2023-2028 next tv deal discussion

Discussion in 'NRL Media Watch' started by Perth Red, Nov 27, 2019.

  1. Johnny88

    Johnny88 Juniors

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    223
    NRL blocks Telstra from streaming in bid to secure extension with Nine

    The NRL will block Telstra from streaming rugby league matches from 2023 as the governing body attempts to strike a five-year broadcast extension with Nine Entertainment Co.

    The decision has upset Telstra, the naming-rights partner until 2022, but the code argues protecting the streaming rights will mark up its value when it returns to the negotiating table with Nine as early as next month.

    Foxtel, in which Telstra has a 35 per cent stake, currently sells the streaming rights to the telco provider as part of a five-year $100 million deal. But under the NRL's extended Foxtel contract, secured last week, the pay-TV operator is prohibited from on-selling in the 2023-2027 cycle

    The Foxtel extension, said by sources to be worth about $1 billion, allows subscription service Kayo to stream all eight matches. Should Nine, owner of this masthead, also agree to an extension until 2027, all games will be available through the television channel and 9Now streaming app. Telstra customers can currently access games for free through the NRL app and Telstra Live Pass.

    Telstra Live Pass competes directly with Nine's broadcast video on-demand product, 9Now. Sources said removing Telstra's capacity to stream matches will add value to future free-to-air broadcast deals.

    It is similar thinking to the NRL's decision to retain exclusive rights to State of Origin and the NRL grand final - maximising revenue when rugby league's free-to-air broadcast rights come up for renewal.

    Nine, which reduced the price of its existing contract last Thursday, has been agitated with the NRL in recent weeks due to its belief Telstra should be forced to charge an additional fee as stipulated.

    A Telstra spokesman referred the Herald and the Age back to its statement issued on Monday, when it confirmed it would not hold the mobile digital rights beyond 2022.

    "We are ... disappointed to learn the NRL, through their agreement with Foxtel, has decided not to make those digital rights on mobile available beyond 2022," the spokesman said. "We have not been a party to those discussions and will obviously need to engage with the NRL to understand what the implications are for our partnership in the long term."

    Advertisement
    Telstra secured the digital rights in 2015 as part of the deal signed by the NRL with Foxtel and Nine. It also secured the NRL naming rights, a partnership sources said the code is eager to extend. To that end, it is treading carefully regarding broadcast details. The NRL is not requiring Telstra to charge its customers for the access as part of its current deal.


    The telco provider is also in broadcast discussions with the AFL, with which it has a seat at the negotiating table. Asked about the future of AFL content on Telstra Live Pass past 2022, a spokesman declined to comment, arguing the discussions were commercially sensitive.

    AFL boss Gillon McLachlan is expected to drive a harder bargain with the code's commercial broadcasters Seven West Media and Foxtel after its rival the NRL accepted a discount last week. Sources said that the AFL believes NRL executive chairman Peter V'landys could have extracted more money from Nine and Foxtel.


    https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/nr...cure-extension-with-nine-20200602-p54ysm.html
     
  2. taipan

    taipan Referee

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    21,751
    Likes Received:
    6,728

    But, the NRL is supposed to bend over and get rogered, at the whims of its partners, according to our usual PVL hating suspects.Hog tying Foxtel from onsellling to Telstra.Nah nothing to see here.
    We apparently ,just bend over and say are you ready ,just say when.
    Yet we've just added another arrow to our quiver, when we negotiate a new FTA extension .How flipping careless of us.
    The"AFL believes" ,wouldn't be that they are publicly making that statement indirectly to 7 and Foxtel (as a tactic)to let them know they aren't going to roll over. Which any one selling a product would start with, I'm going to be tough.As if they are going to say, we are going to be flexible.Facts are both parties need each other.

    Any case AFL have a decent asset behind them, the NRL didn't.One additional ace in their pack.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2020
    Johnny88 and colly like this.
  3. Perth Red

    Perth Red Immortal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    40,685
    Likes Received:
    7,426
    haha, dont kid yourself, this is all about Fox protecting its only hope of survival, KAYO!

