2023-2028 next tv deal discussion

[Wb1234]

I expect Stan to make a big play for the NRL, if not part of it.

Nine don’t pay like fox do. Plus their coverage is terrrible. Best case scenario they increase competitive tension for the pay tv right and foxtel pays up

if ten do get the afl (which won’t happen imo) that leaves seven and nine bidding for the nrl

 

[Perth Red]

Yeh I know because I was the one telling you vlandys is waiting for the afl to do their deal to work off the back of that
Let them do the hard work then have seven or Stan if they miss out on afl to bid for us

problem is by the time the nrl negotiate the next deal to start in 2028 afl could have earnt $400mill plus more than us, great tactic lol

 

[Perth Red]

You're kidding , if you think Ch 7 will fall for that BS ..
its the AFL who wanted the deal back ended so they could proclaim to the world & their dopey fans they achieved a huge increase .... but failed to highlight it only came after they took a huge decrease for the first 3 years of the 5 year deal from ch 7.

Ch 7 will insist the starting point is the deal averaged out over the 5 years ( 20-24) , about 146 mill pa
Around the same amount they paid from 2017-2019.
With foxtel paying essentially the same amount in 23-24 that they did as well there has been no increase.
Both carriers aren't falling for fake bidding tension line & all the headlines in the world aren't fooling Ch 7 or foxtel.

yeh it’s hard to see them jumping from $416 to $500mill but I guess if there’s genuine competition it’s not impossible. at least they’ve managed to reclaim their losses, sadly not only didn’t we reclaim the losses but we also somehow agreed to $100mill less than last time lol. Between that $100mil and the $50mill plus we lost in 20&21 tv revenue we really got screwed.

Only increase we got this time was due to some competition in NZ.
We really need a genuine competitor to nine and fox for nrl next time around. Optus is claiming one mill subscribers and just paid $600mill for epl so may be a potential?

Optus Sport spends $600m to retain Premier League rights until 2028

Optus Sport has sealed the biggest international sports rights acquisition in Australian history, spending approximately $600 million to retain the English Premier League for the next six years.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Wb1234]

problem is by the time the nrl negotiate the next deal to start in 2028 afl could have earnt $400mill plus more than us, great tactic lol

Yeh because vlandys is going to wait so long to redo the deal lol

once afl does all the hard work he will be approaching broadcasters with a renegotiation for the ninth game

 

[Perth Red]

Yeh because vlandys is going to wait so long to redo the deal lol

once afl does all the hard work he will be approaching broadcasters with a renegotiation for the ninth game

Why would they? Realistically a ninth game is worth $30-50mill tops, and that’s only if they want more content. They just got extra content and paid zilch for it.

 

[Wb1234]

Why would they? Realistically a ninth game is worth $30-50mill tops, and that’s only if they want more content. They just got extra content and paid zilch for it.

Someone will believe what you said there one day. Nobody on this forum does though

 

[Perth Red]

Someone will believe what you said there one day. Nobody on this forum does though

Good point of discussion lol. Always a sign you’ve got nothing when you fail to make sense and totally go off topic.

in the current deal there are 8 games for $400mill. If the ninth game is on fta and fox it might bring $50mill if we’re lucky. It’s only 12 more games seeing as we have gone half cock with expansion and brought in one team already for no money.

 

[Wb1234]

Good point of discussion lol. Always a sign you’ve got nothing when you fail to make sense and totally go off topic.

in the current deal there are 8 games for $400mill. If the ninth game is on fta and fox it might bring $50mill if we’re lucky. It’s only 12 more games seeing as we have gone half c**k with expansion and brought in one team already for no money.

I had something to say about this the first time you said it. Now this is like the 50th time you’ve said it

 

[Perth Red]

I had something to say about this the first time you said it. Now this is like the 50th time you’ve said it

Hang on champ,I was responding to your posts lol

you seem to think that nine and fox will be happy to renegotiate a 5 year deal only 2 years into it and somehow agree to pay $100mill a year more for 12 games. That is some wishful thinking lol

 

[The_Wookie]

Yeh because vlandys is going to wait so long to redo the deal lol

once afl does all the hard work he will be approaching broadcasters with a renegotiation for the ninth game

Why would they do that? the terms have already been agreed to through 2027.

