New Zealand 2 will deal a massive blow to NZ rugby

[Te Kaha]

If the current product is doing well whilst other sports struggle why wouldn’t they want to pay more for more high rating content ?

it’s just not logical

I provided quotes from sky nz how they want the game to grow and are going to invest money in grassroots rugby league

who knows maybe with the warriors back in nz now league goes from strength to strength as super rugby is on the nose with fans

Another wally who thinks that companies will pay more when they don;t have to. THAT is not logical

 

[Colk]

If the current product is doing well whilst other sports struggle why wouldn’t they want to pay more for more high rating content ?

it’s just not logical

I provided quotes from sky nz how they want the game to grow and are going to invest money in grassroots rugby league

who knows maybe with the warriors back in nz now league goes from strength to strength as super rugby is on the nose with fans

Sigh because they don’t have to.

Businesses when they are in a monopoly situation don’t spend more money they have to.

 

[Wb1234]

It really comes down to who blinks in the negotiations. Sky know they’d be getting more content value and wouldn’t want to lose the NRL, but the NRL don’t want to lose Sky money either.

Nrl will ask sky do you want an extra team and if so how much extra will you pay

if they say no it goes to Perth it’s pretty simple

let’s hope the warriors have a good season that will make a difference

 

[Te Kaha]

It really comes down to who blinks in the negotiations. Sky know they’d be getting more content value and wouldn’t want to lose the NRL, but the NRL don’t want to lose Sky money either.

WHat can the NRL do? Give it to TVNZ or TV3\Discovery? Say no to 20 million out of spite?

 

[Wb1234]

Sigh because they don’t have to.

Businesses when they are in a monopoly situation don’t spend more money they have to.

Then they don’t get the extra team do they

lucky you aren’t doing the negotiating for our tv rights lmao

 

[Te Kaha]

Then they don’t get the extra team do they

lucky you aren’t doing the negotiating for our tv rights lmao

An extra team will not do much for subs. Sky already lose money on League. why would they pay for one extra rating game a week? they wouldn't it's that simple.

 

[Colk]

It really comes down to who blinks in the negotiations. Sky know they’d be getting more content value and wouldn’t want to lose the NRL, but the NRL don’t want to lose Sky money either.

But who is going to take it off them? If there isn’t competition that could potentially take it off them why would they need to blink.

Essentially all cards are in their favour and they would have to be extremely poor negotiators to concede or lose out. It could happen (for all we know they might be really bad negotiators at Sky) but I don’t see that as very likely

 

[Colk]

Then they don’t get the extra team do they

lucky you aren’t doing the negotiating for our tv rights lmao

Well considering how badly V’Landys did I’d suggest you would want somebody else doing it in any case.

Instead of deflecting and thinking it from the NRL side, think of it from the Sky side. They have no threat against them and the power is in their hands. What can the NRL threaten them with? If you don’t give us $40-$50 million, we will move it to a competitor of yours that doesn’t exist? We’ll take it off you and not take any money from NZ? We’ll put it completely on FTA and accept less money?

Do you understand the power dynamic here?

Anyway, the majority of broadcaster money will come from Australia hence why it will come down to what they want not what NZ want. If they want a game in NZ every week then sweet we’ll get a second NZ team. If they don’t we will get something else.

 

[Wb1234]

Well considering how badly V’Landys did I’d suggest you would want somebody else doing it in any case.

Instead of deflecting and thinking it from the NRL side, think of it from the Sky side. They have no threat against them and the power is in their hands. What can the NRL threaten them with? If you don’t give us $40-$50 million, we will move it to a competitor of yours that doesn’t exist? We’ll take it off you and not take any money from NZ? We’ll put it completely on FTA and accept less money?

Do you understand the power dynamic here?

Anyway, the majority of broadcaster money will come from Australia hence why it will come down to what they want not what NZ want. If they want a game in NZ every week then sweet we’ll get a second NZ team. If they don’t we will get something else.

I’ll repeat this again

vlandys scratching his balls rings up sky
Hey guys how are the ratings going for the warriors

they reply )) oh great compared with super rugby the ratings are doing so well

vlandys finishing scratching balls ))) well guys we have a spot for another team

would you be willing to give us half the money you pay for the warriors to help fund a new side, or we are going with Perth

response ) oh yeh that’s a bargain

see lol

 

[Colk]

I’ll repeat this again

vlandys scratching his balls rings up sky
Hey guys how are the ratings going for the warriors

they reply )) oh great compared with super rugby the ratings are doing so well

vlandys finishing scratching balls ))) well guys we have a spot for another team

would you be willing to give us half the money you pay for the warriors to help fund a new side, or we are going with Perth

response ) oh yeh that’s a bargain

see lol

You can repeat it as much you want. Again there is no competition. It’s almost like you have never been in a negotiation.

