What the NRL will get from broadcasters

I recon Nrl should stay on nine and afl to stay on seven becase people will get confused

L'Equipe has reported today that the Top 14 Rugby (LNR) in France will be paid 32 million euros per year over the next five years by Canal + (pay television) - a total amount of approx $250 million. This increase was based on an audience rise of 14% over the previous 5 years of the contract. The French Rugby Union (FFR) has a separate contract with France (Antenne) 2 for FTA coverage of Six Nations matches as well as national team matches in the Autumn internationals, and tours to the southern hemisphere in June each year.

Did you check out Gould in smh - he also concededs there'll be no additional content in this upcoming deal...you're on your own sport. Thinking there'll be 18 teams in the NRL by 2013 is fantasy.

GoGWS And conversely would you put your hard earned down for no team in Perth. Let's put it another way,I am more optimistic of an expansion team in Perth within the next contract period,than not. To compare Tasmania whose population is spread every which way,to the commercial strength of Perth and its much larger concentrated population,is commercially crazy for Tv stations.What Perth has to offer the code,is another time zone and an additonal slot.The reason the AFL went to WS ,was the population,an extra slot. Sometimes the wood from the trees could apply. You should read what Gallop has stated.with words to the effect efect.we are still around,our ratings show we are going extremely well and are a valuable product,and getting some idea from Colin smith as to what a split of offerings and indeed expansion would do. Nothing more nothing less.He cannot negotiate ATM agreed. 1) before the i.C is in place 2)before the I.C has made a decison on expansion>They will decide.If it is commercially worth it.They will decide.Not the 16 clubs.Not Gallop.So the decision to expand will be made ,before the actual negotiations. 3) the seed as to the many variables has already been planted with the various networks.So the oh and now it's 18 teams comment,would be superfluous if the prospecthad already been thrown open for discussion. You have the audacity to state ,you consider moving to Perth a massive risk,when the GWS mob came into western sydney.LOL Is that not a massive risk?.And that is regardless of how much money you pump in.The swans with all the hype,are battling on FTA. At least Perth had a history with average crowds of 17,000 prior to the war.The GWS had none,zilch,zero,blot. geez champ.The NRL doesn;t have to prop up a team like Perth.The areas are bidding.The code is not plonking a team there.Get your facts right. If there is one thing you really need to understand about rugby league,that it has been able to achieve remarkable growth(despite a SL war),despite being for the last 15 years, financially hamstrung. Any influx of monies ,will give the game a tremendous boost. You say it has no assets to speak of.Please elaborate?.They will have a new head office,for which they contributed about $14m by the end of the year,near the SFS.There is still money in the bank ,not a lot admittedly. The QRL and NSWRL have substantial amounts in the millions in the bank,part of the problem with the new I.C formation. They day I or other rl fans get their backside handed to them ,by presumptionists ,spread sheeters I will give the game away,because they are doing a tres ordinaire job of it.

Cattery They are not my words.They are the words emanating out of the mouth and print of the prospective clubs involved.And please note there are not just 2 areas bidding but at last count 5 and possibly 6(Ipswich). The WARL contingent that visited Gallop recently,with info on the bid,advised in addtion to the many sponsors they have already secured,they have a major sponsor ready to committ(once they get the go ahead)with $2m . As far as the Bears are concerned ,on these forums and indeed on many rl forums and the press,the Bears have indicated they have huge sponsorship backing. None of these clubs would stand a ghost of a chance of trying to bid,unless they had big financial sponsorship backing.That is one of the requirements for any team wanting to get in. Where on earth do you get the impression that the AFL Tv rights, are viewed by northerners as being the only major source of revenue. Us northerners are aware the Jonny Rebs from the south also have a $80m treausure chest and revenue from memberships. Silly comment,in view of the NRL are pushing memberships (successfully to the hilt),as they see the benefits the AFL has achieved by so doing.Most are aware of the monies the AFL have. Take merchandise sales.In 2010 the NRL outsold the AFL to the tune of $15m.Interesting. Memberships of NRL clubs have shot up dramatically as has sponsorship. No one is arguing ATM,AFL is bigger on attendances,memberships,money in the bank and expansion. But please don't sit back smugly in a leather chair,and assume rugby league under a new head body(with people of some business nouse and from what I hear very successful),is just going to sit back and whistle dixie,thinking everything is OK in the world.Those days are fast becoming over. The code despite its lack of financial resources ,has been able to grow to the extent of its largest participation ever,largest sponsorship,highest Pay Tv ratings,highest membership,is still the most popular code from a viewer perspective in the most populous and 3rd most populous states of Australia. One thing to remember the costs of running an AFL club are far greater than an NRL club.The monies the AFL is putting into expansion is huge,in comparison to the NRL which does not have to support the clubs.That is up to them. To use the description JUGGERNAUT as it is intended, puts you into the mould of Caroline Wilson and Mike Sheehan. Just be realistic with: BIGGEST. When the hearts of NSW/QLD/PNG/NZ are won,then maybe the description would be apt.And there is as much chance of that happpening ,as me finding Bin Laden's no 2. Beware a code,in the late 80s and early 90s that was apparently a"JUGGERNAUT" at the time of Tina Turner.Let's not get too cocky. A lot can happen down the line,as evidenced by my reference.. What it appears you fail to grasp,if for example the NRL secured let us say your 3/4 of the AFL figure,meaning over $900m over 5 years,they could do a lot more with it and have money left over,than if the AFL secured the same amount. New teams,do not mean,new supporting cash outlays,except grants from the head body.The code doesn't now plonk a team somewhere and say we will support you with $10m pa.

