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!

TV rights thread part 4

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
One would hope the risk management process for all of this was undertaken prior to accepting 9's bid over 10's. if it goes belly up then there will be some serious questions to ask of the commission and the company engaged to run the rights process. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

they did that by making 9 pay the first year in advance

first payment due in December
 

firechild

First Grade
Messages
8,068
Wonder where the "but we got a billion dollars" brigade will be if this happens? First and last rights mean SFA if there is no entity to take advantage of it.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
Wonder where the "but we got a billion dollars" brigade will be if this happens? First and last rights mean SFA if there is no entity to take advantage of it.

someone will buy 9. they won't vanish

7 and 10 have both gone bankrupt before
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
http://www.smh.com.au/business/cvc-hands-packer-his-alan-bond-moment-20120926-26kbe.html

CVC hands Packer his Alan Bond moment

Date
September 26, 2012 - 3:04PM

Colin Kruger

"You only ever get one Alan Bond in your life and I've had mine," the late Kerry Packer famously said of the West Australian who forked out $1.2 billion for the Nine Network back in 1987 and subsequently lost the lot. Twenty years later, his son James had the private equity player CVC Asia Pacific, which effectively paid more than $5 billion for the network and its magazine division.

CVC paid Packer's Publishing & Broadcasting Ltd (PBL) $1.46 billion in cash for a 75 per cent stake in the media assets and also took on $3.6 billion worth of debt from PBL.

One year on, the high debt and flimsy equity component meant the business was worthless.

Nine has, in effect, been on deathwatch ever since with the financial crisis, making it virtually impossible to refinance the debt and emboldened lenders looking to take control of the business instead.

The only question now is how ownership is transferred from CVC to other parties - most likely the hedge funds that control $2.7 billion of Nine's senior debt, Apollo Global Management and Oaktree Capital, which are seeking a debt-for-equity swap that would give them 100 per cent of Nine.

This would represent salvation from what remains of Nine Entertainment, which will already be reducing its $4 billion debt load later this year with the $500 million sale of its magazine business, ACP, to German publishers Bauer Media.

A restructure to reduce, or eliminate, Nine's crippling debt load will leave a business that is actually generating strong cash flows and starting to cut Seven's ratings lead. When the business is deemed to be healthy enough, the call will then be for a refloat of the business. The question is whether the public wants to buy into the float of an iconic business given the continuing disappointment of Myer.

For CVC there is no deal that will mitigate the disaster that has been its foray into Nine.

CVC has now lost all of the $2 billion it injected into the Nine group, which struggled under the weight of its high debt load, bad conditions in the media industry, and Nine losing its ratings crown to Seven.

And while James Packer made a fortune from his well-timed sale, not all of it was well spent. Mr Packer subsequently blew a large part of the privateer's largesse on the US casino market just as the financial crisis hit. Mr Packer and fellow investors in his casino operator, Crown, walked away from that casino binge $1.4 billion lighter after the company wrote the investment down to zero in 2009.

Crown was saved from further loss when its lawyers successfully negotiated the exit of a $US1.75 billion deal to buy the entire Cannery Casino Resorts business in the US.
 

applesauce

Bench
Messages
3,573
So if the debt holders take over will they literally flush out everyone at 9 (in the boardrooms ie Gyngell)?

...Replace them with some decent businessmen that might look to advance this assest in the NRL through favourable coverage nationwide and stop pandering to a product they do not own (AFL)?
 

Desert Qlder

First Grade
Messages
9,456
So if the debt holders take over will they literally flush out everyone at 9 (in the boardrooms ie Gyngell)?

...Replace them with some decent businessmen that might look to advance this assest in the NRL through favourable coverage nationwide and stop pandering to a product they do not own (AFL)?

Being the 'glass is half full' kind of fella I am this is a possibility that I had envisaged.

The resolution to this will either be very good or very bad for our game.
 

docbrown

Coach
Messages
11,842
Can't find it now but there was an article a while back stating that the NRL were looking to get a guarantee from the hedge funds in the event that 9 went into receivership.

