TV rights staying with 9/Fox

NRL and other Australian Rugby League Discussion
User avatar
cunno
Member
Member
Posts: 4389
Joined: Wed 28 Jul, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: TV rights staying with 9/Fox

Post by cunno » Wed 22 Aug, 2012 7:29 am

Oh no nine's delayed elongated sunday replay remains and there is no option to choose between which Friday night game one would like to watch :bash


Rambo2714
Member
Member
Posts: 786
Joined: Mon 11 Apr, 2011 10:32 am

Post by Rambo2714 » Wed 22 Aug, 2012 7:37 am

I was really Impressed with Farah's comments about
1. Bringing the minimum wage up
2. Providing compulsory income protection for players


Posted using RoarFEED 2012
Wests for life !

User avatar
clokan
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 653
Joined: Sun 18 Apr, 2010 12:04 am

Post by clokan » Wed 22 Aug, 2012 8:02 pm

Cultured Bogan wrote:In my personal position, I couldn't care less if there were no FTA games and Foxtel took them all, but I understand that not everyone has Foxtel so I can empathise with their concerns that the FTA portion of the deal.
I can see your point, but when the game becomes less accessible to those without Foxtel it puts the game at risk.

Already we have seen the AFL move into RL Heartland, steal Folau and Hunt and not only do they show 4 live games, but some during the day so future players and fans of the game get a chance to watch them.

In my circle of friends and their kids, there is only one boy who plays rugby league, while there are 4 that play Aussie Rules. Where I sit, I don't see much happening to defend the game.

Lets hope the commission does something for the grass roots to ensure the longevity of this great game.

User avatar
gold on black
Member
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon 27 Jun, 2011 2:16 pm

Post by gold on black » Thu 23 Aug, 2012 11:38 am

Looks like the only Improvement was money
Nrl is basically a prostitute where the nine network offered a large some of money to have their way with the nrl


Posted using RoarFEED 2012

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 18155
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains

Post by Cultured Bogan » Thu 23 Aug, 2012 12:01 pm

clokan wrote:
Cultured Bogan wrote:In my personal position, I couldn't care less if there were no FTA games and Foxtel took them all, but I understand that not everyone has Foxtel so I can empathise with their concerns that the FTA portion of the deal.
I can see your point, but when the game becomes less accessible to those without Foxtel it puts the game at risk.

Already we have seen the AFL move into RL Heartland, steal Folau and Hunt and not only do they show 4 live games, but some during the day so future players and fans of the game get a chance to watch them.

In my circle of friends and their kids, there is only one boy who plays rugby league, while there are 4 that play Aussie Rules. Where I sit, I don't see much happening to defend the game.

Lets hope the commission does something for the grass roots to ensure the longevity of this great game.
I don't necessarily think the lack of FTA viewing is pushing kids away from the game. There's other factors at play there rather than just 3 games a week on Nine. I don't think it is fair for a fan to be devoid of coverage because they cannot afford Foxtel though.
Madge's Maulers.

Cuando llegue el día, y estoy parado a las puertas del cielo, será Dios pidiendo mi perdón...


User avatar
Yossarian
Member
Member
Posts: 9754
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Central Coast

Post by Yossarian » Thu 23 Aug, 2012 12:28 pm

The AFL model is held up as an example of how it should be but I'd suggest the reason why the Foxtel take up is so poor is because it is pretty easy to watch the games on FTA.

On an only slightly related topic, I think it is crazy that you can't watch NRL replays from the official site when you are outside of Australia. I mean how many subscriptions to nrl.com or the official broadcasters could they possibly sell? Surely it would be better just to provide the content free after a certain period?

User avatar
dermo
Member
Member
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun 20 Feb, 2011 3:02 pm

Post by dermo » Thu 23 Aug, 2012 12:46 pm

They talked way to much about getting the deal for $1 billion, so it go to the point that I think they would've accepted anything for a billion to make themselves feel like we arn't to far behind the AFL (when in fact we are miles behind) I was hoping they would get rid of monday night games and move them to saturday arvos and more live FTA like the AFL. The fact that a sydneysider without foxtel can watch more live AFL than NRL is a disgrace

supercoach
Member
Member
Posts: 7165
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 2:38 pm

Post by supercoach » Thu 23 Aug, 2012 1:31 pm

Iam sure both ten and seven would have matched nines deal or bettered it in dollar value and lets face it they could only do a better job as nine are abysmal.

