The TV rights thread

[El Diablo]

this time we'll also have the benefit of knowing what Fox paid for the AFL

last time we were first, but this time it's the other way around

 

[applesauce]

Let's just hope Fox save some decent money for us...

 

[andrew057]

Let's just hope Fox save some decent money for us...

If they dont they would be committing business suicide, considering such a large % have pay tv for League alone.

 

[docbrown]

Say Ch9 bid ofr 2 Friday nights plus Sunday afternoon games, Ch10 bid for 2 Saturday games and a Sunday evening game leaving Fox one Saturday, Sunday and Monday game. This would screw Fox subscriptions and they know it, danger of course is now Ch10 are in bed with Fox they will collude to prevent this happening.

We at least need the valid threat of Fox losing games. For every game they lose, they will lose subscriptions - and they know it - they just won't admit it publically. It is to Fox's benefit to talk down NRL & talk up AFL - why pay more for a product you already own?

Step 1 is threatening Fox with losing 1 or 2 games, that is by offering 4 to F2A out of 8. Force them to offer more to hold onto the 5 that they have. Propose 2 sets of double headers each to 9 & 10 - and then offer 10 first (but leak to 7 & 9) about a potential Saturday, Monday or potentially Thursday night game - and a mixed package of representative fixtures. If each network were offered 1 origin game each (if they host regular matches as well) and a split of the finals & other rep games, all 3 would have their ears pricked and we'd get some real fighting bids. The NRL need to pre-assign minimal individual cash values to those games.

Then you'll see what Fox counter offers when left with the scenario of only 3 weekly matches. See what they offer just to get 4 games, let alone 5. Of course, do this with the knowledge of a potential 9th game up your sleeve for Fox to beg for.

That's a legitimate countering force using Nash competitive strategy.

we have one ace up our sleeve and that is stokes will be wanting to bend fox over any chance he can get ala kerry on his death bed with the afl

Stokes will be a key player in this auction. My guess - they'll go for Sunday double headers (as Gallop is finally on the bandwagon for it). The AFL is very unlikely to run a F2A doubleheader from 12pm to 6pm & Sunday night is the most competitive TV market - and 7 or 9 would have a phenomenal 1.3-1.7 million national NRL viewers (for the 4 teams) across the main & digital channels as a lead in.

 

[chefman21]

Given the dire financial situation (comparatively) of the code, I'm of the opinion the media companies have the balance of power in the negotiations. They know we desperately need money, and as such can hold us to ransom.

 

[applesauce]

Given the dire financial situation (comparatively) of the code, I'm of the opinion the media companies have the balance of power in the negotiations. They know we desperately need money, and as such can hold us to ransom.

Lets say that happens (worst case scenario).

I would rather EVERY game on FTA for cheap then. It would f**k Fox over but it would give everyone in OZ (hopefully) a chance to watch every game. The exposure and the increased sponsorship/advertising will help offset another sh*t deal from Foxtel.

It doubt the NRL would ever do that though....

 

[docbrown]

Given the dire financial situation (comparatively) of the code, I'm of the opinion the media companies have the balance of power in the negotiations. They know we desperately need money, and as such can hold us to ransom.

It's the perception but it's how you play the game. Last time we just took it. A big problem is that there is now no genuine subscription tv service to challenge Fox - however - you can CREATE that competition by pitting Fox against the F2A by threatening its subscription base, of which Rugby League is by far the most important demographic. At the same time you need to pit ALL the F2A networks against each other.

Believe me - Stokes, Packer, Gyngell & Murdoch do wine & dine each other and collude when the time is right - but only if it benefits their bottom line.

You don't fight your enemies. You get your enemies to fight each other.

 

[Ray Mosters]

Lets say that happens (worst case scenario).

I would rather EVERY game on FTA for cheap then. It would f**k Fox over but it would give everyone in OZ (hopefully) a chance to watch every game. The exposure and the increased sponsorship/advertising will help offset another sh*t deal from Foxtel.

It doubt the NRL would ever do that though....

Yeah, its a nice idea, but is actually totally impossible to do...quite simply because the code cannot voluntarily suffer such a large contraction of its primary revenue source.

I love the idea of 8 games a week being on FTA, but what that means is a massive decrease in the amount the clubs get from the league to pay the players. What it means is the probably death of at least one club, the contraction of the salary cap, and many more big name players heading overseas.

Sure it would be offset by greater shirt sponsorship revenue (due to increased exposure), more people at games (because without the cost of Foxtel they can spend their money on tickets and membership) but its still a significant net loss that would threaten a couple of clubs and send our best and brightest elsewhere.

And the death or merger of a club has a knock on effect of decreasing the amount of games we are selling...and not being able to ensure that you can supply 8 games a week to broadcasters puts in you a very bad negotiating position.

Like I say, the code would survive it, and who knows, with the restructuring and promotional opportunities it would bring, with 20 years of full FTA coverage we might even be better off....

But its not something we could ever do voluntarily.

 

[Ray Mosters]

It's the perception but it's how you play the game. Last time we just took it. A big problem is that there is now no genuine subscription tv service to challenge Fox - however - you can CREATE that competition by pitting Fox against the F2A by threatening its subscription base, of which Rugby League is by far the most important demographic. At the same time you need to pit ALL the F2A networks against each other.

Thats true doc, but how threatening can we be to their subscription base really?

