Entering a brave new world for NRL fans

People have to remember that the money talked of here is for TELEVISION RIGHTS! even though the AFL has bigger memberships, bigger crowds and its players paid more money, its hard for me to admit as a true blooded Queensland Rugby League fan that the AFL is bigger. But people on here saying it wont get anywhere near the magical 1 Billion over 5 years is wrong. In TV land and media NRL has what it takes to get it. With the intro of Perth which is a certinty it will go into 4 of the biggest Capital citys on FTA with probably the same viewers as AFL but instead of Adelaide the NRL has New Zealand where Rugby League gets a great audience. Plus NRL games are Shown in Great Britain, France and some European Countries as well as in North America......So 1 Billion over 5 years no problem at all.

Dave. Champ.Please don't bring that excuses views into the argument ,at least the NRL is on FTA TV ,and not just the highlights. Pretty hard to offer excuses for a contract not even signed.I understood we are debating arguments for or against the next NRL deal. The debate is what the rugby league should expect to get.You appear to have missed the taxi. Keep it a secret between you and me.What rugby league has done best,over the 100 years,is survive,regardless. And that we should all be proud.

GoGWS. I have no fear in holding back,They are simply my views based on what has transpired,what is likely to transpire re expansion.,what has haappedn with continuous ratings,what happens in the nthn regionals. Just like many AFL people had no fear in predicting $1b for their contract.If the NRL only get $800m ,they will have Gallop's .... for garters. The same AFL journos predicted $1b for afl,are they somehow superior to RL journos. reality check:it was also other media people who played down the AFL rights,in the business section of some of the dailies.get with it.Who is to say ,especially if Foxtel dont; get the subs they expect,that it was a wise deal. What the !"" News don't need to." As McEnroe would say ,you can't be serious If they lose the NRL rights for Pay,you will soon find out whether they need to.Very weird comment.

$950 over 5 years (minimum)....very obliging of you to nail yourself to the mast like that...thank you... brave of you to risk your credibility like some of your fellow RL posters who now surely have zero credibility on this matter - they wasted everyone's time with their by 'reasoning' that the AFL would get $800m, and repeating the stupidity of RL journos.... News Ltd does have to outlay a cent for RL next time around...they will but they needn't do so....aren't News Ltd exiting ownership of the competition (but retaining part ownership of some clubs)....why do RL reporters talk up the the value of the next deal?... who knows or cares....its totally meaningless ineffectual babble anyway....RL journos spent months downplaying the value of the AFL rights and just look what happened....commercial decisions around broadcast rights are not influenced or decided by carping sports journalists...

looks like rugby league is doing exactly what rugby league does best for over 100 years by reading this article. excuses after excuses after excuses and more to come. just be happy with what you get and move on as a sport. afl got more money so what? life and sports move on.

GoGWS I am working on figures provide in the Sun Herald based on 2007.QED I didn't pluck them out of the air. You really make a habit of not reading what I stated.The comment was made by Colin Smith (the media analyst/negotiator who landed the $780m for the AFL ) last time.Leave the journos out of this for this argument. He is not a rl journo,and as far as I know never has been.So please can we get that straight.If I was to go to someone for advice re value of Tv content re sport,he would be one I would seek for advice not Masters,not a rl journo ,not you. You are making assumptions based on no doubt a 16 team comp with no Perth with an extra time slot,good luck.You are ignoring the fact ,monday night football,an absolute ratings bonanza for Fox,was never part of the last deal. You are ignoring Sky NZ input,last time $12m pa.you are ignoring ch7 going all out for the SOO series,and you appear to be ignoring the historical facts, that rugby league whether you like it or not,is a match for and has more offerings than AFL. You make the assumption,the NRL will have fewer teams.You know something the Bears and Perth bidding teams don't know? You appear ignorant of the desperation of ch9 to retain the rights(well publicised) ,nor the poor advtg performance of 10.You do not appreciate the fact if Fox was to lose hypothetically , rugby league ,they would tlke a hell of a pounding. My assessment and trying to be conservative,and using previous est contracts as a base,and what we know now as to stats.:- Telstra online : $25m pa similar to AFL which is reasonable SOO series: $20m minimum(could be more) FTA: including tests/4 nations:: $50m Foxtel including all stars: $80m (last time $43m a bargain)They have had record NRL ratings on Fox on at least 4-5 occasions this year. Sky News : $15m (last time $12m) could be more. That my good lad, tabulates to $190m pa or $950m over 5 years.And that is minimum. Your last para is an absolue load of ironic bulldust,in fact I am still smirking. The AFL has been talking up their code for the last couple of years,straight from the big mouths of A.D.,Wilson,Eddie everywhere,Sheedy and the pens of Smith.You see and hear ,what you want to see and hear. They have always talked their code up,and good on them,but for you to have a shot at Gallop for doing likewise,is Olympic class hypocrisy. Perhaps you can enlighten us,as to why the News ltd mob,are pushing the rl for the new contract,when in fact they are the very ones, having to outlay the monies to get a slice of the action.Or is it a case of acknowledging,where true value lies.

