The TV rights thread

[westie]

Blast that horrible deal which provides us with an absolutely ludicrous amount of money for a non-profitable technology.

 

[BunniesMan]

Blast that horrible deal which provides us with an absolutely ludicrous amount of money for a non-profitable technology.

I don't think people would prefer no deal at all. Just that it could have been negotiated better.

Like with the tv rights, we don't have the balls to demand live or near live storm games on Melbourne tv every single week. We ask for less and at the same time we get less money than the AFL. The AFL demanded the networks show unprofitable Swans and Lions games every single week in the northern states, and they still got more money.

So it's not about blasting deals completely, just that people wish the NRL would do a better job of getting everything it absolutely can out of our partners that benefits the game.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Blast that horrible deal which provides us with an absolutely ludicrous amount of money for a non-profitable technology.

If your talking about our Internet and Mobile media deal with Telstra, we get nothing for it. Its a freebe.

 

[Brutus]

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?

We have been very good at limiting our audience (on radio too) over the past 10 years.

 

[westie]

If your talking about our Internet and Mobile media deal with Telstra, we get nothing for it. Its a freebe.

$6 million a year is not nothing. Add in a total of $30 million in contra advertising and $4million a year for an associated naming rights sponsorship... and it's certainly not a freebee.

 

[Perth Red]

$6 million a year is not nothing. Add in a total of $30 million in contra advertising and $4million a year for an associated naming rights sponsorship... and it's certainly not a freebee.

err no, the actual internet and mobile rights were basically handed for free. The deal included naming rights for the NRL. = $10mill cash

http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/03/07/telstra-gets-a-bargain-with-nrl-sponsorship-rights/

In contrast the AFL got $12mill for mobile and internet PLUS $10mill for naming rights from Toyota = $22mill

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/afl-signs-new-online-deal/2006/10/06/1159641494989.html

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-to-hold-talks-with-toyota/story-e6frf9jf-1111115822612


That's $12mill a year we are missing out on, enough to raise the salary cap or bring in two new teams.

 

[westie]

err no, the actual internet and mobile rights were basically handed for free. The deal included naming rights for the NRL. = $10mill cash

http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/03/07/telstra-gets-a-bargain-with-nrl-sponsorship-rights/

In contrast the AFL got $12mill for mobile and internet PLUS $10mill for naming rights from Toyota = $22mill

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/afl-signs-new-online-deal/2006/10/06/1159641494989.html

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-to-hold-talks-with-toyota/story-e6frf9jf-1111115822612


That's $12mill a year we are missing out on, enough to raise the salary cap or bring in two new teams.

Jeff's had a shocker there, not differentiating between the naming rights cash and new media cash as can be seen in this SMH article from 2007. http://www.naming.com.au/naming-articles/2007/5/5/nrl-in-90m-black-hole/

You've got your figures right when it comes to the total, but you seem to have missed how that total was arrived at.

Sure, the deal isn't what it could be, but as my original point was that instead of "killing the game" by not allowing Foxtel to flaunt our new media deal, we are, in fact, doing more than alright bringing in a lot of cash which is, clearly, not "a freebee".

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/01/3081389.htm

Fans still waiting on football broadcast ruling

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy says he will announce by the end of the month which AFL and NRL games must remain on free-to-air television.

The Government has been in negotiations with the football codes on the definition of so-called blockbuster games since releasing a review of its anti-siphoning list last week.

The list determines which sporting events must be shown on free-to-air television networks before being siphoned off to pay TV.

Senator Conroy says the negotiations are being carried out in good faith.

"The discussions are always good - the AFL are a very, very competent professional organisation, so we're working away, beavering away on that," he said.

"When we reach a conclusion we'll make some announcements."

 

[Quidgybo]

A thought on Friday night coverage in the next TV deal.

Instead of two games, we schedule three. Two of those matches must involve a NSW team. At least one of the games must involve a Queensland team and where possible we try to schedule two games with Queensland teams (obviously easier if another Queensland team is added). Ideally at least one of the non Qld/NSW teams (Storm, Reds, Raiders) is also scheduled to play.

The FTA provider covers two of the three matches and the Pay TV provider covers one.

The FTA provider has exclusive rights to the live 7.30pm slot. It can screen any one of the *three* matches in any market. So Sydney could be shown a match involving two NSW teams, Queensland could be shown a match with one Queensland team, and Melbourne or Perth could take a match involving the Storm or Reds respectively.

