TV rights thread part 4

[franklin2323]

Why are you not concerned with the low numbers for NRL in Sydney? 798,000 for NRL in Sydney. 1,406,000 for AFL in Melbourne. For the presentations that is.

957,000 v 1,331,000 for the game.

If ever there was a case for less Sydney teams this is it.

Did you watch the game by yourself? I know I watched it with 20 people. Sadly there was no ratings box. It's an equation never aqurate. Do you believe less then 1/2 of Melbourne watched their GF? I don't. Given the crowds and press AFL gets down there. atleast 75% would of watch it. Same up here. More of them with a box watched the AFL then NRL. That's all it is

 

[carlosthedwarf]

will be unbelievably accurate. if you've done above yr 9 maths you might know this.

Amazing how few people understand statistical significance.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...-nrl-grand-final/story-fnca0von-1226486177056

More than 800,000 in Melbourne watched the NRL grand final

by: Brent Read
From: The Australian
October 02, 2012 12:00AM

MAYBE the Melbourne Storm is making some inroads after all.

The ARL Commission was shouting from the rooftops yesterday after Sunday night's grand final was watched by an average viewing audience of more than 800,000 in Melbourne _ exceeding the number of people in Sydney who watched the Swans win the AFL grand final on Saturday.

In the battle between the codes to steal the hearts and minds of sports fans in their respective opposition's heartland, this was a victory for rugby league.

The grand final attracted a 59 per cent audience share in Melbourne and, as expected, easily dominated in Sydney and Brisbane. It wasn't enough to eclipse the national audience of the AFL's showpiece, thanks to poor viewing in Adelaide and Perth, but Melbourne officials were enthusiastically hailing the result as a sign the Storm _ and by extension rugby league _ was making a mark in a city dominated by the AFL.

"It's a sensational message," Storm chief executive Ron Gauci said. "It's just a fantastic result for us. All of Melbourne is behind us."

The match, won by the Storm 14-4, was the most watched since the 2006 decider between Melbourne and Brisbane. It attracted an average national audience of 3.867 million people, significantly below the AFL's average of 4.5 million.

 

[Kirky]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...-nrl-grand-final/story-fnca0von-1226486177056

Anyone have the Melbourne NRL GF ratings for 2006? Can't find them anywhere. Trying to prove a point here at the office. Pretty sure we've grown in Melbs since 2006 while the Swans have shrunk in Sydney.

 

[user_nat]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...-nrl-grand-final/story-fnca0von-1226486177056

When did the AFL's national average get brought up from ~4m to 4.5m?

Anyone have the Melbourne NRL GF ratings for 2006? Can't find them anywhere. Trying to prove a point here at the office. Pretty sure we've grown in Melbs since 2006 while the Swans have shrunk in Sydney.

903,000

I'm fairly sure that was the highest of their 4 straight appearances.

 

[El Diablo]

probably a typo and they forgot to put .05

 

[Kirky]

903,000 I'm fairly sure that was the highest of their 4 straight appearances.

Cheers. Their drop is bigger than our drop. That'll do nicely.

 

[dgsfan]

Also, the Presentation this year was the highest rating RL broadcast ever in Melbourne.

 

[innerwestrabbit]

The other consieration with those numbers. It was a lousy day in Melbourne on Saturday. A lot more people would have been home, so I can see a lot of non commited AFL fans watching because of the weather

 

[docbrown]

Why are you not concerned with the low numbers for NRL in Sydney?

Those numbers in Sydney are higher than what Origin was rating in Sydney in 2010.

People need to get some perspective.

A 1,000,000+ rating in Sydney for any program is big.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/...ason-issues-facing-league-20121002-26xra.html

4.

NAMING RIGHTS AND MEDIA DEALS

Telstra is keen to remain as major sponsor of the NRL and retain the online rights but there are whispers that the telco may miss out on both as they will be sold separately. The present deal is worth $90 million over six years for naming rights to the premiership and internet and mobile rights, but after Telstra paid $153 million over five years for the AFL online rights, the ARLC obviously expects a lot more this time. There is also the New Zealand television rights.

6.

CHANNEL NINE'S PLIGHT

The ARL Commission was aware of Channel Nine's financial problems before it finalised the new $1.025 billion television deal and asked the network to pay $90 million up front to cover any shortfalls. That money will be received before a ball is kicked next season. If Nine collapses or cannot meet its financial obligations to the code, the advance payments will ensure the ARLC is not out of pocket and in a desperate state as it negotiates with other broadcasters to take over the rights.

 

[Edwahu]

Those numbers in Sydney are higher than what Origin was rating in Sydney in 2010.

People need to get some perspective.

A 1,000,000+ rating in Sydney for any program is big.

Yeah, people forget Melbourne rates a fair bit higher for FTA in general. It's the flipside of the differences in Pay TV subscriber number which never gets mentioned.

