Talking Footy

piesman2011 wrote:

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.

They sure did. And there's a heck of a lot of nashing of teeth over at LU. Theyre devastated. They continue their poor FTA coverage for another 5 years. Sure theyll get more money but the average NRL fan wont see this in any meaningful way.

Doc Brown had whipped them into a frenzy . They were expecting a new network which cared abnout their game to show 4 live FTA games per week with all games on foxtel. All this for 1.2-1.4M.

Well they are a hell of a long way short of that so I can see why so many are angry and consider the deal a complete failure.

Still think we got a good deal.

130% more money for the broadcast right's then last time.

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....

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 compared to the AFL 18 team/ 2 teams gusling 200million a season from the AFL.

Mr Greenburg one of the best Coe's in the comp thinks its a good deal and i agree.

http://video.dailytelegraph.com.au/2270 ... V-deal-218

eelofwest wrote:

Still think we got a good deal.

130% more money for the broadcast right's then last time.

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....

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 compared to the AFL 18 team/ 2 teams gusling 200million a season from the AFL.

Mr Greenburg one of the best Coe's in the comp thinks its a good deal and i agree.

http://video.dailytelegraph.com.au/2270 ... V-deal-218

Its a good deal for the NRL financially. It sucks big time for their supporters. It compares very poorly with the AFL's deal, especially considering the NRL is "made for TV" and has done everything possible to make it a better TV game to increase ratings since this is where it earns the majority of its income. This is indetriment to the live attendance where income is small.

The AFL have kept their game a members and attendance game and gain huge revenue from these areas. Yet they got more money and far better TV coverage than the NRL.

Hmm, I wonder which code is better off? :D

I think the NRL is a lot better off. I think everyone would prefer an AFL like deal with 4 FTA (3 live games) but the NRL deal means the competition and the sport itself is a lot better off.

Xman wrote:

eelofwest wrote:

Still think we got a good deal.

130% more money for the broadcast right's then last time.

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....

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 compared to the AFL 18 team/ 2 teams gusling 200million a season from the AFL.

Mr Greenburg one of the best Coe's in the comp thinks its a good deal and i agree.

http://video.dailytelegraph.com.au/2270 ... V-deal-218

Its a good deal for the NRL financially. It sucks big time for their supporters. It compares very poorly with the AFL's deal, especially considering the NRL is "made for TV" and has done everything possible to make it a better TV game to increase ratings since this is where it earns the majority of its income. This is indetriment to the live attendance where income is small.

The AFL have kept their game a members and attendance game and gain huge revenue from these areas. Yet they got more money and far better TV coverage than the NRL.

Hmm, I wonder which code is better off? :D

you dribbling ******
the AFL had to spend 200 Million of its deal on 2 waste of space teams that no one will ever support ... & that have turned your comp into a lop sided disaster

we got 25 Million less in cash over 5 years for exactly the same comp we have now .. we didn't have to turn our comp to s.hit
also
we have exactly the same amount of broadcast time .. no compromise here .. no more adds .. so
less broadcast time .. so a lot less adds then schlongball
but despite being told by **** ball F wits like you for a very long time this is the reason we won't ... in fact ... couldn't get the same

we're getting 25% more per hour of broadcast time ... then the VFL
how'd that happen dipshit ?

gee .. I shoulda bet you lot we'd do this well

oh hang on
I nearly forgot
this site is full of bet welching ... gutless .. spineless .... slimy .... flogball w@nkers

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

eelofwest wrote:

Still think we got a good deal.

130% more money for the broadcast right's then last time.

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....

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 compared to the AFL 18 team/ 2 teams gusling 200million a season from the AFL.

Mr Greenburg one of the best Coe's in the comp thinks its a good deal and i agree.

http://video.dailytelegraph.com.au/2270 ... V-deal-218

Its a good deal for the NRL financially. It sucks big time for their supporters. It compares very poorly with the AFL's deal, especially considering the NRL is "made for TV" and has done everything possible to make it a better TV game to increase ratings since this is where it earns the majority of its income. This is indetriment to the live attendance where income is small.

The AFL have kept their game a members and attendance game and gain huge revenue from these areas. Yet they got more money and far better TV coverage than the NRL.

Hmm, I wonder which code is better off? :D

you dribbling ******
the AFL had to spend 200 Million of its deal on 2 waste of space teams that no one will ever support ... & that have turned your comp into a lop sided disaster

we got 25 Million less in cash over 5 years for exactly the same comp we have now .. we didn't have to turn our comp to s.hit
also
we have exactly the same amount of broadcast time .. no compromise here .. no more adds .. so
less broadcast time .. so a lot less adds then schlongball
but despite being told by **** ball F wits like you for a very long time this being the reason we weren't ... in fact ... couldn't get the same

we're getting 25% more per hour of broadcast time ... then the VFL
how'd that happen dipshit ?

gee .. I shoulda bet you lot we'd do this well

oh hang on
I nearly forgot
this site is full of bet welching ... gutless .. spineless .... slimy .... flogball w@nkers

and here he is! =D> =D>

Whats that about expansion? Better FTA and foxtel coverage?

