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

siv

First Grade
Messages
5,833
Wonder if Optus will try and bid

They took over EPL on the streaming service that failed during Soccer WC
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
52,809
Wonder if Optus will try and bid

They took over EPL on the streaming service that failed during Soccer WC

could they afford it? Big difference between $30mill a year and $300mill that nrl would cost
 

Diesel

Coach
Messages
17,414
Take the FTA component off Nine and make KO time exactly as advertised, not 15 minutes later.
 

VictoryFC

Bench
Messages
3,786
Wonder if Optus will try and bid

They took over EPL on the streaming service that failed during Soccer WC

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Optus had EPL before the FIFA WC, and it worked very well. They just didn't plan well for the rush of new people coming onboard as the WC started, sending their servers/bandwidth to the doghouse. Their coverage of EPL is flawless.

The big difference with NRL would be that they would have to spend a whole lot of money on producing broadcasts, which is very different to rebroadcasting coverage taken from the UK as they do with the EPL.

Optus Sport is more like Netflix than it is Fox Sports.

could they afford it? Big difference between $30mill a year and $300mill that nrl would cost

Odd question. They are the second biggest telco in the country, with revenues of $9 billion. They are also owned by Singtel, a Singaporean company with revenues close to $20 billion a year. Of course they could afford it.

It's not a question of affordability. The question is whether it wants to outlay that much money on sport, and then having to commit even more resources to broadcasting the league using its own operations rather than just rebroadcasting. Spending the amount of money necessary to secure NRL may be seen as a bridge too far management and shareholders. That's why they went for EPL. Much smaller outlay, but with a dedicated enough following to try and grow subscriber base in a desirable demographic.

Trying to wrest away NRL is a different kettle of fish, especially as Fox will fight tooth and nail to keep it all. This would all be positive for the value of the rights. I'm interested to see if the NRL has any desire to make different packages available.

As we've seen in the UK with BT, if a telco wants to jump into the sports ring, it can easily go toe to toe with the competition. BT did this by taking a package of games, with the rest going to Sky Sports. Could we see a similar thing here with multiple rights holders that require paying subscriptions? Who knows.

Small detail, but Optus pay more than $50m for a year EPL. For the sake of NRL, which makes more than $300m a year in the current deal, I would hope that the next figure is closer to $500m, not $300m.
 
Last edited:

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
52,809
I guess if nrl is serious about its own production it would then be much more open to selling to a number of streaming services in the future. Could see fta, a telco and a streaming service like Netflix all buying rights.

my afford comment was more in regards to ROI, is streaming in 2023 going to return enough subscriptions to justify the massive cost of either of the two main sports?
 

VictoryFC

Bench
Messages
3,786
That’s where fragmentation comes into play.

BT would never have bought all the packages because it’s too big a gamble. You have to test the waters first and then see if it makes sense building on what you have. After getting one package of EPL, BT then blew Sky out of the water in Champ League rights, so they clearly see a future in sports broadcasting.

So the ball is in NRL’s court. Do they open up different packages for bidding, giving exclusivity to different platforms?

If they do, Optus would definitely consider it I reckon as the ROI you mention carries less risk.

If NRL sticks with one or two major partners, then there’s no chance.

There are risks to both approaches, as broadcasters like having exclusivity as well as large inventory of games. And some are prepared to pay more for that exclusivity.

What could be an idea to try in my opinion is to add 2 teams, open up an extra game and timeslot, and have that as a package of its own to allow bidding by anyone.

Hard to say what happens, but EPL has shown that splitting up packages (I think they have 5 different ones) and asking companies to submit private bids for those packages has worked for them. It might be a bit radical in Australia, but it is one way to get smaller streaming broadcasters interested.

Otherwise it is hard to see how anyone breaks Fox’s + whichever FTA partner they go with strangehold on rights.

I hope fox keeps winning everything as it makes it easier for fans to watch anything they want. Fragmentation of subscription services sucks for fans.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
52,809
Dont understand V'landys comments today about just adding one team for a 17 team comp. I dont see how that would add any value to the tv rights?
 

