The TV rights thread

[Lockyer4President!]

don't forget SBS !

I'm sure this is what the AFL threatened last time they sold the rights. At one stage it looked like 7 was going to have to on-sell some of the games to the ABC but in the end Fox Sports picked them up...

That kind of negotiation would never be allowed to happen with the current NRL partnership setup.

 

[cleary89]

52nd page. Dunno how you guys can do anything less than 50

 

[docbrown]

52nd page. Dunno how you guys can do anything less than 50

I like your location cleary89

 

[El Diablo]

Dunno how you guys can do anything less than 50

you like em older eh

 

[seanoff]

the landscape has changed significantly since the last rights deals were done.

the FTA channels can show protected sport on their secondary channels, this wasn't allowed before this yr and the AFL held their negotiations to get a ruling.

Fox are now allowed to bid by themselves. in the last round a FTA channels had to buy ALL the rights and on sell them to Fox.

and raiderdave.

this is the real world. FTA are not ever going to show 8 games of NRL a week. NEVER. the only way all games are going to be shown is if pay show the majority of them.

 

[Billythekid]

The thing that bothers me isn't that the AFL are going to get much more money than us again. It's that they are also going to wind up with far better coverage especially in frontier markets yet again.

 

[Ray Mosters]

Like I said, 7's first counter offer will be to immediately over price by 20% to negate the first/last rights deal - and I also suspect this will include a wider broadcast distribution arrangement as well.

Nah, wont happen, theres no way they will risk their first and last bid option. Its their sole advantage in these negotiations.

9s first bid is going to be big, quite close to the line in terms of direct profitability from advertising revenue.

Their play will be to force 7 into bidding for another loss-leading property...because as cashed up as they may or may not be, having multiple large loss makers is very tough to justify.

I can see things going this way: 9 not agreeing to take any AFL games... and if as rumoured 10 are reticent to take any AFL, then 7 will be stuck with the lot and their capacity to make a sizable bid for the NRL is significantly decreased.

In fact, now that I think about it, it actually helps us a great deal if 7 make a fair bit of money off the live AFL broadcasting in the early parts of next year, if they do they will be far more bullish about getting another similarly structured property for NSW and QLD.

If it can be shown that live prime-time AFL on the main channels in Vic, SA and WA and multichanneled in NSW and QLD can turn them a good profit through lead-ins and advertising revenue, then they are much more likely to be keen to spend up big on the NRL, which they can show in exactly the opposite markets, on opposite channels, at the same time.

So how about this, if you want NRL games to be shown on 7mate in Victoria, you better hope alot of people watch AFL on 7mate in Sydney.

Pure LeagueUnlimited anathema haha

Because even if they dont actually get the rights themselves, the keener they are on it, and they harder they go for it, the more they will force 9 to pay through the f**king nose for it

 

[Desert Qlder]

9s first bid is going to be big,

In effect you're saying it will be big enough to dissuade Ch. 7 from pushing the 20% threshold, but not so much as what the game is actually worth. Say somewhere in the region of 800 million (when combined with Fox money)?

That's quite a juggling act Ch. 9 will have to pull off surely, and a large risk too.

 

[applesauce]

Read an article in the financial section of the CM saying that Fox need 100k-150k (extra viewers/subscriptions) to pay off the 600mill price tag for the AFL rights.

Currently the best AFL games get 150k-190k so they will need to be around the 350k mark from 2012.

We are currently at that mark and beyond now (and continuing to rise). Shows the disparity in pricing...

 

[Ray Mosters]

In effect you're saying it will be big enough to dissuade Ch. 7 from pushing the 20% threshold, but not so much as what the game is actually worth. Say somewhere in the region of 800 million (when combined with Fox money)?

That's quite a juggling act Ch. 9 will have to pull off surely, and a large risk too.

Not really, as you say its a massive risk... one so big i dont think they will take it.

I think instead their first bid will price the property toward the limit of its profitibility from advertising revenue...whatever that is is known only to them.

My gut feel is that number is somewhere about 700-750m at the moment... but if we restructure the game to include a fair bit more advertising, then it pushes that up to 800m+. With a 9th game for Foxtel it goes up again.

So, if we OK 2 new teams, and add a heap of ads to the free to air games (but not the foxtel ones), we allow a bunch of simulacasting and a few other things, we might be able to prise a 900m opening bid out of the broadcasters.

If 7 then counteroffer for a billion, including equivalent coverage to what the AFL gets (multichanneling around the country, live games into Melb and Perth, that i have been banging on about for years) 9 will match it, and we will have our billion

That would be a very satisfactory and I think realistic outcome.

 

[docbrown]

Nah, wont happen, theres no way they will risk their first and last bid option. Its their sole advantage in these negotiations.

9s first bid is going to be big, quite close to the line in terms of direct profitability from advertising revenue.

Their play will be to force 7 into bidding for another loss-leading property...because as cashed up as they may or may not be, having multiple large loss makers is very tough to justify.

I can see things going this way: 9 not agreeing to take any AFL games... and if as rumoured 10 are reticent to take any AFL, then 7 will be stuck with the lot and their capacity to make a sizable bid for the NRL is significantly decreased.

I agree that 9's first deal will be around break even from direct revenue.

However 7 will not leave it sit at that. Their immediate counter offer will be to break the first and last rights because that's their ultimate aim.

And if the IC gets its act together soon and 7 holds off on the AFL offsell, they can both drive up the NRL rights for 9 whilst keeping the AFL games lingering.

