Can NRL CEO David Gallop and the other sporting codes capitalise on the AFL’s Free-to-Air exclusivity with Channel Seven? (AAP Image/Dean Lewins)
The NRL quite rightfully compares itself to the AFL, and is therefore using the AFL television rights deal as a benchmark for its own broadcast rights negotiations. But it’s not quite as simple as thinking “the AFL’s deal was $1.25 billion, so we deserve at least that.”
A couple of weeks ago, Channel 9 boss David Gyngell boldly declared that if the NRL wanted to receive anywhere near their desired $1.4 billion TV deal, the sport would need to look at altering their product to make it more commercially viable for whomever owns the broadcast rights.
Gyngell wasn’t inferring that the game isn’t attractive or appealing. He was merely insisting that rugby league needed to allow for more advertising space during the coverage of its games in order to generate more revenue for the broadcaster that holds the rights to the NRL.
The outcry from rugby league fans, and rugby league detractors alike, was as predictable as it was ill-informed. The general sentiment was, “Gyngell wants more ad breaks? Greedy. He just wants to make more money.”
Let’s make one thing abundantly clear: Channel 9 is a television station in the business of making money via entertainment. It’s not a government funded network. It is not a charity. It exists to make a profit, and every decision is geared towards that objective.
Yet even allowing for those facts, Gyngell’s comments did not come from a place of greed, but of sound business principles.
I’m not defending Channel 9, but I am fully aware and appreciative of the fact that if Channel 9 is to fork out a lot of money to purchase the NRL rights, it will want to see a return on that investment.
Fans that reacted to Gyngell’s comments by saying that Channel 9 should lose the rights, and that they be given to a network that will treat the game with respect, are living in fantasy land.
Rest assured, any broadcaster that purchases the rights to a program is doing so to generate revenue via advertising. The ‘product’ needs to be commercially viable. As such, it doesn’t matter which network buys the NRL rights, they’ll be singing from the same hymn sheet as Gyngell.
There is an additional chorus of people that argue that Foxtel’s coverage of sport is ad-free, so Channel 9’s should be as well. But that is simply not an apples-for-apples comparison. Foxtel is a pay-TV service, which means once they have you as a subscriber, they’re earning money; ad revenue is just a bonus. Conversely, free-to-air networks generate revenue from advertisers.
In other words, Foxtel can afford to have no ads, Channel 9 (or whoever) cannot.
If you, as a fan, want to watch live sport, you need to pay a ‘price’. And you either do that though paying for a Foxtel subscription, or by watching ads on free-to-air.
Which gets us back to Gyngell’s comments about rugby league making some modifications, specifically involving ad-conducive rule changes. It’s a concession the NRL may have to make if it wants to drive up the price for its broadcast rights, and match, or beat, the AFL’s deal.
But the NRL needs to be realistic and understand that the AFL is currently more appealing to networks.
For the purposes of this argument I’ll disregard intangibles like TV ratings, Channel 7 on-selling games, and the true national reach of the AFL, and highlight one tangible reason why the AFL is currently a more attractive proposition for networks: because of the advertising opportunities it affords the broadcaster.
Consider these three key facts when comparing the AFL to the NRL:
– The actual game time is longer.
– It’s played in four quarters, providing three natural ad break opportunities.
– It can also squeeze in an ad after each goal is scored.
And importantly for fans, it can accommodate all this whilst remaining a live broadcast.
That makes it attractive for networks, advertisers and fans. Or in other words, nirvana.
Contrast that with a live broadcast of rugby league, which really only provides an advertising slot at half time, or when a try is scored. Quite simply, rugby league doesn’t have a lot of ‘dead time’, and therefore it doesn’t have a lot of ad breaks, consequently making it harder to generate higher levels of advertising revenue.
Channel’s 9 current solution to this issue is to broadcast most of their games on a delayed telecast, which allows for more ad breaks. However, this alienates fans because it’s virtually impossible to avoid the score in the age of texts, Facebook, Twitter, or a drunk mate’s phone call.
Though I hasten to add that Channel 9 are not alone with the delayed telecast strategy. The result of Saturday night’s AFL game between the Sydney Swans and Essendon Bombers was ruined for me when a friend who was at the game texted me the result of the ‘live’ broadcast that I was watching. It seems Channel 10’s coverage was slightly delayed, no doubt because it was squeezing in a few more ads.
