- Thread starter
- #1,201
I did mention the NRL!Who BTW got thrashed by about 2 MILLION viewers by the AFL over the last weekend!
So much for their boast of being the great TV game!
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Play Nice 2020 Non AFL Admin, Crowds, Ratings, Participation etc thread
- Thread starter Our Game
- Start date
- Tagged users None
So much for their boast of being the great TV game!
BringBackTorps
Club Legend
- Jan 5, 2017
- 2,963
- 1,827
- AFL Club
- GWS
SMH A. Proszenko 30.5
Proszenko said
"The NRL is set to increase its cost cutting campaign to at least $70m next year...Given the new broadcasting deals are worth less than the original ones...expenses will need to be slashed at Rugby League Central to free up spending".
$100m of emergency funding will made to NRL clubs in 2020.
www.smh.com.au
On 11.5 in the Daily Telegraph, P. Rothfield said, in "Monday Buzz How The NRL Will Cut $50m a Year", the NRL will be permanently cutting at least $50m per year from its HQ operating costs (which were c. $183m pa in 2019).
(Behind a paywall- can anyone open, & post here)
P. V'landys has said NRL grants to Clubs will not be cut from 2021, cf 2019 levels. NRL HQ (which previously employed c.400 staff, which include c. 200 Development Officers) cuts of $50-70m pa are a very large amount- where else will permanent cuts be made?
G. McLachlan has told the Clubs that the AFL new Rights' deals, cf old, have been reduced by 12-13%- causing a total reduction, over their duration, of $150m to the AFL. The Seven new deal is to 2024, whilst Foxtel's deal is still to 2022 only. The AFL will receive, in total, c. $70m less from Seven, & c. 80m less from Foxtel. Seven will also achieve a further $20m in its production costs.
McLachlan has also said the NRL% new Rights' cut was double -c. 25%, & the NRL total reduction is c. $300m.
V'landys has denied these claims, implying the NRL has done better than the AFL in its new deals. Making cuts of $70m in 2021 to NRL HQ makes V'landys claims dubious- although if the NRL doesn't reduce grants to its clubs in 2021 (from 2019 level), it can be argued the NRL financial position is not dire.
Proszenko said
"The NRL is set to increase its cost cutting campaign to at least $70m next year...Given the new broadcasting deals are worth less than the original ones...expenses will need to be slashed at Rugby League Central to free up spending".
$100m of emergency funding will made to NRL clubs in 2020.
NRL 2020: Cost cutting at NRL to increase to $70 million
The organisation has acknowledged belts will be tightened further at head office, resulting in an extra $20 million in savings next year.
On 11.5 in the Daily Telegraph, P. Rothfield said, in "Monday Buzz How The NRL Will Cut $50m a Year", the NRL will be permanently cutting at least $50m per year from its HQ operating costs (which were c. $183m pa in 2019).
P. V'landys has said NRL grants to Clubs will not be cut from 2021, cf 2019 levels. NRL HQ (which previously employed c.400 staff, which include c. 200 Development Officers) cuts of $50-70m pa are a very large amount- where else will permanent cuts be made?
G. McLachlan has told the Clubs that the AFL new Rights' deals, cf old, have been reduced by 12-13%- causing a total reduction, over their duration, of $150m to the AFL. The Seven new deal is to 2024, whilst Foxtel's deal is still to 2022 only. The AFL will receive, in total, c. $70m less from Seven, & c. 80m less from Foxtel. Seven will also achieve a further $20m in its production costs.
McLachlan has also said the NRL% new Rights' cut was double -c. 25%, & the NRL total reduction is c. $300m.
V'landys has denied these claims, implying the NRL has done better than the AFL in its new deals. Making cuts of $70m in 2021 to NRL HQ makes V'landys claims dubious- although if the NRL doesn't reduce grants to its clubs in 2021 (from 2019 level), it can be argued the NRL financial position is not dire.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #1,203
SMH A. Proszenko 30.5
Proszenko said
"The NRL is set to increase its cost cutting campaign to at least $70m next year...Given the new broadcasting deals are worth less than the original ones...expenses will need to be slashed at Rugby League Central to free up spending".
$100m of emergency funding will made to NRL clubs in 2020.
NRL 2020: Cost cutting at NRL to increase to $70 million
The organisation has acknowledged belts will be tightened further at head office, resulting in an extra $20 million in savings next year.
On 11.5 in the Daily Telegraph, P. Rothfield said, in "Monday Buzz How The NRL Will Cut $50m a Year", the NRL will be permanently cutting at least $50m per year from its HQ operating costs (which were c. $183m pa).