Both the FTA provider and the Pay TV provider have shared rights to the 9.30pm slot. The FTA provider may screen either of the two remaining matches. The Pay TV provider may multichannel and show all three games simultaneously. On FTA Sydney could be shown a match involving one NSW team. If one of the two games involves a Queensland that match could be shown in Queensland. Melbourne and Perth could take whichever game looks most interesting.

The Pay TV provider has excessive rights to the 11.30pm slot. It can multichannel and show all three games simultaneously.

This scheduling would ensure that each market gets the match that most interests that market live at 7.30pm. Because the Pay TV provider has exclusive access to the 11.30pm slot, the only way for FTA provider to show two games under the antishyphoning four hour obligation is to show one live at 7.30pm and a second game at 9.30pm

Each market would also get the second match that most interests that market at 9.30pm. This is not exclusive as Pay TV may also. multicast all three matches at the same time. If fans wish to see the match least interesting to their market (as judged by the FTA provider), they'll have to pay for it.

Because the 11.30pm slot is exclusive to Pay TV, the only way to see all three matches is to pay to watch the game you didn't see at 7.30pm live on your FTA Provider, or delayed at 9.30pm on either FTA or Pay.

I think this schedule has value to FTA, Pay and to fans. FTA gets a choice of three different matches to show exclusively live into each market. It also gets to choose from 2 games for the second free match in each market. Pay TV gets to show all three matches mid evening but in competition to the second match on FTA. Pay TV is the only way to see all three games. And fans get live coverage in every market of their local team(s) if they're playing.

Leigh

 

[docbrown]

A thought on Friday night coverage in the next TV deal.

Instead of two games, we schedule three. Two of those matches must involve a NSW team. At least one of the games must involve a Queensland team and where possible we try to schedule two games with Queensland teams (obviously easier if another Queensland team is added). Ideally at least one of the non Qld/NSW teams (Storm, Reds, Raiders) is also scheduled to play.

The FTA provider covers two of the three matches and the Pay TV provider covers one.

The FTA provider has exclusive rights to the live 7.30pm slot. It can screen any one of the *three* matches in any market. So Sydney could be shown a match involving two NSW teams, Queensland could be shown a match with one Queensland team, and Melbourne or Perth could take a match involving the Storm or Reds respectively.

Both the FTA provider and the Pay TV provider have shared rights to the 9.30pm slot. The FTA provider may screen either of the two remaining matches. The Pay TV provider may multichannel and show all three games simultaneously. On FTA Sydney could be shown a match involving one NSW team. If one of the two games involves a Queensland that match could be shown in Queensland. Melbourne and Perth could take whichever game looks most interesting.

The Pay TV provider has excessive rights to the 11.30pm slot. It can multichannel and show all three games simultaneously.

This scheduling would ensure that each market gets the match that most interests that market live at 7.30pm. Because the Pay TV provider has exclusive access to the 11.30pm slot, the only way for FTA provider to show two games under the antishyphoning four hour obligation is to show one live at 7.30pm and a second game at 9.30pm

Each market would also get the second match that most interests that market at 9.30pm. This is not exclusive as Pay TV may also. multicast all three matches at the same time. If fans wish to see the match least interesting to their market (as judged by the FTA provider), they'll have to pay for it.

Because the 11.30pm slot is exclusive to Pay TV, the only way to see all three matches is to pay to watch the game you didn't see at 7.30pm live on your FTA Provider, or delayed at 9.30pm on either FTA or Pay.

I think this schedule has value to FTA, Pay and to fans. FTA gets a choice of three different matches to show exclusively live into each market. It also gets to choose from 2 games for the second free match in each market. Pay TV gets to show all three matches mid evening but in competition to the second match on FTA. Pay TV is the only way to see all three games. And fans get live coverage in every market of their local team(s) if they're playing.

Leigh

3 games in the one slot works in NFL - for a country of 400 million. In the NRL, it would tend to just cannabilise it. We have the benefit of replaying the 7:30pm game immediately afterwards at 9:30pm - which the AFL can't do.

However - more viewers are willing into tune at 7:30pm. If BOTH games were aired simultaneously at 7:30pm - one on the main and one on the digital - you'd have more viewers during that slot across the two (meaning the ad revenue is worth more) and then at 9:30pm switched over, you'd have more lead-in viewer who would potentially sit through the second game as well.

Instead of the current 4 hours of product, you'd have 8 hours and increase viewers by about 30-50%.

