Next TV deal discussion 2028 -

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

You think the Giant’s and the Suns are basket cases, they’ll look like Manchester United compared to a Perth/Adelaide rugby league team lol.

I have no doubt the West Coast Pirates will be bigger than the Cronulla Sharks and Western Force.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Forget about the tv deal, NRL’s worst nightmare has just unfolded, Brisbane Lions and Sydney Swans both in seperate prelims, oh my!

I watched the last quarter of the Lions vs Demons game. It was almost as good as the Cowboys vs Sharks game. Two great games in successive nights.

 

[Cumberland Throw]

So based on this AFL deal. All games all rounds on fox is dead ..

Interesting

 

[Nerd]

Your 10k crowds bother us lol, embarrassing comes to mind, you build a massive Olympic stadium and you need the AFL to fill it lol.

Broncos 29 500 home crowd average says hi. More AFL propaganda.

 

[Perth Red]

Back to the thread, so the latest muttering from our esteemed leader seem to be suggesting he will renegotiate the current contract well before it’s expiry at end of 2027. Now if this delivers big cash all well and good but it sounds like once again we won’t go to open market and have that competitive tension that really drove afls deal way above and beyond what anyone was expecting. be interesting to see what he has planned and if it actually delivers or just locks into a sht deal for even longer!

 

[Nerd]

Over the last 2 weeks the AFL have sold out stadiums in Perth - Brisbane - Sydney and Melbourne.

In the last month or so the Warriors had sold out their ground and so had Penrith, the Eels and the Cowboys so your point is?

 

[Perth Red]

So we know (allegedly) ch9/stan willing to pay $500mill and paramount/10 willing to pay $600mill for our competitors. So our target is now set for the 2028- rights. Let’s see how close we can get from this deals shocking low $370mill from our Australian tv partners.

 

[Iamback]

So we know (allegedly) ch9/stan willing to pay $500mill and paramount/10 willing to pay $600mill for our competitors. So our target is now set for the 2028- rights. Let’s see how close we can get from this deals shocking low $370mill from our Australian tv partners.

There is no way anyone pays that for NRL, The price would be too high for subs and not enough ad space on FTA. If the $400m cash is correct you maybe add $50m cash plus contra with team 18

 

[Perth Red]

There is no way anyone pays that for NRL, The price would be too high for subs and not enough ad space on FTA. If the $400m cash is correct you maybe add $50m cash plus contra with team 18

Yes we don’t have as many ads for fta but we do have origin and higher ratings. We’ll have same number of games by then. Fox we should be hammering afl amount given the difference in ratings, suggesting there is a lot more nrl fox and kayo subscribers than afl ones.
if they’re getting $540-550mill cash from tv, which is where it will probably land, then we should be aiming for around $500mill cash given what we’ve been told rival bids were willing to pay.
the sky nz deal should be the icing on top that puts us ahead!

 

[Canard]

There is no way anyone pays that for NRL, The price would be too high for subs and not enough ad space on FTA. If the $400m cash is correct you maybe add $50m cash plus contra with team 18

You're obsessed with ad space. There is still plenty of breaks, and opportunities for in-game advertising which is frankly more valuable then traditional ad breaks.

It's never been raised as an issue before, so I can't see why it would be one now.

 

[Iamback]

You're obsessed with ad space. There is still plenty of breaks, and opportunities for in-game advertising which is frankly more valuable then traditional ad breaks.

It's never been raised as an issue before, so I can't see why it would be one now.

Well how does Networks get back some of the investment without ads? Fox's selling point is no ad during play.
FTA has more chance but execs aren't too know if a game will have a stack of HIA's or tries which allows for ads

Because ratings are dropping, atleast in the traditional sense and people are talking dropping a half a billion a year on 80 mins of football. Need to keep expectations realistic

 

[Colk]

Well how does Networks get back some of the investment without ads? Fox's selling point is no ad during play.
FTA has more chance but execs aren't too know if a game will have a stack of HIA's or tries which allows for ads

Because ratings are dropping, atleast in the traditional sense and people are talking dropping a half a billion a year on 80 mins of football. Need to keep expectations realistic

The problem with that assumption is that Fox are paying more for fumbleball than RL. The ad space argument is perfectly valid for a FTA difference (although the difference as reported shouldn’t be that high) however it is not a valid excuse why the game keeps getting screwed by Fox

 

[Perth Red]

The problem with that assumption is that Fox are paying more for fumbleball than RL. The ad space argument is perfectly valid for a FTA difference (although the difference as reported shouldn’t be that high) however it is not a valid excuse why the game keeps getting screwed by Fox

If ch7 are going to be paying the rumoured $185mill and we know ch9 is paying $130mill then thats quite a difference. If you take the value of origin and radio rights out of the ch9 deal and just compare domestic comp fta covg for both codes the difference is massive. Certainly a lot more than you’d think ad difference would be worth.

