The 2017 Rights Deal Discussion thread

[Our Game]

I hope the AFL NEVER give into the bloodsucking TV networks and their overpaid GMs We saw what happened last season when the AFL did what the TV networks wanted and it was a disaster for fans who voted with their feet.
Our game unlike RL/NRL has always been built around supporters attending games not sitting at home on the couch for free.Switch on nearly all NRL games and they look like a second rate competition in comparison the sold out and packed MCG,Adelaide Oval,SCG and Subi just last week the NRL two games at ANZ cap 83,000 had just 13,886 and 20,273 whereas the AFL at the MCG had 73,584 and 59,866 with both games live against the gate.
I would rather have the big crowds than more money from TV any day.

 

[The_Wookie]

I hope the AFL NEVER give into the bloodsucking TV networks and their overpaid GMs We saw what happened last season when the AFL did what the TV networks wanted and it was a disaster for fans who voted with their feet.
Our game unlike RL/NRL has always been built around supporters attending games not sitting at home on the couch for free.Switch on nearly all NRL games and they look like a second rate competition in comparison the sold out and packed MCG,Adelaide Oval,SCG and Subi just last week the NRL two games at ANZ cap 83,000 had just 13,886 and 20,273 whereas the AFL at the MCG had 73,584 and 59,866 with both games live against the gate.
I would rather have the big crowds than more money from TV any day.

The AFL specifically acknowledged that in part when it ended Monday night and effectively sunday night footy - these are good for ratings, but poor for crowds.

Its not hard, when you understand that the AFL makes just as much money outside of its media rights than it does from them, even with the massive increases in media in the last two tv deals. (Media rights, including AFL media income accounts for 47% of AFL income over the life of this present deal)

 

[Rob]

SoO is on anti-siphoning list so it will always be on FTA, as will at least 3 NRL games each week.

The NRL went the other way in the last deal to some extent, introducing a fixed schedule for first 20 rds, all FTA games shown live to air nationally on secondary channel (except Adelaide has been allowed to revert back to midnight for reasons unknown).

Reasons unknown? It was because it rated so badly. It was only getting 1-2k viewers, atrocious even for a multichannel.

 

[bigleague]

Reasons unknown? It was because it rated so badly. It was only getting 1-2k viewers, atrocious even for a multichannel.

Unknown because they are contractually obligated under the current broadcast deal to show it.

 

[Connar]

foxtel will get all games live. I reckon 7 will get a friday night and sunday game. 9 might get 2 saturday games. Got this feeling thursday night footy will be a permanent fixture in the next tv deal.

I think it will be 7 & Fox. Fox will get all games live. I reckon 7 Will retain the 4 Games & Sunday Night Footy will be a Permanent Fixture at 7:00pm AEST in the next TV Rights Package. Thursday Nights will only occur 3x Times a Year. We could also see a First week Final (5th v 8th) on a Sunday Night.

 

[Rob]

Unknown because they are contractually obligated under the current broadcast deal to show it.

Either they're not, it's conditional on certain viewership levels, or the NRL just don't care.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

SoO is on anti-siphoning list so it will always be on FTA, as will at least 3 NRL games each week.

The NRL went the other way in the last deal to some extent, introducing a fixed schedule for first 20 rds, all FTA games shown live to air nationally on secondary channel (except Adelaide has been allowed to revert back to midnight for reasons unknown). With news corps f&l rights removed I think the next deal will continue further down that route and get more control of the game back from TV.

anti-Siphoning rules are not as simple as they make it out. in fact every single game of the AFL and NRL are on the anti-siphoning list. the way that fox get access. When the NRL packages things like SoO. they set a minimum price. If the FTA networks refuse to meet the minimum bid then the government body decides whether the price is reasonable, if it is and the networks don't meet it then anti-siphoning no longer applies.

it comes under the "other considerations" this combined with the "use it or lose" (games must be live) clause is what made the billion dollar rights bids possible. it was done to "protect" the sports from predatory pricing and arrangements. It's also worth noting that the laws do not permit the channels to air the games exclusively. if they want exclusive access its a higher price again. and that's where the blinking comes in, the Codes have there price and networks have there's the bluff is to see who wants to test the Anti-Siphoning rules.

as its in the best interest of both parties to keep the games on FTA networks, its more or less guaranteed to increase.