Returning to rugby league, it’s evident that all the stakeholders involved have different motivations and objectives from the next NRL TV rights deal.
The NRL want the cost of the deal to be as high as possible for obvious rational reasons. But they also want to provide the perception, real or not, that the NRL is on par with the AFL.
The broadcaster that wins the rights wants to generate as much revenue as possible from the advertising during coverage of NRL games.
Brands want as many opportunities as possible to advertise their products and services during a high rating TV show (ie: NRL games).
And finally, fans want to watch live, high quality coverage of rugby league.
Is there a way to placate all four stake holders? Is it possible to fit more advertising into the broadcasting of a live rugby league match without interrupting the appealing natural flow of the game?
Gyngell himself suggested some changes, including a 15 second break before every scrum feed, and/or before play recommences on a line drop-out. Another suggestion that has been mooted is switching the game to four by 20 minutes quarters, with a two minute break at quarter and three quarter time.
An extra couple of minutes of ad time could be worth upwards of $50,000 per game. With 26 rounds, and a free-to-air broadcaster showing three games per round, that’s an extra $39 million in advertising revenue available to the host network, on top of whatever is generated pre-game, post-game and at half-time.
And that figure doesn’t even include State of Origin, Internationals, or finals games, all of which advertisers pay a hefty premium for, significantly increasing the advertising revenue.
Clearly there is an opportunity for rugby league to make itself significantly more appealing for networks and advertisers, driving the price of its TV rights deal up, and therefore generating considerably more money for the NRL. Which, if utilised wisely by the Independent Commission, will drastically help the game overall.
David Gyngell is a rugby league man with a lot of a passion for the game. He wants rugby league to prosper. But he’s also savvy enough to know that his passion for the game should not blind him from making a poor business decision and overpaying for the rights to rugby league.
Gyngell was clearly on to something when he suggested that rugby league needs to become more appealing for networks from an advertising point of view. Gyngell’s honest assessment was refreshing, but more importantly than that, he was providing the NRL with a blueprint for significant growth.
The question is, will the NRL listen?
You can follow Ryan O’Connell on Twitter @RyanOak.
Adam
Guest
How then do you explain the fact that Sunday afternoon football is crammed with ads, sometimes up to 15 at a time, and the game is shown on delay, as is the second friday night game. What do the ads actually pay for when Channel 9 has just 3 games of NRL per week but only shows 1 live game? Looking at the TV guide of a Sunday afternoon it's not as if a live NRL game would encroach on must watch programs
db swannie
Guest
Now now Ted ,we all know OZ is a strange place...It is ONLY made up of 5 capital cities.No one else lives outside these cities.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
GOGWS Have you heard of ancient history.That is the past,try if humanly possible to drag yourslef into 2011/12.It was undervalued ,the medi admits it,but you can't LOL. Try to understand there are 3 FTA stations involved and 1 Pay TV network.Try to get through your noggin in the 5years since the last deal,the landscape in terms of pay Tv ratings ,SOO ratings,even the storng FTA ratings have provided stroing raw data. Do you bother to read what I have stated,you do frustrate at times.I stated if the nRL does not expand(and it will),they won;t get $1bn. You call your spreadsheet figures logic,you ignore 20% Pay Tv ratings increases,and the expansion,and the chance of more ads,and time slots with Perth,a guy who will negoitiate the deal.You deny the capabilities of the likes of Garry Pemberton on the new I.C who negotiated the Sydney Olympic broadcasting deal and the members on the new I.C. You suspect ,you assume ,you guess and you have the audacity to declare it logic.I suspect unease .
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
GOGWS You are crapping on as per usual. I repeat one more time for the ignorant illinformed and plain deceptive,where on earth did I state the game would get $1.4bn.Are you deaf,cannot read or you sidestep debate to avoid intense questioning.when you blatantly stated an untruth. Yeah LOL the same Lek Willy Wonka that got the AFL $780m. The same incompetent gent employed by the NRL,picked out of a hat.He must have lost his marbles since. And I sir treat all your biased referencess with the disregard and contempt they richly deserve. If I(as a code) sought your counsel with your assumptions and guesswork,I would be confined the restraints of this fair city and its borders.Masters on the back of a postage stamp ,knows more than the substance of the rl material you have thrown up in debate. That you are not impressed,does wonders for my ego.
