The TV rights thread part II

[BuffaloRules]

Maybe the ABC could pay $1 Billion dollars for the NRL rights?

 

[Goddo]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...want-1bn-tv-deal/story-e6frexnr-1226098663955

THE NRL dare not dream about a $1 billion TV deal unless it punctuates games with mandatory stoppages for commercials, according to Channel 9 boss David Gyngell.

In a candid declaration of Nine's approach to the upcoming rights negotiations, Gyngell yesterday challenged the NRL to manipulate longer breaks of play at scrums and drop-outs to match AFL's ad-friendly format.
He also revealed the network's views on a range of other crucial broadcast issues, including:

A CLEAR preference for a second Brisbane team, which would allow Nine to abandon Friday night double-headers;

STRIDENT opposition to any moves for State of Origin to be sold-off separately and the implementation of a fixed schedule; and

DENIAL of speculation that a free-to-air carrier will be awarded all eight games.

However, Gyngell's most radical proposal to a Sydney lunch of league powerbrokers - including NRL boss David Gallop - was a slew of ad-conducive rule changes that would be introduced at some cost to a game's rhythm.

He said "pressure" on Gallop to equal the AFL's recent $1 billion deal was unfair, given the rival code now enjoys natural breaks after each goal on top of two further intermissions.

"If you try to compare AFL to NRL ... you get more commercial breaks in AFL," Gyngell said.

"We've got to be comparing apples to apples if everyone is going to put pressure on the NRL to get the big numbers. If we are talking about big money then it needs to be more commercial for free-to-air.

"You look at scrums and goal-line drop-outs ... we only need 15-second grabs."

Gyngell said his proposal had not yet been discussed "in detail", but a sub-committee of club bosses intend to raise them at today's CEOs conference. More radical moves to insert water breaks or even quarter-time stoppages will also be canvassed.

Extra breaks would draw opposition from many fans, and Gyngell is mindful of disrupting the game's "integrity".

"You need to look at everything without damaging an incredible product," he said.

"We are looking for subtleties that buy us a couple of minutes. A couple of minutes per hour could work out to $50,000 more (in ad revenue) per game.

"I wouldn't call it a revolution. I'd call it an evolution. We are not going to damage the integrity of the sport.

"When it went from eight-ball overs to six-ball overs in cricket, the game didn't get destroyed. (But) if you keep bench-marking the AFL, which has all these differences, it's unfair to put all this pressure on the NRL.

"I believe it's the best TV product. I know we've got to step up to the plate financially. But the game needs to help itself - it can't just sit back."

Still waiting for the Independent Commission to be formed until negotiations begin in earnest, Gyngell was nevertheless bullish about Nine's prospects of retaining its rights.

"Channel 9 will be paying a lot more money than it is now for rugby league," he said.

"We've got such a strong belief in the product. We're fighting to the death for rugby league rights.

"Channel 9 will not be losing the rights.

"This is going to be an extraordinary time for rugby league if we get it right. We will be paying extra money.

"But we have to get it right (otherwise) the AFL will kill us."

 

[Brutus]

Stop the clock for conversions, will extend the game and allow for more ads

Agree.

Bring back 4 quarter footy as well .

These things could be done without ruining the continuity of the game.

Then we get 1.25 billion.

 

[Goddo]

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...l-nine-boss-20110720-1hp1i.html#ixzz1SgXYjCzX

Game must change to match AFL: Nine boss

CHANNEL NINE boss David Gyngell has told the NRL that if it hopes to match the AFL for money from television rights holders the game must make dramatic changes to its packaging that open up new opportunities for advertisers.

Gyngell yesterday chose a Canterbury Bulldogs lunch to express his level of desire to keep the free-to-air rights to the game, saying he was a ''sucker for league'' and that Nine would be ''fighting to the death for it''.

''What I'm saying is Channel Nine will not be losing the rugby league rights,'' Gyngell declared.

The annual SMS [sport, media and social responsibility] lunch was the perfect opportunity for Gyngell to effectively launch a public campaign, as he was on stage as a guest speaker with three other CEOs, including Bulldogs boss Todd Greenberg.

