2023-2028 next tv deal discussion

[Perth Red]

Seriously, from the SMH under the heading NRL blocks Telstra from streaming in bid to secure extension with Nine.Some extracts:-
" But under the NRL's EXTENDED contract secured last week, the Pay-TV operator is prohibited from on-selling in the 2023-2027 cycle.
THE FOXTEL EXTENSION said by sources to be worth about $1 BILLION -ONE BILLION-ONE THOUSAND MILLION,allows subscription service Kayo to stream all eight matches.

From Masters on June 12th
"However V'Landys awarded Foxtel a five year extension for an undisclosed fee, handling the Murdoch owned network NRL pay Tv rights until 2027
V'Landys refuses to reveal the amount Foxtel paid, or the discount it received for 2020-22,but industry sources say the EXTENDED DEAL IS CONSISTENTwith the $1.1BILLION over 5 YEARS Foxtel paid the NRL before CPVID-19 hit."

Throughout the print media, regardless of what the actual figure is ,they have specified a 5 years extension worth X amount estimated.Not once have they stated 7 years .The extension has consisitneyl been treated as a seperate transaction.

Well for starters they NEVER paid NRL $1.1billion pre covid. They were due to pay $875million. So if Masters (whi I have a lot of time and respect for) cant get that thing that we actually know right what weight should we give the rest of the article?
Like I've said, it might be $1bill 23- but if it is there are major concessions included. Or are you suggesting that all your talk of the last two years about no more growth in TV contracts, dire state of the nation due to covid meaning absolutely no chance of an increase etc was wrong, and in fact Fox have just upped the NRL contract by 14% because they are financially expecting to do so well post covid?

That's how you are reading it, when they say the "extended deal" that doesn't necessarily mean just the extension, it could mean the whole 7 year deal. I hope you right and that it doesn't devalue the FTA deal too much, be great if your are but its a massive swing from doom and gloom last month to an increased contract!

 

[colly]

Just for a change lets look at Vlandy statement that the AFL dropped the ball when negotiating their current contract. It looks like they did a 'Smithy' while agreeing to terms with Seven TV while no deal with Fox sports/Foxtel. If Foxtel realise it, they can have the AFL balls on toast. How so? Well if Foxtel management were half competent they would have CHANGED the current situation specifics , especially in regards to states South Australia and Western Australia. I put some info below and see if you pick the problem, from a business sense.

South Australia AFL FTA/Seven and Foxtel Contract 2017-2022

Market Specifics: SA
Premiership Season only SA
• All 42 matches involving the Adelaide Crows and Port Adelaide broadcast on free-to-air television, either live or on delay
• All Friday night matches live on free-to-air television and live on Fox Sports and Foxtel

And • A minimum of three Matches per week live on free-to-air television during Premiership season
• All nine Matches per week on Fox Sports and Foxtel and Fox IP Television during Premiership season

Market Specifics Western Australia

• All 42 matches involving West Coast Eagles and Fremantle broadcast on free-to-air television, either live or on delay
• All Friday night matches live on free-to-air television and live on Fox Sports and Foxtel
And • A minimum of three Matches per week live on free-to-air television during Premiership season
https://www.afl.com.au/news/120/2017-2022-broadcast-rights-summary

See the point, there is no incentive for people of SA and WA to take Foxtel subscription as most would be happy with full Home team coverage and other FTA games ie Fri Night, Saturday and Sunday. This lowers subscriptions and Foxtel lives off subscriptions. So I would say Foxtel in a new deal would want to get rid of these home state team bias AND IF NOT PAY A SUBSTANTIAL LOT LESS. So can any re-organization happen? No Seven has locked in these 42 matches for each state with their current deal.

So when Vlandt said you negotiated with both but if you must negotiate with 'one' 'partner' only it SHOULD be with the 'main payer' ie Foxtel. Vlandy- quote.

“ While the AFL was able to renew its free-to-air deal with Seven through 2024, a deal is yet to be done with Foxtel, and V'landys declared that the AFL had made a "massive mistake" in that regard.
In comparison to the AFL, the NRL has extended its deal with Foxtel through 2027.

"What the AFL don't tell you is that the majority of revenue for both the NRL and the AFL comes from Foxtel and it was important for us at the NRL to get the major partner done first and foremost," he said.

