The TV rights thread

[Quidgybo]

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.

They don't get screwed either way, they get the deal they choose but not necessarily the network they choose. If they choose a deal with 9 with less money and mandatory live coverage written into it then that's the deal 7/10 need to match. It's not just a monetary match, they have to match the the full set of terms of the deal the AFL accepts (eg. Mandatory live coverage). If 7/10 choose to match then the AFL get less money and live coverage on 7/10, if they don't choose to match then the AFL get less money and live coverage on 9. As the article makes clear, it's largely down to whether the AFL make live coverage a non negotiable condition and are willing to take the financial hit that may entail. If so then they'll get live coverage regardless of what 7/10 choose to do.

Leigh.

 

[m0nty]

They don't get screwed either way, they get the deal they choose but not necessarily the network they choose. If they choose a deal with 9 with less money and mandatory live coverage written into it then that's the deal 7/10 need to match. It's not just a monetary match, they have to match the the full set of terms of the deal the AFL accepts (eg. Mandatory live coverage). If 7/10 choose to match then the AFL get less money and live coverage on 7/10, if they don't choose to match then the AFL get less money and live coverage on 9. As the article makes clear, it's largely down to whether the AFL make live coverage a non negotiable condition and are willing to take the financial hit that may entail. If so then they'll get live coverage regardless of what 7/10 choose to do.

Leigh.

If that's true, then I wonder which option the AFL will choose. The question for me would be whether the AFL thinks it can make up the $50M in betting agency contracts. They have usually chosen raw dollars over fan concerns in the past, because the name of the game for them has been supporting expansion under Demetriou.

If the NRL has the same sort of decision to make, what would it do under the new IC? Probably go for the money too, I'd reckon. Though I guess they won't have to with FNF.

 

[Ray Mosters]

There is no first and last bid agreement with AFL rights anymore, the AFL is free to choose whichever network it wishes for however much it wishes

As long as its 1 billion, of course

 

[meltiger]

If that's true, then I wonder which option the AFL will choose. The question for me would be whether the AFL thinks it can make up the $50M in betting agency contracts. They have usually chosen raw dollars over fan concerns in the past, because the name of the game for them has been supporting expansion under Demetriou.

If the NRL has the same sort of decision to make, what would it do under the new IC? Probably go for the money too, I'd reckon. Though I guess they won't have to with FNF.

This view re: matching the deal specifics is based on their last negotiation, were they to go with seven for say this 950 figure, seven would need to match what nine were offering. Same thing happened last time around with them re: coverage of FNF into the northern states. It was touched on earlier in the thread.

959 or 1 bill... I dint think that impacts us too much though.

 

[Quidgybo]

If the NRL has the same sort of decision to make, what would it do under the new IC? Probably go for the money too, I'd reckon. Though I guess they won't have to with FNF.

The NRL does have the same sort of decision. Many of them.

Money vs live coverage or two to four hour delayed coverage in Melbourne.
Money vs fixed or flexible scheduling.
Money vs more matches on free to air or more on pay TV.
Money vs expansion or focusing on the existing comp.
Money vs a team on the Central Coast or another in Brisbane or one in Perth.
Money vs keeping a flowing game or allowing two minute television timeouts after points are scored.
Money vs mid week origin or having dedicated weekends for origin with the premiership suspended.
Money vs the existing season length or reducing the premiership to 20 or 22 rounds.
Money vs a day time or night time Grand Final.
Money vs a five or six year broadcast deal.
Money vs propping up a team in Melbourne or not providing a team in Australia's second biggest television market.
Money vs editorial control of match commentary or allowing Phil Gould a platform to criticize the NRL during games.
Money vs Monday night football or an extra game on Sunday afternoons.
Money vs a five team finals series or an eight team or ten team series.
Money vs catering to New Zealand television interest or maximizing the return from the Australian market.

Each and every one of these decisions is a trade off between money and a set of desires for where the game goes. You can take the money in every case and have much less control of your destiny. Or you could fight for every one of the things you want and take the hit of much less money. The reality is you negotiate a balance between the two that you can live with for the next five or six years.

Leigh

 

[m0nty]

I think the ARLC would be entirely justified in taking the money in the next contract, and letting the networks keep their favourable terms. The clubs need the cash injection to get their houses in order after the long draining of assets and resources post-SL. The one after is where they will be strong enough to start dictating broadcast times.

While I think it's pretty obvious that the ARLC will be very club-focused initially due to the changing power structure of the league, as it gains its own independence it will start thinking more about long-term issues. At this point the commission has to choose between the lesser of two evils. In five years time the shoe will be on the other foot.

 

[Quidgybo]

I think the ARLC would be entirely justified in taking the money in the next contract, and letting the networks keep their favourable terms.

