The TV rights thread

[seanoff]

If Foxtel have upped their bid for AFL they better freaking give NRL more than them considering the amount of programs which are in their top 20 viewerships are NRL games.

They better gives us AFL + 1/2. Otherwise they can f**k off...and watch their subscriptions drop as a result and advertising dollars piss off because now their programming isn't as attractive.

remember, they are getting all 9 AFL games every week. EVERY GAME.

If they don't get every NRL game live, don't expect them to pony up the same sort of money.

 

[docbrown]

Would be interesting to know whether the AFL used other options, like the ones you mentioned to push their deal with Telstra as high as possible.

Doubt it. Hulu wasn't announced until well into the negotiations.

To be honest I think the AFL's chase for dollars might cost them in the long run. They're already oversaturated now and I suspect its why their television audiences peaked and are starting to decline. As someone pointed out today with this last round, by showing so much AFL over so many days people grow tiresome. By providing a plethora of options, you also enforce an attitude where viewers start to pick and choose what specific portion they wish to watch. And by being more selective, the overall aggregate starts to drop.

On the other hand if anything, the NRL shown that it hasn't reached its full market potential and in specific cases there is actually a real audience demand for them to expand their their broadcast reach. At the moment we get 1 live timeslot a week on F2A restricted to certain states with some of the largest games of the season restricted to a minority audience on subscription.

 

[BunniesMan]

If Foxtel have upped their bid for AFL they better freaking give NRL more than them considering the amount of programs which are in their top 20 viewerships are NRL games.

They won't be doing that.

They better gives us AFL + 1/2.

They certainly won't be doing that.

Otherwise they can f**k off...and watch their subscriptions drop as a result and advertising dollars piss off because now their programming isn't as attractive.

Noone will be saying that to them either.

The way they decide on how to pay is so much more complicated than just "x dollars per x people watching". NRL won't be getting more than AFL from Fox. Fox is getting EVERY AFL game live. We won't be offering every NRL game live.

And even though we deserve the same or more we know we won't get it. And there's little we can do about it. The benefits of being a powerful monopoly.

 

[Cumberland Throw]

God it would be great for the non core states to have every single game live simulcast on fox. They would get Friday night football in every single market at 730 pm est

 

[Quidgybo]

God it would be great for the non core states to have every single game live simulcast on fox. They would get Friday night football in every single market at 730 pm est

That's aiming much too low. Fans in "non core" states shouldn't have to pay for live coverage where fans in core states do not have to pay for it. With the new anti siphoning laws, there's absolutely no reason why a game shown at 7.30pm in Sydney on a main free to air channel shouldn't be shown in Melbourne at 7.30pm on a free to air digital multi-channel. The game must be accessible on free to air if we are to have any hope of growing our audience through casual exposure.

Leigh.

 

[Ray Mosters]

and according to this 7 aren't paying any more than they do now so should still have plenty of coin http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-1bn-afl-tv-deal/story-e6frg6nf-1226045243391

Thats not accurate

The FTA component last time was 93m including advertising contra, and was split with channel 10

This time, the FTA component is going to be 85m, with the contra yet to be determined, and the split with other broadcasters also yet to be determined by an onsell

So how much 7 can afford for NRL rights wont be known even by them until those things are sorted out. If they cant onsell a couple of AFL games then they may have to swallow the entire AFL FTA product themselves, which may leave them short for the NRL.

But who knows, they are pretty financial these days. Maybe they can play all the FTA games of both codes and make a buck off them.

 

[Raiderdave]

They won't be doing that.


They certainly won't be doing that.


Noone will be saying that to them either.

The way they decide on how to pay is so much more complicated than just "x dollars per x people watching". NRL won't be getting more than AFL from Fox. Fox is getting EVERY AFL game live. We won't be offering every NRL game live.

And even though we deserve the same or more we know we won't get it. And there's little we can do about it. The benefits of being a powerful monopoly.

