The TV rights thread part II

[El Diablo]

indeed

if the Storm became more popular it could hurt his bank balance

 

[applesauce]

Well if Nine know this, surely every other channel would also know too. Which makes it a bit of a moot point!

No, because all networks will want to get the rights for as cheap as possible. They can also use it as a bargaining chip saying we will give you Storm live in Vic (Reds in Perth) for $100mill less.

 

[Quidgybo]

No, because all networks will want to get the rights for as cheap as possible. They can also use it as a bargaining chip saying we will give you Storm live in Vic (Reds in Perth) for $100mill less.

If $100m less on $1.4b got us live free to air coverage in Victoria and WA then I'd seriously think of taking it. The real question is how many demands do we have and how much is each of them worth?

Leigh

 

[juro]

No, because all networks will want to get the rights for as cheap as possible. They can also use it as a bargaining chip saying we will give you Storm live in Vic (Reds in Perth) for $100mill less.

But if all the networks are fighting for the rights, and they all know that Melbourne is actually worth something, they will be driving up the price for each other until they get to what it is actually worth.

 

[Gippsy]

Its a bit of a joke to say live games in non-core states and fixed scheduling will hold down the price for the TV rights. It was no problem for the AFL.

So, IMO everything comes back to the fact NRL rates higher than AFL and the final figure should reflect that.

 

[Green Machine]

Interesting:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...broadcast-rights/story-e6frg7mf-1226121548540

NRL boss David Gallop issues threat to Foxtel over broadcast rights
From: AAP
August 24, 2011 9:14PM
NRL boss David Gallop says Foxtel risks being frozen out of rugby league's next broadcast deal if it isn't prepared to pay full value for the rights to the competition.
Responding to a pay TV executive's comments that talk of a $1 billion-plus deal was "confusing", Gallop said every NRL game could end up on free-to-air TV.
"We need to receive value and recognition for the fact that over 70 per cent of the top hundred shows on Foxtel are rugby league games," Gallop said. "If we don't believe we're getting the appropriate value for that, we'll explore other options."
Consolidated Media Holdings executive chairman John Alexander said on Tuesday there were "question marks about some of the sporting costs". ConsMedia is a part owner of Foxtel and Premier Media Group, the producer of Fox Sports. "I don't think there is any appetite at Fox Sports to hand vast additional cheques for no extra value," Alexander said. "Unless Channel Nine has got much deeper pockets than we all believe, then I think the prices that have been talked about with the NRL remain confusing."
NRL clubs were recently told a five-year deal from 2013, worth $1.4bn -- more than the AFL's $1.25bn -- was a possibility.
Gallop said Alexander's comments were old-fashioned haggling. "It's not surprising that any buyer in any market is going to play down the price," he said.

 

[El Diablo]

Interesting:

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showpost.php?p=7694640&postcount=1130

 

[BranVan3000]

Good strong stance

And the league doesn't want to force games into the Melbourne market fearing the "Iron Chef factor", which saw AFL games shown live in Sydney smashed in the ratings by the SBS cooking show, creating negative press for the code's growth there.

Pretty sure the AFL was doing quite well in Sydney when the swans team were actually successful on the field

 

[juro]

Have to laugh at the Fox executive being confused by $1bill+. Was he confused when they helped get AFL that much? Sounds like the simpleton who trades his life savings for some magic beans...

 

[smithie]

Have to laugh at the Fox executive being confused by $1bill+. Was he confused when they helped get AFL that much? Sounds like the simpleton who trades his life savings for some magic beans...

 

[Raiderdave]

Good strong stance



Pretty sure the AFL was doing quite well in Sydney when the swans team were actually successful on the field

were quite successful ?:?

they nearly got into the top 4 last year
& have been in the 8 most of this

yet their ratings continue to plummett ....

success has nothing to do with it
they are ratings poision ... that is all ;-)

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

were quite successful ?:?

they nearly got into the top 4 last year
& have been in the 8 most of this

yet their ratings continue to plummett ....

success has nothing to do with it
they are ratings poision ... that is all ;-)

Yep, regular semi-finalists and regular viewer shedders.

The life of the pink poofs.

 

[Quidgybo]

Its a bit of a joke to say live games in non-core states and fixed scheduling will hold down the price for the TV rights. It was no problem for the AFL.

How do you know it wasn't? Perhaps the AFL could've got $1.4b themselves if they hadn't made things like coverage in their minor states and a fixed season schedule fundamental demands. And we could probably do even better than $1.4b if we go in prepared to give the networks everything they want and demand nothing ourselves. But we're not prepared to do that.

Yes, we're in a wonderfully strong position to negotiate but that doesn't mean our demands will have no cost. Every demand we make that is undesirable to the networks will cost us something off the final figure while conversely every demand the networks make that is less desirable to us will add something to the final figure. That's the nature of negotiation.

The great thing for us is that our strong position means we're going to be able start negotiating from an amazingly high figure. And even if a couple of our demands cost us $100m or more, it's still going to come out as a huge deal.

So, IMO everything comes back to the fact NRL rates higher than AFL and the final figure should reflect that.

I have no doubt it will. But there is so much more to it than that. We want things from the deal beyond the raw dollar value and to get those we're going to negotiate away some of the money. But that doesn't mean it's going to be less than $1b or even less than the AFL's deal. It just means it won't be as big as we could get if we decided to lube up and sell our soul for the biggest deal possible.

Leigh.

 

[smithie]

Friday night ratings: Aug 26th, 2011

9 Nine’s Live Friday Night Football - Nine - 797,000 (Total) - 528,000 (Syd) - *** (Mel) - 269,000 (Bris) - *** (Adel) - *** (Per)

12 Seven’s AFL: Rnd 23: Fremantle Vs Collingwood - Seven - 642,000 (Total) - 11,000 (Syd) - 410,000 (Mel) - 7,000 (Bris) - 99,000 (Adel) - 115,000 (Per)

21 Nine’s Friday Night Football - Nine - 412,000 (Total) - 292,000 (Syd) - *** (Mel) - 120,000 (Bris) - *** (Adel) - *** (Per)

http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2011/08/week-35-4.html

 

[docbrown]

Channel 9's stupidity knows no end.

 

[Perth Red]

The big drop off on a Friday night between the 2 NRL games is interesting. Is this because it isn't a live game or becuase it is on too late for families?

 

[Sean18]

The big drop off on a Friday night between the 2 NRL games is interesting. Is this because it isn't a live game or becuase it is on too late for families?

Probably a bit of both.

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

Is this because it isn't a live game or becuase it is on too late for families?

Yes & also because it is loaded with ads.

 

[dgsfan]

In Sydney, the game rated an average of 410,000 until around ?midnight?. That's with 1 live game and one massively delayed game (over before it begins). The AFL was live up until around 11.30 (as I'm aware), and it rated 410,000 in Melbourne. Pretty good. I remember reading the delayed game is up in the ratings in Sydney, but down in Brisbane. The main reason would be the delayed game will nearly always feature a Sydney team, but will almost never feature a QLD team. Brisbane needs another team, which will help with this situation if double headers are to continue.

 

[BranVan3000]

were quite successful ?:?

they nearly got into the top 4 last year
& have been in the 8 most of this

yet their ratings continue to plummett ....

success has nothing to do with it
they are ratings poision ... that is all ;-)

Shit I don't follow AFL at all, from what I understand though Swans haven't been a genuine Grand Final contender for awhile?