What's new
The Front Row Forums

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!

Next TV rights deal part 2

Are you happy with the new TV deal?


  • Total voters
    74

Hello, I'm The Doctor

First Grade
Messages
9,124
Proves Channel 9 gotta steal

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/en...k=7d33ac08294ede127f6b4f46d901164f-1448794824

SOO has to go to tender totally separate from NRL rights, sign 2 year contracts, ARLC should shoot and produce the whole thing including commentators etc..

I reckon they could get $20M A GAME , it guarentees any tv station in the country 3 week ratings wins,

Channel 10 hasnt won a ratings week in like 10 years, they would drive the price up,

I agree that it should be sold separately (as should 9s/internationals as well), but Origin clashes with the weekly NRL product. Unless the same network gets the benefits of the weakened NRL games, the conflict would be monstrous!!

Untill the ARLC is willing to run Origin as a standalone event on a weekend (or still on the wednesday, but with NRL put on hold), then the series and the premiership will never be split.
 

Cumberland Throw

First Grade
Messages
6,548
Fair points, but check the TV ratings for the FTA games during the split rounds... they only drop by 5% or so... its way less than the crowds...
 

Last Week

Bench
Messages
3,726
Proves Channel 9 gotta steal

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/en...k=7d33ac08294ede127f6b4f46d901164f-1448794824

SOO has to go to tender totally separate from NRL rights, sign 2 year contracts, ARLC should shoot and produce the whole thing including commentators etc..

I reckon they could get $20M A GAME , it guarentees any tv station in the country 3 week ratings wins,

Channel 10 hasnt won a ratings week in like 10 years, they would drive the price up,

Fair argument. Not sure I disagree but if Origin was worth $60 million a year, there's no guarantee that Nine would pay the same amount they have now for the NRL season without Origin (minus the $$ for Origin.)

Say Origin is worth $60million a year, Nine might go "we'll pay you $160million a year for the NRL and Origin, or $80million for just the NRL."

We would be taking a risk trying to sell them separately. So it's up to our commission to know what we should expect. I trust that they do despite my dissatisfaction of our new deal.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,888
Origin is our counterbalance to Afl's length and ad breaks, it's why the fta deals should be comparative. I can't believe they let nine out of a 4th game and accepted a much less $ value in the process. Smith did a great deal to get the initial deal but was dumb to give them such a massive reduction option for simulcast and giving up one game. When you consider afl got $700mill cash equivalent for 3.5fta games we should have gone hard to keep the 4th fta game and got similiar if not slightly more.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,888
Relocate a Sydney team to Perth and you solve the terrible prospect of a 6pm kick off!


Game one 8pm Ko in Auckland - 6 pm east coast
Game two 8pm Ko east coast
Alternate week
game one 7pm Ko east coast
Game two 7pm Ko Perth - 9pm east coast
 

Johnny88

Juniors
Messages
1,335
I wonder when Perth will get a side perfect timeslot.
There is still talk the GC will be moved to the central coast by 2018. You never know what is planned.
 

Last Week

Bench
Messages
3,726
Origin is our counterbalance to Afl's length and ad breaks, it's why the fta deals should be comparative.


When you consider afl got $700mill cash equivalent for 3.5fta games we should have gone hard to keep the 4th fta game and got similiar if not slightly more.

Fair arguments.

For the first argument, to know for sure, we'd have to know how much the average AFL game is worth compared to the average NRL game and compare that to how much the average State of Origin game is worth. Still wouldn't be accurate as it wouldn't account for the increased value of other shows on the network. (Halo effect). It would all be interesting and open to discussion and negotiation.

I really would love to see a breakdown of the deal. How much they've valued Origin,Thursday night football, Monday night football, Saturday nights exclusivity to Fox opposed to a FTA game, etc etc.

Pretty much would like to know all the potential other deals there could have been and their value. See if this really was the best deal.
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
15,565
I really would love to see a breakdown of the deal. How much they've valued Origin,Thursday night football, Monday night football, Saturday nights exclusivity to Fox opposed to a FTA game, etc etc.
.

This appears to be another failing of the deal that Smith did with Nine.

How hard would it have been to have a clause in that deal that Nine had to sell any unwanted game back to
the NRL at a pre agreed price for each game.

The Sat night game was worth more to Fox then Nine, but Nine got the benefit of this difference - not the NRL...