No one has yet been able to explain why we HAVE to have pay TV covering our games

9- 7 & 10 can get the lot & Foxtel can fiddle with themselves & that underperforming ... over valued sport that is the AFL
& one or a combo can have the other parts of our rights too .. & get our Billion that way ... they'd be enough dough going around to do it too

leave pay out of it if they don't value the product we are & continue to use NRL subscribers to fund their push for AFL rights
we don't need pay ... they can whistle dixie

 

[seanoff]

No one has yet been able to explain why we HAVE to have pay TV covering our games

9- 7 & 10 can get the lot & Foxtel can fiddle with themselves & that underperforming ... over valued sport that is the AFL
& one or a combo can have the other parts of our rights too .. & get our Billion that way ... they'd be enough dough going around to do it too

leave pay out of it if they don't value the product we are & continue to use NRL subscribers to fund their push for AFL rights
we don't need pay ... they can whistle dixie

stay off the drugs!!!

there are four possible bidders for the NRL rights. 9 7 10 and Fox.

10 are pulling back from sport, 7 have 4 AFL games already. so they are probably a bit limited in their interest.

that leaves Fox and 9. 9 are not going to show wall to wall NRL every weekend.

so whether you like it or not Fox will HAVE to take games. what they pay will depend on what games they get.. with the AFL they are getting all the games so they'll pay full price for those. if the NRL offer them games 4 - 9. not going to pay so much.

this is the real world, not some sort of fantasy world where the NRL is everything to everybody

 

[Ray Mosters]

Its not just the lack of bidders, its the fact that its easier to make more money from RL telecasts with the subscription model than being fully advertiser supported. Our TV rights value would be the highest if it were all on Pay, we just dont do that because its bad for the games long term growth.

Likewise, our lowest possible return would come if all games were shown on FTA.

And put simply, our playing group would not survive even a minor contraction in their pay rates. Anything over 20% would see the top 50 players leaving en masse for other codes or overseas. Even having our broadcast revenue staying the same is dangerous for the code.

We are tied inexorably to Foxtel, as they are too us

 

[Quidgybo]

We are tied inexorably to Foxtel, as they are too us

Maybe. I wonder how the figures would stake up if we kept the remaining five games, made them available exclusively online, and charged $20 per month like we already do for international viewers. Regardless of how the numbers add up this time, internet based distribution is going to become a significant factor over the coming years - increasingly marginalising all other television distribution platforms, both subscription and advertiser supported free to air.

Leigh.

 

[andrew057]

Doubt it. Hulu wasn't announced until well into the negotiations.

To be honest I think the AFL's chase for dollars might cost them in the long run. They're already oversaturated now and I suspect its why their television audiences peaked and are starting to decline. As someone pointed out today with this last round, by showing so much AFL over so many days people grow tiresome. By providing a plethora of options, you also enforce an attitude where viewers start to pick and choose what specific portion they wish to watch. And by being more selective, the overall aggregate starts to drop.

On the other hand if anything, the NRL shown that it hasn't reached its full market potential and in specific cases there is actually a real audience demand for them to expand their their broadcast reach. At the moment we get 1 live timeslot a week on F2A restricted to certain states with some of the largest games of the season restricted to a minority audience on subscription.

Cheers DB.

 

[Ray Mosters]

Maybe. I wonder how the figures would stake up if we kept the remaining five games, made them available exclusively online, and charged $20 per month like we already do for international viewers. Regardless, internet based distribution is going to become a significant factor over the coming years - increasingly marginalising all other television distribution platforms, both subscription and advertiser supported free to air.

Leigh.

Interesting idea, but we would have to solve the problem of people watching games on their computer or ipad, people WANT to watch the game in their living rooms on their TVs.

iinets Fetch TV would do the trick, or Telstras T-Box

Lets have a stab at the sums ourselves...

NRL games are the number 1 reason people get Foxtel in Australia...I wonder how many households that is? We could perhaps figure it out by looking at Foxtel uptake rates in the heartland as opposed to outside.

