Swamp:

jim_57:

Swamp:

Unfortunately Jim_57 I am based in the SW, about 250km from Perth & just having my third child a month ago, I don't think my wife would see that as a high priority at the moment. I did play & coach in the WARL in the early 90's so I have been watching the Reds progress closely. Over the years there have been some fantastic local talent coming out of Perth. Hopefully the Reds will continue to be competitive & draw good support.

Fair enough mate, will you be getting out to a few during the year?

Are you still involved with the WARL? any players to look out for over there in WA?

I would love to get to a game & relieve some of this built up tension of having to deal with ignorant AFL supporters & a biased father-in-law that follows the Force. But, I have no ties with the WARL any more. The competition is basically & two horse race at the moment with South Perth & North Beach. My old team Applecross doesn't even exist any more. It was a very strong comp prior to the Reds joining the ARL. After they were booted out the game died. But it is rebuilding. All the junior state teams are usually quite competitive.

Aarrgh, always happens, you have strong local comps, and then bring in a big team and kill them... saw it happen in QRL and CRL.... This is why I don't wnat a PNG NRL team... I genuinely fear for the SP cup and the PNG locals.

dogged:

To be honest i didn't read the detail of what you wrote - i just assumed it was nonsense..but haivng just checked briefly it is exactly what I thought - a non sequiter...even if everything you say is correct it simply doesn't explain why the current AFL deal is far in excess of the current NRL deal... the deal you're talking about, and the one that was litigated, is the deal prior to the current deal won by 7/10....you have explained nothing at all...not a thing

"..the disparity between the deals is derived from Kerry Packer's desire to hoard the AFL television broadcasting rights.  Packer poached the AFL television broadcast rights away from Kerry Stokes' Channel 7 because he knew it would kill off Stokes' C7 Sport Pay TV service.  The reason Packer wanted to kill off C7 Sport was because it was the main competitor to Foxtel's Fox Sports.  In case you don't know, Packer owned a share of Foxtel."

you simply state a proposition that the current higher AFL deal is due to Packers desire to ruin C7 then sprout off some other irerelevant info that for all we know is true...so what?!...what does the ruining of C7 in the period leading to the prior deal have anything to do with the bidding war for the current deal between channel 9 and seven and ten ...C7 was long gone and dead by then!!!...wasn't it?!....you may as well say the sky is blue, grass is green, fish swim in the ocean and therefore the current AFL deal was worth more....that's about how logical your point is... 

i think packer was trying to make channel seven hurt yes - but this is just plain old competition - they were both bidding for the jewel in the crown of australian sport....AFL....and this is why it is priced as it is...and will be again at the next deal for the same reasons

 i guess you're right ...this a RL forum after all and pricking the delusion of contributers by adding some reality based comments is a bit mean...sorry...Ianyway I've had my fun ...please carry on with your backslapping and inane discussions

why are you on here?

dogged:

To be honest i didn't read the detail of what you wrote - i just assumed it was nonsense..but haivng just checked briefly it is exactly what I thought - a non sequiter...even if everything you say is correct it simply doesn't explain why the current AFL deal is far in excess of the current NRL deal... the deal you're talking about, and the one that was litigated, is the deal prior to the current deal won by 7/10....you have explained nothing at all...not a thing

"..the disparity between the deals is derived from Kerry Packer's desire to hoard the AFL television broadcasting rights.  Packer poached the AFL television broadcast rights away from Kerry Stokes' Channel 7 because he knew it would kill off Stokes' C7 Sport Pay TV service.  The reason Packer wanted to kill off C7 Sport was because it was the main competitor to Foxtel's Fox Sports.  In case you don't know, Packer owned a share of Foxtel."

you simply state a proposition that the current higher AFL deal is due to Packers desire to ruin C7 then sprout off some other irerelevant info that for all we know is true...so what?!...what does the ruining of C7 in the period leading to the prior deal have anything to do with the bidding war for the current deal between channel 9 and seven and ten ...C7 was long gone and dead by then!!!...wasn't it?!....you may as well say the sky is blue, grass is green, fish swim in the ocean and therefore the current AFL deal was worth more....that's about how logical your point is...