But how far do you go? Are you willing to accept two minute television timeouts after scoring plays? How about a premiership with matches played in four quarters? Both these things would make live telecasts significantly more profitable for the network because of all the extra advertising slots it opens.

How much of the game's soul do you sell in order to take the money in the next contract?

Leigh

 

[meltiger]

We have an issue in comparison to the afl though in that they dint need to focus on expansion area coverage


We DO need to focus on our key newer markets, in particular Melbourne & Perth. We MUST be pushing this issue as non- negotiable that we see significant improvement. Otherwise, we simply cannot grow RL outside of the heartland areas.

 

[m0nty]

But how far do you go? Are you willing to accept two minute television timeouts after scoring plays? How about a premiership with matches played in four quarters? Both these things would make live telecasts significantly more profitable for the network because of all the extra advertising slots it opens.

How much of the game's soul do you sell in order to take the money in the next contract?

Leigh

Changing the game itself is off limits, I would have thought. It's rugby league, not the X Games.

There are ways to inject more advertising than stopping the actual game itself. Split-screen ads while kicks are being taken, for instance. There are plenty of natural breaks within the game that could be exploited, the networks just have to think beyond the regular interstitial 30-second TVC.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

Time off when the balls out of play, time off when a try is scored until the restart and the networks would have plenty more ad space without really interrupting the flow of the game plus the added benefit of a full 80 mins of RL being played.

They'd get an extra 15/20 mins for sure.

 

[Quidgybo]

Changing the game itself is off limits, I would have thought. It's rugby league, not the X Games.

Rugby League has been changing itself for years in the name of maximising its attractiveness for TV. From the ten metre rule to cracking down on fighting to eliminating scrum penalties to golden point. All of it has been about improving our image for TV or making our game more valuable to TV networks.

Do you realize that the current contract has a provision for the ref to hold up the kick off for 30 seconds after a scoring play? For the first few weeks of the deal we had crowds booing and groaning wondering why the ref was holding up the kick off. In the end Nein appears to have decided they could make do with squeezing the ad between the try and the conversion attempt. But they're still only getting one ad in.

I'm not arguing for or against the idea of two minute television timeouts after scoring plays or any other specific change. But it certainly wouldn't be the first change Rugby League has made for television and there are any number of other sports that have made such concessions and gone on to thrive.

There are ways to inject more advertising than stopping the actual game itself. Split-screen ads while kicks are being taken, for instance. There are plenty of natural breaks within the game that could be exploited, the networks just have to think beyond the regular interstitial 30-second TVC.

Networks have had 50 years to work out what does and doesn't sell advertising space. They probably know the advertising turf pretty well by now. It's not by accident that the three minute break composed largely of 30 second full screen screen ads has come to dominant. It's what makes the most money for them. They will pay more for content that allows them to sell more of those types of ads.

Leigh.

 

[Billythekid]

Most sources seem to indicate that the AFL wasn't going to get near the 1 billion dollars. What has suddenly changed?

I don't really care as long as we don't get short changed again.

 

[clarency]

Most sources seem to indicate that the AFL wasn't going to get near the 1 billion dollars. What has suddenly changed?

You aren't reading quotes from Demintriroigndknsldkgnswhateverhisnameis.

 

[docbrown]

There are ways to inject more advertising than stopping the actual game itself.

Well part of the beauty of a Sunday double header on FTA is that the coverage could actually start at 1:30pm with buffers pre-game, during half time, in between the two games and at the end of the coverage, in the same way American networks conduct their wall to wall NFL coverage.

This minimises the interruptions to actual play but would keep the network happy. Then tie that then into a Sunday NRL panel show as a lead in.

If there's a slot for Foxtel still on a Sunday, that game could either be a NZ game running at 2pm (Noon EST with 1:40pm end time so as not to overlap games) or at 6pm EST.

 

[smithie]

Well part of the beauty of a Sunday double header on FTA is that the coverage could actually start at 1:30pm with buffers pre-game, during half time, in between the two games and at the end of the coverage, in the same way American networks conduct their wall to wall NFL coverage.

This minimises the interruptions to actual play but would keep the network happy. Then tie that then into a Sunday NRL panel show as a lead in.

If there's a slot for Foxtel still on a Sunday, that game could either be a NZ game running at 2pm (Noon EST with 1:40pm end time so as not to overlap games) or at 6pm EST.

Agree with the Sunday afternoon double header except no FTA network would want any end of coverage analysis. As soon as the full-time siren sounds at the end of the second game they would want the 6pm news to start.

As far as Foxtel on Sunday goes a 6:30pm game would be perfect. It gives people a half hour break to watch the news, have dinner, go on a beer run, etc. The game would finish about 8:30pm leading into Sunday prime-time (Underbelly, Sunday night movie, etc.).