Maybe Iam being cynical but I would not trust the board as far as I could throw them, Iam sure their must have been some vote buying as no fool would let nine near their sport.

The sad thing is they have them for another long five years, its a bit like Sheens--they never go away

User avatar
alex
Member
Member
Posts: 3624
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 7:58 pm
Location: Haberfield

Post by alex » Thu 23 Aug, 2012 2:17 pm

Why I think Channel 9 abuses the NRL coverage:

- Only 1 live game per week
- There should be a way, similar to Foxtel's viewers choice, where you can choose which Friday game you watch live. A lot of the time a Sydney team's fans will lose out because they're playing in Brisbane or Melbourne and have to wait til 9:30. Possible simulcast on Gem, then reverse the games for the 9:30 slot?
- They dont broadcast in HD. The technology is available, yet they dont do it. I know they will start in 2014, but it's way behind their competitors
- The actual coverage of each game is terrible. There's no match preview and no summary after the game. As soon as the telecast starts, they go through the team lists then the game begins (or even do it DURING once the game is underway for the 9:30 Friday game). Very few or no after match interviews, no injury updates etc. The Sunday games name the man of the match with five minutes to go, then as soon as the full time siren goes it's straight into the News.
- They need a serious mid-week Rugby League programme (I think this is part of the new deal?). AFL have some programme called AFL Confidential I think, on top of their Footy Show.
- I think part of the reason no one really pays attention to Saturday night games, or the fact they're usually the less important ones, is that they aren't shown on FTA. Part of the current rights was that Fox and Ch 9 couldn't show different games at the same time. I definitely think they could have shared the two 7:30 Saturday games so both are shown live simultaneously, one on Fox, one of FTA (I know you can do Viewer's Choice on Fox though).

Twodogs
Member
Member
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed 15 Jun, 2011 12:22 pm

Post by Twodogs » Thu 23 Aug, 2012 3:15 pm

The $800million offered by 10 would have greatly reduced Fox Sports' offer due to losing prime sat and Monday games, but from ~$500million to less than $225million? I smell a rat...


Posted using RoarFEED 2012

User avatar
Tigerpete
Member
Member
Posts: 1488
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 12:27 pm

Post by Tigerpete » Thu 23 Aug, 2012 3:44 pm

Yeah i got my doubts as to how fair a go seven and ten actually got. I don't understand why nine/fox would pay the fee they did and offer more or less the same service. It makes no sense at all. Yes, the price was always going to rise regardless but when you invest big amounts of money in anything, you're going throw a lot of time at it and get your money's worth.
I can't believe for the life of me that the arlc could really honestly be happy with the deal. It's the same as the previous one barr the price and the future first and last rights clause. How can they be happy with a package that offers zero improvement??? They took the money and ran with it, the saw the dollar bills and forgot the rest. We missed out if you ask me. The game will benefit in the long run because of financial improvements but at what cost. The lack of free to air coverage for a top shelf sport is concerning.

User avatar
Tigerdave
Member
Member
Posts: 11065
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 6:04 am
Location: Lismore

Post by Tigerdave » Fri 24 Aug, 2012 6:02 am

yeah money good for the game, content, not so much. 5 years is a long wait to see if the content gets any better next time around.

All they are doing is encouraging people to find live streaming sites or just waiting until NRL.com uploads each game.

User avatar
DavidDuncan
Member
Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue 20 Apr, 2010 11:54 am
Location: Berowra

Post by DavidDuncan » Fri 24 Aug, 2012 9:00 am

Does anyone know who picks the schedule for the first 20 rounds? Is it purely the ARLC or does Nine/Fox still select which games they want when. The only difference being that they have to do it at the start of the season instead of 6 weeks out?

It's great that we will know exactly when we will be playing (for the first 20 weeks anyway) but we could still end up with the situation where Brisbane still get a long run of Friday night games.
Remember the past. Live in the now. Plan for the future.

