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

Status
Not open for further replies.

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/med...102863828?nk=050c5527bf3917a51322dacfd51b00e8
AFL eyes as much as $1.6bn for television rights deal

The Australian
October 27, 2014 12:00AM

THE AFL is set to negotiate the richest sports deal in Australian television history, with an opening bid of $1.5 billion-$1.6bn.

The extraordinary figure is being privately discussed as attainable by AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan and the powerful AFL Commission ahead of the upcoming broadcast rights negotiations, The Australian can reveal.

That figure is unlikely to close the deal, yet it will see the Australian Football League obliterate the code’s previous record $1.258bn deal, the nation’s most lucrative TV rights payment. Sources close to the discussions have revealed that the AFL Commission, the governing body responsible for the running of the competition, discussed valuations in recent weeks.

A starting figure of $1.5bn- $1.6bn — which would surpass the AFL’s current deal by $300 million — was put forward by commissioners as an achievable target for a five-year deal when the league blows the siren on negotiations in the coming weeks.

Under an even more ambitious scenario, commissioners including former News Corp Australia boss Kim Williams and Wesfarmers managing director Richard Goyder have discussed a $1.7bn or $1.8bn deal.

A spokesman for the AFL declined to comment.

In a potential twist that could hurt pay-TV operator Foxtel, half-owned by News Corp, ultimate publisher of The Australian, the commissioners have discussed signing a five-year deal with a free-to-air network, and a shorter contract with Foxtel and Fox Sports.

In setting the bar high at the outset, the league will signal to the commercial networks that it will adopt a tough negotiating position with the TV chief executives, confident the balance of power is *tilted in its favour.

This could lead to protracted talks with the networks, whose bosses are privately warning that a huge price escalation may not be economically viable.

While the networks have found it is getting harder to make money from sports rights, they know they can’t attract big ratings and advertising dollars without top-tier sports in the schedule.

Mr McLachlan is under pressure to deliver another bumper payday as the AFL fast-tracks the next round of negotiations so that it has the capital to buy out Melbourne’s Etihad Stadium.

He will send networks a brief within weeks, with the aim of clinching a new deal during the early rounds of next season, around March or April.

Working in his favour is strong interest from all the free-to-air networks, improving the prospect of competitive tension that he can exploit to the AFL’s advantage.

As the current rights holders, media mogul Kerry Stokes’s Seven Network and Fox Sports will again be frontrunners, determined to secure matches. They will face competition from NRL rights holder the Nine Network, if only to bid up the price Seven could pay to renew its contract.

But Nine’s interest could be limited by its commitment to the NRL. If Nine overplays its hand with the AFL, the high-stakes tactic could hand the Ten Network an advantage when these rights come up for renewal next year.

Ten has a genuine interest in securing some games, and will explore a partnership with one of the other networks to defer the cost.

“We’ve very interested but obviously at the right price,” Ten chief executive Hamish McLennan recently said. “We won’t be blowing our brains out.”

The cash-strapped third-placed network attempted a simil*ar approach on the last deal but is more likely to succeed with a joint venture model due to the league’s demands for higher payments.

Seven Network’s debt-*burdened parent company Seven West Media has been on a rights buying spree this year, agreeing to deals for the Olympics, Commonwealth Games, US Masters and American football.

This means the No 1-placed network’s increasing television costs could predispose the company to a tie-up with one of the other networks.

The international market for sport is particularly bullish with new US TV deals for the NBA and Olympics exceeding expectations.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/med...-by-broadcasters/story-fna045gd-1227102897780

Sports rights deals fuel record local content spending by broadcasters

The Australian
October 27, 2014 12:00AM

COMMERCIAL television broadcasters spent a record $1.54 billion on Australian content in 2013-14, according to new figures released by industry lobby group Free TV Australia.

New figures released by the Australian Communications and Media Authority suggest the growth is coming primarily from increased sports licensing rights.

Free TV’s figures for the year to June 2014 show the $1.54bn spent on Australian content in 2013-14 was up 11.6 per cent from $1.38bn in 2012-13, although it does not break down the figures by genre.