You had better argue with the likes of Oztam.and remove the dreaded large regioanal areas of the nthn states where rl viewers(eyeballs) are maximised. The AFLfor starters is over 22 rounds ,the NRL 26.There are available SOO series /City V Country/Tests/NRL/All Stars. You still get a higher number of eyeballs watching compared to a lesser number of eyballs watching for a longer period. I watch a test cricket match all day I am still only one person watching the same match,with certain numbers doing the same.Yet by comparsion in the shortened version say 20/20 there are more watching.Marketeers aim to sell to the maximum numbers.Ask yourself why the Californian market in the US is so important.The most populous state.

Clipper. Sydney has been more accepting of other codes ,than Melbourne.Then again pro rata the publicity for the other codes in Melbourne,pales into comparison to that offered in Sydney. Although listening to a respected AFL writer John anderson ,he stated the Storm is a lot more well known than it has been : viz a viz G/F and of course the salary cap. With all the publicity paid or otherwise,(and the 7 court case concluded money was paid for good news) stories for AFL,is it any wonder that more people know about AFL. The Macquarie Bank is involved in junior rugby league development at grassroots level.Hardly bordering on the luxury level.Volvo has thrown up ads on FTA and Pay Tv.it's not all beer and pies now champ.The most popular tipping comp a few years ago at the Mac Bank was rugby league. You like many completely overlook a litttle war called Super league in the mid 90s,where the print media such as Fairfax turned away to a degree from rl,and gave the swans a push.In 1982 ,when the Swans first arrived,the front page of the Herald had the swans led by Barry Round galavanting around the Opera house. Please explain to me how rl has become less diverse in Sydney? When there is now a PIS (private independent schools ) rl comp in the nth west of sydney. It appears now when you are talking diversity,you are talking availability to the general public on the electronic media.diversity also means the make up of the followers,which I understood your Roles argument to mean,and to which i responded. And rest assured that diverse availabilty including rugby league,is available in some areas of other states and no doubt will be more so after the next Tv deal.The country will have a homogenised sport following.that is why the Perth Reds will enter the NRL in 2013 .After all that is a diverse city. I am all for diversity that all people can chooseto watch all sports at decent hours ,its just that is doesn;t happen both ways:Melbourne.

RedB Shallow argument!!!,because 10 did not get involved in the AFL negotiations more like it.They apparently came up trumps ,when they were televising the AFL,but getting involved with rl is supposedly shallow.LOL. If there is a high rating product available and your Tv station is not performing,and that high rating product happens to be rl,then any Tv exec(at 10) would look foolish,not to get a slice of the action.more so when your advertising income is falling compared to the likes of 7. As an example if ch10 was able to telecast a live game on HD or FTA into the nthn cities or evengrab a mondayone,they will hardly lose Tv ratings.I am not saying that will happen,but a 3rd FTA party wants to bid on the game.And if somehow you believe 3 bidders is worse than 2,then I am bemused.

