NRL to reap $1.2b from TV rights

[TLPG]

The ACMA and the ACCC will see right through that! :D

What bussiness of there would that be? They wouldnt be breaking any laws.

Yes they would. That's anti competitive conduct - right up the ACCC's alley and therefore also worth the attention of the ACMA. Ten and Seven should be competing against each other, not sharing stuff.

[Xman]

PTV pay the lions share, with AFL, because they have all 9 matches, some exclsive. Ch 7on the other hand wouldnt be paying alot.

They pay proportionally to the number of matches they have.

As you just said, subscibers will drop off if the number of matches on PTV matches are reduced, also there would be less incentive to sign up.

Fox paid most of the AFLs deal because they went from 3 to 9 matches and wanted to capture new subscriptions in AFL states.

For the NRL fox already have 5 matches. If they increase this there would be a significant drop in FTA ratings and probably not many more subscriptions since the rates are already high in RL states. This would be a poor outcome for the NRL because fox would not have a great incentive to pay much more but FTA would want to pay less fora drop in ratings.

As already stated, if FTA matches increased to 4 the payTV subscriptions could drop significantly meaning fox would pay even less. FTA will pay more but not more than the AFL got.

[pussycat]

If they dont at least maintain the number they have they will lose subscribions. Though as you say , There would be a slow down in the rate of subscibers , however Fox has recently taken over ozstar (a regional PTV company) which means Fox has a lot more potential subscribers in rural areas.

[pussycat]

The ACMA and the ACCC will see right through that! :D

What bussiness of there would that be? They wouldnt be breaking any laws.

Yes they would. That's anti competitive conduct - right up the ACCC's alley and therefore also worth the attention of the ACMA. Ten and Seven should be competing against each other, not sharing stuff.

Didn't they share the football in the previous contract?

[TLPG]

You were talking about everything, not just one thing.

[justanotherleaguefan]

1.1b min

[pussycat]

Gallop confident of breaking the $3 billion mark!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-06/n ... al/3994038

[Beaussie]

Gallop confident of breaking the $3 billion mark!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-06/n ... al/3994038

He ought to be in an asylum.

[TLPG]

An asylum's too good for him!

DESPERATELY needed to be said!

[pussycat]

Channel 7 want there money back!

[Xman]

Channel 7 want there money back!

It's "their" money you illiterate feline!

And why would they want that when the ratings have gone up this year despite being simulcast on Foxtel? The AFLs FTA money component of their agreement was the same as last time.

[eelofwest]

Channel 7 want there money back!

In a bitter irony, the first six months of the AFL's widely reported five-year, $1.25 billion deal with Channel 7 and Fox Sports has revealed the networks paid too much and are struggling to recoup their investments.

That NRL games are of shorter duration and have fewer natural ad breaks, and the AFL boasts a pre-season competition, has also counted against the NRL bid. By far the biggest concern, though, is that Seven, Fox Sports and Telstra have failed to meet the figures they gambled on, and paid for, television insiders saying it has brought clarity to the NRL's true value.

"They won't get what the AFL has got," a source said.

"More importantly is that it is very clear to anyone close to this that Seven, Foxtel and Telstra have overpaid on the AFL.

"That's now biting hard."

For example, Telstra paid $37 million for digital rights but so far has managed to attract just 30,000 extra subscriptions.

[Xman]

Channel 7 want there money back!

In a bitter irony, the first six months of the AFL's widely reported five-year, $1.25 billion deal with Channel 7 and Fox Sports has revealed the networks paid too much and are struggling to recoup their investments.

That NRL games are of shorter duration and have fewer natural ad breaks, and the AFL boasts a pre-season competition, has also counted against the NRL bid. By far the biggest concern, though, is that Seven, Fox Sports and Telstra have failed to meet the figures they gambled on, and paid for, television insiders saying it has brought clarity to the NRL's true value.

"They won't get what the AFL has got," a source said.

"More importantly is that it is very clear to anyone close to this that Seven, Foxtel and Telstra have overpaid on the AFL.

"That's now biting hard."

For example, Telstra paid $37 million for digital rights but so far has managed to attract just 30,000 extra subscriptions.

AFL ratings are up 25% this year. Hmmm, but can we have our money back?

[Beaussie]

Channel 7 want there money back!

Really? You got a direct quote from someone at Channel 7 saying that?

[pussycat]

I cant reveal my source, Stoksey (whoops) told it to me in confidence