During the lunch, Gyngell sat alongside NRL CEO David Gallop. During his speech, Gyngell stressed the need for change if the code was going to get the money it wants after the current free-to-air and pay-TV deals run out at the end of next year.

It was great theatre as Gyngell, like a politician hell-bent on keeping his seat, said: ''Not for a second are we going to damage the integrity of the sport. Cricket went from eight-ball overs to six-ball overs and the game didn't get destroyed.

''If we keep on benchmarking the AFL, which has all these differences with more commercial opportunities, it's unfair to put pressure on David Gallop and his team to say he's got to get this [financial] number, because it's impossible, but the game can evolve to get greater commercial opportunity into it.

''You look at everything without damaging an incredible product. I've stated time and time again that it's the best product in television, so I don't want to be damaging it, but if you look for subtleties that can find you another couple of minutes per hour it may well be worth $50,000 to $100,000 per game.''

Gallop was not perturbed by anything Gyngell had to say. To the contrary, he rightly saw it as further indication of league's solid position, as the NRL prepares to get serious with negotiations amid interest from both the Seven and Ten networks to challenge Nine for at least some of the pie.

''David's comments only reinforce the fact of how valuable our game has become,'' Gallop said. ''As a live television sport, rugby league is compelling. Put simply, it's a winner, and David has indicated that Nine is willing to go after it again in a big way.''

It emerged after Gyngell's speech that the sort of changes he is talking about have already been discussed at length by NRL management. The league's director of football operations, Nathan McGuirk, said last night there were several areas he and other officials were looking at.

''One is the possibility of a stoppage for television advertising when a kick downfield forces a scrum,'' McGuirk said. ''The average time it takes for players to get to the area where the ball went out and form the scrum is 37 seconds, which fits in well as a possibility. On average, there are three to four scrums a game forced by such circumstances.

''Another is a possible stoppage for line drop-outs, although that is a potentially more difficult area because teams sometimes look to take quick drop-outs according to the state of the match and we don't want to interfere with the basic nature of the game.

''Another thing we are looking is possibly extending the half-time break from 12 minutes to 14. Another two minutes … would obviously be quite valuable.''

Gyngell flagged the possibility of short advertising spots before scrums are set at other times, saying a 15-second spot is a worthwhile minimum. He said Nine and the league had ''touched on'' the possibilities in casual discussions, but that nothing would become serious until the game's independent commission was in place.

''If we get more commercial breaks and allow sponsors to get greater benefits, that will get passed through to the league and they will in turn pass it through to the clubs,'' Gyngell said.

Asked if he thought the league would be able to match the $1 billion-plus deal the AFL got from free-to-air and pay TV, Gyngell replied: ''I doubt it, but I would say that. There are other people out there who would say they can. It depends on how hard they work. They are going to have to work hard to get to $1 billion.''

 

[Goddo]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-with-tv-bullies/story-e6frg7mf-1226098607206

League ready for fight with TV bullies

SOUTH Sydney chief executive Shane Richardson says the time has come for the code to stop being bullied by broadcasters as it prepares to open negotiations over a deal that officials believe could define the next 100 years.

On the same day Nine Network supremo David Gyngell acknowledged his network would have to pay more for the game from 2013, Richardson sounded a rally call by declaring the game would no longer sell itself short.

Richardson's comments came on the eve of a summit involving chief executives and chairmen from the game's 16 clubs to discuss the impending broadcasting negotiations, changes to the season schedule and the formation of the independent commission

"The clubs are very confident in the product they have got," Richardson said.

"They're also very cognisant that the last couple of times we may have sold it far too cheap. We're not going to be like we were in the past, whether it be the (Kerry) Packer era or the new era, where we are lemmings going over a cliff. We know the value of what we have got and we know that value is going to increase significantly over the next five years."

Richardson bristled at the suggestion that recent speculation claiming the NRL was prepared to snub Foxtel and take all its product to free-to-air networks -- sacrificing money short-term in order to highlight how valuable it was to pay television -- was an act of brinkmanship.