GoGWS
Roar Guru
and he is something for you to chew on... the AFL's last deal was $156m per season and it's now $250m - an increase of $94m.... the NRL'd last deal was $83m per season (500m/6yrs)....let's make a pretty generous assumption and say the NRL receives the same $94m increase...objectively it's done far less to deserve it - no new teams in new areas and no extra content - but for the sake of argument just give the NRL an extra $94m...that takes the NRL up to $177m per season, or $885m/5yrs....so you can see why I very much doubt the $1bn claims - that value just defies logic......the extra NRL teams from 2015 if they happen could give something but that's a huge 'if' (I suspect the NRL will add teams in 2018)...
GoGWS
Roar Guru
it's all looking good crosscoder... very good... if the AFL got $1.25bn then just think what the NRL will get!!... $1.4bn might even be conservative...maybe they'll get more!!,,,and advances on $1.6bn?... Smith of Lek.... Charlie of the Chocolate Factory.... Darth Vader of the Empire....mate haven't I already made it clear I'm not impressed by you quoting people ...not generally in any argument, and specifically not the people you quote or what they say.... rely on your own thinking..
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Ted Only reinforces the NRL's argument and others within the media,they were undervalued last time
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
GOGWS. Yep,predictably that is what i thought you would come up with.Then try Kennett,Malthouse and their views.Of course it must be nonsense it is not to your liking.How unique LOL.The one sided results stick out like you know what,and you pretend the article is BS.As Eddie Everywhere has been banging on about money being spent on poor performing clubs.if you believe the Tv networks are thrilled with continual one sided matches of those proportions ,you are deluded. You pick and choose again,Wilson is noted as a bagger of rl,she has written so mäny fluff pieces about the swans it is embarrassing.And her brother waffles on about the code on channel 7.In fact it is fair to say they are even handed when it comes to both codes. You never noticed it,well I will remind you of but one example.She lets the readers know she takes her young lads along to Swan games,and he just loves it blah blah blah.When the Coffs Harbour disaster cropped up,she stated she and her girlfriends were finished with the Bulldogs and she was concentrating on the Swans.She metions them being family friendly,perfect gentlemen.th ereason she is aginst GWS ,is because it takes away from the Swans. fro someone who supposedly tolerates AFL,is doing a lousy job by attending Swans matches whenever she can. Hello out there ,any response on your $1,4bn assertion,I supposedly made??????? WAITING WAITING And for a little bedside reading,you could read Simon Canning the Australian 21st March re viewing figures and the overall aggreggates. Just a couple of quotes"the very re[port that claimed AFL was the most watched sport on Tv with a average 14.64m per club compared with 13,81m for the NRL.The cumulitive audiences 120.6m across all coverage compared to the same over the season for AFL of 9 million. The point I have been also trying to make to your fellow flag waver jaceman, is reinforced by Shane Mattiske the NRL's strategic project director.he noted"If Pay Tv lost rugby league in the crucial markets of NSW and Qld,then it wpould have dire effects. When Smith of Lek,was asked if the NRL was ahead of the AFL.He responded"In Tv audiences it is".
Ted Skinner
Guest
As a matter of interest here are last night's OzTam Ratings (Mainland capitals). http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2011/08/week-33-4.html 8 Nine’s Live Friday Night Football Nine 842,000 494,000 *** 348,000 *** *** 10 Seven’s AFL: Rnd 21: St Kilda Vs Collingwood Seven 778,000 9,000 522,000 3,000 144,000 98,000 23 Nine’s Friday Night Football Nine 361,000 243,000 *** 119,000 *** *** When the Regional's are added the first NRL game should beat the AFL game by nearly 400,000 Nation-wide.
