FTA $800m
Expansion $75m
PTV $900m
Internet $180m
international $140m
Total $2.095B
More gold to the NRL
NRL 16 Teams
FTA 4 games 800million
PTV 8 games simulcast 1billion
Telstra 250m
NZ 100m
International rights UK 30m Pounds 50million AU
Total = 2.2billion over 5 years
NRL 18 Teams
FTA 4 games 925+million, (Brisbane vs Sydney matchup every night worth from Gyngals own mouth 200m over 5 years)
PTV 9 games simulcast 1.1billion
Telstra 250m
NZ 125m
International rights UK 30m Pounds 50million AU
Total = 2.45billion over 5 years
you realise on those numbers, that if the Internet component includes the money for naming rights like it did last time, then you still come second? As it is on your numbers the difference is only a million a year - and the AFL more than makes that up with radio rights (last time worth 24 million to the NRLs estimated 2)
Those numbers are all about broadcast rights and have nothing to do with Sponsorship. Grant Himself, at the previous contract said we got double the 90m we previously got in 2006. meaning $180m - sponsorship which have a value of $50m max. Given the recent Telstra's latest figures show the NRL also more popular than the AFl on that medium, given that Telstra is working on some sort Telstra tv , given the current/future situation over the next seven years, and given that Telstra is already reported to be talking with the NRL, I certainly don't think a 50m + rise is out of the question .
Rugby League, the dominant force in Australian sport!
"I do like annoying the Victorians; they are so easy to get, At times I've looked at them and had a giggle." Peter V'Landys
It's hard to predict a price in a non-competitive situation. Without sufficient competitive pressures at play, theoretically the pay TV price could fall absolutely anywhere between the NRL's minimum acceptable and News Corp's maximum acceptable, assuming the latter is greater than the former.
No deal might also be a possibility. For instance, if News Corp tried to pay only for the remaining games (no simulcasting), I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the NRL would refuse to deal, preferring to take less from someone else (and who could blame them?). Conversely, with Australian investments representing a fairly small portion of News Corp's overall portfolio, a complete dummy spit by News Corp to make a point (such as it would be) is also difficult to rule out.
Assuming a willingness on both sides to deal with a modicum of give and take, The_Wookie's OP prediction of 1.7-1.8 billion for the total deal still looks to be in play for mine.
However, if the NRL were unprepared to insist on no deal with News Corp unless all games were simulcast, I think News Corp might be able to low ball on the remaining games due to a lack of credible alternative buyers. Because this would be so unpalatable to the NRL, a no deal might end up being the result.
Somewhat related, does anyone know the state of origin component in the Nine deal? My only concern with that deal is that not enough might have been extracted for origin. Other than that, the increase to four FTA games is an excellent outcome for fans and worthwhile even if it results in less money from pay TV.
If there is a Saturday game given to C10/Fox so they can simulcast then the deal will look like this.
16 team NRL
FTA 3 gamesC9 775m
FTA 1 game C10 193m
FOX 8 games simulcast with there favorite Super Saturday and a Sunday night Fox game to replace monday = 1billion
Telstra digital/naming rights 250million
NZ 100m
International 50mAu
Total = 2.368billiion
Cancel Thursday night football and reintroduce Monday Night. As a trade of introduce a 2nd Brisbane team. Let ch.9 maximise there ratings by showing 2 (non simulcast matches) of a Friday night. One match live into Sydney one game live into Qld, the only difference to now is the 2nd choice game would also be live on gem.
Foxtel could show/simulcast all matches bar Fri Night, Grand Final and Origin.
A 2nd Queensland side would also mean an increase in crowds, with 30k crowds coming fom Brisbane each week rather than every 2nd week.
The NRL would receive a pig pay day. $40 or 50m of which could be then used to lure a Sydney side to relocate in Perth - creating an extra match and a Sunday night timeslot .
Rugby League, the dominant force in Australian sport!
"I do like annoying the Victorians; they are so easy to get, At times I've looked at them and had a giggle." Peter V'Landys
Cancel Thursday night football and reintroduce Monday Night. As a trade of introduce a 2nd Brisbane team. Let ch.9 maximise there ratings by showing 2 (non simulcast matches) of a Friday night. One match live into Sydney one game live into Qld, the only difference to now is the 2nd choice game would also be live on gem.
Foxtel could show/simulcast all matches bar Fri Night, Grand Final and Origin.
A 2nd Queensland side would also mean an increase in crowds, with 30k crowds coming fom Brisbane each week rather than every 2nd week.
The NRL would receive a pig pay day. $40 or 50m of which could be then used to lure a Sydney side to relocate in Perth - creating an extra match and a Sunday night timeslot .
