Next TV deal discussion 2028 -

[Iamback]

yea they are

they're getting 643 mill pa ... averaged out , over the 7 years
( cash , contra & inflation included )
telstra is about 50 mill pa
Ch 7 about 180 mill

foxtel the rest

50% increase from their deal in 2016-22
of $416 mill

while we got dudded with an increase of about 7% on our last deal
( cash , contra & inflation included )

no extra content for either
dudded ... plain & simple

If you are counting contra too then Telstra is way more because of the Marvel upgrades.

I was going off the 'just over $4b cash that Gill mentioned in the Original announcement presser.

Also NRL is apparently cash only in their announcement which makes the comparison easier

Either way the $400m for 2023 is $470m in 2027. So that is the starting point for the next deal

Add the 15% to that. Is $540m before the extra game is added. So as I said both will be on par

 

[Iamback]

L

They did have competition last time; hence why it increased. They don’t have it now

Now the laws of supply and demand might be flipped on its head but I don’t see it as very likely that they are going to pay more when there is no competition forcing them to pay more.

On the first point, I agree we should get more but sometimes you have to look at these things within context. Media companies have stood all over the game for as long as I can remember. Evidence in point is Channel Nine paying $115 million for the League rights and then bidding what $500m for the fumblers 12 months later. This is the attitude you have to change.

On your last point. That was a Stan joint bid different models

 

[Colk]

It would be really interesting to see what Seven could do with Rugby League that`s for sure.
I`d like to think they would treat it the same as they do fumbleball where they pretend the game actually requires intelligence to play and cover it as such. It would certainly make a change from the lazy lowest common denominator stuff we get with Nine who seem to think that League`s whole audience are morons and treat them as such.
I really think who ever covers League shouldn`t be afraid to treat the League audience with a bit of intelligence, at the end of the day, even idiots don`t mind being treated intelligently as long as it is not condescending. I`d be very excited to see what Seven could do with Origin as Seven`s whole demographic is quite different to Nine`s, it`s just the area that League needs to be heading towards.

100% agree. I think the way Channel Nine market the game has been damaging in a lot of ways. It helps them though - they get a popular product for less outlay.

By virtue of marketing the game as such, Rugby League as a game has been unable to escape such an image which then plays in to how administrators/other media companies view the game.

If administrators and other companies view it as such, it’s then very hard to market it as something different and attract money from corporates/media deals that we probably deserve - seeing that they can throw it away as being popular only amongst the common swill or poorer communities.

 

[Colk]

L



On your last point. That was a Stan joint bid different models

Sure but it is more a reflection of attitude.

Has Channel Nine ever wanted more than three games of League? Even this article only mentions that Channel Seven want one NRL game.

Compare that attitude to how the fumblers get treated by Channel Seven.

 

[Iamback]

Sure but it is more a reflection of attitude.

Has Channel Nine ever wanted more than three games of League? Even this article only mentions that Channel Seven want one NRL game.

Compare that attitude to how the tumblers get treated by Channel Seven.

They had 4 games a week last tv deal under Dave Smith.

The issue is most timeslots are poor on FTA.
Now that ch7 won't be able to play games into home states their Sat night ratings will continue to drop

 

[Vibing]

They did have competition last time; hence why it increased. They don’t have it now

Now the laws of supply and demand might be flipped on its head but I don’t see it as very likely that they are going to pay more when there is no competition forcing them to pay more.

On the first point, I agree we should get more but sometimes you have to look at these things within context. Media companies have stood all over the game for as long as I can remember. Evidence in point is Channel Nine paying $115 million for the League rights and then bidding what $500m for the fumblers 12 months later. This is the attitude you have to change.

so

whats stopping NZ broadcasters paying half what they do now in 2028?
no competition
so why not ?

I don't think that will happen , do you ?

& like i said
don't care where negotiations have gone in the past , altho we need to have an eye on how we were dudded in the last deal ..
the next one is the only one that matters now

 

[Colk]

so

whats stopping NZ broadcasters paying half what they do now in 2028?
no competition
so why not ?

I don't think that will happen , do you ?

& like i said
don't care where negotiations have gone in the past , altho we need to have an eye on how we were dudded in the last deal ..
the next one is the only one that matters now

It’s probably more likely that they pay less then they pay more if there’s no competition. That’s just simple economics. As I said earlier, I could be proven wrong but businesses don’t generally pay more for something when there’s no need for them to pay more.

For example what hand can the ARLC actually play to make them pay more. They can’t go that deal is not good enough, we want more because there are literally no other options in NZ.

I agree that they should be paid more. The current deal sucks. Nevertheless, you have to change the way the game is obviously perceived before we even get to the negotiating table otherwise it’ll go the same way.

