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

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,430
The next TV deal hopefully will maximise the revenue crap out of it.On this result would be the basis of deciding who should be next expansion club//clubs with the most eyeball watchers ,that woulds draw in the revenue for the broadcasters.From what i've gleaned FWIW:-

PNG: Fed Govt backing ,fanatical fan base, juniors heaps,revenue and eyeballers in Australia for telecasters a big question mark.Home base to attract visiting fans a big ? mark.


NZ (Christchurch base): Commercial backing ,stadium tick, whether this club would chop into the Wah's popularity, how many eyeballs in Oz?

3rd Brisbane team/Ipswich the Jets- Commercial backing? junior base, Fanbase safe bet ,eyeballs there in numbers, stadium ?

Perth: Commercial backing, growing junior base, stadium, but as far as TV goes apart from SOO, are the numbers there to wet a broadcaster's strides.Would having the name Bears do that job to grab East Coast viewers' interest even allowing for opportune time slots?

The Storm get East Coast viewers in large numbers ,due to their consistency and the winning mystique they have built up since they joined the big time with top line players.They have earned their place full stop.

ATM what else in terms of commercial viability is available for expansion presently.

Until Ch10 gets their a*se into gear financially it's hard to see them impacting TV contract discussions.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
66,655
The next TV deal hopefully will maximise the revenue crap out of it.On this result would be the basis of deciding who should be next expansion club//clubs with the most eyeball watchers ,that woulds draw in the revenue for the broadcasters.From what i've gleaned FWIW:-

PNG: Fed Govt backing ,fanatical fan base, juniors heaps,revenue and eyeballers in Australia for telecasters a big question mark.Home base to attract visiting fans a big ? mark.


NZ (Christchurch base): Commercial backing ,stadium tick, whether this club would chop into the Wah's popularity, how many eyeballs in Oz?

3rd Brisbane team/Ipswich the Jets- Commercial backing? junior base, Fanbase safe bet ,eyeballs there in numbers, stadium ?

Perth: Commercial backing, growing junior base, stadium, but as far as TV goes apart from SOO, are the numbers there to wet a broadcaster's strides.Would having the name Bears do that job to grab East Coast viewers' interest even allowing for opportune time slots?

The Storm get East Coast viewers in large numbers ,due to their consistency and the winning mystique they have built up since they joined the big time with top line players.They have earned their place full stop.

ATM what else in terms of commercial viability is available for expansion presently.

Until Ch10 gets their a*se into gear financially it's hard to see them impacting TV contract discussions.
The value in the next tv deal will come largely from competition, not from content amount or location, imo. If we go to open market, if we get 2-3 bidding competitors, then we will get a substantial uplift. The good thing in that is the NRL can then be strategic about expansion and expand into locations it long term wants to see the game grow rather than just basing it on what TV wants.

If we dont then adding more teams and where will bring a modest uplift that will probably only just pay the costs of the new teams entering (see Dolphins). We've shown time and again audience size has little bearing on our tv value sadly. In this case new club location will have a much stronger influence.

PNG looks like its going to be paid for, at least for now, by the Govt so its lack of value to tv (in fact you could argue it will devalue the tv deal) will be covered from elsewhere.
 

Iamback

Coach
Messages
17,861
The next TV deal hopefully will maximise the revenue crap out of it.On this result would be the basis of deciding who should be next expansion club//clubs with the most eyeball watchers ,that woulds draw in the revenue for the broadcasters.From what i've gleaned FWIW:-

PNG: Fed Govt backing ,fanatical fan base, juniors heaps,revenue and eyeballers in Australia for telecasters a big question mark.Home base to attract visiting fans a big ? mark.


NZ (Christchurch base): Commercial backing ,stadium tick, whether this club would chop into the Wah's popularity, how many eyeballs in Oz?

3rd Brisbane team/Ipswich the Jets- Commercial backing? junior base, Fanbase safe bet ,eyeballs there in numbers, stadium ?

Perth: Commercial backing, growing junior base, stadium, but as far as TV goes apart from SOO, are the numbers there to wet a broadcaster's strides.Would having the name Bears do that job to grab East Coast viewers' interest even allowing for opportune time slots?

The Storm get East Coast viewers in large numbers ,due to their consistency and the winning mystique they have built up since they joined the big time with top line players.They have earned their place full stop.

ATM what else in terms of commercial viability is available for expansion presently.

Until Ch10 gets their a*se into gear financially it's hard to see them impacting TV contract discussions.

That last paragraph is spot on and is a must to really get big coin for the 2032 deal
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,430
The value in the next tv deal will come largely from competition, not from content amount or location, imo. If we go to open market, if we get 2-3 bidding competitors, then we will get a substantial uplift. The good thing in that is the NRL can then be strategic about expansion and expand into locations it long term wants to see the game grow rather than just basing it on what TV wants.

