Next TV rights deal

[Nerd]

The ABC should have stated that the interview was a paid advertisement by News Corp.

 

[insert.pause]

Nine ready to deal with News Corp on NRL rights

News Corp has reopened talks with the National Rugby League by making a pitch for a package of matches that includes Nine’s newly acquired Saturday game as Dave Smith’s departure breaks the bargaining impasse.

The opening salvo is contingent upon the NRL returning to the table and renegotiating its $925 million contract with Nine by reversing its decision to strip the top-rating Super Saturday franchise evening match from Fox Sports, News Corp’s sports programming subsidiary.

And for the first time, Nine has sent signals that it is willing to surrender the match after winning the rights under its new deal. Such an action was unthinkable when Nine clinched the agreement, with chief David Gyngell declaring himself to be delighted with the terms.

A source close to the talks, who declined to be named, said: “The issue has always been that the NRL has banked the Nine money but who else is around to pick up the difference?

“News Corp has said it won’t unless the arrangement changes. It will always be about price. If David Gyngell wants to release that game he can reduce his $185m (in annual payments). It’s a negotiation and the ball is in the NRL’s court.”

It is the latest intriguing twist in a sports broadcasting market more in keeping with the drama seen on the back pages of the tabloid newspapers when NRL Mad Monday goes wrong.

The NRL was hoping to sell the 2018-22 rights for $1.7 billion, suggesting it was seeking more than $700m for the subscription-TV rights owned by Fox Sports in the current deal.

But News Corp insiders said the company was refusing to meet the $530m price it paid under the existing contract, let alone agree to the NRL’s $700m asking price, unless the Saturday match is put back on the table.

Any move to go back to the drawing board is dependent upon the NRL buying back the wholesale rights after controversially giving them up in what would represent an embarrassing U-turn for the code’s administrators.

While sources close to Nine are letting it be known that Mr Gyngell is prepared to listen as part of a move to reduce the *annual $185m payment for the broadcast rights set to kick in by 2018, the NRL has not yet acted as it becomes engulfed by infighting amid a power vacuum at the top of the sport.

When asked by The Australian whether the NRL would consider revisiting the Nine deal, NRL commission chairman John Grant refused to rule out the possibility.

“We will see what the negotiations bring. We’re in commercially confident negotiations at the moment,” he said.

Mr Smith’s mishandling of the broadcasting rights negotiations has effectively cost him his job. The Welsh-born former investment banker gambled he could clinch a record deal covering free-to-air and subscription TV.

But he leaves the code under a cloud, having alienated key individuals and longstanding broadcast and commercial partners.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...rp-on-nrl-rights/story-e6frg996-1227577678442

 

[Perth Red]

Going to be a bit embarrassing if our much touted record fta deal gets rolled back to appease fox.

 

[Last Week]

News Corp has reopened talks with the National Rugby League by making a pitch for a package of matches that includes Nine’s newly acquired Saturday game as Dave Smith’s departure breaks the bargaining impasse.

As has been reported numerous times by people not News Corp (Fairfax and even Phil Gould), Smith was in constant contact with News Corp about the negotiations. What was it that Gus said, something like 30 emails?

And for the first time, Nine has sent signals that it is willing to surrender the match after winning the rights under its new deal. Such an action was unthinkable when Nine clinched the agreement, with chief David Gyngell declaring himself to be delighted with the terms.

But all of a sudden, Gyng has had a change of heart and feels sorry for poor News Corp? Bullshit. Nine have always been open to the option of simulcasting and onselling matches to other broadcasters. That's why it's in the deal that they signed with the NRL.

A source close to the talks, who declined to be named, said: “The issue has always been that the NRL has banked the Nine money but who else is around to pick up the difference?

“News Corp has said it won’t unless the arrangement changes. It will always be about price. If David Gyngell wants to release that game he can reduce his $185m (in annual payments). It’s a negotiation and the ball is in the NRL’s court.”