No and
No
Monday is shocking for the clubs, also only on Fox %30 of the population can only watch this game.
Thursday is on FTA and has a flow on effect to the footy show.
Keeping the same Friday setup with 1 delay is just not going to happen, terrible idea.
Cancel Thursday night football and reintroduce Monday Night. As a trade of introduce a 2nd Brisbane team. Let ch.9 maximise there ratings by showing 2 (non simulcast matches) of a Friday night. One match live into Sydney one game live into Qld, the only difference to now is the 2nd choice game would also be live on gem.
Foxtel could show/simulcast all matches bar Fri Night, Grand Final and Origin.
A 2nd Queensland side would also mean an increase in crowds, with 30k crowds coming fom Brisbane each week rather than every 2nd week.
The NRL would receive a pig pay day. $40 or 50m of which could be then used to lure a Sydney side to relocate in Perth - creating an extra match and a Sunday night timeslot .
No and
No
Monday is shocking for the clubs, also only on Fox %30 of the population can only watch this game.
Thursday is on FTA and has a flow on effect to the footy show.
Keeping the same Friday setup with 1 delay is just not going to happen, terrible idea.
Rupert likes to get his own way. He will be very vindictive if he doesn't. A compromise might be the best way to go.
Rugby League, the dominant force in Australian sport!
"I do like annoying the Victorians; they are so easy to get, At times I've looked at them and had a giggle." Peter V'Landys
I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations, assuming Foxtel is able to negotiate away the dirty feed issue (making simulcasting worthwhile) and taking eelofwest's SOO figure of 150m over five years.
The uninformed guess is for just FTA + Foxtel, before including remaining streaming, international and NZ rights. The guess assumes the NRL can negotiate close to a competitive price, which is uncertain at this stage. The following also assumes no expansion. I wasn't sure how to alter the FTA figure if expansion occurs.
Without expansion but with all games on Foxtel, I get 1.53b for FTA + Foxtel, with the other stuff still to come.
The reasoning is as follows:
AFL got 900m for FTA over 6 years for 3.5 games per round. NRL got 925m over 5 years for 4 games per round but the figure includes SOO and drops by 125m if simulcasting occurs.
So for NRL games, Nine would be paying 650m over five years (= 925m - 150m - 125m) assuming simulcasting occurs. If, hypothetically, this was over six years, it would equate to 780m (= 650m x 6/5). If it was for 3.5 rather than 4 games per round, it would be 682.5m (= 780m x 3.5/4).
This suggests a ratio of 1.32 between AFL FTA and NRL FTA (900m:682.5m) if the comparison happened to be like for like. Considering AFL games are 50% longer than NRL games, the strong NRL ratings and overlap of games in AFL appear to whittle away some of that difference (since the ratio 1.32 is less than 1.5).
From Foxtel, AFL is getting 1300m for six years. If it had been five, this would equate to 1083m (= 1300m x 5/6). If the AFL had 8 games per round rather than 9, it would be about 963m (= 1083m x 8/9).
Applying the ratio of 1.32 derived from the FTA comparison, this implies 730m (= 963m/1.32) for the Foxtel component of the NRL deal with all games shown but without expansion.
FTA plus pay TV would then be the aforementioned 1.53b (= 800m + 730m) with the internationals, NZ and rest of streaming rights to come.
To reiterate, all this assumes competitive conditions. Unfortunately conditions probably won't be competitive. This leaves a danger (but no certainty) that Foxtel will be able to underpay significantly. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, in any case
I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations, assuming Foxtel is able to negotiate away the dirty feed issue (making simulcasting worthwhile) and taking eelofwest's SOO figure of 150m over five years.
The uninformed guess is for just FTA + Foxtel, before including remaining streaming, international and NZ rights. The guess assumes the NRL can negotiate close to a competitive price, which is uncertain at this stage. The following also assumes no expansion. I wasn't sure how to alter the FTA figure if expansion occurs.
Without expansion but with all games on Foxtel, I get 1.53b for FTA + Foxtel, with the other stuff still to come.
The reasoning is as follows:
AFL got 900m for FTA over 6 years for 3.5 games per round. NRL got 925m over 5 years for 4 games per round but the figure includes SOO and drops by 125m if simulcasting occurs.
So for NRL games, Nine would be paying 650m over five years (= 925m - 150m - 125m) assuming simulcasting occurs. If, hypothetically, this was over six years, it would equate to 780m (= 650m x 6/5). If it was for 3.5 rather than 4 games per round, it would be 682.5m (= 780m x 3.5/4).
This suggests a ratio of 1.32 between AFL FTA and NRL FTA (900m:682.5m) if the comparison happened to be like for like. Considering AFL games are 50% longer than NRL games, the strong NRL ratings and overlap of games in AFL appear to whittle away some of that difference (since the ratio 1.32 is less than 1.5).