    Yeh who wouldnt start by acting tough? oh I know who!
     
  4. taipan

    taipan Referee

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    21,751
    Likes Received:
    6,728
    Whatever it is ,the NRL did not accede to Foxtel onselling to Telstra who is in partnership with Fox in Foxtel. So Telstra will be desperate for content down the line, as they are already in a very competitive market.
    But of course you knew all this about negotiations beforehand ,oh wait.What other "bend over"conditions did you know about in the Tv deal?

    Acting tough and being tough are two different acts.The AFL would be sweating on Tv deals,as they have clubs in deep shyte. Remembering of course your comments that the expansion clubs like Suns and the Gnats provided more revenue via Tv deal, than their AFL costs, which has shown to be BS.See below.

    And acting tough in prevailing conditions, when both parties are working under far tougher circumstances than the previous easy rides ,is p*ssing in a cyclone.

    SMH"Gold Coast chairman Tony Cochrane" pointed out the to the broadcast rights.'9th AFL game of every H&A round was worth an additional $50m".
    "Not only was that an outrageously generous assessment in the context of pre corona virus but also wildly out of the ballpark in the view of the AFL's media partners."
    "Those broadcasters say the incremental value of the 9th game is not worth much at all once the AFL deals with the main attractions on Thursday,Friday,Saturday and Sunday."

    "Even before the broadcast rights were deflated-the $418m annual figure divided by 9 did not come to $50m even on the crazy assumption that Gold Coast v West Coast could be valued competitively against Collingwood-Richmond on any given weekend."
    "So the only stakeholders in fasting the value of the 9th game are the AFL's vulnerable clubs, which have become even more vulnerable given the added debt they are about to incur."
     
    colly likes this.
  5. Perth Red

    Perth Red Immortal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    40,685
    Likes Received:
    7,426
    In reality Foxtel has told Telstra it cant have the streaming rights to show for free anymore as it wants exclusivity to help boost KAYO subscriptions.

    Would have been nice if we had even acted tough for a little bit lol.
    Ch9 "your business is run sht
    NRL Chairman "yes it is isnt it"
    Ch9: "Your not the worth the money"
    NRL Chairman "yes your right we arent"
    Ch9 "We dont like your ceo he is trying to hold us to a contract"
    NRL Chairman "No worries, he's gone"
    lol

    You missed this bit from the report off lol.
    “It has to be more complex. If you’ve got 10 clubs in one state, if you’re a strategist, the balance is off,” he said.
    “For me, if you are going to lose a club it’s out of Melbourne, but that would cause damage to the game. I know it is difficult because up north they are leaking money… the same applies to half a dozen clubs in Melbourne who are only profitable because of the dividend from the AFL.


    Its a journalists opinion, no direct quotes, no evidence. How much has AFL TV revenue gone up from pre expansion to post expansion? How much is due to more content? Only the AFL or media partners could tell us that.
     
  6. ayatollah_murdoch

    ayatollah_murdoch Juniors

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    84
    We don't need to turn this into a dick measuring contest.

    PR - PVL is on the board of the NRL. He is not the CEO. He has nothing in this other than his reputation. He is not on massive dollars by being on the board compared to his other job. Let the outcome speak for itself. The game is financially secure. We are going to expand. Salary cap remains untouched. Stadium and government policy has improved.

    I'd rather have a smaller deal than the AFL and have a better run game, then have record deals with very little to show for it.
     
  7. taipan

    taipan Referee

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    21,751
    Likes Received:
    6,728
    So you've put words in ,that you have NFI what happened in the negotiations.Your guesswork is amazing at times.
    Ironic, you being one that continually complained about NRL accounts and not achieving KPIs,now all of a sudden because Skid Marks went feral on something you already complained about,you change your tune.

