The TV rights thread

[Hindyscrack]

About time....

The only reason (when I am living in Aus) I have foxtel if for the NRL (along with the majority of subscribers, hence why the Sports upgrade is so expensive).

If the majority of games were shown on FTA I'd be quickly dumping Foxtels overpriced ass.

 

[Goddo]

The Clubs position:
* We have already given you fair compensation for leaving early - extended first and last rights until 2027.
* Don't short change us on the TV deal again. Give us what we are worth (remember 77/100)
* Don't try to form Super League again. Sign a non compete agreement
* Agree to our candidates for the Independent Commission. Its RL's commission, not News Ltd.

or

* We will sell as many games to free to air, internet partners, or options like Telstra T-Box as possible to hurt your bottom line, particularily Monday night
* We won't continue our association with the (half News) NRL when our agreements end
* We may abandon the IC all together, and just wait for 2017 when you have to leave.

That is completely reasonable of the NSWRL/QRL/clubs. If news can't agree to that, f**k them.

 

[Gippsy]

Unless progress is made, clubs are considering refusing to sign extensions of their licencing agreements, which expire at the end of the season.

Would the clubs ever enforce this? Would they want to?

In a way, by threatening to do this, they have the power. If they all refused to sign their licence agreements I assume they could start their own competition, without the NRL or News. But, would they want to? Is it a serious threat?

 

[applesauce]

The clubs need to be careful shooting off at the mouth. Do it once NEWS IS GONE!

NEWS will drag the IC out even further if they realise they will lose too much. :roll:

 

[Quidgybo]

The clubs need to be careful shooting off at the mouth. Do it once NEWS IS GONE!

NEWS will drag the IC out even further if they realise they will lose too much. :roll:

It's the exact opposite. "Stop dragging it out or we'll walk and create our own Commission without giving you anything" (ie. without a vote in choosing the inaugural Commissioners, without first and last rights to News, without enshrined sovereignty for the QRL etc etc)

Leigh.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/n...-screen-presents/story-e6frfgbo-1226055038204

Big NRL hopes for small screen presents

Dean Ritchie
From: The Daily Telegraph
May 13, 2011 12:00AM

RUGBY league's looming television broadcast deal was heavily discussed at yesterday's chief executives conference - with CEO's hopeful of surpassing the AFL's $1.2 billion deal.

The club chief executives also threw their support behind Monday night football - despite complaints the games attract minimal crowds and hampers player's preparations.

Although rugby league believes it can attract a $1 billion deal, some CEOs believe their code can match - and even surpass - the AFL's deal.

"There is an appetite within the game that we can get a $1 billion, at least," said one CEO from a Sydney club. "The AFL got $1.2 billion. We should be able to get those numbers - and beyond. Rugby league has never been stronger when it comes to television ratings."

Canterbury CEO Todd Greenberg was reluctant to discuss any potential financial TV deal but did say: "There is a very strong consensus among the 16 CEO's that we are well positioned to secure a significant broadcast deal in coming months"

Meanwhile CEOs feel Monday night footy could soon be seen on free-to-air television.

"Clubs strongly recognise the value of Monday night football and the importance of investing in the time-slot," Gallop said.

 

[magpie_man]

the broncos and storm are owned by news Ltd aren't they?
can't see them not re-signing

 

[Goddo]

Apparently there was another item that was discussed, but it was thought unpolitic to mention publicly...

Expansion, and more to the point, TV money re: expansion.

 

[Goddo]

the broncos and storm are owned by news Ltd aren't they?
can't see them not re-signing

Broncos are 67%... But who will they play against if the other 14 clubs all walk?

Can't have Broncos vs Storm every weekend for 26 weeks...

 

[docbrown]

Broncos are 67%... But who will they play against if the other 14 clubs all walk?

Can't have Broncos vs Storm every weekend for 26 weeks...

If News feel that they are getting a bad deal, they could still legally seek an alliance with the franchise bid clubs that the NRL has been dragging their feet on. Like I said before - wouldn't be the first time. Central Qld, Brisbane II, Broncos, Central Coast, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Wellington. By that point some of the other NRL clubs might start thinking about where their best options are as history tends to repeat itself.

If News' only concern are the legal ramifications, like I said, give them a 25 year non-competition window. If the NRL still has its head in the sand in 2035 then it deserves to be taken over.

 

[nrlnrl]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...for-tv-deal-20110512-1eku2.html#ixzz1M9S0LJCo

Wow.

yeah, wow ! The SMH writes another article with a negative News Ltd twist - I'm blown away ! ......blown away !!

Next thing we'll have The Daily Telegraph claiming a scoop over the SMH about a story they had ( well if you don't count the other 20 articles on that topic predicting another outcome )

 

[andrew057]

yeah, wow ! The SMH writes another article with a negative News Ltd twist - I'm blown away ! ......blown away !!