That's the one we rely on most. It's given us security of revenues for another seven years.

https://wwos.nine.com.au/nrl/peter-...greement/f4115091-b308-41fb-be57-f67336a89e9d
PLUS the NRL outrates AFL which would equal less for You.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...ff-over-flip-flop-clause-20200617-p553lh.html

Just about says what i said.

Also this from story..

Seven is expected to save about $87 million between 2020 and 2022 under the revised AFL agreement, $70 million of which is made up of rights fees. The AFL will receive $730 million from Seven over the next five years, an average annual payment of $147 million.

I hear the 730m figure has 50 contra thus over the next five years AFL FTA, Seven pay 136m per year.
https://www.afr.com/companies/media...eads-over-potential-extension-20200617-p553jj

Max MasonMedia and marketing editor
Updated Jun 17, 2020 – 4.01pm, first published at 3.25pm
Foxtel has been unable to reach agreement with the AFL for an extension for its broadcast rights due to the substitution of games in NSW, South Australia and Western Australia on to free-to-air TV broadcaster Seven West Media.

Foxtel locked in a saving of about $90 million over the next three seasons of the current agreement through to the end of the 2022 season, while Seven will save about $74 million on rights fees in the same time, as well as $13 million in production.

But Seven signed an extension with the AFL until 2024, while Foxtel did not.

Sources said Seven's five years to 2024 is worth $730 million, $680 million in cash and $50 million contra, saving the network $128 million over the term."

So the spin merchants and sooth sayers take over...How this part from a 'expert', same story above.
Note Expert Bio Most likely born in 6 toe state TAS and a AFL tragic

Goldman Sachs analyst Kane Hannan told clients the revised sports rights agreements between the NRL, Foxtel and Nine, as well as the AFL with Seven and Foxtel, were an industry reset.

"We see the revised AFL/NRL deals as a positive reset, with the AFL outperforming the NRL," he wrote.

"We had expected concessions in [the second half of the 2020 financial year] given the disrupted season, but were surprised at the extent of the savings and the impact on FY21/22 earnings.

"However, the most pleasing aspect was the pricing on the AFL/NRL extensions, which we estimate were flat (AFL) to down (NRL) on the prior deal."

Mr Hannan suggested there has been a shift in power back to broadcasters, with sporting bodies realising the value of the audiences they bring.

So the Seven/foxtel saves 164m (cash from contract)+ (13m production costs) and thats getting 'flat' in their books.

 

[taipan]

Well for starters they NEVER paid NRL $1.1billion pre covid. They were due to pay $875million. So if the journo cant get that thing that we actually know right what weight should we give the rest of the argument? Like Ive said it might be $1bill 23- but if it is there are major concessions included. Or are you suggesting that all your talk for the last two years about no growth in TV contracts, dire state of the nation due to covid meaning absolutely no chance of an increase etc was wrong and in fact Fox have just upped the NRL contract by 14% because they are financially expecting to do so well post covid?

Thats how you are reading it, when they say the "extended deal" that doesnt necessarily mean just the extension, it could mena the whole 7 year deal. I hope you right and that it doesnt devalue the FTA deal too much, be great if your are but its a massive swing from doom and gloom to an increased contract!

Look sheesh:
1) You came on board the good ship PVL Titanic and kept going on with doubts,the deal could have been 7 years not a 5 years extension, and you had seen no journos mentioning such.I just gave it to you.
2) These same journos cited(yes guessed) a figure of $1-1.1bn ,and once again you stared you hadn't;t sighted a reference.Read the above.
Now you state the old Fox figure was $875m not what the journos cited as being around $1bn.

All I know the Tv deal last times was set for 2018-2022 all up $1.8bn.That has been mentioned by everyone except Osama Bin Laden.
You can use whatever configuration you like.
If Foxtel was $875M the initial figure.
Then the ch9 out of pocket would be $925m over 5 years (2018-2022)or $185m pa.Yet the figure quoted for reducing the 18-22 deal was based on their cost of est $130m pa down to $100 or $90m pa.The journalists would have been aware as was Masters that Nine sold back some to Foxtel.That means whatever Foxtel paid in the end and to whom still leaves a figure around $1bn.

And I will point out one more time, and this was clearly spelt out by Masters on May 30th :
"He (V'Landys) rejects as "wrong" the reported figure of $1.7bn for. a revised eight year 2020-2027 contract, and said Foxtel had been AWARDED A FIVE-YEAR RENEWAL FOR AN UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT.'

