What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The TV rights thread

Who would you like to see get the rights providing the price is right?

  • Seven

    Votes: 57 20.5%
  • Nine

    Votes: 49 17.6%
  • Ten

    Votes: 110 39.6%
  • Rights split between FTA channels

    Votes: 147 52.9%

  • Total voters
    278
Status
Not open for further replies.

Green Machine

First Grade
Messages
5,844
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).
The ARL, NSWRL and QRL have money in the bank. The NRL owes nothing. What has money in the bank got to do with it? If the AFL keep pissing money against the wall with their 2 new basket case teams, they will run it down in no time. Remember the fund the ARU had? News Ltd aren't going to shaft the NRL with the IC coming up. I think its great that the AFL is going first this time. Looks like Channel 7 hasn't fallen for their BS about paying more because of their bogus new frachises,
 

Raiderdave

First Grade
Messages
7,990
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).[/QUOTE]

so how would that make us any worse off then we are now
it would hurt yes , & a lot of our plans would have to be shelved
it would hurt fox more ... in fact they'd crumble

if we don't make the hard decisions now ... we will always be trapped in this vicious circle & will never get out of it.
Fox expect us to roll over like dogs .... they'll be quite shocked when we actually bite them.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
i can see them also doing what they did last time when they increased the monthly subscription rate right after they spent a heap on AFL

so not only do Fox take their RL subscribers for granted but they also rely on them to pay more so Fox can pay a sh*tload for AFL

the only way to get Fox to fork out the right proice for RL would be for people to cancel their subscriptions soon and tell them they'll only return if they pay good money for the NRL rights next time
 
Last edited:

Raiderdave

First Grade
Messages
7,990
i can see them also doing what they did last time when they increased the monthly subscription rate right after they spent a heap on AFL

so not only do Fox take their RL subscribers for granted but they also rely on them to pay more so Fox can pay a sh*tload for AFL

the only way to get Fox to fork out the right proice for RL would be for people to cancel their subscriptions soon and tell them they'll only return if they pay good money for the NRL rights next time

Yep

Like I said ... they can get a wooly pup , & the tree its tied to fair up em
they'd want to be very careful ... very careful indeed.
 

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,842
I love that these journos think Seven can only afford one or the other. When 7 lost the AFL rights they were still turning a profit and had a massive revenue surplus. Since they got it back that surplus has increased even further.

If they did end up paying less for their 2 AFL games (because of sharing with foxtel) they still have the real financial clout of finance 2 to 3 weekly NRL games - or in the least - force 9 to pay overs which 9 would be desperate to do.

Imagine if 7 had a Friday & Sunday AFL game in the Southern States and had two NRL double headers at the same time in the North. 9 wouldn't win a single ratings week for the entire year. Their advertising revenues would take a massive hit and it would have a knock on effect.
 

Green Machine

First Grade
Messages
5,844
In the time that Channel 9 had the AFL rights, 7 overtook them in the ratings. For a long time, the only night Channel 9 only won the ratings for the News in Sydney was on Sunday’s with lead in from the NRL. Journo’s like Caro are only mouth pieces for the AFL,
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
In the time that Channel 9 had the AFL rights, 7 overtook them in the ratings. For a long time, the only night Channel 9 only won the ratings for the News in Sydney was on Sunday’s with lead in from the NRL. Journo’s like Caro are only mouth pieces for the AFL,

they had to come out nd deny it's comments the other day

AFL firmly denies report in The Age about $1 billion TV rights deal

it also claimed this http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afls-1bn-rights-deal-20110404-1cyqz.html

Seven, Ten and Foxtel are believed to be close to completing a new five-year agreement with the league to lock in exclusive AFL television rights from the start of next year.

yet in court under oath channel 7 said http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...s-boss-too-great/story-e6freck3-1226034766889

Asked by the barrister for Warburton, John West QC, whether the result of negotiations between the AFL and broadcasters would be known very soon, William said: "There's no end in sight in the current process in my mind.''
 
Last edited:

Tigger Madness

Juniors
Messages
866
"The difference between Better Homes and Gardens and the AFL is that Better Homes is profitable and the AFL is not.


"The NRL rights are profitable, but the AFL's are not."

Thats a very interesting comment.

I would have thought that AFL's natural stoppages would have allowed for more and better quality (in the sense of captive audience) advertising than NRL.

Why would the NRL be more profitable than AFL?
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
Thats a very interesting comment.

