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!

The T.V Rights Thread Part III

How much will the Total Broadcast Rights Deal be?


  • Total voters
    213
Status
Not open for further replies.

beave

Coach
Messages
15,669
you see that on sky news as well mate?

My heart sank a bit when Turvey 'revealed' it but I guess it's only the start of the 'dance' so to speak, I guess at least the initial bid can be beaten now realistically by 7/10 ???????????

For f**ks sake, I am going to be hanging from the rafters if 9 get the game AGAIN for a steal!!!!

Doc, calm me down......... please!!!!!
 
Last edited:

carlosthedwarf

First Grade
Messages
8,189
League's $1 billion dream is set to fall short of reality, with Channel 9 and Fox Sports lodging bids well short of what many in the game hoped for.

Do people really think they're going to come out with their best bids from day one? Some of the reporting around this has been terrible.
 

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,842
All I can say is...

AND?

:cool:

I can't really take an article seriously that buys into the NRL channel bullshit.

What company owns this paper again?
 

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,842
Here's the DT version -

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...y-to-be-realised/story-e6frexnr-1226349290817

BLAME it on the AFL. Channel 9 and Fox Sports lodged independent bids for the game's new television rights to begin next year but it was considerably less than $1 billion it sought and several hundred million dollars short of what many within the league fraternity believed the game was worth.
Players, officials and fans anticipated a figure as high as $1.2 billion when the game's television rights went on sale yesterday.
Industry insiders say the true value is nowhere near that - and the offer from Nine, Fox Sports and Telstra reflected that.
The reason is less than sparkling figures in the AFL.
In a bitter irony, the first six months of the AFL's widely reported five-year, $1.25 billion deal with Channel 7 and Fox Sports has revealed the networks paid too much and are struggling to recoup their investments.

That NRL games are of shorter duration and have fewer natural ad breaks, and the AFL boasts a pre-season competition, has also counted against the NRL bid. By far the biggest concern, though, is that Seven, Fox Sports and Telstra have failed to meet the figures they gambled on, and paid for, television insiders saying it has brought clarity to the NRL's true value.
"They won't get what the AFL has got," a source said.
"More importantly is that it is very clear to anyone close to this that Seven, Foxtel and Telstra have overpaid on the AFL.
"That's now biting hard."
For example, Telstra paid $37 million for digital rights but so far has managed to attract just 30,000 extra subscriptions. The AFL also benefited through Foxtel's desire to drive subscriptions in its flailing states - Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia.
It is nothing but a fluke that they all happen to be AFL states.
To attract more subscriptions in those states Fox Sports created a fully dedicated AFL channel which has brought sparkling ratings through existing customers - but not enough new subscriptions to justify the cost.
Given the two major rugby league states, NSW and Queensland, already have a much higher percentage of pay-TV subscriptions, there is less upside for the pay-TV subscriber to compete for the NRL rights.
Logically, the NRL will surely argue that it will need to retain the game to maintain those subscriptions. As part of the bid to make the game more valuable, the NRL approached Channel 9 about introducing mandatory ad breaks during games, a proposal Nine has distanced itself from.
"The NRL have discussed various means of providing extra breaks but that's a matter entirely for the NRL," Channel 9 managing director Jeff Browne said.
"We will simply respond to what we think they can do while preserving the flow and integrity of the game."
Clearly, Nine does not want to be held responsible for rule changes that could have fans wailing. Under terms of the current agreement, Nine and Fox Sports were required to lodge separate bids for the new TV deal by yesterday afternoon, guaranteeing them first shot at all the games they currently air - meaning the NRL is unable to sell off State of Origin, for example, as a stand- alone package.
If the NRL rejects the bid, as is likely, Nine and Fox Sports will next come together to see if they can provide a joint agreement before the NRL goes to an open market. The shortfall is certain to have a dire effect on the NRL, with many cash-strapped clubs expecting the billion dollar figure to be the bottom end of any new deal.
The fact it could likely fall short of that has not been considered.
For many clubs, the billion-dollar plus deal was the salve to heal their financial wounds and, if the NRL fails to negotiate the billion dollars milestone, it will surely bring pressure for a management shake-up.
For starters, it will be the second time the AFL, through good luck as much as good management, has outdone the NRL in television negotiations. The AFL was the lucky beneficiary of an ailing Kerry Packer in the previous television deal in 2005, when Packer, on his deathbed, paid what everybody believed was overs to secure the AFL rights from Channel 7. It was Packer's final "up yours" to his television rivals before dying soon after.
 

