Daily Telegraph Article Today - Gallop For Expansion

[Quidgybo]

then the 100 million is a rounded figure.. from memory sky anounced that they paid 12 million a year... however i cant find the article so i may be wrong.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/league-the-big-loser-in-salary-stakes-20090816-emc3.html

Thats simplistic at best... that may be true in Aussie, but there will only ever be one real bidder in NZ... whether its one team or two... no free to air channel will pay more than 12 MIL a year for rights when the warriors are pulling in less than 200K a game.

So 200k per Warriors game for 24 games accounts for a substantial part of that $16.6m value per season - I agree. Now add another 200k per week for the second team so that we now offer 46 games involving local interest teams. What you're missing here is that it's not just a matter of increasing the top end ratings figure beyond 200k (apart from creating two blockbuster local derby matches), it's the doubling the number of games that are likely to pull that top end ratings figure. *That's* where the big increase in value is.

Leigh.

 

[shiznit]

There are not sufficient quality league players in NZ for a second team, if the Warriors crowds are not adequate in Auckland, and the Warriors fans are fair weather supporters then relocate them down south to Wellington or Christchurch...the Warriors need a multi millionaire to keep them afloat, you will not find a second one in NZ to prop up a second Kiwi team, they have all gone bust!

LMFAO!! Post of the year!!

Go watch a toyota cup game mate....

 

[Perth Red]

To expand the discussion a little I wonder if:

A) The NRL will call for official bids next year?
B) When/If the call is made will we see more bids come forward?
C) Are there any dark horses that may come forward?
D) What criteria will teh NRL use to judge bids against each other and when will they make the final decision?

 

[adamkungl]

Complete joke if Perth doesn't get in imo

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

New Zealand cannot add a second rugby league team, there is not the fan support, the corporate support or the administration to run it properly.
Adding a second team would offer no extra money for the tv deal, it would offer no extra viewers as they are currently watching the game as it is.

The north of Sydney and the Central Coast are deprived of rugby league, Manly are in the peninsula area and offer nothing the north of Sydney or the Centra Coast.

The only thing that will keep a team out of the Central Coast will be politics, the other clubs will put themselves above the good of the game.

You need to have a look at the TV ratings thread in the fight club, just in the last couple of days the ratings from NZ have been found, there's plenty of support over there for a second team.

 

[jim_57]

To expand the discussion a little I wonder if:

A) The NRL will call for official bids next year?
B) When/If the call is made will we see more bids come forward?
C) Are there any dark horses that may come forward?
D) What criteria will teh NRL use to judge bids against each other and when will they make the final decision?

A - You'd hope so
B - Hard to see any springing up suddenly, anybody interested surely knows expansion is happening in 2013 and should start making noise very shortly.
C - If a second Brisbane team arrises it will be hard to deny IMO.
D - Hopefully a mix of potential adding to the TV deal, supporter base, stadium, finances, juniors etc.

Just going into point C a bit more, If a strong bid from Ipswich/2nd Brisbane pops up which it may well do I think it could very well throw CC or Perth off the top of the heap. I really hope Perth don't get shafted because Brisbane and Central Coast surely can't be considered "expansion".

As it stands here's how I think bids are ranked in order of importance. *indicates and official bid already running.

Perth*
Central Coast*
Brisbane 2
NZ 2
PNG* (No chance for 10+ years IMO)
Central Queensland*
Adelaide

 

[flamin]

New Zealand cannot add a second rugby league team, there is not the fan support, the corporate support or the administration to run it properly.
Adding a second team would offer no extra money for the tv deal, it would offer no extra viewers as they are currently watching the game as it is.

The north of Sydney and the Central Coast are deprived of rugby league, Manly are in the peninsula area and offer nothing the north of Sydney or the Centra Coast.

The only thing that will keep a team out of the Central Coast will be politics, the other clubs will put themselves above the good of the game.

You realise that this is the very argument applied to the Central Coast don't you? And it can be applied to them more than any other potential bid.

Not that I'm against the Bears bid. I just find your argument a bit contradictory.

 

[Benchwarmer]

You realise that this is the very argument applied to the Central Coast don't you? And it can be applied to them more than any other potential bid.

Not that I'm against the Bears bid. I just find your argument a bit contradictory.

You doubt the product
the product is the best in the world
you have a product phobia

 

[Te Kaha]

http://www.smh.com.au/business/league-the-big-loser-in-salary-stakes-20090816-emc3.html

You have only listed the marsters article, not the actual Sky announcement for when they got the rights. That is a tad more reliable than an opinion piece.

