Has V’landys shit the bed?

[A Country Member]

2022: The AFL has landed a bumper deal while our supposed saviour panicked and made deals that pale in comparison.

This was what he was supposedly good at and why the commission made him chairman. Typical rugby league.

Has Pete shit the bed?

[A Country Member]

Rubbery figures, but AFL has 100 million reasons to gloat over TV deal

By Roy Masters

September 7, 2022 — 11.45am

We are accustomed to paying $6.50 for a cup of coffee but the inflation implicit in the AFL’s $4.5 billion new broadcasting contract does evoke images of the Weimar Republic when 1920s Germans loaded up wheelbarrows with Reichsmarks to buy a loaf of bread.

OK, the seven-year deal does end in 2031 but a 36 per cent uplift on the current contract of $473 million a year is a significant inflationary rise, given the AFL’s free-to-air broadcaster, Channel Seven, complained it paid too much for cricket and subscription network Foxtel is bleeding red ink. Industry sources insist the genuine annual payment the AFL will receive from Seven and Fox is $550m, compared to the $643m trumpeted by the code on its website.

Built into the deal is money from Telstra for the AFL-owned Marvel Stadium, plus contra. Foxtel does receive exclusivity of Saturdays for the first eight rounds, which will force dedicated AFL fans to subscribe to Rupert Murdoch’s pay TV service.

However, the “flip-flop” clause where fans in South and Western Australia can see games involving their home teams on free-to-air TV – while the rest of the nation watches another game on Seven – is largely retained.

Still, industry sources claim the AFL will receive $100m a year more than the NRL’s $450m, a significant gap considering the broadcasting incomes for the two codes were similar a decade ago, allowing for the AFL providing one more game per week.

The current NRL deal, believed to be $2.3 billion over five years, ends in 2027. It’s the closing year of this contract which accounts for some of the strained optimism at Rugby League Central when the AFL announcement was made Tuesday.

The new AFL deal does not start until 2025 which means, given that negotiations usually begin about two years before the end of an existing contract, the NRL will be going to market for its next contract at the time the latest AFL arrangement begins.

Colin Smith, Australia’s leading sports and media analyst, describes AFL and NRL as “must haves” for broadcasters, arguing that while the value for other sports will stabilise or decline, the media value of Australia’s leading winter football codes will rise.

Still, there was significant disquiet in NRL clubland Tuesday at the AFL announcement which came after MCG finals crowds of 80,000 and 90,000.

Some insist the NRL’s annual TV income of $450m is exaggerated, but the code did receive a record doubling of its international broadcasting fees last year.

Others believe the annual gap with AFL is $170m, not $100m, if contra is removed from both deals. The AFL mega payment further incited the critics of ARL Commission boss Peter V’landys, who renewed the Foxtel deal in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than wait until this year when the original contract expired.

The AFL extended their rights for just two years. V’landys awarded Foxtel a seven-year extension until 2027, believed to be for an annual payment of $300m.

It was done at a time there was no rival bidder, and he separated pay TV from free-to-air, meaning that when Nine later renewed with the NRL, the owner of this masthead was in a one-horse race.

By contrast, the AFL orchestrated an auction, offering both pay and FTA rights, forcing Seven and Fox into sometimes fierce competition with each other. It also attracted bids from Channels Nine/Stan and Ten/Paramount, producing the competitive tension which forced up the price Seven/Foxtel initially offered and even exceeded the AFL’s own estimations.

Nine reportedly tendered a $500m-a-year offer, while Ten/Paramount lodged a bid of $6b over 10 years.

Furthermore, V’landys agreed to greater COVID discounts to Nine/Foxtel than the AFL conceded. Nine subsequently used the savings to pay $100m over three years to secure the rights to NRL rival, rugby union. Nine also recently announced record profits for its broadcast division.

The NRL also effectively surrendered their digital platform to Nine/Foxtel, dismantling their only point of future leverage with broadcasters.

However, in an age of transparency, there is a crucial point of difference between the AFL and NRL. The AFL declare their TV contracts (albeit with add-ons), while the NRL have not disclosed broadcast income in audited accounts since V’landys made his exclusive deal with Foxtel back in the days when a coffee cost $4.

[A Country Member]

Chat with the ARLC chairman

V’landys was chairing a meeting of Kangaroos selectors when contacted for a response. He returned our call and this is what he had to say …


Andrew Webster: Is the AFL’s deal of concern to you?

