The TV rights thread

[Perth Red]

we negotiated first last time and it didn't do us any good!

If Fox is willing to pay $100mill a year for AFL then, with expansion and the extra game being a live game on Fox, we should be in excess of $125mill

Current deal Fox pays per year
$50mill for 4 exclusive AFL games
$42mill for 5 exclusive NRL games

Despite not being on Foxsports1 NRL wipes the floor with AFL ratings. When someone figures out why Foxsports is willing to pay more for AFL can they please explain it to me!

 

[BunniesMan]

we negotiated first last time and it didn't do us any good!

If Fox is willing to pay $100mill a year for AFL then, with expansion and the extra game being a live game on Fox, we should be in excess of $125mill

Current deal Fox pays per year
$50mill for 4 exclusive AFL games
$42mill for 5 exclusive NRL games

Despite not being on Foxsports1 NRL wipes the floor with AFL ratings. When someone figures out why Foxsports is willing to pay more for AFL can they please explain it to me!

In theory they should get more for fta and we should get more from Fox. But that's a problem because when we're negotiating with Fox we're essentialy negotiationg withourselves thanks to News.

It's not that fox pays more for AFL, the issue is it pays less for NRL. Why does it pay less? Because it doesn't need to pay anymore. Thanks to the mess that is the management and ownership structure of the NRL.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

Despite not being on Foxsports1 NRL wipes the floor with AFL ratings. When someone figures out why Foxsports is willing to pay more for AFL can they please explain it to me!

Because Fox have said that the AFL has potential to encourage more people to sign up in the AFL states where signup rates are lower than in NSW and QLD.

Foxtel is already widespread in NSW and QLD and Fox are somewhat complacent and abuse their position and lack of competition.

 

[BunniesMan]

Because Fox have said that the AFL has potential to encourage more people to sign up in the AFL states where signup rates are lower than in NSW and QLD.

Foxtel is already widespread in NSW and QLD and Fox are somewhat complacent and abuse their position and lack of competition.

And this. They think they're near the high watermark in NSW/QLD. They see their future growth to be in the AFL states.

 

[Perth Red]

which I guess is safe whilst there is no threat of them losing games to FTA. If the risk was that they would lose, say Monday night and a live Saturday game, then they risk losing RL subscribers as there would be enough games on FTA to justify ditching Fox for fans. The best scenario is that two FTA stations want games and then Fox has to bid against one of them to retain its 5 or 6 live games.

 

[BunniesMan]

which I guess is safe whilst there is no threat of them losing games to FTA. If the risk was that they would lose, say Monday night and a live Saturday game, then they risk losing RL subscribers as there would be enough games on FTA to justify ditching Fox for fans. The best scenario is that two FTA stations want games and then Fox has to bid against one of them to retain its 5 or 6 live games.

Well there's some hope Ten will go after MNF which will drive up the price for it, but it's hard to say they will when Ten is in bed with Fox via Lachlan Murdoch.

 

[andrew057]

If the pay-TV broadcaster has its way - and it certainly appears prepared to fund significantly more than half of television money to make up the bulk of the AFL's proposed billion-dollar, five-year deal

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/foxtel-flexes-muscle-in-afl-tv-rights-bid-20110406-1d4hj.html


Ramifications for the NRL rights?

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

Foxtel flexes muscle in AFL TV rights bid

Caroline Wilson


That was enough for me.

 

[Green Machine]

To be honest, I don’t think any AFL puff piece from Caroline Wilson has any ramifications for Rugby League. There are quite a few lies in that article,

 

[bobmar28]

77% of the population can't afford $23 a week for decent TV entertainmnet? In Perth that's like going to the pub for 2 pints these days!

If simucast I'd pay for Fox with no ads and a better commentary team I reckon.

I don't know what a pint is but I can't see why we should have to pay to watch league. The FTA networks can make good money and boost ratings by showing it. Especially in the northern states.

 

[bobmar28]

To be honest, I don’t think any AFL puff piece from Caroline Wilson has any ramifications for Rugby League. There are quite a few lies in that article,

"What also remains clear is that AFL remains the glittering prize in the crown of Australian sports media rights and everyone wants a piece of it". "There are two clear winners . One, of course, is the AFL"..... Talk about wishful thinking.

 

[m0nty]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/foxtel-flexes-muscle-in-afl-tv-rights-bid-20110406-1d4hj.html


Ramifications for the NRL rights?

Depending on who you listen to today it's going to be 7/10, 7 on its own or 9 on its own as the FTA component of the deal, there is no certainty about that at all. Caro is correct to identify that Fox Sports is the one constant that everybody has agreed upon, they're going to be the senior partner in the new set up.

The ramifications for the NRL rights are that (a) Fox Sports will be struggling to pay more for NRL rights given the huge rise in their investment in AFL, and (b) Nine will be able to pay more as they're in a better financial position, and will probably be the only serious bidder again, but of course they will try to dampen expectations. If Seven goes on its own with AFL then Ten might indeed pinch MNF. But the FTA situation is still up in the air.