If we dont then adding more teams and where will bring a modest uplift that will probably only just pay the costs of the new teams entering (see Dolphins). We've shown time and again audience size has little bearing on our tv value sadly. In this case new club location will have a much stronger influence.

PNG looks like its going to be paid for, at least for now, by the Govt so its lack of value to tv (in fact you could argue it will devalue the tv deal) will be covered from elsewhere.
If you are looking at broadcaster competition ,IMO you can count ch7 out.With the new Tasmanian team and a 3rd Perth team (maybe) , they will have their hands tied financially & with time slots.
Maybe they'll bid for SOO to create competitive tension.
Ch10 is a worry especially as the best they appear to afford are reality shows and less popular sport.

The decision of course will be decided by Vlad & Co and I'll bet my left & right one they are looking into who offers the best in the end, crowd wise, grassroots wise, TV ratings wise, commercial support wise and long term growth.
The broadcasters would not want crap ratings like Ala Swans did for a hell of a time, then SL war gave them a boost.We "ain't" got that luxury.

That's why it's important to get the right teams set up that will induce 9 , Fox and a very outside chance ch10
to provide the dollar incentives.
TV broadcasters are looking at 5 years not 20 years down the line ,for their bottom lines.10-15 years time you could have a 2nd Melbourne team (who knows?) but that's meaningless for the next deal.


You have a better chance of getting more where the viewers are.Disagree the Dolphins have helped boost ratings ,their competitiveness in a heartland area is good fro crowds and TV eyeballs.
PNG for me is the worry about Oz visitors hesitant to go there and the Tv ratings here.And where they are to be domiciled.
No argument on their crowds and passion.

My toss ups would be Ipswich Jets/Perth Bears/Christchurch.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
66,655
If you are looking at broadcaster competition ,IMO you can count ch7 out.With the new Tasmanian team and a 3rd Perth team (maybe) , they will have their hands tied financially & with time slots.
Maybe they'll bid for SOO to create competitive tension.
Ch10 is a worry especially as the best they appear to afford are reality shows and less popular sport.

The decision of course will be decided by Vlad & Co and I'll bet my left & right one they are looking into who offers the best in the end, crowd wise, grassroots wise, TV ratings wise, commercial support wise and long term growth.
The broadcasters would not want crap ratings like Ala Swans did for a hell of a time, then SL war gave them a boost.We "ain't" got that luxury.

That's why it's important to get the right teams set up that will induce 9 , Fox and a very outside chance ch10
to provide the dollar incentives.
TV broadcasters are looking at 5 years not 20 years down the line ,for their bottom lines.10-15 years time you could have a 2nd Melbourne team (who knows?) but that's meaningless for the next deal.


You have a better chance of getting more where the viewers are.Disagree the Dolphins have helped boost ratings ,their competitiveness in a heartland area is good fro crowds and TV eyeballs.
PNG for me is the worry about Oz visitors hesitant to go there and the Tv ratings here.And where they are to be domiciled.
No argument on their crowds and passion.

My toss ups would be Ipswich Jets/Perth Bears/Christchurch.
If there isnt competitive bidding we’ll be lucky to get an increase that will cover the cost of new teams. we’d better pray 7,10, streaming channels are all super keen to bid!
 

Chins get the wins

First Grade
Messages
5,758
The value in the next tv deal will come largely from competition, not from content amount or location, imo. If we go to open market, if we get 2-3 bidding competitors, then we will get a substantial uplift. The good thing in that is the NRL can then be strategic about expansion and expand into locations it long term wants to see the game grow rather than just basing it on what TV wants.

If we dont then adding more teams and where will bring a modest uplift that will probably only just pay the costs of the new teams entering (see Dolphins). We've shown time and again audience size has little bearing on our tv value sadly. In this case new club location will have a much stronger influence.

PNG looks like its going to be paid for, at least for now, by the Govt so its lack of value to tv (in fact you could argue it will devalue the tv deal) will be covered from elsewhere.
Stop saying "we" you weak merkin. You aren't one of us
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,430
If there isnt competitive bidding we’ll be lucky to get an increase that will cover the cost of new teams. we’d better pray 7,10, streaming channels are all super keen to bid!
I've been praying every time we approach Tv negotiations ,mainly on TV ratings beforehand.
Streaming channels will want a slice of the action ,my concern is how much more Fox can increase subscribers in country of 25-26m regardless of increase in teams.
One of the reasons I'm happy Vlad has increased NRL building assets to assist cash flow and long term security.
 
Messages
13,308
The value in the next tv deal will come largely from competition, not from content amount or location, imo. If we go to open market, if we get 2-3 bidding competitors, then we will get a substantial uplift. The good thing in that is the NRL can then be strategic about expansion and expand into locations it long term wants to see the game grow rather than just basing it on what TV wants.

If we dont then adding more teams and where will bring a modest uplift that will probably only just pay the costs of the new teams entering (see Dolphins). We've shown time and again audience size has little bearing on our tv value sadly. In this case new club location will have a much stronger influence.