The NRL lost control of their own product...certainly a negotiating no no...
 

BlueandGold

Juniors
Messages
1,204
Relocate a Sydney team to Perth and you solve the terrible prospect of a 6pm kick off!


Game one 8pm Ko in Auckland - 6 pm east coast
Game two 8pm Ko east coast
Alternate week
game one 7pm Ko east coast
Game two 7pm Ko Perth - 9pm east coast


I think your idea of moving a Sydney team and giving GWS a leg up is insanity.
Sydney saturation is the NRL's strength not weakness.

Which team do you suggest the NRL relocate?
 

siv

First Grade
Messages
6,765
Easts should become NZ2 playing out of Wellington

They can still be called the Eastern Roosters
 

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,842
At this stage i have not come across anY contra mentioned.

The reduction in Channel 9's payments were to come out of the contra component so I suspect it is now entirely cash.

Contra is indeed a loose term. I mean technically News Corp journos bagging out rugby league on Foxtel can be thrown under the 'contra' banner as an in ancillary plug. You are right that even without contra the networks still have to advertise the product they just bought. It's not like 9 aren't going to show any NRL ads now there is no contra component. In reality they may have to show more as they are now competing against Foxtel for 30% of the viewers for the same content.

I haven't seen anything indicating the amount of contra in the NRL's Fox deal. It could be more or less than the AFLs so it's a bit early to make any comparisons on the overall cash component without that data.

Fair argument. Not sure I disagree but if Origin was worth $60 million a year, there's no guarantee that Nine would pay the same amount they have now for the NRL season without Origin (minus the $$ for Origin.)

It was mentioned ages ago that the NRL rights committee said they want to split it but thought it would devalue the club rights so they kept it combined. I'll leave it to the frothing masses to decide whether or not that was a wise decision.

For the first argument, to know for sure, we'd have to know how much the average AFL game is worth compared to the average NRL game and compare that to how much the average State of Origin game is worth. Still wouldn't be accurate as it wouldn't account for the increased value of other shows on the network. (Halo effect). It would all be interesting and open to discussion and negotiation.

The thing people need to accept is that networks do deals in terms of content hours. It's just a fact of the business. You look at their deals with the major US production houses and you keep seeing that term mentioned.

The AFL with 18 teams play 206 matches with an average 3 hour broadcast time = 618 hours minimum of content. On top of that they have a pre-season competition that gets air time plus also all the flow on coverage from finals etc but that's more of an incidental.

Under this new deal the NRL will reduce the season by 1 round so will likely play 193 matches a season. It matches go for 2 to 2.5 hours of coverage that's somewhere between 386 to 483 hours of content. So if you take the average the club season alone is only about 70% of the AFL's content. Now on top of that you have State of Origin, City vs Country, All Stars and now the Auckland 9s but that's generously about another 30 hours max. At a best case we're still generating about 100 hours less than what the AFL does but more likely around 150 hours less come 2018.

Now some people say that State of Origin makes up for that difference but it's only 3 games. Think about it. To bridge that gap Origin would likely have to be worth about 17 times the standard NRL match. We know from the ratings it's around 4 to 5. So while it does make up some of the ground it doesn't go all the way.

So when people say when you look at the deals on a per minute or per hour basis the NRL generates a premium, they're right. But this notion that the NRL should just automatically get what the AFL does is kind of ridiculous. They have vastly different content structures. It can also come down to how well they negotiate.

If a 9th NRL game comes in, they'd be generating another 50-60 hours of content so we'd still fall short by around 90 to 100 hours. At the moment the Australian rights minus sponsorship are $1.75 billion. NZ could net $100- $150m to put it at $1.9 billion. The difference is $190 million for the 9th game. I don't think the NRL would get that much for it - maybe $25 to $30 million a season- so they could end up around $50 million short. That in the scheme of an overall $2b+ deal is negligible, which just goes to show that the NRL & AFL are pretty much on par in terms of what they receive from the market. But because the current total figure doesn't equal the AFL equivalent, people fly off the handle.

Edit: I still say though for what they gave away (Sponsorship, Early Simulcasting etc) the NRL deal was undervalued.
 
Last edited:
Messages
15,496
14 games in NZ next year and probably be the same maybe more in 2017. Assume the majority of those will be Friday 6pm games and take into account split rounds where the fixture won't be played and it's really not that bad.

