2023-2028 next tv deal discussion

[Wb1234]

it gets worse for the bumbling clowns ...

it appears that they outright .. lied .. about the existence of a bid by paramount /10.
Bare faced lies
& fumblers wonder why their sport is despised , hated!!
This organisation is a disgrace , an embarrassment. The NRL would not be allowed to get away with this type of deliberate manipulation & manufacturing of the truth by either its fans or the NRL media. But they'll barely be a question asked by the dear in the headlights aflol media & its dumb as pig shit fans.

After spinning out a visit to the USA in a desperate attempt to jack up the revenue they get from the next round of AFL broadcast rights management of the code appear to have been caught in their own spotlight with speculation that there has been no “massive” bid from Channel Ten and their US parent Company.
It also appears that the Labor Party in WA wants to put the AFL to air in HD as opposed to 4K on Foxtel with a political play at trying to push free to air TV which is only broadcast in HD Vs Ultra High Definition.
The Southern States football code was hoping to generate international interest in the five-year broadcast rights, which come into effect from the beginning of the 2025 season.
The Australian newspaper is claiming It was widely reported earlier this year that ten had tabled a $600m-a-year deal to clinch the rights – which would have been a significant jump on the value of the existing deal – provided the network could telecast some matches on its free-to-air channel and the remainder on its Paramount+ streaming service.
Now it appears that there was no deal.
The AFL had been counting on a war between local broadcasters Seven, Nine, Ten, and Foxtel who were being told that several overseas parties were interested in the rights.
Now it appears that Foxtel is in a prime position to cut a deal with Amazon Prime whose shows they already broadcast as the market for advertising softens due to changing economic conditions.
Another issue that has emerged is that provincial attitudes to free-to-air coverage of the sport in Western Australia is likely to cut the value of the final contract after WA Labor Premier Mark McGowan tried to nobble News Corp the owners of Foxtel, after West Coast Eagles chief executive Trevor Nisbett, Fremantle Dockers coach Justin Longmuir, along with WA Premier Mark McGowan and the Seven West-owned West Australian newspaper floated the idea that matches involving the WA clubs be shown exclusively by free-to-air networks.
It’s not known whether the latest move was part of a deal by Seven West Media to support Labor and Mark McGowan during the recent Federal Elections.
The Australian claims that should AFL matches involving the WA clubs, and the two South Australian teams (Adelaide Crows, and Port Adelaide) be awarded exclusively to a free-to-air network, the value of the overall rights will almost certainly fail to reach the ambitious targets being eyed off by the AFL’s executive team because the appeal of AFL to streaming services such as Foxtel and Amazon Prime would be significantly lessened leaving the AFL with less revenue.


Lying chun,ts

Making Perth clubs only shown on fta means a Perth nrl club would have little value for broadcasters

 

[colly]

its not a realistic conclusion that the aflol will end up with a deal smaller then their present one , they will increase their present earnings from $416 Mill PA

but to what ?
I've put it out there that I think it will be a CPI increase only (20 mill pa) as there is no justification for any more .... if there is no change to the present broadcast arrangement
,unlikely as they need more then that so there will be changes ..
It'll be interesting to see what the " desperate " aflol do to get as much coin as they can..

But the $416 m p/a was broken down by Foxtel- $216 plus Seven $150 and Telsra $50m. But Telstra isn't directly going to pay for live sporting rights anymore.
Quote AFR or Fin
Telstra is poised to pull back from paying big fees for digital sports broadcasting rights, a move that will come as a blow to the NRL and AFL, which are both in the market for billion-dollar rights deals.

The telco giant believes the digital rights are too costly and instead will seek to partner with sports and stadiums on technology and production services, while acting as an aggregator for other rights holders to stream content through its upcoming Telstra TV service.

"This is driving the sports crazy," said one source, who noted that the sports would increase the pressure on broadcasters such as Seven West Media, Foxtel and Nine Entertainment Co to pay big money for digital rights to complement their free-to-air and pay-TV live rights.
Link

Telstra backs off from big-bucks sports rights

Telstra is poised to pull back from paying big fees for digital sports broadcasting rights, a move that will come as a blow to the NRL and AFL's billion-dollar rights deals.

www.afr.com

Behind pay wall but check out no more pay walls-

So it's $416 AFL p/a minus Telstra ( 50million anually) which equals $366 p/a. _ give them twenty mill increase that's only $386 million- so NRL WINS

 

[baselinepanther]

But the $416 m p/a was broken down by Foxtel- $216 plus Seven $150 and Telsra $50m. But Telstra isn't directly going to pay for live sporting rights anymore.
Quote AFR or Fin
Telstra is poised to pull back from paying big fees for digital sports broadcasting rights, a move that will come as a blow to the NRL and AFL, which are both in the market for billion-dollar rights deals.