Lol, gotta love the mysterious unnamed sources. Those quotation marks make the article seem a whole lot more legitimate. Want to bet Fox won't pick up the difference? Watch them.

The NRL was hoping to sell the 2018-22 rights for $1.7 billion, suggesting it was seeking more than $700m for the subscription-TV rights owned by Fox Sports in the current deal.

*Sigh* As Dave Smith pointed out, that's YOUR target. i.e. You don't know shit.

But News Corp insiders said the company was refusing to meet the $530m price it paid under the existing contract, let alone agree to the NRL’s $700m asking price, unless the Saturday match is put back on the table.

Here's how we know that the article is complete bullshit. The author is completely ignoring the value of simulcasting. Also the fact that the Saturday match has always been on the table. Thus on selling was put into the deal.

the NRL has not yet acted as it becomes engulfed by infighting amid a power vacuum at the top of the sport.

We've always got issues at the top, but that's to do with a couple of club bosses. Nothing to do with the TV rights negotiations or NRL admin.

Mr Smith’s mishandling of the broadcasting rights negotiations has effectively cost him his job. The Welsh-born former investment banker gambled he could clinch a record deal covering free-to-air and subscription TV.

But he leaves the code under a cloud, having alienated key individuals and longstanding broadcast and commercial partners.

Bullshit. Nothing about it has been mishandled. Grant himself said they know what they are doing. And it is a record breaking deal, for only half the matches.

When asked by The Australian whether the NRL would consider revisiting the Nine deal, NRL commission chairman John Grant refused to rule out the possibility.

“We will see what the negotiations bring. We’re in commercially confident negotiations at the moment,” he said.

Duh. Meaning no one knows shit other than the people in the negotiating room. Ah News Corp. Using bullshit as ink since its creation.

 

[Johnny88]

Everyone's favourite rent a quote guy.

NRL TV rights deal cost up to $600m, dismissed as ‘stupid’ by media analysts

REBECCA WILSON The Daily Telegraph

ARL chairman John Grant and CEO Dave Smith have explored a desperate last-ditch option of live streaming the remaining four NRL matches from their own digital platforms.

Rather than negotiate a deal with Fox Sports and News Corp — the owner of The Daily Telegraph — for the pay television rights, Grant, Smith and commission member Graham Samuel sought advice on live streaming in a meeting with Nine boss David Gyngell on Monday.
Television sports expert Colin Smith described the NRL’s refusal to negotiate with pay television at the same time as clinching the free-to-air deal as “completely stupid” and warned that the move will now potentially resulted in a $600 million shortfall in broadcast rights revenue.

“The NRL will derive great value from the remaining rights in the market,” Gyngell said.
The NRL trio have since been told that the option has no momentum or cut through for league watchers.
“They have been told that only free to air and pay television carry the hundreds of thousands of watchers they need to have a viable product for advertisers and viewers,” a media rights analyst said. “It is simply not an option.”

The failure of Smith, Grant and Samuel to engage Fox Sports has been firmly blamed on Smith but Channel Nine insiders say Samuel has played a crucial role in the arrogant approach taken by the NRL.
“Samuel has been pivotal in the stuff ups,” the Nine source said. “He loves the power but he has played the wrong card. The clubs have been mishandled by Grant and Smith.”
Smith believes the shortfall, even with a Fox Sports component, will put the NRL well behind the $2.2 billion secured by the AFL.
A meeting next week of a powerful subcommittee formed by the clubs is expected to raise serious concerns about the lack of leadership out of the NRL over the television rights and the shortfall to club funding and player payments should the deal not hit predicted forecasts.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...y-media-analysts/story-fnp0lyn4-1227577597817

 

[Johnny88]

A deal will be done and i'm sure the NRL will get a great deal if they give back the Saturday night game. Maybe even get Fox to pay more by offering simulcasting as of next season.

 

[Big Salad]

I would rather a lower broadcast deal and keep 4 games on FTA. Much like the Big Bash League, those extra games on FTA will get a greater audience than they did on pay tv and will mean 8 out of 16 clubs will be on live FTA every week compared with the current 4 (one of which is usually the Broncos).

