The TV rights thread part II

[flippikat]

i actually wondered why there was no rugby league on the big advertisements for sky sport in 2012.

this i obviously why...

as i said in the other thread... i hope a FTA channel apart from Prime gets some sort of coverage...

i think the current way things are done is pathetic... Sky own Prime... and Prime hold the FTA rights... so sky purposely play the RL at ridiculous hours because they know it drives any true RL fans to SKY.

i wish a FTA channel would have the balls to pay for rights for even 1 Live game a week...

Yeah, it would be good if a free-to-air channel other than Prime had some NRL - if the games were available at times when people - and especially FAMILIES - can watch for free, it will do wonders for the game's profile here.

As you say, it's in Sky's interest for their Free-to-air channel to play NRL at insanely late times to drive people towards sports subscriptions.

But if you look at the other potential FTA bidders, it's not exactly hope-inspiring - there's just not that much money in NZ free-to-air TV. TVworks (TV3 & Four) are apparently in the middle of having their debt bought out in a takeover, TVNZ might get some flak if they spend "tax payers money" trying to outbid Prime, ditto for Maori TV. Maybe what we need is for the Govt to sell off TV2 and one of the large Aussie networks buy it up, and start giving Prime a run for it's money?

Unless the Government legislates to block Sky from bidding for FTA rights or puts some sort of regulation around what can be shown where and with how much delay, Sky will get the FTA rights and keep playing NRL at godawful times for those that can't afford pay TV.

Australia and New Zealand are interesting case studies of what happens with and without anti-syphoning law.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/6330349/NRL-coverage-in-NZ-still-not-a-done-deal

NRL coverage in NZ still not a done deal
AARON LAWTON
Last updated 05:00 29/01/2012

Sky Television chief executive John Fellet has downplayed any concerns the broadcaster won't screen the NRL this season – but has stopped short of making any guarantees.

With little more than a month until the competition kicks off, the Kiwi pay TV network is yet agree to terms with the NRL over a new broadcasting deal.

The last contract lapsed at the end of the 2011 season.

Fellet says Sky has been told to wait until the NRL's new independent commission is in place before entering negotiations.

Some reports in Australia suggest that could be as early as February 10, but if, as is quite possible, the process of setting up the commission drags into the new season, Sky is still confident something will be done.

"The NRL always indicated to us that they wouldn't consider any deal until the new commission has had time to come to the table and be briefed on television deals," Fellet said.

"I suspect something would be done as an interim measure [if the commission is not in place before March 1] because it's money to them as well, right?

"It's content for us and money for them.

"If they really thought the independent commission wouldn't happen until after the first game or something like that, I have a feeling they would come back to us."

While Sky isn't yet officially tied into a broadcasting deal with the NRL, the station has still been given the all-clear by the sporting body to screen next Saturday's NRL All Stars match.

Fellet said that was a sign of "good faith on behalf of both parties".

NRL director of media and communications John Brady admitted last night there was no official start date for the commission, but said talks with Sky were "ongoing".

"We're still talking and the All Stars game will be going ahead on Sky TV in the meantime," he said.

"No date's actually been set by the commission yet. A lot of the talk is just speculation."

The prospect of the NRL not being screened on New Zealand television this year – no matter how small – is sure to fill league fans with dread.

Reports have suggested a deal between Sky and the NRL would be about A$14 million (NZ$18m) for one year.

No other New Zealand networks would appear to have the resources to compete with Sky for the rights.

Fellet said it wasn't uncommon for TV deals to be locked in after seasons had already started.

"I signed the Fifa World Cup deal about two months after the last match," he said.

"It doesn't always happen the way you think it would happen.

"Normally, they say something like – `we'll get the deal done, go ahead and start coverage'."

In Australia, the NRL's six-year deal with Channel Nine and FoxSports, which ends after the 2013 season, is valued at $A500 million.

The cumulative viewership figures across the ditch last year were reportedly 128 million – up 2 million on 2010.

Fellet, however, said despite the Warriors' success in 2011, the ratings in New Zealand last year had actually been down on previous seasons.

He pointed to the Rugby World Cup as a major reason for that, and said ratings weren't as important to the station as feedback from viewers during focus group surveys.

All signs point to the NRL and Sky getting a deal over the line.

But Fellet also cautioned that while he couldn't foresee any problems, he couldn't guarantee a deal would be done until his signature and NRL CEO David Gallop's were drying on a piece of paper.

 

[flippikat]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/6330349/NRL-coverage-in-NZ-still-not-a-done-deal

That''s the problem in NZ - it's as close to a done deal as you'll ever get (DESPITE all these claims to the contrary), and they know it.

 

[beave]

Fox and 9 deals finish at the end of 2013??? WTF? Great investigative journalism there..........

 

[Kirky]

Any word on whether we're able to un-bundle the rights for the 2013 deal? As I understand being able to sell SOO and MNF separately would allow 7 and 10 - who probably can't afford the total FTA rights package - to enter bidding wars for these smaller pieces, which is our best chance to maximise the value of the deal. The last I heard this was in doubt because it was in violation (or alleged violation) of the first and last rights owned by Nine and Fox? Anyone know where this issue sits currently?