 

[Starkers]

Debt-laden Nine Entertainment is reported to have offered its creditors equity in the company’s restructure, in an effort to avoid calling in receivers.
Nine chairman Peter Bush and chief executive David Gyngell yesterday outlined a proposal to offer Goldman Sachs between 5 and 7 per cent of equity in the company over which the investment bank controls about $1 billion in debt, according to media reports.
Under the terms of the deal, the executives also proposed offering as much as 90 per cent of equity to hedge funds Oaktree Capital and Apollo Global Management, which together control around $2.8 billion in debt.
The meeting between the executives and the creditors is said to have lasted less than an hour, and to not have included representatives from private equity owner CVC Capital Partners. Covenants over the company's debt are due in February, leaving the prospect of receivership on the cards for Nine.
Advertisement
Goldman Sachs is understood to have wanted a 20 per cent stake in the company, valuing Nine at $2.5 billion. The most recent proposals from Mr Bush and Mr Gyngell came after Goldman Sachs, and the private equity funds rejected each others' restructure proposals, according the Australian Financial Review.
The media company has spun off assets to try to get a grip on its debt, selling ACP Magazines, publishers of Australian Women's Weekly last month to privately-owned German group Bauer Media Group for a reported $525 million.
Nine’s difficulties are the latest sign of strife in the media sector, where once-in-a-generation changes in the way entertainment is consumed has created an existential challenge for a host of companies.
Rival Ten Networks faces a slump in earnings and declines in advertisers, as consumers increasingly look to other forms of entertainment apart of traditional free-to-air television.
Nine, which in addition to the television network, owns Sydney's Allphones Arena and Ticketek, is currently controlled by CVC Capital Partners.
The saga at Nine has claimed the scalp of CVC Capital Partners managing partner Adrian MacKenzie, who resigned from the private equity group after helping the firm participate in a $5.6 billion buyout of it in 2008.
Nine posted a loss of $427.7 million in the year to June 2011, while revenues slipped 1.3 per cent to $1.96 million.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/medi...inistration-20121010-27c7i.html#ixzz28qcjyf8Z
​

 

[juro]

Nine posted a loss of $427.7 million in the year to June 2011, while revenues slipped 1.3 per cent to $1.96 million.

Surely that's a typo...

 

[applesauce]

Goldman Sachs agrees to Nine debt deal

CHANNEL Nine's junior lender Goldman Sachs has accepted a debt restructuring proposal, a move which boosts the broadcaster’s chances of staying out of receivership.

Goldman has agreed to accept a 7.5 per cent shareholding in the company, a further 12.5 per cent equity parcel if the broadcaster is sold for more than $2.3 billion, and up to $1 billion in debt.

Goldman, which had previously asked for a 30 per cent shareholding, said it was accepting the deal in order to keep Nine out of receivership.

The deal must also be signed off on by US hedge funds Apollo Capital and Oaktree Global Management, which hold more than $1 billion of senior debt in Nine.

Both have said Nine is not worth $2.3 billion and insist on taking full control of the company.

The latest development comes as CVC Capital managing partner Adrian MacKenzie steps down from the Nine board of Nine.


Private equity firm CVC bought Nine for $5.3 billion in 2007.

Mr MacKenzie's departure is a further indication CVC will lose its $1.8 billion in equity in Nine - the largest ever loss on a single private-equity deal in Australia.

http://www.news.com.au/business/com...al/story-fnda1bsz-1226492902495#ixzz28sVEAQGm
​

 

[Billythekid]

Those Melbourne figures are incredible. Not far off the Sydney ratings despite the final involving one of the biggest clubs in Sydney. Kinda shows the importance of having a team in Melbourne for those people who keep questioning it.

I still like how no one really mentions the storm but the media are still wanking over the swans taking over sydney. The storm got absolutely no media, get no FTA coverage at all and have been around for like half the time. The swans game if anything got mroe coverage than even the NRL in Sydney, the game was hyped to heavens and yet we still rated more.

Edit: As soon as we get regular coverage of storm games in Melbourne we will comfortably beat the terrible swans ratings.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Lol. They're f**ked.

 

[LJC]

Unfortunatley, the AFL boffins have too much of a say in Melbourne TV and Press coverage. They are aware of rugby leagues potency and are protecting their turf. This is a cat of an act but thats what they are doing!

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...igh-stakes-talks/story-e6frg8zx-1226493187711

Hedge funds consider Nine receivership in high-stakes talks

by: Darren Davidson
From: The Australian
October 11, 2012 12:00AM

US hedge funds are now weighing up letting Nine Entertainment Co slide into receivership in the latest round of high-stakes negotiations over who gets what in the $3.2 billion debt-for-equity swap at Australia's No. 2 television network.

Apollo Capital and Oaktree Global Management are now considering their next move.

This follows news yesterday that Goldman Sachs has agreed to significantly lower its demand for a 30 per cent equity stake in Nine to 7.5 per cent after accepting a debt restructure proposal from Nine.