Youve been screwed over big time.

Docbrown had you all boning up on complete speculation. Reality hit and LU is about as upbeat as a funeral parlour!

As for the susn and giants, the AFL earn far more from other revenuestreams like gate receipts and sponsorship than the NRL. And unlike the NRL they can afford expansion

Poor Dave. Poor poor Dave. No Perth team. No Adelaide team. No live NRL. No foxtel simulcasting. Nol hope!

Xman wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

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.

They sure did. And there's a heck of a lot of nashing of teeth over at LU. Theyre devastated. They continue their poor FTA coverage for another 5 years. Sure theyll get more money but the average NRL fan wont see this in any meaningful way.

Doc Brown had whipped them into a frenzy . They were expecting a new network which cared abnout their game to show 4 live FTA games per week with all games on foxtel. All this for 1.2-1.4M.

Well they are a hell of a long way short of that so I can see why so many are angry and consider the deal a complete failure.

a hell of a long way short ?

the Australian TV component alone is 1.025 Billion

add the Over seas rights
& the online rights

& its a bigger deal then the VFL's at around 1.3 Billion
for the same comp we have now ...


marcus
the extra broadcast time .. 3 hrs to 2
why didn't that come into the equation ?

the regionals not being worth anything ?
was that factored in marcus ?

foxtel not seeing the NRL as valuable
hmmm
struggling to see where this occured marcus

ch 9 not able to afford the rights marcus
how'd that go for you ?



wot a dribbling moron who knows sh.it about anything .. you are
good job F wit

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

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.

They sure did. And there's a heck of a lot of nashing of teeth over at LU. Theyre devastated. They continue their poor FTA coverage for another 5 years. Sure theyll get more money but the average NRL fan wont see this in any meaningful way.

Doc Brown had whipped them into a frenzy . They were expecting a new network which cared abnout their game to show 4 live FTA games per week with all games on foxtel. All this for 1.2-1.4M.

Well they are a hell of a long way short of that so I can see why so many are angry and consider the deal a complete failure.

a hell of a long way short ?

the Australian TV component alone is 1.025 Billion

add the Over seas rights
& the online rights

& its a bigger deal then the VFL's at around 1.3 Billion
for the same comp we have now ...


marcus
the extra broadcast time .. 3 hrs to 2
why didn't that come into the equation ?

the regionals not being worth anything ?
was that factored in marcus ?

foxtel not seeing the NRL as valuable
hmmm
struggling to see where this occured marcus

ch 9 not able to afford the rights marcus
how'd that go for you ?



wot a dribbling moron who knows sh.it about anything .. you are
good job F wit

The regionals, greater value of the Sydney advertising, better ratings for foxtel games, SOO and internationals, flexible scheduling for some of the season, market competition with some channels struggling, were all taken into account Dave. :D :D

And despite all these advantages the NRL still got far far less than the AFLs Australian component.

Plus they got screwed over with 3 FTA games, one being\live, and only 5 foxtel games. Thats twentieth century broadcastinbg that is!

And as ive seen many say on LU, they could have insisted on a desl like the AFLs but they would have needed to settle for a sub-billion dollar deal. This was exactly what we were predicting. But we should have known they would sell out and screw the fans.

Dont sell it to me Dave. Sell it to all the angry NRL fans on LU who know its a disaster!

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Its a good deal for the NRL financially. It sucks big time for their supporters. It compares very poorly with the AFL's deal, especially considering the NRL is "made for TV" and has done everything possible to make it a better TV game to increase ratings since this is where it earns the majority of its income. This is indetriment to the live attendance where income is small.

The AFL have kept their game a members and attendance game and gain huge revenue from these areas. Yet they got more money and far better TV coverage than the NRL.

Hmm, I wonder which code is better off? :D

you dribbling ******
the AFL had to spend 200 Million of its deal on 2 waste of space teams that no one will ever support ... & that have turned your comp into a lop sided disaster

we got 25 Million less in cash over 5 years for exactly the same comp we have now .. we didn't have to turn our comp to s.hit
also
we have exactly the same amount of broadcast time .. no compromise here .. no more adds .. so
less broadcast time .. so a lot less adds then schlongball
but despite being told by **** ball F wits like you for a very long time this being the reason we weren't ... in fact ... couldn't get the same

we're getting 25% more per hour of broadcast time ... then the VFL
how'd that happen dipshit ?

gee .. I shoulda bet you lot we'd do this well

oh hang on
I nearly forgot
this site is full of bet welching ... gutless .. spineless .... slimy .... flogball w@nkers

and here he is! =D> =D>

Whats that about expansion? Better FTA and foxtel coverage?

Youve been screwed over big time.

Docbrown had you all boning up on complete speculation. Reality hit and LU is about as upbeat as a funeral parlour!