 

[Chicken_Hunter]

We are going to get a terrible deal now. Now that smith is gone we are going to go back to the days of bending over for news.

 

[applesauce]

Let news bend in the wind. This is the same sort of behaviour as when Smith first got in League Central and gave Rothfield the cold shoulder and plugged all the leaks.

I am surprised they have reacted to this extent though. Also saw today the Broncos CEO shooting down expansion. :roll:

 

[Desert Qlder]

Opinion piece but good reading regardless:

Murdoch interests acting as cartel in broadcast rights negotiations (Op-ed) Big News Network.com

SYDNEY, Australia - The Australian competition authority should investigate the handling of the country's broadcast rights deals, worth an estimated $5 billion.

In the past two months deals have been concluded worth $3.3 billion.

One of the players, the NRL, has come in for scathing criticism over the deal it negotiated with the Nine Network. The deal, for free-to-air rights only, was worth $925 million.

The deal was hailed as a landmark, even by News Corp journalists, who a week later on the arrival of Rupert Murdoch in Australia, began a vicious campaign to smear the NRL, ridicule the Nine deal, and call for Dave Smith, the NRL CEO's head.

In concert with this, Rupert Murdoch personally, together with his CEO Robert Thomson flew to Melbourne and negotiated a $2.508 billion broadcast rights deal with the AFL.

Murdoch then told Australians "we have always preferred AFL."

"We believe in the strength of the game and we'll do everything we can to make it stronger."

News Corp's criticisms of the NRL deal was that it was done "in secret", without the knowledge of News Corp, and the NRL had concealed the negotiations, and had done so to embarrass News Corp. It was extremely critical of the NRL for not involving other players, or not at least seeking tenders.

The NRL denies all this and says it was always in negotiation with the various players. It decided it was in its best commercial interest, it says, to conclude a free-to-air deal first.

When the AFL deal was done, News Corp compared the two deals, saying one was worth $925 million, and the other, $2.508 billion. A misleading notion, as the NRL deal was for free-to-air rights only.

News Corp it appears was incensed that it was not able to negotiate on its terms, something it has been doing for more than a decade since it first intervened in rugby league 20 years ago with the Super League War.

When News Corp ambushed the AFL, without giving it the chance to call tenders or negotiate with any other party, it brought the full weight of its interests together, Foxtel, Fox Sports, and News Corp and brought in Telstra to negotiate as a virtual cartel, using all its leverage to negotiate the best deal.

The AFL agreement was put together in a matter of days and signed off by all the parties before any competitors had a look-in. Where was News Corps' criticism of the AFL, for not calling tenders?

The Australian regulator should look at whether the cartel laws in Australia have been breached. Whether News Corp created an environment by which the AFL, seeing how the NRL was treated, could do nothing but conclude a deal with the News Corp interests on their terms.

The AFL had a new CEO, just as the NRL will now have. The AFL CEO was however able to call on one of the AFL commissioners to assist in the negotiations. That commissioner was Kim Williams, who had joined the AFL six months after stepping down as Rupert Murdoch's number one man in Australia. Prior to joining News Corp as its CEO, Williams spent a decade as CEO of Foxtel, jointly owned by the Murdoch interests, and a key participant in the broadcast rights deal. With Murdoch personally involved in the negotiations, it is not inconceivable Williams would have had mixed loyalties at the least, in sitting at the negotiating table or advising others who were.

The general consensus however is the AFL did exceedingly well, far better than the NRL.

But did it?

It is hard to say. None of the fine print of either deal has been disclosed, not even to the respective stock exchanges that the participants operate under. We don't even know what component of either deal is in cash or contra. For example, The Age in reporting the AFL agreement, described it as a $2.058 billion deal, "of which $2.3 billion is in cash." Regardless, until the pay TV component of the NRL deal is done, the jury will remain out.

The AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan couldn't have said it better.