Starkers

Bench
Messages
2,726
i guess what he is saying is there is more value in a single additional brisbane team than to dilute further for a 9th game, with a franchise likely going to perth. looks like they want to consolidate brisbane before exploring other areas.

conservative option. could give time for exploration of Origin, Tests and Magic weekend to Perth and Adelaide. maybe that is the strategy for those towns long term...magic weekends and origins? before perhaps inclusion later down the track?

personally, if they went brisbane and wellington to keep it east coast/tasman it has travel advantages. and begins to breakdown union a little more and tap that market for players / depth. perth is a solid option but by the looks of things the bar is being set high now.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
52,809
i guess what he is saying is there is more value in a single additional brisbane team than to dilute further for a 9th game, with a franchise likely going to perth. looks like they want to consolidate brisbane before exploring other areas.

conservative option. could give time for exploration of Origin, Tests and Magic weekend to Perth and Adelaide. maybe that is the strategy for those towns long term...magic weekends and origins? before perhaps inclusion later down the track?

personally, if they went brisbane and wellington to keep it east coast/tasman it has travel advantages. and begins to breakdown union a little more and tap that market for players / depth. perth is a solid option but by the looks of things the bar is being set high now.

I don't really see 1 extra club adding any value, the real value is in the extra content, as AFL showed. If anything adding one club brings in byes and we all know how much people hated that pre Titans admission. I very much doubt the WA Govt will be throwing more money at NRL after his statement.
 

tri_colours

Juniors
Messages
1,089
Ex nine man, Gyngell said previously 9 would be prepared to pay an extra $100m for a 2nd Brisbane team. How accurate that was I don't know. Based on recent expansion in non heartland cities, Perth don't offer a lot And would come with a 10 million cost each year.


Neither G. Coast, Suns or the Lions are money spinners for the AFL. The Swans would be but they've been around for almost 40 years.
 

Starkers

Bench
Messages
2,726
I don't really see 1 extra club adding any value, the real value is in the extra content, as AFL showed. If anything adding one club brings in byes and we all know how much people hated that pre Titans admission. I very much doubt the WA Govt will be throwing more money at NRL after his statement.
no, another brisbane team will add to the bottom line in tv, gate and sponsorships. the broncos are saturated and there is an undercurrent of brisbane people who would support an alternative. a game each week at suncorp drawing on average 30k is locking brisbane down and also offsetting the broncos when they have a bad year.

i think perth are hard done by though. there is definitely room for a team there and with the force gone it is almost incumbent upon the NRL to put some kind of winter alternative there, similar to adelaide. the AFL don't have to spend any extra money there developing the game giving them free reign. meanwhile, stats from jason lassey of @footyindustry on twitter suggests the AFL has put $166m over seven years into both GWS and the Suns (not including 2019).

i think that is what the NRL is trying to avoid. and certainly you would think it is not bearing the fruit they'd hoped and the ROI is dreadful. but maybe they can sustain it as they aren't being challenged on any fronts? who knows. the NRL needs a strong Storm-like blueprint to go into Perth, and I think Adelaide too, but there is no one or no consortium standing up and demanding to be heard. certainly not like the voices from Tasmania that want an AFL team etc who have a govt behind them.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
52,809
Ex nine man, Gyngell said previously 9 would be prepared to pay an extra $100m for a 2nd Brisbane team. How accurate that was I don't know. Based on recent expansion in non heartland cities, Perth don't offer a lot And would come with a 10 million cost each year.


Neither G. Coast, Suns or the Lions are money spinners for the AFL. The Swans would be but they've been around for almost 40 years.

Id be interested to know how having a second Brisbane team would generate any extra revenue for TV? Surely it would just be the same people that currently watch NRL in Brisbane continuing to watch? Or do they think there is a 200k people not currently watching NRL as they dont like any of the 16 teams that will now watch as they like the new Brisbane team?