nqboy

First Grade
Messages
8,914
Some interesting points there:
1. The NRL is driving the extra ads, rather than Nein.
2. Nein and Fox now bid together before 7 and 10 get their shot. More delays.
3. Regardless of Packer's largesse, we got screwed on the rights last time because Murdoch Inc sat on both sides of the table. To pretend otherwise is pure fantasy
 
Last edited:

Desert Qlder

First Grade
Messages
9,336
So it's settled. Paul Kent can now confirm the negotiations are wrapped up and the papers signed.

This is a deliberately provocative article that reads more like it is part of the AFL/News Ltd. contra deal.
 

Edwahu

Bench
Messages
3,697
This initial bid excludes Net and SkyNZ right?

The DT article is crappy though. Who cares if AFL has a preseason comp when they have less rounds and no u20s. Add to that QLD and VIC subscription rates are basically the same.
 
Last edited:

Canucks

Juniors
Messages
168
Where is the smh story? This will go forever... And if they did pay too much for the AFL then the AFL are the losers, they should have banked it, not blown it on those skinny orange poofs from blacktown
 

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,842
sticker,375x360.png


For starters it obviously looks like 9 & FS couldn't get their act together in time and are bidding on the original properties.

Note that this article contradict the one the other that goes into detail about ad breaks etc - and that those plans are already in motion.

But anyhow examining it for what it is -

* Blame it on the AFL - rather than the company that pays Kent who want to f**k over the game at every turn... also they try and turn into an AFL vs NRL issue rather than a NRL fans vs Fox/9 issue

* The AFL's figures are less than sparkling - yet since the start of the season we've heard continuous propaganda about how strong the ratings are - it has actually shown that simulcast works

* AFL boats a pre-season comp - oh well... how will the NRL ever overcome that... :lol:

* It's a fluke that the AFL states have low ad revenue - they've never had as much AFL content as they do. There's a two word reason why there's a disparity between NSW/QLD and those states - it's called Rugby League

* To attract more subscriptions in those states Fox Sports created a fully dedicated AFL channel which has brought sparkling ratings through existing customers - but not enough new subscriptions to justify the cost. - Bullshit. First quarter THIRD year dumb arse - check their own strategy

* Given the two major rugby league states, NSW and Queensland, already have a much higher percentage of pay-TV subscriptions, there is less upside for the pay-TV subscriber to compete for the NRL rights. - not even Foxtel believes that they'll retain all their CURRENT viewers in 2020 - they need to grow viewers to account for the ones they're going to lose to NBN etc

* About introducing mandatory ad breaks during games, a proposal Nine has distanced itself from. - If only the head of the network hadn't come out so publically in favour of it we might believe that :lol:


* Nine and Fox Sports will next come together to see if they can provide a joint agreement before the NRL goes to an open market - bullshit. The NRL has no legal requirement to give Nine another first opportunity to pull their shit together. Time line is past. All aboard!


But of course most rugby league fans will remain silent about this. They'll go to Footy Show audience on Thursday night and instead of throwing tomatoes they'll clap and cheer and cop it sweet.

If this pisses you off, express yourself for crying out loud. Point out just how f**king angry it makes you.