In my opinion, the previous deal set a precedent for the current deal.  I base this on the fact that the previous deal deprived the Seven Network from airing blockbuster football matches on a weekly basis.  As a consequence, their attempt to become the countries highest rated television network was curtailed.  It forced Kerry Stokes into a position where he needed to spend lots of money to secure the television broadcast rights for a major football competition.

Stokes wanted to poach the television broadcast rights of the NRL away from Packer.  He was unable to do because he wasn't given the opportunity to place an official bid.  The reason he couldn't place an official bid was because the Channel Nine Network had the right to start negotiations on the new deal before the other networks were allowed to do so.  The Channel Nine Network started bidding for them in 2005.  I don't think the other networks were allowed to bid for them until 2007.

The NRL accepted the Channel Nine Network's offer because it allowed them to profit in the short and long-term future. If they had have waited until 2007 before they signed the deal, then they would received the profits from the previous deal until the new one was signed.  The previous deal was worth just $13 million per season.  The new deal was worth $40 million per season.  By accepting the deal in 2005, it allowed the NRL to gain an extra $44 million from 2005 to the end of 2006.

The Sydney Morning Herald covered the issue in 2005.  You can see their news story on it by clicking here

According to the ABC, David Gallop spoke about it, too.

"Our existing agreements expire at the end of 2006 and 2007 but in negotiating an early renewal we have ensured financial growth both in the short and long-term."

It helped the NRL promote the game in Victoria too.

After the NRL television broadcast rights deal was closed, the Seven Network set their sights on acquiring the television broadcast rights for the AFL.  They knew it was their last opportunity to acquire the broadast rights for a major football competition until 2012.  Five years without the television broadcast rights of a major domestic football competition would have inhibited their ability to draw higher ratings than its FTA Commercial Network competitors.  It's why Stokes ended up paying more than he could really afford. Packer knew that Stokes was placing himself in limbo by paying so much for the rights.  It's why he bid as high as he did before the Seven Network could enforce their last rights clause.

dogged:

i think packer was trying to make channel seven hurt yes - but this is just plain old competition - they were both bidding for the jewel in the crown of australian sport....AFL....and this is why it is priced as it is...and will be again at the next deal for the same reasons

What you're saying is very speculative.  In fact, I think there are a couple of factors that could prevent the situation from happening again.

1. The Channel Nine Network are in a rebuilding phase.  As a result, they may not be in a position to bid for the television broadcast rights of the AFL and the NRL.  We all know that the Channel Nine Network are more interested in the NRL than they are in the AFL.
2. The AFL's television broadcast rights expire before the NRL's television broadcast rights do.  The network(s} who do not win the television broadcast rights for the next AFL deal will be more likely to spend a fortune to secure the next NRL television broadcast rights.  This means the NRL will be in a more powerful position to bargain with the networks, as the market value of their product will be higher than what it was in 2005.
3. The current deal for the NRL sees them bring in $40 million per year from the Channel Nine Network.  This is a lot of money for the NRL.  Therefore, if the Channel Nine Network have a clause that allows them to secure the next rights before the other networks can bid for them, then the NRL will probably be less likely to accept it.

Swamp:

jim_57:

Swamp:

Unfortunately Jim_57 I am based in the SW, about 250km from Perth & just having my third child a month ago, I don't think my wife would see that as a high priority at the moment. I did play & coach in the WARL in the early 90's so I have been watching the Reds progress closely. Over the years there have been some fantastic local talent coming out of Perth. Hopefully the Reds will continue to be competitive & draw good support.

Fair enough mate, will you be getting out to a few during the year?

Are you still involved with the WARL? any players to look out for over there in WA?

