The TV rights thread

[jc155776]

Nine would have rathered every sport be forced onto FTA with no rules governing if or when it should be shown.

 

[docbrown]

Nine would have rathered every sport be forced onto FTA with no rules governing if or when it should be shown.

:!:

The more pissed off they sound, the better for Rugby League

 

[adamkungl]

nein are farkwits

 

[beave]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...-of-antisiphoning-changes-20101126-18amp.html

Viewers beware: devil in detail of anti-siphoning changes
Roy Masters
November 27, 2010
THE federal government's changes to the anti-siphoning list are being promulgated as a victory for free-to-air TV but the devil is in the detail for the viewer.

The fine print reveals Channel Nine can continue to show NRL games on delay, including treating Victorian fans with contempt by screening them after midnight, while the AFL can now sell their third- and fourth-best games to pay TV.

Three NRL games and four AFL games have been quarantined from pay TV on the government's B list where games can be shown up to four hours on delay on free-to-air, including a network's high-definition multi-channels.

Advertisement: Story continues below
Based on Channel Nine's past programming of rugby league, its two Friday night matches will be flip-flopped, allowing the network to load up the delayed telecast on its prime channel with commercials.

It is unlikely Nine would show either game on its digital channels, which are aimed at a non-sports demographic.

This means Melbourne fans will continue to see the NRL's best two games in the early hours.

Of course, the NRL can insist in its next broadcasting contract scheduled, to begin in 2013, that these games be telecast live into the developing states on the digital channels.

More than a decade ago, the then Melbourne Storm executive director John Ribot protested to the NRL over Nine showing movies in Victoria when its contract stated it should be screening rugby league.

Nothing was done then, and nothing is likely to happen in the future when the broadcaster flouts the rules.

The AFL has been busy promoting the fact Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has insisted their best two games be shown on Friday nights and Saturday nights.

But there has been no comment on the quality of the other two games shown on free-to-air TV.

Foxtel has demanded matches involving top clubs, such as Collingwood and Essendon, in preference to the four passed on by incumbent rights holders, Seven and Ten.

Subscription rates in Victoria are significantly below the national average, and Foxtel argues it needs better games to force fans to sign up.

Foxtel, now allowed to bid directly for four games a week, will pay handsomely for better games when the next contract begins in 2012.

And the AFL needs this extra money to finance its two new clubs, Gold Coast Suns and Greater Western Sydney Giants.

Senator Conroy has allowed himself some wriggle room by saying cabinet must approve a ''mechanism'' by which games are shared between pay and free-to-air TV.

Significantly, Foxtel has been reported as opposed to government involvement, obviously confident the AFL will schedule matches to suit the money they have paid.

Earlier this year, the Herald reported Foxtel would be awarded the AFL's third- and fourth-best picks each round but this was denied.

The AFL schedules matches a year in advance but they can allocate two matches to one time and then schedule them to suit the broadcaster.

The NRL allocates matches according to the broadcasters' wishes, first in a six-week block, then an 11-week block, ending the regular season with a four-week block.

Only the two Friday night matches are scheduled simultaneously, allowing Brisbane to watch a Queensland team live and Sydney to see a NSW team live, before swapping them.

It means Nine can choose matches that reflect the teams' positions on the NRL ladder.

In reality, Nine prefers the Broncos, Dragons, Bulldogs and Eels, irrespective of their form.

NRL chief executive David Gallop favours the AFL type fixed season draw, allowing clubs to schedule corporate functions a year ahead.

It is likely the NRL will auction matches at the next TV contract in terms of how much a network will pay for a flexible season draw versus a fixed season draw.

Free-to-air broadcasters will pay more for flexibility. Guess which contract will be accepted.

The loopholes allowed under the anti-siphoning changes threaten to maintain the status quo in rugby league, and disadvantage the AFL fan.

 

[beave]

I think what old Roy is forgetting is that the 2nd game on teh Friday night and that it has to be broadcasted within the 4 hour time frame AS WELL. That has the potential to make the first game be shown at a decent hour, I think he has forgotten about this................

