see second quote) Even the 90 million dollars is not known and is assumed because the last deal was confidential.


The reporter failed to understand that the last deal was a 6 year deal and this deal is a five year deal. Even then it is hard to work what the online component is worth because when the commision was talking about the double they were only referring to the online part of the deal so if the last online component was 8 million a year then doubling that figure would be 80 million for online + naming rights. Lets also not forget that some of the online component was already payed for in the 1.025 billion by foxtel, when they bought the tablet rights to their 5 games. Maybe this was 20 million (who knows?). This I assume would be included in this doubling figure.


The article itself which makes up the 180 million figure is not even in a real newspaper its an online opinion piece

http://www.zdnet.com/au/telstra-denies- ... 000008658/
and the reporter looks about 12 years old (some kid on the internet making assumptions).

You do know that when a troll is going to troll because they don't have all the facts, they'll use the lowest number possible everytime to win their argument?

I wonder why you continue to use the numbers you do?