 

[Vibing]

If you are counting contra too then Telstra is way more because of the Marvel upgrades.

I was going off the 'just over $4b cash that Gill mentioned in the Original announcement presser.

Also NRL is apparently cash only in their announcement which makes the comparison easier

Either way the $400m for 2023 is $470m in 2027. So that is the starting point for the next deal

Add the 15% to that. Is $540m before the extra game is added. So as I said both will be on par

what are you talking about
Ch 9 clearly stated 15 mill of their 130 mill pa in our present deal is contra... & again , forget what we're at in 2027 with inflation

we're at 400 pa ... averaged out ... over the 5 years so we're at nowhere near 400 mill in 2023 in actual terms

fact is we're on a different planet in the deals
we're way behind , & we shouldn't be

in 2019 they were on 416 mill for 9 games a week
we were on 380 mill for 8 games a week

in 2025 they will be on 643 mill
we will be on something around 400 mill

we got dudded !!

 

[Colk]

They had 4 games a week last tv deal under Dave Smith.

The issue is most timeslots are poor on FTA.
Now that ch7 won't be able to play games into home states their Sat night ratings will continue to drop

Sorry forgot about that nevertheless they more than willingly reduced their output next deal.

They may do. I’m more responding to how Channel 7 have supported the fumblers to how Channel 9 have supported Rugby League. I couldn’t see how you could argue that Channel 9 have provided even close to the support that the fumblers have got from Channel 7 - definitely not in terms of financially and definitely not in terms of actually showing games. Heck, even now most fumbler games are shown on Channel 7, 7mate etc.

 

[Iamback]

what are you talking about
Ch 9 clearly stated 15 mill of their 130 mill pa in our present deal is contra... & again , forget what we're at in 2027 with inflation

we're at 400 pa ... averaged out ... over the 5 years so we're at nowhere near 400 mill in 2023 in actual terms

fact is we're on a different planet in the deals
we're way behind , & we shouldn't be

in 2019 they were on 416 mill for 9 games
we were on 380 mill for 8 games

in 2025 they will be on 643 mill
we will be on something around 400 mill

we got dudded !!

Nope the actual press release states a 5 year $575m deal. That is no contra. The contra was mentioned as an add on.

They won't start at that. It was escalate to allow for inflation. 20% of the deal is inflation

Also of the $643 m was the total deal. You are looking at the $50m Telstra as part of that and at the same as contra for the Marvel Stadium renovations.

$540m is more the figure, remembering that will be less in 2025 due to the inflation factored into the deal

 

[Wb1234]

they're paying that fumbling abortion around 400 mill pa from 2025, & the NRL brings them a lot more subscribers
our STV rights are worth every bit of $420 mill from 2028 with a 6th exclusive game , & it doesn't need to be foxtel , but thats the price.

the kiwis were paying 20 mill pa in the deal 2018-22
they're now paying 32 mill , a 50% increase

with a 9th game from 2028 & a natural increase
50 mill is quite reasonable

This

between Fox and kayo they can easily pay 400 million pa

anything less than 600 million pa will be a poor outcome given it will be 18 teams, plus expanded nrlw and women’s origin, pre season comp and post season internationals

if it’s 430 millions pa now that would be an increase of 200 million pa

which should see the salary cap almost 20 million pa

top players will be getting 3 to 5 million pa

 

[Vibing]

It’s probably more likely that they pay less then they pay more if there’s no competition. That’s just simple economics. As I said earlier, I could be proven wrong but businesses don’t generally pay more for something when there’s no need for them to pay more.

For example what hand can the ARLC actually play to make them pay more. They can’t go that deal is not good enough, we want more because there are literally no other options in NZ.

I agree that they should be paid more. The current deal sucks. Nevertheless, you have to change the way the game is obviously perceived before we even get to the negotiating table otherwise it’ll go the same way.

Again
what hand can the arlc play to get them to pay more then half what they do now ?
the no competition argument doesn't stack up

& perceptions are irrelevant if the sport is rating & driving subscriptions
the reason we are behind is we were 50% owned by the TV company that brodcast us for 15 years...

we got one decent deal 2017-22 , the first one after News relinquished ownership & got dudded in the next with PVL getting hoodwinked by foxtel & not putting the rights up to tender
nothing to do with perception

 

[Wb1234]

Perhaps they are but they obviously are just much better negotiators than we are. They market themselves a lot better and play on the halo of the national competition. They also have a much more compliant media.

Until we show a similar ability at the negotiating table or reverse 30- 40 years of TV right negotiations and media/marketing then it’s more I would like to believe it than it will definitely happen.