 

[bigleague]

Whether the NRL adds a second team in Brisbane has now become a $250 million question for rugby league, with that figure being suggested as what a Broncos rival would be worth to the code when it goes to the table at the end of the current $1 billion TV deal, which expires after the 2017 season.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rug...risbane-nrl-team-hots-up-20150415-1mlq9v.html

 

[bigleague]

NRL may sign new TV deal with two years left to run on current contracts

• PAUL MALONE
• THE SUNDAY MAIL (QLD)
• APRIL 19, 2015 12:00AM

RUGBY league may sign off on its next television ratings deal this year despite having two more years to run on the current contracts with Channel 9 and Fox Sports.

And the agreement in 2012 of Nine and Fox Sports to relinquish the first and last rights of refusal in negotiations with the NRL means there is certain to be a big increase on the current deal.

That is worth $1.025 billion over, five years for free-to-air and subscription broadcast rights and expires in 2017.

The AFL’s current $1.250 billion broadcast deal expires 12 months earlier.

Discussions between the NRL and free-to-air networks have been held over the past four weeks, with Seven and especially Ten keen to bid big enough to secure rights to some NRL match programming.

Concluding negotiations with the commercial networks for a number of seasons starting with 2018 before the AFL completed its talks with broadcasters would provide an advantage for the NRL.

But the NRL would need to first decide how many teams will be in the NRL from 2018.

Bid teams have started to get busy in staking their claims in the media again, but the most likely outcome remains a retention of 16 NRL teams.

Relocation, always a vexing issue for competitions and their less wealthy clubs, is more probable than an expansion to 18 NRL clubs.

Poor ratings for matches played by the AFL’s 18th club, GWS Giants, have underlined for the NRL that while an extra game a weekend means more content for broadcasters it does not lead to a commensurate increase in total television viewers.

And four NRL teams already have needed financial assistance by the NRL — Gold Coast Titans, St George Illawarra, Wests Tigers and Newcastle.

Nine chief executive David Gyngell told the ABC earlier this week that he anticipated he would have to pay significantly more for free-to-air rights and is prepared to do so.

Two State of Origin matches and the NRL grand final figured among the four most watched programs on Australian television last year and Nine will be intent on keeping the rights.

ARL Commission chairman John Grant said in August, 2012, when the current rights deal was announced, that the willingness of Nine and Fox Sports to relinquish the first and last right of refusal on future deals had weighed significantly in the decision of directors.

Fox Sports has been involved in recent rugby union rights negotiations.

News Corp reported last month that Fox Sports was set to take up the option of a five-year extension as part of a new, increased ARU broadcasting rights deal providing $40 million to $45 million a year to part fund the game in Australia.

The ARU and their South African and New Zealand partners could announce this month that a new broadcasting agreement has been stuck.

Fox Sports’s NRL match telecasts draw much bigger audiences than the majority of Super Rugby games involving Australian teams.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...urrent-contracts/story-fniabjcr-1227309805287

 

[Experimental]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...urrent-contracts/story-fniabjcr-1227309805287

Smart move on their part imo

 

[bigleague]

Big Bash whets cash-strapped Ten's appetite for AFL

The Ten Network is determined to join the bidding for AFL rights – tipped to start at $1.75 billion – despite its weak balance sheet.

AFL insiders say it is possible Ten could bid for two games a week, most likely Saturday and Sunday afternoon matches.

The company has struggled to increase revenue since it surrendered it rights to AFL matches in 2011 under then chief executive Lachlan Murdoch, who believed they had become too expensive.

But Ten's chief executive, Hamish McLennan, said the network's appetite for sports events had increased after Big Bash League Cricket helped grow its share of total advertising revenue over summer.


