Talking Footy

Finally some facts in the debate. LOL @ RL fans and their cheer squads in the media thinking they did better than the AFL.

AFL supremo Andrew Demetriou still confident he's ahead in code cash war
Neil Cordy
The Daily Telegraph
August 23, 201212:00AM

AFL boss Andrew Demetriou is laughing all the way to the bank - yesterday weighing in on the NRL's $1.025 billion broadcast deal.

"If anyone thinks $925 million is as much as $1.15 billion cash, good on them," Demetriou told The Daily Telegraph.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 6456124908

The NRL media have been hilarious through this entire episode!

Dollars per minute is my favorite!!!

No the really funny things are:

1. How the AFL crew omit the cost of creating and running the two new clubs to create the extra game that was a key component of their new deal.
2. How the AFL crew said that the NRL could not achieve $1b

enarelle wrote:

No the really funny things are:

1. How the AFL crew omit the cost of creating and running the two new clubs to create the extra game that was a key component of their new deal.
2. How the AFL crew said that the NRL could not achieve $1b

1. Since when do an organisations costs have anything to do with an external contract? It's worth what it's worth! Ch 7 didn't pay more because the AFL had higher costs. They paid more because the code was valued higher as a TV product. The AFLs costs have nothing to do with that.

2. It's funny how the NrL media and fans say they're the number one sport on TV but are valued lower

3. The NRL fans have bemoaned ch9 and their dismal coverage but have gone silent on the topic now theyre faced with them for 5 more years.

They paid more because the AFL gave them an extra game each week which the AFL paid for. Its not that hard to work out.

enarelle wrote:

No the really funny things are:

1. How the AFL crew omit the cost of creating and running the two new clubs to create the extra game that was a key component of their new deal.
2. How the AFL crew said that the NRL could not achieve $1b

As it stands

NRL 16 team 1.025M + 100M For NZ sky + 150m internet rights = 1.275m

AFL 18 team 1.250m - GWS, GCS 300m = 950m

And the 4 FTA games has cost the AFL clubs even more.

2012 5731102 180 31839 -8.8 5731102 180 31839 -12.6
2011 6525071 187 34893 -5.5 614783 9 68309 +4.9 7139854 196 36428 -5.2
2010 6495680 176 36907 +2.0 650924 10 65092 -4.8 7146604 186 38423 +1.8
2009 6370350 176 36195 -2.2 615283 9 68365 +7.6 6985633 185 37760 -1.4

So out of the deals i have no doubt that financially the NRL deal is far superior.

eelofwest wrote:

enarelle wrote:

No the really funny things are:

1. How the AFL crew omit the cost of creating and running the two new clubs to create the extra game that was a key component of their new deal.
2. How the AFL crew said that the NRL could not achieve $1b

As it stands

NRL 16 team 1.025M + 100M For NZ sky + 150m internet rights = 1.275m

AFL 18 team 1.250m - GWS, GCS 300m = 950m

And the 4 FTA games has cost the AFL clubs even more.

2012 5731102 180 31839 -8.8 5731102 180 31839 -12.6
2011 6525071 187 34893 -5.5 614783 9 68309 +4.9 7139854 196 36428 -5.2
2010 6495680 176 36907 +2.0 650924 10 65092 -4.8 7146604 186 38423 +1.8
2009 6370350 176 36195 -2.2 615283 9 68365 +7.6 6985633 185 37760 -1.4

So out of the deals i have no doubt that financially the NRL deal is far superior.

Not sure why you keep including NZ. Thats not part of Australia and does not indicate the NRLs value to Australian TV. The NRL and media constantly claim they are Australians number one TV sport. If they are they should get a better deal from the Australian component of their TV rights.

And you cannot deduct costs from a contract. The AFL have other major revenue streams and a futures fund to pay for expansion. It has nothing to do with how much ch7 paid the AFL.

Face it, the AFL got more for their TV rights than the NRL got for their Australian TV rights. This once and for all proves they are Australia's number one TV sport. =D> =D> =D>

The NRL wont get 150 million for their online rights. The NRL has already sold some of the rights and only the online and mobile rights are left. This is what telstra who are looking into buying the rights said.

Mr Thodey indicated it would be unlikely to pay a similar price for the NRL rights, which attract fewer viewers.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... 6455283872

Combined with that fact that Tablet, IPTV and T-box rights have already been sold to foxtel (Testra has 50% stake) alreay the price will be down some what (see above article).