So the assumption is: The difference in the Foxtel subscription rate in the heartland to non-heartland areas is entirely due to NRL subscribers. Anyone disagree?

For example, if 40% of households in NSW and QLD have Foxtel, and 15% have it elsewhere, that means that 25% of households in NSW and QLD get Foxtel for the NRL

So, I dont suppose anyone has

A. NSW and QLD Foxtel subscription rates?
B. Everywhere else subscription rates?
C. The number of households in NSW and QLD?
(I have seen 1 and 2 quoted on LU before, 3 not sure)

The difference between A and B, multiplied by C equals X

X: the number of households that pony up at the current exorbitant Foxtel rate for NRL games.

Then you could add on a couple of % of all other households for those that get it outside the heartland. (This is conservative)

Now obviously Foxtel get people for an entire year by contract, effectively making people pay for foxtel out of season, whereas our model would work month to month, so we would have to adjust it for that.

Once we have the number of households X, multiplied by the number of months in the season (conservatively say 6, even though its longer) we divide it by what we currently get for the Pay component of our broadcast rights (is it 40m a year???) and we get an amount in dollars we would need to make off each Fetch TV subscriber per month of the season for NRL games.

(X * 6) / $40m = per month rate for NRL on Fetch

If this is much cheaper than a Foxtel subscription, then many more people will get it, and we would be making a bigger

(additionally iinet would need to take a margin, a couple of bucks probably)

 

[Perth Red]

you'd have to factor in production costs to get a real profit value after expenses.

 

[Raiderdave]

stay off the drugs!!!

there are four possible bidders for the NRL rights. 9 7 10 and Fox.

10 are pulling back from sport, 7 have 4 AFL games already. so they are probably a bit limited in their interest.

that leaves Fox and 9. 9 are not going to show wall to wall NRL every weekend.

so whether you like it or not Fox will HAVE to take games. what they pay will depend on what games they get.. with the AFL they are getting all the games so they'll pay full price for those. if the NRL offer them games 4 - 9. not going to pay so much.

this is the real world, not some sort of fantasy world where the NRL is everything to everybody

oh .. so they'll take them off our hands cos they have to do they ?

yeah I spose we could talk them into it couldn't we
80 of the top 100 shows every year ... 4 of the top 10 rating shows in the history of pay tv in this country in the last 7 weeks

yeah no attraction there , is there

Idiot :crazy::crazy::sarcasm:

 

[Raiderdave]

Its not just the lack of bidders, its the fact that its easier to make more money from RL telecasts with the subscription model than being fully advertiser supported. Our TV rights value would be the highest if it were all on Pay, we just dont do that because its bad for the games long term growth.

Likewise, our lowest possible return would come if all games were shown on FTA.

And put simply, our playing group would not survive even a minor contraction in their pay rates. Anything over 20% would see the top 50 players leaving en masse for other codes or overseas. Even having our broadcast revenue staying the same is dangerous for the code.

We are tied inexorably to Foxtel, as they are too us

so 9 games a week for 5 years , between 3 FTA broadcasters, including SOO.. Tests & Finals
couldn't rake in a Billion

oh ... Ok then :sarcasm:

 

[CC_Roosters]

oh .. so they'll take them off our hands cos they have to do they ?

yeah I spose we could talk them into it couldn't we
80 of the top shows every year ... 4 of the top 10 rating shows in the history of pay tv in this country in the last 7 weeks

yeah no attraction there , is there

Idiot :crazy::crazy::sarcasm:

When its put like that, how can fox not vastly incresae the payments. I don't anticipate it will get what the afl are rumoured to have got but a handsome increase at least. I hope gallop and the negotiating team stand up to them big time

 

[applesauce]

85million/year from Fox will be sufficient provided that the FTA networks bid up, 4 games on FTA, 5 on Fox.

The big thing in the deal will be MNF. As important as a bargaining chip as SOO in my opinion.

