The TV rights thread part II

[El Diablo]

I think you are all screaming murder for nothing, do you think they are going to turn every game into the 2nd frinday night match? ummm, no they are not! There are already loads of adds in the live game they are just chucking in a few more FFS

I am of the opinion that the NRL should call time off for all out of bounds plays like scrums, trys, conversions etc. In effect, the actual match will go for 80 minutes, not as it currently is of 80 minutes including post try time wasting etc. What will this achieve? Well firstly longer game time resulting in more advertising revenue. Secondly, it will take away any potential time wasting. There would be allocated times for each play, say 30 seconds from when the ball goes out of play to when the scrum must be fed. Enough time for a 15 second ad. When a try is scored, you have between 90 and 120 seconds to convert the goal and kick off. You could fit in 2x 15 sec ads here or a 1x 30sec ad.

Doing this will take nothing away from the game but it will bring in more action and most importantly more $$$

this has been posted before http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/how-the-nrl-can-cash-in-on-tv-20110722-1hsrq.html

How the NRL can cash in on TV
Brad Walter
July 23, 2011

NRL matches could be worth an extra $70 million a year to free-to-air broadcasters by using existing stoppages in play as advertising opportunities.

The estimated windfall is detailed in a proposal from NRL Stats chief executive Andrew Moufarrige, who has looked at the amount of time lost in matches due to stoppages for scrums, goal-line dropouts and conversions, and found that more than 10 minutes of extra game time could be found by simply stopping the clock for 15 to 30 seconds each time to allow a television commercial.

The time-off might also appease fans who complain about time wasting due to such stoppages and trainers being constantly on the field as they would only be allowed to give players drinks during designated breaks.

Moufarrige has discussed the idea with a number of leading officials and coaches, who believe it would have little impact on the game itself while providing obvious benefits.

He also predicted such changes would encourage a bidding war between all the commercial free-to-air networks for matches, as even the lower-ranked games would have far greater advertising opportunities.

The issue has emerged as officials prepare to start negotiations for the next television deal beginning in 2013 once the independent commission is formally in place, with Channel Nine boss David Gyngell saying this week that the league needed to create more opportunities for commercial breaks to have any chance of matching AFL's recent $1.2 billion broadcast deal.

Under his proposal, Moufarrige said State of Origin games could be worth an additional $3 million each, and a regular season NRL match up to $300,000.

''Remember, we have got MasterChef, [Australian] Idol, Oprah and Seinfeld all rolled into one,'' Moufarrige said. ''The grand final and State of Origin is like having four Super Bowls. Advertisers would pay a premium for commercial slots in those games, and people would watch them because the ads would be so good.

''NRL is the No.1 TV product. It has seven of the top 10 programs on free-to-air and 72 of the top 100 on pay TV. Also, NRL is the No.1 TV product in 16 of the 20 key TV markets in Australia and New Zealand. AFL only wins in Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth.

''AFL is a longer game, and there are advertising opportunities after every goal. But we can add an extra $70 million in ad revenue for NRL games with some small changes to breaks and restarts that give everyone consistency.''

Under Moufarrige's proposal, each half would be played over 50 minutes of real time that included stoppages for scrums, penalties, tries, restarts and video referee rulings. The players would have to be ready to resume play after the 15- or 30-second break for each stoppage or risk a penalty.

He also suggested introducing a two-minute drinks break after 25 minutes when interchanges could be made. ''That would divide the game into 25 minute packets of content which are more suitable for mobile and broadband providers,'' he said. ''What we want is to get all the free-to-air broadcasters and Telstra competing with Fox Sports.

''Games one to four will rate and pay for themselves on free-to-air without these changes but with them they could be worth up to $300K extra per game. The bonus is that games five to eight would now become valuable on free-to-air with even 300,000 to 500,000 viewers, as there is now 10 to 15 minutes ad time set over two hours.''