    I missed this bit"There are two lines of thought ,with one targeting the expansion clubs. that created the 9th game and still cost the competition close to. $70million per year.The second focuses upon Victoria and the increasingly vulnerable Nth Melbourne ,the debt ridden Saints and even Melbourne."

    Yet you have no qualms in providing journalist's opinions when it suits you.

    The facts ,are the $50m is BS and the $70m it costs are more reliable than your constant stating the AFL gets more than they pay out.
    It is a journalist's opinion and he is hardly on his pat Malone in expressing that view.Many of them AFL clubs view the cost in the expansion clubs as being over the top.

    It is fairly evident now,Tv contracts for sport (AFL as one example) were overs big time.Ch7 debt laden financial position in debt is an indication of one of the underlying factors,




     
  8. Perth Red

    Perth Red Immortal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    40,685
    Likes Received:
    7,426
    Which of any of those three things didnt happen?
    Nine criticized the way the game was run, Vlandys publicly agreed with them,
    Nine said game wasnt worth as much as they were paying, Vlandys has agreed with them in reducing the contract,
    Nine (allegedly) wanted Greenberg gone as he was holding them to the contract, Vlandys got rid of him (I might add paying out when we could have waited till October and got rid for nothing)

    So whilst I made the words up for dramatic effect the events happened.

    Well they arent costing $70mill a year ($53.3mill in 2019) so if he cant check a simple fact like that in the annual report makes you question the validity of the rest of it doesnt it?
     
  9. taipan

    taipan Referee

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    21,751
    Likes Received:
    6,728

    But you stated it's only a journalist's comments when I cited an AFL comment ,what's to say the story about the crap figures from Skid Marks wasn't overly exaggerated.Whose to say they were not overblown?
    I repeat you leave yourself open by bagging journo's comments one minute,then use them for an argument in similar stories on expansion and costs.

    The NRL account's situation anyway was hardly a secret, though you change your mind when it suits on that score.One minute complain it's hard to work out figures, the next you back Todd after he got the flick.Yet it appears they were overspending ,so someone to sit back and accept where the buck stops.No assets repeat no assets, and KPIs not met.None of us like it.

    And for AFL pundits again whoever they are, stating V'Landys wasn't tough enough, is just a code dig ,as they have been snookered by the NRL getting comp up first and some within the AFL have praised his efforts.They like you and me ,have no idea of the content and figures contained within the Tv deal.They are going to look silly, if they have to make cuts.Better for them to clam up .

    I'm sure anyone going in to renegotiate would do their darnedest to hold the same deal.But if V'landys couldn't do it ,and with the lack of leverage the NRL has in terms of asset backing Greenberg would have had little or no chance, and who knows we could be in the midst of a court case with no FTA coverage.There was stuff all competitive tension.

    Maybe getting rid of him now ,rather than him spending more up to October was in the best interests of the game going forward.
    And let's see V'landys has stated the accounts will be fully transparent, because the clubs complained they were not.So it's not just Skids complaining.

    And you're still convinced the 9th game pays for itself,when AFL club heads in Vic, disagree.Yes it helps expansion by putting pins on maps, but after coves-19 they are in a deeper hole now than before.

    Whose to say the $16.7m extra for these expansion clubs, is not tucked away under other "headings".Under things like promotion, advertising in media and I see a swag of it (stories)for GWS in Telegraph.

    I question the validity of the expenditure, when I have a fair idea of the TV ratings for the Suns and GWS even in the AFL states, and know in the Nth States they are sh*thouse.Things also like extra allowances for player accomodation in Sydney and the GC.The COLA.