 

[bobmar28]

But how far do you go? Are you willing to accept two minute television timeouts after scoring plays? How about a premiership with matches played in four quarters? Both these things would make live telecasts significantly more profitable for the network because of all the extra advertising slots it opens.

How much of the game's soul do you sell in order to take the money in the next contract?

Leigh

I say take the money and let the networks choose what they want.

 

[docbrown]

Agree with the Sunday afternoon double header except no FTA network would want any end of coverage analysis. As soon as the full-time siren sounds at the end of the second game they would want the 6pm news to start.

Well I wasn't actually meaning an end of game analysis, rather a panel desk format that covers the action of both games (either from one ground or from both). End of game analysis is always anti-climactic and becomes tedious when it goes on too long. The best thing is to capture about 30 seconds maximum of the post game emotion and then shift into the news to prevent channel changing. But that said the potential buffer is there if the networks need it.

The best method though is to wait for a natural break in play during the 65-75 minute period to have the last 2-3 minute ad set and then let the climax resolve itself. Obviously the games would start live and sync out to a slight delay of 10-15 minutes to allow for those ad queues, but because there are no interruptions to the actual ball in play, they will still have the feel of live action. I'd rather a slight delay rather than missing out on the action or delaying/waiting for the resets at the actual ground.

In that 270 minutes of coverage you'd have the full 160-170 minutes minimum of actual game time, about 80-90 minutes of ads and the rest as panel/commentary/lead in.

For an end of game analysis, viewers could switch over to a digital channel as an alternative to the news.

As far as Foxtel on Sunday goes a 6:30pm game would be perfect. It gives people a half hour break to watch the news, have dinner, go on a beer run, etc. The game would finish about 8:30pm leading into Sunday prime-time (Underbelly, Sunday night movie, etc.).

I think we need to trial Sunday nights, specifically on long weekends with some big marquee matches.

 

[applesauce]

Packer off Ten board as shake-up continues
March 2, 2011 - 10:18AM

James Packer has resigned from the board of broadcaster Ten Network Holdings and Seven Network executive James Warburton has been appointed chief executive as the board shake-up at the broadcaster continues.

A single-sentence statement to the Australian Securities Exchange today said Mr Packer's resignation would take effect immediately.

Mr Warburton is expected to join the board in addition to his executive role, a separate statement to the market said.

Mr Warburton currently is chief of sales and digital officer of Seven Media Group. He will receive $2.2 million in fixed remuneration as Ten CEO, plus a performance bonus of up to 50 per cent of his fixed salary.

Ten last week appointed Lachlan Murdoch, son of media magnate Rupert Murdoch, as interim chief executive after suddenly sacking its existing boss, Grant Blackley.

The statement suggested Mr Murdoch was the force behind Mr Warburton's appointment.

Mr Murdoch was one of a number of recent additions to the Ten board following a series of share purchases involving James Packer’s Consolidated Media, Mr Murdoch’s Illyria, and Gina Rinehart’s HPPL Group.

Mr Packer joined the Ten board only on November 9, 2010, along with Lachlan Murdoch, after Mr Packer bought up about 18 per cent of the company.

Mr Packer and Mr Murdoch currently are listed as each holding 17.88 per cent of Ten.

Ms Rinehart, Australia's richest person, joined the board on November 26 after she also acquired a substantial holding in Ten. She now holds 5.39 per cent through HPPL Group.

The share purchases were followed by the departure of Ten’s executive chairman, Nick Falloon. He was replaced on December 15 by Grant Blackley, who himself was sacked last week by the board.

Today, Ten first announced, without explanation, Mr Packer’s resignation from the board.

The one-sentence release reads: ‘‘Ten Network Holdings Ltd today announced the resignation of James Packer as a director of the Company, effective immediately’’.

In a subsequent statement released just moments later, Ten announced the appointment of Mr Warburton as CEO, the departure of John Kelly as Ten’s chief financial officer, and Mr Kelly’s replacement as Paul Anderson, currently chief financial officer - television.

Ten said Mr Warburton would start in the new role on July 14.

Ten chairman Brian Long said Mr Warburton was ‘‘a high calibre media executive with an enviable track record in television and digital media sales.

‘‘He has forged an exemplary reputation in the media sector in Australia and has strong relationships within the media and advertising community.’’

Mr Long said Mr Murdoch had brought Mr Warburton to Ten from Seven.

Mr Murdoch said, ‘‘I know James well, and I also know that he will lead this business with great success’’.

AAP, Reuters, BusinessDay

 

[Red&BlackBear]

Would be excellent if channel 10 get the FTA rights.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Would be excellent if channel 10 get the FTA rights.

We will have a good idea once the AFL rights are done and dusted on how the rest of it could play out. If Seven and Ten get the AFL rights, there won't be a lot of money left over for either of them to make a play for the NRL.