NRL CEO David Gallop speaks to waiting media. AAP Image/Joe Castro
Related coverage
Rugby league’s billion dollar pay-day is again within sight after the Federal Court banned Optus from broadcasting football matches online.
In the midst of negotiating a new broadcast deal hopeful of fetching $1.2 billion, the Australian Rugby League Commission strengthened its position at the bargaining table on Friday as the Federal Court upheld an appeal from the AFL, NRL and Telstra.
It overturned a previous Federal Court ruling allowing Optus customers to use the TV Now service to view matches online – with a delay of as little as two minutes.
“We have always believed there was a clear principle in play here: that the sports are entitled to control who shows their events and who profits from those events,” ARLC chief executive David Gallop said.
“Companies should not be able to profit from our content without investing in the sport itself.”
The ARLC is deep into negotiations on its new broadcast deal, with the first offer from current broadcasters Nine Network and Fox Sports due in the coming weeks before rival networks are permitted to make an approach.
The online rights are being negotiated separately.
ARLC officials claimed they had no idea of the financial value of the decision – having not calculated how much it would have cost had the appeal been thrown out – other than to say “it would have a significant impact on our revenue.”
With the AFL’s online deal with Telstra having snared $153 million over five years, the decision could tip rugby league’s deal over the $1 billion mark.
“We have partners who are working with us to develop innovative new ways of experiencing the game and they are doing so in ways that benefit the fans, the players and the sport in general,” Gallop said.
“It is important that we all share in the opportunities that new technology provides but this can’t be at the expense of our basic commercial rights and this is an area that government needs to continue to address.”
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said it was a common sense decision which vindicated the strong stance taken by the leagues and Telstra.
“It is a relief for not just AFL but for all sporting codes who rely heavily on these rights and the revenue from these rights,” Demetriou told reporters.
“Today’s decision is a win for all sports in this country.
“I thought Optus’ behaviour was unethical and inappropriate. It will be a long time before we speak with Optus.”
He warned Optus, which was weighing up its options, about challenging the decision.
“They have to think very carefully about that. The three Federal Court judges were unanimous. Any appeal would be costly and take time,” Demetriou said.
Federal Court judges Paul Finn, Arthur Emmett and Annabelle Bennett ruled that as the creator of the recordings, Optus was contravening copyright laws.
Its edict dismissed the earlier ruling that customers were responsible for the recordings, saying TV Now recordings were “not made by the subscriber alone”.
“It was made either by Optus alone or by Optus and the subscriber,” they said in the judgment.
The ruling strengthened Telstra’s role as the dominant broadcaster of online sports.
“This judgment is a great result for everyone who cares about the financial health of Australian sport,” a Telstra spokesman said.
V8 Supercars – which also has an internet and mobile rights partnership with Telstra – and Cricket Australia also welcomed the decision.
© AAP 2013- Explore:
- AFL, NRL, Rugby League

April 28th 2012 @ 2:16am
Johnno said | April 28th 2012 @ 2:16am | Report comment
I wonder if this will impact on the anti-siphoning laws in Australia i don’t know but it may have an impact. Maybe if opts won who knows the anti-siphoning laws may of been abolished all together.
Communications minister stephen Conroy I read is apparently but I don’t know for certain is getting more executive powers with free to air vs pay tv sport, and mane with all this opts stuff too.
April 28th 2012 @ 7:01am
ManInBlack said | April 28th 2012 @ 7:01am | Report comment
I wonder if Gallop and Demetriou shared a celebratory latte after the ruling?? Enemies one day – partners the next.
I picture them leaving the coffee table a little like the cartoon of Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog, having the latte’s together and then punching back in on the timeclock to go to work on the sheep……..
May 1st 2012 @ 12:02pm
Nathan of Perth said | May 1st 2012 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
Great image.
April 28th 2012 @ 9:03am
Crosscoder said | April 28th 2012 @ 9:03am | Report comment
The decision is perfect timing for the ARLC in the midst of the Tv negotiations.Gallop et al will be judged on the outcome of these dealings..The pathway has been cleared with the Federal court decision,as the prior Optus decsion had been hanging around like the sword of Damocles,on the value of the rugby league rights.
I agree with Demetriou’s view that this decision provides security for sporting codes for years to come.Especially for non heartland clubs like the Storm.
And maybe now, just maybe rugby league will secure the Tv deal it so richly deserves,based on years of historically high Tv ratings across their three tiered offerings.
April 29th 2012 @ 4:54pm
Redb said | April 29th 2012 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
CC,
I think the NRL will get the 1 billion or thereabouts. I don’t claim to know anything but the AFL deal provided a blueprint & whilst there are significant differences in footprint, advertising opportunities , etc In a rough swings & roundabouts analysis it should be similiar to the AFL deal.
The most critical point I think is the ARLC won’t accept a deal that is not around the 1 billion mark. It’s the elephant in the room I I suspect. Must get close or walk away which is a strong negotiation base.
April 28th 2012 @ 9:09am
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Without wishing to blow my own trumpet, but I was the only one, anywhere, to come straight out and predict unequivocally that the original ruling would be overruled:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/02/09/federal-court-has-it-wrong-on-sports-broadcast-copyright/
Just another to add to a string of correct predictions I have made during my 12 months on the Roar.
April 28th 2012 @ 10:06am
Damo said | April 28th 2012 @ 10:06am | Report comment
Can you please outlay every single prediction you’ve made in the last 12 months, both right and wrong.
April 28th 2012 @ 10:25am
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Damo
let’s not get into the weeds of what may or may not have happened in other instances.
The crucial point here is that absolutely no one, anywhere, was prepared to predict in favour of Telstra and techos everywhere were certain that the AFL/NRL/Telstra would lose.
There were also quite a few Roar correspondents willling to bet against Telstra, as can be seen in the comments to my article.
I went out on a limb to predict the opposite outcome, and I gave a pretty good explanation of why that would be, which proved to be spot on the money.
April 28th 2012 @ 10:53am
Damo said | April 28th 2012 @ 10:53am | Report comment
Cattery, bravo for predicting this outcome. I mean that seriously.
But you sounded like an absolute tosser with your “Just another…” comment.
April 28th 2012 @ 12:16pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
Sorry Cattery but I have to agree with Damo and the others there, you were blowing your own trumpet.
Nobody at GSM thought the Optus verdict would be upheld.
April 28th 2012 @ 4:41pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
Which others? Damo appears to be the only one who responded.
Yes, I know no one thought it would be upheld, that’s precisely why I am blowing my own trumpet!!
April 28th 2012 @ 4:42pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
Damo
there are those who write with real authority and substance, and then there are the rest.
April 28th 2012 @ 5:21pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 5:21pm | Report comment
Which one are you? I have my thoughts on this but please enlighten the rest of us mere mortals.
Conflicting comments like these -
“But I was the only one, anywhere,”
“Yes, I know no one thought it would be upheld”
Don’t become you. Feel free to point out where you explicitly said nobody at GSM thought it would be upheld.
April 28th 2012 @ 5:32pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 5:32pm | Report comment
code 13
I misread your earlier post about nobody thinking the Optus verdict would be upheld.
As I’ve said a couple of times, no one, absolutely no one, anywhere, predicted this outcome, except for yours truly.
What we did have were lots of techos writing about how the original decision was the correct one, in lots of techo magazines and blogs.
So I don’t understand how you can make it sound as if all of a sudden everyone knew it was coming!!
You only have to read the responses to my article predicting this outcome.
I left readers in no doubt, in the title of my article I said straight out that they originally got it wrong.
April 28th 2012 @ 5:38pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 5:38pm | Report comment
Sorry but you appear to be contradicting yourself but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Which one of these statements of yours is true -
“As I’ve said a couple of times, no one, absolutely no one, anywhere, predicted this outcome, except for yours truly.”
or
“Yes, I know no one thought it would be upheld”
April 28th 2012 @ 5:44pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 5:44pm | Report comment
code 13
I just said to you that I misread your post.
For your benefit, I will repeat my very first post on this board:
Without wishing to blow my own trumpet, but I was the only one, anywhere, to come straight out and predict unequivocally that the original ruling would be overruled:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/02/09/federal-court-has-it-wrong-on-sports-broadcast-copyright/
Just another to add to a string of correct predictions I have made during my 12 months on the Roar.
April 28th 2012 @ 5:59pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 5:59pm | Report comment
But you weren’t the only person ANYWHERE.
If you wish it, I can post links to other such claims but moreso I just find it interesting that you would say something like “Without wishing to blow my own trumpet” but then spend 5 replies trying to defend your “I told you so” stance.
If you weren’t wanting to blow your own trumpet perhaps you would show some humility about it.
April 28th 2012 @ 6:07pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
code 13
You would have to travel far and wide to find someone who is more humble than my good self.
This is why I am waiting with bated breath for all the links you are going to shower me with, that were in tune with the bold predictions I made in my article.
You only have to read the comments to my article to see that no one agreed with what I was saying.
If you are able to find three such links, that would be three more than I ever saw.
At the time, it was as if I were an island, alone, battered by waves, but holding a torch for truth and justice.
April 28th 2012 @ 6:29pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 6:29pm | Report comment
hu·mil·i·ty
/hyuˈmɪlɪti or, often, yu-/ Show Spelled[hyoo-mil-i-tee or, often, yoo-] Show IPA
noun
the quality or condition of being humble; modest opinion or estimate of one’s own importance,
“At the time, it was as if I were an island, alone, battered by waves, but holding a torch for truth and justice.”
If your article hadn’t been on the AFL section of this site I would’ve actually read it (I have no interest in AFL) and would’ve agreed with you. Now though after some of your stranger comments here I don’t know if I’d want that association.