    The statement for a 2nd Brisbane NRL side suggests a $10m start up assistance fee, plus the grants.At least with a 2nd Brisbane side they'll get far better ratings in a heartland area, and better chance of flogging tickets and membership.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2020
  10. colly

    colly Juniors

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    190
    So it looks like the extension -deal from Foxtel has increased (2022-2027) to one billion.
    "The Foxtel extension, said by sources to be worth about $1 billion, allows subscription service Kayo to stream all eight matches." SMH
    So thats a increase of $25 million to $ 200m per year compared to the old deal of ($175 per year) So far going good. Telstra payed in the old deal 200m to....Foxtel for streaming. Foxtel on-sold the licensed rights to Telstra.This won't happen again. If Telstra wants it it will have to pay NRL not foxtel.
    https://www.adnews.com.au/news/nrl-...with-fox-sports-24-hour-nrl-channel-to-launch
    "
    Furthermore one can surmise that all 8 games that Foxtel have are not exclusive. It would seem 3 games could be sold to any free to air. Once again the streaming rights could be sold to a free to air exclusively but you pay a high price ie 185p/a which if sold would make a combined deal 2022-2027 of 1.92 BILLION. The main point I want to make is streaming. It is the NRL's so they sell either to Telstra/Nine or any other streaming service. Now that's a great deal.

    Regarding the current contract discounts lets not forget about Rugby Union who overplayed their hand or the strength,did not respect Foxtel who created the product in say 1995, thought they get top price from free to air and ended with nothing or bankrupt or Kaput.

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-be-greater-than-sum-of-its-parts#maincontent

    Or lets look at soccer or the A league. Again took a combative negations position which has Foxtel saying we are walking away. Left high and dry and no money. Lets watch how thier court case goes?
    If thier got any smarts they just have to accept a lower amount. This is how the real world works.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04...gue-may-not-return-after-coronavirus/12184472
     
  11. Perth Red

    Perth Red Immortal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    40,685
    Likes Received:
    7,426
    Surely its $1billion over 8 years (2020-2027) which is $125mill a year, or $50mill a year less than now.
    Nine are now paying in region of $160mill (for 21&22) so the NRLs actual revenue moving forward is closer to $285mill a year, down from the current $360million, a drop in the region of $75mill a year. Be nice of we got the $49mill advanced payment left written off but not seen any commentary that has happened.

    I'd be surprised if NRL can sell streaming rights to anyone, Fox will have secured them for KAYO I suspect given KAYO is Fox's only hope of still being around by 2027. The FTA partner may be allowed to stream the three games they buy given by 2022 onwards FTA will also be mostly a streaming service offering
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2020
  12. colly

    colly Juniors

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    190
    The SMH story put up by Jonny 88 says 'new deal ' or extension deal is worth 200 million a year. It says again each year or 200 million a year. Quote from story. 200 million per/year.

    "The Foxtel extension, said by sources to be worth about $1 billion, allows subscription service Kayo to stream all eight matches." SMH
    But not exclusively.
    Regarding Kayo, the NRL did not give the rights to foxtel exclusive as in the old deal. After or in the year 2022 the NRL can sell this to anyone.
     
    taipan likes this.
  13. Chief_Chujo

    Chief_Chujo Bench

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    Messages:
    3,799
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    I can't imagine Fox not having some sort of exclusivity on streaming in the new deal. They are already undertaking the transformation of their service and the churn of subs from Foxtel to Kayo/Binge. Locking down stuff like super saturday is essential to that long term.
     
  14. Perth Red

    Perth Red Immortal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    40,685
    Likes Received:
    7,426
    The 200 is not right, its either $285mill if you are talking all up for both Nine and Fox or $125mill just Fox. The article says nothing about $200mill a year, it says "The Foxtel extension, said by sources to be worth about $1 billion". That's $1bill over 8 years.
    There is absolutely no way in the world that Fox are paying MORE than the current contract lol.

    Lets see, I'll eat my hat if Fox havent locked up exclusive streaming rights given that is likely to be there only platform within the life of this extension..
     
  15. Phil McGrawhan

    Phil McGrawhan Coach

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    14,780
    Likes Received:
    2,606
    Not satisfied with just beating the AFL to the punch in resuming its season, ARL Commission chairman Peter V'landys attempted to ram home the NRL's dominance by sabotaging the rival code's broadcast rights deal.

