$1 Billion

[LeagueXIII]

Is it possible for us to get this amount in the next TV deal?

I find it interesting the AFL are bringing in 2 new clubs which will create an extra game BEFORE their next deal which they are confident will give them the extra revenue they are chasing.

Us on the other hand are talking about adding teams AFTER the deal, which makes me think we won't get as much as we think we deserve. Afterall who's interests are News looking after?

 

[Alex28]

I'll say no. It is a lot of money to spend on a sport that - for the most of it - 2 states watch.

 

[Big Mick]

There was a similar thing on The Roar where the AFL supporters consistently bag NRL. Sometimes fairly, but he basically said that the TV ratings absolutely hammer us...then rejected the DT as a source...but cited a source of an AFL website...LOL's for starters....but then you review it and break it down.

Here is the site - http://www.leagueunlimited.com/tv_ratings_2009.php
Here is the article - http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/06/0...ion-future-on-marketing-ploys/#comment-366253

My Response:

can we include VFL/SAFL/WAFL/NTFL/TFL in those figures as well?, compared running time?, higher rate of female veiwers? (you know, the female supporters that actually account for most of a famillys spending), the figures i quoted are correct, they arnt made up, dont beleive everything the DT tells you mate, in fact, dont beleive anything the DT tells you.
the AFL crowds double the NRLs, and the TV numbers are there in black and white, AFL easily out rated league, always has too, heres my link again, please tell me where its wrong? http://www.leagueunlimited.com/tv_ratings_2009.php


Michael said | Today


Lol Matt….too easy.


Why don’t we break those figures down shall we.


Firstly, those figures account for 8 games vs 3 games televised on FTA a week. So automatically its disproportionate.


Lets look at it on a per game basis shall we?


Lets take ROund 1 as that is when the interest is pretty high.


Round 1 – AFL – Total 3.277m viewers over 8 games = 409,625 per game.
ROund 1 – NRL – Total 1,764m viewers over 3 games = 588,000 per game.


On top of that is the fact the NRL is only given a fair go in NSW and QLD whereas the AFL is shown in Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne at a reasonable timeslot. These figures also do not include New Zealand for Rugby League games, as well as British Audiences.


So that is the first thing, on a per game basis, NRL attracts more viewers, and if it was able to get a fair go in the other states it’d be even bigger.


Next up, we have the market entry test -


Swans game for Sydney viewers – 117,000 viewers
Brisbane Game for Brisbane viewers – 95,000 viewers
Melbourne game for Melbourne audience – 203,000 viewers (Round 2 – first Melbourne FTA game)


So there you go. This shows the viewership impact of entrants in other markets. Brisbane and Sydney don’t watch the game as religiously as Perth, Adelaide or Melbourne. In Melbourne, the Storm rate well for a club only 12 years old, in comparison to the 30 year head start in Sydney and a fairly long headstart in Brisbane.


But I hear you saying “BUT BUT…THE TOTALS ARE BIGGER! WAH” – Its a volume thing my son. If NRL was shown FTA 8 times a week it would rate through the roof. But that is the problem with the current FTA deal which will be resolved shortly.
The FACT of the matter is Matt, that in the two of the top 3 biggest markets in Australia, are dominated by Rugby League viewership.


You may say you have a higher total, but its due to more games being shown in comparison as well as the networks giving a fair go to your code in rival states, unlike the NRL which is due to lack of foresight by NRL management, I agree…but the figures don’t lie I agree Matt.


And the figures suggest on a per game basis and on a market entry basis into each rival’s territory that RL is more than just competitive and deserves the parody amount of money that the AFL will get in the next TV deal.


If you say include VFL and all the territory games, then we’ll include the Internationals, NSW Cup, QLD Cup, State of Origin and Bundaberg Cup along with the games shown from English Super League. If that’s how flimsy you want to get it. Or even bring in Pay TV audiences…


But then again, that wouldn’t help your argument would it?

 

[Big Mick]

Is it possible for us to get this amount in the next TV deal?

