The TV rights thread

[Goddo]

With the new anti-siphoning rules introducing a requirement that listed events (ie. the three Channel Nein games) must be broadcast within four hours of kickoff, the Melbourne Storm are about to become very valuable to the free to air rights holder.

With two matches played at 7.30pm Friday night the latest the second of those matches could start replaying in Melbourne is 11.30pm. Unless the other game is shown simultaneously on one of their other channels, this would mean the first match has to start showing around 9.30pm. For Sunday afternoon games it's even better with the latest replay starting at 7pm.

These legally imposed time slots are going to make maximising Melbourne ratings for NRL matches suddenly very important to Nein to minimise the loss in advertising revenue. What's the best way to consistently maximise ratings in any market? Show the local team of course. Expect to see the Storm scheduled almost weekly on free to air much like the Broncos as soon as the new rules come into force.

Leigh.

This simply emphasises the absolute need of the NRL to commit to expansion in Perth and Brisbane/SE Queensland ((and then looking longer term maybe a 5th Queensland side, Adelaide and/or Christchurch/Wellington)).

You think the anti siphoning is good in Victoria. Look at WA. Even if they show it as late as possible, that State is 2 hours behind to start with... a 4 hour delay from live is only 2 hours behind in terms of time slots.

Friday night football into Perth would be at the latest starting at 9:30pm, which means the first game has to be before 7:30pm. Worst case scenario is they actually broadcast the first game live, which would start at 5:30 and the second at 7:30. That is still pretty awesome. Sunday games would have to be broadcast sometime between 11:00am and 3:00pm if played in Sydney. :crazy:

Concidering this Perth with a population comparable to Brisbane is an absolute MUST for expansion. The Reds have a huge mortgage on the first expansion allocation. TV slots into Adelaide would be better than Melbourne, but not as great as Perth looks.

_________________________________________​

If free to air televised games each week typically feature Melbourne, Perth, 2-3 Sydney sides and 1-2 Queensland sides, there is a significant problem for the NRL getting exposure fairly across all clubs in Sydney.

Expect the broadcasters to play games such that you have clubs matching up each week something like:

(QLD) vs (VIC)
(NSW) vs (WA) and
(NSW) vs (NSW or QLD)

or some similar sort of spread.

_________________________________________​

It will be very hard on teams like Cronulla, Penrith, Canberra and Newcastle especially, who will be lucky to get more than a handful of free to air games. Thats roughly 72 (3x24) slots for NSW+ACT teams, spread across 11 clubs, averaging 6.5 games per club, but this allocation won't be fairly spread.

Clubs like St George, Wests, Souths, Parramatta and Canterbury will get the lions share because they rate better. If you add the Bears, the pain is even worse. The average stretches to 6 games per club.

_________________________________________​

Queensland on the other hand has only 3 sides, 1 of which is regional. These teams will have a dominant position in terms of TV rights; expect something like 48 (2x24) slots for 3 Qld teams, an average of 16 free to air games each per year.

Providing more competition and local content into SE Queensland other than the Broncos and Titans can only be a good thing for crowds, memberships, TV rights and so on. It would also reduce the dull specticle of watching the Broncos play every week.

 

[Ray Mosters]

Are you suggesting that a civil contract is any more likely to bring about coverage outside the heartlands than *criminal* liability? A broadcasting license is worth an awful lot of money but it's only worth it while you possess it. Networks don't tend to persist in behaviour that puts their license at risk (ie. willfully breaching the broadcasting act). It's one thing to brush off a desperate sports body, it's another thing to ignore the law of the land enforced by a dedicated government authority.

Leigh

Of course not. A binding law would of course be more effective.

I'm saying that there is no way that the government will legislate that RL be shown at a decent time outside its heartland. If it does happen, and thats a pretty big if, it will only be for NSW and QLD.

To get good coverage in Melbourne, it can only be part of the broadcast agreement, as it will never be law.

 

[Quidgybo]

To get good coverage in Melbourne, it can only be part of the broadcast agreement, as it will never be law.

Why not? That sounds like exactly what they're about to do. It's the price the networks will be forced to pay in return for allowing them to use their digital only multi channels for anti siphon listed events. They've just been handed all this nice juicy bandwidth for literally nothing that allows them to broadcast three channels instead of one. The networks can hardly think there weren't going to be some catches attached for how they use these new channels. Now they'll no longer need to show listed events on their main channel - but they will need to show them.

Leigh

 

[Cletus]

Ch 7 are locked in to bidding with Ch 10 for the AFL rights, not sure if that could work.

They're bidding together just like they did last time. It sounds like the AFL bid is going to be around $900 million.

 

[BDGS]

They'll be disappointed with that then.

 

[Ray Mosters]

Why not? That sounds like exactly what they're about to do. It's the price the networks will be forced to pay in return for allowing them to use their digital only multi channels for anti siphon listed events. They've just been handed all this nice juicy bandwidth for literally nothing that allows them to boardcast three channels instead of one. The networks can hardly think there weren't going to be some catches attached for how they use these new channels. Now they'll no longer need to show listed events on their main channel - but they will need to show them.

Leigh

The anti-siphoning list has never (AFAIK) done anything but protect NRL and AFL matches inside their respective heartland.

The government don't think the people of Perth should have the right to watch Cronulla-Rabbitohs games anymore than the people of Brisbane should have the right to watch Hawthorn-Geelong games.

So it seems very, very unlikely to me. Interesting if it happens though.

But if it did happen, it would also mean that the AFL would have its games protected in the same way. So they would have live or near live Friday Night AFL into NSW and QLD.

 

[Quidgybo]

The anti-siphoning list has never (AFAIK) done anything but protect NRL and AFL matches inside their respective heartland.