"Ten has declared an interest [in securing AFL rights] and has participated in the process," Mr McLennan told Fairfax Media.

His comments came after he told shareholders at the company's annual meeting in December it would have been in a better position had it retained the AFL rights.

Live sport has become increasingly important for networks to maintain ratings as the arrival of video streaming companies, such as Netflix, splinter audiences.

But Ten has limited funds to spend on content. Although its ratings have shown signs of improvement, analysts believe the loss-making company will run out of money within two years if it does not receive a cash injection, and its fate remains unclear.

If Ten was successful in gaining AFL rights, the third-ranked metropolitan broadcaster would have until November 2016 to make its first quarterly payment to the AFL.

The network joins Seven West Media as the only free-to-air broadcaster bidding for the AFL rights. Nine Entertainment Co, which has the rights to rival code NRL, has ruled itself out.

Seven has maintained a "polite silence" about the negotiations.

"Sports rights are key pillar of success for broadcasters in the Australian market," Citi analyst Justin Diddams wrote in investor note last year.


"Premium sporting rights are increasing in importance … as a platform for cross-promoting other programming content and to secure advertising dollars across the entire schedule."

"We have witnessed firsthand the impact of losing premium sporting, with Ten's revenue share suffering since it relinquished the two weekly games of AFL rights. So, premium sports content is a cornerstone of free-to-air broadcasting in this country."

Mr Diddams said Ten "has demonstrated it can manage the production of premium sports events, via its coverage of the … Big Bash League".

The network's share of total advertising revenue jumped four percentage points in January to 24.7 per cent – its best result in that month since 2010.

But from July 2014 to last month its revenue share was flat at 21 per cent, compared with 21.9 per cent the previous corresponding period, according to Standard Media Index data.

Seven West Media pays $95 million a year for the 2012-16 AFL rights, which it holds with Foxtel, Telstra and Fox Sports. The overall deal is worth $1.25 billion and represented an average cost inflation of 29 per cent compared with the previous agreement.

Media analyst Steve Allen, of Fusion Strategy, said this meant sport rights had become less profitable.

"At the prices the AFL is at today, we don't think Seven would have made much money in first year; don't think it would have made much money in the second year. It might have started making money in third year," he said.

"We think each of these major sport rights that come up today are loss-making at the start because all of these sports rights are fully priced on fundamentals. There isn't much more than the bid price available in the market place via advertising."

He said the Big Bash League was an exception.

"Ten bought the rights to the Big Bash at a fair price that gave them some wriggle room, so from day one when it left Foxtel to free-to-air it was profitable – the AFL is not like that."

But Mr Allen said Seven had mitigated some of the challenge in the current deal by giving up the exclusive rights to four games a week.

"Seven's decision to limit how much more they paid and to allow Foxtel to dramatically increase their bid, because they got all matches live to air, hasn't had an effect on Seven's audiences.

"Yes, it's made a difference to Foxtel because they have got four extra games that they only had on seriously delayed telecast rights. They have got four more games with bigger audiences. which make their offering more compelling."

US cable giant Discovery Communications has walked away from its offer to buy the main assets of Ten Network Holdings with Foxtel. It was the leading bidder for the network, with a 23¢ a share offer, but was opposed by the company's major shareholder, billionaire Bruce Gordon, who has offered to inject $70 million to $100 million into the broadcaster.


BusinessDay

http://www.afr.com/business/sport/big-bash-whets-cashstrapped-tens-appetite-for-afl-20150419-1mn912

 

[Freomaniac]

I Hold on to faint hope that channel 10 gets something out of this. I actually liked channel 10s AFL coverage when they got it.

 

[Our Game]

The AFL would be very happy to have CH10 in the mix Interesting that a figure of $1.75 million is being quoted.

 

[fushy]

I Hold on to faint hope that channel 10 gets something out of this. I actually liked channel 10s AFL coverage when they got it.

I didnt like 10's coverage but then 7 got it back and i regretted ever thinking that.

 

[Gigantor]

We know ch 10 have no money.
We know they want a bit of AFL for the winter.