Yes you take a hit in a straight comparison with MNF, but that is offset by Thursday night replacing the Friday delayed game.

No it is not. Crows at the two current Friday might games are relatively unaffected. Thursday nights will see some decrease in crowds, experience has already shown that, whilst Friday 6.00 pm (AEWST) games not played in NZ will se a decrease in crowds.

could the storm host some 6pm Friday. games. I know Melbourne quite central and with good public transport could fans get to games on time ?

Not really. They have similar public transport issues that Sydney does. If it was not an issue, do you think the AFL would not have already done it? I may not be a local, but I know plenty who are, some of whom work in the Melbourne CBD. They would say it is a silly idea. Also not all Storm supporters work in the CBD.

As to having it in Sydney, fact is many supporters do not necessarily live or work close by to where their team plays. Hence those who attend games would be put at a disadvantage as they would be unable to make it.

To people who think that the "tradie" population will make a difference, you really shows you are not trying to commute in peak hour. The heaviest times on the roads and public transport is from 5pm - 7pm in Sydney. It can take you 30-40 minutes to go by bus from the Sydney CBD to the SFS due to the traffic. I know as I've done it plenty of times, so please spare me about the "ease" of getting to games at 6pm as you are talking out of your respective hats.

The only place 6pm Oz time works is NZ. Every other place in Oz will all have major issues. 1300Smiles will be an absolute schamozzle if NQ have to do one. There is minimal public transport as most people drive or get driven, that 5-6pm rush to get to the stadium will be a nightmare. Same with Canberra and Newy. And don't forget in the earlier rds, 6pm sydney time will be 5pm QLD time. Good luck getting a crowd to those games. I don't give a f**k what spin people put on it, other than NZ, this 6pm is atrocious for everyone involved. I give it one maybe 2 years and there will have to be a big re-think and adjustment. Why the ARLC allowed this, is my major gripe with the current deal and the fact it will be lumped on the regional clubs only in Oz, going by the reporting that for some reason it will 'suit the QLD teams' is a comment that I think has had no actual proper thought.

:clap:

WTF?

Have you seen the crowds for the suburban grounds recently on Sat and Sunday let alone what they will be for Friday at 6pm when people are commuting back home after work to the likes of Penrith, Cronulla, Brookvale and Campbelltown..they won't even make it home by 6pm let alone to the ground.

It makes more sense for your Roosters to have a few games at Allianz actually... They are always at the top of the table so how about their fans coming out and supporting them for a change..

Considering how many of our fans don't live in the eastern suburbs and don't work in the CBD, it proves you have no idea of what you are talking about. I know plenty who travel long distances to make it to home games, with some driving for 3-4 hours one way.

The fact is 6pm Friday night is a nightmare time slot for everybody.
 
Messages
15,496
The following was published in today's Sydney Morning Herald -

How Nine renegotiated its record NRL rights deal

Date: November 30, 2015 - 12:00AM
by Dominic White

Nine Entertainment Co's new chief executive Hugh Marks was dining with the free-to-air broadcaster's Queensland executive team at Asian restaurant Madam Wu's overlooking Brisbane's Story Bridge on Wednesday evening when the call came.

It was Nine's commercial director and general counsel Amanda Laing, who was back in Sydney's CBD at Clayton Utz, the law firm that represents the National Rugby League.

"We talked and it became clear that Thursday was the day to lock in the details. It made sense to come and help with the final negotiations," says Marks in an exclusive interview with Fairfax Media.

He postponed the rest of his tour of Nine's state offices and jumped on the first plane back to Sydney the next morning.

Laing and Nine's chief operating officer Simon Kelly had already spent all of Wednesday negotiating a historic broadcast deal with News Corp at the latter's law firm Allens, Nine having first been brought into the talks two weeks earlier.

Both sides had moved across town to Clayton Utz in the afternoon, along with Telstra, where each team was holed up in a private war room in between meeting to negotiate with the NRL and its commissioners such as Graeme Samuel and chairman John Grant.

News of the looming deal was broken on Wednesday night by Fairfax Media as Laing and Kelly were preparing to pull two all-nighters negotiating the fine print with wily veterans such as News Corp Australia's former CEO Julian Clarke and NRL chairman John Grant.