Now I can't be more explicit in any other language Swahili, Pashtun, Cantonese, Mandarin,
Russian. V'Landys has denied it's 8 years, stated it's 5 years.

Do I have to get the flipping CIA to give V'Landys water boarding torture ,to extract the truth you want? Or is he lying through his teeth?

 

[Perth Red]

Look sheesh:
1) You came on board the good ship PVL Titanic and kept going on with doubts,the deal could have been 7 years not a 5 years extension, and you had seen no journos mentioning such.I just gave it to you.
2) These same journos cited(yes guessed) a figure of $1-1.1bn ,and once again you stared you hadn't;t sighted a reference.Read the above.
Now you state the old Fox figure was $875m not what the journos cited as being around $1bn.

All I know the Tv deal last times was set for 2018-2022 all up $1.8bn.That has been mentioned by everyone except Osama Bin Laden.
You can use whatever configuration you like.
If Foxtel was $875M the initial figure.
Then the ch9 out of pocket would be $925m over 5 years (2018-2022)or $185m pa.Yet the figure quoted for reducing the 18-22 deal was based on their cost of est $130m pa down to $100 or $90m pa.The journalists would have been aware as was Masters that Nine sold back some to Foxtel.That means whatever Foxtel paid in the end and to whom still leaves a figure around $1bn.

And I will point out one more time, and this was clearly spelt out by Masters on May 30th :
"He (V'Landys) rejects as "wrong" the reported figure of $1.7bn for. a revised eight year 2020-2027 contract, and said Foxtel had been AWARDED A FIVE-YEAR RENEWAL FOR AN UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT.'

Now I can't be more explicit in any other language Swahili, Pashtun, Cantonese, Mandarin,
Russian. V'Landys has denied it's 8 years, stated it's 5 years.

Do I have to get the flipping CIA to give V'Landys water boarding torture ,to extract the truth you want? Or is he lying through his teeth?

Then he should have said what Fox was paying out FOR NRL, not TO NRL. The $185-$175 actual payment split was consistently commented on when the deal was done. Yes Ch9 recouped $60mill from Fox of that $185mill but they were still paying NRL it.

re the $130mill saving, a payment for first qtr had already been made and dont forget the $10mill per year that Nine had already paid NRL in its advance. So if you take 1st Qtr payment ($46mill) plus the advance off the $185mill you are left with around $130mill which would tally with the Nine predicted savings if NRL didnt return for 2020.


No ones disputing that there has been a 5 year extension. What we dont know is what the value of the full 8 year deal is, as you quoted Vlandys has said what it isnt but hasnt said what it is.

Ok so whats your take on why FOXTEL, with all its well documented financial problems and facing even bigger revenue reductions over the next few years as people ditch satellite for cheaper streaming, would pay 14% MORE from 23?

 

[Perth Red]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...ff-over-flip-flop-clause-20200617-p553lh.html

Just about says what i said.

Also this from story..

Seven is expected to save about $87 million between 2020 and 2022 under the revised AFL agreement, $70 million of which is made up of rights fees. The AFL will receive $730 million from Seven over the next five years, an average annual payment of $147 million.

I hear the 730m figure has 50 contra thus over the next five years AFL FTA, Seven pay 136m per year.
https://www.afr.com/companies/media...eads-over-potential-extension-20200617-p553jj

Max MasonMedia and marketing editor
Updated Jun 17, 2020 – 4.01pm, first published at 3.25pm
Foxtel has been unable to reach agreement with the AFL for an extension for its broadcast rights due to the substitution of games in NSW, South Australia and Western Australia on to free-to-air TV broadcaster Seven West Media.

Foxtel locked in a saving of about $90 million over the next three seasons of the current agreement through to the end of the 2022 season, while Seven will save about $74 million on rights fees in the same time, as well as $13 million in production.

But Seven signed an extension with the AFL until 2024, while Foxtel did not.

Sources said Seven's five years to 2024 is worth $730 million, $680 million in cash and $50 million contra, saving the network $128 million over the term."

So the spin merchants and sooth sayers take over...How this part from a 'expert', same story above.
Note Expert Bio Most likely born in 6 toe state TAS and a AFL tragic

Goldman Sachs analyst Kane Hannan told clients the revised sports rights agreements between the NRL, Foxtel and Nine, as well as the AFL with Seven and Foxtel, were an industry reset.