RedB You and I know that is a nonsense way to look at it.And you and I know it won't happen.I have already stated my estimates in what I believe is a fair figure for rugby league . The facts are based on the population and its spread within those regions.The population is concentrated in regions that have a traditional rl following.Ask Astra. That the advertsing revenue is greater in those regions ,simply means @ there is a greater population with which to attract consumers and b)a fair percentage of those consumers are either committed or casual followers of rl.c) because FTA coverage of the NRL is minimal in those regions,a not inconsequential number subscribe to Pay TV. I suggest an area is more appealing in the sticks where there is a decent population,than an area that is less populated.Unless I am living on another planet. The validity relating to regional subscribers, is for the likes of Foxtel to lose the NRL( and bear in mind the average viewership for the 5 games they show live is 241,000 ),would be disastrous for that medium. Even if half the subs were churned,it would represent a conservative loss of income for the pay Tv of $72m. The argument is simply that Foxtel who currently show 5 live NRL games and (pay $43m for the privelege )and have average 241,000 viewers for each game,compared to 4 games of AFL which they paid $53m yet average only 170,000,will need to substantially lift the price they pay for the NRL. Any advantage of advtg for the AFL ,is outweighed by the disparity in viewer numbers effected by NRL subscribers and the extra game in the past. Why? because based on those figures and allowing for longer time for AFL games,yet less games,bigger sub base for RL fans,they will be committing hari kari,should they (hypothetically) lose rugby league. In other words if the AFL can almost double their monies on Pay,based on historical figures, if the NRL cannot get $80m,still under the $100m of the AFL,there is something rotten in the State of Denmark. That is working on the basis of the AFL having 9 games live and the NRL 6 games live(with expansion).there are other possibilities also ,as to how or if the rl cake will be carved up.

Crosscoder I'll take your word for it that the Perth Reds and CC Bears have full sponsorship books. The question remains: what are the dollars involved? Many of our Northern cousins think that the big TV rights that the AFL has just negotiated, actually, big doesn't even begin to describe it - massive rights, up there in world terms - our NOrthern cousins think these massive TV rights are the pinnacle of our earning capacity, that everything hinges on them. That's not quite right. Looking at the total revenue of the AFL and clubs combined, approaching $1 billion per annum, the new TV rights deal represents about one quarter of total revenues. As much is earned by memberships/ticket sales, and as much again is earned by sponsorships, other revenues make up the rest. Over that five year period, we're talking total revenues of $5 billion - guaranteeed seeing that there are two extra teams. In other words, it's not just the TV rights that are top of the class; it's the sponsorship that's top of the class; it's the memberships that top of the class. In the scheme of things, the extra $20 million the AFL earned from the drawn grand final last year was sufficient to reimburse the petty cash (put another way, sufficient to fund the Suns, GWS, Izzy and Karmichael for the next two years). So even if the NRL can make it to 75% of the AFL's TV rights (and that's a very, very big if), the NRL and clubs earn less than 50% of what the AFL earns in sponsoships, and less than 40% of what the AFL earns in memberships/ticket sales. Last season, Roy Masters mentioned the massive disparity in the revenue earning capacity of the respective comps at finals time. So we can quibble about whether "juggernaut" is an appropriate term, but given that it's a big drop after the NRL (who are comfortably in 2nd position), then I would contend that it's actually an appropriate term in the Australian sporting context.