It seems to me that all the AFL has to do is give 10 a tiny part of the fixture that ch 7 doesn't currently do.

The only thing that would matter is that the AFL gets more net money from ch 10 than what it might lose from Fox for now having only exclusive rights to 4 games per round (for arguments sake).

For example, the AFL might offer a package of 10 Thursday night games per season.

That will be attractive enough to pay a some money without 10 going into the red.

All of a sudden, 10 have a bit of halo effect for minimal coin, and the AFL makes more money overall from the broadcast deal.

 

[The_Wookie]

Seven didnt really want to do the stuff it is now. Previously it had bid for the 4 games, onselling two to ten. Id expect similar to happen again. We wont get more FTA games per week IMO.

 

[aCunningPlan]

Seven didnt really want to do the stuff it is now. Previously it had bid for the 4 games, onselling two to ten. Id expect similar to happen again. We wont get more FTA games per week IMO.

I'll Agree with that, If anything Ten might get lucky and get the Saturday and Sunday afternoon games. Seven then to show Friday night and Saturday night games, all the finals, and state league games on Saturday arvo.

 

[bigleague]

NRL to begin broadcast negotiations within weeks

The NRL is set to begin negotiations for the next broadcast deal within weeks in a bid to get ahead of the AFL and maximise the number of bidders.

Despite the current $1 billion, five-year deal not being due to expire until the end of the 2017 season, the NRL has advised executives from Channel Nine, Fox Sports and Telstra that it wants to start the negotiating process now.

It is understood the NRL's rationale for commencing talks with the broadcasters is to ensure rival networks are also able to bid as Channel Seven was never a serious contender when the last deal was done in 2012 after securing the AFL rights months earlier.

With the AFL rights also due to expire in 2017, whichever code gets a deal done first will have more networks bidding - a situation that NRL officials believe will ensure a higher price.

The AFL's current deal with Seven and Fox Sports is valued at $1.25 billion, while the NRL secured $475 million from Nine and $550 million from Fox Sports in the last round of negotiations.

The sale of the digital rights to Telstra and a deal with Sky Sports NZ to broadcast matches in New Zealand take the NRL's total broadcast revenue to close to the AFL figure, but officials believe they can secure more next time.

Fairfax Media has been told the NRL hopes to get between $1.5 billion and $2 billion from the next deal but other sources say $1.3 billion might be a more realistic figure.

Nine boss David Gyngell recently acknowledged the network would have to pay more to retain the NRL rights and said he would do everything possible to ensure that they did.

"I wouldn't on my watch say we'd ever give up on sports rights and they will go up again like last time and people will try and talk it down in the meantime, and they won't go up as much as the sports bodies want, but they go more than the incumbents like us want them to go up," Gyngell told Media Watch.

Channel Ten, whose chairman is Lachlan Murdoch, are also expected to bid aggressively for the free-to-air rights, while the NRL is hoping Seven will table a bid.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...egotiations-within-weeks-20150424-1msrrk.html

 

[bigleague]

Rugby league blows siren on record billion dollar TV rights deal

Rugby league has blown the siren on a new record billion dollar TV rights deal, pulling forward negotiations by one year in a surprise move to blindside the AFL.

It’s understood Australian Rugby League Commission CEO David Smith phoned the bosses of rights holders Nine Network and Fox Sports on Friday morning to give formal notification that he will kick off the process next week.

Mr Smith also contacted the Seven and Ten networks in a clear sign the code will aggressively exploit competitive tension to beat the $1.1bn contract signed in 2012.

The rugby league boss has conjured up an audacious move to get one over Australian Football League chief executive Gillon McLachlan, deftly exploiting the rival code’s delayed talks. A spokesman for the NRL declined to comment.

Ten battle delays AFL talks

Broadcasters are paying more than ever for exclusive rights because the immediacy of fixtures and fan loyalty ensure big live audiences, which will push up the value of the NRL’s rights.

Bidding for rights as they come up for renewal has become an even fiercer game, which will make the spectacle as intriguing as the matches themselves in the coming months.

