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.

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,842
Doc, is that due to the fallout of the AFL drama between 10 and 7??

They don't need to be in a formalised partnership to break 9's stranglehold. It's actually to their advantage to be seperate because they will actually be bidding for the same properties at various points.
 

Goddo

Bench
Messages
4,257
i'd say it means the same deal as what is happening with the AFL and 7 seeing Fox have said they would like that for the NRL too

so Fox would simulcast the same game but obviously with less ads and just use the FTA commentators for non exclusive games
Yeah thats the scenario if 9 are priced out. I see it going one of two ways:

* 9 retain all of Rugby League free to air after matching 7/10's first bid
* not all NRL matches shown on payTV - 9 really don't want it - this would reduce the pay TV component
* sizeable internet deal from Telstra - way of the future
* $900M-$1000M - I'd tip the NRL to sacrifice things it wants (such as scheduling and so on) to push the upper end of that scale to apease the clubs

or (what I think is more likely)

* 9's first bid insufficient, first and last rights broken
* depending on the bid that breaks 9, the game is likely to be split into packages - all in for each package between 7, 9 & 10
* 7 poaches Origin, Tests and maybe one weekly game
* 10 or 9 gets the rest of the free to air (possibly on sold by 7 if they win the lot)
* all NRL matches simulcast on Foxtel
* finals somehow split between 7 and 9 or 10
* $1000M-$1100M - I'd tip the NRL to take cash hits in this case to get things it wants
* NRL and 9 might end up in court disputing the terms of the first offers from 9 and 7/10.

(If 9's first offer is similar in $ to its rivals, but inferior in other ways (such as simulcasting) and they refuse to match it, and the NRL then awards the rights to 7/10, the details of the "first and last rights" will be disputed.)

Either way the cash component is likely to be around $1000-1050M. Its how good the detail of the deal is that will change.

EDIT - I'm not sure how expansion discussion would fit into all of that. Broadcasters would have a preference of locations which they would pay more for, but in the scheme of the negotiations and the fact the extra clubs will only be in this deal for a year or two, it might not factor into it too much.
 
Last edited:

NRL-TGG

Guest Moderator
Messages
1,354
Does that mean Fox Sports commentators on FTA? Hope not...

If the next group of FTA commentators are anything like the current ones (except Rabs, love ya Rabbie) then that would be a good thing.

Yeah thats the scenario if 9 are priced out. I see it going one of two ways:

* 9 retain all of Rugby League free to air after matching 7/10's first bid
* not all NRL matches shown on payTV - 9 really don't want it - this would reduce the pay TV component
* sizeable internet deal from Telstra - way of the future
* $900M-$1000M - I'd tip the NRL to sacrifice things it wants (such as scheduling and so on) to push the upper end of that scale to apease the clubs

or (what I think is more likely)

* 9's first bid insufficient, first and last rights broken
* depending on the bid that breaks 9, the game is likely to be split into packages - all in for each package between 7, 9 & 10
* 7 poaches Origin, Tests and maybe one weekly game
* 10 or 9 gets the rest of the free to air (possibly on sold by 7 if they win the lot)
* all NRL matches simulcast on Foxtel
* finals somehow split between 7 and 9 or 10
* $1000M-$1100M - I'd tip the NRL to take cash hits in this case to get things it wants
* NRL and 9 might end up in court disputing the terms of the first offers from 9 and 7/10.

(If 9's first offer is similar in $ to its rivals, but inferior in other ways (such as simulcasting) and they refuse to match it, and the NRL then awards the rights to 7/10, the details of the "first and last rights" will be disputed.)

Either way the cash component is likely to be around $1000-1050M. Its how good the detail of the deal is that will change.

EDIT - I'm not sure how expansion discussion would fit into all of that. Broadcasters would have a preference of locations which they would pay more for, but in the scheme of the negotiations and the fact the extra clubs will only be in this deal for a year or two, it might not factor into it too much.

Very good and thought out post.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
9 might get some new owners that would wipe the debt

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...s-cvc-pulls-back/story-fn91v9q3-1226223394692

US funds ponder move on Nine as CVC pulls back


by: Richard Gluyas
From: The Australian
December 16, 2011 12:00AM

DISTRESSED debt funds Apollo and Oaktree are set to bid for control of Nine Entertainment early next year through a substantial debt-for-equity swap that would crystallise heavy losses for Nine's private equity owner CVC Asia Pacific.

