What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Next TV rights deal part 2

Are you happy with the new TV deal?


  • Total voters
    74

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,957
On a per year basis, I expect us to be a bit under their deal. Purely because of 9 games vs 8 and a 3 hour broadcast vs 2. But it really does come down to how good negotiators both sides have. Our benefit is that News and Telstra have very deep pockets, and we know they have plenty of room to move so we can push them.

I feel that this deal will actually be used to set us up for a better deal next round. Next time the rights come up in 2023 will be the most interesting since the 1990's IMO.

The lack of a ninth game is our own choice, the length of games doesnt make any difference on pay tv, they only care about number of subscribers. Length and advert matter for fta and we've already trumped afl there. No reason we should not be at the least on par with the afl deal in Australia. Less is a failure, more is Dave smiths legacy to the game.
 

Last Week

Bench
Messages
3,646
A point to remember too is that the AFL's cost base is much higher.

More teams , more players = much higher payroll.

Which means less money to expand the code.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean too much when it comes to getting profitable deals from broadcasters. They couldn't really give a shit how much it costs to run a club.

But to comment on your point, yeah they have higher cost base, but they also earn more money from outside the tv deal than usus, thedon't have to worry about a state of origin (costs a heap to put on) or international teams. I wouldn't be shocked if it came about even in terms of where dollars go (players/admin/assets/etc) for both codes. We just rely on TV money more than they do.
 

Hello, I'm The Doctor

First Grade
Messages
9,124
Why one part of me wants News to come in with a OTT bid for the remaining game another part of me wants to see them suffer for all things they have said about our game of late by rejecting their overtures and watch their subscriptions go into free fall.
If we do a deal with them i would like part of that deal to be Rothfield and Wilson given the Spanish archer from news.

?Por qur no los dos?

Id personally like to see Fox pay the NRL a massive amount and put themselves into insurmountable debt. So the only die off AFTER the NRL get recompense for SL.
 

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,515
Doc what would you think the chances are of the NRL signing a short term subscription deal? Say three years like the EPL.

Not impossible but unlikely. As Last Week alluded Foxtel will want 5 years (or more but 5 is most likely) and it will also mean the AFL & NRL deals fall into future alignment & all properties are up for sale at the same time (meaning the NRL is less pressured to go as early next time).

The only way I see a shorter - like a 3 year - deal getting done is if it's with someone other than Foxtel looking to disrupt Foxtel's control and there's a 2 year option on the end for a secured re-auction. So basically the NRL knows the 5 year amount but if Optus want to back out in year 4 they can but only if Foxtel or another competitor commits in the minimum to the same price structure (or more) in Years 4 & 5.

On a per year basis, I expect us to be a bit under their deal. Purely because of 9 games vs 8 and a 3 hour broadcast vs 2. But it really does come down to how good negotiators both sides have. Our benefit is that News and Telstra have very deep pockets, and we know they have plenty of room to move so we can push them.

I feel that this deal will actually be used to set us up for a better deal next round. Next time the rights come up in 2023 will be the most interesting since the 1990's IMO.

Yep both codes have/had different things to offer in different combinations. There's a lot of variables.

But I'll add -- if the NRL went with 9 because they rejected Fox Sports' status quo offer, they would have been unlikely to have rocked the boat unless they thought they could extract significant additional value out of it in terms of coverage and price.

Let's just say that $1.7 billion total figure was real (we know it's not because for it happen 9 had to have agreed to Fox's terms) but lets say it was. How much more $$$ would the NRL risk rocking the boat for? $100 million? $200 million?

We've seen them do exactly that with 9 and extract a premium as a result. Despite the News Corp propaganda they're in the process of doing the same with subscription & simulcasting.

The lack of a ninth game is our own choice, the length of games doesnt make any difference on pay tv, they only care about number of subscribers. Length and advert matter for fta and we've already trumped afl there. No reason we should not be at the least on par with the afl deal in Australia. Less is a failure, more is Dave smiths legacy to the game.

The 9th game is their choice but it seems like the NRL are acting coy about it and using it as a negotiating tactic which is smart.

