What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The TV rights thread part II

Providing the price is right which is your preferred FTA broadcast option?

  • All games on Seven

    Votes: 11 4.2%
  • All games on Nine

    Votes: 17 6.5%
  • All games on Ten

    Votes: 59 22.6%
  • Seven/Nine split

    Votes: 10 3.8%
  • Seven/Ten split

    Votes: 109 41.8%
  • Nine/Ten split

    Votes: 55 21.1%

  • Total voters
    261
Status
Not open for further replies.

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ee-but-no-ones-interested-20111104-1mzyj.html

Playing the long game could set league free, but no one's interested
Roy Masters
November 5, 2011

WITH the November 1 deadline for the inception of the independent commission passing, NRL clubs are in a powerful position to break the chains of the first-and-last-rights clause in the broadcasting contract the code has with co-owner News Ltd.

Rupert Murdoch's media empire has overarching control over free-to-air, pay-TV and online rights until 2027, meaning News Ltd merely has to equal the offer of a rival over the next 16 years to retain the rights.

The AFL has no such strictures, so when it negotiated its $1.25 billion contract with broadcasters, there were no ''lift up your skirt'' clauses that gave a rights holder access to the programming secrets of rivals, no global gorilla with the contractual option to chase every other bidder out of the room.

News Ltd's long-term control has the potential to depress broadcasting fees, despite NRL eclipsing AFL coverage this past season by 15 million cumulative viewers.

NRL clubs, which have refused to sign deeds releasing power to the proposed independent commission, are typically concerned only with immediate cash payments.

They have given little thought to News Ltd relinquishing its first-and-last-rights control as a condition of their signing the club deeds.

NRL chief executive David Gallop has been instructed by the current owners of the game - News Ltd and the ARL - not to begin negotiations with broadcasters until the independent commission is installed.

Any delay in the transfer of power to the new body will stall negotiations for broadcasting rights beginning in 2013 and therefore block the cash the clubs so desperately seek. However, the clauses in the existing broadcasting contracts are so complicated, the NRL is likely to spend most of next year in court anyway.

The free-to-air rights holder, Channel Nine, has a first-and-last-rights clause, and believes its highly valuable State of Origin property - which Channel Seven covets - can't be unbundled, as Gallop has intimated. Nine is expected to challenge the legality of any attempt to separate the three-game Origin series, or Test matches, from its existing contract.

Fox Sports, the pay-TV rights holder and joint venture between News Ltd and James Packer's Consolidated Media Holdings, also has a first-and-last-rights option. It charges Foxtel for the five games it supplies the subscription network, meaning Telstra, which half-owns Foxtel, funds the significant profits going to News Ltd and Packer. Who knows how long Telstra will tolerate this?

Telstra holds the first and last internet rights to NRL but is already in the Federal Court with the league over an action by Optus to stream content via Fetch, a potential rival to Foxtel. Sky New Zealand, a monopoly pay-TV company part-owned by News Ltd, holds NRL rights across the Tasman.

Unlike the Nine, Fox Sports and Telstra contracts, which expire at the end of next season, the Sky NZ deal has already concluded. Sky has made it clear it wants to pay less than the current $14 million a year, and has cited depressed ratings figures in this Rugby World Cup year.

However, ratings in the previous three years were positive and this year's finals, based on the exciting form of the Warriors, registered a big lift. Sky is offering less because it can, a warning Fox Sports could do the same. However, Foxtel needs to lock up premium sports content before the national broadband network roll-out, expected to be completed in the next five to seven years.

Foxtel has been instructed to reach 50 per cent of homes before the NRL can use the broadband network to launch NRL.com, an online service where all games are produced by the code and streamed live to homes. .

News Ltd's first and last rights until 2027 allow it to match any broadcasting proposal an independent commission would put before it, but News might find it less expensive to set up a new competition.

This is the basis of the demand by NRL clubs that News provide a guarantee it won't start another Super League. It cost News $450 million for the last rival league, and in the post-News of the World landscape, it would be unwilling to waste billions on another unpopular Super League.

Instead, the clubs, not bound by any licence agreements with the NRL, are the ones that could go it alone, backed by private funding. After all, formula one is worth billions and is owned by CVC Capital Partners … which also owns Channel Nine.

But the clubs are typically short-sighted, thinking only of next year's cash, rather than breaking the shackles of first-and-last broadcasting rights, which will keep the NRL in court next year, delaying any payment to anyone.
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
14,705
Unlike the Nine, Fox Sports and Telstra contracts, which expire at the end of next season, the Sky NZ deal has already concluded. Sky has made it clear it wants to pay less than the current $14 million a year, and has cited depressed ratings figures in this Rugby World Cup year.

Interesting.

I suppose the problem is that there are no other options for the NRL in NZ..
 

flippikat

Bench
Messages
4,881
Interesting.

I suppose the problem is that there are no other options for the NRL in NZ..

Three Reasons why this is the case.

1 - Free-to-air advertising money can't compete with what Sky gets from subscriptions and advertising combined - so that rules out a chance of TVNZ & TV3 (Mediaworks) making a counter-offer to the NRL.