I find it interesting the AFL are bringing in 2 new clubs which will create an extra game BEFORE their next deal which they are confident will give them the extra revenue they are chasing.

Us on the other hand are talking about adding teams AFTER the deal, which makes me think we won't get as much as we think we deserve. Afterall who's interests are News looking after?

I'll sum it up with the fact that out of the 3 major domestic TV markets, Rugby League controls well and truely 2 of them. 66% of the market is absolutely fantastic.

However, there are still a million viewers in Perth and Adelaide every week abandoned due to lack of coverage, as well as the fact Melbourne don't get to watch their team run around often enough.

I think we'll have to go on a 10 year plan.

In the first TV deal, we'll need at least 750m or whatever the AFL got last time. This would allow us to set ourselves up. It would facilitate an increase in the cap to 6-7m as well as increasing the grants received by clubs to around the 10-12m mark.

As part of that 750m, around 100m should be set aside for 3 expansion projects being the Perth Reds, Central Coast and Central Queensland to capitalise on further interest there.

This would allow further games to be played to increase the value of the next TV deal, it would increase the reach of the game and also allow for clubs to be in the black, decrease membership prices and attract larger membership bases to their team.

On top of that, the biggest hurdle is exposure on FTA networks. Whichever network shows the game must show at least 5 games a week. 2 Friday, 1 Saturday, 2 Sunday. It can be 3 in each state, as long as Perth get to see their team every week, Melbourne there's etc to increase the exposure and reach of the game in expansion states.

It would also allow the Independent Commission to allocate funds appropriately to the grass roots level, win back the Country Rugby League community in both NSW and QLD, and also set up professional junior development squads in each of the expansion states to facilitate and develop local juniors to progress to the top grade as quickly as possible to allow an affinity with that player in that area.

The next TV deal following that, would allow a further expension to Wellington and then Adelaide to round out the competition. It would increase the deal from 750m to 1b, increase the cap further, establish further grass roots development as well as improving incentives for recruitment outside usual boundaries in recruiting International talent.

That'd be my 10 year plan.

 

[BranVan3000]

The TV deal will be good for NRL, ratings will increase on more channels that is a given. Especially if they get away from Nine's exclusivity and hopefully shared with Ten. Ten did a really smart thing with their AFL promotion in Sydney in only playing Swans games. You couldn't miss it if you were a channel 10 viewew. If they could do a similar thing for Melbourne Storm and Western Reds it'd be great for those markets

Plus Channel One would allow for all the games Nine doesn't show. I'd love to have the Saturday and Monday games on One HD.

 

[Slackboy72]

I think you are forgetting that FTA networks buy sports so they can sell advertising.
Pay TV buys it to sell subscriptions.
The TV advertising market is dominated by Sydney (28%), Melbourne (21%), Brisbane (13%) and Regional NSW (10%).
On a state basis NSW and QLD have 58% of all advertising revenue in Australia.
So AFL may win hands down of FTA numbers but they are beaten convincingly in all but one of the markets that matter.

Latest figures I could find but according to this NSW and QLD take $1.96bn (57.5%) in a $3.42bn market and anecdotal reports are that the market is improving.
http://www.freetv.com.au/media/News-Media_Release/PR12_Revenue_figures-Jan-Jun_09.pdf
http://www.freetv.com.au/media/News-Media_Release/PR13_Revenue_figures_-_Jul_-_Dec_09.pdf

Is it feasible for league to hope for $1bn? (assuming $200m over 5 years)
I'm not sure when you consider that FoxTel forked out $50m+ to keep AFL on pay tv (and there is better value for them in league with the greater number of subscribers from NSW and QLD) then taking another $140m~$150m out of out of that $1.96b FTA pie is not certain when you consider the cost of programming (rights fees) is roughly 45% of the cost of broadcasting. That would essentially mean that the advertising revenue for league would nead to be $320m p.a. or ~$3.8m per game. When you consider that 12 of those games (SoO and finals) could generate income in the order of well into 8-digits and that advertisers like Tooheys, Sony, Harvey Norman, AAMI and Holden have booked for years ahead spots for these games then you're left with 72 matches (usually the pick of the bunch) needing maybe $3m to break even.

