Next TV rights deal

[oikee]

If anything live sport is going to become more and more valuable, as it's the one thing that you have to watch first run.

Almost nothing else on TV can claim this.

Spot on, which means the NRL is sitting on a faking gold mine.
Now imagine if they shortened the season and provided quality over quantity. ?

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

Spot on, which means the NRL is sitting on a faking gold mine.
Now imagine if they shortened the season and provided quality over quantity. ?

Lol.
They are not paying more for less games.
Jesus h Christ.

 

[Nice Beaver]

Cross-media ownership laws restricts any potential News Corp holding to less than 15%.

Yet here we are ....

http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/discovery_communications_foxtel_fqYLmEdmUtrbF9FwJO7b8O

 

[eozsmiles]

maybe they get less ad breaks for live games but they could possibly charge more as it's likely it will rate better than a delayed game

I'm guessing with the ad breaks jammed in before kick off and at halftime and after fulltime, the advertisers will value them less. The best slots are during the contest.

If there are less ads overall, and most are shown when the audience is in the kitchen or toilet or at the bar and therefore worth less, the audience would have to increase by a chunky margin for the game to hold it's current value to networks.

 

[eozsmiles]

Channel 10 were reportedly pretty keen to get involved last time and show 4 live games, which would have made them the preferred option for fans. Saw some reports that they are in danger of going bust. Whether or not this impacts on their ability to bid for the next rights is yet to be seen. But the NRL want all bidders in the game, they don't want the same two groups to be the only contenders next time (assuming seven gets the AFL).

 

[insert.pause]

Yet here we are ....

http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/discovery_communications_foxtel_fqYLmEdmUtrbF9FwJO7b8O

Joint bid that limits foxtel to less than 15%, Discovery would be the controlling entity.

 

[insert.pause]

Channel 10 were reportedly pretty keen to get involved last time and show 4 live games, which would have made them the preferred option for fans. Saw some reports that they are in danger of going bust. Whether or not this impacts on their ability to bid for the next rights is yet to be seen. But the NRL want all bidders in the game, they don't want the same two groups to be the only contenders next time (assuming seven gets the AFL).

Nine were a bigger chance of going into insolvency at the time they were bidding for the NRL rights, ten are in better shape financially and with bids on the table, they will be a player again.

 

[BuffaloRules]

I think people underestimate the effect the removal of the "first and last rights" clause will have on the next deal.

 

[The Charlatan]

I think people underestimate the effect the removal of the "first and last rights" clause will have on the next deal.

Nine were allowed to retain rights if they got within X percentage of the top offer didn't they?

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...cal-win-for-rugby-league-20150121-12uxq2.html

And there are some major issues bulging from the manila folder sitting on his desk at League Central, which he will join from March.

Atop them is the next broadcast and digital rights deal.

Packer and fellow Channel Ten shareholder Lachlan Murdoch - the co-chairman of News Corp - are said to be salivating at the thought of wresting the rights to rugby league from Packer's former mate David Gyngell at Nine.

Channel Seven boss Kerry Stokes is also said to be circling like a great white off the Newcastle coastline.

Whoever gets it will need to throw open the chequebook with a figure of $2 billion - no, that's not a typo - already being suggested.

Whatever happens, Smith and Richardson need to ensure the game is no longer television's subordinate. Rugby league needs to take control of itself again.

 

[insert.pause]

NRL release clearly outlines Richardson's responsibilities and it's not Broadcast rights.

 

[Foreign Legion]

"Whoever gets it will need to throw open the chequebook with a figure of $2 billion - no, that's not a typo - already being suggested.".............. $2 billion dollar deal better go to spec savers, that's a lot cash

 

[Starkers]

Great decision. I fully support it.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

$2b and "not television's subordinate"? Not possible.

 

[sensesmaybenumbed]

I think people underestimate the effect the removal of the "first and last rights" clause will have on the next deal.

It was the real breakthrough in the last rights deal - I certainly haven't forgotten.

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

I can't see us getting 2 bill .
If it did happen you can bet whatever ch has the rights would be getting exactly what they wanted ( broadcast wise) for that amount of money .

I think we will get 1.5-1.6 tops .

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I can't see us getting 2 bill .
If it did happen you can bet whatever ch has the rights would be getting exactly what they wanted ( broadcast wise) for that amount of money .

I think we will get 1.5-1.6 tops .

Apparently that amount was on offer last time had the ARLC not removed the F&L rights.

If that was true then $2bil this time wouldnt be such a crazy though

 

[insert.pause]

Apparently that amount was on offer last time had the ARLC not removed the F&L rights.

If that was true then $2bil this time wouldnt be such a crazy though

no it wasn't, Kim Williams added the removal of F&L as a kicker to get the nine/foxsports bid across the line, the cash component of Ten's offer was less but they wanted more games on FTA. Had there been an offer anything like that and they would have taken it.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

no it wasn't, Kim Williams added the removal of F&L as a kicker to get the nine/foxsports bid across the line, the cash component of Ten's offer was less but they wanted more games on FTA. Had there been an offer anything like that and they would have taken it.

No. It was the ARLC who insisted the on F&L removal...

Without that, and given the lack of exposure Fox/nine was offering in comparison to 10 and 7 (fox was desperate to keep Saturday and Monday exlusive), the cash component on offer from the 9/Fox partnership (from fox mostly) was a good bit more than what we actually got.

10s cash offer wasnt even as much as this compromise that was signed, but they offered much more in control/exposure/etc, that 9/fox wasnt willing to match

 

[insert.pause]

No. It was the ARLC who insisted the on F&L removal...

Without that, and given the lack of exposure Fox/nine was offering in comparison to 10 and 7 (fox was desperate to keep Saturday and Monday exlusive), the cash component on offer from the 9/Fox partnership (from fox mostly) was a good bit more than what we actually got.

10s cash offer wasnt even as much as this compromise that was signed, but they offered much more in control/exposure/etc, that 9/fox wasnt willing to match

Williams only gave it up to get the deal across the line at the last minute when it was looking likely that Ten would win the rights, which put him offside with Lachlan who also believed Ten had the rights in the bag. Williams ultimately lost his job over it. No network offered anything like the money you are claiming.

I already said Ten offered less cash but more games on FTA, which is why the ARLC were looking at accepting and if not for the F&L being removed they probably would have.