Next TV rights deal

[Perth Red]

He's got a great deal out of FTA, but given a fair bit up to get it. The proof of the pudding is now going to be if he can match or better the pay tv and media rights deals. Let battle commence!

 

[RoosTah]

He's got a great deal out of FTA, but given a fair bit up to get it. The proof of the pudding is now going to be if he can match or better the pay tv and media rights deals. Let battle commence!

The NRL has plenty of time to work this out. Heck, Mudoch could have a stroke and drop dead before this deal is up, and that would change the complexion of the thing in itself. But frankly with the GF and season we've just had, the NRL is in a pretty solid bargaining position.

Fox can carry on like spurned little bitches if that's their go (even though they have no right, because we all know from non-News trash sources it was THEM that was trying to f**k the NRL by stalling and putting in BS bids on behalf of 9 WITHOUT TELLING THEM), but each day the media scene in Australia becomes more competitive and so if I were the NRL I'd be focusing my attention on more rational suitors like ESPN.

 

[BlueandGold]

He's got a great deal out of FTA, but given a fair bit up to get it. The proof of the pudding is now going to be if he can match or better the pay tv and media rights deals. Let battle commence!

NRL ammo

1.Expansion to 18 teams which will increase the FTA portion of the deal also.
2.Simulcasting all 8-9 games on Fox, which Fox must do to keep subs and possibly increase subs.
3.Giving back Super Saturdays to Rupert which he will have to pay for.
4.Giving Monday night back to Rupert which he will have to Pay through the nose for.

So you see there heaps of Ammo up the Commissions sleeve.

I am confident they will get a great deal for RL.

 

[Johnny88]

Is the NRL talking to fox or anyone else at the moment, Just wondering when it will all be sorted out.

 

[taipan]

NRL ammo

1.Expansion to 18 teams which will increase the FTA portion of the deal also.
2.Simulcasting all 8-9 games on Fox, which Fox must do to keep subs and possibly increase subs.
3.Giving back Super Saturdays to Rupert which he will have to pay for.
4.Giving Monday night back to Rupert which he will have to Pay through the nose for.

So you see there heaps of Ammo up the Commissions sleeve.

I am confident they will get a great deal for RL.

With Thursday nights in operation,no chance of Monday nights.
Fox will have to pay market value at worst or get subscriber burnt.

 

[Perth Red]

The bars set:
Fox $216 million a year
Telstra$50million a year (without naming rights)

we could a bit lower on pay tv given we got a better deal for our more valuable slots on FTA but anything less than a total of $2bill is the ARLC admitting NRL isn't worth as much as AFL in the Australian market or at the least failing in its duty to position the game to maximise its media earnings.

 

[BlueandGold]

NRL ammo

1.Expansion to 18 teams which will increase the FTA portion of the deal also.
2.Simulcasting all 8-9 games on Fox, which Fox must do to keep subs and possibly increase subs.
3.Giving back Super Saturdays to Rupert which he will have to pay for.
4.Giving Monday night back to Rupert which he will have to Pay through the nose for.

So you see there heaps of Ammo up the Commissions sleeve.

I am confident they will get a great deal for RL.

5. simulcasting of final series which would be massive for Foxtel.

Pay TV with all this in mind would be at least double the previous deal. 1.1billion
Telstra 200-250million
NZ 100million

Yep we got this.....:lol::lol:

 

[Last Week]

NRL ammo

1.Expansion to 18 teams which will increase the FTA portion of the deal also.
2.Simulcasting all 8-9 games on Fox, which Fox must do to keep subs and possibly increase subs.
3.Giving back Super Saturdays to Rupert which he will have to pay for.
4.Giving Monday night back to Rupert which he will have to Pay through the nose for.

So you see there heaps of Ammo up the Commissions sleeve.

I am confident they will get a great deal for RL.

1. The deal won't be done with expansion in mind. We'll still get a similar deal to the AFL, regardless of expansion.

2. This is the key and will be the basis of Fox paying more. They're getting content. Not just any content, but they're getting an extra 3 games a week, two of them being in prime time. Now, yes, they will be simulcast. But the AFL simulcasting has shown that they don't actually have much of a drop in ratings. And besides, Fox don't need ratings, they need content to drive subscriptions. And they're going to get 3 extra games, more content. They will be able to have Super Saturday with every game on the day on their channel and they'll be able to have Super Sunday aswell. More content, more subscribers.

3. f**k him. If he wants to get back the Saturday FTA game, he'll have to pay through the nose for it. But what is most likely to happen is Channel 10 will buy it off 9. Seeing as 10 will likely be part owned by Fox soon, Fox won't mind simulcasting with 10 so much. They'll probably be able to use it as good cross promotion, possibly drive more subscriptions.

4. Monday night is gone. Pretty sure someone's said something along the lines of 5 nights is too much.

We're going to get a good deal.