PNG looks like its going to be paid for, at least for now, by the Govt so its lack of value to tv (in fact you could argue it will devalue the tv deal) will be covered from elsewhere.
Translation: Perth Red wants a team in Perth.
 

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,645
I've been praying every time we approach Tv negotiations ,mainly on TV ratings beforehand.
Streaming channels will want a slice of the action ,my concern is how much more Fox can increase subscribers in country of 25-26m regardless of increase in teams.
One of the reasons I'm happy Vlad has increased NRL building assets to assist cash flow and long term security.
What you'll see over the next decade is streaming bundling, like what happened with cable in the 90s. That will inevitably weaken Foxtel's share, as the others create better content packages and Foxtel reduce their production house deals (which will go to other streamers). I for one would not want to go into that period in Australia armed without either the NRL or AFL rights, as those sports dominate for 7-8 months a year. No other sports do that.
 

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,645
I know it's not NRL but A-League are about to get hit again after the Global Advance fiasco. In preparation for potential takeovers/selloffs with Skydance etc, Paramount is shoring up its cash positions. A-League will either have to take a reduction in the contract cash contributions (this may or may not shift to contra) or risk the contract being terminated early. There's some talk of up to a potential 50% cash cut (imagine if the NRL broadcast deal was cut in half). Still up in the air. Obviously a big impact though if it happens.
 
Last edited:

Brick Tamland

Juniors
Messages
108
To give an idea of Stan's potential viewership, RA have just released their annual report and the SMH state:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...a-posts-9-2m-annual-loss-20240428-p5fn57.html

...

Broadcast deal

In the third year of RA’s broadcast deal with Stan Sport and Nine, the World Cup posted average audience figures of almost 450,000 for the final between South Africa and New Zealand, while the Wallabies’ 40-6 group defeat to Wales was the most watched Australian game with an average audience of 363,100.

The average audience for the weekly Saturday night Super Rugby game on free-to-air TV was up 15 per cent on 2022’s average...

Australia v Wales was at 5am on a Monday, and the World Cup Final was 6am on a Sunday
 

Frank Burge

Juniors
Messages
237

colly

Juniors
Messages
1,047
Starkers said need to keep media News Ltd less they 'disappear' NRL on their Northern papers...

Yes I like your reasoning their. However lets be open having Ten get the whole package with 5 games behind a paywall and three ( like Nine on FTA )i e same package BUT BUT we sell that to Ten FOR $300 million and then sell to FOX what they have ( ie current package) for $350m ( which keeps the News LTD Papers / Media pumping out their garbage) but hey if media go for 'don't cover like you said it will have a 'chilling' effect on the overall popularity of the game.
However we could go with one FTA and (TWO) pay per view combination. That way we can keep the media , Like Nine, on board with their Sydney Morning Herald coverage and generally ( yes it it's piss poor lately)combined with Nine TV coverage on board, with their media connections above outlined. I suppose im saying we can go with 'multiply ' media as well as keeping the traditional media, that's way we maximize the payoff. So lets not settle for a duopoly or a two Company media deal, we should expand to three at least, as again that can keep the media connections on broad.
 

Wb1234

Referee
Messages
24,362
Ten weren’t interested in the fta rights they aren’t bidding for the lot

it will be nine and Stan bidding for the lot
 

colly

Juniors
Messages
1,047
What i am saying is...
sell to Nine FTA
sell to Nine FTA and pay per view ( Not exclusive) again NOT exclusive) Sell pay per view to to Foxtel/Kayo

As it's been pointed out Foxtel /kayo can't afford to lose NRL... so if they ( Foxtel/kayo) aren't willing to pay $450m+ for their package, then it's not exclusive, it's Pay per view competition which Ten and Nine....are players ...
So how do we get the FTA to pay more than the $120 mil, offer some games to put onto their pay/streams.
This is the deal where we structure (mostly) the deal to have a FTA and it's Streams ie Stan /Paramount Plus AND we sell to Foxtel/kayo also, Let the Pay Streamers compete.
Also why not one/two games to the Big players YouTube/Facebook/Amazon for a cool $40m- $65 mil.

As it has been pointed out and it does have some commercial reality, Foxtel /Kayo can't lose it's biggest Sports draw subscription driver and if it does lose the NRL it's whole business plan goes belly up. Again the NRL is the biggest subscriber base in the Kayo marketplace. This would make their $30 offering at Kayo unbuyable.. So if they don't do better than the AFL deal+ plus more, then they can compete with 'other' streamers.'
To get a FTA to go over $250m will not be too hard if they park games on their subscriptions stream.. Foxtel drove the last deal to get them exclusive (5 games Live) but that came at the expense of exclusivity for the FTA, ie Nine. So time to work a deal where they wont get exclusive rights unless big bickies are paid ( due to the NRL bring in subscriptions and ratings) Played this way i foresee the NRL being the biggest media Sports Contact in Australia.
 
Top