Thing is it's never done anything to distinguish between heartland and non heartland. Currently there's no obligation to show, anywhere (it's the network not encumbered by any obligation to show that chooses to make the distinction between heartland and non heartland).There's just a restriction preventing listed events being bought by pay TV directly ahead of FTA networks and a restriction preventing listed events from being shown on digital only multi channels. The later of those two restrictions is about to be removed completely, and in its place we're going to get an obligation to show within fours hours, again no mention of distinguishing between heartland and non heartland. It'd be a strange law that discriminated against certain states based on which football code is dominant locally. I'd go so far as to speculate that it'd be unconstitutional.

Leigh

 

[Ray Mosters]

Thing is it's never done anything to distinguish between heartland and non heartland. Currently there's no obligation to show, anywhere (it's the network not encumbered by any obligation to show that chooses to make the distinction between heartland and non heartland).There's just a restriction preventing listed events being bought by pay TV directly ahead of FTA networks and a restriction preventing listed events from being shown on digital only multi channels. The later of those two restrictions is about to be removed completely, and in its place we're going to get an obligation to show within fours hours, again no mention of distinguishing between heartland and non heartland. It'd be a strange law that discriminated against certain states based on which football code is dominant locally. I'd go so far as to speculate that it'd be unconstitutional.

Leigh

Yeah right, interesting stuff.

I wonder if this will just be for football or will follow to other sports... Nine are f**king terrible when it comes to delaying stuff like the golf.

 

[Nerd]

They're bidding together just like they did last time. It sounds like the AFL bid is going to be around $900 million.

Why would they 7 and 10 pay substantially more for the afl when it's been shown to be outrated by the NRL last year??

 

[El Diablo]

watched the start of 9 news Melbourne tonight and they did a story on AFL FNF

seemed to be saying the AFL might get more from 7 than 9 for it but games won't be live on 7

so maybe 9 aren't going apesh*t in bidding for AFL?

 

[El Diablo]

watched the start of 9 news Melbourne tonight and they did a story on AFL FNF

seemed to be saying the AFL might get more from 7 than 9 for it but games won't be live on 7

so maybe 9 aren't going apesh*t in bidding for AFL?

 

[docbrown]

They're bidding together just like they did last time. It sounds like the AFL bid is going to be around $900 million.

No matter what they get for the TV rights component (even if it's only $820 mill) they will combine it altogether with other media rights and perhaps even the live odds sponsorship and claim a $1 billion "victory" no matter what.

It's the AFL. They've spent 5 years blabbing on about a billion - they won't fail now, regardless of the facts.

It's hard for them to correct themselves because they're deluded into believing that they're perfect.:lol:

 

[docbrown]

watched the start of 9 news Melbourne tonight and they did a story on AFL FNF

seemed to be saying the AFL might get more from 7 than 9 for it but games won't be live on 7

so maybe 9 aren't going apesh*t in bidding for AFL?

I'd say it's also one of Leckie's bargaining tools i.e. "you want Friday night live, we have to take a hit in the ratings, you're not getting as much $$$"

 

[franklin2323]

Ten/one will bid for League I have no doubt. Packer & Murdoch both are League fans. Both know it rates well. OneHD is fine. It just needs Aust content especially on the peak Fri & Sat nights. League will fill that void. 1m viewers will look alot better on the balance sheet

 

[El Diablo]

Kerry Packer was a league fan

that didn't stop 9 from paying bugger all last time for the NRL rights and a offering a motza for AFL

 

[m0nty]

As docbrown says, that's the latest narrative in the Herald-Sun. The argument was put forward today by the Melbourne version of Masters (Mike Sheahan) that the AFL's choice is to have its $1B with 7/10 but sacrifice live FNF, or $950M with Nine showing FNF. But of course the first-and-last rights clause means it's not a choice they get to make, and 7/10 may end up getting the rights for $950M because that's all Nine will offer, so that's all 7/10 need to match. So the AFL gets screwed both ways: no live FNF, and no extra $50M. And no extra $??M from the betting agencies who are gagging for live primetime sport to sell spot betting.

Realistically, that whole scenario hasn't changed at all since the last negotiations. It's just that you don't have Kerry Packer making outrageous ambit bids to jack the price up any more. The only part of this that is changing is league with the new power structure of the IC.

For those thinking the Murdoch/Packer investment in Ten is going to increase their interest in league, or any sport: why would they do that for a property they own less than 15% of each, rather than sabotaging Ten to advance the interests of their 25%/25%-owned Foxtel and 50%/50%-owned Fox Sports? I would argue the latter is far more believable.

 

[Brutus]

As docbrown says, that's the latest narrative in the Herald-Sun. The argument was put forward today by the Melbourne version of Masters (Mike Sheahan)

There's a big difference between Masters and Sheehan.

Sheehan bends over backwards to please Vlad (as they all seem to do down there), while Masters is quite the opposite with regards to the NRL.

 

[El Diablo]

Browne is the worry http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/b-tv-goal-hinges-on-nine/story-e6frf9jf-1226011650222

GILLON McLachlan, the AFL No.2 charged with delivering the best television rights deal by the end of the year, should spend considerable time in Sydney.

The new man in charge of the Nine Network in Sydney is an AFL man. And he is from Melbourne.

Jeff Browne, managing director at Nine, is a former AFL lawyer. Unlike so many other suits at Nine's Sydney headquarters, Browne will not turn up his nose at the "southern game".

 

[juro]

I'd go so far as to speculate that it'd be unconstitutional.

Leigh

It's the vibe...

 

[Billythekid]

Browne is the worry http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/b-tv-goal-hinges-on-nine/story-e6frf9jf-1226011650222

Finally, someone will stand up for the AFL in Sydney and at nine. What a joke.