April 28th 2012 @ 6:54pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 6:54pm | Report comment
code 13
you would have been the only one that agreed – anywhere on Earth.
April 28th 2012 @ 7:05pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 7:05pm | Report comment
Well if you’re concerned, rest assured that Smith’s heart likely didn’t even skip a beat.
April 28th 2012 @ 7:29pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 7:29pm | Report comment
Not concerned, but it does underscore the fact that no one anywhere, and I do mean no one anywhere, was prepared to make the unequivocal call that it would be overturned. No one.
But let me stress, in no way, shape or form am I trying to blow my own trumpet.
There’s no way anyone could accuse me of that.
April 28th 2012 @ 7:36pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 7:36pm | Report comment
You seem to keep contradicting yourself. I’m sure in your mind you think that you’re humble and unbiased, but then there’s comments like these -
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
Which others? Damo appears to be the only one who responded.
Yes, I know no one thought it would be upheld, that’s precisely why I am blowing my own trumpet!!
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 7:29pm | Report comment
But let me stress, in no way, shape or form am I trying to blow my own trumpet.
There’s no way anyone could accuse me of that.
I might suggest the person accusing you of that is yourself…
April 28th 2012 @ 8:28pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 8:28pm | Report comment
code 13
Without wishing to blow my own trumpet, I was the only one, anywhere, to come straight out and predict unequivocally that the original ruling would be overruled:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/02/09/federal-court-has-it-wrong-on-sports-broadcast-copyright/
Despite your protestations, you came up with nothing.
April 28th 2012 @ 10:28pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 10:28pm | Report comment
Well considering you keep repeating it over and over again, I’d say you do want to blow your own trumpet.
April 28th 2012 @ 10:37pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 10:37pm | Report comment
code 13
no, no, no, nothing could be further from the truth
April 28th 2012 @ 10:52pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 10:52pm | Report comment
I think you’re also misguided when you view yourself as some kind of quasi-journalist when that’s clearly not the case and thankfully so.
Just because somebody doesn’t post it on their Roar or Big Footy account doesn’t mean that you were the sole voice of dissent.
Multiple parties, both AFL & NRL supporters, technocrats, copyright lawyers etc have all had an opinion on this and to think that you yourself alone were the sole voice of dissent reeks of solipsism.
This was going to end up with either the court case being overturned and/or the copyright law itself being rewritten – which if you have seen the table outcome from the new convergence review it has been and is waiting to be adopted.
Obviously now Google is inundated with the new news reports on the case but these are just a couple. You could find more if you were genuinely interested in exploring the issue rather than just scoring brownie points -
http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2012/03/18/justice-rares-legalises-optus-copyright-theft-and-fairfax-medias-criminal-conduct/
http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Content_And_Downloads/IPTV/U4K3S2B7
http://www.cnet.com.au/optus-tv-now-win-could-spark-law-rewrite-339330312.htm?feed=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CNETAustralia+%28CNET+Australia%29
April 29th 2012 @ 12:38pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
Well, your first link is broken.
I looked at the cnet link, which seemed to hold the most promise, but it is basically advocating a change in the law to make it clearer.
Sorry, the more you try, the clearer it becomes that I was the only one, anywhere, to state unequivocally that the original decision would te overturned.
You’ve had 24 hours now, and your’ve come up with nothing. I’m mean, seriously…
April 28th 2012 @ 9:39pm
Redb said | April 28th 2012 @ 9:39pm | Report comment
Common sense prevailed the courts were never going to allow a technicality to trample basic copyright laws & their intent.
April 28th 2012 @ 10:54pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 10:54pm | Report comment
Exactly.
April 29th 2012 @ 12:14am
Dean - Surry Hills said | April 29th 2012 @ 12:14am | Report comment
The Cattery – in your original article I disagreed with your point of view – and I still do. I also stated that Telstra should let sleeping dogs lie, and that it would be unwise to pursue court action and open up a can of worms. Optus has been on the receiving end of similar copyright infringement as a major sponsor of sporting events, with both Foxtel and Telstra providing consumers with set-top boxes equipped with PVR’s. There is little difference in terms of the breach, and the High court (when engaged) will over rule this Federal Court verdict. Singtel (who owns Optus) absolutely dwarf Telstra and you can bet your last dollar they will surmount the greatest legal challenge that money can offer. There will be a hefty financial punishment for Telstra when Singtel wins………….mark my words.
April 29th 2012 @ 11:44am
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 11:44am | Report comment
Even if this does go to the High Court – and Optus would just be wasting their money if they did pursue it – the copyright law has already been rewritten and is awaiting final review.
April 29th 2012 @ 11:46pm
MFB1991 said | April 29th 2012 @ 11:46pm | Report comment
I think you could supply the whole brass section of the Sydney symphony orchestra !!!
April 28th 2012 @ 9:42am
Crosscoder said | April 28th 2012 @ 9:42am | Report comment
And no doubt you will stand by your prediction of 9/8/11 on these very boards “ïf the NRL can double the value of the Tv rights to $834m a 100% increase,that’s an excellent result for the NRL”"
I await the sound of your trumpet TC.with great anticipation.
April 28th 2012 @ 10:21am
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 10:21am | Report comment
Yes, I did say that, rounding it out to the sum of $850 mill, and I’ve stuck with that number for 12 months now.
And there’s a good basis for that, apart from the obvious fact that a doubling of the values in 6 years is at the high end of probable outcomes, there’s also the way Nine’s first and last bid right works.
If a rival network can up the bid by 20%, they get it automatically.
At $700 mill, it opens the door for a $840mill bid, so $700 mill is probably too low – the first bid will be higher than that.
At $1 mill, a rival network has to come up with $1.2 milll, and it’s extremely unlikely that 7/10 could do that, so Nine probably doesn’t have to go as high as $1 mill..
In between, your at $850 mill, to match that 7/10 has to come up with $1.020 billion, that’s probably a fraction too high as well, so $800 mill might well be the magic number for Nine, i.e. the lowest highest bid that precludes a plus 20% come back from a rival.
On top of that, you can add the online rights from the recent court decision, I’m not sure what that’s worth.
If we assume that it’s worth around half of the AFL online rights, that might push the overall sum up to $875 mill.
April 28th 2012 @ 12:54pm
Crosscoder said | April 28th 2012 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
If a rival network can up the bid by 20%,it does not mean they get it automatically,where did you get that from?.If a rival bidder exceeds the 9/Fox bids so far,the ARLC goes back to these people and says your bids have been exceeded by 20% ,we can split the offerings etc etc..
My understanding correct me if I am wrong:-
“The first and last rights clause means that the NRL are obliged to show the current rights holder (9)the full details of any bid from a competitor (7/10) and the bid for all the content on the current contract.Nine only have to match the bid,not beat it ,to retain the rights.
However the F&;L rights clause is null and void if the competitors bid if the competitors bid is 20% greater than the current contract.”
So the quandary for 9 if they go in on a weak bid,they are leaving themselves open,to have the whole bidding process and Ffand L rights thrown wide open.And Gyngell has already revealed a couple of his punches.
Some of your other notable trumpeted predictions TC :-.
3/5/11 I think $700m is your starting point,I’m still thinking a figure around $840m is more likely.
3/5/11 I am 99% confident that the NRL will not reach $1bn.I’m 95% confident it will not reach $900m.
6/5/11 Even if the NRL can make it to 75% of the AFL’s TV rights(and that’s a big if) ie $937m
18/4/12 $900m pushing the limits of what is possible ,will get $850m for the next 5 years.
So anywhere from $700m to it appears $937m,that’s what I call covering many bases.
Glad you are not buying a Rembrandt on my behalf champ.The auctioneer would be pulling his hair out.
Ch7 despite their current results still is cashed up,they would like nothing better than to have two major football codes(revenue raisers) in its stable.
Ch 7 can onsell part of their result to Fox and or 9/10.The possibilities are endless,and they can retain the jewel in the crown SOO.
D Gyngell has openly admitted his station will have to pay a hell of a lot more(they currently pay $45m pa),and Tv execs within the FTA industry suggest a figure of up to $120m pa .Gyngell has already advised the ARLC haviing a 2nd brisbane team will add another $20m pa to the deal.
Fox are currently paying $42m pa and even if they retained the same slots,a conservative increase of 50% would bring that up to $63m pa.And there is talk of simulcasting,meaning better value for Foxsports.I see Foxsports upping the figure by more than 50%.
Now the decison in favour of Telstra against Optus,means the online and mobile rights for the NRL are worth a min of $20m pa ff the AFL is $30m pa.
sky News NZ even if they continue to pay the current $12m pa figure
Now looking at a very lowest case scenario ch9 pays $100m pa
Foxsports $63m pa
Telstra $20m pa
Sky NZ $12m pa.
Now according to my basic maths that is $195m pa or $975m on an extremely conservative leve.One can just about sniff the $1bn in the kitchen.The court decison being the final pusher.
The certainty would arise from an 18 teams comp,from which I have never suggested otherwise.
A 16 team comp would not achieve the extra $20m pa in rights.
Remember this, 2 FTA stations desperate .One to retain, another to get itself out of the ratings mire and another who can flash the cash to stymie his competition and further increase his profitability.
April 28th 2012 @ 4:47pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
I”ve said $850 mill over and over and over, and I’ve given an explanation a few times as to why that is a likely number.
Obviously, these things are probability based, nothing unusual at giving the probabllity of a number being above or below that, the answer is generally the one in the middle with the greater probability, thus making it your best estimate.
The way I read what you just quoted me is that Nine loses its last rights option if a rival bid is 20% above their first bid.