Can they do that?
I'm sure that the folks at 7, 9 and 10 know for sure.
That's probably why Kerry Stokes wants a piece of the league action.

 

[applesauce]

The AFL go up for sale again 1 year before us. Lets hope the other networks don't spend all their $$ before they come to us like last time around, allowing 9 to get us at a bargin basement price.

There are 3 things in our favour. The first TV is becoming less and less popular when you consisder the internet. TV series etc are download pirated and shared. Sport however a little different as there is nothing like sitting back watching it on your plasma with some mates LIVE.

The 2nd thing. Since the economic crisis where RL figures surged 19.5% and was the only code to grow substantially TV wise networks have realised their importance to sell advertising.

3rd positive.
The governments anti-siphoning laws we could be in with a good shot at 1billion. If the federal government insists the top-four matches of AFL are shown on free-to-air TV, it is unlikely Channel Nine, whose priority is NRL, would outbid the existing Seven-Ten rights holders, which are more cashed-up.
Nor would the bottom-four matches be attractive to Nine, leaving monopoly pay-TV network, Foxtel, as the only bidder, a lose-lose situation for the AFL.

 

[Lockyer4President!]

The AFL go up for sale again 1 year before us. Lets hope the other networks don't spend all their $$ before they come to us like last time around, allowing 9 to get us at a bargin basement price.

We actually negotiated our deal first last time. The AFL went after we did, got lucky with a few things falling into place at an opportune time and came out a big winner.

 

[Brutus]

I'll sum it up with the fact that out of the 3 major domestic TV markets, Rugby League controls well and truely 2 of them. 66% of the market is absolutely fantastic.

However, there are still a million viewers in Perth and Adelaide every week abandoned due to lack of coverage, as well as the fact Melbourne don't get to watch their team run around often enough.

I think we'll have to go on a 10 year plan.

In the first TV deal, we'll need at least 750m or whatever the AFL got last time. This would allow us to set ourselves up. It would facilitate an increase in the cap to 6-7m as well as increasing the grants received by clubs to around the 10-12m mark.

As part of that 750m, around 100m should be set aside for 3 expansion projects being the Perth Reds, Central Coast and Central Queensland to capitalise on further interest there.

This would allow further games to be played to increase the value of the next TV deal, it would increase the reach of the game and also allow for clubs to be in the black, decrease membership prices and attract larger membership bases to their team.

On top of that, the biggest hurdle is exposure on FTA networks. Whichever network shows the game must show at least 5 games a week. 2 Friday, 1 Saturday, 2 Sunday. It can be 3 in each state, as long as Perth get to see their team every week, Melbourne there's etc to increase the exposure and reach of the game in expansion states.

It would also allow the Independent Commission to allocate funds appropriately to the grass roots level, win back the Country Rugby League community in both NSW and QLD, and also set up professional junior development squads in each of the expansion states to facilitate and develop local juniors to progress to the top grade as quickly as possible to allow an affinity with that player in that area.

The next TV deal following that, would allow a further expension to Wellington and then Adelaide to round out the competition. It would increase the deal from 750m to 1b, increase the cap further, establish further grass roots development as well as improving incentives for recruitment outside usual boundaries in recruiting International talent.

That'd be my 10 year plan.

Not too bad at all mate.

This is what the NRL should have been doing years ago, but it hasn't shown even the slightest bit of interest in working out a future plan for the game. Even the Gold Coast was a knee-jerk reaction, not part of a plan.

They are utterly pathetic.

 

[Western_Eel]

I'll say no. It is a lot of money to spend on a sport that - for the most of it - 2 states watch.

