Foxtel slams TV rip-off claim

[eastsrule]

That's the problem though isn't it. There is no alternative Pay TV operator to go to. It would take an NRL CEO with balls the size of the Olgas to tell Foxtel to go jump. The league would probably go bankrupt without the money and News Ltd would obviously not let it happen anyway.

But geez that would be an interesting Mexican stand off to watch wouldn't it. Who's gonna blink first - the footy comp bleeding without the Pay TV dough, or the Pay TV operator losing it's subscriber base at the speed of light.

Rugby League needs Foxtel more than what Foxtel needs Rugby League. Please don't kid yourself.

 

[dallymessenger]

I think you should lay the blame off the Foxtel head or anyone involved with Foxtel. This was, by and large, our fault in negotiation.The broadcasters will offer as little as possible, they have no agendas in giving one code more money over another, Leagues chiefs need to take a 101 in bargaining and negotiatiating.

our fault.

your a soccer fan you dead s**t.
:lol:

 

[dallymessenger]

all the NRL has to tell this merkin is that unless they pay good coin they won't get it and there goes half their subscribers

can't believe how a CEO would take things for granted. f**k Williams. low life merkin

more than half.

more like 60 - 65%

 

[El Diablo]

Rugby League needs Foxtel more than what Foxtel needs Rugby League. Please don't kid yourself.

bullsh*t

without Rugby League Foxtel lose half their subscribers.

 

[yappy]

Yeah that's why Murdoch spunked half a billion dollars on a game played essentially in 2 states.

Murdoch knows that sport drive pay tv subs - he said it himself. You're the only one kidding themselves around here pal. No league on Pay TV and the whole thing would collapse. AFL has too good FTA cover to ever make up the shortfall.

 

[dallymessenger]

That's the problem though isn't it. There is no alternative Pay TV operator to go to. It would take an NRL CEO with balls the size of the Olgas to tell Foxtel to go jump. The league would probably go bankrupt without the money and News Ltd would obviously not let it happen anyway.

But geez that would be an interesting Mexican stand off to watch wouldn't it. Who's gonna blink first - the footy comp bleeding without the Pay TV dough, or the Pay TV operator losing it's subscriber base at the speed of light.

give it to 7, even if its for a little less.

6 games a week, including live monday night footy at $50 million pa.

too easy.

the minute they look like losing the rights, watch fox start bidding

 

[dallymessenger]

the problem at the moment is fox and 9 have the game sewn up and dont compete with one another.

somewhere along the line we need to bring in 7 into the picture.

7 would be a threat to the current cosy situation, especially if they get Monday night live, and saturday night live.

it would be a threat to both 9 and Foxtel and would make both cough up more money.

Kerry stokes has said that when it comes to TV, nothing beats RL.

imagine 7 doing saturday and monday night footy.

it would be huge

 

[eastsrule]

give it to 7, even if its for a little less.

6 games a week, including live monday night footy at $50 million pa.

too easy.

the minute they look like losing the rights, watch fox start bidding

Are you serious?

You've been the most vocal opponent to the current deal because it "undervalues" the NRL. Now you want to sell it to 7 cheaper?

And it's obvious that some/most people here have little to no idea about negotiation.

It is difficult to negotiate for more money when there is only one bidder. Last time the rights were up, 10 definitely weren't interested and Seven were not 100% committed to making a suitable bid.

 

[dallymessenger]

Are you serious?

You've been the most vocal opponent to the current deal because it "undervalues" the NRL. Now you want to sell it to 7 cheaper?

And it's obvious that some/most people here have little to no idea about negotiation.

It is difficult to negotiate for more money when there is only one bidder. Last time the rights were up, 10 definitely weren't interested and Seven were not 100% committed to making a suitable bid.

if there were no other choice and 7 offered a little bit less, i do it to leave Foxsports without their top ratings product. a few years without the nrl and theyll come back and offer much more than currently.

and 7 might well offer more. given they have a larger audience and RL would give them something they lack (ie afl cant crack sydney and brisbane) i think they could pay more.

channel 7 is the answer.

and it would make channel 9 very nervous too.

being stuck with just 9 and foxtel is the problem.

even if we only give 7 2 games a week, just to get a new broadcaster into league is they key.

once they see how much more money they make from league, let them be a bidder on the lot

 

[dallymessenger]

Fox pays AFL $50 million a year
the NRL gets $42 million a year

RL gets around 40% more viewers than AFL, so looking at AFLs deal

$50 million / years plus 40% more viewers = 70 million is what the NRL should be getting.
add a premium to that for live and exclusive and also being in sydney where advertising rates are higher and it should be $80 million a year currently.

they pay us $42 million, the difference being $38 million.

