News 'I haven't done anything wrong': Phil Gould to challenge $20,000 NRL fine

[Moedogg]

 

[DinkumDog]

No grudges just a genuine concern...
News and Nine went to war forming two competitions then reached an agreement to unit and control the game through their own puppets in the NRL after taking away the decision making from the ARL the NSW and the QLD leagues,
Please enlighten me, who makes rule changes in order to make the game more spectacular for the TV audiences ?
The result of the many rule changes like the 6 agains our game has become nothing short of a hard game of touch football, what's worse every referee and video ref has his own rules book...
How could we move on when the game has become a shadow of it self...True passion for the game sadly is vanishing

Nine were not a major instigator in the SL war.
News needed content for the newly formed Foxtel and Packer had the ARL rights through Nine, expanding to another new kid on the block at the time, Optus Vision. They defended their turf as they would. When News couldn’t get said content they started throwing money around to poach players for a rival competition. It wasn’t good for anyone hence coming back together in 1998 to form the NRL and of course to get News to agree the ARL/NSWRL/QRL couldn’t be back in charge. News exited ownership of the game a decade ago - so where are the ‘puppets’ today?

Today, all rule changes are made by the NRL Innovation Committee, which make recommendations to the ARLC with wide consultation beforehand. If you’re suggesting that the media companies are responsible for the rule changes, you’re wrong. They’re consulted (and so they should be - they stump up billions) but they don’t make those calls. So by all means complain to and about the NRL, but it’s not ‘News’ as you’re claiming who are responsible. Stick to the facts.

 

[D- voice]

Nine were not a major instigator in the SL war.
Why would they be, since they had ownership of the pay TV rights for a lousy 3 millions dollars
News needed content for the newly formed Foxtel and Packer had the ARL rights through Nine, expanding to another new kid on the block at the time, Optus Vision. remember all pay tv outlets were new kids on the block
They defended their turf as they would. I ask why didn't the care takers of the game defend the game but instead opted to get bought out
When News couldn’t get said content they started throwing money around to poach players for a rival competition. don't forget they've already had a foot in both Canberra who were complaining about the Roosters approaching Clyde Daley and Stuart on massive deals and Brisbane who were complaining about the unfair treatment they received from the ARL and it's referees during the 1994 season
It wasn’t good for anyone hence coming back together in 1998 to form the NRL and of course to get News to agree the ARL/NSWRL/QRL couldn’t be back in charge. News exited ownership of the game a decade ago - so where are the ‘puppets’ today? camouflaged

Today, all rule changes are made by the NRL Innovation Committee, which make recommendations to the ARLC with wide consultation beforehand. thanks
If you’re suggesting that the media companies are responsible for the rule changes, you’re wrong. They’re consulted (and so they should be but shouldn't influence rules changes - they stump up billions to make billions) but they don’t make those calls. So by all means complain to and about the NRL, but it’s not ‘News’ as you’re claiming who are responsible. Stick to the facts. what are they consulted about then ?
Sadly there are more bad than good rules changes as a results of consulting clueless !!!

 

[TwinTurbo]

I don't like a number of the rule changes since 2019, but what I do like is the reason for them, which is to keep the ball in play for more minutes in the game. Teams, Melbourne in particular, were good at slowing the game down such that the ball was in play for just over half the 80 minutes, 52 mins in 2018 compared to 56 mins in 2023. In 2019 the average time between stoppages was 59 secs whilst in 2023 it was 64 secs. Interesting comparison to Union where the ball is in play for around 38 mins, or NFL where it is 11 minutes or Premier League 58 mins..

The ball in play metric was identified in a number of surveys as being important to fans and if we look at the rule changes by far the vast majority of them have been to keep the ball in play for longer in the game. Don't like all the rules, but can't complain about wanting the ball in play more.


Always a Bulldog

 

[Hound Dog]

More poking the bear and it won't just be Gus doing it if your suggestion was taken up lol

A lot of pundits writing articles now about how poor the last broadcast rights deal was and well below the deal AFL got. Do you have details on this claim TT?

Well total revenue is mostly from broadcast revenue and AFL generates almost $1 billion in revenue while the NRL is just below half that.

