Talking Footy

I just checked it up. With the mobile, internet and NZ figure yet to be negotiated the deal could be worth 1.1 billion + with this added in.

The deal includes a cash component of $925 million With the remainder of the value made up of contra advertising and promotions of $100m.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/n ... 6454832557

Add the 100m for NZ rights and the Online rights of about 150million = 1.275million for a 16 team competition.

In summary this is a very good deal financially, however where it is not so good is the 1 live FTA game and 2 non live games. Its the same deal as last time. It would be nice to have 3-4 live FTA games. It also suggests that 9 could broadcast NRL on either 9 or gem into all states. SO if it wanted to it could put NRL on gem in NSW like it did with the Olympics.

Xman wrote:

If its a decent deal why is LU in MELTDOWN???

Youve been screwed. Fox and 9 obviously refused to pay decent money to go simulcast like the AFL have.

This left you with 20% less money than the AFL but with only 1 live game on FTA per week and the same foxtel schedule!

SO essentially all you ended up with is more money.....

Just like the majority of people on LU, you guys should be furious!!! Too funny.

Fox have paid 150% more than they did last time , How can even you, XMan., say this is a bad result?

piesman2011 wrote:

In summary this is a very good deal financially, however where it is not so good is the 1 live FTA game and 2 non live games. Its the same deal as last time. It would be nice to have 3-4 live FTA games. It also suggests that 9 could broadcast NRL on either 9 or gem into all states. SO if it wanted to it could put NRL on gem in NSW like it did with the Olympics.

Yes agree, financially it is a great deal but the coverage is lacking big time.

eelofwest wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

In summary this is a very good deal financially, however where it is not so good is the 1 live FTA game and 2 non live games. Its the same deal as last time. It would be nice to have 3-4 live FTA games. It also suggests that 9 could broadcast NRL on either 9 or gem into all states. SO if it wanted to it could put NRL on gem in NSW like it did with the Olympics.

Yes agree, financially it is a great deal but the coverage is lacking big time.

This sums up my thoughts.

I don't like that 9 are back, but I do like the dough, a lot.

Pretty close to equal to AFL with one less game per week, 1 less hour per game, less live games on FTA, less in-game ads and they have 2 new teams that are not only bleeding like stuck pigs, the incumbent teams where the new teams went are bleeding profusely as well.

As for the times etc, we all have to remember that when you pay that much money for a product, you have to have a few wins in the deal.

At the end of the day I think it's a big win. Well done ARLC.

eelofwest wrote:

The deal includes a cash component of $925 million With the remainder of the value made up of contra advertising and promotions of $100m.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/n ... 6454832557

Add the 100m for NZ rights and the Online rights of about 150million = 1.275million for a 16 team competition.

its less than the AFL got for the Australian component. That must hurt.

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

If its a decent deal why is LU in MELTDOWN???

Youve been screwed. Fox and 9 obviously refused to pay decent money to go simulcast like the AFL have.

This left you with 20% less money than the AFL but with only 1 live game on FTA per week and the same foxtel schedule!

SO essentially all you ended up with is more money.....

Just like the majority of people on LU, you guys should be furious!!! Too funny.

Fox have paid 150% more than they did last time , How can even you, XMan., say this is a bad result?

Well Im not the only one. LU is a mad house ATM. Why? because the AFL have 4 live games per week in to NSW and QLD and the NRL only 1. They also have 9 live foxtel games plus their own channel and the NRL only 5.

The money is good, you needed it, but for the RL fans its a disaster!

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

If its a decent deal why is LU in MELTDOWN???

Youve been screwed. Fox and 9 obviously refused to pay decent money to go simulcast like the AFL have.

This left you with 20% less money than the AFL but with only 1 live game on FTA per week and the same foxtel schedule!

SO essentially all you ended up with is more money.....

Just like the majority of people on LU, you guys should be furious!!! Too funny.

Fox have paid 150% more than they did last time , How can even you, XMan., say this is a bad result?

Well Im not the only one. LU is a mad house ATM. Why? because the AFL have 4 live games per week in to NSW and QLD and the NRL only 1. They also have 9 live foxtel games plus their own channel and the NRL only 5.

The money is good, you needed it, but for the RL fans its a disaster!

Oh well looks like i will be forking out money for foxtell... :D

I wouldn't be bagging the NRL. Their deal could be more then the AFL financially (or about the same) with NZ included, with two less teams. With potnetial money in NZ, the AFL is looking to play games in NZ next year to try to gage if there is any interest for a future NZ team. Congratulations to the NRL this will give them the money they need to grow their sport at grass roots. Hopefully the players wont take a majority of the money I hear they are currently on about 60% of the total NRL/club revenue, hopefully they can reduce this percentage.

piesman2011 wrote:

I wouldn't be bagging the NRL. Their deal could be more then the AFL financially (or about the same) with NZ included, with two less teams. With potnetial money in NZ, the AFL is looking to play games in NZ next year to try to gage if there is any interest for a future NZ team. Congratulations to the NRL this will give them the money they need to grow their sport at grass roots. Hopefully the players wont take a majority of the money I hear they are currently on about 60% of the total NRL/club revenue, hopefully they can reduce this percentage.

This is a great deal, 1.275million to the game over 5 years compared to 500million over 6 years.

Does anybody actually think that more then doubling your TV rights in five years is a bad result....

This deal would have been perfect if Nine were made to show 4 games, 3 live 1 delayed.

Your also forgetting we have a fixed schedule now.

We also did not have to add more adds to the coverage to achieve 1.275million.

We also only have 16 teams in this competition.

A good deal going forward.

piesman2011 wrote:

I wouldn't be bagging the NRL. Their deal could be more then the AFL financially (or about the same) with NZ included, with two less teams. With potnetial money in NZ, the AFL is looking to play games in NZ next year to try to gage if there is any interest for a future NZ team. Congratulations to the NRL this will give them the money they need to grow their sport at grass roots. Hopefully the players wont take a majority of the money I hear they are currently on about 60% of the total NRL/club revenue, hopefully they can reduce this percentage.

Difference is the AFL got everything they wanted PLUS the money. They got 4 games live to every state. Fans in all states but VIC TAAS get to see their teams every week on FTA. They kept their fixed schedule. They get every game simulcast on FTA and foxtel. They got other goodies too.

The NRL sacrificed all these extra extremely important benefits for casholla only. Whats cash without decent FTA exposure?

The NRL has the same exposure as before the deal. On top of that they are now guaranteed exposure into all states. They may have gone with the its not broke so why fix it strategy. More live games might have been good for their TV viewer numbers, but who knows what effect it would have on the crowds. Part of the reason the AFL crowds have fallen this year has been because of the 3 live games. Why go to a Port Adelaide game and watch your team get thumped when you can watch it live on TV (and turn it off half way through). Why go to a Lions game when every Lions game is live on TV. I think long term having the team live will be benificial because of exposure but short term it will cause problems with the crowds.

A quick question. Have the NRL added a lot more adds, a few more adds or just kept the statis quo?

piesman2011 wrote:

A quick question. Have the NRL added a lot more adds, a few more adds or just kept the statis quo?

Status quo