 

[Perth Red]

Why would they do that? the terms have already been agreed to through 2027.

It’s possible but would see another rush job on expansion club 18. In theory around 2025 they could start renogtiations inc a ninth game for a 2027 introduction and change in revenue, but that would mean being stuck with fox and nine for a further 5 years plus. If someone else wants the rights then yes it will be no change in revenue until 2028.

 

[Wb1234]

Do

Why would they do that? the terms have already been agreed to through 2027.

Money of course

why be locked in at 400 mill until 2027 when you can add the ninth game and renegotiate it up 2 years early for an extra 100 million.

 

[Perth Red]

Do

Money of course

why be locked in at 400 mill until 2027 when you can add the ninth game and renegotiate it up 2 years early for an extra 100 million.

Do you really think a ninth game will sell for $100mill a year? Whose paying for it? Ch9 had the chance to show 4 games a week and bailed on it and can’t see fox paying that huge sum for one exra game that adds little to their subscriber base.

 

[Wb1234]

Do you really think a ninth game will sell for $100mill a year? Whose paying for it? Ch9 had the chance to show 4 games a week and bailed on it and can’t see fox paying that huge sum for one exra game that adds little to their subscriber base.

You made a good point above

if they want to renegotiate early then they are stuck with nine and fox so they won’t get absolute top dollar

I’m sure they aren’t just allowed to sell a ninth game to anyone because then that would be interesting if they could .

A stand alone Monday night football game for seven, optus or stan would generate a lot of interest

if they do go early then yeh probably 50 million instead of probably double if they wait

Even 50 million gives them a profit of 34 million. The next priority since clubs are funded so well is to get the salary cap up to 15 million per club

That would enable them to then access union globally as a player pool which would decimate that sport

 

[colly]

This is what being said in America about Tens AFL ambitions........

"ChannelNews understands that US management, who don’t know anything about Australian sport let alone the existence of Network Ten, who is struggling in the ratings, are more into identifying areas to cut costs than stumping up A$200M to prop up a local bid."

channelnews : Network Tens AFL Ambitions Wilting As News Anchor Salary Slashed 50%

Network Ten whose local management are desperate to get the rights to AFL after 2025, may have a problem getting cash out of their parent Company Paramount Global who are appear to back slashing costs with their main US News anchor at CBS News forced to take a massive pay cut if she wanted to...

www.channelnews.com.au

As pointed out before, with no competitive tension the AFL- Ten deal would have go to US parent for the cash, Ten would not generate enough cash/revenue (now) to be able to fund the bid. Other streamers will be blocked by Law so that leaves the usual suspects. But this time it's a buyer's market and with very serious financial business positions both companies find themselves in regarding debt and high costs, these companies ie Seven, Foxtel can sit back and dictate the deal.
So no $500m deal, no $400m deal probably $330- 360m deal per year. The longer it stretches out the worse position the AFL will find themselves in.

 

[Wb1234]

This is what being said in America about Tens AFL ambitions........

"ChannelNews understands that US management, who don’t know anything about Australian sport let alone the existence of Network Ten, who is struggling in the ratings, are more into identifying areas to cut costs than stumping up A$200M to prop up a local bid."

channelnews : Network Tens AFL Ambitions Wilting As News Anchor Salary Slashed 50%

Network Ten whose local management are desperate to get the rights to AFL after 2025, may have a problem getting cash out of their parent Company Paramount Global who are appear to back slashing costs with their main US News anchor at CBS News forced to take a massive pay cut if she wanted to...

www.channelnews.com.au

As pointed out before, with no competitive tension the AFL- Ten deal would have go to US parent for the cash, Ten would not generate enough cash/revenue (now) to be able to fund the bid. Other streamers will be blocked by Law so that leaves the usual suspects. But this time it's a buyer's market and with very serious financial business positions both companies find themselves in regarding debt and high costs, these companies ie Seven, Foxtel can sit back and dictate the deal.
So no $500m deal, no $400m deal probably $330- 360m deal per year. The longer it stretches out the worse position the AFL will find themselves in.