The ACMA Broadcasting Fin*ancial Results (BFR) report breaks spending down by genre but the latest report is only for the 2012-13 financial year, when spending on Australian programs overall rose $10 million, or less than 1 per cent in 2012-13, to $1.403bn.

The BFR report shows spending on Australian sport rose by more than $90m to $434m in 2012-13.

That figure was boosted because it was the first year of the *lucrative $1.025bn NRL deal with the Nine Network and the second year of the AFL’s $1.25bn deal with the Seven Network.

The sport expenditure figure is likely to increase again in the BFR report for 2013-14 — and could be a major factor in the $160m increase in Free TV’s local expenditure figure for 2013-14 — as it was the first year of Cricket Australia’s new $590m broadcast deal with Nine and the Ten Network, which was more than double its previous agreement.

According to the BFR report, adult drama was the only other genre to see commercial TV expenditure rise, by 9 per cent to $129m. Spending on Australian news and current affairs fell by $19m to $359m.

The fall was confined to the five capital city markets where it dropped 6 per cent to $325.5m while news and current affairs spending by regional broadcasters rose by 2 per cent to $32.067m.

Nationally, spending on light entertainment variety dropped dramatically, by $74m, to $207m and expenditure on children’s programming remained static.

Australian content represented 79 per cent of commercial free-to-air networks’ total content spend in 2013-14, according to Free TV.

Commercial TV spending on overseas content fell in 2012-13 by $27m to $438m with overseas drama down $16.5m to $363m, *according to the BFR, which *aggregates expenditure, revenue and other benchmarks of commercial radio and TV broadcasting sectors. This, and the growth in local content in 2013-14, is further ammunition for local broad*casters in lobbying efforts to reduce federal government fees and regulations

Free TV chairman Harold Mitchell said commercial free-to-air broadcasters operated in an “environment where broadcasters are competing against new services that are unregulated, pay little or no Australian taxes, and invest virtually nothing in local content production”.
 
Messages
3,139
i posted the following posts in another thread but they really belong here ...

Live sport is the future of FTA TV.
That's why they are paying huge numbers for live sport around the world. Do some research on why they paid so much for the NBA rights ....

Unfortunately Channel 9 is out of the loop to this undeniable fact (and if I was a shareholder I would quickly get the hell out)

This a station that didn't want the Big Bash or the Auckland 9 and has done everything in its power to lose the NRL rights by doing ridiculously stupid things with their current rights.

This is a dinosaur of a television network.

Either Channel 9 have to adapt to the changing environment and put all NRL games live on TV, promote the hell out of the comp, use HD not abuse, and do everything in their power to get the next NRL rights or else they will be going the way of the Dodo.

But I have the feeling they will lose the rights. Channel 7 and 10 understand the changing face of FTA tv a bit better and ch9 will become obsolete.

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?p=10562098&posted=1#post10562098
 
Messages
3,139
Ratings across television have been declining for a variety of reasons: DVRs, internet streaming, more channels, cord cutting. But ratings for live sports have remained largely immune to this trend, staying flat or even rising in some cases. It has often been said that live sports are the last bits of appointment TV around, and television networks are paying megabucks for it.
http://deadspin.com/what-the-nbas-in...e-a-1642926274


There is a reason the top-rated television program nets only a fraction of the viewers that tuned in for the similarly ranked program from a few decades ago, and yet rates for televised sports are bringing in billions of dollars. People watch live sports, and they’ll sit through endless commercial breaks in order to keep in touch with these live sports. Even those of us who attempt to game the system while tuning in a half-hour late via Tivo in order to fast forward through commercials will still be taking in car insurance and chain restaurant ads by the time the second half hits, and both advertisers and television stations are more than aware of this. I’ve seen every episode of Conan O’Brien’s various talk shows since 1996, but I haven’t seen a single commercial on his show since 2004. By the end of the NBA Finals, though, I could more or less act out each of the NBA’s commercials by memory. Such is the live experience.
https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-b...191102835.html


Another key factor is that the NBA's deal was negotiated most recently, as sports rights only continue to get more valuable. While most other forms of television are commonly watched on demand or DVR'd, allowing viewers to fast forward through commercials, sports programming is one of the few sectors remaining in which watching live is crucial for most audiences. Consider this: More than 99 percent of ESPN's content is consumed live. As we are starting to move away from television and on to other ways to watch -- tablet, mobile -- this equation hasn't changed. The rest of the TV world outside of sports is proving harder and harder to monetize.

