NRL seals $90m major sponsorship!

[DIEHARD]

NRL's $90m major sponsor on hold

A BATTLE over technology that doesn't even exist has left the NRL without $90 million in sponsorship revenue six weeks before the premiership kickoff.

The NRL is now racing the clock to avoid starting the season without a major sponsor for the first time since 2000, with Telstra negotiations bogged down in fine print.

Channel 9 and the telco both believe they have the right to send matches direct to mobile devices using Digital Video Broadcast Handheld - a system that doesn't actually exist yet.

NRL chief executive David Gallop said last night it wouldn't be a disaster if the competition started on March 16 without a naming rights sponsor.

But he added: "We'd certainly like to get it sorted out in the near future.

"We are very close to finalising a very long and complicated document. It involves our naming rights sponsorship and our internet and mobile rights.

"This deal will involve Telstra having our worldwide internet rights."

The $90 million at stake in a six-year deal trickles down to affect club grants, the salary cap and money distributed across the country at grass roots level.

Nine believes its already-signed TV contract allows it to use DVBH but Telstra insists any internet rights deal should include such a provision.

It is understood Telstra is also unwilling to allow overseas NRL rights holders Setanta and Sky NZ to broadcast games on the internet, which both want to do.

Optimistic insiders hope for a deal by mid-February but a Telstra spokesman was cautious when contacted by The Daily Telegraph.

"Negotiations are ongoing," spokesman Craig Middleton said.

"It's new territory and there are things that still have to be worked out."

Asked if he was confident of a deal eventually being signed, Middleton said: "Our negotiations are ongoing, in good faith."

Asked if the deal would be worth less should DVBH be given to Nine, Middleton answered: "I'm not going to get into the nature of that sort of discussion."

Gallop, meanwhile, rejected internet reports yesterday that a poorly worded contract threatened to cost the sport $100 million in revenue from Telstra.

FOXSPORTS

[~Wild Child~]

NRL denies $40m bungle

February 2, 2007



THE NRL has denied it bungled negotiations over internet and mobile phone rights, costing the game millions of dollars.

NRL chief executive David Gallop said an arrangement with Telstra was being finalised, with a five-year deal worth $90 million, which included naming rights, expected to be confirmed closer to the start of the season.

However, rleague.com website claims the NRL made an error in previous negotiations that could cost it up to $40 million.

It alleges the NRL unwittingly sold rights to its image content to broadcasters Channel Nine and Fox Sports, half owned by News Ltd, in previous negotiations.

It claims the delay in finalising the Telstra deal was because the negotiations on internet and mobile rights had been stalled by demands from the two broadcasters for millions in compensation.

"The conflict is around the ambiguity in the broadcast contracts and interpretation of ownership, production and distribution of content [game pictures] - with TV broadcasters pushing ownership of the rights to the content and therefore the internet and mobile rights to broadcast that content," it said.

Gallop did not deny suggestions the NRL had sold ownership of content to the broadcasters. "These are difficult issues internationally and we're working through them," he said. The delay in negotiations with Telstra was due to the complexity surrounding future technology and how to incorporate this into a contract.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/league/nr...919475497.html

[Capital_Shark]

I just hope the NRL are cautious not to strike up a BS 'here is our soul in return for a bum wrap' kind of deal with Telstra like they do with CH9.

Bloody technology these days huh? Now you need TV deals, internet deals, mobile phone deals, and deal for crap thats still on the friggin drawing board! At least our game won't be left in the dark ages, I guess.

[DIEHARD]

I reckon they have already sold them....I have grave concerns.

But fancy the possibility of going into the competition without a sponsor....aren't thousands of NRL jerseys already made with the NRL/TELSTRA logo gracing them? They gave the go ahead without signing a contract?

[Capital_Shark]

I reckon they have already sold them....I have grave concerns.

But fancy the possibility of going into the competition without a sponsor....aren't thousands of NRL jerseys already made with the NRL/TELSTRA logo gracing them? They gave the go ahead without signing a contract?

Good point.. Probably why its so tough to find good images of that new logo. You'd think they would have put a hold on the jerseys though. They must be pretty damn confident that Telstra will get the deal. So Telstra now has somewhat of an upper hand with bargaining leverage.

[DIEHARD]

Also may be the reason the NRL.com site hasn't been updated or even maintained very well.

[Capital_Shark]

Also may be the reason the NRL.com site hasn't been updated or even maintained very well.