(Behind a paywall- can anyone open, & post here)
P. V'landys has said NRL grants to Clubs will not be cut from 2021, cf 2019 levels. NRL HQ (which previously employed c.400 staff, with c. 200 Development Officers) cuts of $50-70m pa are a very large amount- where else will permanent cuts be made?
G. McLachlan has stated that the AFL new Rights' deals have been reduced by 12-13%- causing a total reduction of $150m for Seven (to 2024) & Foxtel (still to 2022 only). McLachlan has also said the NRL% new Rights' cut was double -c. 25%, & the NRL total reduction is c. $300m.
V'landys has denied these claims, implying the NRL has done better than the AFL in its new deals.
Making cuts of $70m in 2021 to NRL HQ makes V'landys claims dubious- although if the NRL doesn't reduce grants to its clubs from 2019, it can be argued the NRL financial position is not dire.
Let big mouth V'Landys put up or shut up and tell us what the Foxtel deal is!I reckon the AFL know anyway.
SMH A. Proszenko 30.5
Proszenko said
"The NRL is set to increase its cost cutting campaign to at least $70m next year...Given the new broadcasting deals are worth less than the original ones...expenses will need to be slashed at Rugby League Central to free up spending".
$100m of emergency funding will made to NRL clubs in 2020.
NRL 2020: Cost cutting at NRL to increase to $70 million
The organisation has acknowledged belts will be tightened further at head office, resulting in an extra $20 million in savings next year.
On 11.5 in the Daily Telegraph, P. Rothfield said, in "Monday Buzz How The NRL Will Cut $50m a Year", the NRL will be permanently cutting at least $50m per year from its HQ operating costs (which were c. $183m pa).
(Behind a paywall- can anyone open, & post here)
P. V'landys has said NRL grants to Clubs will not be cut from 2021, cf 2019 levels. NRL HQ (which previously employed c.400 staff, which include c. 200 Development Officers) cuts of $50-70m pa are a very large amount- where else will permanent cuts be made?
G. McLachlan has told the Clubs that the AFL new Rights' deals have been reduced by 12-13%- causing a total reduction of $150m for Seven (to 2024) & Foxtel (still to 2022 only). The AFL will receive, in total, c. $70m less from Seven, & c. 80m less from Foxtel. Seven will also achieve a further $20m in its production costs.
McLachlan has also said the NRL% new Rights' cut was double -c. 25%, & the NRL total reduction is c. $300m.
V'landys has denied these claims, implying the NRL has done better than the AFL in its new deals.
Making cuts of $70m in 2021 to NRL HQ makes V'landys claims dubious- although if the NRL doesn't reduce grants to its clubs in 2021 (from 2019 level), it can be argued the NRL financial position is not dire.
You normally address current news, can I ask what point you are making here?
Pretty sure:
1) VLandys is talking bollocks if the NRL is talking about making $70M in cuts to central expenditure
2) where are the gutting cuts going to be made
I don't think he did. The word was that the NRL was losing ~25% of it's TV monies over the next three years. Obviously that would be 25% of a smaller amount so it wouldn't be double in dollar terms
Thats why I asked the question, BBT is not one of the AFL cheerleader set.
As to the comparison of the renewed media rights, from John Stensholt (writing on the business of sport) in The Aus last week:
NoCookies | The Australian
'....
Meanwhile, the NRL was rightly lauded for restarting its action on May 28, sorting a deal recasting its Nine Entertainment agreement through to 2022 and extending with Fox Sports until 2027.
But the NRL is forgoing at least $150m revenue itself for the next three years, potentially even more. (It did not release any details of its deal — the first time a sport has not crowed about the value of its contract in recent memory.)
In percentage terms, it is probably about 20 per cent — maybe slightly less — of its previous TV income, so therefore more in relative terms to the AFL.
There is some devil in the details. The AFL could not clinch an extension with Fox Sports, and might hope for an unlikely scenario where a global streaming giant bids for its rights before 2022 — otherwise Foxtel remains its best option for another big payday.
Similarly, the NRL still needs to extend its free-to-air deal past 2022.
But V’landys’s achievement in getting Fox Sports to agree to another five years of rights is nothing to be sniffed at. It is probably worth about $1bn over that time. And the NRL still has digital rights and a free-to-air contract to clinch.
It gives rugby league the chance to turn McLachlan’s words back on him once again, but for now at least the AFL still continues to be the biggest money sport in town.'
BringBackTorps
Club Legend
- Jan 5, 2017
- 2,963
- 1,827
- AFL Club
- GWS
1. The AFL has been reported as saying "...after it (AFL- my words) reportedly told stakeholders (Clubs- my word) that the NRL sacrificed up to $300m (my emphasis) with its revised TV deal" ie cf. the former 2019 Nine & Foxtel annual payments to the NRL.
www.sen.com.au
The AFL has announced that its new deal from Seven will total $730m for 2020-2024; & Telstra will continue to pay $50m pa- no change.