Having the extra content is the money generator for AFL, it really didnt matter what two clubs were added. They used it as an opportunity to invest in increasing the footprint of their game, part of their long term strategy that has been at play for over 20 years. In reality the ninth game has paid for their expansion and then some. In the same way a ninth game generated by Perth and Brisbane2 would give the NRL more content to sell and increase the TV deal.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
52,809
i think that is what the NRL is trying to avoid. and certainly you would think it is not bearing the fruit they'd hoped and the ROI is dreadful. but maybe they can sustain it as they aren't being challenged on any fronts? who knows. the NRL needs a strong Storm-like blueprint to go into Perth, and I think Adelaide too, but there is no one or no consortium standing up and demanding to be heard. certainly not like the voices from Tasmania that want an AFL team etc who have a govt behind them.

Those backers have been so jaded by lack of any commitment to expansion over the last ten years they have stopped advocating for it. Better things to do with their time than waste it on an NRL with no vision.

We have had three multi millionaires publicly say they would be willing to back a Perth NRL club. I bet the NRL has never even picked up the phone to any of them.
 

Front-Rower

First Grade
Messages
5,113
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say Optus would take on NRL rights. Let’s face it, Optus Sport don’t really do anything but retransmit someone else’s production i.e. EPL and FIFA events. Also they only have a vested interest in soccer because Allen Lew is a mad fan. It will be interesting to see if they continue their venture post his reign as CEO
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
13,766
Four quarters maybe??

I like that perhaps the leaks are drying up under V'landys

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/nr...o-beef-up-broadcast-deal-20191204-p53guh.html

The ARL Commission is investigating the possibility of chopping the game into four quarters to help maximise broadcast revenue in its next TV deal.

The push comes from newly crowned chairman Peter V'landys, who has wasted no time stamping his authority on League Central since replacing Peter Beattie in late October

V'landys will on Thursday chair one of the most important commission meetings in recent times with a raft of significant rule changes to be discussed and eventually ratified.

They include changes to golden point, the possibility of a captain's challenge, the introduction of a 20-40 rule and the limiting of on-field support staff during matches to avoid the grand final fiasco that led to the Roosters' first try against the Raiders.

It has been impossible to confirm, though, just what will be proposed to the commission after V'landys read the riot act to the NRL executive and the rest of the staff about leaking to the media, citing their Code of Conduct.

"Otherwise we face summary execution," one NRL staffer joked.

Any changes to the rules "will not change the fabric of the game", according to another NRL insider, but it appears likely teams that lose in golden point will still receive one competition point for their troubles.

The 20-40 rule, which would enable the attacking team to win a scrum feed inside their opponents' 40-metre zone by kicking the ball into touch from behind their own 20-metre line, is also set to be introduced.


The most intriguing discussion, however, will be around dividing the game into quarters, something that's only usually seen in pre-season matches because of heat stress.


New ARLC supremo V'landys confident next TV deal will rise from $1.8 billion

V'landys has made it clear his No.1 priority is to increase broadcast revenue beyond the $1.8 billion the NRL received from its last TV deal.

While the current contract with Channel Nine, which publishes the Herald, and Fox Sports doesn't end until the end of 2022, the NRL wants to bring certainty to the player market by working out just how much revenue will be coming into the game.

Playing matches in quarters would be appealing to broadcasters because they could use the breaks in play to sell more advertising.


It could also lead to a reduction in the number of interchanges because players would receive more breaks in play, thereby reducing fatigue.

"There are a lot of decisions to be made in the next 12 months in relation to broadcast, but we will have it in a package that will maximise the return to the game," V'landys said at his first media conference as chairman. "To me, that is the most important aspect, to ensure the game stays viable. If you're not viable, you're nowhere. It's critical we continue to get the revenues we're getting."

How much information comes out of Thursday's meeting remains to be seen. It ends on Thursday afternoon but the rule amendments won't be announced until Friday morning. That will test V'landys' "code of silence".

Indeed, the NRL would not even confirm if the commission will discuss Souths' application for salary cap relief after captain Sam Burgess was forced into retirement because of a shoulder injury.

