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!

2023-2028 next tv deal discussion

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,925
I agree, they need the NRL to put the funding down into VicRL but then when the juniors do come through Storm can't take credit, NRL has to. But we all know that's not the way to do it either. Should let Storm do their own juniors then NRL pays for the Dev Officer.

NRL clubs job should kick in at 16-17 years old, picking the elite at that age and developing them to first grade. But to get that cream you need a lot of milk and thats the job of the NRL, to get more, a lot more in Victoria's case, kids playing the game so the cream is much thicker.
 

Last Week

Bench
Messages
3,646
NRL clubs job should kick in at 16-17 years old, picking the elite at that age and developing them to first grade. But to get that cream you need a lot of milk and thats the job of the NRL, to get more, a lot more in Victoria's case, kids playing the game so the cream is much thicker.

Weirdo.
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
14,272
yes it was but I didn’t see it refuted by anyone in their game. Their tv deal went from $780mill to $1.25bill. A significant jump that would have been partly due to the extra content.

.

Sorry... I'm not buying its true just because the GWS claims weren't "refuted"...

Its just an attempt by GWS to justify their existence to their Melbourne based critics..
 
Messages
13,982
I want to see SoO digital rights seperated from the riduclous federal laws about FTV big sports events streaming CH9, CH7 sucks dogs balls, still rank amatuers.

For example you should not have to provide a login to watch SoO if Ch9 are going to stream it, you do not have to login watch with a freakin aerial. That is on the silly federal laws.

No politician is going to touch it mate. If it changes, I doubt it will change in our lifetime somehow. The anti-siphoning laws only protect the interests of the free to air TV channels, not the viewer regardless of what the politicians say. Fact is they probably stunted the development of pay TV in Australia which could have seen it offered cheaper than it has been.

I mean have a look at the prices of say Sky UK compared to Foxtel - relatively speaking (allowing for currency differences) Sky is cheaper than Foxtel.
 

Starkers

Bench
Messages
3,010
"RA sees it as a matter of due diligence to test market interest in rugby, not only with its current partner and free-to-air networks but also with OTT ("over-the-top") providers such as Optus, Amazon and Netflix.

A barrage of reports have cast the move as a fatal mis-step, and several broadcasting and rugby sources have suggested Foxtel boss Patrick Delany is close to refusing to deal with Castle.

The stand-off appears to have spooked RA directors and stakeholders, with Davis calling for a leadership overhaul."

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...ir-calls-for-ra-overhaul-20191209-p53i9l.html

union really making a meal of it at this stage. talk of bringing back john o'neill and other candidates scrambling for positions is not going to help imo. i don't recall shane mattiske being any great brains trust, i seem to recall john grant doing most of the heavy lifting. could be wrong?

interesting they think there is a chance with Optus, Amazon and Netflix, when that is largely thought of as implausible in these forums for NRL. could be a bluff.

suggestions that without an uplift franchises could go broke due to a reduction in home game allocations. certainly won't help the waratahs whilst SFS is still a hole in the ground as well. hard to see the super rugby portion receiving an uplift when ratings are so insignificant.

on the flipside, the supposed uplift may be seen in the test schedule which they seem to think is superior. it gets rounded out in 2025 with the lions tour, their last tour here in australia being 2013.

a total collapse of this competition wouldn't bother more than about 15 people.
 

Timbo

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
20,272
Is Optus, Amazon and co. necessarily a bluff though? Kayo has shown people in this country that having a streaming service as a primary way to consume sport is completely viable.

Amazon is pushing hard to get people to subscribe to Prime Video, but the market is already saturated with Netflix and Stan. What if they decided to take a whack at the NRL or AFL to swing the balance.

We’ve also just seen in NZ that cricket has signed an exclusive streaming contract for its next broadcast deal.

I don’t think this is as far fetched as a lot of others seem to.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,925
Sorry... I'm not buying its true just because the GWS claims weren't "refuted"...

Its just an attempt by GWS to justify their existence to their Melbourne based critics..

It has some veracity when you look at the $50mill a year increase on their TV deal post expansion. But people will believe what they want to when the evidence isnt clearly available, and even when it is plenty still believe what suits them!