Clarke had reached out to Grant weeks earlier in an effort to restart talks on the pay-TV rights, which had collapsed spectacularly in August when the NRL snubbed News Corp's Fox Sports and struck a five-year $925 million free-to-air deal with Nine (breaking a tradition under which free and pay TV rights had always been negotiated together).

Bone fide call

News had since achieved its initial goal of unseating NRL chief executive Dave Smith, through a concerted campaign, and it was now ready to talk again.

"John Grant said the other day that the [original] Nine deal was a catalyst to getting things moving and you'd have to believe there was some truth to that," says Marks while "leaving it for others" to judge whether Friday's deal vindicates Smith's controversial strategy to go solo with Nine and force News to the table separately.

"I think Julian's call to John was bona fide saying 'let's see if we can work this out'."

For all of Rupert Murdoch's posturing about preferring the AFL, industry insiders say News was conscious that it would be a disaster to have a hole in its schedule where the NRL has for so long stood, particularly as its pay TV venture Foxtel is coming under ever greater pressure from cheaper rivals such as Netflix.

"The NRL is very important to their subscriber base and their product. It rounds off their product as [Fox Sports CEO] Patrick Delany [another key player in the talks] said the other day," Marks says.

By the time a dazed Marks arrived at NRL HQ next to the Allianz Stadium in Sydney's East on Friday lunchtime to sign the deal Nine had achieved its first priority, he says. "It was important for us to bring forward the effects of the deal straight into next year's schedule."

Nine enters 2016 against tough comparisons, without an Ashes tournament and against blanket coverage of the Rio Olympics on Seven's broadcast channels and digital channels.

"The Olympics disrupts every year it is on so that will be a big impact, but not as much probably as the Olympics when it's in better time zones," Marks says. "It wasn't really about that."

The importance of rugby league to Nine's fortunes is underlined by new OzTAM statistics showing that two State of Origin matches and the NRL Grand Final were the three most watched programmes in combined metropolitan and regional markets in 2015.

Importance due to consistency

As foreshadowed by Fairfax Media, Nine won the ratings year in all the key demographics although its share was nevertheless down in all the demographics and total people, as it was for the overall ratings winner Seven Network, while Network Ten managed its best growth in years.
(Marks, who sits down with Nine's programming team to discuss its 2016 line-up this week, questions Ten's ability to maintain its growth: "What they lack is consistency in news and current affairs and in sport. It will be much harder for Ten to maintain its momentum because those entertainment shows they have don't have the momentum that they used to".)

The NRL is important to Nine "due to consistency", he says. "That will improve next year when we go from a second delayed match on Friday to more Thursday and then a full schedule in 2017. Viewers obviously want NRL live, and now they will get it in high definition."

By returning the Saturday night game Nine had seized in its original rights agreement, Laing and Kelly were able to negotiate a $175 million discount over five seasons for the free-to-air network. Nine also made a $125 million saving as a result of Fox Sports' agreement to simulcast Nine's games.

The $300 million cut to Nine's fees, plus an extra $40 million over the next two seasons for Fox Sports to simulcast Nine's three games under the current agreement, is a boon for the network.

For its part Fox Sports, which is paying close to $1 billion, will have every game including immediate access to the broadcast of the three NRL games Nine has previously held on an exclusive basis, meaning all eight games each round will be shown live on Fox Sports for the first time.

Fox, which will launch a dedicated NRL channel, will have to carry eight minutes per game of advertisements sold by Nine on the free-to-air broadcaster's games, but will not run ads during actual matchplay.

Net gain to be made

Marks is happy with the $25 million a season Nine will recover from giving up exclusivity on its games. "Yes it certainly has an impact on our ratings and revenue to have a simulcast, but our view is that there's a net gain for Nine in those numbers."

Asked why Monday night football did not work out he says: "I expect the clubs find it difficult to get an audience to the grounds, they obviously played a big role."

But he is happy about having the Thursday night game. "It is coming into the end of week … and it is a much better night than Mondays certainly."
What then, does he think the rights market will look like when this deal expires in 2022?

"My own view is that event television will grow in value, in terms of relative impact versus other programming," he says.

"As for what will be the technological landscape, that would be a brave man to predict, but we are very pleased to have a long-term deal."

Interesting that Fox's coverage of Nine's NRL games is not a complete "clean feed", just that the ads won't be shown during game play.
 

Hello, I'm The Doctor

First Grade
Messages
9,124
This appears to be another failing of the deal that Smith did with Nine.

