TV rights thread part 4

[ek999]

One point that I forgot to mention was the night time GF. I have absolutely no problem with this. It is a public holiday in NSW and most years it will be a 6:15PM kick off QLD time meaning the kids can be in bed by 8:30.

Also, it is possible to have a BBQ for dinner as opposed to lunch.

It's now a public holiday in Queensland too

http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/fair-and-safe-work/industrial-relations/public-holidays/dates

 

[DJShaksta]

Don't talk wank you sook.

Their money is to market and develop the game, but ours isn't?

Should we have 200 million less to do that with just to keep pathetic whiny bitches like you happy?

You're pathetic, if AFL is so superior to you, go follow it and take moffo with you.

You dopey ignorant fugg.
AFL got more money, more FTA games, all games simulcast, and their own foxtel channel.
And you somehow think we got a better deal.

Our code, fans and sponsors got royally bent over.

 

[hineyrulz]

You dopey ignorant fugg.
AFL got more money, more FTA games, all games simulcast, and their own foxtel channel.
And you somehow think we got a better deal.

Our code, fans and sponsors got royally bent over.

The AFL also had to stick in two unwanted plastic money pits which will end up costing them over 200m. No way would they have got the same cash without them.

 

[El Diablo]

It is understood Channel Ten made a serious bid of $800 million for four games, all in prime time, nationally, on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday nights. This must have been a tempting offer, given Ten would be scheduling one more free-to-air game around Australia.
Presumably, any add-on by Fox Sports for the four games it would cover was less than $225 million, otherwise it would have equalled the combined Nine/Fox Sports deal of $1.025 billion and been an attractive proposition because of superior national coverage.​

However, Fox Sports desperately wanted to retain its Saturday and Monday night monopoly and the Ten offer would have ended this.
Still, it raises questions that an ARLC spokesman could not answer and yesterday's press conference did not reveal the Nine/Fox Sports split of the $1.025 billion fee, unlike the AFL deal where the free-to-air and pay TV amounts were announced separately.
Assuming Fox Sports stumped up half the $1.025 billion paid, it raises the question why they would be willing to pay less than half this for daylight games. The answer could lie with the last-minute involvement in negotiations of Kim Williams, the boss of News Ltd which half owns Fox Sports, who may have gazumped Lachlan Murdoch, chairman of Ten and a director of News Corporation.​

Rugby league now has control over its broadcasting destiny from the expiry of the five-year deal, meaning it can take advantage of technological changes that will allow it to sell games direct to the public.
The AFL is positioning itself for afl.com.au where they will produce their own games and sell to subscribers, cutting out pay TV, such as Foxtel, while retaining some games for free-to-air TV to satisfy anti-siphoning requirements.
Until yesterday, rugby league was prevented from doing so because News Ltd's merely had to equal any broadcasting offer made up to 2027 to win the rights.​

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...-all-levels-20120821-24kp2.html#ixzz24F6qWUix​

Ok since no one here seems to be able to read properly it seems that I need to point out this little presumed fact. The 10 bid seems to have been only 4 games and docbrown seems to be skewing the facts a little, understandably to save a little face.​

But if this article is right, then for the Commission to just go belly up like they did is at best a display of complete amateurism and at worst an act of total corporate misconduct. As if they couldn't find at least another 200 mil from say Ch7, hell they probably could have gotten close to that from the ABC for the other 4 games FFS.​

What a disgrace.​

nah

he's obviously got that wrong

there is no way a FTA network would offer $800 million for only 4 games

 

[dogslife]

Maybe they did and the herpaderps down at the IC thought exactly the same thing as you, "this can't possibly be right"

 

[El Diablo]

Maybe they did and the herpaderps down at the IC thought exactly the same thing as you, "this can't possibly be right"

sure

idiot

 

[herbert henry1908]

nah

he's obviously got that wrong

there is no way a FTA network would offer $800 million for only 4 games

You would assume so.

But if masters has got it right then the ARLC need to be hung , drawn and quartered.

 

[TheRam]

nah

he's obviously got that wrong

there is no way a FTA network would offer $800 million for only 4 games

Sorry mate no disrespect, but until someone in the know comes out and corrects him, I think I'll go with Roy. ;-)

 

[Raiderdave]

nah

he's obviously got that wrong

there is no way a FTA network would offer $800 million for only 4 games

yeah

the 800 was for all games ... not half of them

geez some posters in here are :crazy::crazy:

 

[firechild]

The assumption is that 9 and Fox paid about 1/2 each. That means just over $500mill for 3 games (1.7mill per game). I would imagine 4 live games on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday would have higher average ratings (especially higher than the 2nd Friday game) so $200 mill might not be too far off the mark. Maybe it is right?

