Consolidated Media worried over price of NRL pay-tv rights

[ManlyBacker]

THE pay-television industry has given the strongest indication yet that it believes price expectations for the next NRL broadcast rights are overheated.


Read the full article

 

[DSM5]

I'm sure Gallop will accommodate any drop in the price.

 

[Phantar]

Yes, can't imagine that the winning personality and negotiating style of Dynamic Dave will be able to extricate the sort of money that's been reported.

 

[Jerry1]

Easy really Afl contract plus 50% can't do it piss off then.

 

[mickqld]

These pay-tv clowns are kidding aren't they. No NRL then no pay TV subscription for millions. They will be out of business without the NRL.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Can I get the job to negotiate.....I'll take 50% of the funds in excess of what the pundits reckon(they can have their Billion).....and retire for life on the proceeds.

This SHOULD be a mega deal and if not.....people need to be sacked!!

 

[Narly]

It's such BS these guys are only interested in themselves. Once upon a time this was the peoples game. Bring back Arko!

 

[Fro]

yup, I'll be on the phone 2 days after its announced to cancel.

would be the next day but their switchboard will be jammed by punters doing the same thing.

they are just starting the games, thats all.

 

[Rusty]

Just people playing down expectations and giving their college Gallop a reason to not be sacked after he secures another deal well below what we deserve.

All the NRLs problems and I mean all of them boil down to this one idiot, he should be gone now, and on the way out he should be forced to apologize for everything.

 

[Masked Eagle]

I think people are delusional if you think the game can survive with FTA TV money only. What makes you think the NRL is different to every single other major sporting code in the world where this type of income stream is extremely important to their survival?

Why did Foxtel pay bigger dollars for the AFL contract? Because they believe its worth more subscriptions to them. As for league, sure they will pay more because of the results but they aren't going to go nuts when there isn't the scope for growth, especially when there is no competition for them. League will still be on Foxtel, so don't worry about cancelling your subscriptions just yet.

Speaking of delusional, everyone moans about CH9 but your halfway to the nuthouse if you think CHs 7 or 10 will do a better job. If you don't want to watch live footy campaign all you like FTA to take over, because the only way FTA networks can recoup the outlay is ads.

 

[The Who]

Less money from TV and sponsors would simply mean that RL players, coaches and administrators are paid less.
Whether they chose to remain in RL would be up to them. There would be plenty to take their place.
The sport doesn't rely on TV; it relies on fans remaining interested.

 

[Cletus]

I think people are delusional if you think the game can survive with FTA TV money only. What makes you think the NRL is different to every single other major sporting code in the world where this type of income stream is extremely important to their survival?

Why did Foxtel pay bigger dollars for the AFL contract? Because they believe its worth more subscriptions to them. As for league, sure they will pay more because of the results but they aren't going to go nuts when there isn't the scope for growth, especially when there is no competition for them. League will still be on Foxtel, so don't worry about cancelling your subscriptions just yet.

Speaking of delusional, everyone moans about CH9 but your halfway to the nuthouse if you think CHs 7 or 10 will do a better job. If you don't want to watch live footy campaign all you like FTA to take over, because the only way FTA networks can recoup the outlay is ads.

The growth argument is complete bollocks. League provides roughly 50%more subscribers than the AFL yet gets paid half as much. The only reason they can trot out that line and not get laughed at is because there is no viable competitor for Foxtel, they're a monopoly. If they did have a competitor who do you think would get paid more, League that provides 50% more subscribeers currently, or AFL which might provide the same as League in 5 years time?

 

[Masked Eagle]

I think people are delusional if you think the game can survive with FTA TV money only. What makes you think the NRL is different to every single other major sporting code in the world where this type of income stream is extremely important to their survival?

Why did Foxtel pay bigger dollars for the AFL contract? Because they believe its worth more subscriptions to them. As for league, sure they will pay more because of the results but they aren't going to go nuts when there isn't the scope for growth, especially when there is no competition for them. League will still be on Foxtel, so don't worry about cancelling your subscriptions just yet.

Speaking of delusional, everyone moans about CH9 but your halfway to the nuthouse if you think CHs 7 or 10 will do a better job. If you don't want to watch live footy campaign all you like FTA to take over, because the only way FTA networks can recoup the outlay is ads.

The growth argument is complete bollocks. League provides roughly 50%more subscribers than the AFL yet gets paid half as much. The only reason they can trot out that line and not get laughed at is because there is no viable competitor for Foxtel, they're a monopoly. If they did have a competitor who do you think would get paid more, League that provides 50% more subscribeers currently, or AFL which might provide the same as League in 5 years time?

The only thing thats complete bullocks is your use of statistics. Foxtel wanted a better deal for AFL because they believe it will help with subscriptions. They would argue that most Rugby League supporters who would want Foxtel for League already would have it, so outlaying a massive increase isn't going to see the return. Never fear Foxtel will pay more than they currently are paying, but saying we should ditch them because they will pay more for AFL is the definition of cutting your nose off to spite your face and would only hurt the game in the long run.