As for length of games on pay TV & Foxtel only caring about subscribers - look at it a bit deeper than that.

Foxtel generates a sizable amount of revenue through its advertising arm. Every hour viewers watch pay TV that's an hour they're not watching F2A & taking away their ad revenue. Networks build their schedules by keeping audiences flowing on through the day - basically they want to minimise channel switching. What Foxtel want is for their viewers to avoid switching back to F2A - everything they do is aimed at keeping viewers on the Foxtel system. That in turn drives their ad receipts. That extra hour of premium programming helps them do exactly that, just like it does for 7 on F2A. That's a benefit the NRL will simply never have. Ask any media expert and they will tell you the same thing.

Your "less is a failure, more is Dave smiths legacy" comment reflects your naivety on this issue.
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,070
Let's just say that $1.7 billion total figure was real (we know it's not because for it happen 9 had to have agreed to Fox's terms)

Correction.

Its more fair to say "we know its not" because that's the figure constantly bandied about by News Ltd media. And we all know that just has to be a load of lowball bollocks now don't we.
 

insert.pause

First Grade
Messages
6,446
Not impossible but unlikely. As Last Week alluded Foxtel will want 5 years (or more but 5 is most likely) and it will also mean the AFL & NRL deals fall into future alignment & all properties are up for sale at the same time (meaning the NRL is less pressured to go as early next time).

The only way I see a shorter - like a 3 year - deal getting done is if it's with someone other than Foxtel looking to disrupt Foxtel's control and there's a 2 year option on the end for a secured re-auction. So basically the NRL knows the 5 year amount but if Optus want to back out in year 4 they can but only if Foxtel or another competitor commits in the minimum to the same price structure (or more) in Years 4 & 5.



Yep both codes have/had different things to offer in different combinations. There's a lot of variables.

But I'll add -- if the NRL went with 9 because they rejected Fox Sports' status quo offer, they would have been unlikely to have rocked the boat unless they thought they could extract significant additional value out of it in terms of coverage and price.

Let's just say that $1.7 billion total figure was real (we know it's not because for it happen 9 had to have agreed to Fox's terms) but lets say it was. How much more $$$ would the NRL risk rocking the boat for? $100 million? $200 million?

We've seen them do exactly that with 9 and extract a premium as a result. Despite the News Corp propaganda they're in the process of doing the same with subscription & simulcasting.



The 9th game is their choice but it seems like the NRL are acting coy about it and using it as a negotiating tactic which is smart.

As for length of games on pay TV & Foxtel only caring about subscribers - look at it a bit deeper than that.

Foxtel generates a sizable amount of revenue through its advertising arm. Every hour viewers watch pay TV that's an hour they're not watching F2A & taking away their ad revenue. Networks build their schedules by keeping audiences flowing on through the day - basically they want to minimise channel switching. What Foxtel want is for their viewers to avoid switching back to F2A - everything they do is aimed at keeping viewers on the Foxtel system. That in turn drives their ad receipts. That extra hour of premium programming helps them do exactly that, just like it does for 7 on F2A. That's a benefit the NRL will simply never have. Ask any media expert and they will tell you the same thing.

Your "less is a failure, more is Dave smiths legacy" comment reflects your naivety on this issue.
It can be a double-edged sword, the AFL bleed a lot of viewers throughout the broadcast, whereas the NRL usually retain them for the majority.
 
Last edited:
Messages
21,867
Yeah, but that doesn't mean too much when it comes to getting profitable deals from broadcasters. They couldn't really give a shit how much it costs to run a club.

Sure , I didn't really mean it that way. Just meant that we have two competing businesses , with a similar product & one product costs more to produce. Lower cost business is always at an advantage.

But to comment on your point, yeah they have higher cost base, but they also earn more money from outside the tv deal than usus, thedon't have to worry about a state of origin (costs a heap to put on) or international teams. I wouldn't be shocked if it came about even in terms of where dollars go (players/admin/assets/etc) for both codes. We just rely on TV money more than they do.

Couple of things.