April 28th 2012 @ 5:01pm
oikee said | April 28th 2012 @ 5:01pm | Report comment
Your way off, if 7 or 10 offer 1.2 then 9 has to offer above that. And 9 are desparate to keep league, so 7 and 10 will bid high, if they happen to win, which they wont, then they just offsell. They might even split the lot, origins, tests Allstars, their is money to be made in league by the smart men, And 6 years was way to long to have a deal , this is why 1.2 billion is still cheap.
League will get 1.2 billion, you heard it hear first.
Everybody i said it first, the oikster predicted it, nobody else.
April 28th 2012 @ 5:11pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
oikee
this is one promise I can make you, 7/10 will not be offering $1.2 billion.
April 28th 2012 @ 5:30pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 5:30pm | Report comment
Well statements like those can be later shaken off with a palette of excuses.
However, the fullness of time will be the ultimate gauge of your comprehension of the NRL’s broadcast negotiations.
April 29th 2012 @ 6:22pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 6:22pm | Report comment
It’s a pretty specific statement.
This one you can put up in bright lights.
7/10 will not be offering $1.2 billion for a five year deal.
April 29th 2012 @ 8:12pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 8:12pm | Report comment
Cattery, I’m sure you have a bunch of excuses prepared in the back of your mind already – but if the NRL broadcasting deal exceeds your expectations, do you think you will continue to pretend to be an authority on this subject (in spite of all evidence to the contrary) or will you actually step down from your high horse and admit your incomprehension?
It would be nice if you were to stop babbling on about subjects you know little about but both you and I know that’s probably not going to happen.
April 29th 2012 @ 11:57am
Crosscoder said | April 29th 2012 @ 11:57am | Report comment
Well no you haven’t ,and I have given examples and dates of your variances.Specifics when it comes to figures TC is very flexible.
You stated if a rival bid is 20% over they get it.The rival bidder? My understanding it becomes an open auction,as ch9 and Fox will be alerted they have been beaten by 20%.
The F&L become null and void if the rival bidders is greater by 20% than the current contract.Then the code can be offered in many ways if it so chooses to the highest/best credentialled bid.
It is therefore in ch9′s interest to bid strongly, which are due on 7th May,to avoid the possibility of the null and voiding of the F&L clause.
The one thing re the F&L the NRL are obliged to show the current rights holder(Nine) the full details of any bid from a competitor(7/10) and the bid must be for all the content on the current contract.Nine have only to match the bid not beat it to retain the rights.The 20% increase or more is the fly in their ointment.
April 29th 2012 @ 1:19pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
You are correct about the open auction and F&LR structure and even with the dates.
This Cattery poster barely seems to understand the process.
April 29th 2012 @ 4:25pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
I”ve been predicting $850 million consistently for 12 months now.
There is nothing in any of those quotes you put up that says otherwise.
April 29th 2012 @ 4:45pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 4:45pm | Report comment
In David Lord’s artricle on 10 June 2011, I wrote:
As I’ve said for a couple of months now, the NRL can expect a doubling in the value of the TV rights, somewhere around $850 million over five years, which would represent an excellent result and well earned.
http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/06/10/nrls-pay-tv-strength-position-it-strongly-for-growth/
That adds up to about 12 months where I have said $850 million consistently.
April 29th 2012 @ 4:51pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 4:51pm | Report comment
Cattery, you still don’t get it. Myself and others aren’t necessarily disagreeing with the consistency of your prognostications.
It’s your apparent lack of understanding for sport broadcasting – even basic concepts like First & Last Rights, Ad Sharing, Simulcasting etc – that we find amusing.
If your understanding of broadcasting is based on illogical nonsense then it follows that those numbers – consistent as they may be – are also illogical.
April 29th 2012 @ 6:04pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 6:04pm | Report comment
Ok, at least we have some agreement that I have made the one prediction consistently for 12 months.
Thank you!!
It’s odd that you and others feel the trend line of TV rights over the past 15 years or so is irrelevant.
What an odd way of looking at things.
April 29th 2012 @ 6:08pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 6:08pm | Report comment
It’s not 100% irrelevant but it’s also not the main driver of the final price.
Anyway that’s a deflection. We are moreso taking umbrage over your general lack of media comprehension.
It doesn’t matter if you’ve said the same thing for 12 months – you’re basing it on a poor understanding so in effect you’ve been saying nonsense for 12 months.
Make of that what you will. I have no doubt you will find some way to reassure your ego.
April 29th 2012 @ 6:17pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 6:17pm | Report comment
I’m comfortable in looking at trendlines when I analyse such things.
You don’t care about recent history, ok, that’s your prerogative, I say it’s just about the most important factor.
One thing is for sure, that’s the main bit of rock solid data we have.
Your theorising about what’s possible is impressive, no, honestly, it really impresses me.
But I’m still waiting for you to point out who, more than two months ago, was stating unequivocally that the Optus decision would be overturned.
Everyone’s an expert after the event, heh?
April 29th 2012 @ 8:16pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 8:16pm | Report comment
I have already posted elsewhere a number of people who made the same comments about Optus.
If you can’t handle that because it bursts the little bubble you live in, then that’s your problem.
And for the record, if the NRL were to triple their existing deal they won’t be the first pro sports league in the world to do so.
But of course you would know this considering you view yourself as an expert on the subject…
April 28th 2012 @ 10:42am
Dash said | April 28th 2012 @ 10:42am | Report comment
I’d like to leave my prediction here for the record. The most likely deal I can see for the NRL is 7 years in the $130 to $140m a year range, so close enough to $1 billion to claim the headlines. Shoot me down if you like, I won’t get drawn into a pointless argument of how I worked this out.
April 28th 2012 @ 12:19pm
jamesb said | April 28th 2012 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
“Shoot me down if you like, I won’t get drawn into a pointless argument of how I worked this out.”
I’ll shoot you down right now mate lol.
It’d more likely be 5 years the length of the deal. Than again who knows!
April 28th 2012 @ 3:38pm
Whites said | April 28th 2012 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
Yep. Zero chance of 7 years. It will be 5 years at the end of which the NBN will be nearing completion.
April 28th 2012 @ 4:49pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 4:49pm | Report comment
Although an ABC article during the week referred to a 10 year deal coming in at $1 billion.
April 28th 2012 @ 5:03pm
Whites said | April 28th 2012 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
That was a typo or just an uninformed journalist.
April 28th 2012 @ 5:35pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 5:35pm | Report comment
If that’s your only source for a 10 year deal, do you honestly believe that given the number explicitly attached to it would be even less per year than your own estimates?
Or do you have another source for the 10 year deal that doesn’t link back to the AAP article?
April 28th 2012 @ 5:42pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 5:42pm | Report comment
code 13
Personally, I found it hard to believe, but that’s what the ABC report said, and no one has rectified it since.
I can do no more that refer to rock solid news sources.
April 28th 2012 @ 6:03pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 6:03pm | Report comment
If you didn’t believe it, perhaps you should have added that to your original comment just to make it clear.
April 28th 2012 @ 6:27pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 6:27pm | Report comment
code 13
part of our task here is to provide good sources for our information, and the ABC is amongst the very best of them. When the ABC says something, we stand up and take notice.
I’m still waiting for you to provide me with all those links of people who said unequivocally that the original Optus decision would be thrown out on appeal.
Can you find anyone beyond a bit of fence sitting?
April 28th 2012 @ 8:41pm
Whites said | April 28th 2012 @ 8:41pm | Report comment
Every day that article exists in its current form the credibility of the ABC slips away.
April 29th 2012 @ 12:02pm
Crosscoder said | April 29th 2012 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
Why do you keep quoting the ABC reference,it has been shot down more than John Wayne over Guam.You guys laugh at Roy Masters yet cite an obsolute ripper by the ABC a s some kind of authority.If you believe that TC ,doIi have a Bridge offer for you.
With the change in technologies in the offfing and now in operation,10 years would be leaving a code wide open for rip offs.
May 1st 2012 @ 12:05pm
Nathan of Perth said | May 1st 2012 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
Couldn’t you people just get a set of duelling pistols and sort this out the old fashioned way?
Edit: Ha, was supposed to apply to the reply-chain below this one, oops.
May 1st 2012 @ 8:45pm
code 13 said | May 1st 2012 @ 8:45pm | Report comment
Pistols at dawn! Love it!
April 28th 2012 @ 6:35pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 6:35pm | Report comment
Well here’s mine -
http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?t=397991&highlight=optus
“This decision could also be appealed and overturned.”
However I have no desire to compare myself to a man marooned on an island or other such nonsense.
April 28th 2012 @ 6:57pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 6:57pm | Report comment
A wishy washy post in LU – surely you’re having a laugh??!!
April 28th 2012 @ 7:05pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 7:05pm | Report comment
Sorry, I don’t have links to wishwashy Big Footy posts.
April 28th 2012 @ 7:25pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 7:25pm | Report comment
But I was hoping you were going to put up links to some serious opinions, but you’ve got nothing!!
April 28th 2012 @ 7:39pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 7:39pm | Report comment
Sorry, we can’t all be Roar Gurus.
But of course –
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Without wishing to blow my own trumpet, but I was the only one, anywhere,
But keep blowing that horn son. You’re the new Miles Davis.
April 28th 2012 @ 8:50pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 8:50pm | Report comment
code 13
keep responding to my posts, and you too will be a guru in double quick time.
I serve all without fear or prejudice.
April 28th 2012 @ 10:55pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 10:55pm | Report comment
You serve up something, that’s for sure…
April 29th 2012 @ 2:44pm
Yeah Sure said | April 29th 2012 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
The funny thing is TC actually thinks being a Guru on the roar means you know something.
April 29th 2012 @ 4:05pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
Yeah…sure
April 30th 2012 @ 9:40am
Renegade said | April 30th 2012 @ 9:40am | Report comment
“The funny thing is TC actually thinks being a Guru on the roar means you know something.”
