Talking Footy

Xman wrote:

You may still find people drop foxtel when 4 games are available on FTA because not many people will sit through more than that many games a weekend.

EVERY NRL player could receive a $20,000 bonus payment thanks to the code's looming broadcast deal bonanza.

Negotiations between players, clubs and the NRL will begin soon to finalise how to best distribute the new TV rights contract, tipped to be worth about $1.15 billion.

Clubs have already been told to set their 2013 rosters toward a $5 million salary cap, but the expected windfall could lift the ceiling a further $500,000.

While some clubs want the excess money to go directly toward a $5.5 million salary cap, NRL officials would prefer to reward the players via a one-off bonus or match payments.

At present all clubs have 25 NRL squad members, each of whom would receive a single $20,000 payment.

But as The Daily Telegraph revealed in January, salary cap auditor Ian Schubert supports a central match payment system to drip-feed excess money to the players. The model would see the NRL pay all players a fixed amount - believed to be $3000 - for each first grade appearance they make in 2013.


Schubert's plan is designed to benefit lower-paid footballers, because the match payments represent a bigger proportion of their base salary.

But there is also opposition from some clubs, which believe players would hide serious injury in pursuit of a weekly financial gain. NRL caretaker boss Shane Mattiske said both options were being considered to split "additional remuneration" beyond next year's preliminary $5 million cap.

"Due to the uncertainty of the TV deal, the clubs were told a number of months ago to work toward a $5 million cap for 2013," Mattiske said.

"There could be additional remuneration for the players outside that figure and there's a number of options for that.

"We could pay a straight bonus, match payments, retirement fund or additional representative bonuses.

"We have not agreed on any figures yet.

"But should the negotiations resolve to increase player payments (above a $5 million cap), all those alternatives will be discussed."

The first steps toward a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) began two weeks ago, when Mattiske met RLPA boss David Garnsey and leading players Robbie Farah, Steve Turner and Ben Creagh.

The RLPA's ultimate aim is to have the salary cap set at 25 per cent of the code's total revenue, which would equate to $6.2 million under a $1.15 billion broadcast deal.

But according to sources close to the negotiations, the percentage model will not be entertained until 2015.

The NRL wants to gradually increase the cap to prevent clubs from over-spending on players and endangering their long-term viability.

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

I bet you hope the NRL gets 500 million again aye eelsfraud?

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

I bet you hope the NRL gets 500 million again aye eelsfraud?

piesman2011 wrote:

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

I bet you hope the NRL gets 500 million again aye eelsfraud?

What is your medical condition?

Interim ARL Commission chief executive Shane Mattiske has revealed the value of the code's much-vaunted TV rights deal could dwindle if next season's draw is so rigid it denies broadcasters the ability to reschedule matches.

Interim ARL Commission chief executive Shane Mattiske has revealed the value of the code's much-vaunted TV rights deal could dwindle if next season's draw is so rigid it denies broadcasters the ability to reschedule matches.

Thurston blasted the game's current schedule a fortnight ago, saying planning NRL rounds only a month in advance affected player preparation and failed to provide clarity for clubs.

But the push for an AFL-style fixed-season schedule, where every round is mapped out in the off season, could cost the code millions if incumbent rights holders Channel 9 and Fox Sports are denied input on scheduling.

While mindful of Thurston's views, Mattiske said retaining some flexibility in the season schedule is vital as the commission faces pressure to broker a TV deal of at least $1 billion.

It is rumoured the ARLC is close to securing an $850 million cash deal, bolstered by $150 million in contra advertising, but Mattiske would not comment on either figure.

"By having some flexibility in the draw, that can certainly maximise the ratings value for the broadcasters and the value for the code," Mattiske said.

Xman wrote:

Interim ARL Commission chief executive Shane Mattiske has revealed the value of the code's much-vaunted TV rights deal could dwindle if next season's draw is so rigid it denies broadcasters the ability to reschedule matches.

Interim ARL Commission chief executive Shane Mattiske has revealed the value of the code's much-vaunted TV rights deal could dwindle if next season's draw is so rigid it denies broadcasters the ability to reschedule matches.

Thurston blasted the game's current schedule a fortnight ago, saying planning NRL rounds only a month in advance affected player preparation and failed to provide clarity for clubs.

But the push for an AFL-style fixed-season schedule, where every round is mapped out in the off season, could cost the code millions if incumbent rights holders Channel 9 and Fox Sports are denied input on scheduling.

While mindful of Thurston's views, Mattiske said retaining some flexibility in the season schedule is vital as the commission faces pressure to broker a TV deal of at least $1 billion.

It is rumoured the ARLC is close to securing an $850 million cash deal, bolstered by $150 million in contra advertising, but Mattiske would not comment on either figure.