"The simple reality is you will know which deal will be bigger at the end of it. Dave Smith is a good operator and a smart guy. I don't think his strategy was wrong. I just feel we've done a good deal for our industry," McLachlan told the Canberra Press Gallery after the AFL deal was announced.

On what we do know though, the NRL deal which has been described by News Corp invariably as "disastrous," in fact on the surface at least looks brilliant by comparison with the AFL deal.

For a start, according to the Financial Review (August 19 2015) News Corp will be putting up $1.3 billion, Seven $900 million and Telstra $300 million.

So if Seven is putting up $900 million for the free-to-air rights, how is the NRL's $925 million inferior?
In fact it is far superior.

The deal with the AFL is for six years, for the NRL it is 5, which makes the NRL deal worth $1.11 billion by comparison.

Further, the AFL has 18 teams, versus the NRL's 16. The AFL has nine games a round, the NRL 8.
AFL teams have 18 players, NRL 13, so the cost base is significantly lower.

The AFL product is superior in ROI due to its greater scope for advertising insertions, and therefore should be valued significantly higher than NRL if for no other reason. The AFL allows a 45-second commercial after every goal is scored. The NRL allows a break after every try is scored. There are far more goals scored in the AFL, than tries in the NRL.

No the NRL deal was not a disaster, it was a masterstroke, when comparing it to the AFL. In fact on the surface at least it appears the AFL may have been dudded.

If in fact the AFL has lost out on tens or hundreds millions of dollars, and now the NRL is set to do likewise with the removal of its chief negotiator, it calls into question the manner in which Australia's two most valuable sports franchises can be heavied by the largest and most dominant media player in the country, in concert with other major conglomerates with which it is heavily invested in or is associated with.

Regardless, the Australian competition regulator needs to take a good hard look at how the negotiations over recent weeks panned out, and the conduct of the various players involved.

http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/...ng-as-cartel-in-broadcast-rights-negotiations

 

[Desert Qlder]

How Murdoch adopted cyber bullying to get rid of NRL chief negotiator (Op-ed) Big News Network.comTuesday 20th October, 2015

SYDNEY, Australia - If Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is correct in its pronouncements that NRL chief Dave Smith has been forced out of his job over the 'failed' TV rights deal, then it is possibly the worst case of cyber bullying Australia has seen.

Hailed as a masterstroke, when Smith unveiled the $925 million free-to-air TV rights deal in August, Smith within days came under an extraordinary attack by News Corp newspapers, its associated websites and social media networks, an attack which coincided with the arrival in Australia of Murdoch, his CEO Robert Thomson and other board members.

Within days Murdoch and Thomson hastily put together a broadcast rights deal with the AFL worth an estimated $2.508 billion. There was no doubt the publicity around that deal was aimed to embarrass the NRL and diminish Smith's standing. News Corp at that point began an unrelenting campaign for Smith to be removed as the NRL CEO. Every conceivable problem the NRL incurred from that point was highlighted and Smith was blamed.

And on Tuesday Smith, according to several News Corp articles "fell on his sword."

Smith said the decision to go was his, in other words he wasn't pushed. There is little likelihood however that given a fair go Smith would have stayed at the helm. But with the overpowering might of the most dominant media group in Australia baying for your blood, there is only so much a person can take.

The Murdoch family directly and through News Corp own two thirds of daily newspapers sold in Australia. It has part shares in Australian Associated Press, Sky News Australia, Foxtel, Fox Sports, Fox Sports News, countless suburban newspapers in most states, the most successful FM radio network in the country, 14.9% of the Ten Network etc., etc.,

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull wants to relax media laws which will allow the Murdoch family to buy up more, explaining the Internet has changed the landscape and traditional players such as Murdoch and Fairfax now face more competition, from websites like Crikey and The Guardian.