 

[Billythekid]

It sounds like we are going to face the same problems as last time. Most of the money will already be committed to the AFL with little competition for the NRL rights.

Hopefully we can improve a decent amount of last time despite this.

 

[Raiderdave]

which I guess is safe whilst there is no threat of them losing games to FTA. If the risk was that they would lose, say Monday night and a live Saturday game, then they risk losing RL subscribers as there would be enough games on FTA to justify ditching Fox for fans. The best scenario is that two FTA stations want games and then Fox has to bid against one of them to retain its 5 or 6 live games.

this ........

seriously .... F.uck Fox if thats their attitude
offer 3 games each to 2 different FTA broadcasters .... & fox can have just 2 games .. ranked 7 & 8 a week

then if fox don't " show us the money " ....watch the subscriptions drop off in NSW & QLD , why would you pay 60 or even 45 dollars a month for 2 lesser games .......
... they'd be out of business in a year
& good riddance to them too

 

[Green Machine]

Depending on who you listen to today it's going to be 7/10, 7 on its own or 9 on its own as the FTA component of the deal, there is no certainty about that at all.

Yeah I agree with that

Caro is correct to identify that Fox Sports is the one constant that everybody has agreed upon, they're going to be the senior partner in the new set up.

Most of what she wrote was bullsh*t

The ramifications for the NRL rights are that (a) Fox Sports will be struggling to pay more for NRL rights given the huge rise in their investment in AFL, and

The way Foxsports gets their revenue from Foxtel is totally different from how FTA TV stations get their revenue from advertising

(b) Nine will be able to pay more as they're in a better financial position, and will probably be the only serious bidder again, but of course they will try to dampen expectations. If Seven goes on its own with AFL then Ten might indeed pinch MNF. But the FTA situation is still up in the air.

Kerry Packer is dead. PayTV is where both codes will get most of their money from this time,

 

[Raiderdave]

It sounds like we are going to face the same problems as last time. Most of the money will already be committed to the AFL with little competition for the NRL rights.

Hopefully we can improve a decent amount of last time despite this.

the NRL has to stand its ground & not accept anything less then its true value , if the AFL get 1 billion ... we need to get something near that .. no ifs .. or buts.
either we 're shown the money we're due , or you don't get to show our game & potentially lose tens of millions of veiwers
Hardball will be the name of the game , no bluffs taken.

If Foxtel isn't going to pay the code that has kept it in business for most of its exsistence because its spent all its money on potential new AFL subscibers , then it should learn the hard way when the NRL won't play turkey & won't be treated like 2nd class citizens.

as someone said
if they're paying 100 million a season for 5 AFL games live
then we should be getting 125 million a year for the same number of games because we attract a swag more veiwers/subscribers .. consistently & will continue to.
Pay ratings for NRL are going up & up & up

a top up from an FTA broadcaster or 2 ...of say 75 million a year for 4 games in 2013 ( when .. not if we expand )
& we're in the 1 billion ball park too ..as we should be.

 

[Cletus]

Because Fox have said that the AFL has potential to encourage more people to sign up in the AFL states where signup rates are lower than in NSW and QLD.

Foxtel is already widespread in NSW and QLD and Fox are somewhat complacent and abuse their position and lack of competition.

They always say that but you just have to look at the ratings increases for the NRL to see what a load of garbage it is. It's just used as a justification to shaft us and if Gallop had the balls to play hardball like the AFL does (threatening to set up their own Paytv operation last time) we would actually get paid what we're worth to Foxtel.

 

[adamkungl]

AFL might have more 'potential' to gain more subscriptions, but NRL certainly has more potential to send the f**kers broke.

 

[BunniesMan]

the NRL has to stand its ground & not accept anything less then its true value , if the AFL get 1 billion ... we need to get something near that .. no ifs .. or buts.
either we 're shown the money we're due , or you don't get to show our game & potentially lose tens of millions of veiwers
Hardball will be the name of the game , no bluffs taken.

If Foxtel isn't going to pay the code that has kept it in business for most of its exsistence because its spent all its money on potential new AFL subscibers , then it should learn the hard way when the NRL won't play turkey & won't be treated like 2nd class citizens.

as someone said
if they're paying 100 million a season for 5 AFL games live
then we should be getting 125 million a year for the same number of games because we attract a swag more veiwers/subscribers .. consistently & will continue to.
Pay ratings for NRL are going up & up & up

a top up from an FTA broadcaster or 2 ...of say 75 million a year for 4 games in 2013 ( when .. not if we expand )
& we're in the 1 billion ball park too ..as we should be.

The thing is, unlike the AFL, we're not in a great financial position. Fox is powerful and it would be very hard for us to play hardball. Fox knows that and that's part of the reason we get screwed.

AFL has stashed away a massive amount of money in the bank for a rainy day, we have virtually nothing in the bank. How would we play hardball? If we took away games from Fox and offered them to FTA there is no way they could pay how much we want (and need).

 

[El Diablo]

that's what Foxtel saud last time when they paid more for AFL and nothing has changed

Foxtel slams TV rip-off claim