"We see the revised AFL/NRL deals as a positive reset, with the AFL outperforming the NRL," he wrote.

"We had expected concessions in [the second half of the 2020 financial year] given the disrupted season, but were surprised at the extent of the savings and the impact on FY21/22 earnings.

"However, the most pleasing aspect was the pricing on the AFL/NRL extensions, which we estimate were flat (AFL) to down (NRL) on the prior deal."

Mr Hannan suggested there has been a shift in power back to broadcasters, with sporting bodies realising the value of the audiences they bring.

So the Seven/foxtel saves 164m (cash from contract)+ (13m production costs) and thats getting 'flat' in their books.

Smacks of Smith wanting to hold Foxtel to a better deal. Maybe we should of hung off a bit and waited for Uncle Rupert to get vexed with AFL and tell the world how he thinks NRL is the best game and worth more money? Lol

 

[Chief_Chujo]

Ok so whats your take on why FOXTEL, with all its well documented financial problems and facing even bigger revenue reductions over the next few years as people ditch satellite for cheaper streaming, would pay 14% MORE from 23?

It's not more when you take into account Fox not paying Nein $60mil pa when the extension starts.

 

[taipan]

Then he should have said what Fox was paying out FOR NRL, not TO NRL. The $185-$175 actual payment split was consistently commented on when the deal was done. Yes Ch9 recouped $60mill from Fox of that $185mill but they were still paying NRL it.

re the $130mill saving, a payment for first qtr had already been made and dont forget the $10mill per year that Nine had already paid NRL in its advance. So if you take 1st Qtr payment ($46mill) plus the advance off the $185mill you are left with around $130mill which would tally with the Nine predicted savings if NRL didnt return for 2020.


No ones disputing that there has been a 5 year extension. What we dont know is what the value of the full 8 year deal is, as you quoted Vlandys has said what it isnt but hasnt said what it is.

Ok so whats your take on why FOXTEL, with all its well documented financial problems and facing even bigger revenue reductions over the next few years as people ditch satellite for cheaper streaming, would pay 14% MORE from 23?

I give up.If V'Landys say X ,you say but it's gotta be Y.
Going round and round in circles is doing my head in.
I'm over it mate, I think your'e trying to take the mickey. Either that or your'e an AFL plant.

 

[colly]

Smacks of Smith wanting to hold Foxtel to a better deal. Maybe we should of hung off a bit and waited for Uncle Rupert to get vexed with AFL and tell the world how he thinks NRL is the best game and worth more money? Lol

Perth Red - Smacks of Smith wanting to hold Foxtel to a better deal.
WOW how do rate that. In the end Smiths deal had Foxtel paying Nine, NOT the NRL, to the tune of 55 million per year- yeah great deal for Nine, 55 million $$$. In previous post Vlandy said said "do you deal with the main payer" - if Smith had done that the NRL would have been 55 million dollars per year year better off.

 

[Perth Red]

Perth Red - Smacks of Smith wanting to hold Foxtel to a better deal.
WOW how do rate that. In the end Smiths deal had Foxtel paying Nine, NOT the NRL, to the tune of 55 million per year- yeah great deal for Nine, 55 million $$$. In previous post Vlandy said said "do you deal with the main payer" - if Smith had done that the NRL would have been 55 million dollars per year year better off.

and nine wouldn’t have paid $185 mill lol.

It's not more when you take into account Fox not paying Nein $60mil pa when the extension starts.

yep that’s what I said, only way Fox are paying us $200mill a year is if we have bundled the Saturday night and simucast and exclusive 8 game streaming into the deal. And if we have we are going to get a lot less from fta next time. I suspect We may have and that’s why Ch9 have refused an extension.

Perth Red - Smacks of Smith wanting to hold Foxtel to a better deal.
WOW how do rate that. In the end Smiths deal had Foxtel paying Nine, NOT the NRL, to the tune of 55 million per year- yeah great deal for Nine, 55 million $$$. In previous post Vlandy said said "do you deal with the main payer" - if Smith had done that the NRL would have been 55 million dollars per year year better off.

It was $60mill a year and one of the reasons the fta part of the deal went up significantly to. $185mill a year

 

[Chief_Chujo]

yep that’s what I said, only way Fox are paying us $200mill a year is if we have bundled the Saturday night and simucast and exclusive 8 game streaming into the deal. And if we have we are going to get a lot less from fta next time. I suspect We may have and that’s why Ch9 have refused an extension.