Just think about that. How many businesses feel as confident about their future as they do about the present? Very few, which demonstrates the strength of the sports sector, on any screen.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11...nique-position


The price of TV broadcast rights for sports in the age of time-shifted viewing has soared. After all, it’s high-demand content that viewers don’t DVR. And unlike other video entertainment, it’s not available from Netflix or other Internet services.
http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/spor...ms-1200577215/


Television economics are sports economics, and sports economics are television economics. Sports accounts for half of the programming costs of TV, and TV accounts for more than half the revenue of many professional sports leagues. Without television, professional sports could scarcely exist. Without sports, the TV cable bundle—and the golden age of television that it's ushered into existence—might unravel entirely.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...siness/381147/


The fact is that if it weren’t for live sports, the number of cable TV subscribers would be much lower than it is right now. Ten billion dollars per year is undoubtedly a lot of money, but the cable TV companies will ultimately pay that much and more — and not only because many of them are also owners of sports franchises. For the cable companies, even if they pass on all the costs, live sports are not a way to lose subscribers—they’re a way to retain subscribers.

Indeed, that’s why the cost of live sports programming is going up around the world: It’s the easiest and most effective way for TV channels to get the ratings they live for, and they will bid each other up to stratospheric levels to secure those rights. In an age of continuous distraction, live sports are the one thing that will glue a nation to a single channel for hours.

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine..._to_burst.html
 
Messages
3,139
Growing up I had to wait up to 10:30pm to watch Friday night football. This was in country NSW. Now I can't remember the last time I watched a delayed telecast of a rugby league. If it is delayed, I do NOT watch. Channel 9 still refuses to budge from delaying telecast and it is costing them big time. It has been known for a while that viewers take in commercials/advertisements much more readily and easily during live sporting telecasts than delayed. The fact Ch9 does not know this, or maybe even worse, accept this accepted fact should be concerning to their shareholders.
 

applesauce

Bench
Messages
3,573
Your last 3 posts highlight the sky is falling mentality some people have around here saying we will only get one more good TV deal.

Look at the NBA deal (which is 10YEARS!) in a country where HD and ULTRA HD are actually utilised, and sporting leagues have their own television networks, programming and superior online streaming services. Compare that to Australia where we can't get decent internet off the ground (see NBN), cannot make the switch from analogue to full digital TV in a 10year window (with a population of ~28million) or show anything besides Friends reruns and 1960's movies in HD.

Who has any confidence Australian sporting leagues (NRL & AFL) will be able to become self suficent, or ween themselves of the preverbal teat of the commercial networks? FTA TV in Australia will be offering up a few more big contracts in the future to maintain market share and because the NRL/AFL will have few other risk free, well-paying options.
 

oikee

Juniors
Messages
1,973
The next NRL deal will hit 2 billion.
Dave smith and the Commission know exactly what they are doing.
If we want even more cash injected into the code, growing the international game is the way to grow the pie.
They also need to get rid of the wrestle out of the game. Hands in the ruck is spoiling the contest.
Apart from that, all will be good.
 

typicalfan

Coach
Messages
15,488
Your last 3 posts highlight the sky is falling mentality some people have around here saying we will only get one more good TV deal.

Look at the NBA deal (which is 10YEARS!) in a country where HD and ULTRA HD are actually utilised, and sporting leagues have their own television networks, programming and superior online streaming services. Compare that to Australia where we can't get decent internet off the ground (see NBN), cannot make the switch from analogue to full digital TV in a 10year window (with a population of ~28million) or show anything besides Friends reruns and 1960's movies in HD.

Who has any confidence Australian sporting leagues (NRL & AFL) will be able to become self suficent, or ween themselves of the preverbal teat of the commercial networks? FTA TV in Australia will be offering up a few more big contracts in the future to maintain market share and because the NRL/AFL will have few other risk free, well-paying options.

