2023-2028 next tv deal discussion

[The_Wookie]

Thing is neither the NRL or the AFL would know how much of the savings the other side is making are coming out of production costs instead of cash. Everyone is just making wild assumptions now - from social media to journos to ceos lol

 

[taipan]

For the umpteenth time I havent bagged Vlandys for the tv deal on anything other than his lack of transparency on what he has signed us up for. We don’t Know the deals so I havent been critical or praising. When we can see the figures we can decide on his performance.

For the umpteenth time, have a look at your historic criticisms of him, re the Tv negotiations and deals.Making comments about getting screwed ,AFL will do better.Read what you have written ever since the negotiations began.Else you wouldn't be been getting responses to your posts from us, for that very reason.
Or get your eyes checked.
If you are going to lie, don't think I am going to accept it.

 

[taipan]

Thing is neither the NRL or the AFL would know how much of the savings the other side is making are coming out of production costs instead of cash. Everyone is just making wild assumptions now - from social media to journos to ceos lol

Thank Wookie,I've been frustratingly bashing my head with a couple of guys who are adamant we got done over.Yet as I've stated different journos from different media print outlets ,have given different results, because they are only guessing.
If they knew the actual figures ,then there would be unison by them as to who actual did better or worse.

The old bigger than the other syndrome.

 

[Perth Red]

Thing is neither the NRL or the AFL would know how much of the savings the other side is making are coming out of production costs instead of cash. Everyone is just making wild assumptions now - from social media to journos to ceos lol

Afl ceo has said how much the afl seven’s reduction and extension is worth. $70mill reduction on next three years with a total 5 year extended deal worth $730million, or $146mill a year 20-24

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

Well everyone was creaming themselves about how we are now best friends with Fox they would promote NRL in USA and during this sports starved time NRL would have a great opportunity for new exposure. Well AFL's back and they drop NRL to show AFL over there. Seems we still arent as close as we thought!

https://www.bitchute.com/video/QzRd5htmyUs/

ESPN RATINGS HIT RECORD LOWS AFTER THEY GO FULL WOKE, GET WOKE GO BROKE!

 

[Cactus]

https://www.bitchute.com/video/QzRd5htmyUs/

ESPN RATINGS HIT RECORD LOWS AFTER THEY GO FULL WOKE, GET WOKE GO BROKE!

That Tim bloke is a bit long winded about it but its quite hard to argue with what he says...especially as I have always been of that same opinion.

Serious politics does not belong in sport. Leave it to the politicians.

 

[Cactus]

For the umpteenth time I havent bagged Vlandys for the tv deal on anything other than his lack of transparency on what he has signed us up for. We don’t Know the deals so I havent been critical or praising. When we can see the figures we can decide on his performance.

As John Macenroe would say.................

 

[ayatollah_murdoch]

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2020/06/15/afls-tv-rights-numbers-are-completely-false-vlandys/

ARL Commission chairman Peter V’landys has slammed the AFL after it reportedly told stakeholders that the NRL sacrificed up to $300 million in its revised TV rights deal.

Speaking to The Herald Sun, V’landys described the claim as “fictional” and accused the AFL of releasing “completely false” figures when announcing its new TV deal.
“It’s not correct. It’s laughable. I’m disappointed that they feel they need to make up figures,” V’landys said.

“Nobody knows our figures because we’ve kept them commercially in-confidence.

“But looking at their figures, if they have given up $150 million, we have done substantially better than them.

“For them to go out and say such fiction without knowing is a concern about them more so than us.

“I don’t know where they are getting their fictional figures from because they are not accurate. They are completely false.”

“And if they knew the real figures, they’d be stopping the comparisons very quickly, because it doesn’t help them. I think they have had a dose of reality.”

The AFL extended its partnership with Channel Seven for a further two years but failed to agree a renewal with Foxtel.

Foxtel and the NRL signed a broadcast deal that will run through until the end of 2027.

 

[Perth Red]

The AFL's "gift" to their TV partners is:
$23.3mill a year FTA (confirmed by AFL CEO)
$30mill a year Fox (rumoured , no official confirmation)

If we've done much better than tell us what our deal is. The deals are now done so no need for confidentiality due to commercial competition.

 

[TheRam]

ESPN isn’t Fox so not sure what you are taking about.

It is pathetic how for decades AFL has been shown to decent audiences in the US and we can't get it happening almost at all. What a joke considering how Lachlan Murdoch loves the game, his company has the rights to it and yet we are constantly shunted while that joke of a sport gets poll position all the time. FOX1 is the channel you want to be on. Any of the others and you may as well not exist. V'lanys has to address this. If we can get even a little bit of traction in the US the possibilities are endless.

