Talking Footy

piesman2011 wrote:

Stewie wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

In Australia only the AFL has the NRL covered even with the online rights. The question is can the NRL pull ahead with the NZ. Im suprised that it has taken this long with a new season about to start in 4 months that the online/NZ rights havent been sorted yet. I havent heard even a whisper. I wonder what that means?

NZ rights would be worth sweet F/A given their small population as well as their disinterest for league compared to real rugby.

They got 70 million for the last 5 years pretty much and resigned a one year extension for 14 million. The viewership has also increased by a lot. Why wouldnt it be worth 100 million now considering the huge increase in viewers?

piesman2011 wrote:

In Australia only the AFL has the NRL covered even with the online rights. The question is can the NRL pull ahead with the NZ. Im suprised that it has taken this long with a new season about to start in 4 months that the online/NZ rights havent been sorted yet. I havent heard even a whisper. I wonder what that means?

Stewie wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

Stewie wrote:

NZ rights would be worth sweet F/A given their small population as well as their disinterest for league compared to real rugby.

They got 70 million for the last 5 years pretty much and resigned a one year extension for 14 million. The viewership has also increased by a lot. Why wouldnt it be worth 100 million now considering the huge increase in viewers?

Not sure if there's been a huge increase but if it is 100 million which is still pushing it, that won't make up the gap between the AFL and nRL even when the nRL's radio rights are also finally finalised.

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

In Australia only the AFL has the NRL covered even with the online rights. The question is can the NRL pull ahead with the NZ. Im suprised that it has taken this long with a new season about to start in 4 months that the online/NZ rights havent been sorted yet. I havent heard even a whisper. I wonder what that means?

The game is doomed?

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

I do remember though, plenty saying the NRL Tv deal woud'nt beat the AFL's - morons like you saying it wouldn't even be close.

AFL .... 1.1B

Nrl....1.125(worse case scenario)

last time I checked the AFLs cash component was 1,118B and the NRL's 930k. After contra the AFL are well ahead.

Good one dunce

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

I do remember though, plenty saying the NRL Tv deal woud'nt beat the AFL's - morons like you saying it wouldn't even be close.

AFL .... 1.1B

Nrl....1.125(worse case scenario)

last time I checked the AFLs cash component was 1,118B and the NRL's 930k. After contra the AFL are well ahead.

Good one dunce

You need to check again 1.118m is the total cash component of your deal. It including IT money. lol:

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

$100 million at least from NZ, $120 million left to get with a heap of stuff still available.

Fair dinkum xman, you really do have a few chips on them shoulders of yours

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

NZ, ummm, they were under NSW power years ago and can at any time with a majority vote, choose to become part of Australia again. (see, you learnt something new again today xman)

And ch9, well they do actually let the kiwis use their feed of the FTA games each week just like 9 will use the Kiwis TV feed if the Warriors are at home and it's to be on FTA TV.

Simples eh?

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

It should be even for you xman because they are part of the comp and they pay their way with TV money and whatever else.

Xman wrote:

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

It should be even for you xman because they are part of the comp and they pay their way with TV money and whatever else.

whats the heading of the thread Parra?