 

[some11]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...ound-for-captain/story-e6frep76-1226256278460

SAM Thaiday is the new kid on the captaincy block, but the Brisbane Broncos skipper wants to have a voice on the important issues in rugby league.

Thaiday called on the Independent Commission to be "ballsy" in the TV rights negotiations, pleaded with players to rally around the NRL Players Association in securing a better Collective Bargaining Agreement and suggested reducing the interchange to further improve the game.

 

[Dragonwest]

Foxtel bombarding my email with AFL offers for the upcoming season. Free $100 eftpos cards plus a 'free foxtel remote in your team's colours'. It makes me sick.

There lucky it's a non-reply email address!

 

[juro]

From twitter:

@nospam11 nospam11
Blow for the AFL and Telstra, as Optus wins its landmark copyright case in the Federal Court around the rights to broadcast games online

EDIT: not sure why this changes the link to nospam11. It is actually from S portsnewsfirst ...

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.smh.com.au/business/optus-wins-landmark-web-broadcast-rights-case-20120201-1qsoi.html

Optus wins landmark web broadcast rights case
Lucy Battersby
February 1, 2012 - 2:29PM

Optus has won a landmark court case which shatters Telstra’s stranglehold over internet sports broadcasting and poses an immediate threat to the Australian Football League’s recent broadcast rights deals.

Justice Steven Rares of the Federal Court in Sydney this afternoon decided Optus will be granted court protection from copyright claims by the AFL, Telstra and National Rugby League over its TV Now Service.

While Telstra and the sporting bodies are likely to appeal the decision, this will not happen before the AFL season starts on March 24 and the NRL season starts on March 1.

Optus customers can record and watch matches screened on free-to-air television and replay with delays as short two-minutes some devices. This is in direct competition to Telstra’s exclusive deal with the AFL and NRL to broadcast matches live over the internet.

Justice Rare’s decision was based on time-shifting provisions in the Copyright Act which allow individuals to record and watch a show at a more convenient time.

Optus’s lawyers succesfully argued that TV Now was a modern interpretation of the video recorder because a separate recording was made for each individual. Optus stores the recording at a data centre and sends it to individuals via the internet on request — known as cloud storage.

The decision clarifies the legal interpretation of Australia’s Copyright Act, which was written before internet broadcasting became common.

However, it also devalues the exclusive internet broadcast rights for sporting bodies in Australia.

lbattersby@theage.com.au

 

[Kirky]

Interesting. Hopefully this gets overturned on appeal. If not, could cost us a pretty penny when negotiating with Telstra for our internet/mobile rights.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/aus...opyright-verdict/story-e6frgakx-1226259568206

Before the decision Telstra had warned that an adverse decision could scuttle its $153 million exclusive deal with the AFL.

However, after the ruling Telstra spokesman Craig Middleton said the deal would not be affected.

"We'll be going ahead with our plans for the upcoming AFL season,'' Mr Middleton said. "We will be looking at what our options are. We will continue to protect the sports rights that we have invested in on behalf of our customers and also the sporting fans."

what;s the bet Telstra don't apply that to the NRL?

 

[Perth Red]

Good news for fans, bad news for income

 

[Canard]

Whats this comment

This is in direct competition to Telstra’s exclusive deal with the AFL and NRL to broadcast matches live over the internet.

When have Telstra broadcast NRL live over the internet into Australia?

 

[Kirky]

what;s the bet Telstra don't apply that to the NRL?

I don't understand why they'd honour their deal with the AFL? They paid an incredible amount of money for exclusive mobile/internet rights. The AFL can no longer offer them exclusive mobile/internet rights, therefore, contract should be null and void?

If the AFL gets to keep their $153 million, but we get shafted in our negotiations because of this development.....:x

 

[El Diablo]

if they try to shaft us then just refuse to sell them till they cough up

 

[Kirky]

if they try to shaft us then just refuse to sell them till they cough up

My concern is that if this doesn't get overturned anyone (Telstra, Optus, Voda) can legally broadcast FTA matches on a tiny 2 minutes delay to mobiles without paying a cent to sporting bodies, and that Telstra will just do this and only buy the NRL rights to similcast PayTV matches. Given that our marquee games are on FTA (including all three SOO games), it may have a negative affect on the amount that Telstra are required to pay.

In any case, will keep fingers crossed that it gets overturned on appeal (right to appeal has already been granted by the court).

 

[Cumberland Throw]

Welcome to Telstra time shift

All for $2 a month. NRL gets Bubkis

 

[Zigwaa]

Sux for NRL. It Does mean states like SA WA Vic and TAS that get shafted will finally get to see close to live Channel 9 games.

 

[beave]

We are going to get rolled with this...........

 

[supercharger]

We are going to get rolled with this...........

agreed we are so hosed