If you had to put your hard earned down and bet there'd be a Perth team starting in 2013 would you?... I wouldn't.. .there's a huge difference between talking about it and doing it... the AFL has received mutiple submission frrom Tassie pushing for placement of a team there and nothing has happened... Gallop has said he's already been talking to the networks etc and will contiue to do so after the IC is in place...whatever preliminary talk has been underway, I can bet you a dime to a dollar it is based around a 16 team competition not 18... how could Gallop or the IC possibly talk seriously to any broadcastor about an 18 team NRL competition when there are no licences granted, no sponsors, no players, no coaches, no facilties secured (in the case of Perth anyway).... the AFL did its negotiations against a background where all that was already in place, well and truly in place..... not a very strong starting point for the NRL to say, 'oh by the way, we plan to have 18 teams - we promise"... the NRL is not saying this to broadcastors and they won't be saying it.... OK that's a guess to some extent but a pretty conservative guess... I'm not saying the NRL won't expand to Perth, just that it won't expand by the 2013 season... it wo;t expend in time for the next deal... perhaps mid-deal?? geenrall I think moving out to 18 teams would be a massive risk for the NRL - it simlpy isn't in a financial position to take the gamble... huge risk for the AFL also but it is a more financially to take the punt.... the AFL has assets (future fund) to support a prolonged presence in GC and GWS whereas the NRL doesn't have to cash to support a Perth team (and even a supposedly self-funded Perth NRL team would need the NRL to be ready in the background with deep pockets just in case - the NRL doesn't have deep pockets... it has no assets to speak of) as to the AFL posters invading the thread... well i think you've been 'handed your a**' as they say in the classics.... the NRL will get a big boost in revenue and the NRL players will be earning heaps more,a nd the NRL clubs will be more stable....the exodus of players to RUnion and Super League will be less of an issue.... it's a lot of good news for the NRL, NRL players and NRL fans.. the one downside is the dashing of the delusions of some RL fans who've concocted some notions of the NRL being comparable to the AFL - delusin built up by a steady diet RL journalism.... that's the downside....

GOGWS Be a good chap,and have a look at Simon Manning (Media & Marketing ) in the Australian 21/3/11,and you may learn something.That is not regurgitated rubbish ,or battleship size BS from an AFL fan's spreadsheet,but figures provide by a reputable ratings agency. Even Mitchell who is a media expert,conceded earlier the rugby league would not do as well,and has now changed his tune. Spend a little time looking into the 2010 report State of the Game for the NRL.that is not based on any rl journos idea or thoughts. You guys continually crap on about rl journos,unsurprisingly ignore AFL journos.Open your eyes to the real world,the southern indoctrination never ceases to amaze me. And just as you continually ignore ,for your convenience ,your continued assumption that the NRL will have 16 teams.The NRL would not be encouraging as it is now doing, the bidding teams to continue,if there were no chance of expansion.If there was no chance of expansion til 2018 and beyond,they would have been told to hold off.If expansion means maximising income,they will expand.the 16 CEO were unanimous in Perth ,being one of the expansion teams. I will monotonously try to get through to you,you or I have no idea of the makeup of the i.C(and the makeup of the people involved).,but apparently Steve mortimer has a fair idea(judging by the wide grin,he had after a meeting with News Ltd head Hartigan. And my friend how do you know there will be fewer content ,in fewer markets.You been speaking to Colin Smith(Lek) of late and Gallop.You seem to know more than the 16 NRL CEOs,and just about everyone within rl,if you have that info to hand. You have no idea whether the same I.C. after examining the financials and prospects of the current clubs,doesn't decide to relocate one of them,thereby speeding up and in effect nationalising the code. BTW we are hardly going to take our bat and walk,because you are not convinced.We don't set our clocks by your words of wisdom.The stations are the ones to convince. In fact the volume of comments some absolute ignorant rubbish as to rl,coming from a couple of the many AFL posters who have invaded this rl thread,indicates possible genuine concern that rl may in fact do very well .

Reality check.The Perth Reds,with no team in the NRL ATM will have a full sponsorship book ,as will the CC Bears. the money behind the B2 bid is nothing to be sneezed at ,and ditto the money behind the CQLD bid. Oh and the NRL doesn't have to provide new teams with handouts .They have to be self sufficient and shown thus. The NRL doesn't have to wait for money from overseas deals.Gee you are laying it on thickly. The AFL juggernaut.Straight out of the Caroline Wilson book of hype. Please LOL keep on banging on about Brisbane & Sydney .The FTA ratings for a much promoted team after 30 years is appalling and Brisbane ratings hardly set the wolrld on fire. i would concentrate on getting the GC juggernaut or whimmpy burger up to scratch as a competitve team.Sponsors can be impatient at times.And GWS well Folau looks as interested as a young lad,at his sister''s dancing class.

