Cooper? Well he's got two years to learn how to defend.

Hey Catalancs.


lol, just passing on a rumour ...Even if the NRL reaches the amount in the article Im not sure any club could afford both Williams and Cooper...imagine what gf could do with the marketing tho.

Just Marc Herbert? There's nearly a hundred overseas players the sl.

If the cap goes up to $7m, that will mean the end of mass imports to SL (of any quality at all). Thank goodness.

If there is a huge increase in the TV contract i hope that clubs spend a lot more on junior development as well. Country Rugby League could do with a huge increase in funding as well. the game in the bush is on its knees at the moment.

More likely to be a club grant and salary cap of $6mill per team imo.

I reckon it will be close to $800,000,000 for 5 years.

Cooper can't defend....SBW back in the NRL? We'll see, but I reckon the Frogs will have more cash...it may come down to if an NRL team would let him "box" I'd fly to Sydney for his first game AGAINST the Dogs
I am with Huddersfield....development and support in Country RL is vital....and after the Reds are in, get a team in Adelaide by the time the next deal comes around......then the NRL might get a deal to match the fumbleballers. IMO that is.

We'll never get more than the fumblers the way it is.

The only way we ever will is if we get another Pay TV operator out here to make Fox pay what the game is worth or risk losing the sport.

Anything over what the AFL got last (780 million) time will set the game up for the fight that's here now, the code has been defending itself with 1 arm tied behind its back for 15 years.

NRL clubs don't need as much money as that other code, so that 780 or whatever it will be will actually go a lot further than their 780 did.

but you also have to take into account that the AFL earns a shed load more $'s outside of its media deal than the NRL does and the clubs also have much greater incomes on the whole.

We need $8-900mill and an expansion plan that takes the game national and into a 2nd NZ city or we will be chasing the AFL forever more.

Does the AFL get more purely because it's shown in the five cities as opposed to the NRL in two?

That's the only logical explanation I can come to as to why a sport that is watched on telly by so many more, gets paid less. Is it the reach?

The article by Roy Masters today clearly sets out the conflicts by News and fully explains why the NRL will get shafted despite being the number one TV product in Australia...

Aren't fox desperate for subscribers in Vic, sa and wa?

It is.

TV ratings put RL miles ahead. Only Kim Williams knows why Fox paid more based on some fantasy which has failed previously ie. better sales in Vic, SA and WA...