Souths want all of Burgess' $3.6 million contract over the next three seasons to be wiped from their cap because they claim the injury was suffered this year.


One NRL source said a decision was likely to be announced this week but V'landys wouldn't say if the commission would be signing off on it.

"Sorry, I can't answer that one as it breaches board policy," he said. Then an NRL spokesperson confirmed the Burgess matter would not be on the agenda.

As the authoritarian chief executive of Racing NSW, V'landys has the reputation of being one of the toughest administrators in the country.

He proudly calls himself a "disrupter", having introduced headline races like The Everest and The Golden Eagle in a bid to disrupt Victoria's spring racing carnival. Now he is "disrupting" rugby league.


There were concerns when he was first mooted as Beattie's successor that his relationship with News Corp was too cosy.

Racing NSW has a large commercial deal with Rupert Murdoch owned newspapers to publish its form guides and provide publicity around major carnivals. It has a smaller deal with the Herald.

That paranoia was only enhanced when the NRL hired two former News Corp staffers as media advisers earlier this season.

But, within days of becoming chairman, V'landys identified the angst and distrust that was being created about leaks to select members of the media.

Since coming onto the commission in February 2018, he became bemused when important matters were played out in the media before the board discussed them.


When the ARL Commission met in late February this year to vote on its controversial "no-fault stand-down policy", Beattie had talked about the matter so openly to dozens of media outlets that the result was known days in advance.

The plumber has been sent into League Central to plug the leaks — although we've heard this promise before.

When the independent commission was formed in 2012, inaugural chairman John Grant vowed his board would be watertight.

It didn't last long. In the end, Grant spoke to whoever would listen in a desperate bid to save his job.

He failed, being replaced by Beattie, who has now handed over the reins to V'landys.

"No leaks?" said another NRL staffer. "That'll be different for rugby league."
 

Stormwarrior82

Juniors
Messages
1,036
Id be interested to know how having a second Brisbane team would generate any extra revenue for TV? Surely it would just be the same people that currently watch NRL in Brisbane continuing to watch? Or do they think there is a 200k people not currently watching NRL as they dont like any of the 16 teams that will now watch as they like the new Brisbane team?

Having the extra content is the money generator for AFL, it really didnt matter what two clubs were added. They used it as an opportunity to invest in increasing the footprint of their game, part of their long term strategy that has been at play for over 20 years. In reality the ninth game has paid for their expansion and then some. In the same way a ninth game generated by Perth and Brisbane2 would give the NRL more content to sell and increase the TV deal.

I really do hope that V’landys is using this as a negotiation tactic. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that not only will adding a 17th team not add extra content, but will also stuff up the current bye periods around SOO. But if nine and fox are willing to pay $100-$150 mil more for no extra content that’s their issue. The nrl can then go to market and offer a Perth team and 9th game to anyone else that wants it or do it in house?

I know this seems highly unlikely with V’landys current mood but we can only hope.
 

Stormwarrior82

Juniors
Messages
1,036
Those backers have been so jaded by lack of any commitment to expansion over the last ten years they have stopped advocating for it. Better things to do with their time than waste it on an NRL with no vision.

We have had three multi millionaires publicly say they would be willing to back a Perth NRL club. I bet the NRL has never even picked up the phone to any of them.

look I get what your saying but as the afl and WA Perth reds will attest too, money isn’t the only answer. Support from the government, broadcast & media partners (seven media seems to have Perth locked down), stadium, airfares and CoE facilities are all needed too and some would say are worth more than money.
 
Messages
11,094
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say Optus would take on NRL rights. Let’s face it, Optus Sport don’t really do anything but retransmit someone else’s production i.e. EPL and FIFA events. Also they only have a vested interest in soccer because Allen Lew is a mad fan. It will be interesting to see if they continue their venture post his reign as CEO

Yes but that is why the NRL have been looking at bring broadcast production "in House". Whilst it would reduce costs for people like Channel 9 and Fox Sports, it would encourage bids from organisations like Optus as it would just be broadcasting an already premade service just like they do with the EPL.
 

Latest posts

Top