 

[Cletus]

I think people are delusional if you think the game can survive with FTA TV money only. What makes you think the NRL is different to every single other major sporting code in the world where this type of income stream is extremely important to their survival?

Why did Foxtel pay bigger dollars for the AFL contract? Because they believe its worth more subscriptions to them. As for league, sure they will pay more because of the results but they aren't going to go nuts when there isn't the scope for growth, especially when there is no competition for them. League will still be on Foxtel, so don't worry about cancelling your subscriptions just yet.

Speaking of delusional, everyone moans about CH9 but your halfway to the nuthouse if you think CHs 7 or 10 will do a better job. If you don't want to watch live footy campaign all you like FTA to take over, because the only way FTA networks can recoup the outlay is ads.

The growth argument is complete bollocks. League provides roughly 50%more subscribers than the AFL yet gets paid half as much. The only reason they can trot out that line and not get laughed at is because there is no viable competitor for Foxtel, they're a monopoly. If they did have a competitor who do you think would get paid more, League that provides 50% more subscribeers currently, or AFL which might provide the same as League in 5 years time?

p
The only thing thats complete bullocks is your use of statistics. Foxtel wanted a better deal for AFL because they believe it will help with subscriptions. They would argue that most Rugby League supporters who would want Foxtel for League already would have it, so outlaying a massive increase isn't going to see the return. Never fear Foxtel will pay more than they currently are paying, but saying we should ditch them because they will pay more for AFL is the definition of cutting your nose off to spite your face and would only hurt the game in the long run.

It's exactly the same argument they used five years ago to justify shafting us last time and they've had no more subscriber growth in the southern states than the northern states. And if you want to look at the penetration rates they are 50% less is the southern states. Yes we need Foxtel, but they need us more. All they have to do is stop screwing us over, which hopefully happened when we don't have News appointing directors like Gordon Tallis to the board that signs off on their own tv deals.

 

[Masked Eagle]

I think people are delusional if you think the game can survive with FTA TV money only. What makes you think the NRL is different to every single other major sporting code in the world where this type of income stream is extremely important to their survival?

Why did Foxtel pay bigger dollars for the AFL contract? Because they believe its worth more subscriptions to them. As for league, sure they will pay more because of the results but they aren't going to go nuts when there isn't the scope for growth, especially when there is no competition for them. League will still be on Foxtel, so don't worry about cancelling your subscriptions just yet.

Speaking of delusional, everyone moans about CH9 but your halfway to the nuthouse if you think CHs 7 or 10 will do a better job. If you don't want to watch live footy campaign all you like FTA to take over, because the only way FTA networks can recoup the outlay is ads.

The growth argument is complete bollocks. League provides roughly 50%more subscribers than the AFL yet gets paid half as much. The only reason they can trot out that line and not get laughed at is because there is no viable competitor for Foxtel, they're a monopoly. If they did have a competitor who do you think would get paid more, League that provides 50% more subscribeers currently, or AFL which might provide the same as League in 5 years time?

p
The only thing thats complete bullocks is your use of statistics. Foxtel wanted a better deal for AFL because they believe it will help with subscriptions. They would argue that most Rugby League supporters who would want Foxtel for League already would have it, so outlaying a massive increase isn't going to see the return. Never fear Foxtel will pay more than they currently are paying, but saying we should ditch them because they will pay more for AFL is the definition of cutting your nose off to spite your face and would only hurt the game in the long run.

It's exactly the same argument they used five years ago to justify shafting us last time and they've had no more subscriber growth in the southern states than the northern states. And if you want to look at the penetration rates they are 50% less is the southern states. Yes we need Foxtel, but they need us more. All they have to do is stop screwing us over, which hopefully happened when we don't have News appointing directors like Gordon Tallis to the board that signs off on their own tv deals.

No doubt we got shafted and I can't see that happening again. The landscape with the IC changes things considerably. I'm just preaching against the we don't need TV money (Pay or FTA) that some people seem to think is true.

 

[Fro]

I think people are delusional if you think the game can survive with FTA TV money only. What makes you think the NRL is different to every single other major sporting code in the world where this type of income stream is extremely important to their survival?

Why did Foxtel pay bigger dollars for the AFL contract? Because they believe its worth more subscriptions to them. As for league, sure they will pay more because of the results but they aren't going to go nuts when there isn't the scope for growth, especially when there is no competition for them. League will still be on Foxtel, so don't worry about cancelling your subscriptions just yet.

Speaking of delusional, everyone moans about CH9 but your halfway to the nuthouse if you think CHs 7 or 10 will do a better job. If you don't want to watch live footy campaign all you like FTA to take over, because the only way FTA networks can recoup the outlay is ads.

The growth argument is complete bollocks. League provides roughly 50%more subscribers than the AFL yet gets paid half as much. The only reason they can trot out that line and not get laughed at is because there is no viable competitor for Foxtel, they're a monopoly. If they did have a competitor who do you think would get paid more, League that provides 50% more subscribeers currently, or AFL which might provide the same as League in 5 years time?

p
The only thing thats complete bullocks is your use of statistics. Foxtel wanted a better deal for AFL because they believe it will help with subscriptions. They would argue that most Rugby League supporters who would want Foxtel for League already would have it, so outlaying a massive increase isn't going to see the return. Never fear Foxtel will pay more than they currently are paying, but saying we should ditch them because they will pay more for AFL is the definition of cutting your nose off to spite your face and would only hurt the game in the long run.