We were always going to get less from FTA. It's a dying format. Thats why nein wanted to kill simulcast. It's the only way they can get eyeballs back to their shite coverage and format.

Due to anti syphoning the NRL can still sell, at minimum, 2 games a weekend, finals and origin to FTA. That's going to be worth a bit. Coupled with the uptick in non broadcast rev we're looking at secure funding until 2028. It's a good effort from Vlandys and co.

More interesting to me is fox not extending the AFL. Maybe because of the generous deal with 7, foxtel and kayo uptake is not what they thought it would be in the AFL states.

 

[colly]

Part One.

I been saying it was a masterstroke to cut out Telstra which did not (DIRECTLY) pay for the Digital streaming rights to the NRL. Vlandy solution 'cut them out' and offer them to Nine to get a better dollar agreement. Under the 'old' contract Telstra just stumped up cash to Foxtel (Fox sports) and they bought it and then put (At Foxtel direction) a restriction on that limited it to laptop/pads/mobiles. Not anymore now. Vlandy put a stop to this. As cheif says TV it is 'dying' in the digal age, unless they can go digial.
Just like we use TV kayo /foxtel and then comment on the game in 'match discussion' it adds new layer of enjoyment which will in a new way increase the money value of the Nine contract.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/com...-strategy-after-nrl-snub-20200614-p552dy.html

"Nine had already loudly signalled that it was not prepared to blindly pay top dollar for sports rights anymore, especially ones that are not exclusive and when that exclusivity does not extend to the digital realm. By cutting out Telstra, V'landys was betting that he could make more from his free-to-air deal."

In part two... I see show/explain how Nine can use digital NRL to make $$$

 

[tri_colours]

Ok so whats your take on why FOXTEL, with all its well documented financial problems and facing even bigger revenue reductions over the next few years as people ditch satellite for cheaper streaming, would pay 14% MORE from 23?

If Fox own the football then carriers like Netflix etc, cant show it.

Fox will adapt , continue to show the Marquee sports and charge people to see it.

Rupert Murdoch is a very rich man. If he's got something that makes money he wont have a problem backing it.

 

[Perth Red]

If Fox own the football then carriers like Netflix etc, cant show it.

Fox will adapt , continue to show the Marquee sports and charge people to see it.

Rupert Murdoch is a very rich man. If he's got something that makes money he wont have a problem backing it.

Problem is Fox Sports is losing money and its only going to get worse as people abandon the $55 a month satellite service for the $25 a month streaming service.

 

[tri_colours]

But still only Fox will have the football and however they chose to sell it off its still $25 a month.

 

[Steel Saints]

We were always going to get less from FTA. It's a dying format. Thats why nein wanted to kill simulcast. It's the only way they can get eyeballs back to their shite coverage and format.

Due to anti syphoning the NRL can still sell, at minimum, 2 games a weekend, finals and origin to FTA. That's going to be worth a bit. Coupled with the uptick in non broadcast rev we're looking at secure funding until 2028. It's a good effort from Vlandys and co.

More interesting to me is fox not extending the AFL. Maybe because of the generous deal with 7, foxtel and kayo uptake is not what they thought it would be in the AFL states.

Apparently Fox wants to get rid of the "flip flop" clause where local sides outside of Victoria appear on FTA every weekend, such as West Coast and Adelaide.

It looks like Fox is not getting the subscriber numbers in those states to justify the tv revenue. Afl wants to keep the clause.

 

[Starkers]

I'm still secretly hoping Ch10 come to the table in FTA next time around. Surely the other part of cutting out Telstra favours an open tender for exclusivity arrangements on FTA. And following that surely FOXTEL pursue this idea that they can stream Origin and GF i to households for free, thus creating more bidding tension.

 

[T-Boon]

I'm still secretly hoping Ch10 come to the table in FTA next time around. Surely the other part of cutting out Telstra favours an open tender for exclusivity arrangements on FTA. And following that surely FOXTEL pursue this idea that they can stream Origin and GF i to households for free, thus creating more bidding tension.

I like the idea of fox having origin and making it free (with ads no doubt) where has this idea been mentioned?

 

[LeagueXIII]

Currently the government has anti siphoning laws to protect certain sporting events from not being shown on FTA.

