Search results

I assume it’s related to the line about the buses being halted on hills in Payten’s tweet. Can’t get there.

I don't think easy. Commentary I have heard (Craig Hutchinson who knows a bit about sports media rights) is that the AFL had the perfect conditions for their deal. Strong competition, etc. The market now has less competition, and with Fox apparently up for sale, this has further depressed the...

The reports say $2m for the top players, not average across the league.

It's about two thirds of the way through. The article talks about the wider TV rights negotiation as part of why Shute Shield can't get the deal they want from RA.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/rugby-union/rugby-australia-news-2024-shute-shield-clubs-consider-breaking-away-from-rugby-australia-after-insulting-offer-for-broadcast-rights/news-story/8d39e15751b879a10d54cc53f713605a

https://www.theroar.com.au/2024/11/17/exclusive-axed-rebels-could-find-new-home-in-new-liv-style-global-league/ Interesting. Not holding my breath.

Maybe they need to acknowledge broadcast isn’t for them if it isn’t sustainable.

It’s either a long term contract or not. If one party can terminate at will the other is able to do so as well. It’s a risk if the coach is performing and gets a better offer.

They would be RA emails most likely. It’s a sensationalist way to report on discovery (sharing of documents that are relevant to the proceedings).

Also the journo seems to have got the dates wrong. Looks like it’s actually 21 November. https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/VID1059/2024/3995751/event/31996795/document/2380929

As a subset of super rugby, anyone who has any interest in it will get it. I don't think there is an audience to be confused by it.

The case management hearing is listed for 31 October.

Jamie Pandaram in the Aus today says the exclusive dealing period on the rights post 2025 ends 31/12 this year. News is running the line across its papers today that the Rebels law suit severely impacts the negotiations as it both impacts the viability of RA and means there in uncertainty on...

That was my point.

The reality is that if RA went under very little would change down here from where we are today.

They are the biggest funder of Australian business - by all reports at SME level moreso than the big four banks.

Unsurprisingly the Rebels were right on board with centralisation. It was RA who backed off.

But they would have given it to the Force - again it’s a strange position.

You’re not trading insolvent if you have a reasonable belief you can pay your debts - like your directors funding the club, which is what happened for quite some time.

Whilst that is unlikely, what if they became aware during Covid and made promises to protect their tv deal during the pandemic based off their confidence around a PE deal. There are scenarios where codependence could have lead to a situation that became inconvenient to RA.