Could be.. But I thought it was total dogs balls for 2006 anyway. Worst ever. Talk about 56k killer.

[Titanium_BD1103]

Talk about an anything killer CS...

Well this is a bit of a shock... why release merchandise, have an announcement saying the sponsor is signed, then not sign the complete deal... that is just silly.

Oh well, looks like NRL has made a mistake, and will have to work it out before season starts... will look pretty embarrassing having no sponsor on the field and sponsored jerseys with an unofficial sponsor on them...

I reckon though that whilst it may seem petty, this sort of technology is the way of the future and therefore everyone wants a slice of the pie... something the NRL will have to work out with all parties and keep them happy.

[Capital_Shark]

Talk about an anything killer CS...

True, my old broadband used to struggle a bit, I could only imagine the grief it would cause 56k. TBH I disliked the site so much I haven't visted with this new broadband I had to get (money hungry isp's limiting my options).

[Titanium_BD1103]

True, my old broadband used to struggle a bit, I could only imagine the grief it would cause 56k. TBH I disliked the site so much I haven't visted with this new broadband I had to get (money hungry isp's limiting my options).

I don't go to NRL.com unless it absolutely necessary.... I mean I am happy with the Bulldogs Website, Titans Website and Fox Sports to find information, and they don't take an age to load.

I will spend even less time at NRL.com with live scoring on the Dogs website now...

[TDoGGBulldog]

well thats quite a pickle for the NRL isn't it lol.

[~Wild Child~]

Knock-on effect: why money may be streaming away from rugby league
Roy Masters
February 3, 2007


THE NRL may lose $6 million in sponsorship income following advice from News Ltd's senior lawyer that FoxSports, a company that is half-owned by News, must be paid for supplying footage of rugby league games to Telstra.

Ian Philip, News Ltd's senior counsel, has advised NRL chief executive David Gallop that FoxSports must receive compensation for games streamed by Telstra via broadband and mobile phones and that the NRL is partly liable for Telstra's unexpected additional costs.

News Ltd half owns both the NRL and FoxSports, meaning the compensation the code is being told to pay Telstra will finally end up in News's pocket. A top-level meeting between the NRL, Telstra, FoxSports and Channel Nine late on Thursday produced a compromise option - not yet settled - which would mean the NRL paying Telstra $1m a year for six years once new technology, called Digital Video Broadcast Handheld, or mobile phone TV, is introduced to Australia.

This would partly offset the possible $30m payable by Telstra to the broadcasters for the use of signals of NRL games to DVBH. The compromise would mean the NRL's $90m contract with Telstra - $15m per year - would be signed before the start of the competition in March.

The NRL receives $10m cash and $5m contra per year from Telstra but the cash component would be effectively discounted by $1m once DVBH is operational.

Philip is one of News Ltd's three representatives on the NRL Partnership Committee - the board that makes the major decisions in the code along with the other half owners, the Australian Rugby League. Philip's involvement raises serious conflict-of-interest issues.

Although News Ltd's half-ownership of the NRL means the media giant technically loses half the $6m paid to Telstra, the money eventually ends up with FoxSports via the payment to it from Telstra.

FoxSports is jointly owned by News Ltd and Channel Nine, the code's free-to-air broadcaster.

Gallop conceded Philip had become involved in the dispute, which was expected to be resolved in December when the NRL trumpeted an announcement of the Telstra sponsorship was imminent.

"He's been involved as a member of the NRL Partnership but we have external lawyers working on it as well," Gallop said.

ARL chairman Colin Love, chairman of the Partnership Committee, said he had not been involved in the Telstra negotiations.

Rugby League Players Association chief executive Matthew Rodwell is also worried about the negotiations.


"I'm deeply concerned that use of players' images [which] are all property that is assigned to their club and sub-licensed to the NRL has not been maximised in a commercial sense and in turn hasn't flowed onto the players."

While Gallop argues the dispute is essentially about convergence - the flow of media streams down technology not yet invented - Telstra points to the fact it has already done a tidy deal with the AFL.

An AFL spokesman confirmed a Telstra contract had been finalised, despite the fact the AFL might eventually have to deal with FoxSports should a consortium of channels Seven and Ten sell four AFL games per week to pay TV.

But the AFL insists it has already codified Telstra's existing and future rights, saying: "AFL games cannot be shown on the internet until 12 hours have elapsed since the end of the game, while mobile phones can only take 30 seconds of action per quarter and only 18 minutes can be shown when the game is completed."

