PhilClinton
Geoff Shaw (53)
I mean seriously we didn’t actually expect the offer to be MORE than it is currently did we?
This is hardly a surprise.
This is hardly a surprise.
Broadcast options for Australian Rugby
- Thread starter WorkingClassRugger
- Start date
SouthernX
Jim Lenehan (48)
Every other sporting code talks about “next tv deal”
they usually go up. NRL, AFL even ALeague all focused on expansion… our game talking about retraction and have no vision for 3rd tier development competition.
Rugby Australia has earned this lowball offer
SouthernX
Jim Lenehan (48)
I would take it.
I imagine any offer with Fox allows us to negotiate a free to air deal for test rugby? What’s the free to air deal component usually rake in for RA.
Adam84
Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Fuck all.
Ten paid $2million a year last negotiations in 2016
Strewthcobber
Andrew Slack (58)
How it used to work before 2016, was Foxtel onsold the rights to FTA to make sure requirements of anti-siphoning legislation was met.
So ARU didn't make anything directly)of course you get added value from sponsors etc)
Adam84
Nick Farr-Jones (63)
I wouldn’t believe News Corp articles just yet.
Only 12 months ago Nine/Stan took up a 2 year offer to extend Rugby broadcast rights at $33million/annum. If they valued it less they wouldn’t haven’t taken up the rights.
It’s crazy to remember that the last deal between 2016-2020 was worth $57million a year.
Only 12 months ago Nine/Stan took up a 2 year offer to extend Rugby broadcast rights at $33million/annum. If they valued it less they wouldn’t haven’t taken up the rights.
It’s crazy to remember that the last deal between 2016-2020 was worth $57million a year.
Jimmy_Crouch
Ken Catchpole (46)
I am hanging for the next Jessica O'Halloran hit piece.
PhilClinton
Geoff Shaw (53)
It’s a bit of a catch-22 with our game isn’t it.
We all talk about how SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) is no longer fit for purpose and people don’t tune in for Nz games and I think that is pretty true for the most part.
But if we decide to cut them out and halve the games on TV, the next broadcast deal is going to be worth even less.
Sword of Justice
Bill McLean (32)
I can't read the article but I'm guessing that offer would not include Lions?
KevinO
Geoff Shaw (53)
I'm guessing that's everything, I heard at the beginning of the season they didn't want to negotiate with only 4 Aus teams, so if RA went to the table and asked them to come back with a number it was always going to have a significant drop.
Strewthcobber
Andrew Slack (58)
There's very little detail in the article (how confident can we even be in a Newscorp source?, so we don't know
liquor box
Peter Sullivan (51)
I think the loss in income will lower wages and we will lose some high paid stars for super rugby, but there are also exciting players that are not on massive wages that I would still watch.
I am a Reds fan and I can handle losing some big names to have young players coming through. Tom Lynagh, McLaughlin-Phillips, Nonnggor and Thomas are all examples of players who have been given a chance after a big name is out or left. They may only be here for a few more years due to money, but they will be replaced and I will support whoever takes their place.
dru
Tim Horan (67)
Completely. Their are a couple of requirements in any transition/change. Basically, it needs to be applied roughly equally across the teams - still need a level playing field. Content needs to be maintained.
For ages we have been led by a theory that the "top down" policy is because the Wallabies earn the bulk of the money and spends it. As a minimum, that is proven to be an inadequate simplification.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
Wasn't there talk of the Super Rugby Commission being responsible for future TV deals for the whole of the Super Rugby competition and that the revenue would be split evenly? If that were the case, I'd expect that any deal between RA and a provider would only be for local coverage and the specials like Lions tour (I think WR (World Rugby) handles world cups).
JRugby2
Allen Oxlade (6)
Most tests are protected by anti-siphoning
Strewthcobber
Andrew Slack (58)
It's not as many as you'd think. Bleds are protected, but almost all other away games are not
Is there a professional sport anywhere in the world where wages aren't incredibly weighted towards the superstar players?
I don't think there's any feasible model where you just cut out the highest paid contracts and everyone in the middle and lower end gets a bit more. Dropping the overall player expenditure will certainly lead to more of the star Wallabies playing overseas but the best remaining players in the country will then be in a position to have a larger impact on their respective team and demand more money.
Any reduction ends up costing us players at each level but particularly those who are just outside being consistent Wallaby starters.