Hahaha Absolute GOLD!
April 30th 2012 @ 10:47am
The Cattery said | April 30th 2012 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Renegade
Please allow me to offer you one word of friendly advice, if I may, and please accept this in the spirit of friendship with which it is offered.
When someone in the online world responds with: Hahaha Absolute GOLD!
it marks them out as one completely lacking in wit.
I implore you to not make the same mistake again.
April 30th 2012 @ 11:25am
Renegade said | April 30th 2012 @ 11:25am | Report comment
No it doesn’t mate, i’m pretty sure i’ll go to sleep tongiht without thinking of how i can justify my comment on the internet.
So let me offer you some advise, When someone thinks that having a ‘GURU’ next to his name on an online forum actually means he is one – he looks like a twat.
You can be anything you want to be on the Internet my friend…..in real life your certainly not a guru as much as you want to make yourself out to be on this thread.
My suggestion would be get out from behind the keyboard and live a little buddy, there’s actually a real world out there
April 30th 2012 @ 5:22pm
The Cattery said | April 30th 2012 @ 5:22pm | Report comment
Renegade
in fairness, it is you guys referring to my Guru status, not I.
I have never referred to it, until now that is.
So no matter how much I have achieved to earn this title, no matter how worthy I am of receiving such acknowledgement, no matter how much I am valued by my peers, no matter how much positive feedback I receive from my extensive fan base, you can count on one thing:
I will never, ever dine out on my appellation.
May 1st 2012 @ 12:48am
code 13 said | May 1st 2012 @ 12:48am | Report comment
Like I said, you view yourself as a quasi-journalist when the matter of the fact is, you’re not even that. Do you really think the subby would let your nonsense slip by? They’d get the COE and smack you on the back of the head with it.
But that said you can prove me wrong. Just post one of your published articles – you know – published on paper, that people bought and that you got paid for…
May 1st 2012 @ 6:32pm
The Cattery said | May 1st 2012 @ 6:32pm | Report comment
Actually, I’ve only ever referred to myself as a humble working class mug punter born and raised in a fibro shed.
April 28th 2012 @ 11:14am
jamesb said | April 28th 2012 @ 11:14am | Report comment
here is rough estimates on the NRL deal
Sky NZ TV – $50 to $60 million
Telstra – $100 to $150 million
State Of Origin- $100 to $150 million
add those three up, already your looking close to $300 million. That’s without the bidding for the actual NRL games and test matches.
so to get a 1 billion dollar, it requires a further $700 million. If they want to match the AFL, it requires $950 million.
Important that the NRL sells its packages separately like NRL ( Friday night, Super Saturday, Sunday Arvo and Monday night Football) and State of Origin
April 28th 2012 @ 12:22pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
I agree with your ballpark numbers there Jamesb.
Although I’ve posted specific details elsewhere, Monday week I will post the latest news.
April 28th 2012 @ 2:40pm
The Greatest Game Of All said | April 28th 2012 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
What about U/20′s? U/20′s Origin? U/20′s Tests?
What about a preseason comp?
What about the World Club Challenge?
Rugby League has so much more to offer than AFL, if we get anything less than them it would be a disgrace!
April 28th 2012 @ 3:03pm
Crosscoder said | April 28th 2012 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
Just being conservative,we all know u20s,All stars,tests ,world club challenges ,RLWC2013 are all meaningless when it comes to the anti rl brigade.That they rate well and will no doubt part of the offering mix, seems to have escaped them.
April 28th 2012 @ 4:52pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 4:52pm | Report comment
Maybe it has more to offer, but its the AFL with its own channel on Fox, and for four weeks running it has been the highest rating channel on Fox.
So it would appear that as little as it is, the AFL offers enough product to make it the highest rating Fox channel.
If it were true that the NRL had more to offer, it would be a shoe-in to have its own channel as well. Why not?
April 28th 2012 @ 5:42pm
Eric Guru said | April 28th 2012 @ 5:42pm | Report comment
The NRL / rugby league has been FOX’s flagship sport since 1997. You could argue all the foxsports channels have been created on the back of the popularity of NRL.
April 28th 2012 @ 5:49pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 5:49pm | Report comment
The AFL Fox Footy channel was a bargaining tool by the subscription provider to get what they wanted when 7 were still dragging their heels on simulcasting. It was appealing to the AFL for obvious reasons but what did it cost Fox? Not a cent more than its original budget. Because the AFL became enamoured with the concept they were the ones who then put the pressure onto 7 otherwise they were going 9 so they could get both.
So from the perspective of an illusory bargaining tool, it’s definitely a win for Fox Sports whenever anybody buys into the concept.
Once they get the numbers they want though, it’s well known it will be scrapped. But you can use your own sources to find that out for yourself.
April 28th 2012 @ 5:53pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 5:53pm | Report comment
Is this another: oh yeh, everyone knew.
April 28th 2012 @ 6:05pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 6:05pm | Report comment
Nope, I only found this out recently but like I said, feel free to conduct your own investigation.
There’s only one person on here making claims like that at the moment.
April 28th 2012 @ 6:33pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 6:33pm | Report comment
I’ve got the runs on the board, and how.
I’m still waiting for all those links you’re meant to provide me that showed others stating unilaterally that the original Optus decision would be overturned.
And please don’t quote Demetriou!!
April 29th 2012 @ 3:14pm
Yeah Sure said | April 29th 2012 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
Yep, and half of the country got runs on the board too when they predicted the appeal would be overturned.
And Code 13 presented plently of evidence to show you weren’t the only one to predict the outcome. You just choose to ignor it because it doesn’t fit your deluded point of view.
And it is truly deluded if you think you were the only one who pick the result from a decision that could only have two outcomes to begin with.
But whats really amazing is that you say you came to your decision based on fact, when in reality the you made up your mine as soon as the decision went against the AFL. No, it wasn’t any research or study of the law, it was that sombody dared make a decision that negativily affected your code of choice. You made your mine up first and then went looking for facts to try and back yourself up. If it was the NRL who took Optus to court I know you would have been singing a completely different tune
Have to try and find the post too where you reckon the case would have been decided in Telstras\AFLs favour to begin with. Weren’t too correct then were you?
So don’t worry about having runs on the board. You were cleaned bowled to begin with.
April 29th 2012 @ 4:07pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
He had nothing.
From all available evidence, I was the only one to unequivocally state that the decision would be overturned.
You only need to read the comments to my article to see what everyone else was thinking.
April 29th 2012 @ 4:16pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
36 hours on, after much bluster and noise.
Nothing….NOTHING…he has found nothing.
April 28th 2012 @ 6:18pm
The_Wookie said | April 28th 2012 @ 6:18pm | Report comment
so it had nothing to do with the 7/10 partnership not allowing them content for the previous 5 years that resulted in the cancellation of the previous incarnation of foxfooty, and Kim Williams thus is a liar.
It was always Foxtels express intention to have a foxfooty channel again as soon as tghe content was available.
April 28th 2012 @ 6:40pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 6:40pm | Report comment
Cattery, I’ve posted my own comments above, stop going on about it on every single comment, it’s clogging the board.
Wookie, a simulcasting arrangement would’ve achieved the same result regardless of whether or not there was a dedicated channel.
As soon as the Fox negotiators brought up Foxfooty, that’s when the AFL started applying serious pressure to 7 to agree to the simulcast. It was a perfect way of Fox getting the AFL to do their job for them and it worked.
April 28th 2012 @ 11:30pm
The_Wookie said | April 28th 2012 @ 11:30pm | Report comment
they had already dione foxfooty for the 2007 – 2011 deal.Kim Williams is on record as saying that the reason they stopped was content, not any other reason. So this isnt the first time, and it would have had no bearing on the AFLs decision. As you say, Simulcasting could easily have been accomodated without a dedicated channel. You make my point.
April 29th 2012 @ 11:57am
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 11:57am | Report comment
Wookie, there was no intention from Foxtel from the outset of negotiations to reintroduce Foxfooty. It was a bargaining tool employed in the middle of the process to force Channel 7′s hand on simulcasting. But feel free to post an article from before the negotiations started where Kim Williams (and not just speculation from journos) expressly mentions the reintroduction of Foxfooty.
Either way your argument is moot.
The main concern for Foxtel once they get their increased subscription base is to get that base watching the advertisements that Foxtel direrctly receives money for – not Channel 7.
Neither Cattery or yourself has argued against the financial logic of that point and you both seem to prefer to deflect the conversation elsewhere.
So I put it to you: once they get their subscriber targets with enough to account for annual turnover, why would they persist on locking those viewers up on a channel with low ad rate returns when they can still sell the exact same content AND get additional ad revenue?
April 29th 2012 @ 6:04pm
The_Wookie said | April 29th 2012 @ 6:04pm | Report comment
Dear Code 13 – you tell us you recently found something about the foxfooty channel which will result in it being cancelled and spreada back through the fox sports channels. Not only have you failed to produce any evidence whatsoever of this, but you actively claim that whatever you have discovered negates comments by the former head of foxtel itself, and the current knowledge that foxfooty is the highest rating of all subcription channels on the foxtel network
You keep saying that Foxfooty was brought. up by fox execs as part of the rights deal, and yet no mention is made of that happening by the CEO of foxsports, patrick Delany in his “coversation with astra” concerning foxfooty (http://www.astra.org.au/Menu/Industry/Conversations/Patrick-Delany). Where he makes the point that Foxfooty was great in 2007, but will be better this time around because they had the premium content the last version lacked. Of course code13 with his supersecret research knows better.
What we were told when the rights were signed is that a new channel would be available at no extra cost “fox Sports AFL” – that later became an added subscription called “Foxfooty”.
