Newscorp And Rugby League

[Suitman]

Borbon Bec agreed that instead of seeing 20 pages of League, we'll soon start seeing 10 pages of League, and 10 pages of AFL.
For those foolhardy enough to still buy that rag, me thinks it's time to stop.

Suity

 

[Mogsheen Jadwat]

syd barrett agrees.

i've got a bike you can ride it if you like

 

[Canard]

You know things are f**ken all over the place when you are happy for the Channel 9 deal and Ray Hadley is making sense.

:lol:It's surely the first sign of the coming Apocalypse

 

[gUt]

I can imagine all those league and soccer mad readers in the land of the falafel being absolutely thrilled with 10 pages of the latest goings on in the Melbourne suburban comp.

 

[Canard]

Borbon Bec agreed that instead of seeing 20 pages of League, we'll soon start seeing 10 pages of League, and 10 pages of AFL.
For those foolhardy enough to still buy that rag, me thinks it's time to stop.

Suity

It's been that way for years.

The Age (Fairfax) had a much more balanced article on the issue today.

Basically saying that News and Seven is basically shitting itself and having to pay way to much money for the AFL

 

[Chief_Chujo]

Ten articles in a fast dying format! f**k, how are we gonna stop the Sharron tsunami now?

 

[Suitman]

It's been that way for years.

Not in Sydney it hasn't.

Suity

 

[adamkungl]

Triple M just made the Do-not-watch/listen/read list.

Are they owned by News in any way or is Matty Johns so pathetic and desperate to keep his Fox job that he's on his knees at the first opportunity?

 

[RoosTah]

I seriously want to punch the Grill Team boys in the face after this morning. The panicked fools had Rebecca Wilson on to tell them how badly the NRL is screwed and how awesome the AFL is.

You'd think they'd have a vague notion of what a conflict of interest is...

But to educate them I tried sending them a bit of balance from Fairfax.

First up, Malcolm Maiden shows the AFL isn't quite what it's cracked up to be:

[FONT=&quot]When is a $2.5 billion deal not really a $2.5 billion deal?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When is a $2.5 billion deal not quite a $2.5 billion deal? When it consists of payments that are staggered over time, like the AFL's broadcasting deal with the Seven Network, News Corp's wholly owned Fox Sports, and Telstra.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Time is money. Just ask Telstra CEO Andy Penn, who joined luminaries, including Rupert Murdoch and Seven's Kerry Stokes, at the unveiling of the AFL deal. In 2011, Telstra valued its National Broadband Network deal at $11 billion, even though it will swing more than $90 billion to the telco over several decades. The $11 billion number was Telstra's estimate of how much the cash that was destined to flow over decades was worth to it right then, in 2011.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A discount rate is applied to calculate the "net present value" of future cash flows, and it varies. Telstra used a 10 per cent rate, which is high. As a general proposition, however, future money is less valuable than current money because of inflation, and because money can be invested to earn extra money over time.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The AFL's current broadcasting deal runs for five years from 2012 to 2016, and has a headline value of $1.25 billion, or $250 million a year. The new deal runs for six years from 2017 to 2022, and will see Seven, Fox Sports and Telstra pay a total of $418 million a year, for a headline total of $2.5 billion – 67 per cent more than the deal it replaces.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Using an 8 per cent discount rate, the net present value of the new deal is lower, however – about $1.8 billion by my calculation. That's an average of $300 million a year, and an increase of about 19 per cent over the annual average of the 2012-16 deal.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Payments that were made in the past are also worth more in today's dollars. Money invested into AFL broadcast rights between 2012 and 2016 at a rate of $250 million will have an implied value of about $1.6 billion by the time the current five-year deal is done. That's an average of $316 million a year – a bit more than the discounted annual average of the new deal.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It's still an awful lot of money of course. The first broadcast deal covering 1971 to 1975 was priced at an average of $200,000 a year, and at the turn of the century, the AFL was still getting only $40 million a year. Fees took off as Foxtel became entrenched, reaching $100 million a year between 2002 and 2006.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]AFL is a great live-TV product. Its average weekly TV audience grew from 3.6 million in 2010 to 4.7 million in 2014, despite a 1.5 per cent drop in total attendances at games, and a 12 per cent decrease in average attendance per game. As Netflix and others expand, it is a key product for free-to-air Seven and Fox Sport's pay-TV customer, Foxtel. It just isn't as fabulous as the headline 67 per cent price increase for broadcast rights suggests.[/FONT]

http://www.smh.com.au/business/comm...really-a-25-billion-deal-20150819-gj2rth.html

 

[Usain Bolt]

So many angry posters on here :lol:

 

[RoosTah]

Triple M just made the Do-not-watch/listen/read list.