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...to-air-or-pay-tv/story-e6frg7mf-1225961727918

A mystery mechanism will decide if games go on free-to-air or pay-TV

* Brent Read
* From: The Australian
* November 27, 2010 12:00AM

SPORT: THE billion-dollar dream is still alive. There's only one problem for the AFL and NRL _ it remains in the hands of politicians.

The country's biggest sporting bodies, eyeing off the most lucrative broadcasting deals in the history of Australian sport, have greeted the federal government's updated anti-siphoning list with cautious optimism.

Federal Communications Minister Stephen Conroy announced on Thursday changes to the list, opening up regular-season football games for pay-TV bidding but also promising to "protect the quality of games on free-to-air" via a mechanism to be determined.

The prudence of AFL and NRL officials is understandable given the mechanism for working out whether regular season games go on free-to-air or pay-TV is yet to be revealed by the government.

Already, the mysterious mechanism threatens to undermine the NRL's plan to go to full-season scheduling, a concept chief executive David Gallop has toyed with for next season. All of a sudden, politicians and bureaucrats have the potential to become programmers.

As one analyst noted: "That is very dangerous."

As it stands, the sporting bodies work in conjunction with the broadcasters to determine a pecking order for games. The NRL allows the Nine Network first, second and fifth pick each week. Fox Sports gets the rest.

AFL broadcasters Seven and Ten get the first four picks. The remainder go to Fox Sports.

Those decisions will now be made with a mechanism designed to ensure the majority of the public gets to see the best of the NRL and AFL.

Although the current broadcasting deal doesn't expire until the end of 2012, Gallop has already outlined plans to move the talks forward with a view to having a new deal in place by the end of next year.

While uncertainty surrounds that aspect of the anti-siphoning list, the alterations have given both codes' plans for expansion a shot in the arm. The changes mean the NRL and AFL can use the multi-channels to build their following outside their heartlands.

In rugby league's case, officials in Melbourne and Perth have already outlined their desire to have the NRL shown live in their cities on their extra channels. The AFL is likely to adopt a similar strategy in Brisbane and Sydney.

While that option is unlikely to result in any immediate windfalls, the long-term benefit could be significant. Both codes can get prime-time coverage in each other's backyard. Gold Coast Suns will join the AFL from next season. Greater Western Sydney will follow in 2012.

Gallop has spoken about the prospects of expansion in 2013. A decision is likely to be made midway through next year and Perth is one of the most attractive options given its suitability for television scheduling.

"Clearly, the most television exposure the game can get in Perth the better," Perth bid team head John Sackson said. "We believe it is critical to the growth of the game."

Melbourne Storm chief executive Ron Gauci said: "I think it's great news for us."

The NRL dominates on pay-TV -- at the end of last month, the NRL had four of the top five and 73 of the top 100 shows.

But the overriding desire of every major sport is to have commercial television coverage.

The big loser, according to one analyst, is soccer, because World Cup qualifiers were added to the anti-siphoning list. Fox Sports currently televises those as part of its soccer coverage, which includes the A-League.

Faced with the prospect of losing the national games to commercial television, the rights lose much of their attraction to Fox Sports given A-League games don't attract significant ratings.

The Socceroos' World Cup qualifying games are also on the B-list, meaning they can be shown on the multi-channels.

That would mean a limited audience for a sport struggling to make an impact in a cluttered landscape.

"For soccer, they're screwed," the analyst said.

"If you think about the owners of the A-League clubs, they have invested a lot of money into soccer. You have to question whether the A-League will be viable."

Fusion Strategy managing director Steve Allen said: "The next step is increasing popularity. The only way they can do that is with television.

"The best way you can benefit from television is with free-to-air. It's what the A-League faces. Just past the mid-point of their seven-year contract with Foxtel, they have a problem now.

"It's shown in ratings and ground attendance because they're not able to as forcefully market their game by having it available to everyone (on free-to-air television)."

The NRL and AFL have no such concerns. Their biggest issue will be ensuring the politicians and bureaucrats don't cost them at the negotiating table. The coming months will be a nervous time. After all, there's a lot at stake?

A billion dollars in fact.