You could be right about that.

looks like Gill deserted that sinking ship at the right time

if their deals get cut that much can they afford the suns and gws anymore

 

[Wb1234]

so gill gets a holiday to america paid for by the afl

but they might not let him into paramount studios as they won’t know who he is

 

[The_Wookie]

This is what being said in America about Tens AFL ambitions........

"ChannelNews understands that US management, who don’t know anything about Australian sport let alone the existence of Network Ten, who is struggling in the ratings, are more into identifying areas to cut costs than stumping up A$200M to prop up a local bid."

channelnews : Network Tens AFL Ambitions Wilting As News Anchor Salary Slashed 50%

Network Ten whose local management are desperate to get the rights to AFL after 2025, may have a problem getting cash out of their parent Company Paramount Global who are appear to back slashing costs with their main US News anchor at CBS News forced to take a massive pay cut if she wanted to...

www.channelnews.com.au

As pointed out before, with no competitive tension the AFL- Ten deal would have go to US parent for the cash, Ten would not generate enough cash/revenue (now) to be able to fund the bid. Other streamers will be blocked by Law so that leaves the usual suspects. But this time it's a buyer's market and with very serious financial business positions both companies find themselves in regarding debt and high costs, these companies ie Seven, Foxtel can sit back and dictate the deal.
So no $500m deal, no $400m deal probably $330- 360m deal per year. The longer it stretches out the worse position the AFL will find themselves in.

That entire article is a reach and a half based off a single salary negotiation, a little hyperbole and little else. Not least of which is the part where it claims CBS barely know what Network 10 is, and my personal favourite where it claims that ViacomCBS is the same group that canned CNN+ despite that being owned and operated by a completely different media group (WarnerBros/Discovery)

But if you want to draw conclusions from the article then you go for it.

 

[colly]

Yes I do want to draw conclusions from this story , which seems spot on in on what is happening to Paramount global in relation to a Ten and paramount global bid. The part about CNN+ relates to the stake that Warner/Bros Discovery have in CBS Paramount global. Not a direct link but a link nonetheless
"
Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (WBD) is an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate. It was formed by the spin-off of WarnerMedia by AT&T, and its merger with Discovery, Inc. on April 8, 2022.

The company's properties are divided into nine business units, including the flagship Warner Bros.' film and television studios, Home Box Office, Inc. (which includes HBO, Cinemax and Magnolia Network), CNN, U.S. Networks (which comprises linear television properties such as Animal Planet, TLC, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, Discovery Channel, Turner Classic Movies, Food Network, HGTV, TBS, TNT, and TruTV), and a stake in the broadcast network The CW (co-owned with Paramount Global),"

Warner Bros. Discovery - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So the part about management cutting costs and their ignorance of Tens finacial postion as well as it's profit position will cause a non bid - It's like head office has to pay the bid price, but head office is only interested in cutting costs, so this points to the fact that a non bid , because head office wont fund it.

 

[baselinepanther]

This is what being said in America about Tens AFL ambitions........

"ChannelNews understands that US management, who don’t know anything about Australian sport let alone the existence of Network Ten, who is struggling in the ratings, are more into identifying areas to cut costs than stumping up A$200M to prop up a local bid."

channelnews : Network Tens AFL Ambitions Wilting As News Anchor Salary Slashed 50%

Network Ten whose local management are desperate to get the rights to AFL after 2025, may have a problem getting cash out of their parent Company Paramount Global who are appear to back slashing costs with their main US News anchor at CBS News forced to take a massive pay cut if she wanted to...

www.channelnews.com.au

As pointed out before, with no competitive tension the AFL- Ten deal would have go to US parent for the cash, Ten would not generate enough cash/revenue (now) to be able to fund the bid. Other streamers will be blocked by Law so that leaves the usual suspects. But this time it's a buyer's market and with very serious financial business positions both companies find themselves in regarding debt and high costs, these companies ie Seven, Foxtel can sit back and dictate the deal.
So no $500m deal, no $400m deal probably $330- 360m deal per year. The longer it stretches out the worse position the AFL will find themselves in.

oh dear fumblers



oh dear