"By having some flexibility in the draw, that can certainly maximise the ratings value for the broadcasters and the value for the code," Mattiske said.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nrl/f ... 6452121494

So despite the fact the NRL allow the TV networks to control their playing schedule to maximise ratings they could still sign a deal well below the AFLs TV rights. Imagine if they demand a fixed schedule like the AFL enjoy?

Xman wrote:

Well for starters i believe the contra includes internet rights etc.

Secondly the AFL got 1.253M

NZ will give extra but isnt Australia is it.

eelofwest wrote:

Xman wrote:

Well for starters i believe the contra includes internet rights etc.

Secondly the AFL got 1.253M

NZ will give extra but isnt Australia is it.

Firstly the contra has nothing to do with internet rights.

Second we are talking about the total for media rights deals.......just because the AFL don't have media deals with any other country does not mean that we cut out the NRL's media rights just so it suits your argument.

You like to cut out certain parts to suit your argument Xman just like Beassie has done with the regional TV ratings on this site.

Xman wrote:

eelofwest wrote:

Xman wrote:

Well for starters i believe the contra includes internet rights etc.

Secondly the AFL got 1.253M

NZ will give extra but isnt Australia is it.

Firstly the contra has nothing to do with internet rights.

Second we are talking about the total for media rights deals.......just because the AFL don't have media deals with any other country does not mean that we cut out the NRL's media rights just so it suits your argument.

You like to cut out certain parts to suit your argument Xman just like Beassie has done with the regional TV ratings on this site.

so if internet etc isnt part of contra then its part of cash which was accounted for in the figure.

Would you prefer more money or a fixed schedule?

The agreement, announced on Thursday at AFL House, will deliver $1.253 billion to the League, up from the $780 million in the previous broadcast deal.

The cash component is $1.118 billion, with $135 million extra in contra arrangements. The cash contribution is $369 million more than in the previous broadcast deal.

Xman wrote:

The agreement, announced on Thursday at AFL House, will deliver $1.253 billion to the League, up from the $780 million in the previous broadcast deal.

The cash component is $1.118 billion, with $135 million extra in contra arrangements. The cash contribution is $369 million more than in the previous broadcast deal.

http://www.AFL.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

Well the the AFLs deal was over $1.1M cash only. :D

A lucrative, renewed TV rights deal struck by the NRL has earned the ire of the rugby league players union and may reduce Channel Nine's AFL bid hopes.

NRL chief executive David Gallop has announced that Nine and Fox Sports had extended its coverage until 2012 - a deal worth "well over $500 million for a six-year period".

Gallop said it represented a "60 per cent" annual increase on the existing arrangements which is believed to be $13 million a year from Nine and $35 million from Fox Sports.

The agreement ensures two Friday night games will be shown on Nine and the return of Monday night football on Fox Sports from 2007 when the NRL boasts a 16-team competition with the arrival of the new Gold Coast franchise.

Gallop said the deal ensured the NRL would increase the club grant of $2.5 million by $250,000 in 2006 and by $500,000 in 2007.

NRL secures $500m rights deal

A new television rights deal struck by the National Rugby League (NRL) may reduce Channel Nine's ability to make a competitive bid for the AFL rights.

The NRL's deal with Nine and Fox Sports is worth $500 million over six years and represents a 60 per cent annual increase on the exisiting arrangements.

Channel Nine and pay-TV station Fox Sports have secured the rights to broadcast the National Rugby League until 2012.

The status quo. Nine and Fox Sports retain the rights for five years. This means Nine continues to show a double-header on Friday nights and a delayed Sunday telecast. Fox would retain its Super Saturday three-match coverage, plus one Sunday game and its popular Monday night game. Nine would also retain Origin and internationals. Fox Sports or Telstra would acquire the online rights to live, or near live, games on mobile phones. The flexible schedule would continue, with the networks making their choice of games four to seven weeks in advance. While Fox Sports has the money, Nine might not. The debt-stricken network could have problems with its bankers in submitting a five-year, liability-loaded contract.

pussycat wrote:

Fixed scedule matches only work in AFL because its such a lopsided competition. People can tell at the start of the year what sides are going to be succesful and which sides arn't - Give Collingwood , Essendon and a few others 6-7 matches and Melbourne 1. Problem solved. League is not the Same. Take 2010 for example Roosters, G.Coast, Canberra and Penrith where finists and major contenders. In 2011 these sides were fighting out the wooden spoon. If the Networks were forced to pick the season in advance then these are the sides we would have been whatching.
It cant be good for the game to be whatching the wooden spooners of a Friday Nigh, especially not in the run up to the finals. If the game wants to prosper it should have its best games on FTA. The NRL are not a charity organisation. It's not the under sevens where everyone gets a go - everyone gets a turn. Win matches and you will be on FTA, dont and you wont!

I'm pretty sure the current TV scheduling is picked on a 10, 10 and 6 week basis. That sounds like the way to go to me.