Next thing we'll have The Daily Telegraph claiming a scoop over the SMH about a story they had ( well if you don't count the other 20 articles on that topic predicting another outcome )

Cool. If you're not interested i the news articles or in disucussing them in re: to the tv deal, don't post.

 

[magpie_man]

If News feel that they are getting a bad deal, they could still legally seek an alliance with the franchise bid clubs that the NRL has been dragging their feet on. Like I said before - wouldn't be the first time. Central Qld, Brisbane II, Broncos, Central Coast, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Wellington. By that point some of the other NRL clubs might start thinking about where their best options are as history tends to repeat itself.

If News' only concern are the legal ramifications, like I said, give them a 25 year non-competition window. If the NRL still has its head in the sand in 2035 then it deserves to be taken over.

I can't see any NSW club, aside from cash-strapped cronulla, signing-up with a news Ltd-backed competition, regardless of the 30 pieces of silver that would be on offer.
There's no way known that the bears would either unless they want to head down the same path as the hunter mariners. No NSW = no viable rugby league competition.
worst case would be news pulls the broncos and storm franchises from the nrl and either liquidates them or puts them in the super rugby comp.

 

[docbrown]

I can't see any NSW club, aside from cash-strapped cronulla

That's 1 to add to 8 others potentials. You only have to have momentum on your side.

I mean if the NRL don't expand and we have 5-8 bids that have corporate backing and some other business gets into their ear, who knows what could happen.

There's nothing really to prevent any sporting code in Australia from having a rival league formed. It happens overseas, it can and has happened here.

In News Limited's case though - we know its something they've tried once, the question is: do we have the foresight to prevent them from doing it again?

worst case would be news pulls the broncos and storm franchises from the nrl and either liquidates them or puts them in the super rugby comp.

I think that would go down like a lead balloon.

 

[IllawarraGiant]

That's 1 to add to 8 others potentials. You only have to have momentum on your side.

I mean if the NRL don't expand and we have 5-8 bids that have corporate backing and some other business gets into their ear, who knows what could happen.

There's nothing really to prevent any sporting code in Australia from having a rival league formed. It happens overseas, it can and has happened here.

In News Limited's case though - we know its something they've tried once, the question is: do we have the foresight to prevent them from doing it again?



I think that would go down like a lead balloon.

It would definately go down like a lead balloon: but a year or so of a lead balloon still becomes a valuable bargaining chip... ie we know these guys are not beyond destroying things temporarily to get their own way medium/longer term. They dont mind paying that price, irrespective of what it does to those around them.

 

[docbrown]

It would definately go down like a lead balloon: but a year or so of a lead balloon still becomes a valuable bargaining chip... ie we know these guys are not beyond destroying things temporarily to get their own way medium/longer term. They dont mind paying that price, irrespective of what it does to those around them.

True they can afford to take short term losses for long term gain simply because they're a big company - and they have done these kind of things before (not just in sport, but in the entertainment and media industries as well).

But this further explains why five years for a non-competition clause just isn't long enough.

 

[docbrown]

I was having a discussion today with someone about how 10 can improve their market share and we started talking about the recent changes to their news line up, especially on a Sunday night.

We then started discussing doubleheader NRL games as lead-ins and an interesting idea came up. I'm not saying it has any merit as it's obviously untested but here it is -

If Channel 10 had two live games on a Sunday from 2:45/3:00pm to 7:30pm with a 15-20 minute newsbreak in between just after 5pm, would you & your household be inclined to stop watching 7 or 9's 6pm news coverage?

Half time of the second game would approximately occur at around 6:20pm.

 

[El Diablo]

of course

 

[IllawarraGiant]

I was having a discussion today with someone about how 10 can improve their market share and we started talking about the recent changes to their news line up, especially on a Sunday night.

We then started discussing doubleheader NRL games as lead-ins and an interesting idea came up. I'm not saying it has any merit as it's obviously untested but here it is -

If Channel 10 had two live games on a Sunday from 2:45/3:00pm to 7:30pm with a 15-20 minute newsbreak in between just after 5pm, would you & your household be inclined to stop watching 7 or 9's 6pm news coverage?

Half time of the second game would approximately occur at around 6:20pm.

Nice.. but TEN arent going to bid. Thats the thing.

 

[docbrown]

Nice.. but TEN arent going to bid. Thats the thing.

Perhaps, depends on who you talk to.

It was purely just a hypothetical because their 5:00-6:30pm Sunday slot is just so disorganised yet they can draw at 7:30pm. They will never compete with 7 & 9 at 6pm without a strong lead in, yet they struggle to fill in that two and a half hour period.