I hope the clubs were bluffing when talking about scrapping it, do they want a bigger deal or not?

 

[Edwahu]

Interesting idea, but we would have to solve the problem of people watching games on their computer or ipad, people WANT to watch the game in their living rooms on their TVs.

iinets Fetch TV would do the trick, or Telstras T-Box

Lets have a stab at the sums ourselves...

NRL games are the number 1 reason people get Foxtel in Australia...I wonder how many households that is? We could perhaps figure it out by looking at Foxtel uptake rates in the heartland as opposed to outside.

So the assumption is: The difference in the Foxtel subscription rate in the heartland to non-heartland areas is entirely due to NRL subscribers. Anyone disagree?

For example, if 40% of households in NSW and QLD have Foxtel, and 15% have it elsewhere, that means that 25% of households in NSW and QLD get Foxtel for the NRL

So, I dont suppose anyone has

A. NSW and QLD Foxtel subscription rates?
B. Everywhere else subscription rates?
C. The number of households in NSW and QLD?
(I have seen 1 and 2 quoted on LU before, 3 not sure)

The difference between A and B, multiplied by C equals X

X: the number of households that pony up at the current exorbitant Foxtel rate for NRL games.

Then you could add on a couple of % of all other households for those that get it outside the heartland. (This is conservative)

Now obviously Foxtel get people for an entire year by contract, effectively making people pay for foxtel out of season, whereas our model would work month to month, so we would have to adjust it for that.

Once we have the number of households X, multiplied by the number of months in the season (conservatively say 6, even though its longer) we divide it by what we currently get for the Pay component of our broadcast rights (is it 40m a year???) and we get an amount in dollars we would need to make off each Fetch TV subscriber per month of the season for NRL games.

(X * 6) / $40m = per month rate for NRL on Fetch

If this is much cheaper than a Foxtel subscription, then many more people will get it, and we would be making a bigger

(additionally iinet would need to take a margin, a couple of bucks probably)

These numbers are not sub rates, rather the percentage of total subscribers by state. Should be able to derive the other numbers from them though.

http://www.mcn.com.au/content/how2buy.pdf

The difference really isnt as big as implied. Overall 53/47 to NRL states.

 

[seanoff]

oh .. so they'll take them off our hands cos they have to do they ?

yeah I spose we could talk them into it couldn't we
80 of the top 100 shows every year ... 4 of the top 10 rating shows in the history of pay tv in this country in the last 7 weeks

yeah no attraction there , is there

Idiot :crazy::crazy::sarcasm:

given your stupid fantasy that the FTA channels will take them all, Fox taking them is what is going to happen in your fantasy world.

in my fantasy world, Miranda Kerr is leaving her man for me.

this is as realistic as your fantasy of FTA taking all the NRL games and paying $$$$$$$ for it.




Fox will put in an offer to take games at what ever $ they think those games are worth. if they aren't attractive they will offer less than what they offered to get all of the AFL games.

if this offends you, so be it. but get your hand off it regarding fox having NRL. they will have it, probably a bloody big chunk and they'll pay market price for it, whatever that price is.



maybe you nip off now and do what raiders do. isn't that HJs from dogs?

 

[gUt]

given your stupid fantasy that the FTA channels will take them all, Fox taking them is what is going to happen in your fantasy world.

in my fantasy world, Miranda Kerr is leaving her man for me.

this is as realistic as your fantasy of FTA taking all the NRL games and paying $$$$$$$ for it.




Fox will put in an offer to take games at what ever $ they think those games are worth. if they aren't attractive they will offer less than what they offered to get all of the AFL games.

if this offends you, so be it. but get your hand off it regarding fox having NRL. they will have it, probably a bloody big chunk and they'll pay market price for it, whatever that price is.



maybe you nip off now and do what raiders do. isn't that HJs from dogs?

Does she bring the baby with her or does she drown it first? Remember the kid might be a ticket for you to get your hands on Orlando's millions.