GoGWS
Roar Guru
Rebecca Wilson ...pfft!!... mate she and her brother have been on the record several times whining about the AFL moving into GC and GWS....the Wilsons are Queenslanders and RL supporters first...I think Wilson tolerates AFL but you claiming she fawns over the Swans is a bit rich...never noticed it....and the article you linked is nonsense..must be a slow news day down there in Melbourne
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
GoGWS Yes as a RL tragic,it was indeed frustrating to travel with a supporters tour to the UK watching the national side play. Frustrating to see the high TV ratings.Frustrating to know 7 areas want to bid to get into the NRL,and only a couple will make it. ihate that form of frustration LOL. Must be frustrating having to spend a lifetime on another code's thread,to pretend they have superior knowledge to the innner workings,traditions and the popularity of the game,than many involved for decades. How the hell do you know there was no analysis,how do you know the min was abitrary ,when Smith has been in prelim discussions with the networks for months.Talk about presumptious. Does it really sink in,really sink in.Last time one FTA network really bidding and Foxtel not having the NRL base then as it does today.The FTA and Foxtel this time. :Let me just redirect yot to a rebecca wilson story in today's D.T,(she a Swans ambassador at one stage,and stll fawns after them http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/afl-facing-a-cranky-media/story-e6freyar-1226114042467 It may pay to spend a little time in your own backyard,with a few bandages because a few wounds are starting to appear. I am sure Gallop,Smith,the FTA stations ,Foxtel,the NRL CEOs,will follow your advice to the letter.The guru is among us. You tell em $800m is the figure. BTW be a good lad and advise me where the $1.4bn was quoted by me ,as you stated.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
GoGWS Answer the question first.For the umpteenth time of asking.Where did I state the code would get $1.4bn?.Stop evading the issue and showing a weak spine . You accuse people of playing the man,yet now rip in to Masters,you accuse someone of stating a $14bn figure and don't have the guts, to admit you got it wrong. And you want to be treated seriously? Masters figures on TV ratings on many occasions and his views were spot on,provided by the various ratings survey groups. The aggregates were figures the competitors did not want to hear. He has been involved in sport,the media,for decades and was on the ASC.He has I suggest far more expertise in that matter than you or I. And I believe he is incorrect this time with his assessments on pay TV.Just as much as i disbelieve your points on Tv ratings and those of Caroline Wilson. Ths issue champ,is the big increase in Pay Tv ratings ,that is the real issue.,not you blubbering on,not me with my views. Amazing as soon as someone shoots back on Masters as now being reliable,you claim its a non issue.How convenient,when he was the ogre before.He has got this one wrong ,sorry to advise. And I will be clear and precise ,if the Pay TV ratings for the nRL are up to 30% increase,where the hell is the gap closing and continuing to do so. When you have no idea what the lie of the land will be in 18months,and have no idea what the I.C will do on expansion time line. You are correct you won't get through to me,because I can't rely on your guesswork and estimates,about a code with which you have not been following for decades. I tend to rely on people in the media actually involved in the negotiations or the peripherals of the negotiations,not someone waving a flag behind 4 posts.,And I will not put my faith in someone who is unable to admit they accused someone of something that was never the case. You burnt your bridges and your credibility by so doing. You flatter yourself.There is actual inconsistency by denigrating consistently a source,then quoting it when you choose.Bit like an atheist bagging the Bible,and then quoting a verse to argue his case. Let me be blunt,if the code remains at 16 teams they won't ge $1bn,that is the only proviso I make.
GoGWS
Roar Guru
crosscoder It is frustrating be a RL tragic isn't it?...How can it be that RL (the 'greatest game of all') be the highest rating game on Australian TV game and yet at the same time somehow another inferior football code, that less people watch on TV, always mysteriously gets huge broadcast deals exceeding the NRL.... it's just not fair!!..It must be very frustrating trying to hold together these apparent contradictions....contradictions in your mind anyway, even if in reality there is no contradiction.. Good luck with that 140% increase you need to get from $500m/6 yrs to $1bn/5 yrs.... good luck with that... I'm sure 30% increase in pay TV viewers will get the NRL the 140%... or the 'we wuz robbed last time' harping might work,,, or the as yet to be confirmed expansions in 2015 (the earliest credible date based on logic and consensus of Gallop/existing NRL CEOs on the issue)....or the arbitrary assumptions used by a consultant for his projections (just $200m plus/minus the value of the AFL deal - there simply was no analysis, and no reason to say $1bn chosen as the lower range has any relation to the likely value ofthe NRL deal - he just used the AFL deal value as a mid-point anchor) Mate when you line up all the dominos you keep throwing up they just don't get the 140% increase...very hard to see...and the thing is, Gallop could get a great deal of say $800m and instead of being praised there will be howling and crying because of irrational equivalence expectation with the AFL.....Gallop can't win...he hasn't got a hope of getting near the AFL deal and he hasn't got a hope of pleasing critics in the RL media...
