The TV rights thread

[MsStorm]

What I can't understand is that Gallop always brings out the the fact that AFL is "truly national" with a higher five capital cities rating as the reason why rules has a better TV rights contract. Yet he continually puts down the prospect of expansion to other states such as WA as "not necessairly" helping us gain better TV contracts?

He can't have it both ways.

+1

 

[smithie]

I just hope there is at least more game on FTA with the next deal.

1) A second Sunday afternoon game on before the current 3pm game to make Sunday arvo football a doubleheader.

or

2) A Sunday or Monday night game. (Probably on ONEHD so as to not interfere with other primetime viewing.)

 

[skeepe]

News Ltd's preferred format for forming the IC will lead to exactly the opposite - reps accountable to 16 clubs will not imo be clamouring to carve up the share of increased money 18 ways to help expansion, when clubs, players and their slimy managers are all crying out for more of the moolah.... only the ARL will do that, as they did in 1982, 1988 and 1995 before Super League set us back and got us in this mess.

I knew you were getting desperate looking for reasons to rail against the Independent Commission, but I never thought you'd resort to outright lying.

The ARL did no such thing in any of the years you mentioned. Why? Simple. They didn't exist then.

Pretty hard to promote expansion when you don't exist I would have thought.

The NSWRL did all those things... the same NSWRL that is supporting the IC.

 

[Doug2234]

I just hope there is at least more game on FTA with the next deal.

1) A second Sunday afternoon game on before the current 3pm game to make Sunday arvo football a doubleheader.

or

2) A Sunday or Monday night game. (Probably on ONEHD so as to not interfere with other primetime viewing.)

FTA are pityful and if they struggle to only show one game a week live - what chance do they have of showing another game...

 

[Pj,Rj,Hj]

So do you guys believe the NRL should recieve the same as the AFL, more than the AFL or a healthy amount more for the NRL and the AFL to recieve less than they currently are?
It's going to be an intersting year with the AFL negotiations entering the news then the NRL's the following year. All eyes will be one the magic $1 billion the AFL want and how the NRL responed.

As one of the 66% of Australians without PayTV, can someone explain to me some of the breakdowns. I was under the impression that under the AFL's broadcast agreement Fox shows the less appealling AFL games such as lower Melboure clubs vs the "Interstaters" while Fox has equal access to and is able to broadcast more blockbuster games of the NRL.
I ask the question because no doubt the NRL dominates paytv sport but the AFL has more on Free to Air than the NRL while just over a 3rd of Aussie's have PayTV.

PayTV has its weakest Penetration in SA and WA where Foxtel are more than aware that there is less incentive to get it while they don't have first access to local code. They failed in their negotiations last broadcast deal with the AFL , Ch7 and Ch10 to get greater access to the higher rating games. It's clear that a lot of the subscriptions in the eastern states is so people could have access to the NRL blockbusters.

So is the arguement that NRL dominates the AFL so rock solid when its really apples and oranges?
Much like the NRL not getting much of a chance to show quality League into Vic, SA and WA so true fan interest is a little too vauge to estimate.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

9 owns 25% of fox, that's why RL doesn't get shown into other states, they are trying to up PayTV so they get a better profit.

 

[Pj,Rj,Hj]

I see, thanks mate.

 

[El Diablo]

9 owns 25% of fox, that's why RL doesn't get shown into other states, they are trying to up PayTV so they get a better profit.

they own 50% of Fox Sports

 

[Goddo]

I think the AFL is currently getting roughly what its worth. Its not worth $1b. They have virtually no value in NSW and QLD where half the population is.

That said, we are grossly undervalued.

Even though we have a much better viewing game for tv, origin and tests, we are probably worth the same as the AFL, as their games are longer, have more ad breaks and has some market value and exposure in all the capitals. Gallop talks up the AFL's advantages but he ignores ours. We are probably on par.

How can we improve our value compared to AFL? get into the TV markets that are counted for advertising revenue (Perth a priority, a second NZ team and more QLD would help here), somehow make the games go longer, or get more adds into the broadcast, offer more games per week (more teams), but most importantly, build a free to air tv viewership in the AFL states.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

they own 50% of Fox Sports

Makes even more sense now.

 

[LESStar58]

So do you guys believe the NRL should recieve the same as the AFL, more than the AFL or a healthy amount more for the NRL and the AFL to recieve less than they currently are?
It's going to be an intersting year with the AFL negotiations entering the news then the NRL's the following year. All eyes will be one the magic $1 billion the AFL want and how the NRL responed.

As one of the 66% of Australians without PayTV, can someone explain to me some of the breakdowns. I was under the impression that under the AFL's broadcast agreement Fox shows the less appealling AFL games such as lower Melboure clubs vs the "Interstaters" while Fox has equal access to and is able to broadcast more blockbuster games of the NRL.
I ask the question because no doubt the NRL dominates paytv sport but the AFL has more on Free to Air than the NRL while just over a 3rd of Aussie's have PayTV.

PayTV has its weakest Penetration in SA and WA where Foxtel are more than aware that there is less incentive to get it while they don't have first access to local code. They failed in their negotiations last broadcast deal with the AFL , Ch7 and Ch10 to get greater access to the higher rating games. It's clear that a lot of the subscriptions in the eastern states is so people could have access to the NRL blockbusters.