2 - There's no anti-syphoning law in New Zealand. That's the FTA networks only real hope for getting a slice of the action.

3 - There's no pay TV competitor to Sky - TelstraClear operate a Cable-delivered pay TV package to a few homes in Wellington & Christchurch (basically as far as their fibre cable reaches), but most of the programming on it is just a relay of Sky's channels, licensed from Sky - with one or two additional channels that TelstraClear grabbed off the satellite that Sky aren't interested in carrying. Nothing that they themselves produce.

What we get here is great - IF you can pay for it. Every game is live and uninterrupted on Sky Sport (usually Sky Sport 2), even the Channel 9 games that get delayed in Australia. We even get to see all the time spent lining-up kicks & restarts when ad breaks would be inserted in Australia.

We're a classic example of how broadcasting looks if you let Pay TV get it's way
 

CameronLayfield

Juniors
Messages
67
Foxtel has been instructed to reach 50 per cent of homes before the NRL can use the broadband network to launch NRL.com, an online service where all games are produced by the code and streamed live to homes. .

TELL ME that means it will be like the NFL/NBA online gamepass where we pay to watch every NRL game live/whenever we want. If so, time to cancel foxtel after 2012.
 

Billythekid

First Grade
Messages
6,678
Just because they say they want to pay less doesn't mean they will, of course they're going to say that. In terms of what this means in Australia well i don't think it will be the same. We actually have competition over here and fox has a lot to lose if it doesn't get the NRL.
 

carlosthedwarf

First Grade
Messages
8,189
TELL ME that means it will be like the NFL/NBA online gamepass where we pay to watch every NRL game live/whenever we want. If so, time to cancel foxtel after 2012.

I hope so.

Even if Foxtel gets to 50% before an online service is launched, they'll lose a massive chunk of it when it does.

Also :lol: @ them getting to 50%.
 

Raiderdave

First Grade
Messages
7,990
Three Reasons why this is the case.

1 - Free-to-air advertising money can't compete with what Sky gets from subscriptions and advertising combined - so that rules out a chance of TVNZ & TV3 (Mediaworks) making a counter-offer to the NRL.

2 - There's no anti-syphoning law in New Zealand. That's the FTA networks only real hope for getting a slice of the action.

3 - There's no pay TV competitor to Sky - TelstraClear operate a Cable-delivered pay TV package to a few homes in Wellington & Christchurch (basically as far as their fibre cable reaches), but most of the programming on it is just a relay of Sky's channels, licensed from Sky - with one or two additional channels that TelstraClear grabbed off the satellite that Sky aren't interested in carrying. Nothing that they themselves produce.

What we get here is great - IF you can pay for it. Every game is live and uninterrupted on Sky Sport (usually Sky Sport 2), even the Channel 9 games that get delayed in Australia. We even get to see all the time spent lining-up kicks & restarts when ad breaks would be inserted in Australia.

We're a classic example of how broadcasting looks if you let Pay TV get it's way

NRL's got to be prepared to play hard ball here
let Sky go a year without the NRL & give a handful of games to the FTA networks ova there ( certainly the warriors games )
be prepared to take a loss for a year to make a big gain eventually over the following 5 years

we need to send a very clear message to all broadcasters that we won't have the mickey taken out of us ..... by anyone.
pay up ... or F the hell off.
 

bender

Juniors
Messages
2,231
Just because they say they want to pay less doesn't mean they will, of course they're going to say that. In terms of what this means in Australia well i don't think it will be the same. We actually have competition over here and fox has a lot to lose if it doesn't get the NRL.

Hopefully NZ TV will use the bargaining power to insist on a second or even third team in NZ in the not too distant future.
 

flippikat

Bench
Messages
4,881
Hopefully NZ TV will use the bargaining power to insist on a second or even third team in NZ in the not too distant future.

There are pros and cons with a second NZ team (as far as Sky is concerned).

The pro is perhaps a bigger audience, but the big drawback is that Sky would have to provide the broadcast of NZ2's home games, an extra cost to Sky.

Right now Sky are on the hog's back - they get the vast majority of games as feeds from Fox Sports & Nine, with Sky's only input being a few talking heads adding their comments before the game, at half time & at fulltime.

Adding a 2nd NZ team means 12 more outside broadcast events, probably demanding HD outside broadcast units.

You wouldn't see any lobbying from Sky for a second team here unless they've done the sums & worked out that it earns Sky more than it costs them.
 

flippikat

Bench
Messages
4,881
NRL's got to be prepared to play hard ball here
let Sky go a year without the NRL & give a handful of games to the FTA networks ova there ( certainly the warriors games )
be prepared to take a loss for a year to make a big gain eventually over the following 5 years

we need to send a very clear message to all broadcasters that we won't have the mickey taken out of us ..... by anyone.
pay up ... or F the hell off.

It's certainly a path they could go for - assuming that they are willing to accept a lower income from NZ TV rights for a year.

