The usual NFI posts blaming Murdoch..
Nine is by far the biggest media partner of the NRL but somehow News will be able to ‘demand and get change’ at Rugby League Central. The only egg on face is from unformed TK members. Hilarious
They’re not a public company though, they’re under no obligation to do that, so I wouldn’t hold my breath on that. I’d argue that although coming off a low base, digital becomes the ‘fastest growing’ revenue stream as linear TV starts to fade in the coming years. Many opportunities there, just scratching the surface. The next media deal will be very interesting, it wouldn’t surprise me if we see bids from internet media companies driving subscriptions. That said, Fox and Nine will defend aggressively and the NRL knows this.
How would you say Andrew Abdo is a ‘puppet’ of the media barons? He’s South African and only moved to Australia in 2012. His background is accounting, more specifically Deloitte and he’s an MBA - pretty smart to be someone’s ‘puppet’. I just don’t know how those dots are joined - please help me do that
.
This is an interesting subject, the NRL is "owned" by the ARL Commission which is a Not for Profit organisation (ie; pays no company income tax). The ARLC actually selects/elects independent Commissioners (ie; Commissioners are appointed by the Commission itself) who are not allowed to be aligned with any rugby league football governing body or organisation. One third of the Commissioners stands down each year and have to apply for re-election.
More poking the bear and it won't just be Gus doing it if your suggestion was taken up lol
If that was technically an entitlement as a member of an NRL Football Club why aren’t we provided that data today as ‘shareholders’? As you know we only get the Bulldogs annual report. Further - why would Bulldogs Football Club Members want to ‘demand’ this information from the NRL when their own organisation is heavily subsidised by gambling revenue into Canterbury Leagues Club? Slightly hypocritical, no?
.
It could be viewed like that, but it is justified on the grounds that gambling interests, particularly in sport, are always subject to stringent auditing to ensure that there is no undue influence being exerted. Like Crown has to prove that it worthy of holding a casino gaming licence, the ARLC should have to prove to its owners that gambling revenue isn't unduly affecting it's decisions.
That's a tough one, the AFL agreement is 7 years, the NRL agreement is 5 years. So the AFL is locked in with no possibility of an increase for the extra 2 years, whereas the NRL can. The "headline" AFL agreement is substantially more per year but it includes contra deals (free advertising of AFL by the media) plus the Telstra Stadium naming rights. Whereas the NRL agreement is all "cash", no contras and no stadium naming rights. The AFL had 3 x FTA networks bidding for rights which really pumped up the price, and since he AFL deal was announced after the record NRL deal the AFL really had to inflate theirs with anything/everything they could include.
Thanks for comprehensively clarifying.
The ARLC Annual Report is published so we do get a level of information, we would simply be asking for more detail into what is a substantial amount. I wouldn't call it a "demand" more a "request", which is easy to justify on the grounds of the history of gambling unduly influencing sporting results. Not at all an unreasonable oversight by a shareholder.If that was technically an entitlement as a member of an NRL Football Club why aren’t we provided that data today as ‘shareholders’? As you know we only get the Bulldogs annual report. Further - why would Bulldogs Football Club Members want to ‘demand’ this information from the NRL when their own organisation is heavily subsidised by gambling revenue into Canterbury Leagues Club? Slightly hypocritical, no?
But yes, for those on their crusade proving ‘corruption’ I guess it could be asked at the AGM or by writing to the Directors - who may not be able to answer as they’re going to jail over the Jackson Topine matter
I don’t see the correlation. Crown was specifically brought to task because the Directors were caught not in due diligence of their duties - same as The Star. Not that they had done anything illegal, but more a ‘please explain’ given money laundering etc was known to take place on premise. How that translates to the Directors of the ARLC and their duties I don’t understand.
My understanding is that if, say, 3 bidders turn up with substantial submissions that fully support their admission then there is no reason why they all wouldn't be admitted at once. If, say, Perth Bears, Brisbane Jets and Christchurch Bulls front up with fully funded, sponsored, pathways established, stadium ready submission then they could be admitted at the same time. If the Commonwealth Government pushes and supplies the funding then PNG is also a possibility.
I know you’re not a tin foiler nor a rage poster Turbo.
.
Although gambling or 'wagering fees' are not the greatest part of NRL income (I thought it was about $50m pa?), the NRL needs to protect its brand. It also needs to protect the business against any future declines in revenue by looking at new revenue sources.
Are there the players though?
Can never have enough accountability with all these betting agencies, Crown, Star etc.
I think you are taking it a step too far, it's just a simple request for information regarding the amount that the NRL receives from gambling. The game can't be "Reclaimed" if we don't know how much it will cost to reclaim it. A simple example if, say, we know for certain that the gambling rights are worth $30m then the NSW Government could replace that in the Reclaim the Game campaign. Or maybe there is another sponsor that could replace gambling. If we don't know how much to ask for then we can't go marketing the rights.
I personally believe that AFL is a terrible game to watch on TV there is so much important action that happens off the ball that is missed in the broadcast. In comparison NRL is a far superior viewing experience because the majority (not all of course) of the action is captured. Maybe that's a reason why their ground attendance is higher but their viewer numbers are lower.
That’s what was predicted in the US and the opposite has happened. NFL, NBA and NHL (not sure about MLB) launched OoH products and streaming and gained dismal numbers so have retained the networks. The so called ‘cord cutters’ are now resenting the ‘unbundling’ with too many subscriptions. Don’t underestimate the legacy broadcasters. Just because linear TV will die doesn’t mean their businesses will. It’s exactly why Nine was a founding shareholder in Stan and diversified their business with others like Domain.
The NRL gets a % of all all bets placed on NRL games regardless of the betting agency.
Don't the RL viewership records trump the AFL quite substantially and AFL is really the only sport where huge crowds are still a thing due to fiercer tribalism, strong traditions and loyalty and nothing else to do in Melbourne lol. Seriously tho those crowds are enviable.
So it's a collective agreement or each betting agency has a separate contract with NRL?