(ref: http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-poised-to-announce-historic-new-tv-deal-with-foxtel-channel-7-worth-an-estimated-1-billion/story-e6frf33l-1226046219071).
Its well known it will be scrapped? Not a single reference could be found to it today. You havent supplied a single reference to back up the assertion. And like ive said before, Kim Williams himself said the only reason the first version was scrapped was lack of premium content – that is definitely not the case now. The only online reference ive been able to locate that didnt refer to the 2006 close was comments in this thread. Id be delighted to admit im wrong but there isnt even a hint of a suggestion out there on the internet that backs your assertion.
And just because an article appears on the league thread doesnt make it your special little kingdon – all codes had something to lose out of the Optus case, the article here refers to the AFL which is the only reason Im here.
April 29th 2012 @ 9:34pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 9:34pm | Report comment
Strange, yet another one of my post mysteriously gets deleted.
Very well I’ll say it again because some people need to hear it twice.
None of your links explicitly state when in negotiations the Foxfooty research was done. All of those links are written AFTER the fact and if you think that something written AFTER the fact pinpoints the date, then your links are just meaningless.
But again I’ll go back to what I said the first time I wrote this reply – neither Cattery or yourself have been able to debate the financial argument behind this.
Why would Foxtel persist with locking viewers up on a channel that has a low ad rate return for them?
Feel free to invent a rational financial argument against that, rather than trying to attack my credibility or deflect the argument elsewhere.
And again – like I said the first time – does Foxtel have a history of using and abusing its subscriber base? If only there were a precedent for Foxfooty being cancelled before… oh there is….
April 30th 2012 @ 1:10pm
Jaceman said | April 30th 2012 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
I havent followed all the argument but because FTA had 4 games out of 8 and Saturday FTA footy (unlike NRL) Fox had to introduce something else. The Footy channel allegedly cost them $17m a year to produce although that may have included some games content writeoff. I dont know (Williams and delaney know) but the fact that AFL FTA non match shows rate higher than NRL means there is more of an attraction for southern AFL viewers. My guess is they will scrap the Footy channel after 5 years or significant southern AFL takeup but again no-one knows…
April 28th 2012 @ 7:21pm
ManInBlack said | April 28th 2012 @ 7:21pm | Report comment
Last time Fox scrapped their FoxFooty channel they lost me as a customer.
I haven’t been back.
I’m thinking about it – but, if what you say is true then I’d be thinking twice about it most certainly. (invest more heavily in North memberships in preparation hopefully for a bit of a rise up the ladder in the next couple of years).
April 28th 2012 @ 7:47pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 7:47pm | Report comment
Whether Foxfooty remains depends on how well the subscriber drive goes. If they can get it to the level they need for renewals, then they no longer have a need for it because they will still have their original object of pursuit – the simulcasting arrangement – but now with a big enough base to account for turnovers.
It really is a Catch-22 – the more popular AFL supporters make Fox Footy, the closer they get to securing its demise.
April 28th 2012 @ 8:15pm
Whites said | April 28th 2012 @ 8:15pm | Report comment
As long as there are 4 football codes in Australia and Fox has the rights to all 4 Fox needs 4 sports channels. The Fox Footy channel isn’t going anywhere.
April 28th 2012 @ 8:26pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 8:26pm | Report comment
Especially since even with Fox Footy, 2 or 3 games per round must be shown on Fox Sports 1 anyway.
April 28th 2012 @ 8:30pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 8:30pm | Report comment
Okay I’ll throw this open to any AFL supporter checking out this rugby league article.
Which do you think Foxtel would prefer:
a) Having a bunch of viewers concentrated on 1 channel with a low ad recoup rate (due to the simulcasting arrangement)
or
b) Spreading those viewers across 2-3 channels so you can intermingle them with more of your self sold ads
Take your time.
(Here’s a hint: Foxtel don’t just want AFL fans to watch AFL, they want them to watch as much content as possible across all their channels to boost their ad market share)
April 28th 2012 @ 8:39pm
Whites said | April 28th 2012 @ 8:39pm | Report comment
As I sit here typing on my iPhone while I watch Souths vs Cowboys let me say categorically that as long Fox has the rights to all AFL games the Fox Footy channel will survive.
April 28th 2012 @ 8:48pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 8:48pm | Report comment
My response:
1. Currently, most sports are already limited predominantly to one of the three generic Fox Sports channels.
2. As I’ve already said, 2 or 3 AFL games per round need to be broadcast on Fox Sports 1 anyway.
3. Fox Footy is the highest rating Fox channel for the 4th week running, so wouldn’t it be better if the other 3 sports stations were brought up to similar levels of ratings, or one of the three was transferred to a NRL specific channel , meaning you would definitely need all four.
4. Fox Sports News drags all sports lovers to it, an opportunity to cross-promote, etc.
April 28th 2012 @ 9:07pm
Whites said | April 28th 2012 @ 9:07pm | Report comment
If the NRL gets the same arrangement as the AFL with all games live(which seems likely) the 2-3 hour block from 7:30 on a Saturday could be a problem. At the moment, depending on the time of the year, you could have 2*NRL, 2*AFL, a Super Rugby and an A-League game. You would need an extra 2 channels if they all were going to be broadcast in HD. Maybe show one game on FOX8 or maybe ESPN would show a game.
April 28th 2012 @ 9:37pm
Redb said | April 28th 2012 @ 9:37pm | Report comment
ManinBlack,
It makes no sense to dismantle the Fox Footy Channel given it’s success to date. Marketers love a package to sell. Fox Footy works for its target market. If the programming is dispersed its not the end of the world but logicially it seems to work better as a package.
May 1st 2012 @ 9:37pm
ManInBlack said | May 1st 2012 @ 9:37pm | Report comment
Code 13 -
I think you’d find regarding AFL followers is that they are perhaps more likely to watch other sport than, for example, soccer fans who have almost 24/7 365/yr soccer available to them.
Even the RL and RU seasons in all their varied glory run longer than an AFL season.
The AFL of all the codes has the most distinct off-season.
April 28th 2012 @ 9:29pm
Redb said | April 28th 2012 @ 9:29pm | Report comment
So Fox Footy will be scrapped according to cod 13. What does this mean precisely or don’t you know?
No AFL coverage on Foxtel or just no Fox Footy dedicated channel. If all 9 games are still on Fox plus the AFL talk shows who cares what they call it in the future. If there is a material change to actual AFL programming then there will be losses in subscriptions.
Surely your not gullible enough to believe otherwise.
April 28th 2012 @ 11:03pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 11:03pm | Report comment
I mean it purely in the context I said it – no Fox Footy dedicated channel.
And when you say “If all 9 games are still on Fox plus the AFL talk shows who cares what they call it in the future” – this is the exact point and the counterpoint to what Cattery is arguing. It will still be sold as a package in the context of “see every game live and ad free” etc – but once they get their subscription base, the rest is unnecessary. They’ve already got their foot inside the sucker’s doors.
They will still retain the same content, it will just be spread out amongst other sports content so they spread the audience more and recoup more from their own in house advertising rather than 7′s.
April 28th 2012 @ 11:24pm
The_Wookie said | April 28th 2012 @ 11:24pm | Report comment
youd could be onto somethiing – if fox had never done foxfooty before. But oh wait, they have. Further what you are saying is why foxfooty is an extra subscription on top of the regular sports package.
April 29th 2012 @ 11:38am
Whites said | April 29th 2012 @ 11:38am | Report comment
Fox Footy is part of the regular sports package.
April 29th 2012 @ 12:00pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
Well I posted this above, but just in case you don’t see it -
Wookie, there was no intention from Foxtel from the outset of negotiations to reintroduce Foxfooty. It was a bargaining tool employed in the middle of the process to force Channel 7′s hand on simulcasting. But feel free to post an article from before the negotiations started where Kim Williams (and not just speculation from journos) expressly mentions the reintroduction of Foxfooty.
Either way your argument is moot.
The main concern for Foxtel once they get their increased subscription base is to get that base watching the advertisements that Foxtel direrctly receives money for – not Channel 7.
Neither Cattery or yourself has argued against the financial logic of that point and you both seem to prefer to deflect the conversation elsewhere.
So I put it to you: once they get their subscriber targets with enough to account for annual turnover, why would they persist on locking those viewers up on a channel with low ad rate returns when they can still sell the exact same content AND get additional ad revenue?
April 29th 2012 @ 12:41pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
Are the low ad rate returns on Fox Footy? the highest rating Fox channel??
April 29th 2012 @ 1:21pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
Once again Cattery, you seem to struggle with even a basic understanding of how the 7-Foxtel simulcasting an ad sharing arrangement works…
Why do you keep commenting on a subject that you clear don’t comprehend? Surely it can’t just be attention seeking.
April 29th 2012 @ 4:08pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
Fox Footy is the highest rating channel on Fox – so on what basis could it possibly have low ad returns?
April 29th 2012 @ 10:16pm
The_Wookie said | April 29th 2012 @ 10:16pm | Report comment
Why would they indeed. Yet nothing you have posted states anything beyond your own opinion – and mysterious research – to indicate foxfooty will be closed down. Foxtel execs havent said anything, premier media group hasnt said anything, and the vast resources of the internet havent revealed any discussion outside of your posts that reflects any discussion on the likely closure of foxfooty.
Not only that but the ratings are the best they have for ANY subscription channel – and thats not too bad given its an EXTRA subscription on top of the sports package.
In short, your opinion is no more valid than anyone elses here on the subject however often you repeat your opinion in this thread doesnt really matter. Ill happily change my tune if you can produce actual evidence though. Im waiting.
I dont care what League get – you can find my posts in the LU fight club if you look hard enough, particularly recently that indicate my preference for them to get something close, if not more than the AFL.