I would love to get to a game & relieve some of this built up tension of having to deal with ignorant AFL supporters & a biased father-in-law that follows the Force. But, I have no ties with the WARL any more. The competition is basically & two horse race at the moment with South Perth & North Beach. My old team Applecross doesn't even exist any more. It was a very strong comp prior to the Reds joining the ARL. After they were booted out the game died. But it is rebuilding. All the junior state teams are usually quite competitive.

The WARL's premier competition has its own sponsor, Tooheys beer.  That's a good sign.

dogged:

To be honest i didn't read the detail of what you wrote -

You seem to do that alot.

England 3 Lions:

dogged:

To be honest i didn't read the detail of what you wrote - i just assumed it was nonsense..but haivng just checked briefly it is exactly what I thought - a non sequiter...even if everything you say is correct it simply doesn't explain why the current AFL deal is far in excess of the current NRL deal... the deal you're talking about, and the one that was litigated, is the deal prior to the current deal won by 7/10....you have explained nothing at all...not a thing

"..the disparity between the deals is derived from Kerry Packer's desire to hoard the AFL television broadcasting rights.  Packer poached the AFL television broadcast rights away from Kerry Stokes' Channel 7 because he knew it would kill off Stokes' C7 Sport Pay TV service.  The reason Packer wanted to kill off C7 Sport was because it was the main competitor to Foxtel's Fox Sports.  In case you don't know, Packer owned a share of Foxtel."

you simply state a proposition that the current higher AFL deal is due to Packers desire to ruin C7 then sprout off some other irerelevant info that for all we know is true...so what?!...what does the ruining of C7 in the period leading to the prior deal have anything to do with the bidding war for the current deal between channel 9 and seven and ten ...C7 was long gone and dead by then!!!...wasn't it?!....you may as well say the sky is blue, grass is green, fish swim in the ocean and therefore the current AFL deal was worth more....that's about how logical your point is...

In my opinion, the previous deal set a precedent for the current deal.  I base this on the fact that the previous deal deprived the Seven Network from airing blockbuster football matches on a weekly basis.  As a consequence, their attempt to become the countries highest rated television network was curtailed.  It forced Kerry Stokes into a position where he needed to spend lots of money to secure the television broadcast rights for a major football competition.

Stokes wanted to poach the television broadcast rights of the NRL away from Packer.  He was unable to do because he wasn't given the opportunity to place an official bid.  The reason he couldn't place an official bid was because the Channel Nine Network had the right to start negotiations on the new deal before the other networks were allowed to do so.  The Channel Nine Network started bidding for them in 2005.  I don't think the other networks were allowed to bid for them until 2007.

The NRL accepted the Channel Nine Network's offer because it allowed them to profit in the short and long-term future. If they had have waited until 2007 before they signed the deal, then they would received the profits from the previous deal until the new one was signed.  The previous deal was worth just $13 million per season.  The new deal was worth $40 million per season.  By accepting the deal in 2005, it allowed the NRL to gain an extra $44 million from 2005 to the end of 2006.

The Sydney Morning Herald covered the issue in 2005.  You can see their news story on it by clicking here

According to the ABC, David Gallop spoke about it, too.

"Our existing agreements expire at the end of 2006 and 2007 but in negotiating an early renewal we have ensured financial growth both in the short and long-term."

It helped the NRL promote the game in Victoria too.

After the NRL television broadcast rights deal was closed, the Seven Network set their sights on acquiring the television broadcast rights for the AFL.  They knew it was their last opportunity to acquire the broadast rights for a major football competition until 2012.  Five years without the television broadcast rights of a major domestic football competition would have inhibited their ability to draw higher ratings than its FTA Commercial Network competitors.  It's why Stokes ended up paying more than he could really afford. Packer knew that Stokes was placing himself in limbo by paying so much for the rights.  It's why he bid as high as he did before the Seven Network could enforce their last rights clause.

dogged:

i think packer was trying to make channel seven hurt yes - but this is just plain old competition - they were both bidding for the jewel in the crown of australian sport....AFL....and this is why it is priced as it is...and will be again at the next deal for the same reasons

What you're saying is very speculative.  In fact, I think there are a couple of factors that could prevent the situation from happening again.