So the NRL may only offer from 5 games to 9 games, instead of 4 to 9. Is 3 ads in 3 hours better than 2 ads in 2 hours. Seriously this is all pure speculation and straw clutching from both sides and another 12 months of this back and forth would seem extremely futile. It's getting ridiculous already.

150% increase I should say...I meant a deal worth 250% more than the last deal...

OK Crosscoder...let's accept your $100m a year claim which you assert is the value of the NRL's 6 year deal...so according to reporting that already circulating in the RL media, by Masters and others, the NRL is going to somehow go from $100m you say it currently earns per year to about $250m per year? This is a 250% increase (I would say 300% increase). Do you honestly believe these claims?! ...honestly!?...Or is this reporting laughable nonsense?...... you may not be making these claims yourself but the fact remains that RL journos are already happily playing this tune, and will keep playing it....and these are the very same reliable sources that only a matter of weeks ago were running around reporting that the AFL would receive $800m - a slight error of $450m (50% error).... these clueless RL journos have no shame.....they were spectacularly wrong on the value of the ALF rights and they are also now making equally absurd statements/speculations about the value of the NRL deal. look the ALF got a 60% increase and the NRL would do well to get a similar increase for its deal...the ALF offered up an extra game and no reasonable person would expect that the NRL will be in a position to do likewise.... I reckon the NRL will struggle to make $800m, and veyr pleased if it does so....and rightfully pleased - $800m would provide real benefits to NRL clubs...they don't need $1.25bn...the NRL has fewer players, fewer teams and lower running costs,,, and as for logic of barracking and talking up the value of the NRL rights...what utter nonsense,,,,I know Gallop said this but it was a really dumb thing to say...Gallop doesn't often say dumb things but that was dumb, very dumb...just look at all the recent barracking in the RL media trying to downplay the value of the AFL rights...that didn't exactly work out too well now didn't it!? very effective!!

It's all part of the mix. NRL is going to get a big lift in its rights, that's no secret. All I am saying is that 75% represents a massive increase in the rights, bringing it to about $840 million (still a very big number in the Australian sports market), and it might be unrealistic for League fans to expect more than that. I have a lot of trouble imagining that the value of the rights could more than double in the space of five years, it seems an unlikely eventuality. A few considerations: 1. Fox already show five of eight NRL games, including two of the top three best games per round; 2. not sure if Nine will look to replicate the simulcast deal that Seven has negotiated with the AFL (for what looks like a large amount of money on the face of it, effectively betting that the take up of pay TV will be slower than Fox are predicting); 3. the "halo" effect for telecasting AFL footy has been proven over the past decade across two different broadcasters, that attracts a very large premium; 4. another poster has mentioned that even if the NRL ratings were equal to the AFL ratings (and they do come very close when you throw in the regionals), the volume of audience is 50% greater (at a minimum) on a game vs game basis, not to mention the greater capacity to play ads during an AFL game; and 5. this is a bit more difficult to estimate, and I've never had this confirmed at all, so it's a speculative opinion on my part, but there's a strong possibility that the eight AFL games has a greater spread of individuals than NRL games, i.e. NRL fans are far more likely to watch multiple NRL games than AFL fans, who are far more likely to only watch their own team. What does that last point mean? In any given round, for argument's sake, you might get a TV audience for 8 AFL games (5 city basis plus Fox) of around 3.3 million, and an NRL audience of about 2.8 million. The AFL audience might include 2 million separate individuals, and the NRL audience might include 1.5 million separate individuals. Is that valuable to advertisers? I'm not 100% sure, but it's certainly the sort of analysis that Fox would have undertaken in determining its strategy. That's my assessment, from someone who makes a living out of analysing a range of metrics across a range of industries.