April 29th 2012 @ 11:15pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 11:15pm | Report comment
Wookie, you have still avoided to come up with one single logical financial argument to counter this:
“Why would Foxtel persist in locking up viewers on a channel that has a low ad return rate?”
If its so simple as to why they would keep it, just say the financial logic behind it. Don’t write multiple paragraphs attacking my opinions or sources, just state the simple and logical argument against it.
I don’t know why you would be expecting Foxtel execs to admit it – surely even you can see how that would be counterintuitive to the business model – “Oh sure sign up now, oh by the way we will cancel Foxfooty in 5 years”.
They can’t get rid off it until they hit their targets – I said that from the outset. They’d still have the same content to sell, just intermingled with more of their own advertising.
If 400,000 AFL fans have signed up and the subscription money is locked away but approximately half of the most popular content they are watching involves programming where the ad revenues go to a different company, do you honestly believe that Foxtel will let that lie?
Seriously, no waffle, no deflection, I’m just interested in gauging your understanding of this topic, so just a straight up yes or no – in your opinion will Foxtel continue with such a business model?
April 30th 2012 @ 6:16pm
The_Wookie said | April 30th 2012 @ 6:16pm | Report comment
Lets see:
- highest rating STV channel for the 5th week in a row
- Patrick Delaney (head of foxsports) says its a success
- its an ADDED subscription on the sports package.
Why yes I think they’ continue with the model.
Youve got nothing but unfounded speculation, despite repeated requests, you havent supplied a single reference for your speculation which flies in the face of publicly available ratings information and comments from foxtel staffers about subscription numbers and foxfooty success.
Until you supply something more than your own imagination, Im ignoring this thread.
May 1st 2012 @ 12:38am
code 13 said | May 1st 2012 @ 12:38am | Report comment
Wookie, I get it. You like AFL, so much so it has prompted you to compile a fan website about AFL media. I’m impressed by your level of dedication to something that you obviously receive little to no financial reward or industry respect for and despite that I hope that you keep pursuing that endeavour. In the past I have been completely civil on LU towards you because I respect your interest when you engage in debate with me on there.
But let’s come back to the crux of the issue here. You didn’t start out by working in the industry, you started out by being an AFL fan. I’m not quite sure what you do for a living, webpage design maybe? It doesn’t really matter. What matter is that like The Cattery you have no direct experience on the subject that you’re discussing and what you know about it is just secondhand knowledge that you have compiled from reading newspapers.
I’m sorry if that cuts close to home but that’s the case. Now I may not reveal my confidential sources publically on LU for obvious reasons – they’re confidential. There are peoples jobs at stake here and demanding me to do so when you know this just doesn’t become what I thought you had – integrity.
Why don’t you go to LU and make a post on there calling me a liar. I talk to other users on there who actually know who I am, what I do for a living and some even know the names and job titles of the people I talk to.
In the end Wookie, I really don’t care if you choose to believe or disbelieve me. You really don’t mean much to me at all in the scheme of things. Five years from now I will have forgotten all about this thread but when Foxfooty is cancelled you will be debating it on your webpage and wonder why Foxtel treats its subscribers in such a fashion and why there was no logical warning sign of why it happened.
Like I said if you genuinely think I’m making this up, go ask those other people and see what they think. And if after that you actually change your mind, send me a message and I will give you a scoop for your webpage that you can break before the Herald Sun.
But better act fast, the clock’s ticking.
May 1st 2012 @ 5:02am
The_Wookie said | May 1st 2012 @ 5:02am | Report comment
Mate theres a reason I never change my nick and I use the same one everywhere. Im accountable for everything i post on whatever forum or site that may be. Sometimes I stuff up and Ive paid for that here and on LU.
You know as well as I do that the internet is full of anonymous experts that know things that no one else can know. The fact is I was unable to independently verify it. Thats not calling you a liar, and I challenge you to find a single post where i called you such. I have repeatedly asked for links or sources, and you werent able to supply them – for obvious reasons now it would appear.
You know what, your right Im not a media expert, and Ive never worked in the media. If I as a random internet person started posting insider information that couldnt be confirmed, people would react the same way. Especially on The Roar.
Now that I know who you are on LU though, it puts it into a little more perspective for me. The source of your information was my only point of disagreement and Im a little more satisfied now.
May 1st 2012 @ 6:35pm
The Cattery said | May 1st 2012 @ 6:35pm | Report comment
Oh, I’m sorry, code 13 is an expert in his field, a million apologies from my good self in daring to enter any conversation with such an expert, especially one crawling out of the woodwork after the fact.
May 1st 2012 @ 8:51pm
code 13 said | May 1st 2012 @ 8:51pm | Report comment
Wookie, I can now see where the confusion lies and after our discussion on LU glad to see we do see things eye to eye now.
April 28th 2012 @ 11:33pm
Queensland's Game is Rugby League said | April 28th 2012 @ 11:33pm | Report comment
The NRL’s pay television rights are owned by Fox Sports. Foxtel owns the subscription TV rights to the AFL. That’s why there’s a Fox Footy channel but no Fox NRL channel.
April 29th 2012 @ 11:49am
Whites said | April 29th 2012 @ 11:49am | Report comment
No. Both the AFL and NRL rights are owned by Fox Sports.
April 29th 2012 @ 12:17pm
Crosscoder said | April 29th 2012 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
And TC should simulcasting come in with Foxsports and an FTA channel,involving all the rl offerings,you suggest that will not add to Foxsports Tv ratings armoury.The Anzac Day match Saints v Roosters was the 2nd highest rating sport show on Pay Tv this year.
And it is not a case of maybe it has more to offer,it simply has,The different tiers available.remember the SOO which Foxsports do not currently have(and which have 10-11million viewers over the series each year).
The NRL season goes for 4 extra weeks.
And whether some of you guys can stomach it or not,Foxtel’s Delayney has stated the NTHn States are not subscribed to the max,there is room for further growth.Oh and Foxtel now absorbed Austar the regional carrier,it’s all good.
As far as rl having its own channel we dont’ know yet what will happen and the AFL only secured theirs last year.
And from what I hear ,the chances of a long life a slim indeed …
More opportunity for expansion into WA/QLD in the next contract period.
So yeah plenty on offer to offer for rugby league to subscription Tv,and they woudn’t want to lose the code now,would they?.
April 29th 2012 @ 12:48pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
At the moment, there is so much AFL footy, they still need to use Fox Sports 1 to show it all!
Nine games times three hours repeated three times during the week (all repeats get decent ratings), and that’s already 81 hours of material, before you add pre- and post- games, and 12 talks shows, all rating very well, and the repeats rate well, so we’re already up to about 135 hours of TV per week, all rating well.
24 x 7 = 168 hours
That’s some decent coverage, before we even think about secondary competitions, some of which are shown as well.
April 29th 2012 @ 1:23pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
For the record, please state exactly what ad revenue you think Foxtel generates from the 7 simulcast/repeat games?
April 29th 2012 @ 4:46pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 4:46pm | Report comment
Are there 7 simulcast games?
I thought there were only 4.
April 29th 2012 @ 4:55pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 4:55pm | Report comment
CHANEL SEVEN simulcast games….
Are you really this unintelligent? Is this just an act?
Are you going to answer the question now?
April 29th 2012 @ 8:38pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 8:38pm | Report comment
I guess you won’t…
April 29th 2012 @ 9:35pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 9:35pm | Report comment
Oh well…
April 30th 2012 @ 4:02pm
Pot Stirrer said | April 30th 2012 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
Thats not hard on fox TC , everything else is a repeat. so the rest of us veiwers swith back to FTA. Until the Rugby league comes back on.
April 28th 2012 @ 5:06pm
Australian Rules said | April 28th 2012 @ 5:06pm | Report comment
This: “if we get anything less than them it would be a disgrace!”…is really not the way to think about the value of the respective Broadcast deals.
To get caught up in this “us vs them” stuff is missing the point.
The AFL rates higher week to week, the games are longer and have more ad space. In other words, advertisers have their products seen more often through AFL than NRL – a key reason it attracts a higher value by the Networks.
April 28th 2012 @ 6:06pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 6:06pm | Report comment
I agree that the NRL should be treated on its own merits – but then you proceed to spend the rest of your comment comparing the two…
April 29th 2012 @ 11:46am
Australian Rules said | April 29th 2012 @ 11:46am | Report comment
It’s one thing to compare the two products…it’s another to say “we should get X $ because they got X $”.
April 29th 2012 @ 1:16pm
The Greatest Game Of All said | April 29th 2012 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
Are you serious? So even though NRL performs, at the very least, as well as the AFL, you guys still deserve more? Typical, AFL elitism at its best.
April 29th 2012 @ 1:25pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
At no point have I said the NRL should get $X because AFL received $X.
In fact, this thread would be better served if some of the more obsessed AFL fans were to discuss the NRL rights without the need to mention AFL at all.
April 29th 2012 @ 4:22pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
When I discuss the NRL rights, I never refer to the AFL rights.
My starting point is the NRL getting $83 million per annum in their last deal, at the time, hailed as a break through in TV revenue.
And the one thing I am sure of is that a tripling in the value will not occur six years on.
April 29th 2012 @ 5:06pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 5:06pm | Report comment
Cattery, in this thread you have said -
“On top of that, you can add the online rights from the recent court decision, I’m not sure what that’s worth. If we assume that it’s worth around half of the AFL online rights, that might push the overall sum up to $875 mill.”
“Maybe it has more to offer, but its the AFL with its own channel on Fox”
So no, you are clearly lying when you say –
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
When I discuss the NRL rights, I never refer to the AFL rights.
I could not be bothered searching for your posts on other articles but I suspect they would be filled with other contradictory nonsense.