The NRL has a similar holdback constraint of 24 hours but part of the current dispute with Telstra is a demand by the telco to send a signal inside the time frame.

The three-month long negotiations have bogged down the broadcasters, with Nine and FoxSports insisting DVBH is a broadcast right while Telstra argues it is a mobile phone right.

"This is all new territory," Gallop said.

The Australian Communications Media Authority is expected to auction licenses for DVBH in August, meaning the NRL's first payment to Telstra cannot be made until later this year.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/league/kn...919535327.html

[Grimmace]

TV or not TV is the question
Andrew Stevenson and Brad Walter
February 6, 2007


NRL chief executive David Gallop has promised clubs will not be out of pocket despite the prospect of financial compensation being paid to the Nine Network and Fox Sports for mobile TV rights that the NRL is negotiating to sell to Telstra.

The issue of Digital Video Broadcast Handheld (DVB-H) has proved a stumbling block in negotiations for a $90 million deal with Telstra. The deal would also include internet and 3G mobile phone rights, with the telecommunications giant retaining its position as the game's naming rights sponsor.

Gallop believed a resolution was close but refused to set a timetable. "I think it will be a great deal financially and Telstra are the perfect partner for these rights," he said.

"The whole thing is one deal - naming rights, broadband and mobile rights - and I'm hopeful it will be resolved very shortly. I'm not putting a time frame on it, I'm just saying very shortly."

Telstra's rights to show video footage of NRL matches over both mobile and broadband services will be subject to a 24-hour delay.

Gallop said the NRL partnership may have to compensate its broadcast partners, but that clubs would not lose. "If the NRL is out of pocket it will not be a substantial amount," Gallop said.

He said the NRL was already benefiting from new technology, particularly 3G mobile and broadband internet rights.

"There is and has been and will be a very significant revenue stream into the game in relation to those rights," he said.

The Federal Government is proposing to auction broadcast specturm for DVB-H, which would provide television quality images to handheld sets. Nine and Fox Sports have successfully argued with the NRL that as the new technology is transmitted as a television signal they hold the rights to it.

"The broadcasters' view is 'that's a television signal, we're a television station, end of the story'," Gallop said.

At this stage the issue of compensation is hypothetical as the service doesn't exist and may have minimal penetration before the current NRL broadcast rights deals expire in 2011.

However, the NRL boss would not disclose whether DVB-H was dealt with explicitly in the last round of broadcast rights negotiations in 2005.

"This is a classic convergence issue," Gallop said. "Every rights holder wants to be able to deliver their signal over as many delivery mechanisms as they can. When something new comes along there can be a debate about which one of your rights holders has that delivery mechansim in their view."

The NRL has been negotiating the deal with Telstra since mid-2006 and it is understood a general agreement had been reached. However, News Ltd lawyer and NRL director Ian Philip tendered legal advice that the broadcasters would require compensation for the use of match footage provided by them.

Fox Sports, a partnership between News Ltd and PBL, and Channel Nine now stands to receive millions of dollars from Telstra and the NRL, who face payments of up to $1 million per year under a penalty clause inserted in the contract when D-VBH technology is offered to consumers.

The issue has raised concern among clubs and players about why the additional money is going to the broadcasters and not the NRL, which administers the competition as a partnership of the ARL and News Ltd formed in 1998 after the Super League war.

Meanwhile, the internal battles within the Knights boardroom are set to drag on for the remainder of the season after directors yesterday appointed Newcastle Rugby League solicitor Nicholas Dan to fill the vacancy created by last week's ousting of chairman Mike Tyler.

The board also confirmed that Knights members would be asked to vote on whether the number of Newcastle RL directors should be reduced from four to two at the April 4 AGM.

But the appointment of Dan ensures the Newcastle RL-aligned faction that also includes new chairman Peter Corcoran would retain the balance of power on a reduced seven-man board as there is no directors election until 2008 under new arrangements for the board members to serve two-year terms.

Source:smh

[DIEHARD]

I am absolutely furious about this! I haven't been this angry about a rugby league issue for years.

What a joke. We already get screwed by Fox and Nine, underselling ourselves and being treated with utter contempt. Now we may face the utterly insulting situation of PAYING them?!

Furious!!!!!!!!!

