The T.V Rights Thread Part III

[Edwahu]

That can't be right. What would be the point of first and last rights if 10 and 7 knew what it would take to beat 9?

Because 9 has last rights to come back and beat 10 and 7.

 

[Digga Hole]

Because 9 has last rights to come back and beat 10 and 7.

All bid processes can be run differntly, but that would definately be unusual. That gives seven a right to know exactly what they have to beat, a luxury not afforded to 9 if beaten by 20%.

That really doesn't give much value to the 'first' part of nines right. Their only option is to lift their skirt to all competitors.

 

[Perth Red]

Would be stupid not to let competitors know what the initial bid is, what would be the point in that? If that is a clause someone wants shooting!

 

[Perth Red]

All bid processes can be run differntly, but that would definately be unusual. That gives seven a right to know exactly what they have to beat, a luxury not afforded to 9 if beaten by 20%.

That really doesn't give much value to the 'first' part of nines right. Their only option is to lift their skirt to all competitors.

No it doesn't, Ch10 could beat it by 20%, the NRL then has the discretion to go back to 9 and ask for a better deal or to take Ch10's offer (Ch10 may have a caveat take it or leave it clause to their 20%+ offer)

 

[Digga Hole]

No it doesn't, Ch10 could beat it by 20%, the NRL then has the discretion to go back to 9 and ask for a better deal or to take Ch10's offer (Ch10 may have a caveat take it or leave it clause to their 20%+ offer)

If that is the deal, and i doubt it, then some people around here need to drastically change their opnions of news limted and gallop. That deal screws nine.

Edit: i should say potentially screws nine. Depending on the details it could actually screw the nrl.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

Would be stupid not to let competitors know what the initial bid is, what would be the point in that? If that is a clause someone wants shooting!

Not necessarily. What is does is to "force" ten/seven to guess where they have to be to ensure they beat nine(+20%) to break the first/last rights. Without knowing nines bid there is a chance that seven/ten outbid nine by more than 20% because they are going in "blind". It might sound remote, but if seven are determined to break the first/last rights they might go in hard straight off the bat which would result in a better result than if they actually knew what nines bid was.

 

[undertaker]

I wonder what Nine's presentation would have been?

Probably their shitty ad.

:lol:I was thinking the exact same thing when I heard that part in Roy Master's interview. They probably had that ad on loop during their allotted time they were allowed to present to the NRL

 

[Digga Hole]

Not necessarily. What is does is to "force" ten/seven to guess where they have to be to ensure they beat nine(+20%) to break the first/last rights. Without knowing nines bid there is a chance that seven/ten outbid nine by more than 20% because they are going in "blind". It might sound remote, but if seven are determined to break the first/last rights they might go in hard straight off the bat which would result in a better result than if they actually knew what nines bid was.

The is also the chance that if they know Nine's bid that they chose not to bid at all, and the NRL are then forced to takes Nine's opening.

There are certainly down sides to letting 7/10 see the opening bid, and as you have pointed out advantages to keeping it secret.

Your first two words are the most important though, "not necessarily". Without the detail, we are all just guessing.

 

[juro]

The is also the chance that if they know Nine's bid that they chose not to bid at all, and the NRL are then forced to takes Nine's opening.

There are certainly down sides to letting 7/10 see the opening bid, and as you have pointed out advantages to keeping it secret.

Your first two words are the most important though, "not necessarily". Without the detail, we are all just guessing.

Sorry, what was that?

If 7/10 see 9's bid and are willing to beat it by 10%, they would put in a bid.

If 7/10 see 9's bid and are willing to beat it by 20%, they would put in a bid, with the option of bidding the full 120% and breaking the first and last clause.

If 7/10 see 9's bid and are not willing to beat it, they wouldn't bother putting in a bid. But even if they did put in the bid of less than 100%, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

 

[High Flyers]

Im sure that the exact figure would have been shared with the other channels 7 & 10. Even if they havent shared it with them in written format (via email or letter) it is quite common to verbally mentioned it.

It would make sense that the NRL would tell the other channels what the exact figure they would have to beat is if they want to break the first and last agreement.

It might not technically be allowed as part of the agreement that they have with nine but there is no way for nine to know if one person as part of the bid team has shared that confidential $figure with the bidding teams (7&10)...

 

[Karl]

Nine negotiated, back when the current deal was struck, favourable clauses like this First and Last right (moderated by the low-ball prevention measure of the 20% over-bid). You can be sure that there are (as there would normally be anyway) confidentiality obligations that would prevent the NRL from disclosing any aspect of the bid to third parties, particularly any rival bidders.

Would someone "leak" relevant information to the rival bidders? Its possible, but whoever might be thinking about doing it is taking an enormous personal risk, whoever they work for is exposed significantly as well and if you think the existence or source of a leak like that would remain secret for long, think again. So - high risk for what reward? Maybe none. The rival bidder might have been looking at an over-bid of greater than 20%. There is just no way to know whether a leak like that will actually damage you, and a very good chance it will blow up in your face.

