The T.V Rights Thread Part III

[WayneBennett]

Gus?

 

[docbrown]

I suspect Docbrown is actually Gary Burns..or Steve Crawley :lol:

he seems sooooo knowledgeable :roll:

Don't forget to get your stopwatch out 6 minute man! :lol:

 

[taste2taste]

Don't forget to get your stopwatch out 6 minute man! :lol:

Haha, glad you remember me

Its actualy 10mins of commercials from kick off to full time.

7mins of ads at half time and 3mins total during the game

 

[nrlnrl]

Once this deal is finalised, the thread will be full of complaints about how it should've been better & how the next one must improve. Then it'll be deja vu all over again & again to the point where Doc Brown's kids will be answering all the questions.

I hope I'm wrong about this, but my biggest concern is the focus on the $ rather than the deal itself. I know it's important to obtain a financially good deal after the NRL was dudded last time, but there must be guarantees for all games to be live across the country. ie - don't become obssessed with this "contest" to have a bigger $ amount than the AFL.

 

[Paul J]

"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.

I think Doc Brown already highlighted this on Tues when the SMH published this, but this is AMAZING!!

The circular agruement for the value of both codes to broadcasters has always been...AFL fans stating that AFL games are longer and show more ad's, against the NRL fans arguement that the FTA networks make more money from the Northern states.

This is the first time i've ever seen any stat's on this arguement, and it's incredible!

In 2011 the AFL had 4 FTA games a week for 22 weeks, nationwide, with total ad saturation, for $115 to $125 million.

The NRL's coverage was way behind with only 3 FTA games in 2 states for 24 weeks, at 50% ad capacity, for $100 million.

How much will the NRL be worth in 2013 with 4 FTA games a week, nationwide, with each games value doubled with full ad saturation?

It won't even be a close contest.

 

[docbrown]

"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.

I think Doc Brown already highlighted this on Tues when the SMH published this, but this is AMAZING!!

The circular agruement for the value of both codes to broadcasters has always been...AFL fans stating that AFL games are longer and show more ad's, against the NRL fans arguement that the FTA networks make more money from the Northern states.

This is the first time i've ever seen any stat's on this arguement, and it's incredible!

In 2011 the AFL had 4 FTA games a week for 22 weeks, nationwide, with total ad saturation, for $115 to $125 million.

The NRL's coverage was way behind with only 3 FTA games in 2 states for 24 weeks, at 50% ad capacity, for $100 million.

How much will the NRL be worth in 2013 with 4 FTA games a week, nationwide, with each games value doubled with full ad saturation?

It won't even be a close contest.

These yearly ad numbers are the ones to pay the most attention to as they include the difference in ad costs between the various markets (rather than just looking at ad length alone)

A 500,000 rating slot in Adelaide does not pull the same dollars as a 500,000 rating slot in Sydney or Brisbane.

 

[Edwahu]

Confirmation the NRL will go to the market this week

Rugby league TV deal heading to market
Steve Jancetic
May 9, 2012 - 7:29PM
Read later
AAP

ARL Commission officials will meet rival networks Seven and Ten later this week for talks which the game's administrators hope will drive the new broadcast deal past the $1 billion mark.

The Commission this week received initial offers from current rights holders Network Nine and Fox Sports, and will head to the open market seeking the best offer.

While reluctant to disclose figures involved with the initial offer - which one report claimed fell well below $1 billion - ARLC chief executive David Gallop dismissed claims the Commission's financial target had been lowered.

Advertisement: Story continues below
"All I can say is we remain really confident in getting a very good result and nothing that has happened so far changes that," Gallop said.

"We'll be having meetings with Channel Seven and Channel Ten later this week. We have done a lot of work to get a clear picture of the game's value given the results that it produces.

"We go into the next phase really confident about that and, having been through the exclusive stage, we're keen to move to the next stage."

Nine and Fox retain first and last bidding rights as part of their current deal with the league, but they would forfeit the right for last shot should either Seven or Ten beat their initial offer by 20 per cent.

Having put in separate bids, Nine and Fox will also put forward a joint bid for the three Commissioners on the broadcast deal sub-committee - chairman John Grant, Jeremy Sutcliffe and Ian Elliot - to consider.

Gallop said there had been no firm decision made on how the broadcast rights would be sold, with suggestions games could be broken up including the possibility of a lucrative State of Origin package.

"We've got a number of options and we're keen to explore the options that maximise the opportunity," Gallop said.