 

[bobmar28]

1. The deal won't be done with expansion in mind. We'll still get a similar deal to the AFL, regardless of expansion.

2. This is the key and will be the basis of Fox paying more. They're getting content. Not just any content, but they're getting an extra 3 games a week, two of them being in prime time. Now, yes, they will be simulcast. But the AFL simulcasting has shown that they don't actually have much of a drop in ratings. And besides, Fox don't need ratings, they need content to drive subscriptions. And they're going to get 3 extra games, more content. They will be able to have Super Saturday with every game on the day on their channel and they'll be able to have Super Sunday aswell. More content, more subscribers.

3. f**k him. If he wants to get back the Saturday FTA game, he'll have to pay through the nose for it. But what is most likely to happen is Channel 10 will buy it off 9. Seeing as 10 will likely be part owned by Fox soon, Fox won't mind simulcasting with 10 so much. They'll probably be able to use it as good cross promotion, possibly drive more subscriptions.

4. Monday night is gone. Pretty sure someone's said something along the lines of 5 nights is too much.



We're going to get a good deal.

Expansion is the key to a better pay TV deal.

 

[Last Week]

Expansion is the key to a better pay TV deal.

Yes Perth Red. Ok.

 

[hutch]

Yes Perth Red. Ok.

They're right. Now is the time, I don't know what we're waiting for.

 

[Captain Apollo]

4. Monday night is gone. Pretty sure someone's said something along the lines of 5 nights is too much.

We're going to get a good deal.

The NRL pretty much have. They came out after their last talks with the NRL Players Association and said they would be looking to minimise 5 day turn arounds for clubs. It would be nigh impossible to do if you have games on Thursdays thru Mondays. If they offered Fox Mondays back, I dare say the players would consider strike action, and the NRL would be aware of this.

 

[BlueandGold]

Yes Perth Red. Ok.

:lol::lol::lol:

It gives Fox 5 exclusive games and 4 simulcasts, this will garner the NRL a massive Pay TV deal and easily enough to cover any expansion costs.

 

[Last Week]

They're right. Now is the time, I don't know what we're waiting for.

No they're not. We had a significant increase in value of TV rights without expansion. We'll have a significant rise in value this time around too. All without expansion.

If we do happen to expand, it will obviously increase the rights value further with even more content. If that increase in value is enough to justify expansion? Well, that's for the ARLC to consider.

Not saying we shouldn't expand, but I'm not going sit here and say, like a couple of others, that to increase the value of our pay TV rights is through expansion.

 

[docbrown]

The bars set:
Fox $216 million a year
Telstra$50million a year (without naming rights)

we could a bit lower on pay tv given we got a better deal for our more valuable slots on FTA but anything less than a total of $2bill is the ARLC admitting NRL isn't worth as much as AFL in the Australian market or at the least failing in its duty to position the game to maximise its media earnings.

I do question that statement to some degree. I'm not necessarily saying the NRL won't get that but the expectation that the NRL will have automatically "failed" if it doesn't match what another sport gets doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's a headline straight out of the Daily Telegraph.

For starters -- is that with or without expansion? Because if the conditions don't lend themselves to having a 9th game in the first year of the contract (because 2 teams can't be ready in time, negotiations get delayed etc) the NRL might not get as much. Or should they rush two unready teams into the comp? I'm just saying that's a grey area.

Fox might not go for simulcasting. They might push for their old status quo (that's unlikely but hey they are dicks). Either way the NRL might think they can get a better overall deal elsewhere. Remember the NRL are pushing to get better exposure - in the scope of the current deal they managed to get Sunday live and for the next deal 4 games live on F2A. Who's to say if Fox lowballs they don't end up with another game or two on F2A and all matches on a streaming service for a year or two to put pressure on Fox? I'm not saying that will happen I'm just highlighting another grey area.

Another thing to consider is the AFL already have 9 games a week. Premium content wise the AFL has 206 matches to the NRL's 200. Plus the AFL's match coverage usually runs 3 hours to the NRL 2 to 2.5hours. Even if you add in rep matches overall the AFL are simply making more content for purchase.

Plus the ratings are different. AFL has Perth & Adelaide up it's sleeve (that might change next deal), NRL's strength is Sydney, Brisbane, NZ & Regional. Ratings for same slots are different. AFL fans favoured Saturday but that's waning whereas NRL never really has tapped that on F2A. NRL has big event matches that the AFL doesn't have. I'd argue a strong reason why the NRL can even get a similar broadcast deal to the AFL despite fewer ad breaks is because of those big matches and ratings and the halo the game produces for the network as a loss-leader. So it's not really like-for-like.

The stop-start nature of the AFL also favours digital services -- there are simply more breaks for fans to use their devices. So the take up of digital services is different - this is partly why the NRL did a deal with Facebook rather than Twitter. The point is it shows how fans of two different sports embrace the digital component differently so you'd expect different outcomes. What works for NRL might not work for AFL and vice versa.