From Foxtel, AFL is getting 1300m for six years. If it had been five, this would equate to 1083m (= 1300m x 5/6). If the AFL had 8 games per round rather than 9, it would be about 963m (= 1083m x 8/9).
Applying the ratio of 1.32 derived from the FTA comparison, this implies 730m (= 963m/1.32) for the Foxtel component of the NRL deal with all games shown but without expansion.
FTA plus pay TV would then be the aforementioned 1.53b (= 800m + 730m) with the internationals, NZ and rest of streaming rights to come.
To reiterate, all this assumes competitive conditions. Unfortunately conditions probably won't be competitive. This leaves a danger (but no certainty) that Foxtel will be able to underpay significantly. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, in any case
Your assuming that 6th year for the AFL is worth the same as the 5 before it, your wrong that 6th years would be closer to 300m on Fox on its own because it comes into the new cycle for the next deal. The 6th year for Telstra and for C7 would be worth 35% more for those same reason.
730m for all games shown on PAY TV....................mate the NRL got 550m for 5 games 5 years ago, your on another planet if you think that the NRL will get 730m for all games simulcast on FOX.
Not having a go at you precarious but your working of a lot of assumptions here.
And your assuming the AFL had more competitive tension than the NRL has now, they didn't same tension same amount of bidders.
I think there probably was more competitive tension for the AFL by doing them all at once. If one party wanted something, it would affect the others and possibly provide impetus to respond with a compromise or counteroffer, etc,
NRL will need to get the competitive tension from elsewhere (online services, other pay services, etc.). Maybe they can.
Hey, it was my best guess. Didn't say it was competent.
Competitive tension isn't everything .
There's also loss of subscriptions V paying up .
The rate of churn will near be the death of fox in Aust if they lowball & play hardball .
You need the subscribers to stay in business & attract advertisers .
You churn a few hundred thousand subscribers you are in deep shit .
TLPG liar extraordinaire
You should thank me for publishing your IP
and I never published any actual IP. That's it.
I was a mod at the time .
Xman wrote
I also gave them to TLPG believing he was still a mod.I admit I made a mistake.
I think there probably was more competitive tension for the AFL by doing them all at once. If one party wanted something, it would affect the others and possibly provide impetus to respond with a compromise or counteroffer, etc,
NRL will need to get the competitive tension from elsewhere (online services, other pay services, etc.). Maybe they can.
Hey, it was my best guess. Didn't say it was competent.
All good mate, were all guessing here.
Nothing wrong with having a stab, your guess is as good as mine.
Just on the competitive tension.....Sport is worth more to Fox due to the competition of Netflix, Stan and Presto. That alone will ensure the NRL gets more than your 750million prediction.
Then add in all games simulcast and the fact that the NRL is the highest ratings sport on the network, this will push NRL closer to 950million mark for PAY TV imo.
by Dominic White
Foxtel would lose more than a third of its current top-rating shows if it does not acquire the future pay television rights to show National Rugby League games, official ratings figures show.
Meanwhile industry estimates suggest the cable and satellite television giant could put hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue at risk if it does not win the auction.
Foxtel's co-owner News Corp has launched a campaign to unseat NRL chairman Dave Smith after he moved to negotiate a free to air agreement instead of dealing with all rights, including pay televisions rights, held News Corp's Fox Sports.
After striking an exclusive $925 million five-year free-to-air deal with Nine Entertainment Co earlier this month, the NRL needs to sell pay television rights in an effort to increase its total take to $1.7-$1.8 billion.
Fox Sports had been keen to show all eight weekly NRL matches live, against the five it now has rights for, but may baulk at paying the NRL a large increase after Nine cut into its live rights with its Saturday match.
However, OzTAM ratings figures obtained by Fairfax Media reveal the importance of the code to Foxtel's ratings and therefore the pressure Foxtel, owned by News Corp and Telstra, is under to strike a deal with the NRL.
The statistics show that 3.5 of the top 10 shows on pay television on average were NRL games or programmes from week 10 to week 33 of the ratings season. In five of those weeks, half the top 10 shows were NRL-related.
And in 10 of those weeks, an NRL show or game won the number one ratings slot for subscription television.
The average proportion of NRL shows in Foxtel's top 10 is expected to be higher in the strongest NRL-states Sydney and Brisbane, where one industry estimate puts the number of subscribers taking Foxtel predominantly for the NRL as high as 600,000.
Based on that estimate Foxtel could put more than $350 million of its $3.1 billion annual revenue at risk based on the assumption that those users are paying at least $49 a month for the basic and sports Foxtel packages.'''''''''''''''''''''''''
liar extraordinaire 
