The TV rights thread

[Quidgybo]

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.

Interesting article in yesterday's Age suggesting Seven might accept non exclusive coverage on Sundays as a way to save some money on the cost of the AFL rights. Under such an arrangement Fox would be able to screen the same game live in direct opposition to Seven or ahead of a delayed replay on Seven. Wonder what they could be saving the money for?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/foxtel-seeking-nine-live-games-20110228-1bbqc.html

Leigh

 

[applesauce]

The Foxtel revelation paves the way for a potential billion-dollar agreement. Currently the pay TV carrier - which televises four exclusive games - pays the AFL an estimated $50 million a year, a figure that would more than double next time around given Foxtel's newly legislated right to bid independently for five of the nine weekly games from 2012 and televise better-quality games.

That's a bit rich isn't it? The NRL deserves $150mill then...

 

[Quidgybo]

That's a bit rich isn't it? The NRL deserves $150mill then...

The big thing to note is that Foxtel is going to be paying a much bigger chunk of the AFL rights fee. More matches for Fox (even if some are non exclusive) and better matches for Fox equals smaller percentage of the rights cost for Seven, Ten and Nine. That money saved can be used to bid for the NRL (which may very well be sold under a similar arrangment).

The new anti-siphoning rules are going to change the landscape massively. The networks still have to be offered a limited number of matches but nothing says they have to be used exclusively. If matches shown by the networks are non exclusive then naturally they will have less value and so the networks will pay less (either proportionally or in real terms). That allows the possibility to bid competively for both codes.

Leigh

 

[Dogs Of War]

I wonder if say Seven got the AFL and NRL, would they play them at the same time on different channels (Just swap them around depending on what state it's being broadcast in) or give the rights to Foxtel in the states where they believe it doesn't rate as well. Would the AFL/NRL be happy with that result?

 

[Quidgybo]

I wonder if say Seven got the AFL and NRL, would they play them at the same time on different channels (Just swap them around depending on what state it's being broadcast in) or give the rights to Foxtel in the states where they believe it doesn't rate as well.

They can't just give the listed games to Fox. If they buy the rights, they have an obligation to show the matches within four hours. The law doesn't distinguish between the heartland of one code and another.

Leigh

 

[andrew057]

Quidgybo, what do you know about NRL splitting games between the networks. Channel 9 think under their first and last rights this can't be done.

 

[Quidgybo]

Quidgybo, what do you know about NRL splitting games between the networks. Channel 9 think under their first and last rights this can't be done.

I know nothing but what I observe. But I would say it only matters if Nine don't get the matches they want. Just because they might have legal grounding, doesn't mean they actually want to pay the cost of retaining all matches. Remember they pay for all eight matches now and then on sell to Fox what they don't want. They might not want or can afford to pay for all eight or nine matches next time. Seven might be able to beat them on a bid for all eight games but if Nine really only want two Friday matches, Origin and the Grand Final then maybe they're willing to spend more than Seven for that subset without the bother of on selling to recoup the cost of the other games.

Leigh

 

[Dogs Of War]

I know nothing but what I observe. But I would say it only matters if Nine don't get the matches they want. Just because they might have legal grounding, doesn't mean they actually want to pay the cost of retaining all matches. Remember they pay for all eight matches now and then on sell to Fox what they don't want. They might not want or can afford to pay for all eight or nine matches next time. Seven might be able to beat them on a bid for all eight games but if Nine really only want two Friday matches, Origin and the Grand Final then maybe they're willing to spend more than Seven for that subset without the bother of on selling to recoup the cost of the other games.

Leigh

I thought the new laws meant that the NRL only has to deal with Commercial TV for the 3 weekly NRL games (plus origin etc) on the Anti-siphoning list, and they can deal with foxtel directly for the rest. Or does it still have to go via the Commercial TV networks?

 

[BDGS]

got any splinters?

 

[Quidgybo]

I thought the new laws meant that the NRL only has to deal with Commercial TV for the 3 weekly NRL games (plus origin etc) on the Anti-siphoning list, and they can deal with foxtel directly for the rest.