The telco giant believes the digital rights are too costly and instead will seek to partner with sports and stadiums on technology and production services, while acting as an aggregator for other rights holders to stream content through its upcoming Telstra TV service.

"This is driving the sports crazy," said one source, who noted that the sports would increase the pressure on broadcasters such as Seven West Media, Foxtel and Nine Entertainment Co to pay big money for digital rights to complement their free-to-air and pay-TV live rights.
Link

Telstra backs off from big-bucks sports rights

Telstra is poised to pull back from paying big fees for digital sports broadcasting rights, a move that will come as a blow to the NRL and AFL's billion-dollar rights deals.

www.afr.com

Behind pay wall but check out no more pay walls-

So it's $416 AFL p/a minus Telstra ( 50million anually) which equals $366 p/a. _ give them twenty mill increase that's only $386 million- so NRL WINS

hmmmm, ok fair enough ...
i guess it will depend on what Telstra will be prepared to pay , if anything.
This could be an unmitigated disaster for the aflol

 

[baselinepanther]

The other way they increase their deal is change the broadcast arrangements , regular thursday nights , night GF's & ofc
the removal of the guarantee of all WA & SA games being on FTA. This idea that the WA & SA govt's will pay to have their states aflol clubs games remain on FTA TV is interesting & might bring in a few $$. But as the article says , any gains will be nullified by foxtel refusing to increase their current deal as a result of this.
It will be interesting

 

[Wb1234]

Art

The other way they increase their deal is change the broadcast arrangements , regular thursday nights , night GF's & ofc
the removal of the guarantee of all WA & SA games being on FTA. This idea that the WA & SA govt's will pay to have their states aflol clubs games remain on FTA TV is interesting & might bring in a few $$. But as the article says , any gains will be nullified by foxtel refusing to increase their current deal as a result of this.
It will be interesting

Article says wa want all their games on fta hence a reduced tv deal in the offing

 

[Vee]

AFL kicks own goal in TV broadcasting rights bid​

The AFL’s hopes of securing a record-breaking sum for its television broadcast rights are looking increasingly shaky, with the sinking advertising market, coupled with provincial attitudes to free-to-air coverage of the sport in Western Australia, likely to diminish the value of the final contract, reports News Corp’s James Madden.

It’s understood that outgoing AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan is committed to inking the next broadcast rights deal – which would come into effect from the beginning of the 2025 season – before the end of August.

But the lengthy delay in awarding the television rights, which are currently shared by Seven and Foxtel, may have cost the AFL dearly.

The AFL has been courting Seven, Nine, Ten, Foxtel and Amazon Prime since the beginning of the season, but the broadcasting landscape has shifted over the past few months in line with the softening economic conditions, and as a result it is increasingly likely that the league will be forced to sell the rights for less than they would have initially hoped.
Media-
Well since the AFL are on somwhere between $360- to $380 m p/a NOW it looks like we, the NRL win in the media deals.

Link?

 

[The Penguin #6.]

The other way they increase their deal is change the broadcast arrangements , regular thursday nights , night GF's & ofc
the removal of the guarantee of all WA & SA games being on FTA. This idea that the WA & SA govt's will pay to have their states aflol clubs games remain on FTA TV is interesting & might bring in a few $$. But as the article says , any gains will be nullified by foxtel refusing to increase their current deal as a result of this.
It will be interesting

I`ll eat my hat if any Gov`t , State or otherwise, start paying football codes for the right to have games on FTA. Can you imagine the uproar there would be. Fumbleball is big in those states but the proportion of the population that support it would still be small relatively. Especially when you consider all the other things Gov`t have to spend money on, for example social housing.
I would have thought the anti-syphoning laws would ensure that it stays on FTA anyway, whether Foxtel are happy to keep paying the same despite losing eyeballs to Ch7 remains to be seen, probably, but I can`t see them paying more.