The new NRL deal with Nine goes from 2020-2022 (& Nine, in its announcement to the Stock Exchange on 29.5, said it will save c. $120m, over the 3 years in the new deal, cf the old NRL deal. Some Nine savings are due to lower production costs).
The new NRL deals with Foxtel go from 2020-2022, & an extension 2023-27- total 8 years. If the AFL estimate of the NRL conceding c. $300m is correct, this implies the NRL is losing c.$160m in total over 8 years.
2. A lobby group of former Golden Generation Socceroos publicly stated 1.6 the FFA should produce its own streamed A League broadcasts- on "FFA TV". This view is based on Foxtel abandoning its deal with the A League.
To maximise streaming revenues, they suggest $25 would be automatically added (no option for GR player to "opt out" of streaming) to all registered players' registration costs- with the $25 forwarded to the FFA.
theworldgame.sbs.com.au
This correlates with my above post #:1179
Sports technology expert L. McCoy suggested the A League adopt its own streaming model, but needed to move to a winter comp.- because all registered soccer players would be slugged an extra $25 each, for "free" A League streaming.
AFL’s TV rights numbers are “completely false”: Peter V’landys
"I think they have had a dose of reality.”
The AFL has announced that its new deal from Seven will total $730m for 2020-2024; & Telstra will continue to pay $50m pa- no change.
The new NRL deal with Nine goes from 2020-2022 (& Nine, in its announcement to the Stock Exchange on 29.5, said it will save c. $120m, over the 3 years in the new deal, cf the old NRL deal. Some Nine savings are due to lower production costs).
The new NRL deals with Foxtel go from 2020-2022, & an extension 2023-27- total 8 years. If the AFL estimate of the NRL conceding c. $300m is correct, this implies the NRL is losing c.$160m in total over 8 years.
2. A lobby group of former Golden Generation Socceroos publicly stated 1.6 the FFA should produce its own streamed A League broadcasts- on "FFA TV". This view is based on Foxtel abandoning its deal with the A League.
To maximise streaming revenues, they suggest $25 would be automatically added (no option for GR player to "opt out" of streaming) to all registered players' registration costs- with the $25 forwarded to the FFA.
Socceroos greats push for Netflix-style 'FFA TV' streaming service
A host of golden generation Socceroos are proposing Football Federation Australia set up their own independent streaming platform for football content.
This correlates with my above post #:1179
Sports technology expert L. McCoy suggested the A League adopt its own streaming model, but needed to move to a winter comp.- because all registered soccer players would be slugged an extra $25 each, for "free" A League streaming.
Last edited:
1. The AFL has been reported as saying that the NRL has had to concede c. $300m in its new Rights' deals, cf. the 2019 Rights' annual payments.
AFL’s TV rights numbers are “completely false”: Peter V’landys
"I think they have had a dose of reality.”
The new NRL deal with Nine goes from 2020-2022 (& Nine, in its announcement to the Stock Exchange on 12.6, said it will save c. $120m in the new deal, cf the old NRL deal- but some Nine savings are due to lower production costs).
2. A lobby group of former Golden Generation Socceroos wants the FFA to produce its own streamed A League broadcasts- on FFA TV. This view is based on Foxtel abandoning its deal with the A League.
To maximise streaming revenues, they suggest $25 would be automatically added (no option for GR player to "opt out" of streaming) to all registered players' registration costs- with the $25 forwarded to the FFA.
Socceroos greats push for Netflix-style 'FFA TV' streaming service
A host of golden generation Socceroos are proposing Football Federation Australia set up their own independent streaming platform for football content.
[/QUOTE]
V'Landys all bluster no evidence yet again.
Also, I don't get why this gets framed like this:
How is it that the AFL "failed to get a renewal with Foxtel" rather than the other way around? The AFL is selling the product that foxtel wants!
Foxtel has been unable to reach agreement with the AFL for an extension for its broadcast rights due to the substitution of games in NSW, South Australia and Western Australia onto free-to-air TV broadcaster Seven West Media.
Jun 17, 2020 – 3.25pm
www.afr.com
Jun 17, 2020 – 3.25pm
Foxtel, AFL at loggerheads over broadcast rights extension
Seven's arrangement with the AFL makes it particularly hard for Foxtel to get more subscribers in WA and SA, where Australian rules is the dominant football code.
