Talking Footy

Laugh it up, Loser.

TLPG wrote:

Laugh it up, Loser.

You okay petal...

TLPG wrote:

Laugh it up, Loser.

Dumbarse, the vFL deal was done ages ago and you have no fucking clue and you want to argue the point still, derp

No, you're the one who wants to argue - loser. All I said was "My point still stands" and you can't even address it properly!

Needed to be said.

Bye!

Xman wrote:

As the Australian Rugby League Commission revels in the super-sized audience for last week's first State of Origin match in Melbourne, where an average of 2.51 million people tuned in across the five state capitals, the highest rating for the league's marquee match since OzTam started recording ratings in 1999, an analysis by Citigroup warned that the winning network might not be able to gain enough advertising revenue to justify a massive bid for the rights.

Justin Diddams, an equity analyst with Citigroup, said missing out on the rights could be disastrous for the loser. "The network that misses out risks being stuck in third place for a prolonged period," he said.

Mr Diddams said the law of diminishing returns could apply to the advertising revenue from National Rugby League matches.


His report predicts rights to the code, including free-to-air and subscription TV, as well as digital rights, would be worth $950 million, although a best-case scenario would be over $1 billion.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/n ... 6368687199

Sound familiar?

Citigroup warns $1bn rights may be too high by: Simon Canning From: The Australian March 25, 2011 THE winning bidder for the AFL's broadcast rights could pay a price far higher than the $1 billion the code is seeking, with warnings there is no way broadcasters will be able to recoup the investment.
With rumours swirling

that Seven chief executive David Leckie is poised to make a massive plunge on the rights, and with Foxtel agitating for better-quality games, the code is optimistic it will be able to add more than $200 million to the price it extracted for the rights in 2005.

All three commercial networks are finalising their bids to the AFL this week, while Foxtel is also angling for more live games.

But the continuing confusion over the mechanism the government will apply to the sports anti-siphoning list is clouding what the true value of the rights should be.

Austar chief executive John Porter this week lashed the government for again delaying legislation to finalise the list.

...Citigroup global markets analyst Justin Diddams said in a report that on a combined basis, the AFL rights lost money for the free-to-air television broadcasters -- "generating $75m in ad revenue per year and costing $93m to acquire (plus production costs)" -- and that that scenario was unlikely to change with TV audiences continuing to fall."Any step up in the cost of the next AFL deal should drive earnings downgrades," Mr Diddams said. "The 'win at all costs' mantra for FTA on sports rights appears outdated, given the poor economic returns and less 'intrinsic' appeal."

The report suggested that Nine Entertainment was not a credible bidder despite the fact that with Seven and Ten committed to a joint bid it was the only player that could provide the process with competitive tension.

It said that if the AFL was successful in lifting the value of the rights, it would hit shares of Seven, Ten and Foxtel's owners.

"Live audiences are deteriorating (which is likely to concern potential bidders) and the ability of FTA broadcasters to justify the higher cost of premium sports rights remains questionable despite the growing importance," Mr Diddams said.

Despite the slipping audience numbers, Citigroup said the AFL had a right to raise the cost of rights, but warned that the suggested $1bn valuation may not be sustainable.

It said while the code was hoping to add at least $220m to the price extracted in 2005, it predicted the actual growth in value was about $123m, although with two new teams entering the competition there would be 11 per cent more football in 2012.

The report suggested that the value of premium sports rights was fading, in part because they could not pay their way in terms of advertising revenue, effectively becoming a "loss leader" but also because the halo effect of sports was weakening as viewers drifted away from a channel after a game finished.

With negotiations in progress, none of the networks were willing to comment on the Citigroup report.

He seams to have a record for getting things wrong with TV rights, that is for sure. My question would be did he consider simulcast and digital rights for the AFL deal? Because without these factors the AFL may have only got 800 million for the rights. If he didn't include these factors, did he consider them for the NRL deal (looks like he did), not to mention more advertising and NZ? If he did, them maybe he will be closer to the mark this time around.

lol, I bet you're praying he's right.

I would prefer that the NRL got 1 billion + but mostly I would like to see Melbourne storm games live into Melbourne when they are playing interstate. I like the deal that the Swans have with all games live into Sydney. Despite what you think I like RL and I watch it when I can. even though I am a RL novice.

Stop bullshitting troll, you want RL to get screwed again so you can post your propaganda everywhere, all you Fumbletards are the same

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

Stop bullshitting troll, you want RL to get screwed again so you can post your propaganda everywhere, all you Fumbletards are the same

Paranoid much. Lets say RL gets 800 million (I hope it doesn't). You wont find me anywhere bagging the great sport out. I believer that RL will get 1 billion + and could even equal the AFL deal if they put a stack load of adds into it. I hope they dont because it wont be as good to watch. Unlike some I dont believe that the two sports are really competing for fans, you can be a fan of both.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/ten-to-r ... 1zv08.html

Wonder what they could be doing this for??

justanotherleaguefan wrote:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/ten-to-r ... 1zv08.html

Wonder what they could be doing this for??

The funds raised would give Ten flexibility to refinance ahead of a $210 million debt maturity in March 2013, Mr Murdoch said

Revenue dropping, they need some money badly! hardly a position to buy 8 NRL games for over a billion.

They could be making a play for the NRL rights or they could be struggling to survive.

Unless they can get there hands on some money makeing programs there going to find themselves in this posion again 12 months down the track.

All the FTA networks want the NRL but it will depend on price. Due to financial restraints C10 may not be able afford to make NRL a loss leading program, the way that C7 or even C9 could.