 

[Green Machine]

Love this artice from Roy. Good to see him rattle the AFL's cage:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/why-...-for-sport-on-channel-ten-20101126-18akt.html

Why Gina Rinehart could prove a saviour for sport on Channel Ten

ROY MASTERS

November 27, 2010 PLANS by James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch to slash expenditure on sport at Channel Ten may meet a formidable opponent in the Western Australian mining magnate Gina Rinehart, according to a source close to machinations at the network.
''She's tough, opinionated, sometimes difficult but never frightened,'' he said in reference to Rinehart, anticipating that her seizure of a 10 per cent stake in Ten will be a roadblock against any strategy the Packer-Murdoch juggernaut may have to control the company.
Packer and Murdoch recently told Ten executives that while they like sport, they believe the network is paying too much, particularly for AFL broadcasting rights.
Advertisement: Story continues below
On his deathbed Kerry Packer gifted the AFL a $780 million deal over five years but his son James may prove to be the biggest impediment to the code receiving the $1 billion it anticipates at its next contract beginning 2012. Ten wants to renegotiate its partnership with Channel Seven over AFL coverage where Seven screens the popular Friday night and Sunday games, leaving Ten with less appealing Saturday afternoon and evening matches.
David White, the sports director of Ten, has told analysts that returns from AFL over the past season were very poor. It is expected Ten will seek a better ratio with Seven of their share of future fees, or demand an allocation of higher-rating matches. Under the existing Seven/Ten contract both networks must bid together, but if Ten is unable to improve its payment or game quality ratios, the agreement may collapse.
''Ten now has two directors [in Packer and Murdoch] who would support the move to walk,'' a source said.
Rinehart may lobby to retain the agreement in support of her fellow West Australian, Kerry Stokes, the owner of Seven. However, her principal motivation in outlaying a small proportion of her $4.75 billion wealth for 10 per cent of Ten is political influence.
Having witnessed the success of the advertising campaign against the mining tax, she recognises the powerful control of the media on politicians.
Similarly, Packer's chief ambition in securing a 17.9 per cent stake in Ten for $128 million - later on-selling half to Murdoch - is political influence, especially concerning gambling and sport.
Given the power of the independents and Greens in the retention of government by the ALP, media campaigns have the capacity to render politicians very nervous at this time.
However, the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, is proving very resilient, despite Packer and Murdoch dining him at Packer's Crown Casino in Melbourne.
On Thursday he announced changes to sport's anti-siphoning list, allowing free-to-air networks to show live sport on their digital channels, consistent with his strategy to move Australia quickly away from analog TV.
Ten has the only sports-dedicated digital channel (One). If Packer and Murdoch were successful in convincing the Ten board that One is too expensive and must be shut down, or use different programming, it would undermine Conroy's plan to use sport to hasten the uptake of digital TV. It would also frustrate the chiefs of the AFL and NRL, who see digital channels as a means of increasing the appeal of their sports in what they call ''the developing states''.
AFL games shown live on a free-to-air network's principal channel in Melbourne could be shown live on its digital channel in NSW and Queensland, rather than suffer poor ratings, as Ten has registered in Sydney and Brisbane, particularly on Saturday nights.
At present, northern AFL fans seeking Seven's coverage of Friday nights must subscribe to Foxtel, part-owned by companies associated with Packer and Murdoch.
Closing One would be seen as a measure aimed at protecting this lucrative investment, but a source close to Packer said he would be reluctant to invite the wrath of regulators, particularly given the returns of Crown and the very stringent government tests applied to the ownership of a casino licence. Should Ten walk from its AFL relationship with Seven, it would leave a Seven/Foxtel consortium as the only viable bidder.
Conroy also decoupled the existing anti-siphoning arrangement where free-to-air on-sold the bottom four games a week to pay TV, allowing Foxtel to bid directly.
But with Channel Nine reserving its war chest for NRL rights which expire in 2012, it is unlikely the AFL will be able to hold a vigorous auction for the rights.
With no challenger to Seven for the top four games and none to Foxtel for the other four, the AFL may find their $1 billion a bridge too far, with Packer and Murdoch paying less for rights, guaranteeing continuing profits in Foxtel and Fox Sports.
But these scions of Australia's wealthiest media families must first sweet-talk the rich lady from the west.