 

[docbrown]

would Ten's board loan money to Ten to buy rights?

Yes if it comes to that.

So will Premier Group.

I never said they shouldn't have more ads, but the devil is in the detail, and the guy commissioned to look into it is talking about tv timeouts.

That clock stop suggestion is in response to the dying minutes of a close game and I don't think they'll go with that. As has been suggested elsewhere, the last few minutes of a match - say final 10 minutes would run ad free except for a try break.

One opportunity for a quick add break is during a kicker's pre kick routine.

The problem though is that different kickers take different lengths for their prep so you can't cut to a commercial and come back live as you may come back half way through the kick itself.

They know the length of time from flags up to kickoff. Try is scored. Commercial break. Replay of try. Delayed footage of conversion attempt - about 20 seconds behind. Delayed footage of kicker running back to place. Cut back to live kick off coverage.

That actually creates about a 90 second gap after a try.

The issue though is that conversion attempts will be delayed by 20 seconds. Is that a big issue? Not really. The game itself - the stuff with active momentum, like try scoring and kickoff - is still live.

What I do have a problem with is the NRL proposing changes based on feedback from a Nein stooge like David Gyngell.

Yes the networks make comments but I disagree with Roy's article. This is an LEK strategy that McGuirk and Smith have worked on.

Doc scrutinise my following assessment,and tell me if I am anywhere near the mark,based on your sources.
1)ch9 according to industry sources will need to cough up $120m pa to secure the NRL rights
2) Foxtel pays $42m pa for the NRL rights.They were undersold last time(as Tv ratings will confirm) and with expansion another slot,a figure of min $80m pa is not out of the question.
3) if the current court case with Optus is won by the football codes,rugby league can add another $20m pa for internet/mobile rights.
4)Competition naming rights could also be up to $20m pa.
Based on the info I have gleaned (admittedly not from the horses mouth),the $1b is looking good.

1) FTA ad revenue for 9's current package could yield up to $150m PA.

10's intended package could yield even more as more games in more slots catered to more markets are shown.

2) Foxtel's bid depends on what they get. The 10 simulcast option will yield the most but yes that number sounds about right for existing

3) Up to about $25m I'd suggest

4) Depends who they get. Admittedly they'd get more if the game is broadcast over multiple F2A networks.

$1b is indeed looking good.

 

[Canucks]

Having been to NHL games in Canada and the US I think that eveyone is overreacting.... There are ways around it.... When I'm drunk off my tree at a game I actually enjoy the entertainment they put on during the mini ad breaks, with kiss cam, muscle cam, dance cam etc.... They run 30 second interviews with fans who have won competitions and promote charity work they do....

So long as they handle it ok at the game and have announcements on the screen and some fun stuff I don't think ppl will notice.... BUT... If 20,000 people are watching the players scratch their nuts for 30 seconds it could backfire...

I actually think a day at an NRL game is too short... You spend more time in the car than watching footy, if they wanna expand it and make a day of it I'm all for it....

 

[El Diablo]

Yes if it comes to that.

So will Premier Group.

i wonder if this means much if Packer sells http://www.adnews.com.au/adnews/telstra-linked-to-packer-s-foxtel-stake

 

[Panfas]

this has been posted before http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/how-the-nrl-can-cash-in-on-tv-20110722-1hsrq.html

Thanks mate, at least it has been thought of

 

[Jono1987]

I have no problem whatsoever with more TV ad breaks if it means more money for our game. Especially when the proposed breaks are during meanginless stoppages throughout the game. More time for toilet breaks, run to grab some food or a beer. Don't understand how this will affect the flow of the game at all...?

 

[nyx]

The quarter time drinks break at Leichhardt Oval in round 1 really wasn't a big deal either.
I'd hardly noticed it at the game.

 

[nqboy]

I think we can do a lot with the breaks already in our game without inventing new ones. That way we still hold an ace for the next round of TV rights next time.