AFLGuru. Accept your misunderstanding. Sorry I cannot accept based on many things, the view there is only some leeway for rugby league in how to sell to the electronic media and the audience öut there " . Let''s look at a story by Simon Canning in the Australian 21/3/11":- He draws comparisons between the two codes and the ratings,all based on Oztam,not the ARL not the NRL not the CRL,but a reputable ratings organisation.And not a whiff of Masters in the air for thsoe precious laddies. The graph for last year showed thus based on cumulative audience by code NRL: 120,632,016 AFL:111,117,491 AFL FTA including GFR : 95,323,311 NRL FTa including reps: 92,564,143 AFL FTA ex GFR 91,756,706 NRL FTA(ex GFR): 79,057,597 NRL Fox: 28,067.873 AFL Fox: 15,794,180. Juggle the figures around every which way,but they are official figures from a ratings co. You see you may well be a guru for the AFL,but with respect you are not as informed on the rugby league. Here is why , dismissing the other representative offerings the code has to offer shows lack of awareness. You have the audacity to compare representative actual games, where advertisers want to get on board,with the Brownlows.Why don't you throw in the Dally Ms.That is nonsense. The totality of the Tv ratings are not based on the Brownlows,Dally Ms.I could throw in the under 20 comp,if I chose to.I don't just sticking to the premier competitons. 1) SOO Series:last year Game 1 was the highest ratings game since the intro of the OzTam Survey ratings both nationally (3.6million plus viewers and in Sydney 1.18m viewers The series was also the most watched ever across the 5 cap cities(how rare) with 6.4 million plus fan watching and 3.3million watching in regional Australia.So much for the regioanls bulldust. if you believe with your glib rep games wont be a deal breaker,I cite the SOO series as exhibit A. 2) Over 1.8million viewers nationally watched the VB test match at AAMI Park.This yeare there will be two tests.Plus 4 nations. 3) Over 1.2million viewers nationally watched the Indigenous All stars v NRL ALL Stars game. As far as your dismissal of MNF again you continue to ignore facts .Apart from record ratings on a few occasions this year,last years MNF helped the code achieve an avergae 241,000 viewers on FoxSports for each fixture,compared to the AFL,which drew 170,000. One of the reasons in 2010 the NRL had 70 of the top 100 programs on foxtel and the AFL eight. All the above can be sold if the price is right to one party,to many parties(including 3 FTA) or split up to maximise value. No one knew in advance with the AFL and no one knows now with the NRL,as to how the offerings will end up. In the case of the latter ,Gallop has stated it will be on the basis of achieving maximum value.and if splitting up is one way to do it,that will be done.And there are other left field options such as 4 qtrs,banner advertising to ensure stations max their adverts. Monday Night football is not good for the clubs ,in terms of numbers attending,but whether you like it or not,it rates its head off on Foxtel,and will do the same in the nthn states.I don't believe it will end up on FTA,but who knows. You got one correct,ch7 does in fact have good content,but grabbing a SOO series on a wednesday ,would give the station an even greater boost,ratingswise and advertiser wise.Leckie I repeat stated he wants part of the rugby league and will be bidding. However ch9 is in desperado mode.If they lose rugby league and that includes representative matches(which you so easily dismiss),they will be further down the advertiser food chain.Their backers will not be happy chappies.They will go all out to retain the game,because the security of many within the station also depend on it. Ignore the extra HD channels at your peril.The many FTA channels now popping up,have opened a much broader opportunity for the game,and indeed other sporrts. You made the point that the AFL is penetrating new markets.And what makes you think the rugby league will not be doing the same.They continue to encourage Perth and others on their bidding processes.One heartland area and one virgin area(with an addtional time zone slot) is what the doctor ordered. One doesn't have to be Einstein to know,having an extra slot,opens up more opportunities as to offerings to the Tv moguls.That is what the AFL did with GWS and the GC gazzas.Because the code will not achieve its goal of being near the $1b mark,with just 16 teams,despite a few thinking so. The selling point has always been the AFL is national(well in clubs).Gallop has expressed this view,and is based on his most recent comment becoming far more accommodating to expansion. Melbourne is indeed a sporting marvel as to attendances.The football offerings are great as they are concentrated in one area,with great public transport.Sydney is spread out like a squashed melon,and with ordinary transport options and no centralisation. With due respect to Melbourne and its sporting and cultural heritage,few in the nthn States give a continental. I can go to the city have breakfast,and walk around the beautiful Harbour,and see all the history and culture I want to see.Unless you are a resident of Melbourne, it means very lttle to non residents,except of sourse the expats that moved north.. The NRL does not have to match the heritage of the AFL,and why should it.They came from different backgrounds.Each has its own heritage,and are proud of it. They (rugby league)have had to put up with a super league war,which put the code back 10 years,and still came out of it,as resilient as ever. The fact rugby league is growing the game in every state and has more participants than any time in its history,suggests it is quite capable of being self sufficient.All of this growth,in reality with the smell of an oil rag and/or limited funding. Heaven knows how the code will go, with surplus monies to slosh around.