Thats 3 states mate, Wheneva the game has been played live in vic it has rated good, infact last years finals vic rated higher than qld

 

[super_coach]

Both AFL and the NRL will struggle to get anywhere near the dollars they are looking for. All the commercial networks are just keeping their heads above water. They are no longer a cash cow, the big advertising buck is getting smaller and been spread wider over all forms of media. Advertising firms are a lot clever at finding what media outlet suits their client rather than just throw their money into TV.
Yes NFL and AFL are the big draw cards but i dont think you will see networks sending them self broke just so they can get the prize. Probably a shared arrangement will end up being the go between two networks. For me any sport that channel nine isnt involved with is good, they could butcher a tied test!!

 

[In-goal]

Not to rain on anyones parade but only four matches of the AFL are shown on tv throughout the week, of that none are live, and adding to that long delays on the Friday night telecast.

 

[Brutus]

Maybe the NRL can try and sell its internet rights for at least a dollar next time around.

 

[fumblebum]

Lol Matt….too easy.


Why don’t we break those figures down shall we.


Firstly, those figures account for 8 games vs 3 games televised on FTA a week. So automatically its disproportionate.


Lets look at it on a per game basis shall we?


Lets take ROund 1 as that is when the interest is pretty high.


Round 1 – AFL – Total 3.277m viewers over 8 games = 409,625 per game.
ROund 1 – NRL – Total 1,764m viewers over 3 games = 588,000 per game.

I'm new to this site and an AFL fan but not here to troll. Not sure how well critisism is taken around here but we'll soon find out.

BigMick, I'm not sure where you're getting 8 AFL games on FTA TV from. In round 1 (and every week) just four games were shown on FTA TV in Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide, not eight.

(I tried posting the link to prove my point but apparently I can't yet post links as this is post #1 for me. But if you want to check this, go to afl.com.au, under TV & RADIO select BROADCAST GUIDE and select Round 1 (or any round you like) and look at Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide).

So your numbers should look more like:
Round 1 – AFL – Total 3.277m viewers over 4 games = 819,250 per game.
ROund 1 – NRL – Total 1,764m viewers over 3 games = 588,000 per game.

I don't really see how that supports your argument that tv viewership of NRL on FTA TV is better than AFL. But don't let facts get in the way of a good argument right?

 

[CC_Roosters]

I'll sum it up with the fact that out of the 3 major domestic TV markets, Rugby League controls well and truely 2 of them. 66% of the market is absolutely fantastic.

However, there are still a million viewers in Perth and Adelaide every week abandoned due to lack of coverage, as well as the fact Melbourne don't get to watch their team run around often enough.

I think we'll have to go on a 10 year plan.

In the first TV deal, we'll need at least 750m or whatever the AFL got last time. This would allow us to set ourselves up. It would facilitate an increase in the cap to 6-7m as well as increasing the grants received by clubs to around the 10-12m mark.

As part of that 750m, around 100m should be set aside for 3 expansion projects being the Perth Reds, Central Coast and Central Queensland to capitalise on further interest there.

This would allow further games to be played to increase the value of the next TV deal, it would increase the reach of the game and also allow for clubs to be in the black, decrease membership prices and attract larger membership bases to their team.

On top of that, the biggest hurdle is exposure on FTA networks. Whichever network shows the game must show at least 5 games a week. 2 Friday, 1 Saturday, 2 Sunday. It can be 3 in each state, as long as Perth get to see their team every week, Melbourne there's etc to increase the exposure and reach of the game in expansion states.

It would also allow the Independent Commission to allocate funds appropriately to the grass roots level, win back the Country Rugby League community in both NSW and QLD, and also set up professional junior development squads in each of the expansion states to facilitate and develop local juniors to progress to the top grade as quickly as possible to allow an affinity with that player in that area.

The next TV deal following that, would allow a further expension to Wellington and then Adelaide to round out the competition. It would increase the deal from 750m to 1b, increase the cap further, establish further grass roots development as well as improving incentives for recruitment outside usual boundaries in recruiting International talent.

That'd be my 10 year plan.

You deserve the CEO hat just for this post. But i think the reason the NRL doesn't publicly state long term objectives for expansion strategy etc.... is that they don't have long term profit or revenue projections becuase they just don't know what the TV deal will be worth so they can't forecast their growth.