Why do you think the nba wanted 10 years if tv isn't in decline. AFL have hinted at a long term deal as well.
 
Messages
3,139
Why do you think the nba wanted 10 years if tv isn't in decline. AFL have hinted at a long term deal as well.


Many NBA owners wanted 20 year deals ...

In fact, NBA commissioner Adam Silver acknowledged that some owners wanted to do 20-year deals, but in the end, the shorter deals made sense, he said, because of emerging technologies and tech companies (often taken, in business circles, to mean Google and Apple) who might be ready to bid next time.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11653435/new-tv-deal-shows-league-unique-position

The fact is TV has to adapt, evolve, change with the times to survive in the increasingly competitive field to grab out attention. Pay TV more readily does that. FTA TV less so. And CH9 is at the end of the sprectrum. They staunchly refuse to change, maybe even acknowledge their world is rapidly evolving.

This is end times for Ch9.

The fact they readily gave the Big Bash to Ch10 believing there was not much of a market shows how out touch with reality they are. What about the Auckland 9's? Why did they not jump at the chance to telecast that tournament? It goes all the way back to the 2005 Ashes when they made a massively boneheaded move to give SBS the rights.

They literally have no idea how important live sport is to their survival. It would be frightening if I was a shareholder of them. There is a very good reason Ch10 and Lachlan Murdoch are pushing hard for sporting rights.

Is it a co-incidence that Ch10 had massive ratings success with the Big Bash?

Don't forget Channel 9 did not WANT the Big Bash.

If Channel 9 lose the NRL rights, they will inevitably lose other sports like the cricket, and the end will be nigh for this archaic company and I couldn't be happier if this happened.

They have treated NRL fans with utter contempt.
 
Last edited:

applesauce

Bench
Messages
3,573
Why do you think the nba wanted 10 years if tv isn't in decline. AFL have hinted at a long term deal as well.

Why would the NBA/AFL or anyone want to lock into 10years if they thought they could deliver the product directly and more profitably in a shorter period? Additionally, if networks are on the decline and in 10years they are bleeding even more viewers despite sports programming, why would you handcuff yourself to a sinking ship as so many are suggesting?
 

typicalfan

Coach
Messages
15,488
But they are signing a contract for 10 years. If they only signed a 5 year deal for example, and tv is in decline then the NBA may not be able to get that sort of deal again.
 

Nice Beaver

First Grade
Messages
5,920
Talk that Foxtel is looking to acquire Channel 10.

This would be fantastic for the next TV rights deal. If part of the issue with the last stuffed bid by Channel 10 was their lack of communication with Foxtel, then that is eliminated straight away.

If this comes off, league is going to be taken from 9. Happy days.
 

applesauce

Bench
Messages
3,573
Ten continues talks with potential suitors this week
November 16, 2014

Ten Network Holdings and its adviser Citi will continue meetings with potential bidders for the struggling third-placed network this week after meeting frontrunners Discovery Communications and Foxtel last week.

News Corporation executive chairman Rupert Murdoch confirmed last week that Foxtel, which News owns with Telstra, is looking to buy a stake in Ten, but said any deal would not include buying his son Lachlan's stake.


His comment appeared to be a technicality as Discovery would buy Ten, including Lachlan Murdoch's stake, if a successful bid goes ahead, and would sell a stake to Foxtel, it is understood. Foxtel and Lachlan Murdoch cannot own more than 15 per cent of Ten combined, under ownership restrictions.

News is believed to see considerable synergies between Foxtel and Ten in production, marketing and sales, and head office, giving it a potential advantage over other interested parties.

Ten on November 6 confirmed it had appointed advisers from Citi to examine "strategic options" for the network, following Fairfax Media's report about the Discovery/Foxtel approach.

A number of potential bidders have since emerged, including US media giant Time Warner and US private equity giant Hellman & Friedman.

Ten chief executive Hamish McLennan refused to discuss any of the talks.

He said Ten had received an "overwhelmingly strong reaction" from media buyers to its schedule for next year, saying it was seeking a 23 per cent revenue share to match its prime-time audience share. Its revenue share is closer to 21 per cent for the year to date.