I'm not saying you're doing it (yet), I guess all I'm saying is the proof is in the final contract but these differences should be taken into account before jumping on the "NRL Is Dying/Kill Dave Smith" bandwagon.

 

[Perth Red]

If they get less because we don't have a ninth game then it is no ones fault but the arlc. They have had plenty of time to be ready for a ninth ga,e for this deal and done nothing, afl knew that a ninth game was worth $'s and got their backsides into gear years ago and made it happen and have reaped the financial rewards from a higher deal because of it.

To say well we get less because afl has more games when we've done nothing to capitalise on the potential for expansion ourself is just a lame excuse?

re other points fair enough but as you point out the fact we have bigger audiences and some marquee products that afl do not have plus more rounds in the NRL should balance out the adverts argument I would have thought?

Not is saying less money will mean NRL is dying but at some point if we keep getting less money for a better product you have to question why. Let's hope we don't have to have that discussion and Smith delivers.

 

[elbusto]

I do question that statement to some degree. I'm not necessarily saying the NRL won't get that but the expectation that the NRL will have automatically "failed" if it doesn't match what another sport gets doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's a headline straight out of the Daily Telegraph.

For starters -- is that with or without expansion? Because if the conditions don't lend themselves to having a 9th game in the first year of the contract (because 2 teams can't be ready in time, negotiations get delayed etc) the NRL might not get as much. Or should they rush two unready teams into the comp? I'm just saying that's a grey area.

Fox might not go for simulcasting. They might push for their old status quo (that's unlikely but hey they are dicks). Either way the NRL might think they can get a better overall deal elsewhere. Remember the NRL are pushing to get better exposure - in the scope of the current deal they managed to get Sunday live and for the next deal 4 games live on F2A. Who's to say if Fox lowballs they don't end up with another game or two on F2A and all matches on a streaming service for a year or two to put pressure on Fox? I'm not saying that will happen I'm just highlighting another grey area.

Another thing to consider is the AFL already have 9 games a week. Premium content wise the AFL has 206 matches to the NRL's 200. Plus the AFL's match coverage usually runs 3 hours to the NRL 2 to 2.5hours. Even if you add in rep matches overall the AFL are simply making more content for purchase.

Plus the ratings are different. AFL has Perth & Adelaide up it's sleeve (that might change next deal), NRL's strength is Sydney, Brisbane, NZ & Regional. Ratings for same slots are different. AFL fans favoured Saturday but that's waning whereas NRL never really has tapped that on F2A. NRL has big event matches that the AFL doesn't have. I'd argue a strong reason why the NRL can even get a similar broadcast deal to the AFL despite fewer ad breaks is because of those big matches and ratings and the halo the game produces for the network as a loss-leader. So it's not really like-for-like.

The stop-start nature of the AFL also favours digital services -- there are simply more breaks for fans to use their devices. So the take up of digital services is different - this is partly why the NRL did a deal with Facebook rather than Twitter. The point is it shows how fans of two different sports embrace the digital component differently so you'd expect different outcomes. What works for NRL might not work for AFL and vice versa.

I'm not saying you're doing it (yet), I guess all I'm saying is the proof is in the final contract but these differences should be taken into account before jumping on the "NRL Is Dying/Kill Dave Smith" bandwagon.

this. The doc nails it again.

 

[insert.pause]

From this morning, News Corp & Fox Sports employee, Paul Kent losing his shit over the TV deal and claiming the ARLC will put Smiths head on a pike as a scapegoat to get back into bed with foxsports. He seems to believe Smith, and by extension the ARLC, is a naive fool who blindly took the word of Nine that he was getting a premium for avoiding open tender. The deal and strategy had to be signed off on by the commission, they can't distance themselves from the deal. Credit Suisse were also heavily involved in negotiations and strategy. The argument Smith acted alone & naively defies a very basic understanding of the process. Its not the Gallop days anymore ffs.

He also bags the NRL for talking about moving the GF from Sydney after the NSW Gov have pledged $1.6bn for new stadiums. He is unbelievably myopic, the NRL are just maintaining bidding tension for the GF so that when the NSW deal expires in 2019 they will have to pay up to keep it, just as Gallop did by playing the qld & nsw gov against each other, saying the GF will remain in Sydney for the next 30 years erodes any bargaining position they would hope to have.

http://media.skyracing.com.au/POD/1/B553Ao.mp3

So many league journos are simpletons, they really are unsophisticated. Th game is moving to become more modern and professionally run and the league journos are really being left behind.

 

[gUt]

I wouldn't give them that much credit. Kent and his ilk are cynical liars who peddle the company line, and that's all.

 

[insert.pause]

I wouldn't give them that much credit. Kent and his ilk are cynical liars who peddle the company line, and that's all.

They're both, they've never come up with a thought of their own and now they are incapable.

They're dopes, predictable dopes, but dopes nonetheless.