As for the susn and giants, the AFL earn far more from other revenuestreams like gate receipts and sponsorship than the NRL. And unlike the NRL they can afford expansion

Poor Dave. Poor poor Dave. No Perth team. No Adelaide team. No live NRL. No foxtel simulcasting. Nol hope!

who said we're not expanding ... ?
but the fact we didn't have to.. weren't forced to.,.. to secure a massive .. huge increase in our deal is extriodinary
... broadcasters forced your gumby sport to & gee ... thats gone well hasn't it
2 sides that are draining the other 16 clubs of money some cant afford right now.. diluting the talent pool adding to the unevenness & making the VFL a mockery .... the broadcasters said do it
& do it the dopey VFL did
oh & foxtel are just loving the results the VFL has delivered them with simulcasting that they paid 650 Million for this year eh
.... what was the figure ... just 20,000 new subscribers
good luck trying that sh.it on next time

we on the other hand compromised almost nothing from wot we do now
except a later GF kickoff time & a few sunday games

did they force us to put more add breaks in ........... no
a fully floating schedule .... no

so we miss out on a few live games on FTA this time round
we still have 6/8 all up which is enough to win the ratings ... & theres a chance the Sunday game will go live at 4pm
so it could be 7/8
the whining drop kicks on LU don't realise .. that this time it was about the money & nothing else
we are cashed up
we have far smaller running costs as a game then wombatball & no mill stones around our necks like the thuns & midgits
& we are in a mood to run some trash outta town
scared ?

you should be

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

They sure did. And there's a heck of a lot of nashing of teeth over at LU. Theyre devastated. They continue their poor FTA coverage for another 5 years. Sure theyll get more money but the average NRL fan wont see this in any meaningful way.

Doc Brown had whipped them into a frenzy . They were expecting a new network which cared abnout their game to show 4 live FTA games per week with all games on foxtel. All this for 1.2-1.4M.

Well they are a hell of a long way short of that so I can see why so many are angry and consider the deal a complete failure.

a hell of a long way short ?

the Australian TV component alone is 1.025 Billion

add the Over seas rights
& the online rights

& its a bigger deal then the VFL's at around 1.3 Billion
for the same comp we have now ...


marcus
the extra broadcast time .. 3 hrs to 2
why didn't that come into the equation ?

the regionals not being worth anything ?
was that factored in marcus ?

foxtel not seeing the NRL as valuable
hmmm
struggling to see where this occured marcus

ch 9 not able to afford the rights marcus
how'd that go for you ?



wot a dribbling moron who knows sh.it about anything .. you are
good job F wit

The regionals, greater value of the Sydney advertising, better ratings for foxtel games, SOO and internationals, flexible scheduling for some of the season, market competition with some channels struggling, were all taken into account Dave. :D :D

And despite all these advantages the NRL still got far far less than the AFLs Australian component.
Plus they got screwed over with 3 FTA games, one being\live, and only 5 foxtel games. Thats twentieth century broadcastinbg that is!

And as ive seen many say on LU, they could have insisted on a desl like the AFLs but they would have needed to settle for a sub-billion dollar deal. This was exactly what we were predicting. But we should have known they would sell out and screw the fans.

Dont sell it to me Dave. Sell it to all the angry NRL fans on LU who know its a disaster!

far far less ?

its 75 Million dollars ..... only 25 Million in cash

with
no new teams to weigh the entire comp down
33% less broadcast time
so 33% less adds
& the game only popular in 2 of the 5 capitals .. because of course ... the regionals didn't count .. did they ?

gee C head
how'd we manage that again ?

Ah no youre not cashed up. The vast majority of youyr revenue comes from TV. Ours from sponsorship, membership and gate receipts.

Yet we still get more for TV too. LOLOLOL

There are some angry people on LU. People want answers, they want blood, theyre having a go at poor Docbrown the insider. LOL

Fact is Dave, every AFL fan in Australia, bar Melbourne, can watch their team on FTA every week. Thats why foxtel subscriptiuons were low. We have it all!

Youve got the samer shite youve been comnplaining about for another 5 years!!!! lolololololol

Hughes is absolutely grilling Mattiske at the moment.

Mattiske will not answer Hughes' question that another network offered to show four live games on FTA per weekend. Hughes asked it about four times and Mattiske came back with the same old rehearsed response. He just couldn't answer the question.

Looks like another network offered live FTA footy on Fri, Sat, Sun and Mon. Methinks this was Channel 10.

this from LU.

This is interesting. The ARLC may have refused an offer for 4 live NRL games on FTA per week for a measely 150M-200M over 5 years.

Poor poor NRL supporters!

these fans seem happyt! not!

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 6454690915

so the word is the NRL could have accepted 4 FTA games live from another network for $800.

Hmm, seems like the AFL fans were right after all. The nrl tv value was far less that the AFLs value. They just preferred the cash over fans!

LOL

Predictions of $1.2B

Stuck on Channel 9 and Foxtel with no changes to the schedule. Poor NRL.