That's why the FTA to deal is so big for the sport. Greater exposure for more teams means they can broaden their revenue base. More money through sponsorship , merchandise etc.

I'd be stunned if SOO wasn't profitable , the ticket sales &'eyeballs are huge. We have greater costs through things like the Holden Cup , but our lower cost base at 1st team level allows us to put on something like that. Which in turn helps grow the code.
 

RoosTah

Juniors
Messages
2,257
This site really is the best place for analysis and news on this deal. Excellent points by Doc at every stage. You work in the industry mate? Sound like you know your stuff better than most even in the (non news corp) media.

I'm really interested to see what comes out of the next year of negotiations and whether it's possible we'll see another bidder coming in and taking the NRL off Fox. The idea of Optus winning it would be massive, but ESPN is still a very interesting prospect already cementing their place in digital rights how.

Would laugh my arse off if the Pay TV rights alone went for over $1bn and will be giving it hard to the news corp hacks if that happens.
 

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,515
Correction.

Its more fair to say "we know its not" because that's the figure constantly bandied about by News Ltd media. And we all know that just has to be a load of lowball bollocks now don't we.

That too - it was indeed their "desired" figure, which was a lowball number.

It can be a double-edged sword, the AFL bleed a lot of viewers throughout the broadcast, whereas the NRL usually retain them for the majority.

That's true to some extent but you have to consider that even after the bleed those AFL programming numbers are still greater than the background Foxtel numbers so that extra hour does help them.

This site really is the best place for analysis and news on this deal. Excellent points by Doc at every stage. You work in the industry mate? Sound like you know your stuff better than most even in the (non news corp) media.

I work overseas quite a bit so I miss some of the changes happening here in the local industry. I just try to keep an eye on it so there's some level headed discussion. SMH has been pretty good in that regard. I've said before my background is in journalism and advertising.

For example what we talking about a few weeks ago - David Gyngell stepping down - happened today. Hugh Marks is now the new 9 CEO. He's a good fit - all about content. I don't see it affecting the NRL discussion too much though. Gyng will be lurking in the shadows.
 
Messages
14,034
Given telstra own a significant percentage of foxtel would they allow optus to broadcast?

If it was an additional charge i couldnt see many except British expats doing it tbh. Will be out of sight of mind then, bolt on channels never do well relative to the master sports package

As long as Optus are will to pay an access fee to Foxtel, I don't think Telstra can legally stop them broadcasting on Foxtel.
 

heights

Juniors
Messages
50
John Gibbs reporting on 2UE that new NRL deal announcement is imminent.

EPL going to Optus has really spooked Fox.

He's reporting Nine a Thursday 7.30 game, Fox to have a Fri 6pm game, Nine a Fri 7.30 game, Fox to have their Super Saturday back, Nine to have a 2pm and a 4pm Sunday game.......all from next year!!

We'll see how accurate his mail is.
 

whall15

Coach
Messages
15,871
John Gibbs reporting on 2UE that new NRL deal announcement is imminent.

EPL going to Optus has really spooked Fox.

He's reporting Nine a Thursday 7.30 game, Fox to have a Fri 6pm game, Nine a Fri 7.30 game, Fox to have their Super Saturday back, Nine to have a 2pm and a 4pm Sunday game.......all from next year!!

We'll see how accurate his mail is.

Nine's Friday game would have to go to 8, you couldn't have two games overlapping.

Plus, I don't care as much about crowds as others but 6pm Friday would be completely f**ked.
 

CC_Roosters

First Grade
Messages
5,221
Nine's Friday game would have to go to 8, you couldn't have two games overlapping.

Plus, I don't care as much about crowds as others but 6pm Friday would be completely f**ked.

Smells like bullshit to me. How on earth could they even comprehend thinking about the remote possibility of friday 6pm. Of all the bad ideas around scheduling that would be the worst i could imagine
 

insert.pause

First Grade
Messages
6,446
A NEW 6PM Friday night game would be scheduled under a proposed NRL broadcast deal that would also see Super Saturday return to Fox Sports.

