The TV rights thread part II

[chigurh]

Too little, too late Channel 9. What an insult - contract negotiations have commenced and they are now suddenly intersted in televising the game at a decent hour in Melbourne (sometimes).

I will believe it when I see it (once every month or so, :? ) and no doubt CH9 will provide not one iota of promotion.

As you said, too little too late. I can only hope this means the realisation that they are behind the eight ball in terms of securing the rights is suddenly dawning on 9 and they are now scrambling. However, they are that incompetent that I seriously doubt it.

 

[Pigskin]

Hey Doc, I don't know the ins and outs, but what would be the value of say, giving a network the rights in NSW+QLD and then giving the rest to someone who'll play them elsewhere?

Thats an interesting question, and I'd also like Doc to comment.

Surely the Qld/NSW component is worth the vast majority of the money anyway. So the game gets its payday.

Is it worth considering giving the interstate rights to whoever will give the best coverage for the good of the game ? Even if they pay 4/5 of nothing for it.

Oink !

 

[El Diablo]

Because unlike 9 who have a board that is partially run by Victorians with stakes in the AFL clubs

who is on their board?

 

[juro]

Thats an interesting question, and I'd also like Doc to comment.

Surely the Qld/NSW component is worth the vast majority of the money anyway. So the game gets its payday.

Is it worth considering giving the interstate rights to whoever will give the best coverage for the good of the game ? Even if they pay 4/5 of nothing for it.

Oink !

Surely 100% of the money is generated from NSW/QLD, seeing as how that is where Nine actually show the game currently. I doubt too many channels would be interested in paying a lot of money for getting audiences of maybe 200k in Melbourne, 100k in Perth during prime time.

 

[Canucks]

Thats an interesting question, and I'd also like Doc to comment.

Surely the Qld/NSW component is worth the vast majority of the money anyway. So the game gets its payday.

Is it worth considering giving the interstate rights to whoever will give the best coverage for the good of the game ? Even if they pay 4/5 of nothing for it.

Oink !

I dont think the ad revenue would cover the production costs. The cameras, commentators, etc, for 80,000 viewers, 'friends' on GEM got 300k the other day and would have cost them next to nothing...

The only way would be (for example) 9 broadcasting to NSW and QLD and the ABC taking their feed to perth etc, but that will never happen

 

[Perth Red]

I doubt too many channels would be interested in paying a lot of money for getting audiences of maybe 200k in Melbourne, 100k in Perth during prime time.

How do you figure that? Current viewing in Sydney for live FTA games is in the 5-700k range. If an audience across Vic,WA and SA of 3-400k can be built up then how is this significantly less valuable than 500k watching in Sydney?

 

[El Diablo]

I dont think the ad revenue would cover the production costs. The cameras, commentators, etc, for 80,000 viewers, 'friends' on GEM got 300k the other day and would have cost them next to nothing...

The only way would be (for example) 9 broadcasting to NSW and QLD and the ABC taking their feed to perth etc, but that will never happen

that 300k for Friends was actually cricket http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2012/03/sunday-4-march-2012.html

David Knox March 5, 2012 at 10:44 am -

I am advised Friends was actually Cricket.

 

[Desert Qlder]

Hey Doc, I don't know the ins and outs, but what would be the value of say, giving a network the rights in NSW+QLD and then giving the rest to someone who'll play them elsewhere?

Seems like a rubbish suggestion. Advertisers desire national exposure.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I am advised Friends was actually Cricket.

That explains why someone told me Monica scored a half century the other night and Ross took a screamer at first slip. I thought it seemed odd.

 

[PaddyBoy]

Seems like a rubbish suggestion. Advertisers desire national exposure.

See, this is what I don't get. What is the value of having for arguments sake 700k in NSW/QLD and 100k in the rest over for example 900k in NSW/QLD?

 

[juro]

How do you figure that? Current viewing in Sydney for live FTA games is in the 5-700k range. If an audience across Vic,WA and SA of 3-400k can be built up then how is this significantly less valuable than 500k watching in Sydney?

I'm just pulling numbers out of... ... thin air...