 

[applesauce]

Rugby league now has control over its broadcasting destiny from the expiry of the five-year deal, meaning it can take advantage of technological changes that will allow it to sell games direct to the public.
The AFL is positioning itself for afl.com.au where they will produce their own games and sell to subscribers, cutting out pay TV, such as Foxtel, while retaining some games for free-to-air TV to satisfy anti-siphoning requirements.
Until yesterday, rugby league was prevented from doing so because News Ltd's merely had to equal any broadcasting offer made up to 2027 to win the rights.​

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...-all-levels-20120821-24kp2.html#ixzz24F6qWUix​

Ok since no one here seems to be able to read properly it seems that I need to point out this little presumed fact. The 10 bid seems to have been only 4 games and docbrown seems to be skewing the facts a little, understandably to save a little face.​

But if this article is right, then for the Commission to just go belly up like they did is at best a display of complete amateurism and at worst an act of total corporate misconduct. As if they couldn't find at least another 200 mil from say Ch7, hell they probably could have gotten close to that from the ABC for the other 4 games FFS.​

What a disgrace.​

Read all of your post. This is more important in 5years than anything else!!!!

 

[Raiders_Premiers]

800 million for 4 games my f**king arse :lol:

Masters has barely got a single thing right, in relation to both the NRL and AFL deal

 

[Raiderdave]

The assumption is that 9 and Fox paid about 1/2 each. That means just over $500mill for 3 games (1.7mill per game). I would imagine 4 live games on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday would have higher average ratings (especially higher than the 2nd Friday game) so $200 mill might not be too far off the mark. Maybe it is right?

9 didn't just get 3 club games for their 512.5 Million

they got rep games
finals & the GF

based on this
anyone who thinks ten offered 800 Million for 4 games & nothing else

is off their rocker :lol::lol::lol:

 

[Quidgybo]

The assumption is that 9 and Fox paid about 1/2 each. That means just over $500mill for 3 games (1.7mill per game). I would imagine 4 live games on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday would have higher average ratings (especially higher than the 2nd Friday game) so $200 mill might not be too far off the mark. Maybe it is right?

According to some reports Nine paid $85m plus $10m contra per year for three games. That's $425m plus $50m contra over five years for three which pro rata equals $567m + $67m contra for four. By contrast Seven are paying $425m plus $50m in contra for four AFL games. Either way $800m for four would be a hell of a premium. Too much to be believable in the current market.

http://www.sevenwestmedia.com.au/docs/business-unit-news/1DA86AD0E22EA10E9B48471719F7B8520292.pdf

Leigh.

 

[dogslife]

sure

idiot

Honestly I think you would have been happy with a newspaper report of each game if it meant the money on offer was anywhere close to the AFL's...

Idiot

 

[Perth Red]

yep load of rubbish, if that was the deal the ARLC would have snapped their hand off and then sold the remaing 4/5 games to either Fox or another FTA.

 

[firechild]

9 didn't just get 3 club games for their 512.5 Million

they got rep games
finals & the GF

based on this
anyone who thinks ten offered 800 Million for 4 games & nothing else

is off their rocker :lol::lol::lol:

And if 10 had 4 games a week who do you suspect would have got the finals and Origin? No doubt they would have been included in their $800mill offer.

 

[TheRam]

800 million for 4 games my f**king arse :lol:

Masters has barely got a single thing right, in relation to both the NRL and AFL deal

Sure laugh and there might even be a chance that you're right, but Shane Mattiske wasn't exactly doing belly ache giggles when Graham Hughes was trying to get to the bottom of it yesterday now was he.

Yeah sure I know about the confidentiality agreement, but all he had to do was say so, but didn't.

 

[El Diablo]

Sorry mate no disrespect, but until someone in the know comes out and corrects him, I think I'll go with Roy. ;-)

well he's obviously wrong. look at what 7 are saying http://t.co/uaQhybQc

and 9 are paying nowhere near $800 million

estimates is roughy $85 million a year

also worth noting this

http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Fox Sports Boss Describes NRL TV Rights Negotiations As "Torrid"

Post by: The Grill Team 22 August, 2012 - 10:55 AM

Fox Sports CEO Patrick Delany has described the NRL TV rights negotiations as "torrid" as more information about the $1 Billion paydeal come to light.

"I've been in the media business for 16 year, and this was one of the hardest environments," Patrick Delany told The Grill Team.

"We've been in discussions with the NRL since the beginning of the year but the last six weeks have been clinically run and as a participant torrid."
Fox Sports Boss "Torrid" Discussions

The Fox Sports CEO told Matty Johns it was a close run thing with any of the three free-to-air channels being able to secure the NRL rights.

"I'm hearing Channel Ten was in there with a very strong deal and so the whole thing was up in the air."

Delany added "that didn't happen in the AFL deal."

The Fox Sports boss also denied allegations that they were in bed with Channel Nine from the beginning.

"We made it very clear to all three that what we wanted to keep Super Saturday," Delany said adding "the key thing for us was to get a Sunday evening game so we won't need that red button so often."

"Nine made a commitment very early that they would stick with us on exactly what we want and they also made a commitment on production," the Fox Sports chief said.

 

[TheRam]

9 didn't just get 3 club games for their 512.5 Million

they got rep games
finals & the GF

based on this
anyone who thinks ten offered 800 Million for 4 games & nothing else

is off their rocker :lol::lol::lol:

Roy was just pointing out the season proper, but sure you would think that all finals games would also be included.