It's not a good look for Nine's potential receivers to break a major contract like this and obviously they open themselves up to a civil damages action. Also think about all the other parties that would become involved if 9 does go down that path, the most obvious being the federal government. As others have stated it's not the first time a major network has gone bankrupt.
 
Last edited:

undertaker

Coach
Messages
11,028
It's been a while since I did corps law but my understanding is if Nine knows it will be trading while insolvent it will have to cease normal operations and bring in the receivers. If this were to happen the NRL will be very unlikely to see the money due in early 2013.

I studied Companies and Securities Law in last semester of Masters a few months ago (had my graduation today) as one of my non-finance electives, and I can assure you that the part in bold is 100% correct. The reason why insolvent trading is a criminal offence is because, in the case of Ch9, it will decrease their ability to pay the amount creditors are legitimately entitled to if they incur further losses whilst being insolvent.

However, knowing Ch9 and how dodgy they have been with their RL coverage, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they attempted to do this after officially being "insolvent"
 
Last edited:

Cumberland Throw

First Grade
Messages
6,553
If they break contract, ie go into receivership

The NRL would have to sue for at least $500 Million...

But you cant get blood from a stone....

So all we got was money and nothing else... And now the money is in doubt...

Gee the Channel 10... offer with 8 games on FTA every week and $800 Million looks good right now...
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...cept-shield-in-tigers-den-20120830-253cg.html

Ten off the mark

Sin Bin has been told that reports Channel Ten offered $800 million for four games per season over five years are incorrect but even if the money was close to that figure the ARLC may not have received as much overall as the $1.025 billion that Channel Nine and Fox Sports paid. Ten's offer was for matches on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday nights and the ARLC would have struggled to sell matches in other less appealing timeslots - particularly to Fox Sports, who use Super Saturday and Monday Night Football to sell pay TV subscriptions. It was also thought that clubs would be opposed to a 6.30pm kick-off each Sunday, as Ten had proposed.
 

undertaker

Coach
Messages
11,028
it wasn't 8 games and it wasn't even $800 million

correct. It was 4 live games in primetime - Friday night, Saturday night, Sunday night and Monday night - as well as extended coverage to Victoria. The fact that Ch10 missed out because the ARLC pandered to Fox's request to retain Super Saturday and MNF still pisses me off: all because of PayTV subscriptions.

The only POSITIVE from this deal is that the first-and-last rights clause for FTA and PayTV will no longer exist after 2017, so it will be completely "open slather" and Fox won't be able to do what I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Even if it wasn't 4 live games in primetime, the extended coverage to the most important non-RL state that has been shafted by Ch9 since the Storm entered the NRL would've been more than enough for me to support the Ch10 deal over the Ch9 one. Now, instead, we have Ch9 doing the bare minimal by just putting RL matches on GEM without any promotion, hoping that non-RL ppl there are just going to start watching games.

I still think it was disgraceful that last Friday night's preliminary final wasn't shown on the main channel down there. The proof is in the pudding when you consider that last year's one that was shown on the main channel vs NZ Warriors got 274k on Saturday night, compared to <100k last Friday.
 
Last edited:

Cumberland Throw

First Grade
Messages
6,553

Ten off the mark

Sin Bin has been told that reports Channel Ten offered $800 million for four games per season over five years are incorrect but even if the money was close to that figure the ARLC may not have received as much overall as the $1.025 billion that Channel Nine and Fox Sports paid. Ten's offer was for matches on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday nights and the ARLC would have struggled to sell matches in other less appealing timeslots - particularly to Fox Sports, who use Super Saturday and Monday Night Football to sell pay TV subscriptions. It was also thought that clubs would be opposed to a 6.30pm kick-off each Sunday, as Ten had proposed.


Anyone who would use this quote belongs in a straight jacket... 4 games per season HA HA
 
Messages
11,722
I can't believe that there are still people out there who are dumb enough to believe that a free to air network would pay $800 million for only 4 games per week.
 

Latest posts

Top