Of course Kent forgot to add this little comment at the bottom-


*"This piece of diversionary propaganda bought and paid for by News Limited - f**king Rugby League over since 1997"
 
Last edited:

Edwahu

Bench
Messages
3,697
Now the SMH has come out saying its a joint bid worth 1 billion+
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...for-league-20120507-1y94c.html?skin=text-only

Ball in the air as Nine and Fox bid $1b for league

Date: May 08 2012

Julian Lee, Brad Walter


CHANNEL Nine and the pay TV programmer Fox Sports will have to wait three months to to see whether their $1 billion-plus bid for rugby league broadcast rights has been successful.
A decision on whether to accept the joint bid - lodged last night at the NRL's headquarters in Sydney - will not be made until August.
To have the bid succeed, Channel Nine might forgo its exclusive live rights, allowing Fox Sports to screen matches simultaneously live.
That would drive the price Fox Sports would pay to above $100 million a year, allowing Nine, which is labouring under $2.7 billion of debt, to keep its costs down. It might have to pay $90 million a year to screen four matches a week, up from three under the current deal.
Sources close to the negotiations say such a deal is a ''distinct'' possibility''. In negotiations with the AFL last year, Seven kept its costs down by forgoing its exclusive live rights and allowing Foxtel to screen every game live. Foxtel's bill doubled as it picked up the lion's share of the $1.25 billion eventually paid to the AFL for the five-year deal.
As the current holder of league rights, Nine has first and last rights on the bid, but only if another bidder does not exceed Nine's initial bid by 20 per cent.
Seven and Ten have until August to come up with a better offer for the five-year contract.
Ten, which is lagging in the ratings, does not have a major sport to its name, though its chief executive, James Warburton, said he is ''interested in any sporting rights that come up''. Seven, which already has the AFL, has said it is interested in the four top-rating State of Origin matches. There is speculation that Seven will take on all the rights and then sell some matches to Nine or Ten.
Under new anti-siphoning legislation which has yet to be passed, Nine would be able to screen matches on its secondary channels. Matches such as the grand final will be kept on free-to-air TV.
Internet and mobile phone rights, for which Telstra pays about $10 million a year, are expected to increase in value dramatically.
The threat to the value of Telstra's rights posed by the TV Now service of rival Optus has since abated. Optus was streaming games near-live to its mobile phone customers but last month a court ruled the service breached copyright.
The NRL is keen to bridge the gap between its audience and advertising revenue. The NRL commands a cumulative TV audience of 134 million across the 2011 season - 10 million more than the AFL. But, according to estimates from the media agency MagnaGlobal, the AFL commands between $115 million and $125 million in TV ad revenue whereas the NRL is closer to $100 million.
Victor Corones, the managing director of MagnaGlobal, said the value of sport was set to rise.
"There are a number of reasons why broadcasters will pay such a high price for the rights. [Games] reach a lot of people, they cut across demographics and they are a very effective way to cross promote a lot of your programming to that audience."
TV deal free-kick -SportsDay

This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited.

Really, does anyone have any idea?
 
Last edited:

