Things to consider

[estormboy]

I think people make far too much of that scenario than what it actually was. I mean people are saying that Packer only upped the price to that amount so the competitor would pay what was percieved to be overs for it, well what would've happened if channel 7 hadn't agreed to that price? Packer would've had to pay that price himself. If he wasn't prepared to willingly pay that much then why would he bid it knowing that there was a very real chance that he may have had to? It's a hell of a risk bidding $780 million for something you didn't want to pay that much for in the "hope" that channel 7 would agree to that price. They could very well have said no and Packer would've had to pay up and they would've got $780 mill either way.

People that hold on to that theory are only the ones that don't want to believe that their rights got a couple hundred mill more than ours or whatever the number is. The fact that the AFL are asking for and will probably get pretty close to a billion this time round suggests that the current price was about right.

I disagree, and Stokes was on the record saying they couldn't afford NOT to get the rights, no matter the cost, or channel 9 would have the AFL, NRL and cricket all tied up for years.

The proof, (positive or negative) of this will be in the next rights bidding war, and remember that the NRL should have an independant commision by then (we hope).

OK, then by the logic presented in your article, isn't this scenario likely to arise once more?  What's to stop Channel 9 from driving up the price again if that was indeed their ulterior motive?  Like Ice said, why drive up the price if you're not prepared to play ball?

[Michael :P]

Because Kerry Packer is dead and was a sly old fox.

Its fact he did it, the whole industry knows it, I dont know why anyone is arguing about it.

[estormboy]

Because Kerry Packer is dead and was a sly old fox.

Its fact he did it, the whole industry knows it, I dont know why anyone is arguing about it.

I don't think anybody is arguing the case, I know I'm certainly not.  All i am saying is if Stokes rationale was to prevent channel 9 from having a monopoly on AFL, NRL & Cricket, then next AFL TV rights negotiation potentially renders the same scenario again.

I guess we'll really see just how badly the FTV networks want the AFL.

[Ice]

Because Kerry Packer is dead and was a sly old fox.

Its fact he did it, the whole industry knows it, I dont know why anyone is arguing about it.

It mostly comes from rugby league scribes trying to find justification as to why the AFL deal got a shitload more than ours. As much as i love Roy masters who fights the Storm's cause admirably, just because he says something doesn't necessarily make it true. They only need to look at Mr Gallop to see the sole reason why that was, he's an inept administrator who way undersold the value of our game by not even offering a full on tender for ALL interested parties to bid. That's the reason why there's such a disparity in the 2 tv deals.

The AFL always had around that figure in mind so it was no surprise when they got it regardless of the theories going around. It's all well and good to guess that Stokes would've paid any amount but unless Packer was a mind readreader i doubt he'd have had any idea how much Stokes was prepared to pay and could've quite easily ended up paying the $780 million himself had 7 backed down. The fact is if he wasn't prepared to pay the amount on the chance it was the highest offer then he wouldn't have bid it. I totally agree, Packer was a sly old fox but he certainly wasn't stupid either.

Not arguing either, just putting forward my opinion on the matter 

[Scooter]

The NRL TV rights are so low because Channel Nine had no competition and the amount paid by Fox Sports is so low because of News Ltd's ownership interest in the NRL plus (when compared to the AFL) it is not a truly national competition.

I read a report a few weeks ago that Channel Seven were very keen to bid for the next NRL TV rights.

[Surandy]

The NRL TV rights are so low because Channel Nine had no competition and the amount paid by Fox Sports is so low because of News Ltd's ownership interest in the NRL plus (when compared to the AFL) it is not a truly national competition.

I read a report a few weeks ago that Channel Seven were very keen to bid for the next NRL TV rights.

Newspaper reports suggested that there was some competition for the last TV rights. Gallop couldn't wait to sign the rights away to NEIN for less than they were worth. Much like he signed away the NATIONAL radio rights for all bar Monday night games to a radio station that doesn't have national coverage.