TV rights thread part 4

[bileduct]

"We just bought the game."

Yup, that says it all really. Channel 9 can get f**ked.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

It isn't. Per game and per minute of football we're valued higher.

Leigh.

Spot on.

Their 3 hour game is now working against them, rather that what is was, a reason to pay AFL more, it's now proof that they're getting less in reality.

Plus, the total package hasn't been finalised.

This one, this TV rights was to bring us to par with the opposition after being hamstrung for 20 years. The next one is the one where we get to dictate terms.

 

[applesauce]

If it is true the ARLC should be sacked for not accepting $800m from Ten for 4 FTA games. A vastly superior offer. The could have easily sold the other games for 200 million. Declining it shows gross incompetence.

800m would've been for every game.

Bunniesman

That also includes contra and we don't know if that was $50-$200mill. Your speculation and ill informed opinion only make you look more pathetic than usual (if that is possible).

Would you take $700mill cash and $100mill contra for 4 Live FTA games on TEN over the new deal?

Very similar coverage as the AFL but for $400million less...

It is harder to get the $$$ dollar figure than the coverage. Now we have finally received our worth the next contract will be $1.2billion+ and we will be fighting for better coverage. Do you think we could of jumped from $700mill to say $1.3billion next deal if we failed to get $1billion in this one?

 

[Keffola]

i reckon cows and titans going to get 4 games max on fta, 2 when they play the broncos and 2 when they play each other....

 

[Tiger-Sean]

With Foxtel now having the IPTV rights what are the chances of them releasing a package for the NRL games as apart of foxtel on xbox360 or tbox?

 

[Ray Mosters]

It isn't. Per game and per minute of football we're valued higher.

Leigh.

And? Seriously, so f**king what? What does that prove, exactly? Our games are shorter. Thats what that proves. Yay, we get more money per minute of football.

They got everything they wanted. Everything. They got 4 games on FTA throughout the whole country, plus every club going into its home market on FTA, every expansion market, all but 1 game live, a dedicated channel on fox featuring every game live and in HD, the best that simulcasting and multichanneling has to offer the viewer, from the casual watcher to the hardcore fan. They got the very best of everything. For the fans of the code. Not the broadcaster, the fans.

They got that, AND $250 million more. How anyone can claim this deal is better or even close to the AFL deal is mind boggling.

 

[firechild]

To be serious for a second, before I had Fox I loved listening to the call on ABC Grandstand. I realise it's not for everyone but when you're working in the garden or playing in the park with the kids or whatever, in my opinion they give excellent coverage of the games.

So how often do you play in the park or work in the garden at night in the middle of winter? Only 1 game on Fox is a day game, the others will be Saturday night (x3), Sunday night and Monday night. I'll listen to a game if I'm in the car but not if I'm at home.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

Ummm, $800m for all 8 games of which Ten wanted to screen four FTA. Ten would've then had to on sell four to Fox or another network. The ARLC wouldn't have seen another cent for Australian television rights beyond the original $800m.

Leigh.

Apparently the four FTA games on PRIME TIME was quite a "sweetner" and the commission seriously considered it. Yes it's less money but more FTA games could attract more viewers and a chance to grow the fan base. More fans - bigger gates, more merchandise sales - all of which is more attractive to sponsors. All that combined could make up the short fall in the five year period. Also, this would help set us up for an even better deal next time round. I hope the commission didn't take the neine offer as it was an easier sell to the media and public. Bottom line however, they immediately get 90m in the bank. That would've been hard to resist.

 

[Frailty]

Spot on.

Their 3 hour game is now working against them, rather that what is was, a reason to pay AFL more, it's now proof that they're getting less in reality.

Plus, the total package hasn't been finalised.

This one, this TV rights was to bring us to par with the opposition after being hamstrung for 20 years. The next one is the one where we get to dictate terms.

Yep, really working against them. They have more money to spend on development and marketing of the game. Their clubs have better access to FTA and thus stronger pull to sponsors and fans...

AFL should be upset that they got a bigger deal whilst maintaining control over scheduling, having 6 of 9 games in the day time, and no Monday night games...

How do they cope?

 

[carlosthedwarf]

With Foxtel now having the IPTV rights what are the chances of them releasing a package for the NRL games as apart of foxtel on xbox360 or tbox?