Divided by 16 NRL clubs thats $2.375 million extra for each club.

With a current TV grant at around $3.7 million, the extra money could see the NRL salary cap raised to around $6 million with a zero gap between grant and the SC.

a SC of $6 million would allow a massive rise in player salaries, and top players could earn well over a million.

you would stop seeing players lost to england or france and clubs would be healthier.

the cancer that is news ltd is allowing players to leave the game and clubs be underfunded because they refuse to pay market rates for the product

 

[Digga Hole]

the problem at the moment is fox and 9 have the game sewn up and dont compete with one another.

somewhere along the line we need to bring in 7 into the picture.

They can't compete due to the anti-siphoning list. You are correct, you need more FTA stations (or multi-channeling needs to develop into a viable alternative).

 

[Ziggy the God]

They can't compete due to the anti-siphoning list. You are correct, you need more FTA stations (or multi-channeling needs to develop into a viable alternative).

Since the next deal is still a few years away, you would think that multi-channeling may have become a part of the equation by then.

 

[ocko]

the problem aint with fox. it's with fta, despite what the dickhead agenda-mongers in the fairfax press tell ya

there was no serious competition for fta rl rights last time, as opposed to afl, where there was a life and death stuggle betwene 7, 9, and 10.

fta is also reponsible for sh*t like friday night football not being on at a decent time in melbourne

 

[Digga Hole]

Fox pays AFL $50 million a year
the NRL gets $42 million a year

RL gets around 40% more viewers than AFL, so looking at AFLs deal

$50 million / years plus 40% more viewers = 70 million is what the NRL should be getting.
add a premium to that for live and exclusive and also being in sydney where advertising rates are higher and it should be $80 million a year currently.

they pay us $42 million, the difference being $38 million.

Divided by 16 NRL clubs thats $2.375 million extra for each club.

With a current TV grant at around $3.7 million, the extra money could see the NRL salary cap raised to around $6 million with a zero gap between grant and the SC.

a SC of $6 million would allow a massive rise in player salaries, and top players could earn well over a million.

you would stop seeing players lost to england or france and clubs would be healthier.

the cancer that is news ltd is allowing players to leave the game and clubs be underfunded because they refuse to pay market rates for the product

Do you listen to anything?

You have been praising Searle for months. This week he says you need to expand to incease (possibly at the expense of Sydney teams). Now Fox explain the situation to you.

What do you do? You repeat the same crap you have been repeating for months? Is it working? How about some new ideas champ.

Ignoring everything th doesn't suit your point doesn't make it go away

 

[yappy]

It is difficult to negotiate for more money when there is only one bidder. Last time the rights were up, 10 definitely weren't interested and Seven were not 100% committed to making a suitable bid.

bullsh*tting again are we eastsrule? The last time the rights were up C7 made a bid that even the NRL's own analysis showed was worth at least $50million more than the Foxtel bid that they accepted. That was 2000.

The rights have never come up since then because the NRL in a cosy little deal with the existing rights holders extended them without letting either the FTA or PayTV rights lapse. Seven is on record saying they would be keen to bid on the rights if they went to open tender (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/20/1092972743273.html?from=storyrhs) however they were never given the chance.

 

[ocko]

bullsh*tting again are we eastsrule? The last time the rights were up C7 made a bid that even the NRL's own analysis showed was worth at least $50million more than the Foxtel bid that they accepted. That was 2000.

The rights have never come up since then because the NRL in a cosy little deal with the existing rights holders extended them without letting either the FTA or PayTV rights lapse. Seven is on record saying they would be keen to bid on the rights if they went to open tender (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/20/1092972743273.html?from=storyrhs) however they were never given the chance.

thats the problem.

fox sports do a good job

channel 9 are the ones who should be under the heat

 

[eastsrule]

bullsh*tting again are we eastsrule? The last time the rights were up C7 made a bid that even the NRL's own analysis showed was worth at least $50million more than the Foxtel bid that they accepted. That was 2000.