It's exactly the same argument they used five years ago to justify shafting us last time and they've had no more subscriber growth in the southern states than the northern states. And if you want to look at the penetration rates they are 50% less is the southern states. Yes we need Foxtel, but they need us more. All they have to do is stop screwing us over, which hopefully happened when we don't have News appointing directors like Gordon Tallis to the board that signs off on their own tv deals.

No doubt we got shafted and I can't see that happening again. The landscape with the IC changes things considerably. I'm just preaching against the we don't need TV money (Pay or FTA) that some people seem to think is true.

I dont really have anythign to add, but if I keep quoting a million posts I can add another page on this thread.

 

[Jethro]

The growth argument is complete bollocks. League provides roughly 50%more subscribers than the AFL yet gets paid half as much. The only reason they can trot out that line and not get laughed at is because there is no viable competitor for Foxtel, they're a monopoly. If they did have a competitor who do you think would get paid more, League that provides 50% more subscribeers currently, or AFL which might provide the same as League in 5 years time?

p
The only thing thats complete bullocks is your use of statistics. Foxtel wanted a better deal for AFL because they believe it will help with subscriptions. They would argue that most Rugby League supporters who would want Foxtel for League already would have it, so outlaying a massive increase isn't going to see the return. Never fear Foxtel will pay more than they currently are paying, but saying we should ditch them because they will pay more for AFL is the definition of cutting your nose off to spite your face and would only hurt the game in the long run.

It's exactly the same argument they used five years ago to justify shafting us last time and they've had no more subscriber growth in the southern states than the northern states. And if you want to look at the penetration rates they are 50% less is the southern states. Yes we need Foxtel, but they need us more. All they have to do is stop screwing us over, which hopefully happened when we don't have News appointing directors like Gordon Tallis to the board that signs off on their own tv deals.

No doubt we got shafted and I can't see that happening again. The landscape with the IC changes things considerably. I'm just preaching against the we don't need TV money (Pay or FTA) that some people seem to think is true.

I dont really have anythign to add, but if I keep quoting a million posts I can add another page on this thread.

Can I help you to reach your goal Fro?

 

[Fro]

p
The only thing thats complete bullocks is your use of statistics. Foxtel wanted a better deal for AFL because they believe it will help with subscriptions. They would argue that most Rugby League supporters who would want Foxtel for League already would have it, so outlaying a massive increase isn't going to see the return. Never fear Foxtel will pay more than they currently are paying, but saying we should ditch them because they will pay more for AFL is the definition of cutting your nose off to spite your face and would only hurt the game in the long run.

It's exactly the same argument they used five years ago to justify shafting us last time and they've had no more subscriber growth in the southern states than the northern states. And if you want to look at the penetration rates they are 50% less is the southern states. Yes we need Foxtel, but they need us more. All they have to do is stop screwing us over, which hopefully happened when we don't have News appointing directors like Gordon Tallis to the board that signs off on their own tv deals.

No doubt we got shafted and I can't see that happening again. The landscape with the IC changes things considerably. I'm just preaching against the we don't need TV money (Pay or FTA) that some people seem to think is true.

I dont really have anythign to add, but if I keep quoting a million posts I can add another page on this thread.

Can I help you to reach your goal Fro?

All assistance gratefully accepted Jethro, it's probably more interesting than most of the **** posted these days.

All we need is Shane to come in and my day will be complete...

 

[Jethro]

It's exactly the same argument they used five years ago to justify shafting us last time and they've had no more subscriber growth in the southern states than the northern states. And if you want to look at the penetration rates they are 50% less is the southern states. Yes we need Foxtel, but they need us more. All they have to do is stop screwing us over, which hopefully happened when we don't have News appointing directors like Gordon Tallis to the board that signs off on their own tv deals.

No doubt we got shafted and I can't see that happening again. The landscape with the IC changes things considerably. I'm just preaching against the we don't need TV money (Pay or FTA) that some people seem to think is true.

I dont really have anythign to add, but if I keep quoting a million posts I can add another page on this thread.

Can I help you to reach your goal Fro?

All assistance gratefully accepted Jethro, it's probably more interesting than most of the s**t posted these days.

All we need is Shane to come in and my day will be complete...

No worries Fro. I'm glad that I can help 😀

 

[Corso_Pete]

I do not undertsand the hype of the TV money. All that will happen is that the salary cap will be increased and the players will will be the ones that that win, CEO's will be able to give themselves a payrise and the NRL will spend a few million on fighting the AFL in western Sydney. Will the extra money mean better games?, will it mean more people at matches? or will lead to a more even comp? I am pretty sure the answer to those questions is No.

All I see is longer & more ads on free to air and an increase in my monthly Foxtel bill.