That'll be the new law but it doesn't prevent one of the commercial networks still bidding for and buying all eight. And Nine claims that the terms of their current contract mean all eight or nine games must be sold together. The NRL disagrees but nothing in the new law would invalidate that if true. Bug even if it is true it doesn't mean Nine will hold them to it if it can't afford the cost of all games and could compete better bidding for a subset.

Leigh.

 

[Ray Mosters]

That'll be the new law but it doesn't prevent one of the commercial networks still bidding for and buying all eight. And Nine claims that the terms of their current contract mean all eight or nine games must be sold together. The NRL disagrees but nothing in the new law would invalidate that if true. Bug even if it is true it doesn't mean Nine will hold them to it if it can't afford the cost of all games and could compete better bidding for a subset.

Leigh.

Ahhh crap....unless it bids as a consortium with Foxtel.

Nine get a massive advantage if they go into the bid process with a negotiated agreement with Fox. They can properly price a bid, whereas other bidders would be bidding for all 8 games on the condition that they would have to come to terms with Foxtel later, making theirs a much bigger risk.

They also have the threat of legal action if the NRL try to split the rights and sell them separately. If they bid in a consortium, this legal action can be supported by Foxtel.

Those things, combined with the first and last bid rights, might be enough to scare off 10 and 7, who are probably going to be labouring under the cost of their new AFL rights.

A consortium would seem to erode the competitiveness of our bid process

 

[docbrown]

That'll be the new law but it doesn't prevent one of the commercial networks still bidding for and buying all eight. And Nine claims that the terms of their current contract mean all eight or nine games must be sold together. The NRL disagrees but nothing in the new law would invalidate that if true. Bug even if it is true it doesn't mean Nine will hold them to it if it can't afford the cost of all games and could compete better bidding for a subset.

Leigh.

I'm not one for typically advocating the competency of our various elected officials - however - what 9 wants and what 9 will likely get are two very different things. I really think the talk is just 9's posturing because when push comes to shove, they would be fighting the very legitimacy of anti-siphoning agreement and I'm sure the government will back the NRL in this regard.

You're definitely right about the law not directly superseeding the current contractual terms, however there is an agreement inside the onsale Foxtel deal relating to the actual breakdown of broadcast game allocations - with 3/5 split clearly highlighted. So 9 might bid for the entire package - but if another free to air broadcaster or combination of broadcasters matches or exceeds their actual broadcast game allocations and foxtel picks up the same/larger onsell proportion, then an arrangement can be made similar to the current 7-10 AFL agreement (without the binding next bid arangement) and those competing networks can effectively and legally match the entire package.

I doubt 9 are going to buy the whole lot though. They're probably just going to fight to keep their current patch.

 

[adamkungl]

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. current balance is good
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. not sure...how is one more profitable than the other?
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. i like 5pm
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

 

[Perth Red]

With the heat at the moment in Perth I've been watching some games played in 20min 1/4's with 5min drinks breaks at the 20 and 60min mark. Works fine and doesn;t interupt the flow too much, in fact gives chance to quickly run to the bar or loo wi'hout missing any action.

I would prefer this to the constant 30sec ads Ch9 squeeze in at every opportunity.

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

hrrmmm. well what do we think about all this?



http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/duelling-tv-networks-may-double-nrls-take-20110302-1bew1.html

Duelling TV networks may double NRL's take
ROY MASTERS
March 3, 2011
A bidding war by free-to-air networks for rugby league rights could double the code's existing broadcasting income of $100 million a year, bringing it in line with the AFL's aim of being a billion-dollar sport.

One very senior Channel Seven executive, expressing disenchantment with AFL negotiations, said: ''We've got the money for rugby league and we will pay.''

The Kerry Stokes-owned network recently consolidated with other media and machinery arms of his business empire, ensuring Seven has the cash to bid for rugby league, which it sees as a superior programming alternative in the fast-growing Brisbane and Queensland markets.

Advertisement: Story continues below
''We're going for rugby league,'' the network boss said. ''We've got so much money now.''

Yesterday's appointment of James Warburton, Seven's former sales director, as Ten's CEO will also accelerate the other AFL network's move into rugby league bidding. Warburton needs to kick an immediate goal and knows he can deliver with NRL. Furthermore, his defection incensed Seven CEO David Leckie, who was having a 9am breakfast with Ten's acting chief Lachlan Murdoch when Stokes called with news of the appointment.