NZ paying $50 million is just not likely considering there is no competition for the rights over there. Again, love to be proven wrong.

They aren’t that much better negotiators since they won’t break down their figures and are using padded contra to look good

fact is afl had to add the gather round and tasmania to get a decent increase

foxtwl is on the record as saying the failure of afl expansion is a concern to them

 

[Wb1234]

what are you talking about
Ch 9 clearly stated 15 mill of their 130 mill pa in our present deal is contra... & again , forget what we're at in 2027 with inflation

we're at 400 pa ... averaged out ... over the 5 years so we're at nowhere near 400 mill in 2023 in actual terms

fact is we're on a different planet in the deals
we're way behind , & we shouldn't be

in 2019 they were on 416 mill for 9 games a week
we were on 380 mill for 8 games a week

in 2025 they will be on 643 mill
we will be on something around 400 mill

we got dudded !!

Nah Telstra contra is 150 million pa not 50

 

[Wb1234]

Thinking back on it this is a terrible deal

fox will pay most of the 30 million themselves so seven would get origin for free

like I said the arlc should ask fox how much they will pay for it then negotiate with fta on the basis it’s being streamed

 

[Vibing]

Nope the actual press release states a 5 year $575m deal. That is no contra. The contra was mentioned as an add on.

They won't start at that. It was escalate to allow for inflation. 20% of the deal is inflation

Also of the $643 m was the total deal. You are looking at the $50m Telstra as part of that and at the same as contra for the Marvel Stadium renovations.

$540m is more the figure, remembering that will be less in 2025 due to the inflation factored into the deal

I said 115 mill is the cash amount for 9 ( or 575 mill for 5 years ), who cares when the contra was added, & the foxtel deal wouldn't be all cash either

that leaves us well short of 400 mill cash .... averaged ... out for 23-27

the word is average
thats the average amount each year

their deal will be way less then 643 mill in 2025 yes
but
ours will be way less then 400 mill in 2025 as well

thats how it works
& all that waffle above doesn't hide the fact that we were dudded

 

[Steel Saints]

Again
what hand can the arlc play to get them to pay more then half what they do now ?
the no competition argument doesn't stack up

& perceptions are irrelevant if the sport is rating & driving subscriptions
the reason we are behind is we were 50% owned by the TV company that brodcast us for 15 years...

we got one decent deal 2017-22 , the first one after News relinquished ownership & got dudded in the next with PVL getting hoodwinked by foxtel & not putting the rights up to tender
nothing to do with perception

You are right about the first one after News relinquished, but that was the 2013-2017 deal. NRL became independent in 2012.

For the 2018-2022 deal, Dave Smith stuffed up by just doing the FTA component and basically peeved off News in the process. While for the 2023-2027, PVL, in his 'infinite wisdom', decided to do a five year extension during a pandemic. So in effect, the NRL didn't realize it's potential in the last two deals (2018-2022 and 2023-2027)

 

[Wb1234]

You are right about the first one after News relinquished, but that was the 2013-2017 deal. NRL became independent in 2012.

For the 2018-2022 deal, Dave Smith stuffed up by just doing the FTA component and basically peeved off News in the process. While for the 2023-2027, PVL, is his infinite wisdom, decided to do an extension during a pandemic. So in effect, the NRL didn't realize it's potential in the last two deals (2018-2022 and 2023-2027)

This

 

[Iamback]

Sorry forgot about that nevertheless they more than willingly reduced their output next deal.

They may do. I’m more responding to how Channel 7 have supported the fumblers to how Channel 9 have supported Rugby League. I couldn’t see how you could argue that Channel 9 have provided even close to the support that the fumblers have got from Channel 7 - definitely not in terms of financially and definitely not in terms of actually showing games. Heck, even now most fumbler games are shown on Channel 7, 7mate etc.

Ch7 smashes every other Network in Perth and Melbourne, Throw in that is owned by a Western Australian and that the ad space an AFL game creates is huge.

Why would they not be good partners?

 

[Colk]

Ch7 smashes every other Network in Perth and Melbourne, Throw in that is owned by a Western Australian and that the ad space an AFL game creates is huge.

Why would they not be good partners?

You are arguing different points mate.

Nevertheless, how is the fact that Channel 7 is dominant in Perth and Melbourne relevant to the fact that they show a majority of their games live in say Sydney and Brisbane even though it rates like absolute s***.

Channel 9 aren’t doing the same for our game. In fact that have shows dedicated to the fumblers for god’s sake. Could you imagine that happening if the shoe was on the other foot?

Channel 9 have been awful for the game, particularly in comparison to Channel 7 and fumbleball. Argue that.