Talking Footy

Xman wrote:

More ads risks viewer turn-off, says analyst
Michael Chammas
March 16, 2012

THE NRL must carefully consider the impact more stoppages during games would have on its viewers, according to media analyst Steve Allen.

As revealed in yesterday's Herald, the NRL has been working on a strategy during the past few months to allow for ad breaks at scrums and penalties, and has even considered adding a drinks break to ensure it gets the most out of the upcoming television rights deal.

While Allen, the managing director of media specialists Fusion Strategy, believes the plan to increase the number of breaks during matches to provide more advertising opportunities will maximise the television deal, he warned the future broadcasters of the sport faced a backlash from viewers if the code's governing body was to tinker with the structure of the game.

The NRL hopes to attract a television rights package worth close to the AFL's $1.25 billion deal. But the structure of AFL has historically made the sport more appealing to television networks, which have been able to take advantage of the breaks at each of the quarters, as well as after each goal, to screen commercials.
An AFL match typically lasts around an hour longer than a rugby league game, another factor that Allen believes will ensure the NRL falls short in their bid to attract a similar figure to the AFL.
''This is what's making it impossible, in our view, for the NRL to gain the same kind of bidding and price that the AFL got,'' he said. ''[Adding more stoppages] is their only way forward on this, if they do it properly. Any of the people bidding for the NRL, if they hadn't before, they'd be now thinking about how much more money they can put on the table if they could put more commercial air time into every game.''

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rugby-l ... z1pDOwR3Tb

While Nine has conceded it must pay more to retain the free-to-air rights following interest from Channel Seven and Channel Ten, Fox Sports is seeking to lower expectations of a combined free-to-air and pay TV billion-dollar deal.
Fox Sports' new boss, Patrick Delany, and media rights negotiator Ian Frykberg have been visiting NRL clubs and while the feedback has been positive on Fox's need to develop a closer relationship, the clubs don't like the money talk.
Foxtel paid $658 million over five years for AFL in order to lift subscription rates in the southern and western states.
Fox Sports' rationale for not increasing significantly its $220 million over five years for almost the same number of NRL games is that Foxtel subscriptions in NSW and Queensland are already in line with their AFL expectations.
In other words, why pay more for what you already have?
However, one NRL club boss said: ''Fox Sports should ask the question the other way around … How many subscriptions will they lose if they don't have NRL?''

Xman wrote:

While Nine has conceded it must pay more to retain the free-to-air rights following interest from Channel Seven and Channel Ten, Fox Sports is seeking to lower expectations of a combined free-to-air and pay TV billion-dollar deal.
Fox Sports' new boss, Patrick Delany, and media rights negotiator Ian Frykberg have been visiting NRL clubs and while the feedback has been positive on Fox's need to develop a closer relationship, the clubs don't like the money talk.
Foxtel paid $658 million over five years for AFL in order to lift subscription rates in the southern and western states.
Fox Sports' rationale for not increasing significantly its $220 million over five years for almost the same number of NRL games is that Foxtel subscriptions in NSW and Queensland are already in line with their AFL expectations.
In other words, why pay more for what you already have?
However, one NRL club boss said: ''Fox Sports should ask the question the other way around … How many subscriptions will they lose if they don't have NRL?''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z1pJzhJvA1



Hmmm, seems to be some pretty negative stories coming out about the NRL TV rights.

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

While Nine has conceded it must pay more to retain the free-to-air rights following interest from Channel Seven and Channel Ten, Fox Sports is seeking to lower expectations of a combined free-to-air and pay TV billion-dollar deal.
Fox Sports' new boss, Patrick Delany, and media rights negotiator Ian Frykberg have been visiting NRL clubs and while the feedback has been positive on Fox's need to develop a closer relationship, the clubs don't like the money talk.
Foxtel paid $658 million over five years for AFL in order to lift subscription rates in the southern and western states.
Fox Sports' rationale for not increasing significantly its $220 million over five years for almost the same number of NRL games is that Foxtel subscriptions in NSW and Queensland are already in line with their AFL expectations.
In other words, why pay more for what you already have?
However, one NRL club boss said: ''Fox Sports should ask the question the other way around … How many subscriptions will they lose if they don't have NRL?''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z1pJzhJvA1



Hmmm, seems to be some pretty negative stories coming out about the NRL TV rights.

What was so negative about that article???? The part about 7, 9 & 10 all wanting a chunk of the Rugby Legue? and if you do happen to read more its becomes even more positive. - Wow - the possibilities almost blow your mind.

Surely you dont expect the potential bidders to be talking up the product during negotiations?

Foxtel makes hundreds of millions of dollars in profit every year . They'll be well aware, if they want to keep it that way then they will have to look after the people that provide them with 75 of its top 100 programs every year!

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z1pJzhJvA1



Hmmm, seems to be some pretty negative stories coming out about the NRL TV rights.

What was so negative about that article???? The part about 7, 9 & 10 all wanting a chunk of the Rugby Legue? and if you do happen to read more its becomes even more positive. - Wow - the possibilities almost blow your mind.

Surely you dont expect the potential bidders to be talking up the product during negotiations?

Foxtel makes hundreds of millions of dollars in profit every year . They'll be well aware, if they want to keep it that way then they will have to look after the people that provide them with 75 of its top 100 programs every year!

Conversely you don't expect the owners of the product to be talking the price down do you? All the talk about a deal of over 1billion has come from the Sydney media or the NRL. They are talking it up to pressure the networks into thinking that's the value it deserves to be paid. The reality is probably somewhere in between which in my opinion will be south of 1billion.

Beaussie wrote:

Was just looking at Friday's tv ratings.

The Bold and the Beautiful rated better than Friday night NRL.

http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2012/03/fri ... -2012.html

The Friday night prime time 9:30pm NRL game didn't even make the Top 20 broadcasts for the day. No doubt the tv networks have noticed.

$1 Billion fantasy for the NRL.

pussycat wrote:

The Bronco may be the most popular Qld team, they are certainly not the most popular NRL team.

pussycat wrote:

The Broncos are the only team, currently, in Brisbane in the countries 3rd biggest city. Brisbane benefit greatly from that, but they are a fair way from being the most popular.


Don't you think your TV carriers do the Same thing? Do WA tv show there team each week? Do Sydney show there team each week ? & so on. All TV stations work the same way.