GoGWS
Roar Guru
Masters is right 95% of the time?..please...mate without any exaggeration at all 99% of his articles that reference the AFL (most of them recently) will contain factual errors, half-truth and distortions..99%....some or all of the above... and mostly it's factual errors...things that unarguably untrue... I can't even recall one of his articles being without error...they all contain mistakes and leaps of logic again, one more time and for the LAST time to try to make you understand why me using Masters concessions is a non-issue...when someone admits something that is against their own interests (i.e. Masters a RL tragic admitting the NRL is in fact losing ground to the AFL on pay TV as penetration increases in WA, SA and Vic) then that is significant... why would Masters concede something like that?...he would only grudgingly do so if he had come to the conclusion it was in fact true (which the data supports)....I agree Masters is a compulsive fibber who has less than credibility in truth telling than a 3 yr old BUT when he admits something like that it is significant and worth mentioning to people like you who seem not to appreciate that the gap between AFL and NRL on the 'top 100 in pay TV' is already closing and will continue.... I really can't be clearer than that - that's my best effort....if you do't get that then I won't be able to get through to you.... yes Masters is a compulsive fibber with zero credibility but it is also legitimate to sometimes highlight what he has conceded - there is no inconsistency, conflict or problem with me doing this... I don't all of a sudden trust what Masters says...
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
G0GWS Not my prerogative ,if all experts reckon the code is worth $600 -$750m I would have to go along with that.To date none have.I believe Lek's rep,not you . Answer YES based on the media guy negotiating the deal,and based on as an example the following in the Finance section by Neil Shoebridge 23/24 Jul 2011 "Nine and Fox sports are getting a bargain now,given the big TV ratings rl generates in NSW and Qld,and the BIG numbers of people in those states who HAVE Pay TV just to get access to rugby league"said a senior TV executive who did not want to be named". And "Rugby ;league officials are counting on changes to the federal government's sport and siphoning rules-which would allow Premier to buy the rights to show all NRL games live(some would be simulcast on FTA network)-and fierce competition among the FTA networks to drive up the value of the TV rights. Seven and Ten networks are expected to bid aggressively for parts of the next contract,particularly the rights to SOO games which are the most watched programs on TV". It is not a case of if the game expands,it will happen, it is the timing.The code is exploring where it can add value to the advertising deals for TV games. Leks and Smith have already stated so. And I might propose you are making assumptions that the game won't expand,nor allow for more ads,nor show more live Fox games,nor what Sky NZ will pay. Masters did not include the 30% increase in NRL Pay Tv ratings,because he did not have the full story at the time.Anycase why should his assessment be spot on this time.Did he mention the overall Pay TV aggregate numbers? Lets assume he is correct,the NRL numbers have grown just this year alone by 30%,they still dominate,and media execs acknowledge the code was undervalued last time. Oh so now "but hearing it from Masters you can be pretty sure it is a fact" Then I can also suggest,he has been spot on 95% of the time with his assessments as to the Tv networks wanting to bid for the NRL.,the valuations and many other stories.The only thing he got wrong was the AFL deal. It is indeed about the data,and the TV ratings for Pay and FTA(the data),stick out like the proverbials for the TV networks and advertisers.there is nothing more evident. *******BTW I am still awaiting your admission you got it wrong ,in suggesting that I believed the NRL would get $1.4bn.Can you show a bit of mettle and admit I did not. Or show me where I did.!....................................................