"I have been saying for a long while now that it's not brinkmanship," he said. "If they think we're bluffing, they're kidding.

"If we really want to reward the players and people for what they're producing, we have to be strong and make sure it is fair and reasonable."

Gyngell, who described himself as a "sucker for rugby league" at a Canterbury lunch yesterday, certainly made it clear his network was prepared to outlay more money for the rights from 2013. However, he stressed that the NRL had some big calls to make.

"The game is definitely going to get more money," Gyngell said.

"The challenge for the game is what are they going to do with that money. How is it going to be redistributed to the clubs and how do we fend off AFL?

"If there is going to be more money, then we need to talk about how we slice and dice the games. Are we selling nine games (per round) or eight games? How can we get more breaks into the game so we can get more (ads).

"How do you let us schedule games? If we've got Canberra versus Cronulla or Canberra versus Auckland on a Friday, it's going to rate 50 per cent worse in Sydney than Parramatta playing Canterbury. If Foxtel gets the good game, we need to be sure it pays for it."

Broadcasting negotiations have been put on hold pending the formation of the independent commission, which is likely to be finalised within weeks.

The NRL has hired consultant Colin Smith to help prepare for those talks.

"What we do now and the parameters we set now are going to set the pace for the next 100 years," Richardson said.

 

[legend]

Agreed. Four quarters is the obvious solution to this problem with an overall extension of say five minutes in breaks would give the networks an additional 40 minutes of ad time per round. Multiply that by 26 (taking into account rounds where less teams play) and you have an additional 1040 minutes of ad time which equals over 17 hours of more revenue for the networks.

 

[Alex28]

The ads from FTA need to go. I'm sorry but I hate watching ads during "live" coverage via Channel 9.

Well f*** they are going to pay more for the rights on the basis they cut all advertising then aren't they...

Some of you need a great big grasp of reality.

 

[bobmar28]

This is not all about channel nine. All networks will want more ad breaks before they even think about paying $1 billion. I don't mind having a few stoppages for ads if we get the magic billion and still see live games.

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

I cant see a 15-20 sec break for an ad hurting anything,(while walking to a scrum after a 40/20 or kick into touch).
If it doesn't affect the flow of the game too much,then let them chuck in as many 20 sec breaks as they want..IF they are willing to pay the big $$$$$.

 

[Moffo]

The nrl shouldn't need gyngell to tell us that . Is our leadership really that dumb?

 

[oldmancraigy]

Richardson will literally eat any TV CEO who tries to shortchange the NRL this time around!

 

[Frailty]

Gyngell says all they need is a 15 second grab - but says the NRL needs more stoppages and breaks... When has a scrum or a drop-out or a conversion or a kick off taken more than 15 seconds?! The game doesn't need to change.

The NRL should be simply getting the billion dollar deal for the fact that the NRL rates better nationally. So whilst the ad time is less than the AFL, the value of the ad space is worth a hell of a lot more!

Despite the fact that if it were really concerned about advertising money, they wouldn't show the Friday games in Melbourne at 11:30pm and 1:30am! Are you telling me that is really going to do much for ratings! Until they are made to pay for the value of the game, they will continue to leave it to the side and not even attempt to promote the game!

As for the scheduling of the games - I can see their perspective. But what about the clubs who aren't getting the same exposure? How are they to attract sponsorship money when they don't appear on free to air? Unless the NRL subsides the TV money in terms of lack of exposure it is an unfair system to the clubs... You know the people in the actual competition? The AFL schedule their games, and guess what? Some teams rate better than others in that code as well - yet they get paid the billion dollar deal!

I really hope channel 10 or 7 get the games, because at least they will promote the f**k out of it.

 

[BuffaloRules]

The NRL should be simply getting the billion dollar deal for the fact that the NRL rates better nationally. So whilst the ad time is less than the AFL, the value of the ad space is worth a hell of a lot more!

The NRL probably can charge more for their ads due to their better ratings, but not only does the AFL squeeze more ads into an hour than the NRL, the game goes for an hour longer...