Crikey has 15,000 subscribers, The Guardian has none, as it is a free product. Mr Turnbull overlooks the most dominant online media sites in the country are owned by News Corp: www.news.com.au, www.theaustralian, www.dailytelegraph.com.au, www.perthnow.com.au, www.couriermail.com.au. All of these sites, backed by the group's newspapers and Fox Sports, and an extensive network of social media sites affiliated with these outlets have been used to orchestrate a cyber bullying campaign to remove the NRL CEO, its chief negotiator of broadcast rights.

Regulators in Australia are about to, probably this week, allow Foxtel, 50% owned by Murdoch interests, to take a 14.9% interest in the Ten Network, notwithstanding Lachlan Murdoch's 8%-plus holding and his association with other major shareholders including close mate James Packer.

The regulator is likely to rule competition will not be affected, even after taking into consideration the power of the Murdoch family when it comes to negotiating broadcast rights, never more publicly put on show than this week.

It has just removed, it claims, the chief negotiator of the broadcast rights of the NRL, weakening the NRL's bargaining position.

How this can be deemed in Australia's interest is beyond comprehension.

The Federal government has made no secret of the fact that it wants to change media laws in line with what the majority of the current players want. Other industries are not afforded this luxury, to determine their own legislation.

It is about time the government forewent pandering to powerful media interests, and started enacting media legislation that is in the interests of all Australians.

http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/...r-bullying-to-get-rid-of-nrl-chief-negotiator

 

[insert.pause]

The ACCC have approved Foxtel's stake in Ten.

 

[docbrown]

To me, they wanted him out of the way so they can deal.

They probably knew that if Smith left the attack would just shift to Grant and to a lesser extent Samuels as he is less visible so really it wasn't adding a whole heap of value. Keep in mind multiple sources have said Smith was still meeting with Fox Sports execs even while the News Corp rags said they weren't on speaking terms, so really it's kind of moot.

but they can use to lower the actual cash figure in exchange for positive coverage and count it as contra.

I agree but it's all about asking price. News has always attacked RL in the press for financial gain and the NRL just continues on. So if it's a ridiculous price the NRL will likely just not worry about it. The other thing is it's hard to measure positive press and completely stop negative stories. They'll still report on shit like "Sack the CEO" and call it justified as news-worthy and call shit like score updates positive press.

Steve Allen from Fusion Strategy reckons the NRL won't even get $600m for both pay & digital rights and their best case scenario is a continuation of the current deal.

To keep the status quo though 9 would be paying less too (to give back a game) so he's kind of saying the Australian rights would end up around $1.4 to $1.5 billion.

I'd like to dispel two notions - and I wish SMH would pick up on this.

The ability for 9 to on-sell was there when the deal was signed and it was reported in multiple sources that Gyngell was already in talks with 10 about it. The idea that he's only know considering because Smith was sacked and the NRL is desperate is nonsense. The whole News Corp saying it's an embarrassing reversal is just spin.

Secondly - the 4 games sold to 9 are not the 4 best matches of the week. They are simply the 4 best slots. That's a key difference.

9 will be allowed to offer an opinion but ultimately scheduling is now in the NRL's control.

If the NRL wanted to they can schedule the majority of the best match ups - grand final replays, derbies etc - in the 4 (maybe 5) non Channel 9 slots. I'm not saying they will of course but to claim that the 4 remaining games (5 if expansion happens) are worth less than 65% of the current deal is idiotic.

Steven Allen's talking about approx $115 million/year on top of the current 9 deal.

I'll repeat what I've said all along. I have no doubt that 9 & Fairfax have already crunched the numbers to see what kind of additional income & subscriber base can be stolen from Foxtel. F2A viewer rates would increase. Stan subscriptions too. Imagine not only the private home churn but the business churn.

Say if 5-6 games were on 9 (likely in market targeting across 2 channels rather than 6 slots) and all 8 or 9 games were on Stan.

The ads on Stan matches can either be 9's ads (which would then attract an additional ad rate premium for the spot buyers) or can be a whole new set of ads or even a premium ad free service.