 

[Ray Mosters]

The only thing i think Roy is missing is the fact that the shutdown of One will have no significant effect on the multichanneling of the major codes in non heartland areas

Basically, whether or not One is shutdown in favour of an equivalent service to GO or 7Mate, the NRL and AFL will be shown outside its heartland on those multichannels.

The only thing thats left up to debate will be what times they are shown, IMO

 

[Berkeley_Eagle]

League fans need not fear that free-to-air footy will disappear
David Gallop

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...oair-footy-will-disappear-20101127-18bcr.html


November 28, 2010
If any rugby league fan is left feeling a little confused by the term anti-siphoning, I can only assure them they are not alone.

The anti-siphoning debate has been complicated time and again but hopefully the announcement this week of matches being ''de-listed'' will ease some of the confusion.


There is one simple, unambiguous point for league fans to understand: we are committed to ensuring high-quality games are on free-to-air television every week.

It is a commitment we have always made and will continue to make because, with or without the government protection of an anti-siphoning regulation, our fans and our sponsors want that access and so do we.

It has never been anything more than a high-profile scare campaign to suggest otherwise.

We are unapologetic, however, in wanting to be able to recoup the full value of our television rights.

Rugby league drives significant revenue for both free-to-air and subscription broadcasters, delivering millions of viewers each year, and the sport needs to be rewarded for doing so.

There are any number of people who call for the game to generate more money for players, for grassroots development, for clubs, for marketing, for venues, for new teams, for challenging other codes and even for grand-final entertainment. Broadcasting rights are the major source of our revenue.

The introduction of subscription television has over the years increased the revenue we generate and, importantly, it was also the catalyst for ensuring that fans now have access to every game on television every week - something we have now come to accept as an important right for viewers.

Most people may not realise that the introduction of anti-siphoning legislation in the 1990s, however, ensured that free-to-air television had an automatic claim to all eight NRL matches, regardless of whether or not they were prepared to bid for those games.

It has meant that when we sit down to discuss broadcast agreements, free-to-air networks are in an important bargaining position that dictates not only what we can negotiate with them, but also what we can negotiate with others.

In essence, free-to-air is given the cards to eight games, even though it has only ever played three.

This week the federal government announced that the regulations would be relaxed, giving free-to-air automatic entitlement to three games (subject of course to a rights negotiation) and allowing the NRL to freely negotiate where it will offer the remaining five.

That is an important step. It is one that may even lead to improved national coverage through free-to-air multi-channels.

There needs to be further discussion about how the three games will be determined and we will enter that in the best of faith.

We want to ensure that high-quality matches are on free-to-air each week and that there is widespread access to all the best-performing teams.

We need to be able to accommodate in future negotiations the option of a full season schedule if that is the best thing for the game and we need to be able to meet any changing viewing patterns of our fans.

Through it all we need to ensure league audiences have access to high-quality matches each week on free-to-air and this week's changes will not affect that commitment.

 

[DC_fan]

<H3>CROWE'S READY TO DEAL

SOUTHS owner Russell Crowe is ready to put his hand up and get heavily involved in the negotiations for league's next television deal - he's just waiting for someone to ask him. Souths boss Shane Richardson said Crowe would be the right person to ride shotgun with David Gallop as he meets television executives to work out the game's next deal. ''Russell is the perfect person to get involved with television deals - not only for the NRL and the next deal we do, but also for the international rights to the game,'' Richardson said. ''And what people have got wrong is that they think that Russell wouldn't have time to be involved. His passion for league is so strong … he'd make the time. And he thinks about the game and its future all the time. He knows all the key players here and he has contacts overseas that no one here can match. I really think that the game needs to use his contacts more and approach him, especially in this kind of situation. It's an area he is passionate about and an area he has plenty of knowledge in.''

</H3>http://www.smh.com.au/sport/hewitt-and-roche-aiming-for-top-10-20101127-18bco.html

Has Russell ever played God in a movie?

You would swear some people think he really is God.

 

[simostorm]

He seems to be very persuasive.. so why not..

 

[Lockyer4President!]

How can he be worse than who we&#8217;ve got now? I mean, if he can get Spike to pick up an entire season in the US we&#8217;d be laughin&#8217;.

 

[Quidgybo]

How can he be worse than who we’ve got now? I mean, if he can get Spike to pick up an entire season in the US we’d be laughin’.