So 200k per Warriors game for 24 games accounts for a substantial part of that $16.6m value per season - I agree. Now add another 200k per week for the second team so that we now offer 46 games involving local interest teams. What you're missing here is that it's not just a matter of increasing the top end ratings figure beyond 200k (apart from creating two blockbuster local derby matches), it's the doubling the number of games that are likely to pull that top end ratings figure. *That's* where the big increase in value is.

Leigh.

You are basing your assumptions on the fact a second team will pull another 200k and not cannablise that figure... or that the same 200k watch the additional games... that is of no benefit to Sky as their advertising income is tiny compared to their subscription income. In NZ over half the homes already have sky, those who dont yet have it for the sport arent going to suddenly get it with the advent of a second NZ team... Why would SKY pay any more for the rights if they have no tangible benefit???? the only reason they would pay more for the rights is if another network bid higher for them... League doesnt rate high enough in NZ for the free to air networks to justify that....

 

[bobmar28]

Perth and a QLD team should be the next two franchises admitted.

 

[Perth Red]

You have only listed the marsters article, not the actual Sky announcement for when they got the rights. That is a tad more reliable than an opinion piece.


You are basing your assumptions on the fact a second team will pull another 200k and not cannablise that figure... or that the same 200k watch the additional games... that is of no benefit to Sky as their advertising income is tiny compared to their subscription income. In NZ over half the homes already have sky, those who dont yet have it for the sport arent going to suddenly get it with the advent of a second NZ team... Why would SKY pay any more for the rights if they have no tangible benefit???? the only reason they would pay more for the rights is if another network bid higher for them... League doesnt rate high enough in NZ for the free to air networks to justify that....

I'm guessing its the same argument as for another Brisbane team, ie NZ'ers will tune in with greater numbers if it is a NZ team playing than if it is two Australian teams playing. Not sure if there are any stats to back that up but that would be the main selling point I would think. That and some rivallary between between the two NZ cities creating more interest in NRL generally. Thirdly there may be heaps of people in Wellington that are not currently RL fans. With a team of their own, increased publicity for the game, more kids playing in schools etc that flow through will eventually see new fans following the game in years to come and the knock on is more Sky subscribers, or at least more people watching NRl on Sky.

 

[Te Kaha]

I'm guessing its the same argument as for another Brisbane team, ie NZ'ers will tune in with greater numbers if it is a NZ team playing than if it is two Australian teams playing. Not sure if there are any stats to back that up but that would be the main selling point I would think. That and some rivallary between between the two NZ cities creating more interest in NRL generally. Thirdly there may be heaps of people in Wellington that are not currently RL fans. With a team of their own, increased publicity for the game, more kids playing in schools etc that flow through will eventually see new fans following the game in years to come and the knock on is more Sky subscribers, or at least more people watching NRl on Sky.

The difference is in Aussie there are plenty of homes that dont have pay tv... in NZ its now over half the country that does... its a mature market... there arent many who can aford sky who dont have it, and the only free to air League is currently late night delayed Warriors games..... and local and "talking League" shows on Maori tv which dont rate highly outside the League community. This means advertising revenue isnt great.

There is not a lot of value for sky to pay more for the rights... the only way is for one of the other networks to put in a big bid... TV3 is broke and the govt would have a fit if TVNZ put one in, as they did when TVNZ bid for the All Blacks games.

 

[shiznit]

The difference is in Aussie there are plenty of homes that dont have pay tv... in NZ its now over half the country that does... its a mature market... there arent many who can aford sky who dont have it, and the only free to air League is currently late night delayed Warriors games..... and local and "talking League" shows on Maori tv which dont rate highly outside the League community. This means advertising revenue isnt great.

There is not a lot of value for sky to pay more for the rights... the only way is for one of the other networks to put in a big bid... TV3 is broke and the govt would have a fit if TVNZ put one in, as they did when TVNZ bid for the All Blacks games.

yeah... fair point...

i wonder if Maori TV could put in an offer... throw in some TPK funding...

i reckon they would get a boom in ratings.

 

[Joker's Wild]

Considering the huge number of Kiwis living here in OZ, a 2nd NZ team would benefit the Australian TV market just as much or even more than the NZ market.

Simply an extra game per week alone is enough to add significant value given the increased advertising space. The AFL know this...

 

[smithie]

So Suncorp is full from 12 Broncos games and 6-7 Reds games?

Once the Springfield rail line is complete, I see no reason why they couldn't play their games at Suncorp and get good crowds.

Although I'd still like it to be an Logan/Ipswich.

As much as I would love to see a second team play out of Suncorp, I disagree with it being an Ipswich/Logan team. Labeling it an Ipswich and/or Logan team, alienates anyone else in the greater Brisbane area from supporting it, including myself.

