The TV rights thread

[Alex28]

There was an article in the Financial Review today basically saying that neither the AFL or the NRL are going to crack the Billion dollar figure for the TV rights - in fact the AFL will be "substantially below" that figure.

I think all the hopes we have that this TV deal will make everybody involved in League rich are not going to eventuate.

(of course I can't link an article - you need to be earning six-figures to be able to afford to subscribe to the Fin Review website...)

 

[Quidgybo]

There was an article in the Financial Review today basically saying that neither the AFL or the NRL are going to crack the Billion dollar figure for the TV rights - in fact the AFL will be "substantially below" that figure.

I think all the hopes we have that this TV deal will make everybody involved in League rich are not going to eventuate.

It doesn't matter, the exact figure isn't the issue. The problem is that at $500m over 6 years compared to $780m over 5 years we're currently well behind the benchmark set by our biggest competitor and thus at a major financial disadvantage. If the AFL only get $850m out of the next deal and we get anything over $800m for the same term then it'll still be a financial bonanza that puts us right back in the game and gives us the freedom to do things like a national second tier. Getting hung up on some arbitrary figure like $1 billion is silly. As long as we get our market value in line with what our best competitors are able to get then we're going to be in good shape.

Leigh.

 

[Perth Red]

Not interested in the slightest what AFL get. What we need to be concentrating on is what WE need to get to achieve the strategic goals we want to achieve in the next 5 years for RL.

To increase club grants, support Storm, expand the comp, reinvigorate NSW and Q'land cups and grass roots, support expansion states to develop, market the game properly, grow our jnr numbers, develop better corporate deals etc etc we need X amount of $'s. My fear is we have no strategic goals so how can we put a figure against them?

 

[Quidgybo]

Not interested in the slightest what AFL get. What we need to be concentrating on is what WE need to get to achieve the strategic goals we want to achieve in the next 5 years for RL.

To increase club grants, support Storm, expand the comp, reinvigorate NSW and Q'land cups and grass roots, support expansion states to develop, market the game properly, grow our jnr numbers, develop better corporate deals etc etc we need X amount of $'s. My fear is we have no strategic goals so how can we put a figure against them?

As I've already pointed out to you on this PR, it matters what our biggest competitor gets because they are currently able to use their superior financial resources to bring the fight to our backyard. It's fine to set out some strategic goals but if we can't fund them because we're forced to divert our resources to fight a rear guard action against a much better financed opponent then what have we gained? I agree you can't plan your goals solely based on what your competitors are doing but equally you can't plan in a bubble ignorant to what your biggest competitors are doing in the market.

Leigh

 

[Perth Red]

But do you honestly believe if we get more than the AFL the NRL will turn around and pump tens of millions into Vic, SA, WA and NT? AFL had a strategic intent to nationally grow their game 10 years ago, they then used the rich pickings to make that vision relaity. If we get alot more money the best we can hope for at this point in time is Perth get a team and that is only because people in Perth are pushing damn hard and nothing to do with NRL long term goals.

ps what AFL are doing in Sydney and Q'land is not impacting on NRL clubs in those areas imo. It may in decades to come if those areas don't get their act together but how exactly is the GWS going to damage Parra or Bulldogs?

We need to shore up our heartlands but we also need to get back on the front foot in a coordinated and visionary way. Typical Rl thinking will be to use any extra money in exactly the same way we have used the last lot of money and then in 5 years be exacty where we are now with clubs still holding their hands out for more and our game still restricted to the East coast with one or two NRL level outposts.

 

[Doug2234]

is anyone a financial review subscriber?

love to read this article...

http://afr.com/p/business/companies/big_bucks_unlikely_for_afl_tv_rights_Q84y1w4LC8y3U2HBRNyLuK

 

[High Flyers]

is anyone a financial review subscriber?

love to read this article...

http://afr.com/p/business/companies/big_bucks_unlikely_for_afl_tv_rights_Q84y1w4LC8y3U2HBRNyLuK

Not a subsciber but read the article yesterday. My take on it was that the AFL and consequently the NRL are unllikely to get close to 1billion for the nest deal.
The AfL are likely to have the deal in place by the start of the season once the GOV decides on the mechinism which controls which games go in FTA and which go to PAY TV.