There’s a reason why the TV deal went up double over there: it’s because there was another option available to them at that time. That’s it. The Warriors have not suddenly become more popular in the last couple of years then what they were in the previous 20 years.

More likely they’ll say (informally) We already pay you more than what we want to pay you and seeing that you can’t really go anywhere else this is our offer. You can take it or leave it.

V’Landys scratching his balls. Hmm let me get back to you.

A week later after meeting with his executives and realising that there is no other good option rings them back up and says we will take it.

It’s simple economics. There is no other supply chain - it’s Sky and that’s it. That impacts demand - there isn’t the demand for another side in New Zealand from TV. That might change in the next couple of years but at this time that’s it.

Now there might be demand for another Kiwi team with Fox or other Australian broadcasters. The NRL could also go stuff it we want to really invest in NZ and we’ll gladly take a loss or break even because we want more players from over there.

Either of these scenarios are more likely than a monopoly paying substantially more money for an additional team

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

vlandys scratching his balls rings up sky
Hey guys how are the ratings going for the warriors

they reply )) oh great compared with super rugby the ratings are doing so well

vlandys finishing scratching balls ))) well guys we have a spot for another team

would you be willing to give us half the money you pay for the warriors to help fund a new side, or we are going with Perth

Quid Pro Quo

You scratch my back, I'll scratch my balls.

 

[Wb1234]

You can repeat it as much you want. Again there is no competition. It’s almost like you have never been in a negotiation.

There’s a reason why the TV deal went up double over there: it’s because there was another option available to them at that time. That’s it. The Warriors have not suddenly become more popular in the last couple of years then what they were in the previous 20 years.

More likely they’ll say (informally) We already pay you more than what we want to pay you and seeing that you can’t really go anywhere else this is our offer. You can take it or leave it.

V’Landys scratching his balls. Hmm let me get back to you.

A week later after meeting with his executives and realising that there is no other good option rings them back up and says we will take it.

It’s simple economics. There is no other supply chain - it’s Sky and that’s it. That impacts demand - there isn’t the demand for another side in New Zealand from TV. That might change in the next couple of years but at this time that’s it.

Now there might be demand for another Kiwi team with Fox or other Australian broadcasters. The NRL could also go stuff it we want to really invest in NZ and we’ll gladly take a loss or break even because we want more players from over there.

Either of these scenarios are more likely than a monopoly paying substantially more money for an additional team

Yeh fox sports had a fixed contract with the nrl

they then varied it by 20 million pa because vlandys offered them something of value

did they have to do that ?

 

[Te Kaha]

Yeh fox sports had a fixed contract with the nrl

they then varied it by 20 million pa because vkandys offered them something of value

did they have to do that ?

Fox sports had competition you muppet.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

WHat can the NRL do? Give it to TVNZ or TV3\Discovery? Say no to 20 million out of spite?

There are other possible players. At a certain value Google/Amazon etc would take the opportunity and buy the rights for online streaming. NZ has good broadband penetration so there aren’t really any more barriers to that as an alternative to Sky.

 

[Te Kaha]

There are other possible players. At a certain value Google/Amazon etc would take the opportunity and buy the rights for online streaming. NZ has good broadband penetration so there aren’t really any more barriers to that as an alternative to Sky.

Thats been the holy grail. Neither have seemed in any way likely. The NZ market is just too small and the NRL is a niche sporting comp.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

The question though is what is the ACTUAL value to each of the prospective players in terms of subscription/advertising revenue it would generate. That value is not going to be the same for different types of service. It could be that Sky knows the NRL can provide it with 25M of value to its bottom line. Google may have calculated that it’s worth 17m to them. So the NRL might only end up getting 20M out of SKY because that’s still an amount that means any other potential players aren’t putting their hands up.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Thats been the holy grail. Neither have seemed in any way likely. The NZ market is just too small and the NRL is a niche sporting comp.

That actually plays in favour of the streaming companies though. They don’t have to invest in much in the way of infrastructure, certainly compared to what a pay tv provider would.

But as I said the question is just how much exactly do they think it’s worth.

 

[Wb1234]

This is why I find this forum so amusing at times

the fact that people are trying to argue that a second nz side will have zero value to a broadcaster is hilarious

people come up with better fiction that George r Martin I swear

 

[Te Kaha]

That actually plays in favour of the streaming companies though. They don’t have to invest in much in the way of infrastructure, certainly compared to what a pay tv provider would.

Which is why most sport subs now on sky are on the app, streaming rather than by satellite. It won't be too many years before the satellite side of sky is gone.

 

[Te Kaha]

This is why I find this forum so amusing at times

the fact that people are trying to argue that a second nz side will have zero value to a broadcaster is hilarious

people come up with better fiction that George r Martin I swear

Nobody said that you wally. Its been said time and time again that it will have a minor increase in value, which means the next deal with sky will be for much less than the current one.