It shouldn't have got to that because they were pretty equal even post SL war. NRL has been steadily growing along while VFL/AFL grew to a point not long ago a person felt they weren't Aussie unless they followed AFL (no where near as much now) but it shows how effective AFL has been able to market themselves to a point they can attract bigger revenue.

We can blame things like the super league war, the Gallop era babying the growth of NRL, not using the international Rugby league to promote the NRL, not growing the importance of a 2nd tier (promotion relegation), etc, but for a product like Rugby league, the NRL, should've grown closer and probably has grown closer to AFL level and negotiated a deal far less than that, assuming a large portion of "total revenue" is tv money.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Well total revenue is mostly from broadcast revenue and AFL generates almost $1 billion in revenue while the NRL is just below half that.

That's not actually the case. The NRL declares it's media rights value as what the broadcast rights sell for in "cash" terms. In comparison the AFL includes in its media rights the revenue it gets from Telstra for Marvel Stadium plus the contra value of the advertising of AFL that the media companies provide for no charge. The NRL declares those values separately from the broadcast rights, if they included them the difference would be much smaller.

Plus the AFL deal is locked in for 7 years, till 2030, no increase possible. Whilst the NRL deal is only for 5 years, after which they can seek an increase. With the Dolphins addition and Vegas proven successes plus the potential for 1/2/3 more teams the media rights value may well turn around in the NRL's favour. Even more so, in 2023 the NRL actually out rated the AFL in viewer terms which will add more $'s to the media rights deal for 2028 onwards.


Always a Bulldog

 

[Hound Dog]

That's not actually the case. The NRL declares it's media rights value as what the broadcast rights sell for in "cash" terms. In comparison the AFL includes in its media rights the revenue it gets from Telstra for Marvel Stadium plus the contra value of the advertising of AFL that the media companies provide for no charge. The NRL declares those values separately from the broadcast rights, if they included them the difference would be much smaller.

Plus the AFL deal is locked in for 7 years, till 2030, no increase possible. Whilst the NRL deal is only for 5 years, after which they can seek an increase. With the Dolphins addition and Vegas proven successes plus the potential for 1/2/3 more teams the media rights value may well turn around in the NRL's favour. Even more so, in 2023 the NRL actually out rated the AFL in viewer terms which will add more $'s to the media rights deal for 2028 onwards.


Always a Bulldog

Yeah, with that greyness , I'd take it like a pinch of salt and end up referring to viewership which paints a closer picture between the two because along the lines of what you said it doesn't seem right that NRL is "undervalued" by that large difference. Stats can be shown to tell whatever story, depends who's using it but the variety of viewership results for NRL shows it's solid competition to AFL.

Locally and internationally, NRL has massive potential, plus the product itself is good and easy to watch, gladiatorial, individual skill and teamwork , aerobic, professional but generally not too pedantic like soccer or union, can be easy to play since there's also touch and tag (which needs more connection somehow to NRL or local sports clubs, but that's another topic), online content keeps improving, women in league, etc.

You mentioned before about AFL attendances and culture, it's more speculation but I see it too on work trips to Melbourne, most people from all backgrounds and lifestyles, a large amount of females too, really get into AND attend matches, the whole pre game shebang roaming around the streets.

 

[gbrussell]

Yeah, with that greyness , I'd take it like a pinch of salt and end up referring to viewership which paints a closer picture between the two because along the lines of what you said it doesn't seem right that NRL is "undervalued" by that large difference. Stats can be shown to tell whatever story, depends who's using it but the variety of viewership results for NRL shows it's solid competition to AFL.

Locally and internationally, NRL has massive potential, plus the product itself is good and easy to watch, gladiatorial, individual skill and teamwork , aerobic, professional but generally not too pedantic like soccer or union, can be easy to play since there's also touch and tag (which needs more connection somehow to NRL or local sports clubs, but that's another topic), online content keeps improving, women in league, etc.

You mentioned before about AFL attendances and culture, it's more speculation but I see it too on work trips to Melbourne, most people from all backgrounds and lifestyles, a large amount of females too, really get into AND attend matches, the whole pre game shebang roaming around the streets.

I have been to a number of AFL matches with my wife who loves the game. What I found is that the game is better to watch when at the ground. What you can’t see on TV is the amount of territory players cover when forward of the ball to lead into a space where the ball carrier at the time can deliver it to them. On TV you can’t see that .