Peter V’landys: No, not at all. What you’ve got to understand is this deal doesn’t come into effect until 2027 [sic], so it’s two years away. We will be negotiating our deal pretty soon to take us up to 2031. We set up the platform for AFL to be able to do this. If the game hadn’t started on May 28 [2020], and both the NRL and AFL cut their broadcast requirements to make Fox and Nine viable because they were in uncharted waters, they [the AFL] wouldn’t have the platforms to do what they’re doing. We’ve got a few things up our sleeves, which I can’t say too much about it, but the clubs have nothing to be worried about.


AW: Some are saying the difference between the two deals is as much as $260 million per annum. What do you say to that?

PV: No. Nope. And you won’t know until the annual accounts are put through because a lot of it’s contra. They’ve also added the Telstra deal, which isn’t in ours. But I’m not concerned because we will be negotiating. We did them a favour, now they’ve done us a favour. We will be maximising our rights now.

AW: Was it a mistake doing the deal with Foxtel during the pandemic?

At the time, Fox needed an asset on its sheet to continue its viability. If we didn’t come into play, there’d be no Foxtel.


AW: Isn’t that Rupert Murdoch’s problem, not rugby league’s?

If Foxtel coughs, all the codes catch a cold. If you haven’t got them in play, the other parties won’t be paying as much as they should because you need competitive tension. When COVID-19 hit, they were the only ones. If they went under, there was no-one else available.


AW: Is it right that Greenberg and Abdo presented a paper to the commission advising against it?

That’s not correct. Complete rubbish. I was chairman and that was never, ever discussed. Todd had left by the time we started negotiating with Fox.

(Abdo also told this column that no paper was presented. Various sources from the NRL at the time refute this but wouldn’t go on the record).


AW: Why can’t you divulge how much Foxtel paid?

There’s a confidentiality clause in all our agreements. What does it matter anyway? It’s the net profit that counts. It’s what you distribute to the clubs and players. We’ve distributed more to them in the history of the game. Our revenues next year are the highest they’ve ever been. You can’t take one aspect and then ignore the rest.

[A Country Member]

Above exert taken from this article in smh

[A Country Member]

Nothin but another news limited puppet.

[A Country Member]

Specifically, they are concerned about the yawning gap between the AFL and NRL deals.

How wide the gap is depends on whom you ask, but figures being thrown around range from $100 million per annum to as much as $260 million per annum.

[A Country Member]

Who wants a ticket to the chairman’s lounge at Wandwick?

[Andrew Walker]

Who wants a ticket to the chairman’s lounge at Wandwick?

Are you serious ?

[A Country Member]

Are you serious ?

See, it works doesn’t it?

[A Country Member]

Peter ‘Hand-shakes’ Vlandys

[HDTONE]

Not trying to take the piss but been wondering what the Warriors' offer ?
Also another club in Qld. So basically keeping the game on the eastern side. Dunno but we went into Melb and that went OK, should we go Adelaide for the Warriors ?

Shouldn't we be aiming at like a national sport to grow ?

Maybe I just dont get the financials or know if Adelaide would be a goer but how do we grow just in the eastern states ? Man sometimes you gotta take riskes but be in it for the long game.

[King Salvo]

Not trying to take the piss but been wondering what the Warriors' offer ?
Also another club in Qld. So basically keeping the game on the eastern side. Dunno but we went into Melb and that went OK, should we go Adelaide for the Warriors ?

Shouldn't we be aiming at like a national sport to grow ?

Maybe I just dont get the financials or know if Adelaide would be a goer but how do we grow just in the eastern states ? Man sometimes you gotta take riskes but be in it for the long game.

They need an 18th team as soon as possible as this bye each week is awkward especially during SOO when it is proposed that SOO will be over 3 consecutive Wednesday nights.

Perth should be the 18th team but they seem to favour a second NZ team which is strange since the current one has not been very competitive for a while now- Maybe returning full time to NZ will help them?

Not sure NZ could have 2 NRL Clubs though being Rugby mad

As far as further expansion PNG/Adelaide/ 5th QLD team/ Second NZ team would be in the mix one assumes

Need to look at the comp set up when 18 teams plus too

If 18 teams I favour 2 conferences of 9 teams

If 20 teams I favour divisions - 4 division of 5 teams or 5 divisions of 4 teams