Not really as it's what most NRL fans believe but until we are in the five cities we will get a lower deal.

Foxtel obviously believe once people have foxtel they find it hard to cancel it.

That's a fair assumption. The wife worked there for a five years so we got the entire package for nothing. When she left we still kept it, so i could watch NRL and other sports as well as good channels like UKTV of course. But knocked off a few of the channels to save dosh.

I'd find it hard to jack it in even now.

Sourcehttps://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/free-for-all-monday-the-new-front-for-tv-deal-20110512-1eku2.htmlrl

Is this the fourth or fifth article on this...sounds like the NRL/ Clubs are a tad p - offed.
No surprise considering ...Foxtel boss Kim Williams favoured AFL when his organisation recently agreed to pay $650 million for five exclusive games a week. In comparison, the NRL currently receives $210m from Fox Sports for the same number of live exclusive games - yet league dominates the top 100 pay-TV programs every year'"

If NRL coverage moved mainly onto FTA do you think you'd be willing to drop the Fox sports package?

Poss not because of the misnomer "English" Premier League and other sports like Cricket etc. etc.

Also I like things like UKTV (wipes tear), History, Discovery and the others you learn shıt from.

I'd consider dropping Fox Sports channels if Friday night and Monday Night games were on FTA and also a Sat night game. I don't usually watch the Sun games much anyway. I don't watch enough other sport to warrant keeping it, except the NFL and some cricket and most of that is on in the summer anyway.

I haven't got foxtel mate, three games on fta and then I watch the others in pub or I actually attend some games!

Cheers lads...read quite a lot of posts from fans on different fora/ twitter saying that they'd be willing to end their pay TV subscriptions IF the majority of games moved onto FTA...kinda wondering if it was just forum talk or if an opinion is actually building...I noticed that Walters alluded to it in his article...

Interesting times, ay.

All we're missing is the Independent Commission....Oh, and a pesky non compete clause

There's no way Fox will lose all the games, I'm hoping that they move games so none are on the same time as each other.

A mate of mine posted on facebook that he'll get rid if fox loses the nrl, his wife soon put him right.

Most of this stuff is garbage as well...

The conflict is the issue; nothing else will prevent the NRL getting more than the AFL as their ratings indicate they should. The mumblings of Williams and Foxtel are as hollow as last time we heard them.

Trying to get a bite?, hopefully the $1 billion plus won't be ruined by the conflict issue, though I fear irrespective of the IC formation, trouble lies ahead because of the cozy Foxtel relationship with AFL.

Sheldon

If we got 5 games on FTA in Perth I'd drop my $110 Fox subscription like a hot potatoe!

re Masters article two issues you could argue 1. Capital city ratings seem more important than regional viewing, hence why they are primarily used in media releases 2. The TV deal will be signed off by IC so any conflict of interest will be irrelevant, hopefully!

I really hope 3 FTA channels get all games and Fox is left with nothing, it would mean a MASSIVE deal in 2018!

The facts are there for everyone to see.....but the author does have an axe to grind. That's if he is the Roy Masters who coached Wests and St George back in the day?
The Hyperbole that is being created by the RL Media is good news, but it isn't really built on much other than opinions being expressed alongside statistics to make the opinion look more like fact.

For exampleHe also argued AFL has higher numbers on six capital city ratings, conveniently ignoring rugby league's huge following in NSW and Queensland regional areas.[/i

Rugby Leagues HUGE follwing in NSW and QLD are both a benefit and a hinderance.....the AFL is in 5 capitals.....and even in Sydney where they are an expansion team, they average more than any of the NRL teams......this gives the impression that there is an audience there for the game. Brisbane's expansion AFL team isn't far off the Broncos figure either.......whist the NRL expansion team is on less than 20% of the local Melbourne AFL outfits.
I have no doubt that the NRL will get 800,000,000 +...maybe even close to the 1 Billion with internet rights etc....and not before time, but to take the word of an ex-coach turned sports journalist who is on record as being very anti-superleague as being gospel in a bit much.
It is an editorial piece...it isn't news.

All this conflict of interest stuff has been around since it started with a News company part owning another etc. etc.

However we have to be careful with Telstra. Fox Sports is part of Foxtel, which is a company that is 50% Telstra/50% News Ltd owned. Which means that I suspect the people who sponsor the "NRL TELSTRA Premiership" would be happy to see a company they part own, lose revenue by losing out on TV deals.

What do you think out there?

I have no idea how the deal will pan out, but I think the NRL is starting to push Foxtel publicly a lot more than it has in the past. However you cut it, the last deal the NRL did was way less than the AFL got and a lot of people in the game were far from happy about it. The NRL are trying to draw a line in the sand and make clear that they want something close to parity next time round, as otherwise the financial disparity between the codes (summed up by the enormous quantities of cash the AFL is currently spending on expansion) will start to pose a real danger.

When you look at AFL vs NRL, AFL clubs have far higher running costs (they have much bigger squads and more coaches at each team) but they also have the benefit of massive crowds on a regular basis - a big extra source of income. If you assume for a minute that they net off (which they clearly don't for the wealthiest AFL sides) then the only way the NRL can hope to match salaries and - more importantly - grass roots development is via TV income.