Gallop also dismissed any concerns over claims sluggish ratings and Pay-TV take-up rates following the AFL's new broadcast deal could hurt rugby league's final reward.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...tv-deal-heading-to-market-20120509-1ycxk.html

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

If we get anything below a billion, the fans and club officials will be in uproar. Our game shouldn't suffer because the merkins at the FTA networks don't have a clue how to run a budget.

 

[taipan]

if the negotiations are supposedly confidential,how the hell do these journos have any idea,when they comment" hope will drive the deal past $1bn"?.
Are they suggesting they know it is much less?If that is the case,who is the deepthroat who spilt the beans.
Was it always the intention for the code's admin to take it to 7 and 10?.I suggest yes.
They wouldn't be taking it to them ,if they did not express interest.

The stories we are getting from the daily rags,are up and down like a roller coaster,either to fill space,get fans in a lather,orto compete with the other rags.
And I agree if the deal is not around the $1bn mark, the revolt will indeed be revolting, by clubs and supporters alike.

 

[El Diablo]

the journos don't know

 

[Gippsy]

Gallop also dismissed any concerns over claims sluggish ratings and Pay-TV take-up rates following the AFL's new broadcast deal could hurt rugby league's final reward.

I really don't get these type of comments in the context of the NRL deal. I would have thought that sluggish ratings & pay tv take up rates for AFL have only re-inforced that NRL is a superior TV product and in greater demand, and therefore absolutely critical to the success or otherwise of pay tv.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Forget the dollar revenues (other than the 3 stated LEK figures of $1.0b $1.2b and $1.4b). They are your minimum and potential maximum.

Its not the current media reports that will make a difference in what the NRL achieves, its who the players are and what they do.

The IC is responsible for Gallop.

 

[Ron's_Mate]

Gallop also dismissed any concerns over claims sluggish ratings and Pay-TV take-up rates following the AFL's new broadcast deal could hurt rugby league's final reward.

I really don't get these type of comments in the context of the NRL deal. I would have thought that sluggish ratings & pay tv take up rates for AFL have only re-inforced that NRL is a superior TV product and in greater demand, and therefore absolutely critical to the success or otherwise of pay tv.

Exactly what I thought - if you want ratings you need rugby league.

 

[docbrown]

Forget the dollar revenues (other than the 3 stated LEK figures of $1.0b $1.2b and $1.4b). They are your minimum and potential maximum.

We have a winner!

 

[CC_Roosters]

If we get anything below a billion, the fans and club officials will be in uproar. Our game shouldn't suffer because the merkins at the FTA networks don't have a clue how to run a budget.

I dont see why it should though. If we got $900m or $950m it would be fantastic for the game and still give the bodies and clubs a huge boost

The whole $1bn mark seems to be very much a mental thing driven into fans and clubs by the media and in particular news ltd, no doubt so they can reap the rewards in sales with sensationalist headlines if it doesn't reach the lofty heights many think it should

 

[eozsmiles]

If we get anything below a billion, the fans and club officials will be in uproar. Our game shouldn't suffer because the merkins at the FTA networks don't have a clue how to run a budget.

Everyone will be in an uproar of we get less than a billion. But we'll hardly be suffering. It will be more money than the game has ever had.

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

I dont see why it should though. If we got $900m or $950m it would be fantastic for the game and still give the bodies and clubs a huge boost

The whole $1bn mark seems to be very much a mental thing driven into fans and clubs by the media and in particular news ltd, no doubt so they can reap the rewards in sales with sensationalist headlines if it doesn't reach the lofty heights many think it should

I think it has more to do with the money the AFL got with 7. If they can earn that much and still be behind Rugby League in ratings, then logic would denote that League is worth more then 1.2 billion.

 

[docbrown]

Everyone will be in an uproar of we get less than a billion. But we'll hardly be suffering. It will be more money than the game has ever had.

For context - just approx numbers -

Same % increase as before = $690m
x 200% = $835m
x 250% = $1040m
x 300% = $1250m

 

[Flapper]

doc, do you think they'd be any demands from the networks to expand to 18 teams to get the 9 games a week that AFL's got?

 

[Canucks]

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nrl...on-for-tv-rights/story-e6frfgbo-1226351469215

I remember stories saying that the AFL would get 800-900 million... Funny... How much do they expect from NZ?

Anyway seven at the very least won't allow Nine to pay nothing for them... Nine know they will be pushed and that's why they started a safe distance from the cliff