TV currently pays around $45mill a year for each of the 8 NRL games. Is a ninth game worth around that? Be interesting to know wouldnt it.
 
Last edited:

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,925
"RA sees it as a matter of due diligence to test market interest in rugby, not only with its current partner and free-to-air networks but also with OTT ("over-the-top") providers such as Optus, Amazon and Netflix.

A barrage of reports have cast the move as a fatal mis-step, and several broadcasting and rugby sources have suggested Foxtel boss Patrick Delany is close to refusing to deal with Castle.

The stand-off appears to have spooked RA directors and stakeholders, with Davis calling for a leadership overhaul."

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...ir-calls-for-ra-overhaul-20191209-p53i9l.html

.

That sounds very familiar, Dave Smith says hello.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,925
Is Optus, Amazon and co. necessarily a bluff though? Kayo has shown people in this country that having a streaming service as a primary way to consume sport is completely viable.

Amazon is pushing hard to get people to subscribe to Prime Video, but the market is already saturated with Netflix and Stan. What if they decided to take a whack at the NRL or AFL to swing the balance.

We’ve also just seen in NZ that cricket has signed an exclusive streaming contract for its next broadcast deal.

I don’t think this is as far fetched as a lot of others seem to.

Is there enough revenue in it though at what they charge for these streaming services? Not sure how many subscribers NRL would get but it would need to be a lot to cover the $200mill plus a year price tag Fox currently pay (inc production costs). That would be the major issue I would think? Lets say subscription was $30 a month (and any advertising revenue was the profit made) they'd need to be getting around 650,000 subscribers to justify spending that sort of money. Given most streaming services are in the $10-20 a month range its hard to see the numbers adding up. KAYO has around 150,000 subscribers.
Last deal was worth around $175mill FTA & $190mill Pay TV a year.
 
Last edited:

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
14,272
It has some veracity when you look at the $50mill a year increase on their TV deal post expansion. But people will believe what they want to when the evidence isnt clearly available, and even when it is plenty still believe what suits them!

TV currently pays around $45mill a year for each of the 8 NRL games. Is a ninth game worth around that? Be interesting to know wouldnt it.

It doesn't because NRL has had similar increases without offering an extra game..

If its as simple maths as more games equals more money, why hasn't the AFL continued to expand? Why stop at 9 games two TV deals ago?
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,925
It doesn't because NRL has had similar increases without offering an extra game..

If its as simple maths as more games equals more money, why hasn't the AFL continued to expand? Why stop at 9 games two TV deals ago?

Again you would have to look at the circumstances of those 2013 deals, in the NRL's case the increase was largely due to the game not having significant conflicted ownership for the first time since the mid 90's and the fact it was paid so far under its market value until that 2013 deal. Nothing significant happened in AFL to justify that large an increase, aside from generation of more content from a ninth game.

2018 Tv deal, despite value of Origin, test matches and NRL being #1 watched sport, AFL achieved $60mill a year more than NRL in Australian TV rights. Is that gap due to the extra content? If not what?

Because its not that simple, saturation occurs at some point. Maybe they've reached it, maybe they don't have anywhere else viable to expand to at the moment, maybe they are still bedding in their last expansion and wont go again until they are sorted, maybe the rumours of a tasssie and 3rd Perth side in the next decade are true? Who knows?

NFL for example has expanded significantly to generate more content and greater media revenue in last 30 years, and dont yet seem to have reached that saturation with more teams allegedly in the pipeline.
 
Last edited:

tri_colours

Juniors
Messages
1,828
Again you would have to look at the circumstances of those 2013 deals, in the NRL's case the increase was largely due to the game not having significant conflicted ownership for the first time since the mid 90's and the fact it was paid so far under its market value until that 2013 deal. Nothing significant happened in AFL to justify that large an increase, aside from generation of more content from a ninth game.

2018 Tv deal, despite value of Origin, test matches and NRL being #1 watched sport, AFL achieved $60mill a year more than NRL in Australian TV rights. Is that gap due to the extra content? If not what?

Because its not that simple, saturation occurs at some point. Maybe they've reached it, maybe they don't have anywhere else viable to expand to at the moment, maybe they are still bedding in their last expansion and wont go again until they are sorted, maybe the rumours of a tasssie and 3rd Perth side in the next decade are true? Who knows?