    The Herald can reveal the NRL, led by V'landys and interim chief executive Andrew Abdo, requested a "most-favoured clause" in its five-year extension with Foxtel that would have prohibited the pay television provider from striking a better deal with the AFL.

    While Foxtel knocked back the clause request, which would have guaranteed the NRL received more per game than the AFL, it highlighted V'landys' appetite to take the fight to the code that long regarded as the benchmark of Australian sport.

    The NRL under the V'landys regime has drawn the ire of the AFL, which was left behind as the 13-man code returned to competition with record television ratings last week.

    It validated the warning that GWS chairman Tony Shepherd, who is a board member of the V'landys-run Racing NSW, offered AFL boss Gillon McLachlan when he declared rugby league would become a serious competitor when V'landys was announced as chairman late last year.

    The NRL has also taken a vow of silence in regards to the details of its extension with Foxtel to assist the pay television network's negotiations with the AFL. A lot has changed in the five years since News Corp supremo Rupert Murdoch responded to a secret broadcast deal between Nine and the NRL by stating that his organisation always believed the AFL was the premium code in Australia.

    https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/nr...otage-afl-broadcast-deal-20200603-p54z6i.html

    So it states clearly that they won't realease details to help fox with negotiations .
    Lol I hope it's for fox to screw fumbleball over & deservedly so after Rupert tantrum & excess $$$ in the last deal .

    I'm sure PR will ignore this. As he does
     
    Diesel, Nerd and taipan like this.
  16. taipan

    taipan Referee

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    21,751
    Likes Received:
    6,728
    That's correct PMc. V'Landys tried to screw the AFL with the "most favoured clause",and yet we are led to believe by the wonder of the west, that V'Landys just bends over to be compliant.


    And for PR's brain cells to digest, according to the Australian(news owned), the renegotiated Tv deal is 8 years (from 2020)years .
    However of that the 2023-2027 (the deal is $1bn plus over 5 years)to be around $200m pa after 2023.Meaning 5 years til 2027 at $200m pa plus.

    Fox was due to pay $190m for this year, but of course that has been discounted.So according to my 6th class maths $200m pa from 2023 is greater than $190m pa(originally contracted) up to 2022.

    This done prior to AFL, this done prior to the ARU, this done prior to the A league.This concluded in order to obtain revenue security during a time when we are officially in recession, and the next quarter will be worse.
    Whatever the AFL gets they get they have had to cut back on staff , the remit of V'Landys and Abdo was to secure the code's and the clubs' future.
    Dick measuring comparisons don't provide security for a code, they do when a broadcaster is not that interested (hello Union).

    When the outlook for employment for many looks forlorn.When TV advertising is dropping alarmingly.When the younger generation is not watching FTA or Pay ,but Kayo etc.

    I'd rather have certainty, than waiting for someone to call.The future lie of the land is so uncertain.
     
    Phil McGrawhan likes this.
  17. Perth Red

    Perth Red Immortal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    40,685
    Likes Received:
    7,426
    You've been telling us for last two years the next TV deal will be nowhere near the last, and for the last few months Covid means the days of big money TV contracts are over. Now you are saying that Fox is going to pay MORE? That's a big swing lol.
     
  18. colly

    colly Juniors

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    190
    Well who knows, Nine might want their own Sunday ticket on Stan their own streaming moneymaker. But the NRL will drive a hard bargain. Don't pay big bucks no streaming for you! You see we did not see the testra 100 million, Foxtel pocket it. Now we got something valuable to make Nine pay big bickies.

    Look out AFL you better keep the valuable streaming rights from Telstra which is 40% Foxtel anyway. The NRL keeping the streaming is up their with 'first and last rights offer" which idiot K. Williams? gave away. Old long balls when he flew to Sydney with his entourage wanted to know , who gave away the 'the last rights offer , one month latter KWilliams was GOOONNE I say one thing that old coote is ruthleess.

    https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/st...nials-watching-nrl-on-tv-20200603-p54z6u.html


    For those who can't see due to paywall.