It is likely Murdoch will be elevated to executive chairman of Ten, with one NRL boss saying: ''The best thing about Lachlan now being in charge at Ten is that he hates AFL.''

Seven knows Nine's existing first-and-last rights offer contract with the NRL makes it vulnerable to losing rugby league. If Nine's first offer to the NRL is exceeded by 20 per cent by a rival network, Nine loses its right to match it. For this reason, Nine is retaining most of its war chest for NRL.

''Rugby league is ours to lose but we won't lose it,'' is the central message of Nine boss David Gyngell.

However, a cashed-up Seven is seeking savings on AFL and additional cash for NRL. ''We're keeping some of our powder dry for rugby league,'' that Seven boss said.

Seven has already indicated it will refuse to pay the money the AFL expects in order to realise its ambition of a five-year, $1b deal, particularly with 42 per cent of its income now deriving from the Sydney market. Foxtel, desperate to sell subscriptions in the southern states, which lag behind NSW and Queensland, is seeking seven live AFL games per week a season.

Seven and Ten will televise one AFL game each exclusively on Friday and Saturday nights respectively to satisfy the federal government's anti-siphoning requirements, while possibly sharing another one game each with Foxtel. While Foxtel might be willing to double the $53m it now pays for four AFL games, to possibly $100m for seven games, it is highly unlikely Seven/Ten will pay the same $90m they now outlay for four games.

The two free-to-air networks now show two AFL games each, meaning sharing viewers with Foxtel would reduce their audiences, advertising incomes and therefore the rights fees they would be willing to pay. Seven once shared rugby union Tests with Fox Sports, leaking viewers to audiences which preferred commercial-free coverage and the pay TV network's commentary crew.

AFL boss Andrew Demetriou, unable to entice Nine into a bidding war with Seven/Ten for AFL rights, is seeking an auction between Foxtel and the two free-to-air networks, but they are not buying it. The major issue is that it is still uncertain how the best and second-best AFL games each week will be determined. In the NRL, the broadcaster chooses but the federal government wants families unable to afford AFL on pay TV to still see top games.

Nevertheless, industry sources believe the AFL will go close to its $1bn target, but only with income from Telstra for IPTV and mobile phone rights included. Rugby league should also benefit from Foxtel's willingness to pay more for AFL.

Foxtel's present payment of $53m for four AFL games already exceeds the NRL's receipts of $45m for five games, including the third and fourth best matches. Should Foxtel double its AFL fee, the NRL will demand more.

However, the NRL's contract is with Fox Sports, which is jointly owned by James Packer's CMH and News Ltd, unlike Foxtel where Packer/News each have a quarter share, with Telstra owning half.

Packer and News director Lachlan Murdoch, who have a 20 per cent holding in Ten, are intent on stripping back the costs of a network which have increased $60m, with no commensurate increase in revenue.

Ten is $100m in profit behind both Seven and Nine, yet was once the most profitable network on the street. While Packer and Murdoch will also seek to retain the healthy profits of Fox Sports by paying less for NRL, they are fans of the sport.

''They love what they know and will treat NRL as a loss leader,'' one industry source said.

 

[Perth Red]

Nevertheless, industry sources believe the AFL will go close to its $1bn target, but only with income from Telstra for IPTV and mobile phone rights included.

Nobody seems to be mentioning this for the NRL? It is one of the areas Telstra royally stiffs us on and if sold right could provide enough $'s on its own to fund expansion.

''They love what they know and will treat NRL as a loss leader,'' one industry source said.

what does this mean?

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

loss leader means they will buy it and run at a loss so that people will stay subscribed to foxtel

 

[BuffaloRules]

It is likely Murdoch will be elevated to executive chairman of Ten, with one NRL boss saying: ''The best thing about Lachlan now being in charge at Ten is that he hates AFL.''

Thats a shame for the AFL...

 

[Brutus]

It is likely Murdoch will be elevated to executive chairman of Ten, with one NRL boss saying: ''The best thing about Lachlan now being in charge at Ten is that he hates AFL.''

The Big Faggy mob will love this lol

 

[Billythekid]

Interesting article but i'll believe it when i see it.