What I'm trying to say is, the NRL will top the ratings in NSW, QLD. Nine want that. They don't bother with other states because what they are currently showing will rate better (at least on Friday nights). They don't want to show it even when they have paid for it. This must give some indication of what worth they place on it...

 

[docbrown]

So the ABC and SBS were there? ;-)

I understand Sevens interest for State of Origin, but I can't see the regular season games getting the level of commitment that 10 will give them.

We will see.

 

[docbrown]

who is on their board?

Well the worst two are Browne and Cummins who are both AFL stooges. Plus also the former dead weight who lurk the halls like McGuire.

 

[docbrown]

Thats an interesting question, and I'd also like Doc to comment.

Surely the Qld/NSW component is worth the vast majority of the money anyway. So the game gets its payday.

Is it worth considering giving the interstate rights to whoever will give the best coverage for the good of the game ? Even if they pay 4/5 of nothing for it.

Oink !

I doubt you'd get a network to go along with it.

And I doubt it's going to come to that any way.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Something I was thinking about today was the fact that a deal will be done possibly by July or August, if the info coming out of the IC is true, and what that might mean for this year. If Nein miss out on the FTA rights, or even get less than they want, will it have an impact on their coverage of the latter stages of the competition? These decisions about whether to televise games in the AFL states or not, or when and where to televise, seem to be completely at the whim of Nein, so if they get the shits after the negotiations don't go their way are they going to screw us over even more?

 

[docbrown]

Something I was thinking about today was the fact that a deal will be done possibly by July or August, if the info coming out of the IC is true, and what that might mean for this year. If Nein miss out on the FTA rights, or even get less than they want, will it have an impact on their coverage of the latter stages of the competition? These decisions about whether to televise games in the AFL states or not, or when and where to televise, seem to be completely at the whim of Nein, so if they get the shits after the negotiations don't go their way are they going to screw us over even more?

Scenario 1 -

Nine get the rights again but are forced to meet standard quality terms. Coverage improves.

Scenario 2 -

Nine don't get the rights, act like petulant children and drop all the trimmings. We only have to bear with that for six months then it's sayonara nine, hello decent coverage.

 

[Perth Red]

See, this is what I don't get. What is the value of having for arguments sake 700k in NSW/QLD and 100k in the rest over for example 900k in NSW/QLD?

If your a national company then you want national exposure. It means more chance of viability for all your outlets around the country.

For example I own Harvey Norman, I have outlets in every state and territory. one code can give me slightly larger viewer exposure but only in two states. the other can give me slightly fewer viewers but in every state and territory. As a national company I would generally choose the latter.

 

[Perth Red]

Something I was thinking about today was the fact that a deal will be done possibly by July or August, if the info coming out of the IC is true, and what that might mean for this year. If Nein miss out on the FTA rights, or even get less than they want, will it have an impact on their coverage of the latter stages of the competition? These decisions about whether to televise games in the AFL states or not, or when and where to televise, seem to be completely at the whim of Nein, so if they get the shits after the negotiations don't go their way are they going to screw us over even more?

They wouldn't be stupid enough to burn their bridges. If they screwed the game (even more than usual) out of spite they could kiss goodbye to ever having a hope of getting the rights again.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

They wouldn't be stupid enough to burn their bridges. If they screwed the game (even more than usual) out of spite they could kiss goodbye to ever having a hope of getting the rights again.

Why would it prvent them getting the rights again? They screw us over pretty badly now and no one does anything about it. They could lose the rights, get to the finals and fail to show any of them before midnight in the AFL states and just make the same excuses as they do now. If they lose the rights it will be because Ten and/or Seven pay more, not for any other reason. If they pay the cash next time they'll get them again.

 

[docbrown]

If your a national company then you want national exposure. It means more chance of viability for all your outlets around the country.

For example I own Harvey Norman, I have outlets in every state and territory. one code can give me slightly larger viewer exposure but only in two states. the other can give me slightly fewer viewers but in every state and territory. As a national company I would generally choose the latter.

Yep those AFL ratings in Sydney & Melbourne are worth every cent...

At least the ad rates are cheap...