The TV rights thread

[docbrown]

Again which is why they need to factor the potentiality of a 9th game in as a balloon payment.

Keep in mind - the networks are basing their opinions on Rugby League's performance in Southern States with post midnight ratings - an effective blackout by Channel 9.

When Storm have played in Melbourne on Friday nights, they've rated in the 150k-250k bracket - 3 to 5 times what the Swans average in Sydney.

The NRL need to get some Storm games shown live this year in order to have the numbers to take to the networks and throw it back at them.

 

[Doug2234]

Show it or loose it policy should also friggin apply to Channel 9!! FFS showing Friday night games at midnight in Melbourne, Perth etc is NOT going to show the rating powerhouse the game is... the game should be given to Fox Sports or at least Go!

This is a necessity for true market value..

 

[docbrown]

so you're saying 7/10 to bid an amount ... say 850 Mill for the NRL rights ... forcing 9 to match it ... & they'd have to match it
no big domestic winter sport means they're done as a viable TV network in this country

a reverse of what happend last time round ... ??

I like it ...I like it a lot ;-)

Remember, 7/10 only have to match 9's component, not the overall deal, which 7 can afford with about $600- $700 million in left over capital after AFL deal.

Imagine if Ch9 lost NRL and missed out on the AFL!!

Two and a Half Men repeats all Friday night... LOL. The death of Ch9

Remember - the reason why TV networks buy sports is because they have a cult like following. If a viewer becomes used to watching one network for their sports coverage, then they have the tendancy to stick with the rest of the programming simply because they're familiar with it.

They know it's not just about the ratings for the two sports themselves - but the follow on consequences of those casual viewing habits.

 

[PB]

Ratings figures are obviously important - very important - when it comes to negotiating these deals, but they are not the 'be all and end all'.

The AFL has sginifcant leverage in being able to outline its strategic plans, how it is continuing to grow into new markets. The NRL doesn't have this strategic plan yet and can't.

The AFL can illustrate the strong growth in participation in the sport in new markets, which the NRL can not. The AFL can show it will continue to experience this growth highlighting the 6 figure sums they have recently spent in places like Cairns, Townsville and Bathurst to name just a few centres (which doesn't even count western sydney and the gold coast). These are rugby league towns and the NRL has spent less money in them and they are losing participation at junior and senior levels.

 

[Ray Mosters]

i don't buy this seeing last time it was the other way around

Last time our bid was not competitive. This time it will be

 

[PaulyTom]

NRL has the most potential though. AFL is currently shown at reasonable time slots in each state. NRL is only shown in 2 states at decent timeslots. If it was a level playing field I have no doubt we would smash the AFL overall across FOX and FTA . NRL should demand more then the AFL.

 

[Ray Mosters]

The reason the AFL is worth so much more than us is not "penetration into NSW and Qld", thats bollocks. We more than account for that difference with our regional penetration.

Its the advertising space. An AFL game delivers double the advertising space that an NRL game does. A game is worth twice as much to the broadcaster because it can sell 2 ads to our 1 to the same number of people.

No amount of mitigation, not demographic, not season length, nothing, can overcome a %200 difference in advertising revenue per game.

 

[PB]

The reason the AFL is worth so much more than us is not "penetration into NSW and Qld", thats bollocks. We more than account for that difference with our regional penetration.

Its the advertising space. An AFL game delivers double the advertising space that an NRL game does. A game is worth twice as much to the broadcaster because it can sell 2 ads to our 1 to the same number of people.

No amount of mitigation, not demographic, not season length, nothing, can overcome a %200 difference in advertising revenue per game.

excellent point.

So therefore to increase the NRL value, the length of the game (or coverage) of the game needs to extend.

So they could start their coverage 1/2 hour earlier on the FTA channels - do more pregame in order to get in some more ads or have "TV Time outs" during the game like they do in the NFL - It doesn't bother Americans, but i think it would drive us nuts because of what we are used to.

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

i would do a four year deal to put our next contract at the same time as Afl.

Bring in bris 2 and perth

Prime time coverage in all capital cities

then we can see what the figures are head to head with our closest competitor.