NFL for example has expanded significantly to generate more content and greater media revenue in last 30 years, and dont yet seem to have reached that saturation with more teams allegedly in the pipeline.


More games aren't necessarily worth more money. People need to be prepared to watch them!


Advertising opportunities is why the AFL got more money.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,925
More games aren't necessarily worth more money. People need to be prepared to watch them!



Advertising opportunities is why the AFL got more money.

That is true, though it seems the audience across the current 8 games is consistent so there is no evidence the same number wouldn't tune in for a ninth game, especially in a good slot.

How did advertising opportunities in AFL change from the 2007 deal to the 2013 deal? Advertising opportunities make no difference to value of PayTV part of the deal.
 

LeagueXIII

First Grade
Messages
5,966
Why does the league need to rush into doing another deal, I would make the networks sweat. See what happens with streaming etc....we are in a great position as without us Foxtel will lose alot of their customers.

Currently with the way it's going 9 and fox will get what they want.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,925
A quiet revolution that could have major repercussions for the NRL has been unfolding in England over the past few days.

Amazon Prime is in the final throes of telecasting the most recent round of the English Premier League and the ARL Commission is watching closely as it counts down to the day when it will open talks with broadcasters over the next broadcast deal.

The success or failure of the Premier League could yet determine whether Amazon Prime becomes a factor in those talks.

The ARL Commission will no doubt be hoping it attracts rousing support given tension in the market can only drive up the price of the next broadcasting deal.

Amazon Prime paid an estimated £90m ($172.5m) for the right to broadcast 20 Premier League matches per season — one group of matches across a bank holiday weekend and the other a midweek program.

Amazon is dipping its toes in the water at a time when ARL Commission chairman Peter V’landys continues to bullishly talk up the value of NRL rights, although it has become clear that changes must be made to maximise the code’s value to broadcasters.

The idea of splitting the game into quarters has been tossed up by V’landys but that would appear counter-productive to the concept of increasing player fatigue as a way of creating more space and greater opportunity for attack.

Certainly, making the game more attractive and reducing the impact of poor officiating was high on his agenda when he addressed the media at his unveiling earlier this year.

Regardless of the rules shake-up, V’landys’s best hope may ultimately lie in increasing the competitive tension in the broadcasting market and streaming partners will play a central role if that is to happen. It is something that is prominent in the mind of his fellow commissioners as well, one making that much clear recently when they suggested the next broadcasting deal would rely significantly on streaming services rather than the game’s traditional broadcasters — Fox Sports and the Nine Network.

Privately, NRL sources confirmed they would take an interest in Amazon Prime’s work in England, where the world’s largest internet company threatens to revolutionise coverage of the Premier League.

The Premier League gift-wrapped the packages of games with streaming services in mind and the NRL may consider the same option. Magic Round, for example, lends itself to being packaged up and telecast on a streaming service.

So too the period after the final game of the State of Origin series when interest wanes as eyeballs become weary. The clock is ticking. The Australian revealed earlier this year that the commission was ready to jump early on broadcasting negotiations as it looked to get a jump on the AFL.

Its plans are also clouded by the possible introduction of a second team in Brisbane from 2023. An expansion franchise would need time to prepare for the NRL, no doubt amplifying the commission’s appetite to begin broadcasting negotiations as soon as realistically possible.

The theory behind Amazon’s decision to chase Premier League rights holds true regardless of the sport as it looks to entice viewers to its platform and hopes that they will stay afterwards.

Earlier this year, Roy Morgan Research indicated Amazon Prime enjoyed the largest increase in users over the past 12 months.

Amazon, in particular has become a big player in American sport. It broadcasts the NFL and Major League Baseball. Now it has acquired rights to the Premier League.

The NRL may be small fry in comparison, but every dollar counts as the ARL Commission attempts to strike a deal that secures the future of its clubs and players.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...r/news-story/73fe0dfa3abba1f9aa4ab2ba0a0528c2
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,409
That sounds very familiar, Dave Smith says hello.

