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.

VictoryFC

Bench
Messages
3,786
As long as the coverage is nationwide across digital channels then I don't have an issue with Seven getting it. Anything less shouldn't be accepted as a bid.

That would probably be the first condition that the NRL put out. After C9s handling of Melbourne, it'd be crazy to think anything like that will happen with the new rights.
 

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,842
I don't like the idea of splitting up the Origin series. All three games should be on the one channel IMO.

It may not end up that way at all - but it should be a bargaining tactic.

A smart network can coast to a weekly win off the back of an Origin game.
 

TheRam

Coach
Messages
13,659
Channel Nine in financial trouble

Peter Lloyd reported this story on Friday, November 18, 2011 12:26:10

PETER CAVE: It's crunch time for the owners of Channel Nine. They are meeting bankers today to ask for more time to pay off debts of more than $2.7 billion.

Analysts predict they'll get short shrift, which means the company is one step closer to a crisis not seen since the days when entrepreneur Alan Bond took Nine to the brink of financial ruin.

Peter Lloyd reports.

PETER LLOYD: Channel Nine offers a lot of sizzle.

(Television promotion for Channel Nine)

PETER LLOYD: But the business is in trouble. Debt total $3.66 billion dollars. Deja vu? Think back to the early 1990s, says shareholder activist Stephen Mayne.

STEPEHEN MAYNE: Yeah, in the early 1990s all three networks were owned by the banks and then obviously ultimately Channel Seven was floated by the banks and then Kerry Stokes did a share market raid and got control.

Channel Nine was bought back by Kerry Packer who paid in the end something around sort of a $800 million to $900 million to buy back Channel Nine from the banks and equally at Channel Ten Malcolm Turnbull was the advisor.

It was bought by the Canadians, Izzy Asper in 1992 and then ultimately floated and he made more than a billion dollars on that investment. So these things come and go and ultimately they are profitable businesses. Sometimes the owners get into trouble because they borrow too much money.

PETER LLOYD: That, in hindsight, seems to be the problem besetting Channel Nine.

A few weeks ago the rival media owner, Channel Seven's Kerry Stokes, was predicting that within a year the business would be owned by the banks.

Media analyst Roger Coleman from CCZ Equities says there have simply been too many lean years in the business cycle for the owners of Nine, CVC Entertainment Group.

ROGER COLEMAN: It is essentially CVC who have got to cop it. There is no other way out other than to refloat and regear it. Bear, without being able to bludge off anybody else's balance sheet.

PETER LLOYD: Nine is looking to get the lenders to give it more time to pay off debt today. Is that likely to happen?

ROGER COLEMAN: Well, no. It's 20/13 is debt due date but you would normally try and get things done beforehand. Now with the increasing economic uncertainty, you want to bed things down pretty fast.

Now you rule the mechanics of Nine, it earned last year $415 million (inaudible) supporting $3.6 billion worth of debt. They have got one what you call unrelated asset they can still sell, Ticketek and a very small Acer Arena one in Sydney but Nine MSN is central of the group so you just can't separate that.

So the magazine, the portal and the television stations essentially have to stay together, right.

Now the bankers have got to work out what the value is if they try and float it on the market which is one choice and on our assessment using an interest cover of four times, they are going to get no equity back and the lenders have to take a 10 per cent haircut.

PETER LLOYD: So did Nine's backers pay too much at the outset or are they just badly managed?

ROGER COLEMAN: No, 2006 was a good year. 2007 leftover good year then we had the GFC. We've a one year recovery and since then media stocks have headed south.

PETER LLOYD: In general, the media business is suffering lately. Revenues are weak, the internet is gobbling up ads, content and customers.

Stephen Mayne again.

STEPHEN MAYNE: Fairfax shares have fallen from more than $5 to less than $1 because the value of their newspapers have gone through the floor. News Limited is trying to cut 15 to 20 per cent from its cost base on newspapers in Australia.

So anything which is printed around the world has been smashed by the internet as advertising moves online and circulation and sales fall but clearly there is just too much debt sitting on the PBL Media's books so CBC, the private equity owners, probably will lose control.

Banks will take over and they may and try and float the business, break it up, sell it off to try and recover as much of their $3.7 billion in debt as possible.

PETER CAVE: Stephen Mayne, the shareholder activist, ending that report by Peter Lloyd.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3370129.htm



Oh great that's all we need. The AFL joining forces with some other equity partner/partners and buying out channel nine. Fu*king bloody wonderful.
 

IllawarraGiant

Juniors
Messages
73
so what does this all mean? on face value it means 9 is in serious structural trouble that is going to make it near impossible to make an aggressive First or Last bid... Ten dont have the wherewithal to do anyting but take a nibble (SOO package?) : and Seven having the box seat where it will either: a) see this as a once in a 25 year opportunity to get NRL for a relative song or b) decide that in this climate, discretion is the better part of valour and decide to only take a nibble itself>

This could lead to a scenario where 7 and 10 haggle over SOO to get their 'little piece of NRL' and a significantly reduced desire from either to make a big play on regular season NRL by anyone... and pay tv doesnt see enough northern states upside to justify a big increase..and no sersious FTA competition to have to haggle to get more for existing spend...

is this where breaking up the rights backfires?
are we now totally f**ked on rights?
 

Raiderdave

First Grade
Messages
7,990
didn't we decide a cashed up Ch 9 was a bad thing ?

so a struggling one was good

this is our chanace to break 9's grip on first & last rights & break the game up which Ch 9 holding the rights to the game believed was illegal & going to oppose in court

& they've stated they won't simulcast with Foxtel , who cares now .. they can F off & 7/10 can take 1 to 2 FTA games each ( all shown live on secondary digtal ch's in the sthn states ) plus one getting the rep season on top , Foxtel the other 4/5 exclusive but broadcasting the 3/4 FTA games live as they are doing with the AFL , & pay us something similar too .. up to 600 Mill

if 9 can't hold onto the rights
its bye bye 1st & last bidding rights
& hello to a game broken up to maximise its value with every game on Pay
ova a billion , case closed
 
Last edited:

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,842
Also have it on good authority that LEK have finalised their impact assessments on what the loss of rights would have on 9 & Foxtel and are planning to present to the IC hopefully in early December.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
so what does this all mean? on face value it means 9 is in serious structural trouble that is going to make it near impossible to make an aggressive First or Last bid... Ten dont have the wherewithal to do anyting but take a nibble (SOO package?) : and Seven having the box seat where it will either: a) see this as a once in a 25 year opportunity to get NRL for a relative song or b) decide that in this climate, discretion is the better part of valour and decide to only take a nibble itself>

This could lead to a scenario where 7 and 10 haggle over SOO to get their 'little piece of NRL' and a significantly reduced desire from either to make a big play on regular season NRL by anyone... and pay tv doesnt see enough northern states upside to justify a big increase..and no sersious FTA competition to have to haggle to get more for existing spend...

is this where breaking up the rights backfires?
are we now totally f**ked on rights?

if you go back a page or two you'll see some discussion on this as these articles are kind of old
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top