 

[docbrown]

i wonder if this means much if Packer sells http://www.adnews.com.au/adnews/telstra-linked-to-packer-s-foxtel-stake

I guess the only one who knows if Packer will do that is Packer.

That said, it was his friendship with Murdoch that helped sort out the 10 situation so perhaps that'll be enough to keep him involved until his mate has gotten what he wants. Somehow I can't see Murdoch wanting to give Telstra more control.

 

[dontito]

The earlier posts are spot on,
If it brings in more money and it's during " dead" time anyway it's a no brainer

The game does feel too short at times, especially at the ground

Why does the clock keep going when there is no action?

 

[CC_Roosters]

The earlier posts are spot on,
If it brings in more money and it's during " dead" time anyway it's a no brainer

The game does feel too short at times, especially at the ground

Why does the clock keep going when there is no action?

Have always thought that, glad it isn't just me.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

Have always thought that, glad it isn't just me.

If we searched LU, there would be these questions being asked as far back as 2003, I posted about it many times and I know others have.


Let the TV do what they do to an extent, but give us 80 mins of proper footy and RL will kill it in Australia.

 

[Raiderdave]

RL has some very dumb supporters
& a few shared their inate ramblings with us in the last few pages

" lets just call it Gridiron " :sarcasm:
" thats the last straw " :roll:
" we don't need to match the AFL " :?

please :crazy:

an extra 10 to 15 Minutes of ads during a game
but an extra 60 to 70 million a year as a result for our game so it can realise its potential & see that sthn trash off for good

we're not asking a question .. its going to happen & if we lose a few wombat supporters as a result but are a much richer code
so be it
money
money now ...

 

[Mong]

an extra 10 to 15 Minutes of ads during a game
but an extra 60 to 70 million a year as a result for our game so it can realise its potential & see that sthn trash off for good

we're not asking a question .. its going to happen & if we lose a few wombat supporters as a result but are a much richer code
so be it
money
money now ...

You would like to see an extra 15 minutes of ads per game??

And you call other fans dumb :crazy:

 

[baldie]

media analyst says it will be impossible for league to get the same deal as AFL

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ewer-turnoff-says-analyst-20120315-1v8ct.html

 

[bobmar28]

If the NRL are willing to compromise the game and the television product for the sake of a few more dollars, they've got no idea. What's the point of having more dosh to grow and develop the game if the main way of advertising the sport and bringing in new fans - televised games - is turned into an unwatchable, ad-filled abomination? I can't believe real rugby league fans are happy to watch the game be destroyed just to win a dick-measuring contest against the AFL in regards to TV rights. It's geniused.

The game will be destroyed if we don't get the billion dollars. And by the way isn't the AFL an unwatchable ad filled abomination? Didn't they just get 1.4 billion? Maybe it was 1.25 billion. Not a bad result. I am in favour of more ad breaks if it means a bigger TV contract result.

 

[Mong]

The game will be destroyed if the tv deal isnt a billion dollars?

Seems like an odd statement to make.

 

[bobmar28]

The game will be destroyed if the tv deal isnt a billion dollars?

Seems like an odd statement to make.

Ok, a bit of exaggeration but I am sure some teams will fail if the TV rights deal comes up short. Maybe that won't destroy the game but it will be set back for some time.

 

[Canucks]

media analyst says it will be impossible for league to get the same deal as AFL

I hate the 'AFL goes for longer therefore it should get more money' argument..... The talking point now should be there are 2 networks that face being without sporting content from 2013 who can't afford to be without....

Like the others were saying, I can't imagine Murdoch, Rinehart, Packer sitting back and letting Greece (Nine) limp away with the rights....

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

media analyst says it will be impossible for league to get the same deal as AFL

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ewer-turnoff-says-analyst-20120315-1v8ct.html

Will have a look ,but isnt he the one who stated that the AFL rights were SOUTH of 800 million.
No will know until the deal is done..