See below.

V'landys dismisses reports AFL got a better deal out of TV partners

When NRL-loving New Yorkers woke in the early hours of yesterday to watch the Sea Eagles versus Broncos clash on Fox Sports 1, they found an AFL match screening instead on the Murdoch-owned US network.

Matt Astill, a former lower-grade Manly player and past owner of a popular Manhattan bar, said, “I got up this morning to watch my 'tails and it was bloody Collingwood v Richmond! I turned it back to the Korean baseball on ESPN!”
It was not the only victory the AFL appears to have won overnight.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/v-...-deal-out-of-tv-partners-20200612-p5521d.html

 

[tri_colours]

doh

 

[tri_colours]

The AFL's "gift" to their TV partners is:
$23.3mill a year FTA (confirmed by AFL CEO)
$30mill a year Fox (rumoured , no official confirmation)

If we've done much better than tell us what our deal is. The deals are now done so no need for confidentiality due to commercial competition.

So it was 'rummoured' to be $30m. A number of reports 'rummoured' the figure to be $50m a year yesterday. Really I cant see a problem with whatever the figure was. This is a tuff period for everyone , and its not going to get better overnight. What I do see as positive is that we signed a 5 year extension for better money than we were on previously . The AFL could only get a extension with c7 for 2 years and that was at a reduced rate.

According to V'Landys we haven't needed to borrow and players have only had to take a 20% cut. The AFL have started selling off assets already.

 

[Perth Red]

So it was 'rummoured' to be $30m. A number of reports 'rummoured' the figure to be $50m a year yesterday.

What I do see as positive is that we signed a 5 year extension for better money than we were on previously . .

which reports?

you don’t know that at all. It could be for 7 years which makes it significantly less money than previously, or it could be for 5 years with the bits fox Are paying Ch9 $60mill for thrown in, bringing the value of next fta deal down significantly.
It could include exclusive streaming for all 8 games, or may not.
We just don’t know, yet.

 

[franklin2323]

which reports?

you don’t know that at all. It could be for 7 years which makes it significantly less money than previously, or it could be for 5 years with the bits fox Are paying Ch9 $60mill for thrown in, bringing the value of next fta deal down significantly.
It could include exclusive streaming for all 8 games, or may not.
We just don’t know, yet.

We don’t know...yet you still whinge like they were given away

 

[colly]

Just for a change lets look at Vlandy statement that the AFL dropped the ball when negotiating their current contract. It looks like they did a 'Smithy' while agreeing to terms with Seven TV while no deal with Fox sports/Foxtel. If Foxtel realise it, they can have the AFL balls on toast. How so? Well if Foxtel management were half competent they would have CHANGED the current situation specifics , especially in regards to states South Australia and Western Australia. I put some info below and see if you pick the problem, from a business sense.

South Australia AFL FTA/Seven and Foxtel Contract 2017-2022

Market Specifics: SA
Premiership Season only SA
• All 42 matches involving the Adelaide Crows and Port Adelaide broadcast on free-to-air television, either live or on delay
• All Friday night matches live on free-to-air television and live on Fox Sports and Foxtel

And • A minimum of three Matches per week live on free-to-air television during Premiership season
• All nine Matches per week on Fox Sports and Foxtel and Fox IP Television during Premiership season

Market Specifics Western Australia

• All 42 matches involving West Coast Eagles and Fremantle broadcast on free-to-air television, either live or on delay
• All Friday night matches live on free-to-air television and live on Fox Sports and Foxtel
And • A minimum of three Matches per week live on free-to-air television during Premiership season
https://www.afl.com.au/news/120/2017-2022-broadcast-rights-summary

See the point, there is no incentive for people of SA and WA to take Foxtel subscription as most would be happy with full Home team coverage and other FTA games ie Fri Night, Saturday and Sunday. This lowers subscriptions and Foxtel lives off subscriptions. So I would say Foxtel in a new deal would want to get rid of these home state team bias AND IF NOT PAY A SUBSTANTIAL LOT LESS. So can any re-organization happen? No Seven has locked in these 42 matches for each state with their current deal.

So when Vlandt said you negotiated with both but if you must negotiate with 'one' 'partner' only it SHOULD be with the 'main payer' ie Foxtel. Vlandy- quote.

“ While the AFL was able to renew its free-to-air deal with Seven through 2024, a deal is yet to be done with Foxtel, and V'landys declared that the AFL had made a "massive mistake" in that regard.
In comparison to the AFL, the NRL has extended its deal with Foxtel through 2027.