1. The Channel Nine Network are in a rebuilding phase.  As a result, they may not be in a position to bid for the television broadcast rights of the AFL and the NRL.  We all know that the Channel Nine Network are more interested in the NRL than they are in the AFL.
2. The AFL's television broadcast rights expire before the NRL's television broadcast rights do.  The network(s) who do not win the television broadcast rights for the next AFL deal will be more likely to spend a fortune to secure the next NRL television broadcast rights.  This means the NRL will be in a more powerful position to bargain with the networks, as the market value of their product will be higher than what it was in 2005.
3. The current deal for the NRL sees them bring in $40 million per year from the Channel Nine Network.  This is a lot of money for the NRL.  Therefore, if the Channel Nine Network have a clause that allows them to secure the next rights before the other networks can bid for them, then the NRL will probably be less likely to accept it.

E3L... even I learn't new things in all that! I also assume you meant 40 million dollars in that last bit.

Druzik:

I also assume you meant 40 million dollars in that last bit.

Yes.

Swamp:

jim_57:

Swamp:

Unfortunately Jim_57 I am based in the SW, about 250km from Perth & just having my third child a month ago, I don't think my wife would see that as a high priority at the moment. I did play & coach in the WARL in the early 90's so I have been watching the Reds progress closely. Over the years there have been some fantastic local talent coming out of Perth. Hopefully the Reds will continue to be competitive & draw good support.

Fair enough mate, will you be getting out to a few during the year?

Are you still involved with the WARL? any players to look out for over there in WA?

I would love to get to a game & relieve some of this built up tension of having to deal with ignorant AFL supporters & a biased father-in-law that follows the Force. But, I have no ties with the WARL any more. The competition is basically & two horse race at the moment with South Perth & North Beach. My old team Applecross doesn't even exist any more. It was a very strong comp prior to the Reds joining the ARL. After they were booted out the game died. But it is rebuilding. All the junior state teams are usually quite competitive.

Yeh good to hear It's rebuilding, hopefully it may be able to get back to it's best even if the Reds get into the NRL.

 Nothing better than watching live Rugby League, I would love to get over to see a Red's game one day, maybe their first game back into the NRL.

Warwick Redbacks operations manager Colin Pope believe those who run Australian Rules should hang their heads in shame at the state of the game in country areas. Pope was shattered this week with the news Dalby had pulled out of the AFL Darling Downs competition.

It is the second time Dalby has fallen out of the competition in 6 years. Their demise comes hot on the heels of Kingaroy's exit, leaving Goondiwindi and Warwick as the two country clubs. Warwick, however, has also had a stint on the sidelines, forced out of the competition in 2000 before returning the following year; but were on the brink of folding again in the pre-season this year.

While Pope has no doubt Goondiwindi and Warwick will fight for the suvival of country football on the Downs, he said administrators must help.  The so-called 'grass roots assistance' that supposedly comes from AFL Queensland and AFL Headquarters(Melbourne) is vertually non-existant and the football powers to be should hang their heads in shame when they look at what the NRL does for their junior development, particually in country towns, Pope said.

"If they keep taking away and not giving back, the food chain will eventually come to a screaming halt." Locally, Pope said AFL Darling Downs city clubs needed to step up and come to the aid of their 'country cousins'. Pope said he has repeatedly warned administraors at AFLQ and AFL Darling Downs level that the league would capitulate without more support for country clubs."AFL T (toowoomba) just doesn't do it for me or anyone else that is genuinely concerned for our game," he said.

"the four city clubs are resticted to a 35-player cap."Each club only requires 22 to play each week, so it doesn't take Einstein to work out their are 52 players not getting game every week who will soon become muffed with the sport and eventually drift away, taking their families, possibly junior players and who knows how many spectators with them. If  you take the injury count into consideration, there are at least 40 players available to help what is left of country football.