 

[Iamback]

The problem with that assumption is that Fox are paying more for fumbleball than RL. The ad space argument is perfectly valid for a FTA difference (although the difference as reported shouldn’t be that high) however it is not a valid excuse why the game keeps getting screwed by Fox

I am not getting until being screwed until the figures.

Though the game is in quarters as opposed to halves. Which allows extra time for more Sportsbets ads or to flog off the next Main Event fight coming up.
Providing it is a good game ( For AFL standards ) you have the viewer for 3 hours as opposed to 2 ( if there is a lot of Bunker influence )

Then has ratings to on par with NRL, Why would it not be worth more?

NRL has the International market to make up the short fall especially with a team based in NZ

 

[Perth Red]

I am not getting until being screwed until the figures.

Though the game is in quarters as opposed to halves. Which allows extra time for more Sportsbets ads or to flog off the next Main Event fight coming up.
Providing it is a good game ( For AFL standards ) you have the viewer for 3 hours as opposed to 2 ( if there is a lot of Bunker influence )

Then has ratings to on par with NRL, Why would it not be worth more?

NRL has the International market to make up the short fall especially with a team based in NZ

more yes, but is it worth double?

 

[Colk]

I am not getting until being screwed until the figures.

Though the game is in quarters as opposed to halves. Which allows extra time for more Sportsbets ads or to flog off the next Main Event fight coming up.
Providing it is a good game ( For AFL standards ) you have the viewer for 3 hours as opposed to 2 ( if there is a lot of Bunker influence )

Then has ratings to on par with NRL, Why would it not be worth more?

NRL has the International market to make up the short fall especially with a team based in NZ

Not on Pay it doesn’t. Also Pay can also only advertise to the subscribers they have as you well know.

If more people are getting Pay to pay to watch RL then fumbleball then ipso facto that content should be of more value than the competitor. To me that seems like a fairly logical conclusion.

 

[Canard]

Well how does Networks get back some of the investment without ads? Fox's selling point is no ad during play.
FTA has more chance but execs aren't too know if a game will have a stack of HIA's or tries which allows for ads

Because ratings are dropping, atleast in the traditional sense and people are talking dropping a half a billion a year on 80 mins of football. Need to keep expectations realistic

Without live sport, FTA is dead, it's the only opportunity to get eyeballs on ads without skipping and is the only "event" TV left

And the only sports that matter in Australia is the NRL and AFL.

Despite predictions to the contrary, the recent AFL deal shows that TV networks will pay top dollar for sport.

 

[Iamback]

Not on Pay it doesn’t. Also Pay can also only advertise to the subscribers they have as you well know.

If more people are getting Pay to pay to watch RL then fumbleball then ipso facto that content should be of more value than the competitor. To me that seems like a fairly logical conclusion.

How is that measured though?
When I signed to Kayo I didn't have to fill in why am I getting it

 

[Iamback]

Without live sport, FTA is dead, it's the only opportunity to get eyeballs on ads without skipping and is the only "event" TV left

And the only sports that matter in Australia is the NRL and AFL.

Despite predictions to the contrary, the recent AFL deal shows that TV networks will pay top dollar for sport.

What other local sport gets $400m from TV?

Everyone knows they are and should be top at some stage though the TV rights will get maxxed out

NRL round is 640 mins. 80 mins halftime in total

AFL 1040 mins. 90 mins halftime.
Then 9 x 1st qtr break.
Then 9 x 3rd qtr break

So again why would that not be more valuable?

 

[Colk]

How is that measured though?
When I signed to Kayo I didn't have to fill in why am I getting it

Simple where are the subscribers coming from and what are the viewing figures of Rugby League games vs fumbleball games.

it is not like League hasn’t outrated fumbleball for a number of seasons on Pay.

I don’t even know why this is still a thing - if the leader himself suggests that he gave Foxtel a good deal because they would otherwise catch a cold or that the fumbleball should thank him for their deal then why are we still debating. He is even admitting himself (indirectly) that he undersold it.