My thoughts are that Seven wont be seriously bidding on the NRL due to them dropping the matty johns show and that 10 will be having a run at it due to them putting a NRL show in the programming. What will be liekely in my opinion is NRL for seasons start to finish on 9 and SOO and Internationals on 10.

Interesting side note in the FIN review was that Seven alone last year offered the AFL "only" $820M for next five year rights deal (which was rejected).

 

[El Diablo]

Interesting side note in the FIN review was that Seven alone last year offered the AFL "only" $820M for next five year rights deal (which was rejected).

that's not entirely correct

7 withdrew the offer when ten baulked at the figure believing it was too much

7 cannot bid alone. they have to bid with ten for AFL

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/live-night-football-in-new-broadcast-deal-20091124-j31w.html

Seven and Ten bosses met the AFL in Sydney last month with the league attempting to revive negotiations for the next broadcast rights which were placed on hold after Network Ten was unwilling to join forces with Seven in an attempt to secure an early deal - a deal which would have lifted the value of the next agreement from $780 million over five years to about $820 million.

 

[docbrown]

I wouldn't read too much into the dropping of the Matty Johns show. If the AFL Footy Show failed as bad as the bounce, you can bet that 9 would drop both Footy shows in a similar fashion.

It doesn't mean they don't have an interest in the rest of product, especially if they both and cover both markets.

 

[Billythekid]

No surprise that ten wouldn't want to pay more. Showing AFL into sydney and brisbane on a saturday must have lost them quite a bit of money.

 

[hutch]

I know this isn't as big a deal as the financial side of things, but one thing that really bugs me is fox sports showing the nrl on fox sports 2! As the highest rating sport by a massive margin, you should be on fox sports 1 as a sign of your power. It's not the biggest issue going but it's little things like this which alters peoples perception of the afl and rugby league!

 

[Perth Red]

I guess the $820mill bid puts to rest the notion that stations paid overs for AFL last time around, artificially driven up by Packer.

 

[El Diablo]

I guess the $820mill bid puts to rest the notion that stations paid overs for AFL last time around, artificially driven up by Packer.

why?

Ten pulled out of the 7 bid and the AFR article from last year stated that Ten did believe they paid overs last time because of the Packer bid

 

[Perth Red]

well that is what 7 thought AFL is worth, 10 will have to pay that either for NRL or part for AFL or lose all sport which won't happen. AFL won;t except less than that, NRL better get that so that is waht the value would appear to be?

 

[Quidgybo]

I guess the $820mill bid puts to rest the notion that stations paid overs for AFL last time around, artificially driven up by Packer.

Not necessarily. If anything it's evidence that it was too much last time because the increase doesn't look like being much this time. ie. Today the rights are worth around the value paid five years ago. Five years ago the rights were really worth much less than what was actually paid.

Leigh

 

[Edwahu]

Just based on the extra game 820 now would be less then 780 five years ago. The details of the deal will probably be much more favourable to the networks this time as well.

Really you cant tell if it was overs though unless you know what the networks made off AFL advertising. You can only really say Fox got a bad deal in comparison to what it paid for the NRL.

 

[docbrown]

Even if the AFL fail to reach a $1 billion television deal, you can bet that they add ALL their various media rights together under the one banner just to claim yet another false "victory".

 

[andrew057]

So has anybody heard any more on whether the NRL is allowed to unbundle games like SOO etc?

 

[Nerd]

There was an article in the Financial Review today basically saying that neither the AFL or the NRL are going to crack the Billion dollar figure for the TV rights - in fact the AFL will be "substantially below" that figure.

Finally reality is setting in.

Of course the networks aren't going to substantialy up the current afl deal with the code bombing badly in the ratings in Sydney and Brisbane.

Adding the GWS and Suns isn't going to help either. All this will do is split the already bad ratings between the extra teams and in the process cost the afl a fortune to prop up these two white elephants.