Nine chairman Peter Bush and chief executive David Gyngell, along with Goldman, are now eagerly awaiting a response from Apollo and Oaktree, which jointly control about $1 billion of senior debt.

Goldman is hoping Apollo and Oaktree will agree to the Nine proposal but the hedge funds are still insisting they want 100 per cent of Nine, leaving Goldman with nothing, stating that Nine is worth no more than $1.6bn-1.7bn.

Sources at the hedge funds were last night arguing that receivership was not a nightmare scenario for Nine.

They believe the free-to-air network will continue to broadcast on the airwaves, and all contracts including the broadcast rights deal with the National Rugby League will be honoured.

Whether their bluff and bluster is brinkmanship remains to be seen, but Goldman sources were insisting they will negotiate no more, and refuse to compromise on a 7.5 per cent stake in a refinanced Nine.

If Apollo and Oaktree refuse to reach agreement with Goldman, the investment bank will walk away, allowing Nine to fall into receivership.

The latest twist came after three of Goldman's senior executives visited Mr Gyngell at Nine's Willoughby headquarters in Sydney yesterday morning. They informed an anxious Mr Gyngell, who has been working to get the warring camps to bridge the valuation impasse, that they would grudgingly take 7.5 per cent of equity.

They will also receive 12.5 per cent of the equity upside above the value of the $2.2 billion in senior debt in warrants.

Under the terms of the proposal, the equity component would equate to about $100 million and the warrants about $50 million, with maximum debt of between $750m and $1bn.

Goldman believes it can recapture value through the warrants.

Goldman executives are cautiously optimistic that Apollo and Oaktree will join them, pointing out they have compromised on a significant amount of equity value from their original proposal.

They warned that Apollo and Oaktree would suffer reputational damage if they pushed Nine into receivership by refusing to give up their demand for 100 per cent equity.

Some of the par lenders were making favourable noises last night, suggesting they will agree to the Nine proposal, but there was no official affirmation.

Nine management is expecting to hear from Apollo and Oaktree by the end of the week, and this afternoon at the earliest. "Goldman Sachs Mezzanine Partners understands the importance of keeping this iconic Australian broadcaster out of administration and is supporting the Nine board and management.

Therefore Goldman Sachs Mezzanine Partners has agreed to endorse Nine's proposal," a spokesman for Goldmans said.

CVC Asia Pacific managing partner Adrian MacKenzie stepped down from the board of Nine yesterday morning. CVC holding company Red Earth Holdings said the move would allow the Nine board to act "independently" as it attempted to get the senior lenders to agree on a new deal to save Nine from receivership.

There was speculation the hedge funds were pushing for Mr MacKenzie to exit the negotiations. "Red Earth . . . has decided to take Adrian MacKenzie off the board of Nine," a spokeswoman said. "CVC is doing this to make clear that the Nine board is free to continue to act independently . . ."

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ebt-plan-pd20121010-YXP6A?OpenDocument&src=mp

US hedge funds likely to reject Nine debt plan

Published 5:12 AM, 11 Oct 2012 Last update 7:26 AM, 11 Oct 2012

The outlook for debt-laden Nine Entertainment Co got a boost when Goldman Sachs said it would support the debt restructuring plan put forward by Nine management, but the optimism is expected to be short-lived as US hedge funds in control of Nine's senior debt are expected to reject the proposal, according to media reports.

The hedge funds, Oaktree Capital and Apollo Global Management, have yet to respond to the proposal put forward by Nine chairman Peter Bush and chief executive David Gyngell, but reports suggest that they are concerned the compromise plan does not reflect the value of mezzanine debt held by Goldman funds.

Under the plan, mezzanine lenders would take equity and warrants valued at more than $150 million.

Goldman controls about $1 billion in mezzanine debt, and would take a 7.5 per cent equity stake plus 12.5 per cent of the equity upside above the value of the $2.3 billion in senior debt in warrants.

That plan would represent far less value than Goldman's earlier insistence on a 30 per cent equity stake, or about $400 million. Goldman reportedly has reservations about the compromise plan, but decided to accept it to keep Nine out of administration and allow it to proceed with a recapitalisation.

“Goldman Sachs Mezzanine Partners understands the importance of keeping the iconic Australian broadcaster out of administration and is supporting the Nine board and management,” a Goldman Sachs spokesman said, according to The Australian Financial Review.

The hedge funds have reportedly continued to insist on a 100 per cent equity stake in Nine, which would leave Goldman with nothing. The hedge funds have insisted Nine is worth no more than $1.6 billion to $1.7 billion.

The Australian reported that the hedge funds are insisting that receivership would not be a nightmare scenario for Nine.

If the hedge funds reject the plan, Nine would face a likely move into administration, potentially as early as next week, if its directors feel the company cannot repay or refinance $2.3 billion in senior debt due in February.