The AFL probably shows twice as many ads in a game than the NRL, however I doubt that the difference in ratings would enable the NRL broadcaster to charge double the rate for their ads.

As for the scheduling of the games - I can see their perspective. But what about the clubs who aren't getting the same exposure? How are they to attract sponsorship money when they don't appear on free to air? Unless the NRL subsides the TV money in terms of lack of exposure it is an unfair system to the clubs... You know the people in the actual competition? The AFL schedule their games, and guess what? Some teams rate better than others in that code as well - yet they get paid the billion dollar deal

If TV pays more for the scheduling rights, then all the clubs benefit through the increased television rights that leads to increased grants from the NRL which leads to higher salary caps which leads to more money in the elite players pockets...

If the TV stations demonstrate that they will pay a lot more to maintain the scheduling, then you can bet that the clubs and the players will be all over it...

Lets be honest about the AFL, they probably accept less money to have a locked in schedule at the start of the year...

 

[Quidgybo]

The issue is that the NRL have just given away the right for the broadcasters to dictate the schedule for next to nothing...

That right was given away many years before the NRL even existed. Now we're trying to claw it back long after it became an expected perk for the networks.

The IC needs to determine how much extra Nine will pay for the scheduling rights, and then weigh up wether this is sufficient compensation for all the pain that not having a fixed schedule at the start of the year costs the game in terms of crowds..

As I keep saying, move to a fixed schedule with three matches allocated to each Friday and Sunday. And then let the FTA network choose any two matches to show in each market as they see fit. If one of the three games is Canberra vs Cronulla then show that as the main game in southern NSW and show better rating matches everywhere else. Choice and a fixed schedule.

Leigh

 

[Norths Tiger]

I think breaking the game into quarters will definitely happen and I could see it being accompanied by a reduction in the number of interchanges and/or interchange players.

The game has probably reached a stage where fewer interchange is required anyway. So that positive change (fewer interchange) would offset the negative change of installing quarter time breaks.

The next issue then is what to do with games running longer and running into the next timeslot of games (i.e. 5.30 saturday or 2pm sunday running into 7.30 saturday and 9's 4pm replay respectively).

 

[Parra]

The best match of the week should be on Friday nights.

Fixed schedules will result in some of the best matches being played at the worst times. As far back as the 1960's the match of the round would be on Saturday at the SCG. What we have now is match of the round on Fridays on Ch9.

From a footy perspective Sunday afternoon would be better than a night game - but those days are gone.

 

[muzby]

absolute joke tbh..

yes, channel 9 need to sell ad space, but come on.. there are plenty of opportunities already...


this reminds me of a similar story..

back when the USA had the world cup in 94, one of the US tv networks told FIFA to make the goals larger, so that more goals would be scored and more people would watch the games, and to make the game into quarters instead of halves, so that they could sell more ad space..

fifa politely told them that if the USA didn't want to host the world cup in it's current format, there are plenty of other countries who do..

 

[Lowdown]

Its not even worth debating this. Market forces will dictate the tv rights amount. If NRL start tinkering with the game because somoe dick from Channel 9 says so, then they already have the upper hand.

Respect the game first. And the rest will look after itself.

 

[bobmar28]

Why?

Where is the commercial imperative? As long as they outbid FTA then they win.

What Roy is suggesting is that unless it is at least 25% higher than the FTA bid, then the NRL could reject the offer. This is the 'premium' that RL may have to cop.

Interesting from a fiduciary duty point of view though, if the highest bid is rejected.

25% off 1 billion leaves 750 million. That would be worth it to see Foxtel go down the gurgler.

 

[legend]

Nine couldalso step up and do pre and post game shows to take a Sunday arvo games coverage from 3pm to 6pm and throw in as many ad breaks as they like. It would be certinaly more profitable than whatever else it is they show before the footy.

A Sunday afternoon game could be filled with pre-match interviews, talk about the games played so far, an update on the 2pm game, highlights reel of past matches played between the two sides over the years.

I'm not in favour of fixed scheduling for prime time matches. The NFL have even ditched that in favour of flexible schedules for late season matches once a team's form has been examined.