The rights have never come up since then because the NRL in a cosy little deal with the existing rights holders extended them without letting either the FTA or PayTV rights lapse. Seven is on record saying they would be keen to bid on the rights if they went to open tender (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/20/1092972743273.html?from=storyrhs) however they were never given the chance.

No channel hoping to make a profit would not put in a bid for the NRL if they were capable of showing it. Of course.

7 has had the AFL since which has done well for them.

Meanwhile, you bring up articles from 4 years ago to prove a point about what Channel 7 would do now or in the future?

 

[Patorick]

loving the comment on the article on their website

Comments:

So Williams takes me for granted just because I follow league. I feel like cancelling seeing he couldn't give a hoot about most subscribers. News Ltd are evil.
Posted by: FJ of 12:53pm today​

How about when you run these articles you do a bit of research and include the growth in viewers for NRL and AFL games on Pay over the last few years? Oh hang on, it would show that the argument presented here is crap and we wouldnt want that would we?
Posted by: Red of 12:44pm today​

What they fail to mention is that the average NRL game on Foxtel has doubled its audience since 2006. The AFL has increased by less then 50 percent for most games. So in reality it is the NRL that is driving subscription growth. More propoganda that is not based on facts and is designed entirely to position News to rip the NRL off again.
Posted by: Pete of 12:21pm today​

News Ltd and its subsidiary Foxtel have systematically destroyed rugby league for its profit. It took the NRL ten years to get back to pre-super league war crowds. In stark contrast to AFL, all NRL games are live, and are scheduled according to the whims of TV companies. Why go to the game? To have one company, News Ltd, own the company that wins the TV rights, own the NRL itself, own the media that controls public opinion, and own the two dominant teams competing enables a massive abuse of power. Every deal is tainted, every game won and every premiership won by the Broncos and Storm are tainted. Time to get rid of News Ltd ownership and control of the NRL.
Posted by: JohnQ of Seaforth 12:05pm today​

So, the current high number of RL subscribers is worth less than the number who MIGHT someday sign up to the AFL on Fox? Am I to understand then that in 10 years if the AFL has not caught up to NRL subscription levels (as will obviously be the case) Fox will then start paying the NRL and AFL what they are really worth NOW and not what they hope them to be? Fat chance. It's no surprise, especially given that News Ltd part owns the NRL and still often gives the AFL more publicity, and a much higher percentage of it is positive.
Posted by: John of Melbourne 12:04pm today​

When the article says the AFL has a bigger audience than the NRL does it count the regional viewers. From the numbers I have seen the NRL regularly make the top program lists in these areas while the only AFL game that will make is their GF. I can understand the aggregate number of viewers Australia-wide may slightly favour the AFL (and only slightly) because they have more games shown on FTA TV especially in the southern states. But why is there such a huge disparity in the amounts paid for the TV rights paid for the respective football codes. This is the valid point that Masters raises. BTW Regional Australia in Queensland & NSW has a population of close to double the population of South Australia & Western Australia combined.
Posted by: Ross Wilson of Sunshine Coast 10:50am today​

Wow, News Ltd paper defends News Ltd ripping off rugby league. What a shock. PS: This is exactky how all RL fans will view this rubbish.
Posted by: Robbo of 10:07am today​

 

[dallymessenger]

They can't compete due to the anti-siphoning list. You are correct, you need more FTA stations (or multi-channeling needs to develop into a viable alternative).

yes they can.

anti siphoning work to protect FTA from Pay TV, not the other way around.

im suggesting FTA bid for the Fox packages

 

[dallymessenger]

Do you listen to anything?

You have been praising Searle for months. This week he says you need to expand to incease (possibly at the expense of Sydney teams). Now Fox explain the situation to you.

What do you do? You repeat the same crap you have been repeating for months? Is it working? How about some new ideas champ.

Ignoring everything th doesn't suit your point doesn't make it go away

maybe the argument works for FTA where regional viewers dont count apparently.

they do count on Foxsports so looking at subscribers is they key.

RL has 40% more subscribers than AFL, and doesnt get 40% more money, why???