On a Sunday, fans might not be interested in a Manly vs Storm game, but if Broncos vs Tigers were on before or after, they'd sit through the second as well.

Simultaneous Fridays & back to back Sundays - that's what we need - and judging by Gallop's comments - what we might get.

 

[Quidgybo]

3 games in the one slot works in NFL - for a country of 400 million. In the NRL, it would tend to just cannabilise it.

How does it canabalise it? Each market gets the game that rates best in that market live and exclusive, and they have a choice of three games. The FTA provider can't lose. The fans get the two matches that interest their market most free, one live and one delayed. And they get the option to see the third if they want. Pay TV has exclusive replay of the out of market match not shown on FTA, no matter which game that is in each market.

However - more viewers are willing into tune at 7:30pm. If BOTH games were aired simultaneously at 7:30pm - one on the main and one on the digital - you'd have more viewers during that slot across the two (meaning the ad revenue is worth more) and then at 9:30pm switched over, you'd have more lead-in viewer who would potentially sit through the second game as well.

You're assuming that the FTA provider is willing to use two of their three multichannels for four hours to show Rugby League. Maybe in NSW and Qld markets, certainly not in Melbourne and Perth. In those markets they'll use one multichannel and show one game live and one delayed. But that's OK, the FTA provider can only show two games in each markets. Exclusive in the 7.30pm and non exclusive in the 9.30pm slot. Pay TV remains the only way to see all three games.

On a Sunday, fans might not be interested in a Manly vs Storm game, but if Broncos vs Tigers were on before or after, they'd sit through the second as well.

Simultaneous Fridays & back to back Sundays - that's what we need - and judging by Gallop's comments - what we might get.

Nothing to stop us from doing the same thing for one FTA match on Sunday afternoon with three games played at 2pm. The FTA provider can show any one of the three matches in each market either exclusively live at 2pm or non exclusive at 4pm. The Pay TV provider can multi channel all three games at 4pm and exclusively again at 6pm and 8pm.

Think of it this way. Every market gets the match that most interests that market free on Sunday and the two matches that most interest it free on Friday nights. The FTA provider has exclusive live coverage in both slots and must show at least one of the Friday matches live in each market. They could show both a live Sunday match and their two Friday matches live (using two mutlichannels) if they want. But any match they don't show live, they lose exclusivity on. Use or lose it put into action.

And if we expand to 18 teams, that'd still leave a Monday night and two Saturday night games exclusively live to Pay TV

Leigh.

 

[docbrown]

How does it canabalise it?

Because the audience for the 11:30pm replay will be minimal and you're playing the first screening into one city/region only. So you're taking a product that on its own can attract 700,000 to 1,000,000 alone nationally - and then playing to an audience of about 200,000 to 400,000 instead. That's what I mean by cannabilising it.

Two games work because they can be played simultaneously and then repeated at 9:30pm. More people will watch the 9:30pm repeat than an 11:30pm repeat. The concept I'm suggesting is having two 7:30pm - meaning a 7:30pm audience across two channel approximately 1.5 to 1.7 million weekly - and then at 9:30pm retain about 0.6 to 0.8 million.

Same product - repeat - 50% more viewers - 50% more ad revenue.

You're assuming that the FTA provider is willing to use two of their three multichannels for four hours to show Rugby League.

No - just the Main Channel and one digital channel in NSW, QLD & ACT. In the southern states, it's likely to be just on one digital channel - but the majority of the audience is in the northern markets anyhow. In time as the game drifts to 7:30pm on the main, then you could do the same down south.

As for Sundays, the intent is to build the audience to watch the two games back to back on free to air - not to siphon them off to Pay TV which will affect the F2A ratings. With 9 weekly games, there can 3 be sunday games with F2A from 2pm to 6pm and either a 6pm Sunday game or a 12pm Sunday game on Pay TV - all live.

Live broadcasting will attract more revenue than delayed games, regardless multi channeling options.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.nrl.com/news/news/newsar...nsortium-could-share-nrl-matches/default.aspx

TV consortium could share NRL matches

Luke Holmesby NRL.com Sat, 11 Dec 2010 12:04:00

NRL chief executive David Gallop says he is open to the idea of a consortium handling the next round of TV rights, but admits there could be drawbacks.

With the League's current rights agreement with Channel 9 and Foxtel expiring at the end of 2012, Gallop would consider a similar arrangement to the AFL, which is broadcast by Channel 7, Channel 10 and Foxtel.