Rugby League you tend to see more on TV, although at times you have to put up with commentators who at times can be annoying.

Thus I think that is one of the reasons why AFL attendances are much higher. The other being that in Melbourne grounds like the MCG and Marvel, are close to good public transport, as is the Adelaide Oval.

 

[EXPLORER]

Let’s get this straight … Gus has 2 job’s, one is GM of the Canterbury Bankstown Bulldogs, the other he is a commentator of rugby league for channel 9 .. I don’t even think he’s employed by the Nrl ..

At the time, he was on his regular TV program doing his job commenting on all things rugby league, he did not use his position at channel 9 to push any Bulldogs driven agenda .. he was asked about the Api no try and he voiced his opinion, he said it was stupid that it wasn’t allowed (which 99% of people would agree is correct) .. he went on to say it comes off the back of rule changes which are stupid and that our game is stupid because there’s rule changes that just don’t make any sense… ( again 90% of people agree with him) this is nothing new, fans and commentators have been ranting on about it for years, and the adjudication in games on the weekend was the perfect example of why ..

If you watch most rugby league TV programs there‘s plenty of commentators saying that call was stupid, that was dumb, calling out things that are wrong with the game .. it happens while they’re commenting the game live and on most Radio shows ..

‘’there’s no laws about having multiple jobs, and Gould is paid to give his opinion, and he expressed it … end of story, except for those with an agenda .. it was one of the first things out of Brothfield’s mouth last week when he got on 360 .. I’m sure he’s writing emails to anyone who’ll listen ..

in my opinion Gus has nothing to answer for ..

Yeah, that's exactly right.
And it's why he is fighting it and should win.

 

[B-Train]

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.

The NRL should be producing and broadcasting the games themselves, having their own streaming service like other big leagues do and then sell the service to Fox/Kayo/9 and make way more money than they do now. Sure it would cost a lot to set up, but would make them so much more money and not have the networks dictate scheduling etc..

But that would make too much sense for the NRL.. They like to be run like a corner store sometimes.

 

[John Matrix]

The NRL should be producing and broadcasting the games themselves, having their own streaming service like other big leagues do and then sell the service to Fox/Kayo/9 and make way more money than they do now. Sure it would cost a lot to set up, but would make them so much more money and not have the networks dictate scheduling etc..

But that would make too much sense for the NRL.. They like to be run like a corner store sometimes.

Agree 100%, would take a initial investment but would pay off and profits would be good going forward.

Saying that they would likely produce a rubbish unstable product if they don't get the right people in to do it.

 

[DinkumDog]

The NRL should be producing and broadcasting the games themselves, having their own streaming service like other big leagues do and then sell the service to Fox/Kayo/9 and make way more money than they do now. Sure it would cost a lot to set up, but would make them so much more money and not have the networks dictate scheduling etc..

But that would make too much sense for the NRL.. They like to be run like a corner store sometimes.

But that flopped for the NFL and NHL, so why would the NRL copy that model? They run a sporting league, they’re not media companies. Stick to the knitting.

 

[DinkumDog]

Saying that they would likely produce a rubbish unstable product if they don't get the right people in to do it.

Boom. The NRL have zero expertise in camera, sound, editing, codecs, streaming, storage, bandwidth, ad sales and the list goes on. Their current digital products hardly set the world on fire and that’s with Telstra as a partner who actually produce all NRL and club apps and websites today - it’s part of the naming rights deal.

Why would they invest in all that with not only no guarantee they could recoup that investment in the near term but risk losing current partners and audiences outside metro markets? It’s exactly what Netflix did - bit the hand that fed them and started the streaming wars which no-one is winning.

But mainly it would just be a distraction from the NRL’s core business. Doesn’t make much sense to me.

 

[B-Train]

But that flopped for the NFL and NHL, so why would the NRL copy that model? They run a sporting league, they’re not media companies. Stick to the knitting.

The NFL make a fortune off of NFL Gamepass and NFL Films and just sold their rights for $11 billion which is a 75% increase on the previous deal. The NBA and MLB also make a tonne off their own league passes etc..