Edwahu

Bench
Messages
3,697
Here is the under 20s story from SMH

Under-20s could get a free kick in new TV deal

Date: May 08 2012

Brad Walter

UNDER-20s matches could be broadcast on free-to-air television if Channel Ten wins the rights to Monday Night Football and Sunday afternoon games.
With rights holders Channel Nine and Fox Sports yesterday tabling bids believed to be worth $1 billion for the rights to all NRL and representative fixtures until 2017, the ARL Commission will now open negotiations with rival broadcasters.
While no announcement is expected until August, the Herald understands that Channel Ten representatives intend to make contact with the ARLC today.
Ten is interested in any premium sport content, and the Herald was told yesterday by a number of sources that the network will bid strongly for Monday Night Football and a Sunday afternoon game.
In addition, Ten might offer to broadcast the National Youth Competition, which regularly out-rates A-League football and Super Rugby matches on pay-TV.
The recent under-20s State of Origin match was shown head-to-head with the NSW Waratahs-Melbourne Rebels clash on FoxSports and attracted an audience of 139,000 compared with 160,000 for the Super Rugby fixture.
It is expected that such a proposal would be viewed favourably by the ARLC but Ten will face fierce competition from Nine and Seven for NRL matches.
Channel Seven is keen on State of Origin, and there are even
suggestions the broadcaster could bid for all NRL matches. Seven could then onsell the rights to some matches or broadcast them on secondary channels.
Neither the NRL, Nine nor Fox Sports would divulge details of the offers lodged by 5pm yesterday as that would undermine the broadcasters's prospects of retaining the right to make a final bid after the other networks have submitted theirs.
However, given that Nine and FoxSports would lose the last right of refusal on the new broadcast deal if a rival bid is 20 per cent higher than the offers they submitted yesterday, it is expected the current rights holders would have made significant bids.
Nine cannot afford to lose the NRL rights, while Foxtel needs rugby league to stay afloat financially as the code dominates pay-TV ratings figures, and many fans would be expected to quit their subscriptions.
Industry sources suggested Nine and Fox Sports were likely to offer $100 million each a year over five years, although it is believed Fox Sports will pay a greater percentage of the $1 billion deal if Nine forgoes exclusivity to free-to-air matches to enable the pay-tv broadcaster to offer subscribers live coverage of all eight matches each week.
Fox Sports is also thought to have offered to establish an NRL channel identical to the AFL channel it launched this season after winning the AFL pay-TV rights.
It is understood Nine is keen to broadcast four matches each week - an increase from the two Friday night games and one Sunday afternoon matches it shows on free-to-air.
Nine and Fox Sports have also discussed forming a joint venture to buy all the NRL rights and then decide how to divide the spoils.
However, the ARLC would prefer to split the rights itself, and is expected to seek separate offers for the following television ''franchises'':
Friday night double-header;
Super Saturday
Sunday afternoon
Sunday evening
Monday Night Football
The return of a Saturday afternoon match and introduction of Thursday night games have also been mooted.
The amount of the new TV rights deal will determine the size of the ARLC's annual grant to clubs and the salary cap for players for the next five years.
Figures up to $1.4 billion have been mentioned for the next rights deal. The ARLC confirmed offers from Nine and Fox Sports had been received but would not speculate on the amounts.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/under20s-could-get-a-free-kick-in-new-tv-deal-20120507-1y973.html?skin=text-only
 

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,842
Now the SMH has come out saying its a joint bid worth 1 billion+
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...for-league-20120507-1y94c.html?skin=text-only

Really, does anyone have any idea?

Of course not.

One says they put in a joint bid. The other says they didn't. :crazy:

SMH have no agenda. Paul Kent & DT do. Just compare the tone of the articles. SMH keeps it on topic. Kent keeps waffling on about AFL to stir the flames.

But this is the only true number to pay attention to in both -

But, according to estimates from the media agency MagnaGlobal, the AFL commands between $115 million and $125 million in TV ad revenue whereas the NRL is closer to $100 million.

And now you will see why more games in more places on more channels overcomes any shortfall.

We are nowhere near the AFL in terms of coverage and we almost matching them on ad revenue.

Now add McGuirk $35 million on to that - in fact add the $70 million high end.

That's where the real battle lies.
 

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,842

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,842
And also just to reiterate in case any of you missed it in Kent's article - 7 & 10 - are not going to wait for 9 & Fox to regroup.

Exclusivity has ended - that's it. 9 & Fox will need to deal with the responses to that first bid as they sort out their own houses.

That his twitter account -

@paulkent_tele

What a knobhead.
 
Last edited:

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
68,271
If FTA want 4 live games you would think the game will have to expand otherwise Fox wil only have 4 exclusive games and I can't see many people paying subscriptions for access to just 50% of games. With a majority exclusive to Fox (4FTA, 5 PayTV) then they will attract more subscribers, especially if they simucast all 9 games.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top