Anti-siphoning could be 'cracked open' by Foxtel-Ten tie-up, says ABC
November 17, 2014

ABC managing director Mark Scott said Foxtel will "really crack open the anti-siphoning" regime, which currently ensures free-to-air broadcasters have a stranglehold on broadcasting rights for major sporting events, if its joint approach for Ten Network Holdings with Discovery Communications is successful.

Mr Scott also defended the ABC's decision to bid $1.5 million against its sister corporation the SBS for the Asian Cup, after SBS managing director Michael Ebeid said he was "flabbergasted" at the move and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull criticised it as a waste of taxpayers' money.

Anti-siphoning laws regulated media companies' access to significant sport events and free-to-air broadcasters usually have first refusal to key events.

"I think what will be very interesting in a public policy setting would be a Foxtel, Channel 10 tie-up because I think that's the thing that could really crack open the anti-siphoning challenge," Mr Scott told the Screen Forever conference in Melbourne.

"Anti-siphoning has clearly been on the public policy agenda for decades now. But the prospect that Ten and Foxtel are bidding for a program, I think could be quite an interesting thing."

"I think that's something that Seven and Nine would look at very, very closely."

Seven West Media chairman Kerry Stokes said last week called for reform of Australia's media laws but said the government should maintain anti-siphoning. "With the exception of anti-siphoning, I'd like to see no regulation."

Mr Scott said he wouldn't attempt to block Foxtel acquiring a stake in Ten.

"I think in a way, particularly around those sporting franchises, that is kind of immaterial to us," he said.

"I sometimes comment that when I was a kid, the Olympic Games, the Commonwealth Games, the Australian rules, the rugby league, the rugby union and the cricket were all broadcast on ABC television.

"You get sentimental about those great days when we broadcast the cricket in black and white and we could only afford cameras at one end of the ground. They were the glory days in some respects. People sometimes say to me 'where's the ABC walked away?' Well that's an area where the ABC really walked away."

Ten met with Foxtel executives last week and is meeting other potential bidders this week. Fairfax Media revealed earlier this month that US cable television giant Discovery Communications was considering a joint bid for the struggling free-to-air broadcaster with Foxtel.

Any bid would involve local pay TV monopoly taking a 14.9 per cent stake in Ten to avoid falling foul of laws restricting concentration of ownership.

SBS managing director Michael Ebeid told Screen Forever said such an arrangement would attract scrutiny from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

"It certainly would create a big player in the market, and I think the ACCC [chairman] Rod Sims has come out saying it's going to something that he'll look at very, very carefully," Mr Ebeid said.

"I'd remind you it wasn't that long ago when Seven tried to take a bit of Foxtel and the ACCC blocked that. I think it would be interesting, and I'm looking forward to see what happens."

In October 2012, the competition regulator knocked back Seven Group Holdings proposed bid for Consolidated Media, which at the time owned 25 per cent of Foxtel.

The ACCC said it was concerned that the proposed acquisition would "put Seven Network in a position of advantage over other free to air networks in relation to joint bids and other commercial arrangements with Fox Sports for the acquisition of sports rights"

Meanwhile, Mr Scott defended the broadcaster's move acquire the rights to the Asian Cup saying Football Federation Australia had made up a deficit to Fox Sports to release the free-to-air rights for the soccer tournament.

He also said the ABC would be colluding with the SBS if it had co-operated on bids. "There seems to be this suggestion that Michael Ebeid and I should pick up the phone and work out who is going to bid for what," Mr Scott said.

He added; "The only way you can get around that is if you merge organisations and no government has a plan to do that."

Content key in 'interesting' Ten-Foxtel partnership, says Richard Freudenstein
November 18, 2014

Free-to-air and pay TV could do "interesting things", says Foxtel chief executive Richard Freudenstein as the local pay TV monopoly weighs up a joint bid for the Ten Network with Discovery Communications.

But Mr Freudenstein said anti-siphoning laws, which give free-to-air broadcasters a stranglehold over big sport events, were unlikely to change if the Foxtel/Discovery bid is successful.

Mr Freudenstein has spoken for the first time about why the local pay TV monopoly is considering a joint bid for Network Ten with Discovery Communications.