Foxtel has been unable to reach agreement with the AFL for an extension for its broadcast rights due to the substitution of games in NSW, South Australia and Western Australia onto free-to-air TV broadcaster Seven West Media.
Jun 17, 2020 – 3.25pm
Foxtel, AFL at loggerheads over broadcast rights extension
Seven's arrangement with the AFL makes it particularly hard for Foxtel to get more subscribers in WA and SA, where Australian rules is the dominant football code.
Looks like Foxtel is gone.
Wouldn't say that yet. Unable to get the AFL to bend over at the same angle as the NRL though
Foxtel has been unable to reach agreement with the AFL for an extension for its broadcast rights due to the substitution of games in NSW, South Australia and Western Australia onto free-to-air TV broadcaster Seven West Media.
Jun 17, 2020 – 3.25pm
Foxtel, AFL at loggerheads over broadcast rights extension
Seven's arrangement with the AFL makes it particularly hard for Foxtel to get more subscribers in WA and SA, where Australian rules is the dominant football code.
Note that another independent analyst puts the AFL ahead of the NRL.
All we have suggesting otherwise is bluster from VLandys at anyone who will listen!
- Thread starter
- #1,215
Foxtel need the AFL as much as they need RL.An agreement will be reached its only a matter of time.
Does anyone know the deal with Kayo do News Corp pay the AFL extra for streaming on that platform or is it part of the Foxtel deal?
Does anyone know the deal with Kayo do News Corp pay the AFL extra for streaming on that platform or is it part of the Foxtel deal?
Fox subscriptions in WA & SA are poor as I understand & the FTA arrangements are considered THE reason.
Should I add 'as well you know' ?
Telstra?
I suspect when Channel 7 told the ASX that they got the extension "on better terms" they may have been referring to getting the dozen games back in WA/SA that foxtel got in the last deal
If the channel 7 deal was going to average $147m over the 5 years AND channel 7 got up to $70M off over 20 to 22 than the AFL must be getting considerably more than $150M in the out years
Rather than sign a 5 year extension for the subscription rights in the middle of a pandemic, the AFL will be able to spend the next couple of years creating competitive tension. It has commercial relationships already of larger or smaller degrees with Telstra, Disney (through both Marvel and ESPN), Amazon, Google and Facebook. The subscription rights going forward will be far far less based on trying to increase cable roll out.
Foxtel got the NRL to rollover to a lessor deal including probably getting a commitment to hobble their digital investment in NRL.com.
Yup - actually more so.
Maybe. Ultimately they would both have their walk-away price. I am sure the AFL would prefer to have an extension at similar to the existing deal but otherwise could walk away.....which is what it has clearly done at this stage
It would be part of the Foxtel deal. The AFL's deal is actually with News Ltd. Presumably the original deal allowed for them to launch a streaming service.
- Moderator
- #1,220
Part of the Fox deal.
I notice V'Landys never seems to actually use numbers in his statements, he just uses the Donald Trump response of "WRONG! I have the best deal".
Bjo187
Premiership Player
- Apr 30, 2020
- 3,874
- 5,489
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I also like how he completely went off at the afl stating why don't they just worry about themselves, when nobody in the afl has mentioned anything about the nrl. Seems a bit of a moron.
Yeah it is all bluster.
It was based on what "stakeholders" had said what the AFL had told them. The AFL have made zero public claims relating to the NRL
VLandys on the other hand......
Well this keeps getting better
So this confirms the NRL has signed a long term subscription / streaming rights deal at a declining real annual fee level and that these rights do not allow telco rights to be sold. The AFL is apparently getting $50M a year for the telco rights.
I would suspect it also means that it owns Saturday's outright again for that whole period (given it has the last five saturday night matches back this year). The other scary thought is that it may also have got itself Thursday night exclusivity going forward as well given that channel 9 only getting two games was being spoken about during negotiations.
So Foxtel has locked in more for less. It probably means not much north of $300M is the ceiling for the NRL out to 2027.
So this confirms the NRL has signed a long term subscription / streaming rights deal at a declining real annual fee level and that these rights do not allow telco rights to be sold. The AFL is apparently getting $50M a year for the telco rights.
I would suspect it also means that it owns Saturday's outright again for that whole period (given it has the last five saturday night matches back this year). The other scary thought is that it may also have got itself Thursday night exclusivity going forward as well given that channel 9 only getting two games was being spoken about during negotiations.
So Foxtel has locked in more for less. It probably means not much north of $300M is the ceiling for the NRL out to 2027.
WA and SA get the two home teams' games plus two more on FTA.
I'm pretty sure that Qld and NSW get the same deal.
Foxtel therefore has very little to offer at a quite a high price.
Similar threads
- Poll