I would say it woudl be worth 50-100 million for the online component that is left.

piesman2011 wrote:

The NRL wont get 150 million for their online rights. The NRL has already sold some of the rights and only the online and mobile rights are left. This is what telstra who are looking into buying the rights said.

Mr Thodey indicated it would be unlikely to pay a similar price for the NRL rights, which attract fewer viewers.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... 6455283872

Combined with that fact that Tablet, IPTV and T-box rights have already been sold to foxtel (Testra has 50% stake) alreay the price will be down some what (see above article).

I would say it woudl be worth 50-100 million for the online component that is left.

Add to that the fact that the NZ rights are not part of the Australian rights and are not an indication of NRLs worth to Australian tv, the NRL will probably end up with 1.1b, well below the AFLs 1.253b

Is the reason you get a point for missing in AFL due to the fact that they keep moving the goalposts? They sure do when it comes to the NRL TV rights.

The debate has been about the NRL versus the AFL and when they got their bumper deal that was is for the AFL crew. They new they were superior and untouchable. The most "generous" AFL writer offered up $800m as the number the NRL might get. They could not possibly get even close to the AFL who not only had far superior ratings but went for 50% longer (which is true and an a major benefit when talking TV content but has nothing to do with the number of viewers or ratings).

So what happens up jumps the NRL gets over a $1b and is still going. Suddenly it is down to we got more dollars and I am sure if the AFL "wins" by $1.5 they will demand a parade. Suddenly we have forgotten the only thing that might have got us in front is the length of the game which was such a big point not long ago.

Now it is no longer the AFL versus the NRL but rather the NRL only in Australia so lets compare the 15 Australian NRL clubs to the AFL 18. Let us also forget that it will cost $150m over the next 5 years to provide the 9th AFL game against the NRLs 8 or 7 if we arent allowed to include the Warriors.

So hard to score against the AFL crew cause never sure what happened to the target.

enarelle wrote:

Is the reason you get a point for missing in AFL due to the fact that they keep moving the goalposts? They sure do when it comes to the NRL TV rights.

The debate has been about the NRL versus the AFL and when they got their bumper deal that was is for the AFL crew. They new they were superior and untouchable. The most "generous" AFL writer offered up $800m as the number the NRL might get. They could not possibly get even close to the AFL who not only had far superior ratings but went for 50% longer (which is true and an a major benefit when talking TV content but has nothing to do with the number of viewers or ratings).

So what happens up jumps the NRL gets over a $1b and is still going. Suddenly it is down to we got more dollars and I am sure if the AFL "wins" by $1.5 they will demand a parade. Suddenly we have forgotten the only thing that might have got us in front is the length of the game which was such a big point not long ago.

Now it is no longer the AFL versus the NRL but rather the NRL only in Australia so lets compare the 15 Australian NRL clubs to the AFL 18. Let us also forget that it will cost $150m over the next 5 years to provide the 9th AFL game against the NRLs 8 or 7 if we arent allowed to include the Warriors.

So hard to score against the AFL crew cause never sure what happened to the target.

Granted the NRL has a presence in NZ. Well done, no argument there. But the NRL have always claimed themselves as Australia's number one TV sport. Note that the AFL haven't even entered into that dick measuring contest.

But if the NRL is truly the number one Australian sport on TV they'd command the bigger Australian deal. Whether they get money from NZ isn't relevant. No one is desputing the NRL is more popular in NZ than AFL.

As to the longer AFL game, yes that's a big advantage but is also a disadvantage in scheduling games. It means all but one game overlaps with another, splitting the audience. The AFL have 9 games on tv per week but in reality fans can only watch 5-6 because no one can watch 2 games at once. Here the NRL have the advantage because their shorter game means all 8 games are watchable by their audience. Add to this the higher advertising cost in NSW and QLD compared to Vic SA WA.

So, if the NRL is a bigger Australian TV sport why does it rely on a rights from another country to claim victory?

Those goal posts are moving again. You cannot seriously tell me that the AFL crew have not claimed to be the highest rating TV mob? Have you read the threads? The AFL itself tried it last year using the Repucom report and was shot down by the NRL.

Time and time again the AFL crew on these threads have stated the NRL could not get close to the AFL deal. Super League/Kerry Packer had no impact on suppressing the dollars. Well the AFL crew can still believe that which means the NRL rights have jumped 250% in the last 6 years so what will they do in the next 5 years. Or you can accept that these were the first reasonably contested NRL rights in 15 years and they have moved back towards true value.