CC, If Ten wants to improve its ratings it should get RL is a shallow argument. Tens ratings in Melbourne were fine, the problem is that it was definitely the second broadcaster, never given the prized Friday night slot. If Ch 9 remained the prime network for NRL and kept Friday night its highly likely Ch 10 would be in the exact same position as it is now - the secondary free to air broadcaster for NRL. Some of Ch 10/OneHD ratings from AFL last weekend were very good, over 200K for Syd/Bris combined. (3 hour game)

You may well be right about western Sydney, I wasn't having a go at them. SOO is premier event which everyone watches, like a GF. Federer models Rolex, so I don't think they're just sailing orientated. I tend to disagree with you over league becoming more diverse, if anything I believe it to be less diverse. When I came to Sydney in the 80s, that was the only footy code anyone talked of - I hadn't even heard of Aussie Rules. But slowly, over time more and more people talked about AFL and Football (not to say they weren't talking about league). Now if I go to a club or pub, they usually have AFL, Football, Union on screen as well as league, which wasn't always the case in the 80's. This is mainly based my experiences in the inner city / eastern suburbs, so the western suburbs may well be different.

I appreicate you doing that. Still, this should be a joyous time for you. Sad to hear you unable to be positive in the midst of so much good news.

You can not accumulate the average viewers per a game without taking into account the time per a game. The AFL has more hours on TV and has a higher average number of viewers watching over the length of a game. If this can ever equate to Rugby League being the #1 TV spot, than you are doing wrong. This is without taking into account that the ratings account for 106% of those living in NSW/Qld/ACT and 87% for the rest of Australia.

GoGWS LOL Hardly self praise ,when quoting someone in the know.I gave that guy kudoes.If he had offered a differing viewpoint ,I would have looked rather silly. Hell one only has to look at the GWS mob,to see arrogance and self praise ,if one needs to.I am a mere amateur, compared to the likes of Sheedy. Actually Colin Smith stated"He believes rugby league will go close to matching the AFL's windfall".Now you put whatever translation you want on that. Close to: very near: Matching :identical or alike. That hardly suggests a big disparity.Nor does it suggest that the NRL will grab $1,25m,as you for whatever reason,have interpreted thus. Correct the very same Colin Smith,the very same man that is at the coal face and reports to Gallop.The very same Gallop,you stated has not mentioned the $1b figure,but the man advising him has.Go figure. So you are suggesting if he(Smith talks it down),and Gallop has been asking every fan to be positive ,that will be conducive to a successful contract.Strange negotiating strategy... undersell your product LOL. Mr Smith will come out of it looking rather silly,if he comes out of it with egg on his face.His inside knowledge and past experience ,suggests he has more than a faint idea.I suggest he wants a continuing career in this type of industry.Failure will not assist his cause nor Gallop's for that matter.. Yes the very same Smith,who helped secure the last $780m AFL deal.I mean ,what would he know. The current deal as I have pointed out on another thread is near $100m pa when online is taken into account .So the 3 times comment,you came up with is utter tosh. Now who is the one with an ego problem"look I am doing a service".The game that made Australia comes to mind ,when I read that. If you believe D.T journos are Masters backslappers,or some within the Tv industry ,you really need to get out in the real world.When I compare the so called theories of Roy,and match it up with the extra terrestrial ones of Sheedy,Roy comes up smelling roses.The continual fetish, of blaming Masters and suggesting other journos happen to follow suit,is both nonsensical and wide off the mark(sic). Suggestion in all honesty,spend a little time reigning in Caro Wilson,Patrick Smith and others on the Offsiders,and you might have a modicum of impact with your argument.

According to surveys in the past,western sydney has the highest disposable income on average.Double income apparently.. Macquarie bank or Mercedes has no trouble advtg on SOO series. Rolex watches tend to be sailing orientated. Luxury items anycase are hardly for the majority,but a select few,else the roads would be full of Mercs. Demographics have changed over the years for NRL viewership,there is a far wider and diverse spread of viewers and followers ,than was the case in the 60/70 and even 80s.Maybe look at the people involved in local club sponsors'boxes,hardly down to their last dollar. One has to look at the leadership of John Quayle and arthurson in the 80s ,that help bring the game to more people.

Just a thought - are the AFL demographics more valuable than the NRL demographics, and therefore worth more to advertisers? After all, you're hardly going to target luxury car and rolex ads to the league crowd.