 

[Digga Hole]

Well put Karl.

 

[docbrown]

I suspect 9 has offered the ARLC fixed scheduling - dependent of course on Fox' cooperation.

 

[El Diablo]

Im sure that the exact figure would have been shared with the other channels 7 & 10. Even if they havent shared it with them in written format (via email or letter) it is quite common to verbally mentioned it.

It would make sense that the NRL would tell the other channels what the exact figure they would have to beat is if they want to break the first and last agreement.

It might not technically be allowed as part of the agreement that they have with nine but there is no way for nine to know if one person as part of the bid team has shared that confidential $figure with the bidding teams (7&10)...

John Grant said on The Game Plan the first bid was not what they had hoped for but they had expected that would happen

 

[carlosthedwarf]

I have obtained Nine's fixed scheduling:

Broncos & Saints every Friday
Tigers every Sunday afternoon

Nothing else matters

 

[Digga Hole]

Sorry, what was that?

If 7/10 see 9's bid and are willing to beat it by 10%, they would put in a bid.

If 7/10 see 9's bid and are willing to beat it by 20%, they would put in a bid, with the option of bidding the full 120% and breaking the first and last clause.

If 7/10 see 9's bid and are not willing to beat it, they wouldn't bother putting in a bid. But even if they did put in the bid of less than 100%, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

Can play game theory all day on this and not be any closer to an answer, however.

Lets say 7/10 think the rights are worth $1.1b, no more no less, and that is the max they will pay. They may be of the view that it is worth slightly more to the encumbant holder (9) as most things are as they are set up to do it, and that in a straight out all info on the table bid that they would be most likely to lose.

If they don't know the opening bid, they may bid their $1.1b hoping that 9 came in with a low ball $900m bid to get a cheap deal, and therefore the NRL can take the $1.1b.

If 7/10 are aware that 9's opening bid was $1b, then they know that they won't beat it by >20% and 9 will match it, then they may not bid at all.

Bidding costs money. The NRL are unlikely to take a bid that is subject to finance, and therefore 7/10 would need to have this in place. Banks charge shit loads for this type of facility. Add in bid production, lawyers, acountants, tax advisors, merchant bankers fees etc etc and it adds up, just to be beaten. Companies also don't generally like to be seen to lose, and many cases prefer to withdraw than lose.

If 7/10 don't bid, 9 get it for $1b, less than 7/10 were willing to pay.

This is just one example.

 

[Dragonwest]

Can play game theory all day on this and not be any closer to an answer, however.

Lets say 7/10 think the rights are worth $1.1b, no more no less, and that is the max they will pay. They may be of the view that it is worth slightly more to the encumbant holder (9) as most things are as they are set up to do it, and that in a straight out all info on the table bid that they would be most likely to lose.

If they don't know the opening bid, they may bid their $1.1b hoping that 9 came in with a low ball $900m bid to get a cheap deal, and therefore the NRL can take the $1.1b.

If 7/10 are aware that 9's opening bid was $1b, then they know that they won't beat it by >20% and 9 will match it, then they may not bid at all.

Bidding costs money. The NRL are unlikely to take a bid that is subject to finance, and therefore 7/10 would need to have this in place. Banks charge shit loads for this type of facility. Add in bid production, lawyers, acountants, tax advisors, merchant bankers fees etc etc and it adds up, just to be beaten. Companies also don't generally like to be seen to lose, and many cases prefer to withdraw than lose.

If 7/10 don't bid, 9 get it for $1b, less than 7/10 were willing to pay.

This is just one example.

You don't think 7/10 would bid just to force 9 to pay extra funds each year? That's money 9 can't spend on other shows.

No matter the process I'm sure 9 will be forced to match the highest bid that 7 or 10 are willing to pay for the rights; otherwise 9 will lose the rights.

 

[Digga Hole]

You don't think 7/10 would bid just to force 9 to pay extra funds each year? That's money 9 can't spend on other shows.

No matter the process I'm sure 9 will be forced to match the highest bid that 7 or 10 are willing to pay for the rights; otherwise 9 will lose the rights.

I think that the "bid just to hurt the opposition" theory is overstated.

Saying that, I actually believe that the first bid is most likely silent, and the scenario I outlined above won't actually happen.

 

[Ronnie Dobbs]

I have obtained Nine's fixed scheduling:

Broncos & Saints every Friday
Tigers every Sunday afternoon

Nothing else matters

That won't stop sucking until Saints are strong again.

Then it will bloody excellent.

Well done Nine.

 

[TheRam]

John Grant said on The Game Plan the first bid was not what they had hoped for but they had expected that would happen

Isn't this great though for both 7's & 10's bids and encourages then to put in a decent offer over that of nines to really have a good crack at breaking the 20% agreement? I know it would if I was looking to bid for the rights.