For rugby league these are the events that FTA have first crack at:

– NRL Premiership Competition
– State of Origin
– Australian International Test matches
– Every Australian Rugby League World Cup match played in Australia, New Zealand or Papua New Guinea

The only way Foxtel can get hold of these are if:

• FTA channels have not secured the rights 12 weeks from the event
• A commercial broadcaster is televising the event to more than half the Australian population
• The rights are held by a national broadcaster (ABC or SBS)

National and commercial broadcasters are permitted to simulcast or repeat the events on their digital multi-channels, but only after they have been shown first on their flagship FTA channel.

 

[tri_colours]

I like the idea of fox having origin and making it free (with ads no doubt) where has this idea been mentioned?

Roy Masters said they could do this (unlikely though) . I would imagine its based on no FTA channel wanting these rights.

 

[colly]

The main point i want make is - Foxtel did enforce contract breaking mechanism - make Soccer Federation accept a lower price- This it points to futility to taking to court either Nine/ Foxtel- and a business reality to compromise - even thou it looks like we got a higher price from Foxrtel in the new contract.



https://www.afr.com/companies/media...-one-year-30-million-ffa-deal-20200619-p554ae


Foxtel signs new one-year $30 million FFA deal

Max MasonMedia and marketing editor
Jun 19, 2020 – 5.24pm

Foxtel has signed a new one-year deal with Football Federation Australia at nearly half the former yearly price after walking away from its previous broadcast agreement.

On Thursday The Australian Financial Review revealed Foxtel had walked away from its broadcast deal, worth $57 million per year and running through to 2023. Instead it was negotiating to see out the current COVID-19 season at a much reduced rate in a deal which was to be announced on Friday.

Foxtel and the FFA have reached a one-year deal. AAP

Sources told the Financial Review that Foxtel was using a clause in its contract regarding content – the staging of games – not being delivered for 20 days, allowing it to walk away or renegotiate. The A-League season shut down on March 24 amid the growing coronavirus pandemic that also halted many other sports.

An announcement for a newly signed deal, believed to be worth around $32 million, with more than $5 million in contra, is expected imminently.

The A-League has not been a ratings winner for Foxtel, with signficant ratings declines over the past three years. Foxtel has invested in excess of $550 million in rights and production over the past 15 years, since the A-League began.

The new deal between Foxtel and the FFA will see the remainder of the 2019-20 A-League season broadcast on Fox Sports, as well as the 2020-21 A-League and W-League seasons which begin in December. These run through to July 2021, more closely aligning the league with club football.

The deal also includes Socceroos and Matildas friendlies and World Cup qualifiers, and the ABC will continue to broadcast one match a week. It does not include the FFA Cup.

While FFA will have to deal with half the amount of money, sources said the clubs and league were happy with the short-term agreement and a newly timed season to run when Australians play the sport. The FFA is expected to explore direct-to-consumer streaming opportunities after the Foxtel agreement.

The cut-price deal represents a significant saving for Foxtel. The pay TV provider has been searching for cost cuts that it believes would not have a major impact on its subscriber base.

Following a series of articles in the Financial Review in 2019 regarding News Corp's refinancing of Foxtel's $2.5 billion debt pile, News Corp released the document it provided to potential debt investors which outlined it would "reduce spend on non-marquee sporting content". This was widely interpreted to mean all sports outside of NRL, AFL and cricket.

The pandemic has seen Foxtel seek to renegotiate unsustainable sporting rights fees as it tries to rework its cost base and pivot towards streaming. The Murdoch-controlled business hopes this strategy will expand its customer base, albeit at a lower margin than traditional broadcast.

The Financial Review revealed on Wednesday that Foxtel had been unable to reach an agreement for an extension with the Australian Football League over the sports deal with free-to-air broadcaster Seven and the issue of substituting home team AFL games outside Victoria, such as in South Australia and Western Australia. Foxtel did, however, renegotiate the terms of its current agreement to 2022, saving itself roughly $30 million per year.

Foxtel has signed a five-year extension with the National Rugby League, believed to be worth about $200 million per season. It has also signed an agreement to broadcast a revised Super Rugby season that will feature five Australian teams. However, Foxtel's commitment to rugby beyond this year remains up in the air.

The main point i want make is - Foxtel did enforce contract breaking mechanism - make Soccer Federation accept a lower price- This it points to futility to taking to court either Nine/ Foxtel- and a business reality to compromise - even thou it looks like we got a higher price from Foxrtel in the new contract.

Sorry about the formatting problem.