Based on probability afl is full of crap
if you want to question any sport that’s the one with a track record of lieing
but faced between putting the boot into afl and rugby league we know which one you will go after
Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Based on probability afl is full of crap
For the umpteenth time betting and merch licensing isn't included the the AFLs BROADCAST AND MEDIA REVENUE line. Its in their operations revenue line.What you say is true. It should be Broadcast rights only to determine who won the TV deal discussion.
By the way how you give the right to companies like TV to show our game is by liciecing them or as contractual lawyer way of accounting, it called licensed to broadcast. That's what said at the end of the American gridiron game, The NFL holds all licensed rights ( which they grant to Broadcast Companies )to the showing of games and it's illegal to show record bla bla bla.
Now onto the Telstra, or AFL Media as show in the the AFL accounts that I previously put up. MR dRED correctly placed the licensing of Betting/turn over towards the NRL. That's true, otherwise the NRL total amount for broadcast would be smaller. But the AFL also (either) put licensing of betting operators in their total amount for broadcast media. I can be sure of this as the AFL is in the last year of the Old/Old deal ie 2017-2022, and we have the link that $54 million dollars would be discounted yearly from Broadcast /licensed 2020 to 2022. So when they have the figure $396 million in must be $54 million less to cover for Covid reductions. It's been well understood that the AFL deal was $417 m pa with $17m pa contra= $2.5 billion over ^ years. So ordinary the AFL would have got close to $400 million every year until 2022 but the $54 millin yearly discount applied to end years.
But the above says....
Seven and Foxtel lock in revised AFL deals
It's believed Seven will save around $70 million on rights fees over the next three years, while Foxtel will save around $90 million.www.afr.com
The AFL has agreed to a roughly 13 per cent discount of its rights fee of $415 million per season under the current agreement which was set to end at the end of the 2022. That means the sport will take just under a $54 million per year discount on its broadcast rights fees or a little over $160 million until the end of 2022.
We don't know where the $54 million dollars came from with the AFL deal to make their total, which was $396 million.
Whatever the way it makes the NRL the winner when we subtract the $40m for betting and $12m (supplied by you) to make a total of $52 million, which two million less.
So in a straight dogfight on purely broadcast/Licensed totals the NRL
NRL Is total reported $409 m less $52m Jerseys and Betting licenses equals $357 million
AFL $396pa for 2022 ( before covid discounts) , or total reported less the $54 covid discount to be $342 million
So total broadcast/ licensed 'fees' for the NRL equals $409 total less lic/fees gambling /jerseys $357 for the NRL
while
For the AFL total fees Broadcast licensed was $342m with a ($54 million) unaccounted...to get a total reported as $396 million.
So again it looks like the NRL won as proven in the Broadcast/licensed fees for the year 2022 just gone by when we account by the annual reports and know discounts and other licensing fees.
https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/about/annual-reports/nrl-gen22_7113-annual-report-2022_lr.pdf
https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...960142/2022-AFL_AR_Digital-Doc_150dpi_Low.pdf
nice deflection from the conversation by talking about me, and you were doing so well!
Your obsession with talking badly about rugby league in just about every post is concerning
What the AFR did was take this and come up with eggs. And its wrong NRL has always announced its tv rights value as cash and contra combined.
your obsession with talking about me in every thread borders on fixation
I’m here to inject positivity in response to reading your posts which are depression inducing
What you say is true. It should be Broadcast rights only to determine who won the TV deal discussion.
By the way how you give the right to companies like TV to show our game is by liciecing them or as contractual lawyer way of accounting, it called licensed to broadcast. That's what said at the end of the American gridiron game, The NFL holds all licensed rights ( which they grant to Broadcast Companies )to the showing of games and it's illegal to show record bla bla bla.
Now onto the Telstra, or AFL Media as show in the the AFL accounts that I previously put up. MR dRED correctly placed the licensing of Betting/turn over towards the NRL. That's true, otherwise the NRL total amount for broadcast would be smaller. But the AFL also (either) put licensing of betting operators in their total amount for broadcast media. I can be sure of this as the AFL is in the last year of the Old/Old deal ie 2017-2022, and we have the link that $54 million dollars would be discounted yearly from Broadcast /licensed 2020 to 2022. So when they have the figure $396 million in must be $54 million less to cover for Covid reductions. It's been well understood that the AFL deal was $417 m pa with $17m pa contra= $2.5 billion over ^ years. So ordinary the AFL would have got close to $400 million every year until 2022 but the $54 millin yearly discount applied to end years.
But the above says....Seven and Foxtel lock in revised AFL deals
It's believed Seven will save around $70 million on rights fees over the next three years, while Foxtel will save around $90 million.
The AFL has agreed to a roughly 13 per cent discount of its rights fee of $415 million per season under the current agreement which was set to end at the end of the 2022. That means the sport will take just under a $54 million per year discount on its broadcast rights fees or a little over $160 million until the end of 2022.
We don't know where the $54 million dollars came from with the AFL deal to make their total, which was $396 million.
Whatever the way it makes the NRL the winner when we subtract the $40m for betting and $12m (supplied by you) to make a total of $52 million, which two million less.
So in a straight dogfight on purely broadcast/Licensed totals the NRL
NRL Is total reported $409 m less $52m Jerseys and Betting licenses equals $357 million
AFL $396pa for 2022 ( before covid discounts) , or total reported less the $54 covid discount to be $342 million
So total broadcast/ licensed 'fees' for the NRL equals $409 total less lic/fees gambling /jerseys $357 for the NRL
while
For the AFL total fees Broadcast licensed was $342m with a ($54 million) unaccounted...to get a total reported as $396 million.