 

[baselinepanther]

I`ll eat my hat if any Gov`t , State or otherwise, start paying football codes for the right to have games on FTA. Can you imagine the uproar there would be. Fumbleball is big in those states but the proportion of the population that support it would still be small relatively. Especially when you consider all the other things Gov`t have to spend money on, for example social housing.
I would have thought the anti-syphoning laws would ensure that it stays on FTA anyway, whether Foxtel are happy to keep paying the same despite losing eyeballs to Ch7 remains to be seen, probably, but I can`t see them paying more.

Yea ,its probably is another furphy in a long line of them re this new fumbleball media rights deal

Anti -Syphoning laws only guarantee that a % of some sports domestic competitions & other events appear on FTA TV
So any aflol on FTA in WA & SA satisfies the legislation , it doesn't have to be the teams from those states , thats what foxtel wants to change to pay more then they do now. If It doesn't then don't expect much more then the present amount ... about $215 mill pa

 

[Wb1234]

Yea ,its probably is another furphy in a long line of them re this new fumbleball media rights deal

Anti -Syphoning laws only guarantee that a % of some sports domestic competitions & other events appear on FTA TV
So any aflol on FTA in WA & SA satisfies the legislation , it doesn't have to be the teams from those states , thats what foxtel wants to change to pay more then they do now. If It doesn't then don't expect much more then the present amount ... about $215 mill pa

Overs considering their terrible ratings

should be 150 mill pa

 

[Perth Red]

I`ll eat my hat if any Gov`t , State or otherwise, start paying football codes for the right to have games on FTA. Can you imagine the uproar there would be. Fumbleball is big in those states but the proportion of the population that support it would still be small relatively. Especially when you consider all the other things Gov`t have to spend money on, for example social housing.
I would have thought the anti-syphoning laws would ensure that it stays on FTA anyway, whether Foxtel are happy to keep paying the same despite losing eyeballs to Ch7 remains to be seen, probably, but I can`t see them paying more.

You’d be surprised! A liberal wa govt gave western force $1mill a year in siphoned money from good causes to keep them afloat!

our current labour govt likes to see itself as a govt for the people and if it can spin how it kept the right to watch WA footy free out of the hands of the nasty corporate news ltd grasp they’d be right up for it!

 

[The Penguin #6.]

You’d be surprised! A liberal wa govt gave western force $1mill a year in siphoned money from good causes to keep them afloat!

our current labour govt likes to see itself as a govt for the people and if it can spin how it kept the right to watch WA footy free out of the hands of the nasty corporate news ltd grasp they’d be right up for it!

The difference with this is that it would have to be on-going, the Force were probably only propped up for a few years.
I just can`t imagine how any Gov`t could get away having an item in their budget papers " payment to football Governing body " even if they did disguise it, it would be sniffed out smartly and I can`t imagine them being able to justify it for long.

 

[baselinepanther]

You’d be surprised! A liberal wa govt gave western force $1mill a year in siphoned money from good causes to keep them afloat!

our current labour govt likes to see itself as a govt for the people and if it can spin how it kept the right to watch WA footy free out of the hands of the nasty corporate news ltd grasp they’d be right up for it!

they're ( the aflol) damned if they do & damned if they don't
end the guarantee of FTA for WA & SA & piss off fans there & Ch 7... less money from Ch 7

keep it & piss off Foxtel & while the money from 7 or the govt or whoever stays
you get that amount ( or more ) taken off the amount foxtel would have paid

poor fumblers
poor little fumblers

 

[Pink Panther]

An uncompetitive Melbourne Storm will decrease the eyeballs on the NRL via TV by 200k inc pubs and clubs in the South. (400k during finals)

It is massively important to the NRL in its race with the AFL that the Melbourne Storm remain successful.

They don't have to win the premiership, just be successful

 

[baselinepanther]

An uncompetitive Melbourne Storm will decrease the eyeballs on the NRL via TV by 200k inc pubs and clubs in the South. (400k during finals)

It is massively important to the NRL in its race with the AFL that the Melbourne Storm remain successful.