His comments came after Foxtel and Discovery - the $US22 billion ($25.12 billion) entertainment company behind the Discovery Channel – met with Ten and its advisor Citi last week.

"If you look at the industry here, free-to-air is still a good business," Mr Freudenstein said at the Screen Forever conference in Melbourne.

"Free-to-air and subscription could do things in partnership that could be quite interesting."

Mr Freudenstein said the world's big cable TV companies were needing to find new opportunities to make money from their content, which is expensive to produce, and free-to-air was part of that strategy.

"A lot of the big media companies have a range of subscription and free assets.

"As competition gets fiercer around the world, things get tougher, people look at ways to grow their business and there seeing those opportunities.

"It's about leveraging their content. They spend a lot of money making content, so what's the best way to monetise that probably across three… subscription, digital or whatever it is."

Ten's share price has nosedived more than 80 per cent to about 27 cents a share since March 2010 amid sliding ratings and a tough advertising market, making it vulnerable to a takeover.

It is understood that a Foxtel/Discovery bid would involve Foxtel, which is jointly owned by News Corp and Telstra, acquiring a 14.9 per cent stake in Ten in order to meet laws that aim to restrict concentration of ownership.

News Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch confirmed last Friday that Foxtel was eyeing a "small piece" of Ten.

Mr Freudenstein rejected comments that anti-siphoning laws, which give free-to-air broadcasters a stranglehold on major sporting events, would be made redundant if joint bid with Discovery Communications is successful.

"I wouldn't over-rate that," he said. "In terms of sport, we have to deal with free-to-air because of these ridiculous anti-siphoning laws.

"We're happy to deal with any free-to-air network. Obviously rugby league is done with Nine, AFL is done with Seven, V8 Supercars with Ten. It's always the way it is."

Discovery isn't the only US cable giant that is interested in Ten.

Time Warner, which has a value of $US65 billion ($73 billion), wrote in a letter to Ten's advisor Citi last month, saying that it was willing to explore a bid of 25 cents a share.


"Building an international footprint of our networks business is a strategic priority for Turner and we are excited about the opportunity to acquire a strong media set in an attractive geographic market," Time Warner senior vice-president James Burtson wrote.

"We believe that Ten can once again regain its position as one of the leading channels in the Australian market."

There has also been speculation that US media giant Viacom – which paid £450 million ($826.47) for British broadcaster Channel 5 in April and owns Paramount pictures – is eyeing Ten.
 

Desert Qlder

First Grade
Messages
9,465
Expect Ten to become a hardcore right ring propaganda outlet with ringmasters such as Andrew Bolt featuring prominently.

Analysts see this as the only strategy for the network to make money, alongside live sport like Rugby League.

Having such overt political influence in a broadcast partner is not a wise move for a game that looks to appeal to all sectors of the community.
 

Nice Beaver

First Grade
Messages
5,920
Expect Ten to become a hardcore right ring propaganda outlet with ringmasters such as Andrew Bolt featuring prominently.

Analysts see this as the only strategy for the network to make money, alongside live sport like Rugby League.

Having such overt political influence in a broadcast partner is not a wise move for a game that looks to appeal to all sectors of the community.

Looking at any news/political show they have (when not running repeats of the Simpsons and Everybody Loves Raymond) they are already right wing so don't see much changing.

In fact, they are already a proxy-News Corp station with their content anyway.

Only difference will be the letterhead and a couple of new shows.

You do make a good point though.

As much as I would LOVE to have the game taken from 9, the prospect of it going to a TV station that would be owned by the Dark Overlord himself is not appealing at all. That prick has his chop at destroying league. Not sure I want him to have another.....
 

Desert Qlder

First Grade
Messages
9,465
There is a big difference between having Bolt et al at a niche programming time like sunday mornings to having them on Monday to Friday prime time like I expect to happen.

We are talking an attempt at Fox News Australian Division.

It will be very distateful.

The NRL needs to have a multi faceted approach to broadcasting. There should be at a minimum two FTA partners, one pay TV partner and a subscription IPTV option they should control themselvers and have advertising rights with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top