Sounds like foxtel has tablet rights, but full IPTV rights are yet to be sold.

 

[undertaker]

Spot on.

Their 3 hour game is now working against them, rather that what is was, a reason to pay AFL more, it's now proof that they're getting less in reality.

Plus, the total package hasn't been finalised.

This one, this TV rights was to bring us to par with the opposition after being hamstrung for 20 years. The next one is the one where we get to dictate terms.

Thanks Wally!

 

[Pierced Soul]

no expansion makes me a sad panda

did they just give the rights to nein cos they were worried we'd lose the footy show?

 

[Raiders_Premiers]

The very fact that Bunniesman thinks we did a bad deal leads me to say well done and congratulations to John Grant, commissioners and Shane Mattiske on producing a good outcome for the game.

 

[Ray Mosters]

Spot on.

Their 3 hour game is now working against them, rather that what is was, a reason to pay AFL more, it's now proof that they're getting less in reality.

Plus, the total package hasn't been finalised.

This one, this TV rights was to bring us to par with the opposition after being hamstrung for 20 years. The next one is the one where we get to dictate terms.

Sorry, how exactly is their 3 hour game working against them? In the all important "dollars per minute" measure?

What about the "% of fans that can watch their team for free" ratio? What about the "% of households where casual viewers can watch the game on saturdays" ratio. What about "available live and in HD" ratio. What about the "% of development markets covered" ratio.

And sorry, in what "reality" are they getting paid less? Their deal is $1253m, we are up to $1025m. What f**king "reality" are you living in mate?

 

[El Diablo]

The very fact that Bunniesman thinks we did a bad deal leads me to say well done and congratulations to John Grant, commissioners and Shane Mattiske on producing a good outcome for the game.

Moffo thinks the same

 

[Brutus]

I'm just glad they didn't do a 6 year deal as was being rumoured.

 

[docbrown]

For those below who have clarified to Bunniesman and co that the 10 deal was for all 8 games, I'd also like to add that it also included all online and mobile rights as well. Those rights are yet to be fully added to the 9/Fox total. The difference very well may have been over $200 million.

Kim Williams thought that he was protecting subscribers by keeping the status quo and not selling out Saturdays & Monday. In the process he screwed over Lachlan Murdoch's plans for 10. This is the story that the newspapers haven't fully explored yet.

 

[Quidgybo]

And sorry, in what "reality" are they getting paid less? Their deal is $1253m, we are up to $1025m. What f**king "reality" are you living in mate?

Fact check. The cash component of the AFL deal is $1.118b and up to $153m of that is for Telstra's online rights (which we haven't yet sold). The closer comparison is the ARLC's $925m cash to televise 8 games per week (995 premiership matches + 15 Origin + ~25 Tests + 5 City/Country) against the AFL's $965m cash to televise 9 games per week (1025 premiership matches + 165 pre season matches). And we still have more television rights to sell for New Zealand. We're at worst matching them and having to provide less content to do so. We're now indisputably the most valuable television sport across Australia and New Zealand.

Leigh.

 

[Karl]

Yep, really working against them. They have more money to spend on development and marketing of the game. Their clubs have better access to FTA and thus stronger pull to sponsors and fans...

AFL should be upset that they got a bigger deal whilst maintaining control over scheduling, having 6 of 9 games in the day time, and no Monday night games...

How do they cope?

Its the scheduling and the limited free to air broadcast issues you've mentioned that unfortunately detract from the money. The money is great, but these aspects will piss fans off for 5 years, along with what will be more of the same crap quality in these broadcasts from 9. Thats a lot of negative vibes man, and it has an impact.

Having said that, I wish that Union had these problems

 

[El Diablo]

For those below who have clarified to Bunniesman and co that the 10 deal was for all 8 games, I'd also like to add that it also included all online and mobile rights as well. Those rights are yet to be fully added to the 9/Fox total. The difference very well may have been over $200 million.

Kim Williams thought that he was protecting subscribers by keeping the status quo and not selling out Saturdays & Monday. In the process he screwed over Lachlan Murdoch's plans for 10. This is the story that the newspapers haven't fully explored yet.

if Ten were clearing the decks to get the NRL and desperate for content then why was their bid the lowest of the three networks?

especially knowing 9 and Fox had last rights options