The giant US funds, which have bought about $1 billion of Nine's $2.7bn in senior debt on the secondary market, signalled their intentions yesterday after CVC pulled the plug on a second proposal to restructure the media company's crippling debt load.

A source said it was "extraordinary" that CVC had avoided the funds and approached only Nine's original par lenders with its proposal to split the senior debt into two tranches and stretch maturities until 2017.

"It's clearly not in the interests of Nine for CVC to continue its game of brinkmanship to preserve some optionality over its $1.9bn in equity," he said.

"So Apollo and Oaktree will move to generate their own proposal to fix the Nine business that will involve a material compromise of the whole or part of Nine's debt."
Rec Coverage 28 Day pass

It is understood that Apollo and Oaktree will work through the Christmas and new year break to present a proposal to all Nine stakeholders early next year.

With the senior debt trading in the range of 82c-87c in the dollar, the proposal will assume that CVC's equity has effectively been lost, and that $975 million in mezzanine debt held by a Goldman Sachs fund is in a similar position.

The funds, however, are likely to offer some value to CVC and Goldman in the hope of securing a smooth transition.

"Apollo and Oaktree are absolutely committed to the Nine business, its management team and stabilising the situation," the source said.

Yesterday's dramatic developments involving Apollo and Oaktree followed CVC's abandonment of its second restructuring proposal.

The private equity firm had little choice, after hedge funds and distressed debt funds snapped up about 60 per cent of Nine's original bank debt in secondary market trading in recent weeks.

A source said CVC would not be presenting any more proposals before Christmas.

"Things will settle in for a while and Nine will continue to pay interest on its debt," the source said.

Under the second CVC proposal, the first $1.8bn tranche of debt would have been held by Nine's original lenders, which would have received a fee and a higher interest rate in return for extending the maturity date from 2013 to 2017.

A further $900m of senior debt held by hedge funds would have been exchanged for high-yielding warrants also maturing in 2017.

CVC issued a statement last week saying that Nine's senior debt matured in February 2013 and there was "no current requirement" to refinance ahead of that date. Nine, further, was not in breach of any of its financial covenants.

But a hedge fund representative said pressure was intensifying on CVC. "These restructurings take time to implement, so if it comes to June next year and there is no proposal to fix things, the Nine board will be starting to get a bit jumpy," he said.
 

Goddo

Bench
Messages
4,257
9 might get some new owners that would wipe the debt
I dunno how to take that news.

Its bad if 9 has lots of cash and first and last rights - there will be little competition, Foxtel won't get all games live so they won't be paying up big. No breaking the game into packages.

A poor 9 with first and last rights is probably better.
 

Stormarekings

Juniors
Messages
90
The TV rights are like an auction. In terms of making money it is better to have three rich buyers (7,9 and 10) trying to win the auction rather then only 1 rich buyer (7). The bidding will go on for a lot longer and to much higher prices with three buyers. The richer the better because they will be willing to part with more money.
 

Stormarekings

Juniors
Messages
90
In terms of breaking first and last rights this is different. You want 9 to make an initially low bid (due to no money) that it broken and then for 9 to suddenly have lots of money (onsold to another company) to compete with the other networks to raise up the price.:pray::pray:
 

NRL-TGG

Guest Moderator
Messages
1,354
I dunno how to take that news.

Its bad if 9 has lots of cash and first and last rights - there will be little competition, Foxtel won't get all games live so they won't be paying up big. No breaking the game into packages.

A poor 9 with first and last rights is probably better.

This:

The TV rights are like an auction. In terms of making money it is better to have three rich buyers (7,9 and 10) trying to win the auction rather then only 1 rich buyer (7). The bidding will go on for a lot longer and to much higher prices with three buyers. The richer the better because they will be willing to part with more money.

Also new american owners could buy up big on Rugby League when they see how well it rates and at a long shot could help with developing the game in the USA are seeing it succeed.

Plus, will the first and last rights still be in a effect if there are new owners?
 

rednblack

Juniors
Messages
275
Also new american owners could buy up big on Rugby League when they see how well it rates and at a long shot could help with developing the game in the USA are seeing it succeed.