While hopeful his comments would be listened to by administrators, Pope has doubt. I feel that this article will fall on deaf ears for a lot of inexplicable resons and spark people into action for all the wrong reasons,'Pope said. 

Written by Cameron Leslie of the Cronicle toowoomba.

Now for a feel good story on the back page, with a colour photograph , Friend hits his straps.

Toowoomba product Nathen Friend's year is shaping up to be the best of his life. He became a father in the off-season and is now enjoying the best form of his career for the Gold Coast Titans.

This game tomorrow night has been sold out for over a week and league does look after its grass roots areas, this is how we are taking the expansion into Melbourne, with grass roots and hard work to win support, not buy support.

dogged:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23545880-23215,00.html

 soccer to overtake RL in TV rights??,...and to move into SECOND spot behind AFL?...personally I don't think this will happen even though I think soccer will increase its deal it won't catch AFL or NRL...but you will note that AFL is identified as number one broadcasting deal which is very odd isn't it?...after all according to morons on this forum it is less popular than the great TV game that is RL....AFL less popular and less viewers yet getting more money...go figure!?

 

dog, you admit you dont read what people write, and arent a fan of RL.

seriously are you that much of a loser that you need to come on here.

you must be a real hit with the ladies eh mate?

dogged:

Druizk

mate send all your research, and 'england 3 lions'conpsiracy theory, along to the NRL headquarters and explain it all to David Gallop....after all surely your argument with is him not me....let him explain to you why RL gets paid far less for its game and why according to you he's sold the game short...

the next deal negotiated will again put NRL way behind - and probably further behind than it already is....I've linked you an article that says it will drop below soccer's deal but i doubt this will happen....soccer will probably make gains and AFL will probably pull further ahead due to getting a couple of extra teams and expanding its reach into western sydney and gold coast whereas the NRL will have done no expansion by then...Gallop himself says so in a previous link I've sent that confirms expansion is not on the agenda in the short term for the NRL so its will fall further behind the AFL deal you would think.. 

dog this is a website for people interested in the Rugby League World Cup.

why dont you go on a forum about the AFL World CUp???

dogged:

copa

AFL not expanding to other countries?!...come on now - use that thing you call a brain....why do we in Australia play RL? yes because we are a british colony and it is a british game...the british colonised australia and brought their custonms with them, including sport....this is why we play cricket and so on....and it is why the other british colonies play cricket and rugby and soccer etc...and soccer spread to many other countries through european colonisers....just look at cricket in pakistan & india - do you honestly think they'd be playing this game were it not for british occupation!?...and nor would we be playing RL were it not for Brityish occupation

football codes and sports from other non-colonisers have not generally spread or not spread very far....football codes in USA, Ireland....

look if you want to attribute the historical spreading of a sport to more than one coutnry as somehow something that says something about the inherent worth of a game that is your meaningless measure....by your logic you would say that English is a far superior language to say Korean because it has spread far further?!...the English colonised far and wide, the Koreans did not that is all - says nothing about how good Korean is as a language... 

aussie rules has a virbrant, exciting and expanding and truly NATIONAL competition and RL doesn't - not in Australia or in any country where it is played for that matter (except PNG!! - a former Australian territory come colony!! just to prove my point!!)...in australia RL is second to AFL and overseas it play second string (or third string) to RUnion or soccer...

so when people like you chime in with meaningless and ignorant cheap shots about AFL not expanding far internatiobnally it is a bit pathetic...and what's more RL doesn't have any international presecen to be proud of anyway!!!...so it's also a bit rich..

look at dog defending why AFL hasnt been able to expand to any other countries on a professional level.

can someone please explain to the poor guy that AFL came from RU, and RU is actually a british sport?

these dumb AFL fans dont even know the history of their little sport. 