 

[Perth Red]

However, those same sources point out that the AFL remains a truly national competition, with teams in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth while the NRL remains focused on the east coast. Sure, Sydney is the biggest market in the country, but while league dominates there and in Brisbane, there is still an AFL presence in those cities that TV types describe as ''significant'' and certainly stronger than the league presence in Melbourne.

''The AFL is a national competition,'' one source said. ''They are the biggest football brand in the country, and since the last rights deals were done they have added two teams.''

This is why Perth is a must for the long term health of the game and why getting FTA national covg is so vital. perception is everything!

 

[adamkungl]

Must go to Perth.

 

[El Diablo]

we have 'sources' saying because the AFL is national it adds to their TV rights

then we have things like this http://www.foxsports.com.au/league/...-expansion-plans/story-fn2mcuj6-1225916365797

However, South Sydney chief executive Shane Richardson said media advisers LEK Consulting had presented a report to all club bosses that suggested extra teams would not add to the value of the deal.

so why will it add to to the AFL rights but do nothing for the NRL :?

 

[Perth Red]

because it suits the NRL clubs at this time to selectively quote a single report? I know the WARL commisioned a report they have chaired that suggests the exact opposite and shows the value of a Perth team to tv negotiations. Personally I'd be listening to what the TV insiders are saying and what the facts are showing us, and that is a National sport will get more than a regional sport, even if the regional sport is in bigger TV audience areas.

 

[Billythekid]

I just don't understand the logic. So even though their games rate like absoulte sh*t in Sydney and Brisbane they still increase the money they get?

I would of thought you would get less money to get the tv networks to show your games into frontier markets. They must lose a lot of money showing AFL into Sydney and Brisbane so why would they pay more for the privilege.

 

[Perth Red]

National perception. It is very weird but it matters, AFL has a perception of being a National sport, NRL as being NSW and Q'land with Melbourne a token gesture. Comes down to NRL poor marketing, lack of exposure for Melbourne and RL's general failure to have a strategic plan for growing the game beyond the East coast.

I think Swans and Lions crowds also probably help, If Storm were getting 30k to games then i think the perception of popularity of RL in Vic would be different. People forget how much time and money Swans and Lions have had to build that fanbase and what it was like for their first decade.

 

[Ray Mosters]

It may or may not (i think not) have an effect on the value of the TV rights, but national broadcasting and a national presence definitely has an effect on the ground and shirt sponsorship value to the clubs.

Being a national code means we can sell club sponsorships at national rates, we can guarantee them all that they will see their brand beamed into every TVs throughout the entire country at good times.

Perth and Adelaide are a must, not necessarily for the TV rights, but for all clubs

Even beyond what we actually get in cash for the rights, we must have binding contractual aggreements to show the code throughout the country at decent times!

 

[IPAlarms]

I live in Thailand and rely on the Australia Network channel for my NRL fix. Who owns this channel and will it be affected by any changes in TV rights ?

I have seen the AFL adverts already, but no NRL.... which concerns me a little.

 

[Dragon]

I live in Thailand and rely on the Australia Network channel for my NRL fix. Who owns this channel and will it be affected by any changes in TV rights ?

I have seen the AFL adverts already, but no NRL.... which concerns me a little.

I think its the ABC

 

[adamkungl]

National perception. It is very weird but it matters, AFL has a perception of being a National sport, NRL as being NSW and Q'land with Melbourne a token gesture. Comes down to NRL poor marketing, lack of exposure for Melbourne and RL's general failure to have a strategic plan for growing the game beyond the East coast.

I think Swans and Lions crowds also probably help, If Storm were getting 30k to games then i think the perception of popularity of RL in Vic would be different. People forget how much time and money Swans and Lions have had to build that fanbase and what it was like for their first decade.

Poor marketing? Nine are the ones that refuse to show Melbourne games. They made 4 GFs in a row and 'won' 2 comps ffs. They have crowds as good as other NRL sides.

TV networks don't give RL decent exposure in some capital cities then give us a dud deal because we don't rate in those cities. Talk about self fulfilling f**king prophecy.

 

[El Diablo]

I think its the ABC

and the ABC hates League