How hard would it have been to have a clause in that deal that Nine had to sell any unwanted game back to
the NRL at a pre agreed price for each game.


The Sat night game was worth more to Fox then Nine, but Nine got the benefit of this difference - not the NRL...

The NRL lost control of their own product...certainly a negotiating no no...

I was under the impression that this was the idea when DSmith announced the 9 deal...

So either i misunderstood then, we are misunderstanding now OR Grant didnt get the memo and f*cked up royally
 

insert.pause

First Grade
Messages
6,462
This appears to be another failing of the deal that Smith did with Nine.

How hard would it have been to have a clause in that deal that Nine had to sell any unwanted game back to
the NRL at a pre agreed price for each game.

The Sat night game was worth more to Fox then Nine, but Nine got the benefit of this difference - not the NRL...

The NRL lost control of their own product...certainly a negotiating no no...

Nine did have to sell the Saturday game back to the NRL, it's in their release to the ASX. It was worth more to fox, the Saturday game made the other games more valuable, so it's not just a case of saying Fox paid $35m p.a. for it.
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
15,565
Nine did have to sell the Saturday game back to the NRL, it's in their release to the ASX. It was worth more to fox, the Saturday game made the other games more valuable, so it's not just a case of saying Fox paid $35m p.a. for it.

But Nine and Fox did the negotiating between themselves over the value of the Sat game and no further money ended up going to the NRL. It seems just a rubberstamping by the NRL to me if what you are saying is true ( I missed that).

I don't get the defence of the deal...

If Smith had of sat down originally and said that he secured a 38% dollar increase on the current deal from $450M to $625M from Nine for Thurs Night + Fri Night + Sunday Arvo + Origin how would you have felt?

This is what we ended up with...
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
15,565
Considering how many of our fans don't live in the eastern suburbs and don't work in the CBD, it proves you have no idea of what you are talking about. I know plenty who travel long distances to make it to home games, with some driving for 3-4 hours one way.

The fact is 6pm Friday night is a nightmare time slot for everybody.

Im not saying otherwise.

But if you do work in the Sydney CBD ( the one area where most people in Sydney work) you may be some hope of getting to Allianz by 6pm.. you wont get to the other grounds in time

I don't appreciate the comment that I responded to initially that suburban Sydney needs to carry the can...

Its going to be a crap sandwich no matter where it is played.
 

DiegoNT

First Grade
Messages
9,378
Just on everyone saying channel 9 did well from this deal.
Fox sport average about 200k or so for every nrl games. If everyone with fox (and judging by comments on here and social media it seems the large majority will) watches nrl on fox instead of channel 9 that means 9 will lose roughly 200k viewers each game, which is 600k over a round of football, which over 24 or so rounds could equate to 14 million (give or take) less viewers over a year.
 

insert.pause

First Grade
Messages
6,462
But Nine and Fox did the negotiating between themselves over the value of the Sat game and no further money ended up going to the NRL. It seems just a rubberstamping by the NRL to me if what you are saying is true ( I missed that).

I don't get the defence of the deal...

If Smith had of sat down originally and said that he secured a 38% dollar increase on the current deal from $450M to $625M from Nine for Thurs Night + Fri Night + Sunday Arvo + Origin how would you have felt?

This is what we ended up with...
The Nine deal locked in a guaranteed $925m, whether it was paid by Nine or Fox, the NRL wouldn't have agreed to buy the game back from Nine unless it generated a significant uplift in the value of the unsold rights, which would have been a negotiation between the NRL & Newscorp. I think the NRL reached the target they had set a year ago and got there using a concerted strategy. The spanner in the works was old long balls tantrum that handed the AFL an unexpected windfall. On that basis you could conclude it wasn't worth antagonising newscorp, but I think the NRL still hit their target from a year ago - it just doesn't look as big as it once had when they first sat down and came up with a number.

There's no doubt Nine made out like bandits, but the overall deal isn't terrible, nor is it perfect, it's a pass mark imo. The increase in coverage and exposure the game will net, even before the new deal kicks in, is a huge for the NRL and I don't think many appreciate it just yet.

The game is not going to be short of money either, the annual broadcast revenues will probably end up around $390-400m, $50m more than the games entire annual revenues atm. Come 2018 the game will likely have total annual revenues of at least $550m.
 
Last edited:
Top