The NRL make more each deal, but nowhere near the growth that the game deserves or fair compensation relative to the value of the product they supply. Without the NRL, 9 and Fox would be fucked.

Also, the NRL should be on multiple free to air networks and sell Origin separately. Origin alone is worth way more than they get for it but they never truly test the market and always sell it to 9 for less than it's worth..

 

[DinkumDog]

The NFL make a fortune off of NFL Gamepass and NFL Films and just sold their rights for $11 billion which is a 75% increase on the previous deal. The NBA and MLB also make a tonne off their own league passes etc..

The NRL make more each deal, but nowhere near the growth that the game deserves or fair compensation relative to the value of the product they supply. Without the NRL, 9 and Fox would be fucked.

Also, the NRL should be on multiple free to air networks and sell Origin separately. Origin alone is worth way more than they get for it but they never truly test the market and always sell it to 9 for less than it's worth..

I may not have explained it well enough and the reason I know some of this is I have a mate in the US who was involved in this stuff closely (he owned a cloud media business he later sold and had the NFL as a customer).

Gamepass (NFL) and LeaguePass (NBA) whilst successful purely for streaming were seen as a front door to much bigger revenue opportunities that didn't really play out. It's a bit like Netflix where sure, as an early mover they gained subscribers and many of those subscribers were retained (so they still get the money) - but not only has the spend per customer not grown, it's actually gone backwards because as the fragmentation of services grew, revenue drops because consumers are subscribing to so many services. So let's say you once had Netflix 4 screens and spend $20/month for that, many subscribers cut back to pay for other services and the average spend became $10/month. And they've created competitors now as well.

The US is a huge market - 300m people, teams in most major cities and not a lot of competition when in season (by code eg: NFL is the only football on when in season). In Australia where we have NRL, AFL, A-League (somewhat) and Rugby all in season at the same time it's fragmented. Of course NRL/AFL dwarf the other two, but it's still tribal. Australia being a small market is one of the reasons the NRL can't catapult its earnings at the moment. For all the criticisms of V'Landys that's exactly what he's trying to do - hence Las Vegas (which will take years to bear fruit, if it does). Super League tried to sell a similar message (remember those laughable anecdotes of 'Kids in China and the US will know who Andrew Ettingshausen is' - but of course their real play was purely content for Foxtel. There's NFL fans in markets outside the US but very few NRL fans (except maybe Aussies living overseas).

And that's why the digital play is key, but so are the learnings from the early movers.

NFL retained their broadcast deal and will continue to. Broadband internet in many rural parts of the US is actually quite poor, hence linear TV still rules. That's the same reason Farcebook didn't get the IPL rights despite throwing big dollars at it. As for being on separate networks - again I think there's stark differences between Australia and the US. There - you've got cashed up networks all vying for a piece of the action. Here, Channel 10 doesn't have that sort of money so leave them out - it's down to and 9 and 7 and 7 is tied up with the AFL - creating issues with costs and scheduling. There's not enough competition to really push the price up for the NRL - but that might change if internet media companies want to have a serious crack. I think PVL gets it - he's just arrogant the way he goes about things but at the end of the day the numbers will tell the story and be his legacy.

 

[DinkumDog]

Nine were not a major instigator in the SL war.
Why would they be, since they had ownership of the pay TV rights for a lousy 3 millions dollars
News needed content for the newly formed Foxtel and Packer had the ARL rights through Nine, expanding to another new kid on the block at the time, Optus Vision. remember all pay tv outlets were new kids on the block
They defended their turf as they would. I ask why didn't the care takers of the game defend the game but instead opted to get bought out
When News couldn’t get said content they started throwing money around to poach players for a rival competition. don't forget they've already had a foot in both Canberra who were complaining about the Roosters approaching Clyde Daley and Stuart on massive deals and Brisbane who were complaining about the unfair treatment they received from the ARL and it's referees during the 1994 season
It wasn’t good for anyone hence coming back together in 1998 to form the NRL and of course to get News to agree the ARL/NSWRL/QRL couldn’t be back in charge. News exited ownership of the game a decade ago - so where are the ‘puppets’ today? camouflaged

Today, all rule changes are made by the NRL Innovation Committee, which make recommendations to the ARLC with wide consultation beforehand. thanks
If you’re suggesting that the media companies are responsible for the rule changes, you’re wrong. They’re consulted (and so they should be but shouldn't influence rules changes - they stump up billions to make billions) but they don’t make those calls. So by all means complain to and about the NRL, but it’s not ‘News’ as you’re claiming who are responsible. Stick to the facts. what are they consulted about then ?
Sadly there are more bad than good rules changes as a results of consulting clueless !!!