    Streaming-rights battle brewing after sharp drop in Millennials watching NRL on TV
    Send via EmailLeave a comment

    NRL ScoreboardNRLFull fixtures
    A battle for NRL streaming rights could be on the horizon after revelations an alarming number of young viewers are switching off rugby league on television.

    Statistics released by Roy Morgan on Wednesday indicate that NRL TV viewers under the age of 34 have dropped 10 per cent in the past four years.

    [​IMG]
    Canberra's Nic Cotric scores in the victory over Melbourne on Saturday.Credit:AAP/Scott Barbour

    Viewership has declined across all age groups, but it is the drop in the young demographic that will be of most concern at Rugby League Central.

    "Overall this important demographic comprises around 25 per cent of the 6 million NRL TV viewers," Roy Morgan industry communications director Julian McCrann said.

    "A further 25 per cent are aged 35-49 while around half are aged in the 50-plus age bracket. For the NRL to turn around the decline in TV viewership, it's vital to find a way to re-engage this audience."

    The development comes on the same day it was reported the NRL would block Telstra from streaming its matches after the 2022 season.

    It is believed the move is part of negotiations with free-to-air network Channel Nine to extend its broadcast deal.

    Foxtel, which currently sells the streaming rights to Telstra, last week signed off on a five-year extension to broadcast the league until the end of 2027.

    But it is understood the pay-TV company has been prohibited from on-selling streaming rights when the new deal begins in two-and-a-half years.

    The league could then allow Nine to stream matches from 2023 onwards, the value of which could rise dramatically if current viewing trends remain.

    In a separate survey by Roy Morgan, Foxtel's viewership, which includes streaming service Kayo, has risen by more than 500,000 subscribers in one year.

    The same study, which interviewed more than 50,000 Australians, said almost 13 million Australians had access to Netflix in the recent March quarter.

    Related Article
    [​IMG]
    Exclusive
    Media & marketing

    NRL blocks Telstra from streaming in bid to secure extension with Nine
    Global Media and Sports boss Colin Smith predicted there would be a serious fight to attain exclusive rights to broadcasting games digitally in the future.

    "Millennials are not watching linear TV, be it free-to-air or pay," Smith said. "They still follow their sports, so there has to be a product designed for them to get them watching and paying for it, which will be different.

    "And how that comes out, hold this space. I can see the over-the-top services, the likes of a YouTube, Facebook, or Amazon, looking to acquire rights to sport that could be packaged different in structure.

    "There is going to be a fight in the next rights deal on simulcast. I would suggest they will want live and exclusive on their free-to-air platform as well as their digital platforms."

    AAP
     
  19. insert.pause

    insert.pause First Grade

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2013
    Messages:
    6,446
    Likes Received:
    1,322
    All it is is nine having streaming rights to their fta games so they can put them on 9now as their audiences go digital. Fox will retain streaming rights to all 8 games on kayo, but aren’t allowed to onsell them to Telstra. Nine don’t want people watching on the Telstra app instead of 9now, as currently happens. So in future you will have a choice of watching on kayo or 9now, and presumably those who normally would watch on nine wouldn’t have kayo and so would use 9now. The nrl must believe that bundling the fta streaming rights into the fta deal will boost the value of the overall rights more so than any revenue they gain from the Telstra app.
     
  20. colly

    colly Juniors

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    190
    However whats stopping Nine from streaming games onto the pay platform via Stan.
    https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=au.com.stan.and&hl=en-AU
    The NRL own the steaming rights to ALL EIGHT games? No? Of course they do. They have 'licened Kayo and Foxtel GO to stream all eight games, but the NRL can give away the 8 games. The situation today is that KAYO and Foxtel stream Nine games NOW.

    Foxtel cant because all eight games are NOT exclusive, especially from a Mobile/Android standpoint and then streamed to your TV.
     

Share This Page