dogged:

wow dally!!!...impressive research and statistics - well seems impressive (I can't be bothered verifying this for myself or cherry picking viewings form other weeks to show AFL is superior)...now why don't you be a good little boy and forward all your research along to the NRL and to David Gallop and have the argument with him - after all he's the one you really have an argument with not me...he's the one that sold the apparently more popular NRL TV broadcasts for less than the aFL receives - not just a bit less mind you but 30% less!!!!....the all conquering RL that is this great "TV game" and yet it gets far less for its broadcast?!...something doesn't add up does it?! - and to me it's quite obvious that that something is your research and your logic

Dally go and join the likes of Roy Master and Phil Gould that ramble on about conspiracies to explain why RL languishes so far behind...they just don't get it and you just don't get it....to his credit I must say that I think Gallop does in fact get it (as he should being in his position)......you will never hear Gallop claiming supremacy on TV viewing - never - the closest he'll ever go is a qualified claims of supremacy in NSW/QLD - he knows nationally and in total the NRL trails.....when asked why the broadcasting deal he secured for the NRL was so much less than the AFL's deal he conceded that the NRL is behind "in several key measures"...Gallop knows...he knows even if the morons on this forum do not.....

if you really want to be chronically disappointed go on fantasizing about RL expansion outside in places other than NSW/QLD/NZ...in these regions you might get an extra team eventually (and equally you might even lose some NSW teams in the long term) but in other states it's just not going to happen...in today's Telegraph Gallop says expansion is not even on the short term agenda for the NRL - and by this he means next 5 yrs or so because in the same breath he was referring to the AFL expansion....so by season 2012 what we will see is a 18 team AFL competition, with multiple teams in all states - and with half teams non-Victorian... and the NRL competition will be just as it now...and this is from the NRL boss in today's press!!..

also Dally did you say State of Origin had 10 million viewers?!...maybe I have made a mistake in recalling what you'd written - I hope so for your sake....if you really typed that, and really believe that, then you kind of lose all credibility ....

so dog youve got no arguments back.

dog who let you out?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He82NBjJqf8 

dogged:

only one AFL club uses pokies...collingwood...and that's only been for a few years now....there aren't even any pokies at all in WA and their two AFL teams are very profitable....put you money where you mouth is - so to speak - names the aFL teams supported by pokies..name them...it's a very short list beginning and ending with collingwood...

the reason the rabbits move was so notable is that virtually ALL RL teams scab off the pokies...and that is why South move was so controversial - many people in RL, including many at Souths, don't think you can run a RL teams without pokies funding it...are far as I know the only RL teams NOT dipping into pokie money and getting pokie dollar handouts are the Storm (News Ltd handouts instead), the Warriers (private backer handouts) and now Souths (Hollywood movie star backer gives handouts and hope to model a team on a no pokies policy)...all other RL teams as far as I know rely on annual multi-million dollar 'grants' from leagues clubs based purely on pokie revenue - and without pokies the NRL would not exist as you know it...it would implode

oikee i suggets you don't go down the path of criticising AFL team on the issue of pokies...how does that saying go?...I'm not relgious at all but this quote fits perfectly -

Matthew 7:4 "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? ...

 

Here is article in todays' press - real expansion not imaginary - http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/afl-ups-the-ante-in-western-sydney/2008/04/13/1208024992661.html

 

 

 

only AwFuL club has pokie machines eh dog?

and i can understand you quoting the bible, you need divine help coming onto a RLWC site talking down RLs expansion into other countries when your sport cant expand beyond australia. 

dallymessenger:

and i can understand you quoting the bible, you need divine help coming onto a RLWC site talking down RLs expansion into other countries when your sport cant expand beyond australia. 

dogged never responded to my comments about the state of Australian Rules Football in Papua New Guinea.  I know why he chose to not respond.  It's because of the country's preference for Rugby League..  The country adopted Rugby League as its favourite sport during the 1980's.  Rugby League is the country's national sport, too.

Says a lot about the so-called "superiority" of Australian Rules Football, doesn't it?