But the NRL is unlikely to match the extraordinary sports rights inflation recently seen in the US and UK markets, which do not have the anti-siphoning list.

The regulation ring fences a long list of top-tier sports events and fixtures for the free-to-air networks, effectively locking subscription-TV provider Foxtel out of the bidding process. The range of the controversial regulation is unique to Australia.

In February, European satellite broadcaster SKY and telco BT forked out a record £5.1 billion ($10 billion) for television rights to broadcast English Premier League games in 2016-2019.

The stunning 70 per cent price hike came amid a massive bidding war that also included reported bids from America’s Discovery Network and Qatar’s beIN Sports.

For free-to-air network CEOs, it’s also getting tougher to deliver earnings growth because of flat conditions in the advertising market and cost inflation. While the media bosses will do what it takes to win the rights, they will not have open cheque books, opening up the possibility of two free-to-air networks sharing matches to keep a lid on costs.

Presently, Nine owns all the free-to-air rights, with Fox Sports and Foxtel broadcasting pay-TV rights.

Mr Smith has swooped in after The Australian revealed Mr McLachlan postponed his own talks due to ongoing uncertainty surrounding the sale of potential bidder Ten Network.

The AFL Commission decided to wait for the free-to-air network’s future to be clarified to maximise competition tension and get the best possible deal.

The NRL’s five-year deal with Nine and Fox Sports is worth $1.025 billion, comprising $925 million in cash and a further $100m in contra advertising.

The agreement is only just short of the $1.253 billion five-year deal AFL deal, which improved on its previous deal of $749 million.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...r-tv-rights-deal/story-e6frg996-1227319341264

 

[RUNVS]

The NRL seem like the are obsessed with what the AFL are doing whereas the AFL is simply happy doing its own thing.

 

[bigleague]

The NRL seem like the are obsessed with what the AFL are doing whereas the AFL is simply happy doing its own thing.

It's common sense, go early and all networks can be serious bidders, wait and at least one could be out of it.

 

[The_Wookie]

It's common sense, go early and all networks can be serious bidders, wait and at least one could be out of it.

That doesnt make what he said any less true. Smith is less about the AFL, it wasnt too long ago that the NRL themselves were talking about the AFL in their own press releases. Its something the AFL never does, and its why this thing with Etihad is faintly amusing. The AFL would have done whatever they were entitled to without a care for anyone else unless specifically asked to, because they are secure in who they are.

 

[bigleague]

That doesnt make what he said any less true. Smith is less about the AFL, it wasnt too long ago that the NRL themselves were talking about the AFL in their own press releases. Its something the AFL never does, and its why this thing with Etihad is faintly amusing. The AFL would have done whatever they were entitled to without a care for anyone else unless specifically asked to, because they are secure in who they are.

There is a limited amount of money to share around, the AFL would do the same thing if their deal expired a year after the NRL, it has nothing to do with coattails.

You don't make two rugby league players among the highest paid in the AFL if you are secure in who you are.

 

[The_Wookie]

There is a limited amount of money to share around, the AFL would do the same thing if their deal expired a year after the NRL, it has nothing to do with coattails.

The AFl has done five year deals since 2001. Negotiates them like clockwork generally. it has everything to do with not being one upped by the AFL AGAIN.

You don't make two rugby league players among the highest paid in the AFL if you are secure in who you are.

And you utterly missed the point of their recruitment then.

 

[bigleague]

The AFl has done five year deals since 2001. Negotiates them like clockwork generally. it has everything to do with not being one upped by the AFL AGAIN.



And you utterly missed the point of their recruitment then.

Rubbish, the NRL are doing everything they can to get the best deal they can, the AFL would do the same. It's very simple, if the NRL wait a year at least one network will not be able to consider a bid, it's about timing not about one upping the AFL.

I understood it completely, the AFL felt they needed rugby league players to sell their code to Western Sydney and the Gold Coast. If the NRL recruited AFL players to sell expansion in WA I would feel the NRL was equally insecure.