I would have thought that AFL's natural stoppages would have allowed for more and better quality (in the sense of captive audience) advertising than NRL.

Why would the NRL be more profitable than AFL?

because we got rorted
 

BunniesMan

Immortal
Messages
33,700
Thats a very interesting comment.

I would have thought that AFL's natural stoppages would have allowed for more and better quality (in the sense of captive audience) advertising than NRL.

Why would the NRL be more profitable than AFL?
We're profitable (for them) because we're getting so much less. They pay less, so much easier for them to make a profit.

We shouldn't be happy about them making a profit on our game because it means they can be paying so much more. The value for them doesn't come in the income they get from our game itself, but the increase their news and other programs get by having footy before or after it.

Like the AFL, the networks should be paying us enough that they're making a loss directly, which they make up for with the indirect benefits.
 

Tigger Madness

Juniors
Messages
866
In other news, OneHD set to re-launch.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/ten-scraps-sports-format-as-ratings-profit-tumble-20110407-1d5ck.html

Ten scraps sports format as ratings, profit tumble

April 7, 2011 - 1:14PM

Ten Network Holdings will relaunch its digital sports channel, One, with general content in May, as it released results showing a 16 per cent fall in first-half net profit.

Ten Network's acting chief executive, Lachlan Murdoch, said the interim result was not acceptable.

Net profit fell to $49.52 million for the six months to February 28 from $58.7 million a year earlier, Sydney-based Ten said in a statement today.

Revenue increased 2.4 per cent to $485.76 million. Stock in Ten was up half a cent at $1.34 in early afternoon trade.

??The half-year results are not acceptable and immediate action is already underway to address them,?? Mr Murdoch said in the statement to the stock market.

??Disappointingly for Ten?s 1300 employees and 22,500 shareholders, these results do not demonstrate Ten?s underlying strengths and potential.

??Ten is at a crucial juncture in its history. Free-to-air television is an excellent business with strong growth prospects. However, Ten has been under-delivering and this must change.

??Importantly, this change has already begun.??

Mr Murdoch said Ten was addressing the underperformance by scrutinising costs and relaunching sports channel One with more general content.

??One will now broaden its focus on engaging and entertaining males 25-54 and the schedule will centre on targeted drama, HD movies and documentaries, and premium sport.

??Ten has a 2.5+ per cent share aspiration for the relaunched ONE. The company is confident this will result in additional revenue and an earnings improvement.??

Ten said it would probably only pay a final dividend.

Ten said the recent inclusion of general entertainment into One?s prime-time line up had been successful in boosting ratings, and this had given impetus to a relaunch of the digital channel.

??The bold, broad appeal of Ten along with the already proven performance of the distinctly youthful Eleven and now with the broader content offering for the male-skewed One positions us to capitalise on viewer and advertiser engagement,?? Ten chief programming officer David Mott said.
Ten said its television earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation came in at $95 million, $3 million more than the update given to the market on February 23.

The company said costs had been lower than expected in the first half.
Television revenue was only up 2.2 per cent from a year earlier, mainly because the 2010 Delhi Commonwealth Games performed below expectations.

The network said it had grown its total audience by 9.9 per cent.
Ten said it was launching The Bolt Report, hosted by Andrew Bolt, on May 8. The program will be on Sundays at 10am. Meet the Press will be moved to 10.30am.

Ten said the 5pm weekend news had been resumed, George Negus?s current affairs program moved to 6.30pm and the 5pm weekday news extended to a 90-minute bulletin.
AAP

Hopefully that means they wont be bidding for the AFL.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
67,163
The ARL, NSWRL and QRL have money in the bank. The NRL owes nothing. What has money in the bank got to do with it? If the AFL keep pissing money against the wall with their 2 new basket case teams, they will run it down in no time. Remember the fund the ARU had? News Ltd aren't going to shaft the NRL with the IC coming up. I think its great that the AFL is going first this time. Looks like Channel 7 hasn't fallen for their BS about paying more because of their bogus new frachises,

TBf comparing a $40mill one off ARU windfall to the AFL's recurrent $300mill income is a bit ridiculous! They could set up 6 teams, fully fund them and still not ne short of a $ such is their income level.

We could go for a min increase this time and frick Fox off or go for an Avg increase and let Fox keep the games.
 

Dogs Of War

Coach
Messages
12,721
Difference is that I dont think the players would accept that. As a percentage of the games income, afl players get less than nrl players. I cant see these lower percentages continuing forever. In fact the major american sports pay double the percentage of game income to the players.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top