NRL to reap $1.2b from TV rights

[Xman]

So you have the facts Parra? Show us...

[piesman2011]

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?

I used the highest number possible for online only results. I took out the naming right part 50 million minimum (AFL got this for their 2008?/9 deal so this would be miniumum for NRL) out of the naming rights and online line maximum (150 maximum) which left it would 100 million max for online rights only.
So at most thats 100 million for online rights only.


This is a bit more realistic 150 million max online + naming rights (double previous results as stated by commision) - 20 million for fox 5 game tablet results payed in the innitial 1.025 billion- 65 million naming rights = extra 65 million from the telstra for online (future tech) only (so no naming rights). There might be even less at least upfront if you consider that the NRL might recieve some of this money as part of a payment percentage from phone subs. So they might have recieved 40 million only for online with the hope that phone subs will generate them an extra 25 million.

How much of this doubling figure as stated is from the fox 5 games component? Its all smoke and mirriors unless the real overall figure is released.

[Raiderdave]

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?

250 shows a year to 50
while
the VFL & NRL have roughly the same numb of broadcasts each year

nice try
but completely irrelevant

[ParraEelsNRL]

So you have the facts Parra? Show us...

No, that's my whole point

[ParraEelsNRL]

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
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.
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.
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?

I used the highest number possible for online only results. I took out the naming right part 50 million minimum (AFL got this for their 2008?/9 deal so this would be miniumum for NRL) out of the naming rights and online line maximum (150 maximum) which left it would 100 million max for online rights only.
So at most thats 100 million for online rights only.


This is a bit more realistic 150 million max online + naming rights (double previous results as stated by commision) - 20 million for fox 5 game tablet results payed in the innitial 1.025 billion- 65 million naming rights = extra 65 million from the telstra for online (future tech) only (so no naming rights). There might be even less at least upfront if you consider that the NRL might recieve some of this money as part of a payment percentage from phone subs. So they might have recieved 40 million only for online with the hope that phone subs will generate them an extra 25 million.

How much of this doubling figure as stated is from the fox 5 games component? Its all smoke and mirriors unless the real overall figure is released.

It'll all come out some time this year, you can bet on it because if there was something up, News Limiteds Daily Terrorgraph would be all over it.

Somewhere during the season it'll be mentioned what was paid for what, it's always that way in RL as we do things different, like selling our rights not all at once like most, but over months or years like dumbarses.

And you know what happens then?

We all argue over it because they can't be bothered giving the fans all the info. (ARLC seems to have kept this part of the old shit)

[piesman2011]

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?

I used the highest number possible for online only results. I took out the naming right part 50 million minimum (AFL got this for their 2008?/9 deal so this would be miniumum for NRL) out of the naming rights and online line maximum (150 maximum) which left it would 100 million max for online rights only.
So at most thats 100 million for online rights only.


This is a bit more realistic 150 million max online + naming rights (double previous results as stated by commision) - 20 million for fox 5 game tablet results payed in the innitial 1.025 billion- 65 million naming rights = extra 65 million from the telstra for online (future tech) only (so no naming rights). There might be even less at least upfront if you consider that the NRL might recieve some of this money as part of a payment percentage from phone subs. So they might have recieved 40 million only for online with the hope that phone subs will generate them an extra 25 million.

How much of this doubling figure as stated is from the fox 5 games component? Its all smoke and mirriors unless the real overall figure is released.

It'll all come out some time this year, you can bet on it because if there was something up, News Limiteds Daily Terrorgraph would be all over it.

Somewhere during the season it'll be mentioned what was paid for what, it's always that way in RL as we do things different, like selling our rights not all at once like most, but over months or years like dumbarses.

And you know what happens then?

We all argue over it because they can't be bothered giving the fans all the info. (ARLC seems to have kept this part of the old shit)

Yeah your probabaly right. The figure will be leaked at some point maybe after the radio and kiwi deals are done. Until then we are just ignorant arguing about figures we dont even really know to be correct.

[ParraEelsNRL]

Yep, the more things change the more they stay the same.

And honestly, I couldn't give a rats what the final figure is because at the end of the day, RL took a massive financial hit for the last 20 years and they have finally broken up News and 9's control of the game. Even if the 2013 TV deal is unders because of the 1st and last rights being gone, all the better for the future.

Australian RL can finally live or die by its own hand and that's all the fans ever wanted.

If some of you Australian Rules fans think this is the high spot for RL in Australia, all I'll say is, you've got rocks in your head.

[piesman2011]

Yep, the more things change the more they stay the same.

