do you think there's a chance we could get screwed over YET AGAIN, like we did in 2005?
Well to be honest anything is possible but I can only think of one previous time when Rugby League rights were so hotly contested and that was the Super League war.
Not trying to suggest that will repeat itself but the concept of a bunch of media tycoons going to war with each other over a sport that has learned from that mistake can only result in good competitive tension, rather than the standard "here's what your gunna get" approach.
1. Is there a genuine possibility of having all 8 games on FTA? This seems quite a workload for the networks to take on... albeit if they are split between all 3 commercial networks and spread over their secondary channels it could be workable.
Yes there is. Though they may not necessarily be available live to all markets at once as they're going to be targeted obviously. That said like on Fridays you'd get that outer market game on delay. Or at best, shown on the non-main concurrently. Depends on the particular timeslots and games available etc. Like a blockbuster may shift and get priority etc.
The Channel 10/Fox concept revolves around airing games to specific markets. Foxtel then essentially become a "premium" ad-free service with viewers having the option of choosing which games they want to watch live.
2. If so, is there a likelihood that the FTA networks will on-sell to Fox, or will there be significant demand for the FTA networks to take on the 'workload' of all 8 games (9 if the comp expands to 18 teams), especially in light of the advent of multichanelling?
7 want to on sell to all networks.
10 want to simulcast.
9 can't even afford to buy the whole package so it's moot.
3. Doesn't Lachlan Murdoch have a foot in both camps - Ten and Fox (being on the board at Ten, and part ownership links with Fox with his father Rupert & News Ltd)? If so, isn't this a conflict of interest and how could Lachlan Murchoch do the right thing by Ten by buying FTA matches and at the same time resulting in damaging Fox by 'stealing' games off them? Doesn't this reduce the competitive tension between Ten and Fox? Will this disadvantage the NRL in playing hardball with Fox?
You're correct.
Premier Group isn't in competition with 10 at all - it is joint effort for the reasons I've stated above.
That said Premier Group's first approach is for the existing bid package. In the second round their F&LR rights for specific elements of that package could be voided by the F2A networks targeting their timeslots - think Saturday nights, Sunday afternoons, Monday nights. In which case they end up completing negotiations blind which raises their bar.
If 7 weren't involved in the mix I would be more concerned but what I've heard sounds very promising.
4. What are the intentions of Seven? We always hear they want State Of Origin, or is this just lip-service to make Nine nervous? Are they a genuine player for Origin and NRL matches or are they just sitting back enjoying Nine and Ten sweat bricks?
Both.
There was a meeting some 4 or 5 years ago when they did a review of the NRL rights. There were 4 key points that came up
* The importance of growing the Queensland market share
* Taking Origin to gain an automatic 3 ratings week win from 9
* The power that holding both Friday night AFL & NRL rights would have
* The power that holding both Sunday news lead-in AFL & NRL rights would have - this was the key one, with a double header in NRL targeting (NSW, QLD and one other market) and the AFL game targeting (VIC and and interstate match in WA or SA) - effective having a massive lead in across a minimum of 4 metros plus other regionals
The other factors to consider are Stoke's previous legal fights over the NRL rights and their bending over to Premier during the AFL rights.
5. Will the representative matches outside Origin be sold separately (All Stars, City vs Country, mid-year test, end of year test, Four Nations, 2013 World Cup) - or will they all be lumped together with origin under a representative package and basically be given away for free? With Origin being the rating equivalent of almost three extra grand finals, I feel it would be a mistake to just lump the other representative games with them because we are missing out on additional revenue if we don't itemise each of these and sell these matches on their own merits. Remember, AFL has none of these extra matches available to sell so we should ram home our advantage.
6. Will Toyota Cup be sold as a separate package, and if so how much do you think it will fetch?
The NRL is legally allowed to ask the networks to submit their bids showing the break down of specific element values. So if 9 values City vs Country as $X then it can put to the other networks to see if a great value can be gained.
Nothing is going to be given away for free. As to where these matches end up depends entirely on who gets the rest of the deal elements.
7. With Channel 9 now televising the Queensland Cup, what chance Nine wanting to fill the same timeslot in NSW with the NSW Cup? With the ARLC now overseeing all Rugby League, will the ARLC negotiate this on behalf on the NSWRL or will the NSWRL go at selling the rights alone (I don't have much confidence in the NSWRL doing any sort of decent job selling the rights!).
Very little.
Think of this way. Why is Channel 9 showing the Qld Cup? To boost the Brisbane metros for the NRL game.
What would happen if 9 did get the Sunday double header with 2nd Brisbane team which would have a similar effect?
I have very little faith in 9 maintaining the Queensland Cup coverage. Don't think for a minute that 9 are doing it for some noble reason.
8. The ARL Commission has very reputable board members with great business acumen. Will they have the balls to take the rights off Fox, or at least significantsly reduce the number of matches on Pay TV from 5 to about 1 or 2 (I would like to see Fox lose all matches, but a reduction from 5 matches to 1 or 2 will still result in a major hit to Fox subscribers in NSW & Queensland).
I only know a good deal about one of the commissioners so I can't really comment on their resolve as a whole but I imagine they would realise that they're under a lot of pressure to put up a strong first showing hence a substandard broadcast deal is out of the question.
Will they stick it to Premier if it comes to that? Well there's certainly the competition to do that if need be.
The thing to keep in mind here is that Premier Group and Channel 9, as much as they like to think it, do not own rugby league. They broadcast it at the decision of the NRL - now the ARLC. The ARLC are not beholden to their demands. F&LR mean nothing if the ARLC choose to go in an entirely different direction.
I've said it before but if it takes a two year 100% entirely F2A deal but with a smaller pay day then it may be worth it just to force Premier Group into a weaker negotiation platform later on.
Make no mistake - Foxtel only existing because of Fox Sports and Fox Sports is only sustainable because of subscriptions driven by Rugby League viewers. Every other statement to the contrary is just a bluff. They've only been able to get away with it previously because the NRL has been weaker than the networks. Right now though the roles are reversed and it's the NRL that has the upper hand.
9. Who on the ARLC or elsewhere (Gallop, LEK, consultants, etc) is doing the actual negotiationg for the ARLC/NRL? Would it be Gary Pemberton?
Well there's been quite a few different hands in this. There was a group of club CEO's on a subcommittee, several NRL board members, LEK, GMS. It'll mostly come down to Elliott, Grant, Smith, Ferrarin and co. I had found out about Elliott's commission appointment through LEK.
10. Would Wayne Perce's previous injvolvement with Fox add any significant advantage for the ARLC/NRL at the negotiating table?
Probably not.