User avatar
GNR4LIFE
Member
Member
Posts: 22675
Joined: Mon 28 Feb, 2011 5:57 pm

Post by GNR4LIFE » Fri 24 Aug, 2012 9:42 am

The NRL truly are a laughing stock and this new deal proves it. In this day and age with technology, (you can subscribe to watching live NFL games in America for crying out loud) to only have one live game a week on FTA is nothing short of pathetic. But do the NRL care? of course not, they got their money why should they. The NRL and Channel 9 are a pack of dogs. Andrew Demitriou must be laughing his backside off knowing that this is his no 1 competitor in Australia. In wrestling terms comparing NRL and AFL is akin to comparing TNA to WWE

User avatar
tiger sean
Member
Member
Posts: 395
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:34 pm
Location: Brisbane

Post by tiger sean » Fri 24 Aug, 2012 9:55 am

GNR4LIFE wrote:The NRL truly are a laughing stock and this new deal proves it. In this day and age with technology, (you can subscribe to watching live NFL games in America for crying out loud) to only have one live game a week on FTA is nothing short of pathetic. But do the NRL care? of course not, they got their money why should they. The NRL and Channel 9 are a pack of dogs. Andrew Demitriou must be laughing his backside off knowing that this is his no 1 competitor in Australia. In wrestling terms comparing NRL and AFL is akin to comparing TNA to WWE
I am holding hope they will be selling an online service similar to NBA's Gamepass.

http://www.nrl.com/arlc-keen-to-stream- ... fault.aspx

ARLC keen to stream matches in 2013
RSS
Steve Jancetic AAP Wed, Aug 22, 2012 - 6:39 PM

The ARL Commission has wasted little time in turning its attention to its next rights deal, forecasting the possibility of having NRL matches streamed live on mobile devices in 2013.

A day after announcing a $1.025 billion broadcast deal, ARLC interim chief executive Shane Mattiske said talks over new media rights were already well down the track.

Mattiske also revealed the league could go out on its own in a bid to tap into the potentially lucrativemarket, which has become a far more valuable commodity under the new television deal announced on Tuesday.

Under the current broadcasting deal, live streaming was only permitted to overseas destinations - with Australian audiences forced to wait until 24 hours after the game had completed.

But under the new television deal announced on Tuesday, those restrictions have been removed in what could prove to be a financial windfall for the game.

"A key element of what was held out of the broadcast deals was our ability to deliver a stream that's simultaneous to the broadcast signal to people for viewing over mobile devices," Mattiske told AAP.

"We're in discussions now in terms of those media rights, we're talking to range of parties and we're also considering whether or not the game should exploit these rights on it's own rather than granting them to a third party.

"I think it's something fans can expect to see in the 2013 season."

The AFL sold its new media rights to Telstra for $153 million in 2011.

Mattiske revealed the ARLC fought hard for the right to stream matches during its negotiations with broadcasters.

"We wanted to be in a position so that we can take advantage of the growth in consumption of content," Mattiske said.

User avatar
mike
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 1734
Joined: Mon 28 Jun, 2010 8:32 pm
Location: Hornsby

Post by mike » Sun 26 Aug, 2012 5:14 am

From the fans (us) point of view why do I get the feeling it is the same old, same old?
Western Suburbs supporter since 1960 | Balmain junior since 1967 | Wests Tigers supporter since 1999

User avatar
clokan
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 653
Joined: Sun 18 Apr, 2010 12:04 am

Post by clokan » Sun 26 Aug, 2012 11:01 am

Yossarian wrote:I think it is crazy that you can't watch NRL replays from the official site when you are outside of Australia. I mean how many subscriptions to nrl.com or the official broadcasters could they possibly sell? Surely it would be better just to provide the content free after a certain period?
They do, you can watch all the games on nrl.com, usually two or three days after game day. In years gone past they had the last 5 years of games available but I cant only see 2011 and 2012 now.

User avatar
RatedRKO
Member
Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 10:57 pm

Post by RatedRKO » Sun 26 Aug, 2012 11:12 am

Who will seriously stream a game on their mobile device? Just give us streaming on our PC in HD, LIVE!

Post Reply