Sure, we are their most important property, but we aren't their only one. If they lost the NRL they would lose a fair whack of subscribers in New South Wales and Queensland, but it wouldnt be fatal. They still have every other sporting product and everything else they have too. Theirs is a diverse set of properties.

Conversely, we have only one way to draw revenue from subscription broadcast coverage....and thats through Foxtel. Once again its not fatal for us to lose it, but I tend to think they would be less scared to dissolve the partnership than we would, as we risk losing clubs and players. All they lose is a share of their profits

 

[Perth Red]

and Fox would never allow it, they know we are the golden goose for them. What we have to make sure is that they think they have a chance of losing us and what we expect from them for that not to happen. That we get 1/2 of what AFL is getting from Fox is a disgrace that needs to be rectified.

 

[chefman21]

and Fox would never allow it, they know we are the golden goose for them. What we have to make sure is that they think they have a chance of losing us and what we expect from them for that not to happen. That we get 1/2 of what AFL is getting from Fox is a disgrace that needs to be rectified.

That's a dangerous game to play. The more organisations that are competing for the rights the better deal we will get.

 

[Perth Red]

exactly more point, Fox NEED us. If they think they will get us regardless they aren;t going to offer alot more than they do now. If they think there is a good chance there 5 games will be reduced to 2 or 3 then they will have to offer more to secure them.

 

[chefman21]

Flashbacks of game theory, John Forbes Nash and early uni days here....

 

[docbrown]

Thats true doc, but how threatening can we be to their subscription base really?

Yes they've diversified but look at those other sports by season & popularity.

Subscription sports channels were struggling back when they were dominated by low-base American leagues. This is why they need large base local sports as they prop up up the rest of the network.

Without NRL, in the Winter season Fox would have (in order of profile):
- AFL: 4 to 5 games a week
- Rugby Union: 2 to 3 games a week in a decent timeslot
- Cricket: off-season overseas games in poor timeslots
- Soccer: a handful of internationals only, most overseas in poor timeslots
- and the lower appeal sports like tennis, golf, baseball & motorsport

AFL on Fox has been played for 10+ years, had its own channel - and yet - the extensive F2A coverage has kept subscription in the southern states down. This won't change after the next deal. AFL fans won't suddenly change what has been the status quo for 10 years.

Likewise Rugby Union, Cricket & Soccer have their own subscription base, but with a proportion overlapping the NRL/AFL base. Winter cricket & soccer just aren't enough to drive subscriptions to replace an NRL loss.

The key question here isn't "Will Fox lose all the NRL rights?"

It's "How many NRL games can Fox afford to lose before it impacts their subscription numbers?"

Fox would have survey numbers to tell them how many subscriptions are rugby league driven. If 10 out of 16 teams are on F2A each week and team fans are guaranteed a F2A game every fortnight, you can bet many would see Foxtel as unneccesary and subscriptions would dive around 30 to 40%, especially with the advent of the new F2A digital channels. This means Fox will be forced to cut services, channels and also as a long term consequence the bids they can place for other sporting rights. They won't just take the money from NRL rights and give it to AFL and other sports, as it artifically drives up the rights for those sports in the next bidding round.

The NRL needs Fox's money. I'm not advocating that we pull out. But Fox knows these numbers, they need to be reminded of it during negotiation by pitting them against F2A.

Flashbacks of game theory, John Forbes Nash and early uni days here....

Exactly.

 

[Perth Red]

If we got 5 games on FTA a week I'd cancel my subscription.

 

[docbrown]

If we got 5 games on FTA a week I'd cancel my subscription.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying the NRL should do that. Just remind Fox that many people would do that.

With 9 games, 4 on F2A & 5 on Foxtel is the best arrangement.

We just need to keep the bastards honest ;-)

 

[2010Dragons]

Any channel but pathetic nine.

 

[bobmar28]

Given the dire financial situation (comparatively) of the code, I'm of the opinion the media companies have the balance of power in the negotiations. They know we desperately need money, and as such can hold us to ransom.

That is not how auctions work. If a buyer wants something they have to be the highest bidder.

Would 9 sit back and let 7 get league on the cheap? No. The same for ONE HD, Fox Sports.

 

[chefman21]

That is not how auctions work. If a buyer wants something they have to be the highest bidder.

Would 9 sit back and let 7 get league on the cheap? No. The same for ONE HD, Fox Sports.

What I was getting at is that they don't have to offer as much, because we will pretty much take anything. It's not unheard of for competitors to get together beforehand to keep prices down when they bid for something. They don't tell each other what they will bid, but they will set an upper limit. In this case we NEED the cash desperately, which means they can dictate terms. If they don't want to bid past a certain point then we have to take what's on offer.

 

[smithie]

1. At least 4 of 9 games must be shown on free-to-air.

2. Games shown live nationally.

3. All games must be broadcast in HD.

These are the three most important points for the next TV deal. I believe the only FTA network that would abide by these terms is Network Ten via OneHD. While Nine has done a good job producing a great product, the way Nine executives have managed it has been disgraceful. Not showing games at a decent hour outside NSW & QLD, the huge ad breaks during the Sunday game that makes it very difficult to watch, not showing Four Nations games live in QLD and the list goes on.

I now have grave fears about the upcoming season. When Nine launched GEM they stated that "All of our sport coverage will be simulcast on GEM in HD as well as Nine" A week before the Ashes they changed their mind, so no cricket in HD for the summer. Will this be the same for league? Having purchased a big screen HDTV in the last twelve months, god I hope not.