TVNZ could give it a tilt - they have 2 HD channels on Freeview (TV1 & TV2), or they could even bring back the SD "Sports Extra" channel they closed a few years ago.

On the other hand, Mediaworks could do it too - TV3's been HD for a long time or they could start their own HD sports channel to replace the waste of space that's TV3 +1.

One thing's for sure, I wouldn't want it on Maori TV - they haven't got the bandwidth or technology to go HD, they kinda force te reo words into their commentary, and the whole thing comes across a bit budget.
 

juro

Bench
Messages
3,815
Saying "pay up or piss off" would be an interesting move for the NZ rights. It wouldn't be as big a financial loss to the NRL as if they did it in Australia. If given to a FTA channel, it could help to spread the appeal of the sport in NZ, at a time when the local team is doing well. And it would definitely send the message that we are serious about not being screwed.
 

flippikat

Bench
Messages
4,881
Saying "pay up or piss off" would be an interesting move for the NZ rights. It wouldn't be as big a financial loss to the NRL as if they did it in Australia. If given to a FTA channel, it could help to spread the appeal of the sport in NZ, at a time when the local team is doing well. And it would definitely send the message that we are serious about not being screwed.

It certainly helped with the Rugby World Cup - we were lucky to have all the All Blacks games live on FTA TV channels, and in HD as well via Freeview.

I think it may even have sold some HD TV sets, as people took the opportunity to upgrade and watch the games in top quality.
 

Brutus

Referee
Messages
26,287
Well done Gallop for negotiating a deal last time around, making it virtually impossible to unbundle the rights. All this and we still paid unders last time.

This man should not be the CEO moving forward.

He must be made to pay for this.
 

Rockin Ronny

Juniors
Messages
1,769
Well done Gallop for negotiating a deal last time around, making it virtually impossible to unbundle the rights. All this and we still paid unders last time.

This man should not be the CEO moving forward.

He must be made to pay for this.

May be it's time for some affirmative action - from the fans.

I've never had Foxtel - we refuse to have anything from Murdoch or News Limited in our house since the Bears were defrauded in 1999. Guess what - the world didn't end. There are FTA games (3 each week), SOO and finals - and pubs if you are desperate. Works just fine. And - radical step - we could all get off our @rses like AFL fans and actually go to games.

So - why not some mass affirmaive action. Cancel your Foxtel subscriptions now - and send them the big message.

Imagine if Foxtel subscriptions started plunging because rugby league fans showed some guts for once and took action.
 

rednblack

Juniors
Messages
275
May be it's time for some affirmative action - from the fans.

I've never had Foxtel - we refuse to have anything from Murdoch or News Limited in our house since the Bears were defrauded in 1999. Guess what - the world didn't end. There are FTA games (3 each week), SOO and finals - and pubs if you are desperate. Works just fine. And - radical step - we could all get off our @rses like AFL fans and actually go to games.

So - why not some mass affirmaive action. Cancel your Foxtel subscriptions now - and send them the big message.

Imagine if Foxtel subscriptions started plunging because rugby league fans showed some guts for once and took action.

Already have a few months ago.

I asked them what they'd offer me for my years as a good, loyal, paying customer. They said they'd email me a few offers, and that I had 48hours to decide if I wanted to take one up. They eventually came back with an offer - 3 days later! The "expiry date" for the written offer was the day BEFORE they'd even sent it! Then, they offered me less than a new customer could get without even asking! They were gonna save me a whole $5/month. Wow! I told them to go to hell.

I decided they were gonna be dumped, and told them (in writing) to cancel my subscription, cease charging my credit card, and to come and pick up their box. They said they'd send me a pre-paid return postage box for it. It took THREE MONTHS to arrive (meanwhile, they continued to bill me for each of those months, even though the service was supposedly disconnected and the box was in a hallway cupboard!). When my solicitor threatened action for illegally charging my card (I had already withdrawn their permission to do so), they refunded the charges within a week or so, yet this was hundreds of dollars. My advice, if anyone is gonna drop their subscription, get confirmations emailed to you, and call them every day, or twice a day, until they send you the return stuff. Otherwise, they just won't!

They're pigs, and it will have to be a massively discounted offer to ever entice me back. They have a crap STU, too many repeats, too many ads (which is double-dipping, because I already pay them for the service) and unreliable reception. I even had an amp blow because of a sudden plosive audio peak when the signal came in and out a few times. merkins.

We've since gone without, and with the FTA channels (at least 5 of which aren't re-broadcast on foxtel), I haven't missed it a bit. We thought we would miss it, but we really haven't at all. I've now bought a more reliable PVR, I have a lot of the same shows (with the extra FTA channels that I didn't have before). I can copy stuff that I've recorded from the PVR to the laptop via the home WLAN to watch on the train or at work. I can't see myself ever going back, and I'd encourage others to save themselves some dosh as well! They don't do you any favours, and by walking away, they won't be ripping you off any more.
 

1 Eyed TEZZA

Coach
Messages
12,420
Yeah I got rid of foxtel a while ago too. Haven't missed it a bit. Anything I would want to watch I can watch online and I find that I'm going to games more often.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top