FOX/Nine still had one major advantage over the other players and that was the right to know the last bid and win by matching it thru to 2027. They not only had to go up dramatically in dollars but give up that last right. You want to see some contention in bidding wait for the next round.

enarelle wrote:

Those goal posts are moving again. You cannot seriously tell me that the AFL crew have not claimed to be the highest rating TV mob? Have you read the threads? The AFL itself tried it last year using the Repucom report and was shot down by the NRL.

Time and time again the AFL crew on these threads have stated the NRL could not get close to the AFL deal. Super League/Kerry Packer had no impact on suppressing the dollars. Well the AFL crew can still believe that which means the NRL rights have jumped 250% in the last 6 years so what will they do in the next 5 years. Or you can accept that these were the first reasonably contested NRL rights in 15 years and they have moved back towards true value.

FOX/Nine still had one major advantage over the other players and that was the right to know the last bid and win by matching it thru to 2027. They not only had to go up dramatically in dollars but give up that last right. You want to see some contention in bidding wait for the next round.

I never said AFL fans dont claim supremacy, but I certainly can't remember the AFL discussing or comparing to the NRL in their own major announcements or decisions.

enarelle wrote:

Those goal posts are moving again. You cannot seriously tell me that the AFL crew have not claimed to be the highest rating TV mob? Have you read the threads? The AFL itself tried it last year using the Repucom report and was shot down by the NRL.

Time and time again the AFL crew on these threads have stated the NRL could not get close to the AFL deal. Super League/Kerry Packer had no impact on suppressing the dollars. Well the AFL crew can still believe that which means the NRL rights have jumped 250% in the last 6 years so what will they do in the next 5 years. Or you can accept that these were the first reasonably contested NRL rights in 15 years and they have moved back towards true value.

FOX/Nine still had one major advantage over the other players and that was the right to know the last bid and win by matching it thru to 2027. They not only had to go up dramatically in dollars but give up that last right. You want to see some contention in bidding wait for the next round.

Witht he current set up, I personally dont think that the first and last rights really gets the NRL any less money. It is worth something to 9/fox (did nine pay 20 million for it?) It allows nine/fox to match the best offer and get the rights. Is that extra money? Not really its just a way for a company like nine to make sure it gets the rights. From all reports nine beat the best offer and throwed in the first and last rights deal as a minor bonus (im sure the NRL made threats to go to the other mob if they didn't do it). I for one predicted the NRL would get 1-1.1 billion for all of there rights. Now they might get a little more but I never said they would get 800m. No doubt the NRL was compromised by newslimited in terms of getting max money from the previous TV deal.

piesman2011 wrote:

enarelle wrote:

Those goal posts are moving again. You cannot seriously tell me that the AFL crew have not claimed to be the highest rating TV mob? Have you read the threads? The AFL itself tried it last year using the Repucom report and was shot down by the NRL.

Time and time again the AFL crew on these threads have stated the NRL could not get close to the AFL deal. Super League/Kerry Packer had no impact on suppressing the dollars. Well the AFL crew can still believe that which means the NRL rights have jumped 250% in the last 6 years so what will they do in the next 5 years. Or you can accept that these were the first reasonably contested NRL rights in 15 years and they have moved back towards true value.

FOX/Nine still had one major advantage over the other players and that was the right to know the last bid and win by matching it thru to 2027. They not only had to go up dramatically in dollars but give up that last right. You want to see some contention in bidding wait for the next round.

Witht he current set up, I personally dont think that the first and last rights really gets the NRL any less money. It is worth something to 9/fox (did nine pay 20 million for it?) It allows nine/fox to match the best offer and get the rights. Is that extra money? Not really its just a way for a company like nine to make sure it gets the rights. From all reports nine beat the best offer and throwed in the first and last rights deal as a minor bonus (im sure the NRL made threats to go to the other mob if they didn't do it). I for one predicted the NRL would get 1-1.1 billion for all of there rights. Now they might get a little more but I never said they would get 800m. No doubt the NRL was compromised by newslimited in terms of getting max money from the previous TV deal.

But all your friends certainly did and this was for everything

Re: The NRL TV Deal - Predictions page
by Xman » Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:13 pm

Unless there are drastic changes to the scheduling and game length Im saying $850M


by Beaussie » Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:12 pm

Good points Xman.

As I've been saying all along, 1 Billion is pure fantasy from the NRL and its supporters. Not going to happen for many, many reasons we've been over and over again in addition to what you've also outlined here Xman.

Keep dreaming throwball fans.


Beaussie wrote:
$780 million for the NRL. Will bring them up to the level the AFL was 5 years ago. History shows us that is always the case with the AFL being the market leader when it comes to broadcast rights.