"We're open to that but not necessarily committed to that. Exclusivity and having one network being the rugby league network has worked for us in the past," Gallop said on BigPond Sports Weekend.

"During the club competition you can talk about state of origin coming up but if we split it up we are in danger of losing that. So we're going to have to look at the value [and] we are going to have to look at the continuity of promotion of the product."

Gallop refused to put a figure on how much money the League could reap out of the next rights agreement but said it could be substantial.

"You've got to be careful saying we are aiming for X. It's a bit like selling your house. You can't put a whole lot of numbers in a computer and it will spit out a number you are definitely going to get," he said.

"The day you sell your house you go along to the auction and you just hope that you've got people there who bid your price up."

Gallop said the jostling for position by the broadcasters meant that the competition could be well set up for a big windfall.

"I like the level of competition that I feel is out there at the moment. People have recognised rugby league is something they want on their network. I think that is going to set us up for a nice little bidding war," he said.

"If you add in New Zealand, we obviously gain a nice slice of revenue out of New Zealand as well. We don't have a specific target in mind but I really believe we are going to do a great deal. I think the game is set up to do that.

"The interest from the broadcasters already is clear. We are running a quality competition and it is a compelling TV product."

 

[ElectricEelMan]

"Exclusivity and having one network being the rugby league network has worked for us in the past.....During the club competition you can talk about state of origin coming up but if we split it up we are in danger of losing that. So we're going to have to look at the value [and] we are going to have to look at the continuity of promotion of the product."

Galop. Gallop. Gallop.

I don't know why he is so obsessed with keeping the NRL on one station or why he is so concerned about not being able to talk about state of origin if you split up the competition.

Honestly, if a TV station just has the SOO ... say Ch7, there is no doubt they will promote the HELL out of it any way they can all through year. And say Ch10 just has rugby league internationals. They most likely will promote the crap out of it throughout the year (much better than Ch9 does). So in the end we will have rugby league promotion on more than one station. But if Ch9 keeps the rights to all games including SOO, we will only have one TV station promoting the sport.

It seems so simple to me yet Gallop is so obsessed about 'losing being able to talk about SOO during the club competition' that he is unable to look at the big picture.

 

[Perth Red]

Exclusivity and having one network being the rugby league network has worked for us in the past

How exactly?

 

[El Diablo]

i'd like to know too

9 have more dedicated AFL shows than NRL

9 are absolute merkins. ever see them promoting the NRL during cricket when they wank on about other crap shows?

nope

 

[Green Machine]

Gallop refused to put a figure on how much money the League could reap out of the next rights agreement but said it could be substantial.

"You've got to be careful saying we are aiming for X. It's a bit like selling your house. You can't put a whole lot of numbers in a computer and it will spit out a number you are definitely going to get," he said.

"The day you sell your house you go along to the auction and you just hope that you've got people there who bid your price up."

Oh dear. David doesn't know much about selling real estate,

 

[Green Machine]

In 1991, Ten have Fridays and Sundays. ABC had Saturdays, Nine had State of Origin and Seven had Test Matches. All stations gave Rugby League good cross promotion. In 1992, Seven’s coverage did nothing to effect the Test Matches against Great Britain. You only have to look at radio where the NRL and ARL have given exclusive rights to 2GB to seen the effect. 2GB don’t even talk about Rugby League. They are call games when it suits them. Exclusive really works well with Foxsports. The NRL is the highest rating weekly football code, but AFL gets the No.1 channel. Every time I watch Foxsports News, they usually run with an AFL story before an NRL story. If Channel 7 were not interested in bidding for Rugby League rights, they wouldn’t have created shows this year with a Rugby League flavour. David would have no idea that Seven run soapies filmed in Sydney with AFL and Union cross promotion in them. If Seven had a part of the Rugby League rights, you would imagine that their soapies would no longer have an AFL being punted around in a park in Burwood. David it talking pure sh*t. Exclusive means less money and less promotion,

 

[Brutus]

Exclusivity and having one network being the rugby league network has worked for us in the past," Gallop said on BigPond Sports Weekend.


Exactly how has this worked well for RL in the past David?

It seems this man is still heavily involved in TV negotiations.

We will be f**ked...again.

 

[docbrown]

Keep in mind, he's got to play both sides on this, which is what he's doing. On one hand he's saying to 7 & 10 "we like what you can do" and on the other he's sucking up to 9 so they don't think they're getting the short shrift.

Ultimately multi-channel broadcasting is what the game needs so that the networks are in competition with each other over a product they already own. Game Theory 101.