And honestly, I couldn't give a rats what the final figure is because at the end of the day, RL took a massive financial hit for the last 20 years and they have finally broken up News and 9's control of the game. Even if the 2013 TV deal is unders because of the 1st and last rights being gone, all the better for the future.

Australian RL can finally live or die by its own hand and that's all the fans ever wanted.

If some of you Australian Rules fans think this is the high spot for RL in Australia, all I'll say is, you've got rocks in your head.

Good post

[Xman]

Yep, the more things change the more they stay the same.

And honestly, I couldn't give a rats what the final figure is because at the end of the day, RL took a massive financial hit for the last 20 years and they have finally broken up News and 9's control of the game. Even if the 2013 TV deal is unders because of the 1st and last rights being gone, all the better for the future.

Australian RL can finally live or die by its own hand and that's all the fans ever wanted.

If some of you Australian Rules fans think this is the high spot for RL in Australia, all I'll say is, you've got rocks in your head.

The same could be said for RL fans who think the current reduction in AFL crowds shows a steady pattern of decline. Expansion will always have a destabilizing affect. The coming years will see consolidation and eventually growth, to the point where the decision to expand will be vindicated. The decision to move a VFL team to Sydney and an AFL team to GC/Brisbane looked shaky for a many years but has clearly been successful. I believe these new teams will eventually be the same.

[ParraEelsNRL]

Yep, the more things change the more they stay the same.

And honestly, I couldn't give a rats what the final figure is because at the end of the day, RL took a massive financial hit for the last 20 years and they have finally broken up News and 9's control of the game. Even if the 2013 TV deal is unders because of the 1st and last rights being gone, all the better for the future.

Australian RL can finally live or die by its own hand and that's all the fans ever wanted.

If some of you Australian Rules fans think this is the high spot for RL in Australia, all I'll say is, you've got rocks in your head.

The same could be said for RL fans who think the current reduction in AFL crowds shows a steady pattern of decline. Expansion will always have a destabilizing affect. The coming years will see consolidation and eventually growth, to the point where the decision to expand will be vindicated. The decision to move a VFL team to Sydney and an AFL team to GC/Brisbane looked shaky for a many years but has clearly been successful. I believe these new teams will eventually be the same.

I only laugh at the two new clubs in your comp because there wasn't a lot of noise coming out of the areas asking for them. I can't see the midgits working at all.

[Xman]

Yep, the more things change the more they stay the same.

And honestly, I couldn't give a rats what the final figure is because at the end of the day, RL took a massive financial hit for the last 20 years and they have finally broken up News and 9's control of the game. Even if the 2013 TV deal is unders because of the 1st and last rights being gone, all the better for the future.

Australian RL can finally live or die by its own hand and that's all the fans ever wanted.

If some of you Australian Rules fans think this is the high spot for RL in Australia, all I'll say is, you've got rocks in your head.

The same could be said for RL fans who think the current reduction in AFL crowds shows a steady pattern of decline. Expansion will always have a destabilizing affect. The coming years will see consolidation and eventually growth, to the point where the decision to expand will be vindicated. The decision to move a VFL team to Sydney and an AFL team to GC/Brisbane looked shaky for a many years but has clearly been successful. I believe these new teams will eventually be the same.

I only laugh at the two new clubs in your comp because there wasn't a lot of noise coming out of the areas asking for them. I can't see the midgits working at all.

They are the least likely I will agree. If they are succesful it will take a few decades at least. However, I think the Suns could make it if their side becomes strong.

[ParraEelsNRL]

Yeah the GC have a chance but I can't see the other mob doing any good.

Should be in Tasmania where they are wanted and would be loved from day one.

Fuck the population BS, all that says is one thing, anything anyone cares about is making as much money as possible, yet they'll lose millions on this team whereas they probably would've made a profit in their first year down in Tas.

Same as the CC Bears in the NRL, Ridiculous!

[Stewie]

I can see the Giants establishing some good support once have a succesful run like the Swans did in 1996. It won't be as strong as the Swans support of course, but likely in the 15 - 20k average crowd mark.

[Stewie]

Yeah the GC have a chance but I can't see the other mob doing any good.

Should be in Tasmania where they are wanted and would be loved from day one.

Fuck the population BS, all that says is one thing, anything anyone cares about is making as much money as possible, yet they'll lose millions on this team whereas they probably would've made a profit in their first year down in Tas.

Same as the CC Bears in the NRL, Ridiculous!

Agree, Tasmania should have a team like the Bears in the nRL who should be before a new Perth based side. The only people in Perth who are wanting a new nRL club are the NSW and QLD expats living over there, most likely only temporarily for mining...

[ParraEelsNRL]

No, that SA where they can't support their local code let alone a code from somewhere else.