Talking Footy

Channel 9 feel like losers after gaining the NRL tv rights. Says it all really.

The increased cost of the new deal will turn the NRL from a profit-maker to a loss-maker at least during the first years of the five-year contract,.

It is estimated that Nine writes about $60 million a year in advertising against $40m that it is paying under the current deal.

The high costs explain why Nine chief executive David Gyngell said last month after winning the bid: "We all feel like losers today."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/n ... 6473729411

So why didn't they offer more TV time if they want more advertising time?

Nine have f**ked it up themselves.

Striker wrote:

So why didn't they offer more TV time if they want more advertising time?

Nine have f**ked it up themselves.

They probabaly did. However this would have pissed off Fox in my opinion who would have pulled away a lot more money then nine where probabaly offering, if they gave nine another game.

They should have shared it like the AFL are sharing theirs!

piesman2011 wrote:

Striker wrote:

So why didn't they offer more TV time if they want more advertising time?

Nine have f**ked it up themselves.

They probabaly did. However this would have pissed off Fox in my opinion who would have pulled away a lot more money then nine where probabaly offering, if they gave nine another game.

Very well said. The NRL could have sold more games to ch9 for more money but then fox are left with less games or less exclusive games, and would have paid less. The NrL got maximum cash they could but failed big time on the coverage. I'm sure they would have asked for better coverage but it was probably worth far less.