They don't have to win the premiership, just be successful

FTA ratings are soft at best in the sthn states for the Storm & dreadful for non storm NRL games .. & STV don't care about ratings , its subscriptions for them. But thats not that much different for the 4 aflol sides in NSW & QLD.
I don't think a mid table.. ish.. Storm would have much of a bearing on the overall value of media rights

 

[Wb1234]

they're ( the aflol) damned if they do & damned if they don't
end the guarantee of FTA for WA & SA & piss off fans there & Ch 7... less money from Ch 7

keep it & piss off Foxtel & while the money from 7 or the govt or whoever stays
you get that amount ( or more ) taken off the amount foxtel would have paid

poor fumblers
poor little fumblers

Foxtel is basically telling them they see less value in their coverage and need extra bonuses

clearly having so many games live non exclusive on fox has seen terrible ratings for them

like you say it’s either less money for 7 or fox. Clearly giving those games exclusively to fox would result in more money but less viewers over all

this is what happens when you invest a billion dollars into two zombie teams when you should’ve been supporting the whole league

andrew demetrious vanity projects are sending the sport broke

 

[Wb1234]

An uncompetitive Melbourne Storm will decrease the eyeballs on the NRL via TV by 200k inc pubs and clubs in the South. (400k during finals)

It is massively important to the NRL in its race with the AFL that the Melbourne Storm remain successful.

They don't have to win the premiership, just be successful

You can’t rely on an expansion team always making the finals for the sport to be successful in that state

the afl gifted the Brisbane lions massive salary cap benefits over traditional clubs and the minute they stopped making the finals their crowds and tv ratings collapsed

people have to follow the sport because they like the sport not cause the team is winning the grand final

 

[Pink Panther]

yes but the game is NRL v AFL for the domination of the sporting kingdom of Australia and little things like the performance of non heartand interstate teams is very very relevant

AFL only need one of their four non heart land teams; Swans, Giants, Lions and Suns to be successful and bang!

Extra eyeballs at the time when ad prices are the highest - finals.

The NRL has only one non-heartland team and thats the Melbourne Storm

Lets assume two non heartland teams make the finals in the Brisbane Lions and the Sydney Swans - two cities covered at an extra 300k watching each.

Thats an extra 600k of people watching AFL

So lets say instead of 1.9 million watching nationwide, it is 2.5 million watching

Compared to lets say 2 million watching NRL and will no extra eyeballs due to new non heartland market - it stays at 2 million


Hence the AFL can name its own deal with Foxtel and we get the crumbs

 

[Wb1234]

yes but the game is NRL v AFL for the domination of the sporting kingdom of Australia and little things like the performance of non heartand interstate teams is very very relevant

AFL only need one of their four non heart land teams; Swans, Giants, Lions and Suns to be successful and bang!

Extra eyeballs at the time when ad prices are the highest - finals.

The NRL has only one non-heartland team and thats the Melbourne Storm

Lets assume two non heartland teams make the finals in the Brisbane Lions and the Sydney Swans - two cities covered at an extra 300k watching each.

Thats an extra 600k of people watching AFL

So lets say instead of 1.9 million watching nationwide, it is 2.5 million watching

Compared to lets say 2 million watching NRL and will no extra eyeballs due to new non heartland market - it stays at 2 million


Hence the AFL can name its own deal with Foxtel and we get the crumbs

Afl ratings in nsw and qld are down from their highs

they barely get with two teams in each market what they used to get with one

there is no competition between afl and nrl re
Tv rights

afl gets obliterated by league

 

[Pink Panther]

I get that but you must take the Australia wide perspective of eyeballs when dealing with Foxtel who take their numbers from the total number of people watching the two sporting codes across Australia

 

[baselinepanther]

yes but the game is NRL v AFL for the domination of the sporting kingdom of Australia and little things like the performance of non heartand interstate teams is very very relevant

AFL only need one of their four non heart land teams; Swans, Giants, Lions and Suns to be successful and bang!

Extra eyeballs at the time when ad prices are the highest - finals.

The NRL has only one non-heartland team and thats the Melbourne Storm

Lets assume two non heartland teams make the finals in the Brisbane Lions and the Sydney Swans - two cities covered at an extra 300k watching each.

Thats an extra 600k of people watching AFL

So lets say instead of 1.9 million watching nationwide, it is 2.5 million watching

Compared to lets say 2 million watching NRL and will no extra eyeballs due to new non heartland market - it stays at 2 million


Hence the AFL can name its own deal with Foxtel and we get the crumbs

that last sentence is one of the silliest things Ive read in here in a while