"What the AFL don't tell you is that the majority of revenue for both the NRL and the AFL comes from Foxtel and it was important for us at the NRL to get the major partner done first and foremost," he said.

That's the one we rely on most. It's given us security of revenues for another seven years.

https://wwos.nine.com.au/nrl/peter-...greement/f4115091-b308-41fb-be57-f67336a89e9d
PLUS the NRL outrates AFL which would equal less for You.

 

[tri_colours]

which reports?

you don’t know that at all. It could be for 7 years which makes it significantly less money than previously, or it could be for 5 years with the bits fox Are paying Ch9 $60mill for thrown in, bringing the value of next fta deal down significantly.
It could include exclusive streaming for all 8 games, or may not.
We just don’t know, yet.

I read several papers each day. Im not in the habit of writing down whats in each one. One of the papers reporting the reduction being at $50m a year was the one where PV was having a laugh at what was coming out of the AFL.

It is a well know fact that our extension with Fox is for five years. The amount is unclear however newspaper I have read puts the figure at $1 - 1.1B.

Channel 9 had exlusive rights to stream its own matches. I imagine 9 or the new FTA will have similar.

And Fox currently want a further reduction before they will extend with the AFL according to the Financial Review.

And as i said previously, According to V'Landys we haven't needed to borrow, players have only had to take a 20% cut. While the same cant be said for the AFL .

 

[Perth Red]

I read several papers each day. Im not in the habit of writing down whats in each one. One of the papers reporting the reduction being at $50m a year was the one where PV was having a laugh at what was coming out of the AFL.

It is a well know fact that our extension with Fox is for five years. The amount is unclear however every newspaper I have read puts the figure at $1 - 1.1B.

Channel 9 had exlusive rights to stream its own matches. I imagine 9 or the new FTA will have similar.

And Fox currently want a further reduction before they will extend with the AFL according to the Financial Review.

And as i said previously, According to V'Landys we haven't needed to borrow, players have only had to take a 20% cut. While the same cant be said for the AFL .

hmmm, so no reference for it? Which papers as none of the main ones had it mentioned.

Yes the extension is known, if the $1billion being mentioned by journos is just for the extension, or for the full period including the newly negotiated 20-22 is not known. The only way Fox are giving us $200mill a year for the extension, given their financial position and likely loss of revenue as people drop fox sports for kayo is if the $60mill they were paying nine is bundled into it giving them an overall cost saving of around $35mill a year. Might well be and that might be the reason nine have refused to extend?

 

[tri_colours]

hmmm, so no reference for it? Which papers as none of the main ones had it mentioned.

Yes the extension is known, if the $1billion being mentioned by journos is just for the extension, or for the full period including the newly negotiated 20-22 is not known. The only way Fox are giving us $200mill a year for the extension, given their financial position and likely loss of revenue as people drop fox sports for kayo is if the $60mill they were paying nine is bundled into it giving them an overall cost saving of around $35mill a year. Might well be and that might be the reason nine have refused to extend?

The papers say what they say! disdappointed! What is it that you want them to say?

Fox/9 are receiving a discount on 20-22 not 23-27.

 

[taipan]

hmmm, so no reference for it? Which papers as none of the main ones had it mentioned.

Yes the extension is known, if the $1billion being mentioned by journos is just for the extension, or for the full period including the newly negotiated 20-22 is not known. The only way Fox are giving us $200mill a year for the extension, given their financial position and likely loss of revenue as people drop fox sports for kayo is if the $60mill they were paying nine is bundled into it giving them an overall cost saving of around $35mill a year. Might well be and that might be the reason nine have refused to extend?

Seriously, from the SMH under the heading NRL blocks Telstra from streaming in bid to secure extension with Nine.Some extracts:-
" But under the NRL's EXTENDED 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 -ONE BILLION-ONE THOUSAND MILLION,allows subscription service Kayo to stream all eight matches.

From Masters on June 12th
"However V'Landys awarded Foxtel a five year extension for an undisclosed fee, handling the Murdoch owned network NRL pay Tv rights until 2027
V'Landys refuses to reveal the amount Foxtel paid, or the discount it received for 2020-22,but industry sources say the EXTENDED DEAL IS CONSISTENTwith the $1.1BILLION over 5 YEARS Foxtel paid the NRL before CPVID-19 hit."

Throughout the print media, regardless of what the actual figure is ,they have specified a 5 years extension worth X amount estimated.Not once have they stated 7 years .The extension has consisitneyl been treated as a seperate transaction.

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

Yep
You can only repeat it so many times before you realise he can't accept anything positive about PVL or the deal .
He sees things that are not there .
Due to his hatred of Peter the Great.