You mean a large American based broadcaster would be good for rugby league, and would help to grow our game overseas?

Quick! Somebody tell NEWS!
 

Goddo

Bench
Messages
4,257
This:



Also new american owners could buy up big on Rugby League when they see how well it rates and at a long shot could help with developing the game in the USA are seeing it succeed.

Plus, will the first and last rights still be in a effect if there are new owners?
There is a big problem with that, and its the first and last rights.

If 7s first bid is less than 20% larger than 9s first, all 9 has to do to retain the rights is match 7s bid. So 9 bid high enough to be within range of what they think 7 will play, then match it. No competition for rights. If this happened we will only get around $900-950M. BAD.

First and last rights kill competition in an even market. Which is why 9 being poor would be a good thing - it levels the playing field.


And 9 have a legal contract with the NRL until the end of the next deal. The NRL's restructuring of ownership has zero effect on the first and last rights of 9.
 
Last edited:

firechild

First Grade
Messages
8,034
And 9 have a legal contract with the NRL until the end of the next deal. The NRL's restructuring of ownership has zero effect on the first and last rights of 9.

I think the question was regarding possible change of ownership of 9, not the NRL.
 

Ray Mosters

Juniors
Messages
237
There is a big problem with that, and its the first and last rights.

If 7s first bid is less than 20% larger than 9s first, all 9 has to do to retain the rights is match 7s bid. So 9 bid high enough to be within range of what they think 7 will play, then match it. No competition for rights. If this happened we will only get around $900-950M. BAD.

First and last rights kill competition in an even market. Which is why 9 being poor would be a good thing - it levels the playing field.
Your right about the last rights, but the the 20% breakage figure guarantees that the opening bid will be a decent size.

Remember, our best-case-scenario here is for a broadcaster or combination of broadcasters to pay more than they can make directly off us. In effect, we want them to pay more than what we are worth.

9 wont risk the first and last rights being broken, IMO, and will put forward an opening bid that is quite close to what they believe they can make money off.

Now, the really interesting part comes in after that....namely, will 7 be happy to overpay for the rights? Will they, as they do with the AFL, treat the NRL as a loss leader? They already have one overpriced property, will they be happy to have another?

Its unlikely, but who knows, they have deep pockets. In any case, its very unlikely that they will pay 20 whole percent more than what will already be a huge yearly sum to be paid for league. Thats why I dont believe the first and last rights will be broken.

However, if they DO bonanza us, and they get the whole property, then we are looking at a really serious payday.

Not sure about the Foxtel side. There seems to be little leverage we can exact upon them. But we will see.
 

NRL-TGG

Guest Moderator
Messages
1,354
There is a big problem with that, and its the first and last rights.

If 7s first bid is less than 20% larger than 9s first, all 9 has to do to retain the rights is match 7s bid. So 9 bid high enough to be within range of what they think 7 will play, then match it. No competition for rights. If this happened we will only get around $900-950M. BAD.

First and last rights kill competition in an even market. Which is why 9 being poor would be a good thing - it levels the playing field.


And 9 have a legal contract with the NRL until the end of the next deal. The NRL's restructuring of ownership has zero effect on the first and last rights of 9.

The NRL doesn't have to accept though, they just have to give ch 9 the opportunity to level or better it before signing with another network. If 9 equal 7's bid, the NRL could go back to 7 and they could bid higher. The NRL would then have to give the 9 another chance of equaling that bid before signing.
 

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,842
The NRL doesn't have to accept though, they just have to give ch 9 the opportunity to level or better it before signing with another network. If 9 equal 7's bid, the NRL could go back to 7 and they could bid higher. The NRL would then have to give the 9 another chance of equaling that bid before signing.

Indeed and it's during those exchanges that you modify the value.

For example, you wouldn't offer new advertising streams straight up with 9 - you offer it afterwards to the rival who can then add that cost value upon their existing bid and then throw that back to 9.

Splitting into packages, increasing FTA games, restructuring timeslots, expansion, increasing advertising, simulcasting etc are all similar flexible elements that can be used to increase tension.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=23016665&postcount=95

say hello to the homo
finger9tl.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top