Talking Footy

Drac wrote:

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

We don't win flags ffs you wannabe yanks dickheads.

Australian Football has been issuing flags to its premiers since 1895. Not because they were yank wannabes, but due to flags being a cheap alternative to metal trophy cups, which weren't introduced until the late 1950s.

Christ, this is what I get for showing some genuine interest in throwball. Lesson learned.

So the reason you morons have flags is because you were to f#@@@@#g cheap to fork out for trophys?

pussycat wrote:

Drac wrote:

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

We don't win flags ffs you wannabe yanks dickheads.

Australian Football has been issuing flags to its premiers since 1895. Not because they were yank wannabes, but due to flags being a cheap alternative to metal trophy cups, which weren't introduced until the late 1950s.

Christ, this is what I get for showing some genuine interest in throwball. Lesson learned.

So the reason you morons have flags is because you were to f#@@@@#g cheap to fork out for trophys?

Yeah because a trophy was a priority in the early 20th century

They were and some are still being played for well over 100 years later like the FA cup in Soccer and the Challenge Cup in English RL or the Curry Cup in South African Rugby Union blah blah blah, stop talking rot as usual.

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Drac wrote:

Australian Football has been issuing flags to its premiers since 1895. Not because they were yank wannabes, but due to flags being a cheap alternative to metal trophy cups, which weren't introduced until the late 1950s.

Christ, this is what I get for showing some genuine interest in throwball. Lesson learned.

So the reason you morons have flags is because you were to f#@@@@#g cheap to fork out for trophys?

Yeah because a trophy was a priority in the early 20th century

Trophy's are the norm not Flags you idiot..........

eelofwest wrote:

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

So the reason you morons have flags is because you were to f#@@@@#g cheap to fork out for trophys?

Yeah because a trophy was a priority in the early 20th century

Trophy's are the norm not Flags you idiot..........

Who cares about the norm? The AFL have a trophy plus a flag

However, without another bidder in New Zealand the NRL has little leverage to gain an increased deal and Fairfax has been told an alternative being considered was to sell the rights to a free-to-air network. By doing so, the NRL may not secure any more money from television in New Zealand but the greater exposure would significantly benefit the game across the Tasman.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z2J1jUSuua

Ohhhhh, poor Raiderdave and eels.

Xman wrote:

However, without another bidder in New Zealand the NRL has little leverage to gain an increased deal and Fairfax has been told an alternative being considered was to sell the rights to a free-to-air network. By doing so, the NRL may not secure any more money from television in New Zealand but the greater exposure would significantly benefit the game across the Tasman.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z2J1jUSuua

Ohhhhh, poor Raiderdave and eels.

Nice of you to leave out the most important Part..........

However, the NRL may be forced to start the season without a new television deal in New Zealand as negotiations with Sky NZ drag on. Sky NZ chief executive John Fellet indicated he was confident of retaining the rights but Fairfax Media understands the NRL is considering a deal with a free-to-air broadcaster.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z2J72ZmrtC

Either way we can take the money of NZ SKy and totally smash your TV deal or we can look to the future with FTA coverage.

If it is FTA coverage in NZ then that will be great for our TV ratings and growth of the game in NZ, if it is the money then its still great.

We are in a WIN WIN situation xman thanks for pointing this out to us NRL boys..... =D> =D> =D>


What the ratings battle will look like if we get our FTA coverage.........

NRL 160M VIEWERS +
AFL 123M.................

As far as I know we are still negotiating and we have got the highest bid on the table,'' Fellet said. ''Last year we did the deal two days before the season. It is not uncommon for it to go four weeks into the season.''

It is understood Sky NZ paid $14 million to broadcast NRL matches and all Warriors under 20s games and officials believe the rights are worth more - given the Australian deal has doubled in value. In addition, the return of Kiwi star Sonny Bill Williams to the NRL this season is considered a major drawcard and it has been suggested that his presence increases the value of the New Zealand television rights by $1 million.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z2J74ECJQ9

Yeah that is correct the rights are worth close if not double what they were last time, 14m PA last deal.

This deal at least 25m PA, 25*5 = 125m

That will bring our total up to 1.325b at the least ............. =D>

And lets hope for a FTA component for this deal in NZ, which is highly likely the NRL will take a little less for FTA coverage.

eelofwest wrote:

As far as I know we are still negotiating and we have got the highest bid on the table,'' Fellet said. ''Last year we did the deal two days before the season. It is not uncommon for it to go four weeks into the season.''

It is understood Sky NZ paid $14 million to broadcast NRL matches and all Warriors under 20s games and officials believe the rights are worth more - given the Australian deal has doubled in value. In addition, the return of Kiwi star Sonny Bill Williams to the NRL this season is considered a major drawcard and it has been suggested that his presence increases the value of the New Zealand television rights by $1 million.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z2J74ECJQ9

Yeah that is correct the rights are worth close if not double what they were last time, 14m PA last deal.

This deal at least 25m PA, 25*5 = 125m

That will bring our total up to 1.325b at the least ............. =D>

And lets hope for a FTA component for this deal in NZ, which is highly likely the NRL will take a little less for FTA coverage.

the rights are worth what people are prepared to pay for them and as we have been saying for NZ thats not much more than last time.

Xman wrote:

eelofwest wrote:

As far as I know we are still negotiating and we have got the highest bid on the table,'' Fellet said. ''Last year we did the deal two days before the season. It is not uncommon for it to go four weeks into the season.''

It is understood Sky NZ paid $14 million to broadcast NRL matches and all Warriors under 20s games and officials believe the rights are worth more - given the Australian deal has doubled in value. In addition, the return of Kiwi star Sonny Bill Williams to the NRL this season is considered a major drawcard and it has been suggested that his presence increases the value of the New Zealand television rights by $1 million.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z2J74ECJQ9

Yeah that is correct the rights are worth close if not double what they were last time, 14m PA last deal.

This deal at least 25m PA, 25*5 = 125m

That will bring our total up to 1.325b at the least ............. =D>

And lets hope for a FTA component for this deal in NZ, which is highly likely the NRL will take a little less for FTA coverage.

the rights are worth what people are prepared to pay for them and as we have been saying for NZ thats not much more than last time.

That is the exact same line you used last time pre 1.2b dollar Aus NRL TV deal, how that work out for ya mate?.......................

You give no real reason to why the NRL will not get more money just that people will only pay what they think they are worth line..... =D> =D>

We have more then doubled our TV money from FOX/Nine/Telstra and using that as a measuring stick to how valuable the NRL is to the networks there is no real reason why the NZ deal will not be double also, Factor in the 30% growth for NZRL and i am quite confident of a deal in the vicinity of 125-150m.

My guess is you are way of the money like you were on your last prediction.

And you've said that before too. Yet the article today confirms what others have said, the NRL won't get much more than their previous deal from NZ. You'll end up falling well short of the AFL even including NZ despite selling your comp to ch9.

Sorry

Hahahahaha poor xfail, what a dumbarse green merkin.

Xdumbarse, green with envy.

Vfl, #2 in Australia.

Deep down you know it too which makes it even funnier

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

Xdumbarse, green with envy.

Vfl, #2 in Australia.

Deep down you know it too which makes it even funnier

The NRL are only about 1.1b without NZ. Now it looks like NZ will only be less than 100m. Just not enough I'm afraid.