Mate, I'd be estactic if we could get the same deal we had for the 2009 finals across an entire season - just one match replayed in full every Friday night at 11.30pm on widely available macho cable channel Spike. This country is so ready for Rugby League - if only they knew it existed.

I've shown various games to work colleagues over here and every time the pattern is the same. Two or three minutes in they're picking at it saying how distracting the advertising on the field is (honestly the first comment I got), or how "gay" the lying on in the ruck or the short shorts look. Five minutes after that they start to realize that the game just doesn't stop. And that's when they notice how hard the tackles are...

Then they're hooked...

Leigh.

 

[applesauce]

I have no issue with Crowe, I say let him. His heart and mind are in the right place which is doing what is BEST for the game.

Unlike almost everyone we currently have in any position of power.

 

[beave]

Mate, I'd be estactic if we could get the same deal we had for the 2009 finals across an entire season - just one match replayed in full every Friday night at 11.30pm on widely available macho cable channel Spike. This country is so ready for Rugby League - if only they knew it existed.

I've shown various games to work colleagues over here and every time the pattern is the same. Two or three minutes in they're picking at it saying how distracting the advertising on the field is (honestly the first comment I got), or how "gay" the lying on in the ruck or the short shorts look. Five minutes after that they start to realize that the game just doesn't stop. And that's when they notice how hard the tackles are...

Then they're hooked...

Leigh.

I was in the Middle East for 'work' when the 2003 GF was on, we got it taped by the poms who had access to satellites and we put it on the big screen at the outdoors bar about 6-7 hours after it was played (we all avoided contact with home for a few hours as to not find out the score).

The yanks that were there with us (probably about 500 or so) couldn't believe how good the game was and how in some aspects it was much like the NFL. When Sattler made 'that' tackle, the roar that went up from them all was deafening. They grabbed the concept very quickly and not one person complained that is was on the big screen that they basically only showed american sports on.

1 yank lad commented that they weren't as big as the NFL boys but another yank lad quipped at him 'yeah but have a look at them, their not wearing any pads and helmets and there ain't no offense and defense, these guys have to do everything they can't be massive', I didn't have to say a word, he got corrected by his own which was refreshing because as much as I love 'em, the yanks aren't the smartest breed around.

I absolutely love the NFL, but the thing that stuck out in my mind was when the game finished, the chick behind the bar flicked the big screen over to the live NFL game and the yank lad sitting next to me says 'geez man, our game is so much slower than your game, it makes the NFL look boring!!'

Without sounding like the clowns at Big footy, the yanks would love Rugby League if they were given the chance, I have absolutely no doubts in my mind.

 

[adamkungl]

yeah Russel Crowe is a big name and is good for promoting international footy...i don't see what he could add to domestic broadcast negotations though. At all. What would his presence bring?

Also, getting the game on TV in the US is a must. How did the 09 finals go with Spike? Would they be willing to pick up a season?
It would be good to get an AMNRL game followed by an NRL game on Saturday nights or something.

 

[Green Machine]

The only thing i think Roy is missing is the fact that the shutdown of One will have no significant effect on the multichanneling of the major codes in non heartland areas

I think he covered it,

Basically, whether or not One is shutdown in favour of an equivalent service to GO or 7Mate, the NRL and AFL will be shown outside its heartland on those multichannels.

True

The only thing thats left up to debate will be what times they are shown, IMO

Still could be 4 hours later,

 

[Cerne Abbas Giant]

If games continue to be shown at 1am, we have progressed very little.

 

[Cryptic]

Will the AFL and NRL be shown on FOXTEL on Xbox 360?
No. FOXTEL is bound by the current AFL and NRL rights agreement that does not provision rights for FOXTEL to broadcast via the internet. At this stage we don’t know what changes will take place as part of the next rights agreement negotiation.

^ As the above shows, WTF are we killing our game by limiting what it can be shown on? If Foxtel want to give the game money to broadcast it online (at least for Foxtel on X-Box and similar paid services) then WHY are we apparantly not letting them? Why would we WANT to limit our viewing audiance?

 

[Lockyer4President!]

Guessing it has something to do with out horrible internet deal with Telstra. It’s the same reason they take down NRL clips on Youtube.