GoGWS
Roar Guru
This all amounts to more than doubling the value of the deal crosscoder? OK... Well that's your prerogative..I think you're wrong...and there are a lot of IFs there... IF we expand,,,IF we alter the game to add more time for advertising... on the Masters thing, I've explained that as clearly as I can....he is a frequent fibber yes... but when even he is willing to concede Foxtel numbers for the NRL are on a comparative slide compared to the AFL that is pretty good supporting 'evidence'...it doesn't settle the matter (the data does that) but hearing it from Masters you can be pretty sure it's a fact
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
jaceman Trying to deflect again. Should I need to remind you, you came in like a bull in a china shop with the 350,000 figure which was wrong,you realised your mistake.You called rl players in England NRL players,then someone called you out on another thread.You then quoted the numbers playing from stats applicable to 6 years ago. Sometimes it pays to check on things beforehand.If anything has collapsed, it is lack of research on your part for rl. That is one reason I try and steer clear of AFL and RU threads,to avoid the egg on the face . You really need to look at how the FTA could be divvied up.Some of the so called low ranking saturday night games are in fact more high profile than the sunday afternoon for example. Nine may bid for the monday night games,or even channel 7.it is not just ch10 in the picture.There is a miriad of scenarios .if Perth gets in the expansion,that is another slot,there is even the possibility of a high rating twilight sunday game. They may not get 4 other games on Pay TV. Foxtel achieving the profit it did,is good news for the NRL.I would be concerned if there was in fact a 20% drop in profits. I am more than happy to see ch7 lurking in the wings ,in a cashed up situation,and Gyngelll desperately wanting to retain the rugby league. He has also stated Brisbane 2 will add further to the rights value. BTW how do you know it doesn't mean they will bid lots of money.They(Foxtel) could if they so desired bid for the lot and onsell some back to the FTA stations.Gallop maintains if they don't they may well lose some.Gyngell has loudly admitted the code will be getting a lot more,and his station realises it. The inescapable fact and I will repeat it like a AK47 rifle,,the pay TV ratings this year have achieved records on occasions and are up 30%,and the TV ratings for the code have maintained a high level for that medium.They have nearly 11million people watching the SOO.If you deny that ,then you will again be found out.if you deny having Sky NZ as part of the deal ditto. If someone at the very coalface,in fact closer than anyone within the NRL makes the point about the code being the LEADER,and working on a min $1bn,am I to say he is pulling the wool.Every man and his dog except the usual suspects,knows the rl got less than true value last time,as the Tv ratingsspell it out in balack and white. Not one thing you have stated on your threads,proves the guy from Lek is on the wrong track.I will bide by his good counsel,sorry champ.
Jaceman
Guest
If you read my later email your entire argument collapses. As I say the weekly average of 1.2m Fox NRL audience is quite impressive, it doesnt mean they will bid lots of money because FTAs are hardly going to bid heaps for low ranking Saturday night games. Fox may bid against Ten for Monday night but there will be a price at which they drop out which i suspect wont be high if they have 4 other Pay NRL games...(Note concise post)..
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Delve a little deeper champ. They are making money out of the current subscriber base,which started when and by whom?? I look at it this way ATM the economy or the world economy is struggling and people of late are tightening their belts. Should the profit margins continue for foxtel,it is a good sign for the next NRL deal.If not it will not be a good sign for the next NRL deal,nor for Foxtel as the expected numbers for the AFL growth will not materialise. A liitle more investigation in Foxtels earnings, notes the numbers who subscribe directly through its service rose by 2.5% but the total number out of its subscribers 1.65million(not 2.1m ) was only up by 20,000. Again I hate to do this Jaceman,but the monday evening EEls v Cowboys match in April broke a record with 407,000 viewers (so much for the 350,000 max you trumpeted.So your max 350,000 numbers is plain BS. In fact according to Astra (ratings the Eels V Storm monday night game was 328,000 with a total STV 1,251,000 and a reach of 708,000. Yet whilst Austars numbers dropped the number of NRL viewers increased by 30%,funny that. http://www.smh.com.au/iq-loyalty-buoys-foxtel-as-earnings-up-15-20110811-1I09shtml No mention whatsoever of the 30% increase in NRL Pay Tv ratings,which have come from somewhere.So Jaceman you do the maths. If you don't believe a decent churning by NRL subscribers even to 10% will not impact their bottom line,you are deluded in a tough economic environment that now exists,but not at the time of their reporting.The NRL(Galloip) believes it will impact and remember the News ltd owning half the NRL.Anycase go ahead and make our day. Perhaps whilst you are playing around with your spreadsheets you can figure where a 30% increase arose,out of the ether !!!!
Jaceman
Guest
I tried to edit after I submitted but it wouldnt let me. 400K was monday night in early April when hopes are high but 50K is hardly significant in a potential audience of 6m. I dont think they have got near 400K since NRL getting 1.2m a week on Fox over 5 games is not to be sneezed at but the point is no-one else is going after Super Saturday NRL in a meaningful way as it is a slow FTA night in TV land (and one match may be enough) A 5.30 and 7.30 game on FTA would probably be on the secondary channel but if only 300K (max) are watching amongst the diehards on Fox out of a potential audience of 6m that is hardly enough to attract big $$ from a FTA network for the 6th ranked game.. .. The AFL got more because they were offering more - its unclear what extra the NRL is offering - possibly more ad breaks. The fact that Pay Tv has 5 out of 8 games may turn out as a rod for the NRL's back...