Does anyone know what the independant report the NRL got done, predicted the value of the TV deal as? They are usually failry close with their predictions.

 

[Big Mick]

I'm new to this site and an AFL fan but not here to troll. Not sure how well critisism is taken around here but we'll soon find out.

BigMick, I'm not sure where you're getting 8 AFL games on FTA TV from. In round 1 (and every week) just four games were shown on FTA TV in Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide, not eight.

(I tried posting the link to prove my point but apparently I can't yet post links as this is post #1 for me. But if you want to check this, go to afl.com.au, under TV & RADIO select BROADCAST GUIDE and select Round 1 (or any round you like) and look at Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide).

So your numbers should look more like:
Round 1 – AFL – Total 3.277m viewers over 4 games = 819,250 per game.
ROund 1 – NRL – Total 1,764m viewers over 3 games = 588,000 per game.

I don't really see how that supports your argument that tv viewership of NRL on FTA TV is better than AFL. But don't let facts get in the way of a good argument right?

My argument was based on 2009 figures, similar figures used by other posters at another website.

Considering the NRL is not shown at a proper timeslot in Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide etc...to get 588k per game is a good effort. Considering if it was shown nationally it would match up accordingly.

But then again, we could always go back and forth measuring who has the longer schlong...but the fact remains that the NRL has as large a viewership as the AFL, it has just as much marketability and definitely deserves at least the balance of TV Rights they received last time out!

 

[Shire Panther]

Big Mick you should be the NRL CEO

 

[fumblebum]

My argument was based on 2009 figures, similar figures used by other posters at another website.

Considering the NRL is not shown at a proper timeslot in Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide etc...to get 588k per game is a good effort. Considering if it was shown nationally it would match up accordingly.

But then again, we could always go back and forth measuring who has the longer schlong...but the fact remains that the NRL has as large a viewership as the AFL, it has just as much marketability and definitely deserves at least the balance of TV Rights they received last time out!

I can't be arsed looking up a link for 2009, but rest assured there have never been 8 AFL games on FTA TV. I think 5 is the most there have ever been so using 2009 wouldn't really help your argument. I haven't seen other figures on TV viewership so can't comment beyond the numbers you posted. If they are accurate, then 29% fewer viewers per game for NRL is not exactly "as large a viewership as the AFL". Also, most FTA AFL games are shown on delay. I don't know if that's the case for NRL or not? It certainly hurts the ratings on Friday night as a lot of people would rather listen live on radio or stream on the net.

But I won't clog up your boards with pedantics. I saw the error in your original argument that AFL had way fewer TV viewers per game than NRL which was blatantly false, so wanted to clear that up. Now I'll let you get back to AFL bashing, name calling and references to Victorians and Merkins loving gay porn.

 

[BranVan3000]

Not to rain on anyones parade but only four matches of the AFL are shown on tv throughout the week, of that none are live, and adding to that long delays on the Friday night telecast.

Where do you live? I'm sure it's a different scenario per state

 

[Slackboy72]

I can't be arsed looking up a link for 2009, but rest assured there have never been 8 AFL games on FTA TV. I think 5 is the most there have ever been so using 2009 wouldn't really help your argument. I haven't seen other figures on TV viewership so can't comment beyond the numbers you posted. If they are accurate, then 29% fewer viewers per game for NRL is not exactly "as large a viewership as the AFL". Also, most FTA AFL games are shown on delay. I don't know if that's the case for NRL or not? It certainly hurts the ratings on Friday night as a lot of people would rather listen live on radio or stream on the net.

But I won't clog up your boards with pedantics. I saw the error in your original argument that AFL had way fewer TV viewers per game than NRL which was blatantly false, so wanted to clear that up. Now I'll let you get back to AFL bashing, name calling and references to Victorians and Merkins loving gay porn.

When I lived in melbourne (06 & 07) games were live. But like you said maybe 5 games at most. It was usually friday night + 1 delayed, saturday, saturday night (sometimes) and sunday.
Just cause we get delayed games in NSW & QLD doesn't mean that's what they get in their key markets.