Rex, in relation to your points 1 to 4.
1. I have no knowledge of conversations between Ribot and Murdoch leading up to and during the SL period. I am not privy to Murdoch's current state of mind nor his current business plans, other than to say I have watched league game on pay TV in Vancouver.
2. It is my understanding that no current NRL teams give/donate/fund the Melbourne Storm. TV rights to broadcast are currently held by PBS who determine what is shown when and where on free to air TV. Five games per week are broadcast on Fox pay TV and are shown live. It seems to me that many current NRL players would benefit from being able to walk down streets unnoticed. Â
3. It is my understanding that the current financial position of the NRL is sound. Gallop's latest pronouncement is that "Everything is positive, (1/12/08.) This does not mean that all clubs are in a sound financial position. The impact of NSW legislation in relation to gambling tax and other issues that impact on clubs should be noted. In addition the contracts entered into by the NRL with PBS could be adversely impacted by the declining share value of PBS and its current private equity owner CVC Asia Pacific. Rugby, having signed with News, is not predicted to suffer any adverse financial effects.
4 I have not alluded to any 'level' playing field in any of my comments regarding this matter. Indeed a one team/one city concept is a good one, in my opinion. I would venture to add that in a city the size of Sydney, four teams would be suitable. The Brisbane Broncos were signed into the ARL by Arko (something he regrets now) but he did it, when it wasn't the only Brisbane bid at that time.
In conclusion the matters you raise are interesting up to a point. When you ask the question you also supply the answer. Yes.
My guess is that promises were 'underdelivered' because of the litigation and the costs involved once defensive positions were taken. Too bad in my view. End of story. Now, can we all move on and agree to disagree.    Â
1. I have no knowledge of conversations between Ribot and Murdoch leading up to and during the SL period. I am not privy to Murdoch's current state of mind nor his current business plans, other than to say I have watched league game on pay TV in Vancouver.
2. It is my understanding that no current NRL teams give/donate/fund the Melbourne Storm. TV rights to broadcast are currently held by PBS who determine what is shown when and where on free to air TV. Five games per week are broadcast on Fox pay TV and are shown live. It seems to me that many current NRL players would benefit from being able to walk down streets unnoticed. Â
3. It is my understanding that the current financial position of the NRL is sound. Gallop's latest pronouncement is that "Everything is positive, (1/12/08.) This does not mean that all clubs are in a sound financial position. The impact of NSW legislation in relation to gambling tax and other issues that impact on clubs should be noted. In addition the contracts entered into by the NRL with PBS could be adversely impacted by the declining share value of PBS and its current private equity owner CVC Asia Pacific. Rugby, having signed with News, is not predicted to suffer any adverse financial effects.
4 I have not alluded to any 'level' playing field in any of my comments regarding this matter. Indeed a one team/one city concept is a good one, in my opinion. I would venture to add that in a city the size of Sydney, four teams would be suitable. The Brisbane Broncos were signed into the ARL by Arko (something he regrets now) but he did it, when it wasn't the only Brisbane bid at that time.
In conclusion the matters you raise are interesting up to a point. When you ask the question you also supply the answer. Yes.
My guess is that promises were 'underdelivered' because of the litigation and the costs involved once defensive positions were taken. Too bad in my view. End of story. Now, can we all move on and agree to disagree.    Â