The big difference was Smith went to ch9 first,,giving a big STFU to Foxtel.And Rupes chucked a big wetty and sucked up to the AFL.
We will never know what our deal would have ended up ,if Smith had followed past practices with 9 and Foxtel.
By contrast desperate Castle (of Bulldogs and union ballsup fame) went to Foxtel and wasn't happy with their offer ,and wanted $100m more, on a code that rates as well as underwater polo.Union is now fretting because they look like being well and truly reamed in their next deal.

Gyngell (ch9)stated a few years back, having another team in Brisbane was worth $20m pa.That was when FTA was doing a hell of a lot better than now, and Tv advertising was a hell of a lot better.
Putting figures on the next Tv deal ,is akin to throwing darts at a slug.
 

tri_colours

Juniors
Messages
1,828
That is true, though it seems the audience across the current 8 games is consistent so there is no evidence the same number wouldn't tune in for a ninth game, especially in a good slot.

How did advertising opportunities in AFL change from the 2007 deal to the 2013 deal? Advertising opportunities make no difference to value of PayTV part of the deal.


I suspect the NRL would have taken note of what's gone on with other expansion teams, in non heartland areas in the past before making there decision.

Fox advertise just as heavily as the FTA networks when the games aren't on. Giving AFL an extra 20min.
 

colly

Juniors
Messages
1,023
Perth red consistently say AFL got SUBSTANTIAL more money in the last deal. It has been pointed out to him the AFL was for 6 years while NRL for 5 years.
AFl got 2.508 billion dollars WITH 200 million contra, which makes 2.508- 200million (contra) divided by 6 gives you 384 million dollars yearly.
https://mumbrella.com.au/foxtel-and-seven-telstra-tie-up-afl-rights-in-2-5bn-deal-313048
Quote from above link.
There is “around $200m of contra” included in the deal according to AFL CEO Gill McLachlan, who said “the AFL’s challenge is to stay Australia’s game”.
NRL 1.9 billion dollars (including international rights)
http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=4909
So 1.9 billion divided by 5 equals 380 million dollars annually.
NRL 380 million pa
Afl 384 million pa Do note 4 million extra per year in regards to the media TV /PAY deal is
Chump change.

This has followed a pattern where by the NRL with every deal has been closing the gap whereby NOW only 4 million annually separates us. If the pattern continue the NRL will get a bigger amount than the AFL. Especially if they have a pre season comp (nines) with competition points to be awarded. End of year World Invitational series (3 years out of 4) played from mid/late October to Early November which of course can be sold to broadcasters.
For all substantive reasons the NRL, Afl media contracts were equal!
 

Perth Tiger

Bench
Messages
3,077
Perth red consistently say AFL got SUBSTANTIAL more money in the last deal. It has been pointed out to him the AFL was for 6 years while NRL for 5 years.
AFl got 2.508 billion dollars WITH 200 million contra, which makes 2.508- 200million (contra) divided by 6 gives you 384 million dollars yearly.
https://mumbrella.com.au/foxtel-and-seven-telstra-tie-up-afl-rights-in-2-5bn-deal-313048
Quote from above link.
There is “around $200m of contra” included in the deal according to AFL CEO Gill McLachlan, who said “the AFL’s challenge is to stay Australia’s game”.
NRL 1.9 billion dollars (including international rights)
http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=4909
So 1.9 billion divided by 5 equals 380 million dollars annually.
NRL 380 million pa
Afl 384 million pa Do note 4 million extra per year in regards to the media TV /PAY deal is
Chump change.

This has followed a pattern where by the NRL with every deal has been closing the gap whereby NOW only 4 million annually separates us. If the pattern continue the NRL will get a bigger amount than the AFL. Especially if they have a pre season comp (nines) with competition points to be awarded. End of year World Invitational series (3 years out of 4) played from mid/late October to Early November which of course can be sold to broadcasters.
For all substantive reasons the NRL, Afl media contracts were equal!
The NRL deal would of also included some portion of contra I would imagine. If you are going to subtract it from the AFL deal you should do the same for NRL
 

colly

Juniors
Messages
1,023
The NRL deal would of also included some portion of contra I would imagine. If you are going to subtract it from the AFL deal you should do the same for NRL
Thats what perth red said . Till today he said the same, their would be contra for the NRL but after pouring over the financial reports Perth red has NOT pointed to a figure, a link , press release regarding contra for the NRL>
 
Last edited:
Top