Are they owned by News in any way or is Matty Johns so pathetic and desperate to keep his Fox job that he's on his knees at the first opportunity?

It's f**king pathetic isn't it? Seriously, those boys need to grow a pair of f**king balls.

Anyone posted the AFR yet?

[FONT=&quot]Ray Hadley calls it straight on News Corp's NRL threat[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]...[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You will have read that Rupert on Tuesday claimed that, despite its epic battle to takeover rugby league in the 1990s, his company has "always preferred Aussie rules".[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Now that's probably smart business – after all, the media mogul is trying to strong-arm Dave Smith's NRL in their ongoing pay-TV rights negotiations.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But whether or not News Corp prefers Aussie rules, badminton or synchronised swimming is a bit beside the point – or so said many rugby league loving politicians who represent rugby league loving electorates.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That's certainly the view of prominent media analyst (and league commentator) Ray Hadley, as we discovered during our morning trip on the Murrays bus.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"I think Mr Murdoch is simply tormenting the NRL," said Hadley on his 2GB morning radio show. "At the end of the day, in my opinion, Fox needs the NRL much more than the NRL needs Fox."[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]By which he meant, if Newscorp's Foxtel wants to maintain – let alone grow – it's penetration rate, it will need more than those bits of the AFL it didn't get from Kerry Stokes's Seven.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] But what about News Corp's campaigning tabloids? Couldn't they re-write the nation's sporting tastes?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Well it's not for charity, Hadley noted, that The Tele's Paul "Boris" Whittaker and the Courier Mail's Chris Dore fill their tabloids with coverage of rugby league. That's what their customers want to read about.[/FONT]

 

[Brutus]

Since when is there ever 20 pages of league?

Some days in the telecrap there is 3 pages of league and 2 of AFL.

Other days it might be 4 league and 1 AFL.

It certainly isn't 20 pages.

 

[Edwahu]

If they put twenty pages of obituaries instead of one would people all start attending funerals for fun?

 

[morley101]

Who buys newspapers ? If you do subscribe to the daily telegraph.. They will know how many people read league articles compared to AFL.

 

[redvscotty]

I've heard the pick up rate for women at those things is through the roof!

 

[Frailty]

The fact of the matter is that Fox relies heavily on NRL. Most people I know who have fox only have it for Australian Sports, and living in Sydney - predominantly NRL.

Movies and TV Shows are not going to get people to subscribe to the ad-riddled Fox when there are better, more affordable and ad-free options out there like Netflix and Stan.

As soon as Australian Sport gets its digital subscription services set up properly (like the NBA League Pass or NHL Gamecentre), watch Foxtel die in a ditch.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

So many angry posters on here :lol:

Shows that you are just a troll of this sports site with the constant shit, just f**k off to your union site and be done, clown.

 

[Mogsheen Jadwat]

Shows that you are just a troll of this sports site with the constant shit, just f**k off to your union site and be done, clown.

he's right though, so much angry posturing in this thread.

I'M NEVER GONNA READ THE TELE/WATCH FOX AGAIN

nek minute, DID YOU SEE WHAT THEY PUBLISHED IN THE TELE?

 

[Canard]

Not in Sydney it hasn't.

Suity

From my admittedly irregular visits to the place I perceive the AFL gets far more coverage than the NRL does in Melbourne (which is virtually nothing)

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

he's right though, so much angry posturing in this thread.

I'M NEVER GONNA READ THE TELE/WATCH FOX AGAIN

nek minute, DID YOU SEE WHAT THEY PUBLISHED IN THE TELE?

No, it's more like people like you with 100 different usernames bumping certain threads or posting DT articles just to cause shit.

The people who are angry are the ones that actually love the game, the ones like you making excuses or jokes are the parasites that need removing just as much as the Bec Wilson and Buzzed Drunkfeilds of this world.

Up yours troll.