April 29th 2012 @ 5:29pm
The Greatest Game Of All said | April 29th 2012 @ 5:29pm | Report comment
“And the one thing I am sure of is that a tripling in the value will not occur six years on.”
Oh ok, that’s against the rules now is it? What if it happens, a tripling that is, would it really be the end of the world for you Catt?
April 29th 2012 @ 6:11pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 6:11pm | Report comment
No mate, it’s no skin off my nose what the NRL gets, why should it be? The AFL has huge revenue streams, huge.
But you, and Code 13 and others, seem to think that the recent history of TV rights values can be completely ignored.
And I say to each of you, no, you cannot ignore them completely. There are trend lines, there are patterns, the TV rights doesn’t emerge from above in a vacuum.
You might all think that the AFL experienced an out-of-the-box increase in the value of its rights.
It didn’t.
It has been experienced such out-of-the-box increases for 25 years solid now.
The cash value increase to $1.15 mill was not out of left field, especially if you knew:
1. the recent history of increases (each around the 45+% mark); and that
2. a ninth game was likely to carry some value, especially one that was going to fall outside of the anti-siphoning rules.
So the trend line is important, the recent history is important, the patterns are important, the usual movements up and down are important.
And in that context, I can promise you withou no fear of being incorrect – there will not be a tripling in the value of the NRL rights – there will not be.
In fact, a doubling is at the extreme end of probable.
April 29th 2012 @ 8:34pm
The Greatest Game Of All said | April 29th 2012 @ 8:34pm | Report comment
You can promise this and promise that until you’re blue in the face, whether you or any other AFL follower like it or not, the current AFL deal will be used as a guide for the next NRL deal, maybe not in a public or open manner, but it will be because of the exact point you are trying to make, it is a trend, deal with it. Make no mistake the NRL has a lot more to offer than a week to week competition and a few footy panel talk shows, AFL fans know this and it’s starting to show, the fear.
April 30th 2012 @ 10:11am
The Cattery said | April 30th 2012 @ 10:11am | Report comment
Is this another “smell the fear” sort of argument?
God help us.
April 29th 2012 @ 1:47pm
db swannie said | April 29th 2012 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
Bang on the money c13 (pardon the pun),
RL will get what it is worth & the AFL cheersquad on here just cant accept the fact that the amount might be in the ball park of the AFL figure.
The IC will be selling the merits of RL viewership,the potential for more advertising in games,more teams/games in future,the potential for a growing audience in non heartland ares etc.
If has very very little to do with the AFL,no matter how much TC & co bang on about it.
April 28th 2012 @ 6:30pm
The Greatest Game Of All said | April 28th 2012 @ 6:30pm | Report comment
Does this include regional regional ratings as well, or is that just another inconvenient truth for AFL lovers.
April 28th 2012 @ 6:45pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 6:45pm | Report comment
It will be interest when the NRL simulcasting comes into effect. At the moment the NRL’s regional numbers are being ignored by individuals with vested interests in skewing the results to suit their own purposes.
However this year the numbers AFL journos and fans are quoting include the STV regional numbers. Given the take up of Austar in regional areas and the popularity of the NRL in those areas, it’s going to be hard to throw out the NRL regional numbers for much longer.
April 28th 2012 @ 7:00pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 7:00pm | Report comment
No one has a problem with regional numbers per se, as long as their is a robust process behind their gathering, and as long as we’re not relying on figures coming from lobbyists, i.e. PR firms actually pushing regional TV.
April 28th 2012 @ 7:13pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 7:13pm | Report comment
You should be going straight to the source then rather than some PR firm (not sure who you’re referring to there). Nielsen runs both sets of TAMs and you can subscribe to the full data set. Companies like the AFL & NRL have a dedicated broadsheet breakdown of every match. When they announce their end of season figures, these are the numbers quoted – not some PR firm or Talkin’ Footy website.
April 29th 2012 @ 12:34pm
Crosscoder said | April 29th 2012 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
You have just drawn a comparison in your post in effect using the us v them analogy.Gulp.
Your great leader drew comparisons when the latest TV deal was announced ,by stating it is the biggest sporting deal in Australia’s history.
I will cite Masters and Gallop,when the 4 qtrs 2 hours v 2 halves 80 minutes is constantly thrown up:
The NRL has been working on increasing the number of commercials per game,such as an ad following a kick from the sideline and following a goal attempt.
The NRl still dominates the pay Tv ratings on Foxtel’s weekly top 10.
And teh additon of austra within Foxtel gives that outlet an opportunity to grow the nthn regional high ratings base even further.
do not discount a 2nd brisbane team,which will further strengthen rls Tv raings and a Perth team,which will no doubt have a similar effect to teh storm re showing to nthn viewers.
There are more eyeballs watching rugby league when SOO is included,so advertisers are well aware of the facts AR and pay a premium for so doing.
Having said that the Tv contract negotiated is based on what the code of rugby league can offer,to whom ,and when.What happens on the sporting fringes with other codes,is by teh way,and that;s all.
April 28th 2012 @ 6:22pm
The_Wookie said | April 28th 2012 @ 6:22pm | Report comment
THe AFL also sold Fox the Under 16 and Under 18 state championships, the Foxtel Cup state knockout championship, and exclusive access to the preaseason competition, except for the final. It probably includes the international rules serie as well as any number of award ceremonies and the draft. IM surprised the state leagues arent getting a game a week on fox.
Still with all that, league would have slightly more content.
April 28th 2012 @ 6:30pm
The Cattery said | April 28th 2012 @ 6:30pm | Report comment
But when you throw in the high ranking talks shows, about a dozen per week, all making the nightly top 20…..
April 28th 2012 @ 6:48pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
The AFL isn’t the only sport capable of creating such content. The NRL will be looking to bring back Reserve Grade in the not too distant future.
Foxtel has 50% subscription targets for NSW & QLD by 2020. If they fail to achieve these they’re fully aware that ITV will eat into their market share.
Given that nowhere in the NSW or QLD even achieves those numbers, any talk of the Fox Sports claiming “saturation” or “no need for additional content” etc is just bluff.
April 29th 2012 @ 12:50pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
Fox Footy has about a dozen talks shows, they all rate very well, and even the repeats and second repeats rate well.
April 29th 2012 @ 1:27pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
Are you trying to imply that AFL is the only sport that is able to create a talk show?
April 29th 2012 @ 4:10pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
All I’m saying is that Fox Footy has a dozen talk shows, and every single one of them rate higher than any other talk show you care to mention.
April 29th 2012 @ 5:11pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
Why do you keep referring to AFL talk shows when on a rugby league rights thread you explicitly write -
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
When I discuss the NRL rights, I never refer to the AFL rights.
If you think that the AFL is the only sport capable of creating such content then you are just highlighting further your lack of understanding of this issue.
Please do us all a favour and do what you claim – stop waffling on about the AFL on this Rugby League section…
April 29th 2012 @ 6:11pm
The_Wookie said | April 29th 2012 @ 6:11pm | Report comment
Hes doing that because its all part of the content. YOU cant be that silly that you cant see that having high rating panel shows also contributes to the desirabilitly of the overall sports product can you?
And while some people have suggested bringing back reserve grade its far from a fait accompli, and its right up there with the suggestion they bring back a preseason comp. Both smart ideas, but hardly at the same discussion level, as say, oh league expansion.
April 29th 2012 @ 6:13pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 6:13pm | Report comment
The last half dozen posts are about the AFL – what on Earth are you on about??
Nearly 48 hours on, and you still have found no one who over two months ago was able to state unequivocally that the Optus decision would be overturned.
April 29th 2012 @ 8:41pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 8:41pm | Report comment
Wookie, Cattery is the one claiming that he doesn’t bring up the AFL when discussing the NRL rights.
By justifying why he does it you are conceding that he has lied on this front.
April 29th 2012 @ 9:13pm
The_Wookie said | April 29th 2012 @ 9:13pm | Report comment
I dont care what cattery said prior to this thread. Although it seems you are fascinated by it
April 29th 2012 @ 9:25pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 9:25pm | Report comment
Wookie, I do not read Cattery’s post in the AFL section of this site because frankly I don’t care about that sport.
I’m simply referring to his contradictory statements on this article alone.
April 30th 2012 @ 10:50am
The Cattery said | April 30th 2012 @ 10:50am | Report comment
code 13
I have to agree with Wookie, the clear evidence is that you are entirely fascinated by my posts.
You are not the first to be, and you will not be the last.
April 30th 2012 @ 2:08pm
Casual Poster said | April 30th 2012 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
When you lie as much as you do TC, its interesting to see what BS you will come up with next.
April 30th 2012 @ 3:31pm
Emric said | April 30th 2012 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
SkyNZ wants to drop the price it pays for the NRL in New Zealand its simply not getting the ratings to justify the expense
April 30th 2012 @ 4:04pm
clipper said | April 30th 2012 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
Emric – what’s your take on this situation – would it be more people watching Rugby due to the RWC, the closeness of the Super 15 or the Warriors not doing so well this year?
April 30th 2012 @ 6:12pm
Boomshanka said | April 30th 2012 @ 6:12pm | Report comment
Emric / Clipper, with about as much relevance as your comment, perhaps you can tell us how much the NZRFU contributed to Christchurch Stadium after sidelining rugby league in the south island?
April 28th 2012 @ 2:03pm
db swannie said | April 28th 2012 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
My understanding of the F & L rights is that 9 have to put a $ figure on what each component is worth.
Fri night DH
Sun Arvo.
Tests.
SOO
Other games(All Stars).
So if say 7 comes in & says we want SOO & offer 20% more than 9 have on the table ..the F & L rights for that component is broken
I have heard that the IC/LEK are very confident that it can be done this way..& very confident of winning a court case if 9 wanted to take that route.