1) re: $3m - and? That was the price back then. You're saying the ARL should've sold it for more? That's their fault then. Packer was a great negotiator with an excellent poker face. He likely paid as much as he was willing to and had little competition at the time.

2) Yes, both new kids on the block - and exactly why the war started. Both needed content. Murdoch tried to do a deal with Packer to get split rights for the ARL and Packer naturally said no. Hence Murdoch raided.

3) How could've the caretakers opted to 'get bought out'? They were ambushed and they were unprepared for said ambush - and when both parties finally accepted that neither of them could win in their own right, they smoked the peace pipe with major concessions on both sides.

4) Just listen to John Quayle today: 'We had no money'. It's the natural course of business, survival of the fittest. So that speaks to the encroachment you speak of re: the Raiders as well as 'defending the game' - they were ill prepared.

5) Ha ha, camouflaged - but you're saying they still exist. Who are they? That's the same as those who say some mysterious group 'runs the world' and can never name names. You'll need to do better than that.

6) Yes, media companies aim to make money - as do all businesses and even more so publicly listed businesses like Nine Entertainment Co. Otherwise why are they in business? They're not charities.

7) They are consulted about schedules and a desire to keep the game moving, which in turn allows Nine to better plan their advertising strategy among other items. Who says the media companies 'influence rule changes' - where's the evidence? There's none. They're partners, of course they're going to talk to each other. If I'd put up hundreds of millions to a 'partner' and they were ignoring me I'd be pretty peeved - likewise it would be foolish ignore who writes the cheques - otherwise they might stop writing them.

Honestly, I think you've just got an anti-Murdoch bias across the board which colours yours views. You don't have to like what they say, but it's just an opinion, no need to get so lathered up about it. They don’t control the game. They had a crack at it and realised that wasn’t their business and got out - and rightly so.

 

[TwinTurbo]

5) Ha ha, camouflaged - but you're saying they still exist. Who are they? That's the same as those who say some mysterious group 'runs the world' and can never name names. You'll need to do better than that.

Pick me, I know


There is this committee of heavyweights in a star chamber, Elvis, the Kennedy Bros, Princes Diana and Michael Jackson, Kurt Cobain or Jim Morrison sits in when Jackson isn't available. They meet in a secret bunker locate underneath the Hadron Collider in Switzerland. Being located 600 metres under a mountain range and located directly below the collider it is impervious to radar, sonar, listening devises, cameras, drones etc so anything they discuss and decide can never be seen or overheard.


Always a Bulldog

 

[DinkumDog]

Pick me, I know
View attachment 108781

There is this committee of heavyweights in a star chamber, Elvis, the Kennedy Bros, Princes Diana and Michael Jackson, Kurt Cobain or Jim Morrison sits in when Jackson isn't available. They meet in a secret bunker locate underneath the Hadron Collider in Switzerland. Being located 600 metres under a mountain range and located directly below the collider it is impervious to radar, sonar, listening devises, cameras, drones etc so anything they discuss and decide can never be seen or overheard.

What would we do without you Turbo?
Hopefully Elvis brings the hot dogs from 7-Eleven and it’d be great to hear the Kurt/Mike/Jim ‘supergroup’ belt out Smells Like Billie Jean At The End Of The Night during the break. Who’d be on lead vocals? .

 

[TwinTurbo]

What would we do without you Turbo?
Hopefully Elvis brings the hot dogs from 7-Eleven and it’d be great to hear the Kurt/Mike/Jim ‘supergroup’ belt out Smells Like Billie Jean At The End Of The Night during the break. Who’d be on lead vocals? .

Roy Orbison, I doesn't matter who else is singing the Big O is the lead vocalist eg; any Travelling Wilburys' song.


Always a Bulldog

 

[DinkumDog]

The Big O

Of course he’s there, he’s in charge of transport :