" broadcasting REVENUE"that's a misleading term suggesting money...

First 37 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
TonEdi

10,833 Posts.

37

05/04/20

13:54

Post #: 43887984
Share

Originally posted by nickyjames: ↑

That's rubbish.

The AFL and NRL plan to be up and running by 31 May with the NRL probably before that. They plan to fulfil their obligations and the NRL will rely on broadcasting REVENUE, part of their $1 billion tv rights deal. Whether channel 9 and fox renegotiate, that's up to both parties.

The reduced revenues is something the governing body and the game will have to deal with from next year onwards and this will probably be through cutting of salary caps.

But for this year, the governing bodies and the players have their sights on finishing the season and have negotiated a reduction in payments.

Again, you haven't answered my question. If you were required to finish the job, like these players are being asked to do, would you try to negotiate the best for yourself? Or would you be like those hotcopper posters who thinks that they would never try to do what's best for themselves or the family in such difficult times and because they are footballers, your principles go out the window.

I would assume that it is only natural for both parties to negotiate a deal that suits both parties. Obviously the NRL have done so with a 50% cut going forward. Isn't that what it should be all about? Or do you think because you are not in their position, they should forgo any negotiations and have no say in the situation and just play out the rest of the rest of the season til DECEMBER with no more pay?

Expand

" broadcasting REVENUE"

that's a misleading term suggesting money just flows on the basis of games being broadcast

that revenue is directly linked to other companies paying for advertising and/or subscriptions (so broadcasting revenue is really advertising and subscription revenue)

and that revenue will be renegotiated because both advertising and subscriptions will fall
1 Upvote

Reply