But all that will be null & void if a 10/fox partnership want the lot & outbid 9 easily.
April 28th 2012 @ 6:09pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 6:09pm | Report comment
Also the F&LR do not apply to the 9/Foxtel simulcasting option.
April 28th 2012 @ 5:25pm
Whites said | April 28th 2012 @ 5:25pm | Report comment
The thing that will help the NRL is that channel 9 just cannot afford to lose the rights to Channel 7. If Channel 7 had all the big AFL and NRL games for the next 4 years they would lock in their status as the number 1 network for that whole timeframe. Channel 9 just won their first ratings week in about 18 months. They won’t want to go 4 years without a win.
The big question is what kind of bidding tension will evolve? Ch9 knows that Ch7 has the cash to come in over the top of Ch9 if Ch9′s opening bid isn’t high enough. So Ch9 has to come in with a knockout bid. Now the NRL would be a nice addition to Ch7′s lineup(especially SOO and the GF) but they don’t need it like Ch9. So there is a very good chance that whatever Ch9 bids Ch7 will come back with a bid 20% higher. Then it’s open slather. It will be an interesting contest over the next few months.
The high ratings for both the Ch7 broadcast of the AFL and the Fox Sports simulcast of all the games could give either network the confidence to bid higher for the NRL TV rights. There was a chance that the Ch7/Fox arrangement could have cannibalised each others viewers. This doesn’t appear to have been the case with strong ratings for both broadcasters. For the general public this should mean every game of rugby league will be live next year.
April 28th 2012 @ 5:43pm
jamesb said | April 28th 2012 @ 5:43pm | Report comment
Ray Warren on triple M did say earlier today “The ARLC want every game broadcast live on TV next year”
April 28th 2012 @ 9:45pm
Redb said | April 28th 2012 @ 9:45pm | Report comment
White, one of the major reasons combined ratings are collectively higher this year for AFL is the live telecasts particularly Friday nights.
April 28th 2012 @ 6:50pm
yewonk said | April 28th 2012 @ 6:50pm | Report comment
the afl coverage is awesome i can watch in sydney four or five games a weekend i wish league was like that.
April 28th 2012 @ 7:14pm
code 13 said | April 28th 2012 @ 7:14pm | Report comment
The Channel 10 deal looks set to have every game target marketed and simulcast so you might get even more than that.
April 29th 2012 @ 8:27am
oikee said | April 29th 2012 @ 8:27am | Report comment
The smart money has to be on rugby league. Coverage even in our 2 main states under channel 9 has been ordinary at best. Imagine a station willing to grow the game around Australia.
April 29th 2012 @ 12:10pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
Well I don’t know about Channel 7s & Channel 9s intentions on that part but if Channel 10 were the receive the NRL rights they would make the NRL their centrepiece programme.
Think about the way 9 advertises their Channel – at the moment it’s “Home of the Olympics”. I would suggest that if the NRL stays entirely on 9 we would see more of what we’ve already seen.
If Channel 7 secures all the F2A rights and retains it all, in that case you might see AFL & NRL put on the same standard bearing level.
However, if Channel 10 gets what they want (and need) they will be building their entire schedule around rugby league and they will genuinely become the “NRL Network”.
In terms of spreading and promoting the game, the best outcomes are at least 2 F2A channels competing for rugby league viewership and/or Channel 10 being involved in some capacity as I feel out of the 3 networks they will pursue that agenda with the most vigour and integrity.
April 29th 2012 @ 12:44pm
The Greatest Game Of All said | April 29th 2012 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
Is that you Lachie? Kidding mate, but seriously I have to agree with you, 10 could be perfect for Rugby League and vice vercer. Just got the feeling 9 will get what they want, too much to lose.
April 29th 2012 @ 12:51pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
But last I heard, Ten wanted to show League on One. Would that truly carry a premium?
April 29th 2012 @ 1:30pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
You seem to hear alot of voices.
Are you trying to suggest that Channel 10 will buy the NRL but only show it on One and not on the main channel?
The most obvious scenario is to broadcast different games on different channels according to the appeal of the game in question – no different to the current 7 AFL deal.
April 29th 2012 @ 4:11pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
As I said, last I heard, they wanted to run the NRL games on One.
April 29th 2012 @ 5:12pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 5:12pm | Report comment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia
April 29th 2012 @ 6:20pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 6:20pm | Report comment
Yes, and 48 hours on, I’m still waiting for you to tell me who, over 2 months ago, unequivocally stated that the Optus decision would be overturned.
C’mon mate, you’ve had 48 hours, I know you’ve been looking because of the lame links you’ve already provided!
Everyone’s an expert after the event, heh?
Really impressive mate.
April 29th 2012 @ 8:48pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 8:48pm | Report comment
Cattery, either yourself or another AFL nutter had my original post deleted (perhaps because I refered to your suspect mental state) – either way here is the original post I had on here yesterday
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/barrister-paul-ehrlich-believes-judge-got-it-wrong-on-broadcast-ruling/story-e6frg7mf-1226261249384
I’m waiting for you to admit that Paul Ehrlich also lives on your lonely little island…
April 29th 2012 @ 10:55pm
The Cattery said | April 29th 2012 @ 10:55pm | Report comment
One minute your using the rather juvenile ploy of putting up links in Wikipedia to mental illnesses, and in the next, you’re showing signs of paranoia yourself, not once but on at least two occasions.
I’ve never asked for any post to be deleted, and there’s nothing in this thread that would make me start now, and I seriousy doubt any AFL fan would have asked for anything to be deleted.
The only concern I have is that you have dedicated the whole weekend trying to find something, anything, to show the widespread view that the decision would be overturned.
Following the provision of many lame links, I admit you have sometihng on this occasion. I hadn’t seen it before, and it was a pleasure to read, so rare were such views at the time.
But did the good barrister state his position unequivocally?
Well, as you know, legal experts are sometimes the best fence sitters in the business, although this bloke makes a good fist of it.
He says: “…should be overturned on appeal.”
In other words, he gives the opinion that it should be overturned (all things being equal), but I said that it would most definitely be overturned – no hesitation.
I will leave it to the dear reader to determine whether your link does include a statement that could be deemed unequivocal.
April 29th 2012 @ 11:38pm
code 13 said | April 29th 2012 @ 11:38pm | Report comment
Well I’ll put it to the roar mods to intervene here if they wish and they can state if my posts were reported/deleted or not. I’m unsure if they can comment on that or not but I have no problem with asking that as I know what I posted.
But even if they do contradict your accusations about paranoia, I somehow doubt you will even have the humility to admit to yet another in your long line of errors as your record to control your ego thus far is poor at best.
Your interest in how I spent my weekend is another case in point. The only person posting a running ticking clock was you. 12 hours. 24 hours. 36 hours. I simply shrugged off these immature antics after I posted my original replies because I figured that once more you were choosing to ignore any comment that contradicted your habitation on that lonely island you seem so fond of, which you have done once again.
Clearly you must enjoy your solitude there. After all this I can finally understand why you are alone there…
April 30th 2012 @ 8:01am
The Cattery said | April 30th 2012 @ 8:01am | Report comment
code 13
I am a humble working class mug punter, born and raised in a fibro shed.
I was born with a plastic spoon in my mouth.
But the fact remains that over two months ago, I stated unequivocally that the Optus decision would be overturned, at a time when no one was willing to be as unequivocal, as is evidenced by the comments to the original artical and by the mulitude of tech articles published at the time.
You found a legal expert who was willing to say upfront that it should happen as a matter of principle, and I say to you well done, although it’s a poor return for a whole weekend’s searching.
April 30th 2012 @ 9:54am
clipper said | April 30th 2012 @ 9:54am | Report comment
TC – I sympathise with you. I asked a question in an article about the Swans and Storm to see if anyone could name another team in the world that was in the Storms position – i.e. that has more of a following outside their own city, but is not one of the top teams in it. So far, 4 days later, the only responses I’ve had are to say the Swans are slipping, the Swans have been around 30 years, that I’ve only drunk in two pubs in Woollahra etc, but nothing to counter my claim.
Often when making predictions such as yours, it can come back to bite you, but you alone were on the mark with the Optus call (even if people don’t know the difference between would and should), and if your $850m figure is a long way off every RL poster is going to have a go, but will remain silent if you are on the ball.
April 30th 2012 @ 10:32am
code 13 said | April 30th 2012 @ 10:32am | Report comment
Cattery,
Do you really believe your own violin scratching working class hero dribble?
Your obsession with my weekend habits – yes I work weekends, stop the presses! – speaks more about your obsesssions than it does mine.
At least though we can find some common ground and agree on one point in particular – you definitely are a mug.
April 30th 2012 @ 10:43am
The Cattery said | April 30th 2012 @ 10:43am | Report comment
code 13
then why go out of your way to belittle someone who has not been afforded the opportunities in life that have been presented to your good self?
What do you gain by aggressively conducting personal attacks on someone such as myself, a humble working class mug punter, born and raised in a fibro shed?
All because I alone stood up and unequivocally declared that the Optus decision would be overturned?
Honestly, is that a good enough reason for your tirades? Why descend into this sort of online behaviour which is completely lacking in decorum?
April 30th 2012 @ 10:52am
The Cattery said | April 30th 2012 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Clipper
thank you for the support.
It’s a great burden to always be right, I can assure you.
May 1st 2012 @ 12:53am
code 13 said | May 1st 2012 @ 12:53am | Report comment
Hmm… fibro shack man, what opportunities do you think that I was afforded that you weren’t?
And just for the record, what does your sob story have to do with your lack of comprehension of media rights? Are you trying to say that the reason you know so little about it is because you grew up in an impoverished neighbourhood?