[DIEHARD]

Gould: How bungling NRL got stuck in the middle

IT'S time the ARL, NRL clubs, Players' Association and player managers joined forces and demanded a full inquiry into the NRL's financial dealings.

Last week we learned of the NRL's bungled negotiations with naming-rights sponsor Telstra and accusations of conflicts of interest surrounding dealings with media partners.

But let's cut to the real issue here - the NRL has again failed to maximise revenue from its assets and it's the clubs, players and development of the game at grassroots levels that will be most affected.

It seems the NRL management has underestimated the value of its intellectual property and failed to adequately protect its ownership of these key assets.

The NRL should have control over all its internet and mobile phone rights, but it does not.

In 2005, the NRL negotiated new deals with pay TV and free-to-air TV broadcasters. In 2006, it began negotiations with naming-rights sponsors Telstra and late last year announced a new agreement had been reached.

However, before this new deal was signed, News Ltd lawyers informed the NRL that certain internet and mobile phone image rights sought by Telstra as part of the new deal were now the property of broadcasters and could not be sold by the NRL to Telstra.

The opinion offered by News Ltd lawyers claiming broadcasters own these rights has rightly or wrongly been accepted by the NRL.

The NRL also seems keen to protect the rights of broadcasters by delaying any mobile coverage of games for 24 hours.

That's all well and good but what about maximising revenue for the clubs and players they represent.

Telstra must now negotiate with the broadcasters but has told the NRL any cost incurred in securing these pictures will come out of the Telstra/NRL deal. Latest press releases from the NRL are starting to prepare us for this lesser contract amount. News Ltd has warned the NRL if it sells these rights to Telstra, the NRL will have to compensate the broadcasters.

Hence, the NRL is faced with the prospect of paying compensation to either Telstra or the TV broadcasters for an asset it used to own but now doesn't, because it gave it away, for nothing, not realising it had given it away, and not knowing its true worth. Can you believe that? The NRL will have to pay compensation, or more likely accept a reduced contract amount from Telstra, for an asset it should own, but doesn't!

NRL management has failed. How could the NRL sign a deal for broadcasting rights without stipulating where, when and how broadcasters could use these pictures? Why didn't the management separate its internet and mobile phone assets to maximise future revenue streams? The ARL and players' association should be demanding answers.

The NRL has tried to protect itself by saying this is new technology and all very difficult. Rubbish! This technology has been coming for years and other sports have successfully negotiated their way through this supposedly complex maze.

Did the NRL take proper measures to prepare itself for the high-tech future? Who is the technology expert at the NRL? Does it have one? I would find it highly unprofessional if it didn't. The bottom line is the media companies handled them again. I bet the media companies have experts in technology and marketing, advising them on the possible use and value of high-profile sporting property.

The NRL should do a deal with Telstra and challenge News Ltd to sue them. After all, News Ltd owns 50 per cent of the NRL so how could it sue itself?

But will NRL management or the ARL stand up to News Ltd? The players and clubs trust the NRL to be an expert negotiator of rights and complex issues. NRL management has failed them.

I can't blame the media companies. They're in the business of making money and it's now obvious they've outwitted NRL management again. I'm more disillusioned with the NRL management.

We need tougher management and our game needs to be protected from perceptions of conflict of interest. But we won't hang by the thumbs waiting because the headlines are telling us everything is apparently OK.

The NRL has tried to protect itself by saying this is new technology and all very difficult. Rubbish! This technology has been coming for years and other sports have successfully negotiated their way through this supposedly complex maze.

Did the NRL take proper measures to prepare itself for the high-tech future? Who is the technology expert at the NRL? Does it have one? I would find it highly unprofessional if it didn't. The bottom line is the media companies handled them again. I bet the media companies have experts in technology and marketing, advising them on the possible use and value of high-profile sporting property.

The NRL should do a deal with Telstra and challenge News Ltd to sue them. After all, News Ltd owns 50 per cent of the NRL so how could it sue itself?

But will NRL management or the ARL stand up to News Ltd? The players and clubs trust the NRL to be an expert negotiator of rights and complex issues. NRL management has failed them.

I can't blame the media companies. They're in the business of making money and it's now obvious they've outwitted NRL management again. I'm more disillusioned with the NRL management.

We need tougher management and our game needs to be protected from perceptions of conflict of interest. But we won't hang by the thumbs waiting because the headlines are telling us everything is apparently OK.

Source: http://www.SMH.com.au