So is the arguement that NRL dominates the AFL so rock solid when its really apples and oranges?
Much like the NRL not getting much of a chance to show quality League into Vic, SA and WA so true fan interest is a little too vauge to estimate.

it's a given that the NRL will not get anywhere near as much as the AFL. having said that the NRL should earn considerably more than what they did last time. As for this supposed $1billion the AFL are meant to get... it ain't worth that much.

The biggest argument is that the new teams will allow for an extra game each week from 2012 and that should generate more revenue for the networks. However the Swans and Lions don't even rate so I don't see how any network exec is going to invest $1 billion in products that don't rate in certain markets.

 

[LESStar58]

I think the AFL is currently getting roughly what its worth. Its not worth $1b. They have virtually no value in NSW and QLD where half the population is.

That said, we are grossly undervalued.

Even though we have a much better viewing game for tv, origin and tests, we are probably worth the same as the AFL, as their games are longer, have more ad breaks and has some market value and exposure in all the capitals. Gallop talks up the AFL's advantages but he ignores ours. We are probably on par.

How can we improve our value compared to AFL? get into the TV markets that are counted for advertising revenue (Perth a priority, a second NZ team and more QLD would help here), somehow make the games go longer, or get more adds into the broadcast, offer more games per week (more teams), but most importantly, build a free to air tv viewership in the AFL states.

well said.

 

[LeagueXIII]

I just hope there is at least more game on FTA with the next deal.

1) A second Sunday afternoon game on before the current 3pm game to make Sunday arvo football a doubleheader.

or

2) A Sunday or Monday night game. (Probably on ONEHD so as to not interfere with other primetime viewing.)

Thius is where a Perth and Wellington team would be great.

Live game in from NZ at lunch on Sunday every week, Sunday night game live from Perth.

 

[nrlnrl]

Thius is where a Perth and Wellington team would be great.

Live game in from NZ at lunch on Sunday every week, Sunday night game live from Perth.

I realise that Ch9 show a lot of games featuring Broncos, Dragons, Eels & Bulldogs to dictate the scheduling of rounds, but if the Sunday games were always from NZ & Perth that wouldn't rate at all. ( FTA or pay ) - plus it would be boring.

 

[m0nty]

9 owns 25% of fox, that's why RL doesn't get shown into other states, they are trying to up PayTV so they get a better profit.

they own 50% of Fox Sports

Actually, Nine doesn't own those assets, Packer does, and Packer sold out of Nine years ago.

 

[nrlnrl]

Originally Posted by ParraEelsNRL
9 owns 25% of fox, that's why RL doesn't get shown into other states, they are trying to up PayTV so they get a better profit.
they own 50% of Fox Sports
------------------------------------
This mightn't be totally accurate, as I had it explained to me by a mate who works in finance, but here goes :

Consolidated Media Holdings has a 50 per cent share of Premier Media Group (Fox Sports Australia, Fuel TV, How To Channel), the other 50 per cent belongs to News Corporation.

The breakdown of Consolidated Media Holdings is roughly this :

Consolidated Press Holdings - 40%
7 Network - 20%
others ( would like to know who these are ) - 40%

The situation has changed over the last 4-5 years to the point where basically the "old" PBL became Consolidated Press Holdings & they have offloaded a lot of media interests to focus on casinos.

 

[Pj,Rj,Hj]

double post

 

[Pj,Rj,Hj]

Sunday night game live from Perth

Sunday night is not a popular fixture time in Perth. The AFL fans hate it as to the Rugby Union fans. I'd like to see Friday nights, Saturday Arvo and Saturday night, fixturing around the Eagles or Dockers and obviously Force. So if the Dockers play Saturday arvo which is common in Perth or the hated Sunday arvo spot. The Reds should play Friday night or Saturday arvo. Monday night sport is foreign to Perth, I don't know how the public would take to it. Being 2 hours behind the East in Winter I'd like to see Saturday arvo games which can be beamed East after their arvo game and fill the gap before the night game. If Perth hosted night games, they'd have to start early enough so that the away teams bioclock can cope, you don't want to be playing when your body thinks its 11pm of midnite.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

it's a given that the NRL will not get anywhere near as much as the AFL. QUOTE]

Thank goodness thats finally cleared up.

Now explain it to the proletariat...........with some semblence of fact if you dont mind.

 

[bartman]

The ARL did no such thing in any of the years you mentioned. Why? Simple. They didn't exist then.

Oh dear, a technicality... :sarcasm:

Doesn't make an iota of difference to the point being made... that the ARL/NSWRL (or NSWRFL in 1982 if you want to be pedantic) is responsible for the regular expansion in our game, and News Ltd/Super League is responsible for the code's lack of ability to expand now.

All bodies are in support of an IC in principle. It's just that News Ltd is pushing for the urgency in timing, and everyone is falling for it hook, line and sinker. And News Ltd is pushing for the clubs-elect-all structure, and everyone is falling for that hook line and sinker.

I'm for an independent commission for the game in this country - but not one that is railroaded into being all about the NRL clubs deciding the commission structure, to the exclusion of the game's other stakeholders. The QRL is putting the best position forward here, and the NSWRL (Love and Carr) are caught in the middle, not having the spine to stand up for what is right and head off News Ltd's petty attempt at pre-exit revenge at the pass.