Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Yorkshire Knight

Next NRL TV deal could be reduced due to de Belin case

Recommended Posts

Well, they are going to say that it'll cost millions to justify standing him down aren't they.

I'd stand accused down until they have been tried in a court of law. Pay them their wages as they have not been convicted, no problem with the NRL doing that. If found guilty I'd implement sine die bans, with a truely independent rehabilitation panel to judge if someone is ever fit to return or not - a parole board if you like.

Overall, the NRL are doing the right thing in the De Belin case and seem to be finally getting serious about setting some examples.

There is similar bad behaviour from players in all major sports all around the world, I dont think Australian RL is unique here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused with Yorkshire Knights stance on this. This is because on numerous Folou threads he has been saying all publicity is good publicity and how it's not a negative for RU in Australia. Yet for Rugby League its the opposite. Strange.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Damien said:

I am confused with Yorkshire Knights stance on this. This is because on numerous Folou threads he has been saying all publicity is good publicity and how it's not a negative for RU in Australia. Yet for Rugby League its the opposite. Strange.

Don’t shoot the messenger. It’s all in the article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

Well, they are going to say that it'll cost millions to justify standing him down aren't they.

I'd stand accused down until they have been tried in a court of law. Pay them their wages as they have not been convicted, no problem with the NRL doing that. If found guilty I'd implement sine die bans, with a truely independent rehabilitation panel to judge if someone is ever fit to return or not - a parole board if you like.

Overall, the NRL are doing the right thing in the De Belin case and seem to be finally getting serious about setting some examples.

There is similar bad behaviour from players in all major sports all around the world, I dont think Australian RL is unique here.

Doing so opens up a can of worms if found not guilty though. De Belin is a good example, in that he will miss out on Origin payments, other performance-related bonuses he may be entitled to and it will affect the value of his next contract. Do the NRL really want to risk being sued for all that, plus reputational damages caused during the period, on their 'no-fault' stand down policy?

Edited by philipw
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course the broadcasters will say that it affects ratings - they want to get the tv rights for as low a sum as possible. The proof will be in the pudding - does anyone know the viewing/attendance figures for the NRL so far this season and how they stack up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Damien said:

I am confused with Yorkshire Knights stance on this. This is because on numerous Folou threads he has been saying all publicity is good publicity and how it's not a negative for RU in Australia. Yet for Rugby League its the opposite. Strange.

I think you will find that Yorkshire Knight is a former poster on the BBC forums called Nottins.

He was a well known troll on there like he is here, and he comes from Wakefield and is a bitter and twisted union fan and is considered a bit of a geek due to his liking of electric cachets 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

I think you will find that Yorkshire Knight is a former poster on the BBC forums called Nottins.

He was a well known troll on there like he is here, and he comes from Wakefield and is a bitter and twisted union fan and is considered a bit of a geek due to his liking of electric cachets 

 

Electric what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, philipw said:

And of course the broadcasters will say that it affects ratings - they want to get the tv rights for as low a sum as possible. The proof will be in the pudding - does anyone know the viewing/attendance figures for the NRL so far this season and how they stack up?

 

 

 

 

It's slightly down on traditional platforms.

 

I saw a figure on another forum that the Aussie FTA channel's streaming site has NRL viewership up 101%.

 

The whole entertainment industry and the way we watch is in a massive state of flux.

TV deals may not be what we're used to in the future. They may not be of any use at all.

  • Like 1

new rise.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pulga said:

 

 

 

 

It's slightly down on traditional platforms.

 

I saw a figure on another forum that the Aussie FTA channel's streaming site has NRL viewership up 101%.

 

The whole entertainment industry and the way we watch is in a massive state of flux.

TV deals may not be what we're used to in the future. They may not be of any use at all.

Indeed - and this is ammunition the tv companies can spin, but as you say, other methods of watching are up massively

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, philipw said:

Indeed - and this is ammunition the tv companies can spin, but as you say, other methods of watching are up massively

On the other hand though, TV might pay an absolute premium for live sports because it doesn't really fit with the "on demand" model like Netflix. Traditional TV and subscription TV are in a tailspin. They need to hold on to what they have.