Crosscoder, to quote some of our Southern neighbours to each other...'Good points ....it's hard to argue with any of that by any measure....very good post... I agree whole heartedly.....and....last but not least..i'm sorry my last post was so long (he was obviously getting overheated.) Somehow I feel the need Crosscoder to emulate the Southern boys teamwork and support for each other in the face of your mighty blows and the otherwise resounding silence. Because as the mighty Cattery says, 'Until that happens in a meaningful way it will be impossible for us to have serious discussions.' Also remember 'Wagga Wagga has some of the greatest talent to ever play the game.' (Gee I wish I'd said that.)

$1.682B the NRL Target. (not 1.682M)

Whites, Crosscoder, No let's do the regionals and we'll bring the often used argment for NRL that 57% of the advertising spend and population are in NSW/QLD wtih the all powerful regionals. So based on the AFL's $1.253B, the NRL should get $1.682M over 5 years in the next rights deal if your arguments stack up. We'll see. $1.682M for NRL to achieve parity with the AFL based on the NRL's much vaunted 57% base with the regionals.

Yep, they interest me, but this guy from BF (cheers) has done all the work, NRL ratings as suspected have been double dipping, and these figures prove it, TV execs know all this though. Some people live in denial though !!.

Crosscoder, This is your statement : "ATM The AFL’s ratings are based on the 5 cities FTA,which are shown at decent hours" It's wrong. For starters 11:30pm on a Friday night is not decent hours. Most people with common sense would agree. Not all games are shown live into NSW/QLD only a couple are, in the next TV deal this will be addressed.

RedB hello!!! The statement was the AFL ratings are based on 5 capital cities at decent hours"" It was never stated the AFL was on on friday nights at decent hours,in teh 5 cap cities ,and necer intened so.I am talking the spread.The weekend FTA offerings not just friday night.

Crossoder, you made the statement, it's wrong. Friday Night football is not shown in all 5 states at the same time. The new AFL deal will address this going forward.

Just as you completely ignored or failed to understand several very valid points put to you....AFL has more games per round (9 v the NRL's 8 games), more hours per game (3hrs v 2hrs) and a worse spread (teams in 5 oztam cities v 2)..... crosscoder I hope it's very clear to you by now that the apparent force of your arguments, and mine for that matter, are totally irrelevant to the outcome....I hope this is clear...and likewise for the number of times you repeat your argument makes it no truer...what really matters are the commercial negotiations by parties who have all the data, all the RELEVANT data not the regurgitated rubbish that is bandied around on these pages which in the majority of cases is just rehashing (and misunderstanding) incomplete/biased data dumped into pathetic article penned by a moronic 'journalist'..... I know I am repeating myself also, but I think the critical commentary in the RL media about the AFL rights provides a very recent lesson which you should remain to the fore....when it came to discussing the value of the AFL TV rights how forceful, certain, repetitive and persistent were RL journos and RL people on this!?...how convinced?...how many supposedly reputable media consultants were quoted?,,,,,prevailing wisdom (within these mad sections of the RL media) had the value of the AFL deal to be 800m or even less....there were several reasons this was garbage (for one, an extra AFL team and extra weekly game would have got the AFL to around $880m with no increase in rate) but many RL journos seems to buy into the often repeated nonsense about the AFL being vasty 'over-valued' because of Kerry Packer...this odd little story, a Masters creation, seems to have influenced the thinking of many in the RL community, indirectly if not directly.... the AFL is massively over-valued, so the theory went, and we're about to see a huge correction....and just look what happened...there was a correction but the other way... in everything posted here I have seen nothing convincing to suggest the NRL would get anywhere near $1billion let alone "close to" the AFL's deal....there seems to me to be very basic and logical reasons the NRL will fall quite short....essentially it comes down to less content in fewer markets and significantly lower OZTAM ratings ...I will be absolutely amazed if the NRL secures a $1bn/5 year deal...but I like surprises so looking forward to seeing how wrong I was, or how wrong others were...

SBF noone is really eternally interested in TV ratings (except you know who..) If you haven't noticed everyone has already made their minds up on what they think long ago.