9 & Fairfax aren't running Stan as a charity, they're looking to build their subscriber base. That's why 9 bought the rights to the first 4 games. 9 are looking to keep their options open both ways. Fairfax are looking to diversify as the print industry continues to decline.

While News Corp reports streaming as a last ditch option with the first meeting held the other day I suspect it has been discussed for quite some time. 9 & Fairfax would be looking for telco partner and Optus with Fetch TV is a solid fit.

I really can't see Fox & Telstra wanting something like to ferment so I'm not surprised they're saying come back to the table.

Take the price 9/Fairfax and a telco partner are willing to pay. Add a risk avoidance premium on top and that's the real asking price. Remember it's not just the games Foxtel risk losing, it's everything else they've built around it.

 

[docbrown]

The ACCC have approved Foxtel's stake in Ten.

Everyone other than ACCC, News & Ten employees think it's a big mistake.

It could go either way for the NRL in terms of outcomes though.

 

[Cumberland Throw]

The ACCC have approved Foxtel's stake in Ten.

And the week goes from bad to worse.

Takes another player out of the mix

And now ten/ fox will basically get a 10 hour afl super Saturday.

 

[bobmar28]

Steve Allen from Fusion Strategy reckons the NRL won't even get $600m for both pay & digital rights and their best case scenario is a continuation of the current deal.

So according to this idiot the NRL's rights aren't worth any more than they were four years ago because Murdoch's feelings were hurt.

Ok, let's see what happens when Fox lose the rights for a season, since so called media analysts seem to think Fox buying sports rights is somehow charity.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2015/s4335825.htm

From the ABC? Say no more.

 

[insert.pause]

Everyone other than ACCC, News & Ten employees think it's a big mistake.

It could go either way for the NRL in terms of outcomes though.

The ACCC have a high regard for the integrity of Lachlan Murdoch, I don't have the same faith in the co-executive chairman of News Corp to not collude with the News Corp 50% owned Foxtel & 100% owned Fox Sports in the bidding for sports rights. Maybe that's just me...

It's the sort of decision that will be looked back on in similar fashion to Ruperts existing monopolies and wonder how the hell they allowed that to happen.

It probably won't have too much impact on the current NRL deal, but it will for every future deal.

But by all means, don't scrap the hilariously outdated reach rule...:roll:

 

[Cumberland Throw]

Wow Rupert is having a great week

Got 25% of ten and speared d smith.

How does nrl create competition for final 4 games now ?

Fox are up against.

Ten - ah no not now
Seven - afl balls deep
Nine - don't want 8 games
Others - no money or no desire.

Time to touch toes again RL fans

 

[insert.pause]

Wow Rupert is having a great week

Got 25% of ten and speared d smith.

How does nrl create competition for final 4 games now ?

Fox are up against.

Ten - ah no not now
Seven - afl balls deep
Nine - don't want 8 games
Others - no money or no desire.

Time to touch toes again RL fans

fox were never up against FTA networks for the remaining games, ch9 don't want them & under the terms of the deal with Nine I doubt that the NRL would be able to sell the rest to another FTA network, not that another FTA network could afford it anyway.

 

[docbrown]

But by all means, don't scrap the hilariously outdated reach rule...:roll:

Apparently the internet will fix it somehow. :roll:

fox were never up against FTA networks for the remaining games, ch9 don't want them & under the terms of the deal with Nine I doubt that the NRL would be able to sell the rest to another FTA network, not that another FTA network could afford it anyway.

It has been confirmed that the 9 deal has no exclusivity on F2A or Streaming. Not that I think it will happen but every game technically can be aired on F2A (not that 9 would be happy with that). They'd be willing to partner for 1 or 2 which leaves the 10 on-sell open.

Failing that to avoid the other 4 or 5 going to Channel 7 or 10, yes they'd likely scoop them up.

There's still too many permutations left open for anyone to convincingly say "it will X amount of cash for Y amount of coverage".

The most likely option is Fox Sports retains but with simulcasting and maybe an on-sold F2A match but they're not guaranteed a walk over either.