7 won't be stuck with the lot because there's not going to be a cheap scenario where 9 dumps its most important brand.

 

[Mickyd39]

this is a little bit off Topic, AFL not mentioned again during the channel 10 sports report. They always have some sort of AFL story each night.(no AFL story last night)

Whats makes it more interesting is that the pink poofs are playing in Sydney tonight, not a word about it.

I hope Ten make a play for the NRL rights.

 

[docbrown]

Not really, as you say its a massive risk... one so big i dont think they will take it.

I think instead their first bid will price the property toward the limit of its profitibility from advertising revenue...whatever that is is known only to them.

My gut feel is that number is somewhere about 700-750m at the moment... but if we restructure the game to include a fair bit more advertising, then it pushes that up to 800m+. With a 9th game for Foxtel it goes up again.

So, if we OK 2 new teams, and add a heap of ads to the free to air games (but not the foxtel ones), we allow a bunch of simulacasting and a few other things, we might be able to prise a 900m opening bid out of the broadcasters.

If 7 then counteroffer for a billion, including equivalent coverage to what the AFL gets (multichanneling around the country, live games into Melb and Perth, that i have been banging on about for years) 9 will match it, and we will have our billion

That would be a very satisfactory and I think realistic outcome.

So if you're saying 7 won't push the 20% straight way to risk having two loss leaders, why would they counter offer for a billion?

 

[docbrown]

My gut feel is that number is somewhere about 700-750m at the moment... but if we restructure the game to include a fair bit more advertising, then it pushes that up to 800m+. With a 9th game for Foxtel it goes up again.

So, if we OK 2 new teams, and add a heap of ads to the free to air games (but not the foxtel ones)

I believe that if we incorporate two double headers (4 F2A games), digital Friday simulcasting. extended lead-ins and half times for F2A, add Brisbane and potentially Perth - that the F2A ad revenue can grow to more than $90 million per year for F2A (not foxtel matches but including reps & finals).

To me that ballparks the direct break even at around $450 million.

But I believe that 9 will bid for its current package first and 7 will counter bid and it will be the IC brings these elements in as negotiations progress.

 

[Ray Mosters]

I agree that 9's first deal will be around break even from direct revenue.

However 7 will not leave it sit at that. Their immediate counter offer will be to break the first and last rights because that's their ultimate aim.

Why do you say that? what do you mean by that? Their ultimate aim is to either obtain a sporting property they can make money off or make a competitor pay so much for a sporting property that they are inhibited from future negotiations of similar products.

I dont think they will have an aim to break the first and last bid rights in and of themselves, they gain nothing by doing that unless the figure %20 above the 9 figure is a feasible buy price.... which I think it certainly wont be.

I think 9 will put together a large enough first bid that hitting that %20 will be impossible, or at least very, very risky.

 

[El Diablo]

this is a little bit off Topic, AFL not mentioned again during the channel 10 sports report. They always have some sort of AFL story each night.(no AFL story last night)

Whats makes it more interesting is that the pink poofs are playing in Sydney tonight, not a word about it.

I hope Ten make a play for the NRL rights.

yup

two nights in a row which is unheard of

hopefully this means they've decided to ditch AFL and want NRL

 

[Ray Mosters]

So if you're saying 7 won't push the 20% straight way to risk having two loss leaders, why would they counter offer for a billion?

Because I think (with restructured ads and 2 extra teams) they can feasibly use the NRL the way they are using the AFL...as a loss leading but ultimately profit making property.

My gut feel is that a broadcaster can make money off the NRL by paying us a billion. Not much mind you, but some.

But thats just what I think based on whats happened in the last 24 hours. Gallop is quite right in his assertion the media today, the AFL getting $1.25B DOES indicate that popular sport is very valuable in a fractured media landscape, and if we play our cards right and get a couple of genuine bidders, we can bullseye this f**king thing and set the code up for 30 years

 

[docbrown]

Why do you say that? what do you mean by that? Their ultimate aim is to either obtain a sporting property they can make money off or make a competitor pay so much for a sporting property that they are inhibited from future negotiations of similar products.

I dont think they will have an aim to break the first and last bid rights in and of themselves, they gain nothing by doing that unless the figure %20 above the 9 figure is a feasible buy price.... which I think it certainly wont be.

And I certainly think 9 will put together a large enough first bid that hitting that %20 will be impossible, or at least very, very risky.

Because I suspect that 9 would be bidding for its existing package (3 h&a, reps, finals) - and their first & last agreement only applies to those, even if they were to bid for four game - and their intent would be to cover the direct advertising cost for those games as you've also said - however - when you take into account the halo effect of rights ownership, that 20% markup isn't as risky as you might think.

After that it would then be to the NRL's advantage to then make negotiations more complex by opening up a fourth F2A game and all those other issues we've addressed.

What figure do you think 9 will bid straight up (not including foxtel)?

 

[Mickyd39]

2nd channel 10 sports update, once again, no mention of AFL.

The ranga that reads the sports looks angry that there is no AFL reports as he always get excited when he reads AFL stories.:lol:

Love it.

 

[docbrown]

Because I think (with restructured ads and 2 extra teams) they can feasibly use the NRL the way they are using the AFL...as a loss leading but ultimately profit making property.

But the restructured ads would be dictated by the NRL, not by 9.

9's agreement is for the games in their existing slots and times. They can't suddenly say "we're going to extend this by half an hour" because it affects Foxtel's existing arrangements.

Hence the additional breaks etc will come in after the two initial proposals.