Fox Sports could seize as many as five live games in a deal currently under negotiation between News Corp, the NRL and the Nine Network, which could deliver the game $1.85 billion and be sealed as early as this week. The new deal has taken shape in the weeks since former League boss Dave Smith’s resignation last month, with talks making significant progress in the last week.

Under the proposal, Nine gives up its Saturday night prime-time game to Fox Sports (wholly owned by News Corp) for around $30 million a year, or $150m over five years, after that game was taken away from Fox in the deal Smith negotiated with former Nine chief David Gyngell earlier this year. That deal also included the loss by Fox Sports of its exclusive Monday night games. Once the Nine deal was announced, Fox advised the NRL that it was not interested in negotiations unless Super Saturday was back put on the table.

Fox would also pay Nine about $15m a year for the simulcast rights to screen Nine’s Thursday, Friday and Sunday games under the deal. Negotiations are also underway to fast-track any new broadcast deal to as early as next year, although talks are still ongoing on this issue.

If all parties agree on these measures, the NRL could attract up to $1.8b for its overall rights, or about $360m a year. Nine could see the original $925m cost of its deal over five years reduced to $700m for its three free-to-air games each week, as compensation for its reduced coverage.

If Fox Sports gets everything that it wants, it could now pay up to $800m. The rest of the $1.8b figure would come from digital rights (about $200m), international TV rights ($100m) and naming rights for the competition ($50m).

A Friday night game kicking off at 6PM would be a key sweetener for Fox Sports, which would televise those matches from Auckland, Brisbane or Townsville from 2016.

This would ensure games held in the earlier timeslot would also attract a crowd because arriving early for matches in peak hour on a Friday night in Sydney would be too difficult in peak hour traffic.

The $925m deal agreed between Nine and Dave Smith earlier this year gave Nine all four of the top games each weekend, including Saturday. The Friday 8PM game would remain the clash of the week, followed by Saturday 7.30PM game, Sunday 4PM, Thursday 8PM, Saturday afternoon games, Friday 6PM and Sunday 2PM.

In another sensational development, Fox Sports has formally given up its Monday Night game, so it can retain three matches for Super Saturday. Nine will commence Thursday night games next year if all parties agree.

The free-to-air league broadcaster has also agreed to the simulcast plan for a share of the ad revenue on Fox Sports. Pay-TV subscribers can expect a similar coverage to the AFL, which has simulcast all matches for several seasons.

Sources close to the negotiations say the new deal, expected to be trialled next year, is on tenterhooks but huge progress had been made in the last week. The departure of Dave Smith last month and the exit from Nine of David Gyngell early in the week were seen as a sweetener for Fox Sports to re-enter talks with the NRL and Nine.

Fox Sports swung into negotiations with Nine and the NRL to shore up their position but insiders say the monetary value of the entire deal is still short of the record breaking $2.2 billion AFL negotiation, announced earlier this year.

However, the AFL’s deal runs over six years and includes an extra game per round.

The new NRL broadcast deal will not commence until 2018 but The Daily Telegraph understands that all parties would prefer to start the new programming next year. It is unclear when the handover of the contract money will take place.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...s-super-saturday/story-fni3fbgz-1227603719769
 

tumbidragon

First Grade
Messages
6,771
Smells like bullshit to me. How on earth could they even comprehend thinking about the remote possibility of friday 6pm. Of all the bad ideas around scheduling that would be the worst i could imagine

Massoud on 7 said fox are branding the 6pm game as their "pub" game, for ppl commuting back home from work... Also said the deal will end up being between 1.7-1.8 Billion.
No thanks for me. I'd much rather wait it out and test the waters, whilst making faux shit their pants a little more thanks. Still have 2 years left on the current deal, so why rush and play into faux's hands?
 

insert.pause

First Grade
Messages
6,446
News Corp can get f**ked, no way the NRL give all that up for only 1.5bn before digital & NZ rights. If its 1.85bn BEFORE digital & NZ rights it's more equitable.
 

applesauce

Bench
Messages
3,573
If that programming layout is true the NRL better get $2.5+billion for five years!

Why would they let Fox take away FTA games and still only get the low end of their $ hopes for the deal.
 
Top