So again it looks like the NRL won as proven in the Broadcast/licensed fees for the year 2022 just gone by when we account by the annual reports and know discounts and other licensing fees.
https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/about/annual-reports/nrl-gen22_7113-annual-report-2022_lr.pdf
https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...960142/2022-AFL_AR_Digital-Doc_150dpi_Low.pdf
constantly talking abut me isnt positive for you, or anyone else! Seek assistance.
How do you explain that in the ordinary AFL deal worth 417/ yearly or $400 cash cash made up from well know figures of $150m Seven and $200m foxtel for total broadcast (only) revenue PLUS Telstra give way at $50 to make up the well know figure of $400 cash per year. We know Telstra is not part of broadcast of both Pay Tv and FTA TV. Thus on those figures alone we win the 2022 by the definition of this thread called /next-tv-deal-discussion.
If you take telstra out of their deal you also have to take digital revenue out of the NRL figure. On the positive side it'll be the smallest gap we'll see for the next 5 years!
You’re not going to get a rational debate on this topic because afl red takes any opportunity he can get to talk up the afl deal and talk down the nrl deal
For the NRL digital services income was 3221 (000) or $3.2 million for the year. see page 70 Annual report so ADD 21 million Difference that you say at $24.5 m between Real Digital services , to $323m to get $344 million annual according to your own figures
Could free-to-air television be nearly dead?
CHRISTOPHER WARREN MEDIA CORRESPONDENT
(Image: Adobe)
It was once in the box seat, but these days commercial TV only gets only half the country's eyeballs as viewers turn to services like iview, Netflix and even YouTube.
Remember the heyday of broadcast television when two or three networks decided how we spent our time? Suddenly the networks have lost their power, broken by the choice the internet offers as the end of mass television nears.
The once-struttingly proud free-to-air model is paddling hard to keep its head above water by holding on to an increasingly niche positioning in sport and news. But sport is wobbling and news sources are becoming more diverse.
As audiences fragment, ads are following. The most recent January figures suggest television ad spend was down 19.2% on last year. (Although last year was boosted by all those pre-election Morrison government puffs apparently.)
According to the latest government report on what we watch — and where we watch it — the once ubiquitous commercial television signals slid to just the third most accessed form of content on the box, well behind subscription and free streaming services. The result? We’re all watching different programming at different times — and prefer to pay for the convenience.
It’s fragmenting culture. According to Benedict Evans’ “The New Gatekeepers” released last week, there’s no such thing as a mass hit any more. In the 1950s, the highest rating shows reached two-thirds of households; in the 1980s, still about a third. Now? The most popular shows reach fewer than one in 10.
It’s not just the dense inventory on Netflix or Disney. It’s YouTube, too, which Evans estimates has similar total viewing numbers to Netflix and, with MrBeast, one of the top 15 streaming shows.
Looks like while we were busy worrying about COVID-19, we passed the pivot point. Broadcast television is no longer the preferred delivery channel of a mass culture. Now it’s just one of many drivers of the increasingly fragmented cultures of the 21st century.
According to last week’s report, only about half of us (53%) watched commercial television programs in the past seven days the way we’re expected to — when and where the networks decide. Even fewer (41%) watched the public broadcasters. But there’s mixed news for the ABC and SBS. The number of people watching their on-demand offerings — iview and SBS on Demand — is at 34%. How long until more people are regularly on iview than on the ABC free-to-air channels?
It’s a global trend. Evans estimates that in the US time spent on linear television is down by a third since 2015.
It’s time-shift meets exploding inventory as people decide when and what they watch. Now it looks like just about the only thing we want to watch “live” are things that aren’t easily able to be substituted and that we can’t readily time-shift, either because they lose currency (news and current affairs) or because they’re ruined by spoilers (sport or reality television).
The highest-ranked content-based reason for watching free-to-air is news: about 60% say it’s an “essential” or “main reason” for watching. This fits news consumption figures showing television is the main source of news for about 40%.
It’s a preference that skews old. The report says younger audiences are “significantly” less likely to even have a TV in their house.
Despite the big spends by the networks on sports rights, free-to-air sport watching is down, with a drift to streaming either through sports specialists such as Kayo or Optus Sports or the digital services of the commercial broadcasters.
All the data points to a continued drift from the heyday of linear television: most sets are now smart TVs or have some streaming plug-in (most common: Google’s Chromecast). More TVs are connected to the internet than are connected to broadcast aerials. Just half of all TVs turn on showing a free-to-air channel and only 41% of viewers chose a free-to-air channel as their first content.
It’s not just time-shifting and the embrace of choice. It’s advertising avoidance. About 70% of viewers with a paid subscription say it’s the essential or main reason for subscribing to streaming content. It explains why Netflix’s advertising trial is struggling. Don’t expect to see it rolled out in mature markets like Australia any time soon.
Meanwhile, expect the streaming side hustles of free-to-air broadcasters to become more like the main game. 9Now, for example, is already bringing in about one-eighth of the network’s television revenues. Expect, too, the free-to-air service to be even more of a promo for related streaming services, like Nine with Stan, or Ten with Paramount+.
And the ABC? As its viewers shift to iview, management and board — and government — need to be asking: how much changes when streaming becomes the corporation’s primary product? And what will that cost?
That digital is different to the full digital that was previously separately reported and is now consumed into the licensing line