We should go down the same route as the A-League, Melbourne Victory & Melbourne Heart.

 

[Quidgybo]

Some New Zealand rating stats for the season to date based on figures available here...

http://www.throng.co.nz/ratings

Be aware that the following averages are based purely on matches that registered in the top 5 for the day on their respective channels. In some cases, such as Warriors games, Monday night games and Super 14 Friday and Saturday primetime games, the matches appear almost every week resulting in a reasonably accurate picture.

For the second Friday night NRL match, the third Saturday NRL match, the second Sunday NRL match and non primetime S14 matches, these do not reliably appear in the top five list for their channels week to week. The Non Warriors game average and the Other S14 average should therefore be treated with some caution.


NRL (round 1 - round 18)
===
Average Warriors Game - 164,739 (16 games - highest 210,280 - lowest 106,670)
Average Non Warriors Game - 48,675 (68 games - highest 103,070 - lowest 23,060) *
Average Mon 9.00p - 52,543 (13 games - highest 73,190 - lowest 35,630)

* some matches (eg. some Friday nights) were shown live against another NRL match splitting the audience between two games.


STATE OF ORIGIN
====
Match 1 - 146,980
Match 2 - 165,100
Match 3 - 126,780
Average - 146,287

ANZAC TEST
========
Fri 9.30p - 181,720


SUPER 14 (week 5 - week 14)
======
Average Sky Fri 7.30p - 204,590 (9 games - highest 246,120 - lowest 170,500)
Average Sky Sat 7.30p - 155,904 (9 games - highest 232,000 - lowest 97,910)
Average Sky Other - 85,448 (24 games - highest 198,160 - lowest 27,840)


ALL BLACKS TESTS
============
Ireland - 461,700 (FTA Replay - 255,210)
Wales - 442,950 (FTA Replay - 347,970)
Wales - 476,440 (FTA Replay - 293,180)
South Africa - 475,460 (FTA Replay - 313,260)
Average Sky Live - 464,138
Average FTA Replay - 302,405
Average Combined Sky and FTA Per Match - 766,543


Leigh.

 

[Perth Red]

Those stats would suggest
A) a 2nd NZ team will draw more viewers to Sky (120k a week) (all be it exisiting subscribers possibly) meaning at the very least that the advertising space would be more valuable
B) NRl is stacking up well against S14
C) There are still plenty of people in NZ not watching NRL to convert.
D) NZ'ers don't care too much for SOO
E) Lot of work to do to get the Kiwis as popualr as the All-Blacks.

 

[Quidgybo]

Those stats would suggest
A) a 2nd NZ team will draw more viewers to Sky (120k a week) (all be it exisiting subscribers possibly) meaning at the very least that the advertising space would be more valuable
B) NRl is stacking up well against S14
C) There are still plenty of people in NZ not watching NRL to convert.
D) NZ'ers don't care too much for SOO
E) Lot of work to do to get the Kiwis as popualr as the All-Blacks.

I think a fair summary is that the average NRL timeslot (combining figures where mutliple NRL matches are shown head to head) draws about 1/3rd of the average S14 match. The exception is Warriors games which equal S14 games but take a hit if played head to head against primetime S14 matches. There's not much difference between a Warriors match and a Kiwis match, and both out rate State of Origin. The Warriors rate better on Sunday afternoon/twilight. Generally Rugby League is at a disadvantage on Friday and Saturday nights because most games are played after 9.30pm. The All Blacks smash all comers.

Leigh.

 

[typicalfan]

Rugby in NZ is like League in Aus. The thing League has going for it is that a lot of NZers will settle for a League match if no Union is on due to its physical similarities to Union and more and more NZ representation in Rugby League. It shows if it is scheduled properly there is more room for League in NZ.

 

[shiznit]

i think a problem for Origin in NZ is the midweek timeslot... the broadcast starts at 9:30PM in NZ with kickoff around 10pm. it doesnt finish until early thursday morning.

i think there needs to be more sense towards NZ when the NRL works out the schedule.

take this weekend for example....

The Warriors are on a 4 match winning streak and have got themselves a heap of attention on both sides of the tasman.

to make things even better... they have a traditional rival in the Storm coming over so theres gonna be some of the best players the game has to offer on display at Mt Smart.

add to that the Storm's audit report has broken this week so media frenzy has gone up 10 further notches...

So all these factors should mean the Warriors should get one of there better ratings for the season.

BUT... the NRL decided to have them go head to head with the All Blacks... so so there going to lose a lot of viewers straight away.