The next decade is going to be very interesting.

  • Like 2

new rise.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Pulga said:

On the other hand though, TV might pay an absolute premium for live sports because it doesn't really fit with the "on demand" model like Netflix. Traditional TV and subscription TV are in a tailspin. They need to hold on to what they have.

The next decade is going to be very interesting.

This is a good point. Live sport is the key thing sky has over streaming services here In the UK. 

I can't get rid of sky period as it has SL NRL Super Rugby and NFL. 

So I will pay the fee. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Pulga said:

 

 

 

 

It's slightly down on traditional platforms.

 

I saw a figure on another forum that the Aussie FTA channel's streaming site has NRL viewership up 101%.

 

The whole entertainment industry and the way we watch is in a massive state of flux.

TV deals may not be what we're used to in the future. They may not be of any use at all.

That’s not the point of the article though. Yes technological change will result in different viewing experiences therefore affecting tv deals but this is about Channel Nine and its stance on NRL issues

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Yorkshire Knight said:

That’s not the point of the article though. Yes technological change will result in different viewing experiences therefore affecting tv deals but this is about Channel Nine and its stance on NRL issues

The point of the article is that Greenberg feared that the De Belin case would cause a drop in tv viewership. It hasn't.

Sorry to end your game like that but facts are facts.

 

  • Like 1

new rise.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Pulga said:

The point of the article is that Greenberg feared that the De Belin case would cause a drop in tv viewership. It hasn't.

Sorry to end your game like that but facts are facts.

 

You should probably read it again. 

Greenberg detailed conversations in which he said executives from Australia's Nine Entertainment and News Corp, which owns Foxtel, told him the next broadcast deal could be impacted dramatically by the de Belin saga.

Ratings aside, it’s naive to think that companies which pay to have their ads on Channel Nine haven’t put pressure on the network as those same companies would be under public pressure especially in this day and age. 

Why do you think the NRL has already lost some sponsorship deals as detailed in the article? It goes way beyond tv ratings. At the end of the day, companies and sponsors don’t want to be associated with things that could tarnish their image. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yorkshire Knight said:

You should probably read it again. 

Greenberg detailed conversations in which he said executives from Australia's Nine Entertainment and News Corp, which owns Foxtel, told him the next broadcast deal could be impacted dramatically by the de Belin saga.

Ratings aside, it’s naive to think that companies which pay to have their ads on Channel Nine haven’t put pressure on the network as those same companies would be under public pressure especially in this day and age. 

Why do you think the NRL has already lost some sponsorship deals as detailed in the article? It goes way beyond tv ratings. At the end of the day, companies and sponsors don’t want to be associated with things that could tarnish their image. 

Seems football never suffers from bad publicity.


rldfsignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a shock tv companies want to pay less . Using De Belin as a means to threaten that is pretty low. The guy has right of due process like everyone else , or should have Mr Greenberg 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Yorkshire Knight said:

You should probably read it again. 

Greenberg detailed conversations in which he said executives from Australia's Nine Entertainment and News Corp, which owns Foxtel, told him the next broadcast deal could be impacted dramatically by the de Belin saga.

Ratings aside, it’s naive to think that companies which pay to have their ads on Channel Nine haven’t put pressure on the network as those same companies would be under public pressure especially in this day and age. 

Why do you think the NRL has already lost some sponsorship deals as detailed in the article? It goes way beyond tv ratings. At the end of the day, companies and sponsors don’t want to be associated with things that could tarnish their image. 

And viewers haven't batted an eyelid.

This is the very start of their second year of a 5 year deal. By the time the next deal is fleshed out the De Belin case will be long forgotten.

The NRL will gain new sponsors easily.

  • Like 1

new rise.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19 April 2019 at 12:56, Yorkshire Knight said:

Don’t shoot the messenger. It’s all in the article

You really are pathetic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...