www.talkingfooty.com
https://www.talkingfooty.com/forums/
The AFL had a dedicated channel on Optus too. Your point is???eels fan wrote:What, the fact that RL had a channel on Optus years ago before Murdoch killed them off along with Pay TV's C7?
Derp!
your last dedicated channel failedBeaussie wrote:The AFL had a dedicated channel on Optus too. Your point is???eels fan wrote:What, the fact that RL had a channel on Optus years ago before Murdoch killed them off along with Pay TV's C7?
Derp!
We now have Fox Footy on Foxtel with all other games on Fox Sports 1.
You lot have no dedicated channel and have been shunted off to Fox Sports 3. Hilarious isn't it.
you have a channel that no one will watchBeaussie wrote:We have a new 24/7 dedicated to the AFL channel on its way plus Fox Sports 1. You lot can only ever dream of a similar dominance.
yesBeaussie wrote:Jealous much
.. I'd like 2 dedicated channels of ours to fail too ..... 
like I saidBeaussie wrote:Like I said, jealous much. Foxtel loves our game and promoting it despite being the owners of yours. Go figure.
dunno about 20 yearsBeaussie wrote:You lot have been saying for the last 2 decades that the AFL is overpriced. Funny thing is the TV networks keep on paying the AFL record amounts for the media rights. Australian sports records in fact. When will you lot accept you have no ******* idea what you're talking about. Fair dinkum.
.... we'll see won't we Oh give it a rest. The broadcasters have done the sums and are more than willing to pay what the AFL demands in order to have a piece of the jewel in Australian sports broadcasting.... the AFL.Raiderdave wrote:dunno about 20 yearsBeaussie wrote:You lot have been saying for the last 2 decades that the AFL is overpriced. Funny thing is the TV networks keep on paying the AFL record amounts for the media rights. Australian sports records in fact. When will you lot accept you have no ******* idea what you're talking about. Fair dinkum.
but certainly the last deal .. 2007 - 2011 was over priced & the ratings prove this with them dropping 30% in this period
but hey the bar has been set , if broadcasters are willing to throw even more good money after bad to a sport obviously in decline with a failing expansion program , with an aging demographic & all the problems that go with that .. like a shrinking disposable income base for this demograhic
Signs are not looking good. Foxtel already considers Rugby League a "downmarket product". Now this. Good luck. You lot are going to need all the luck you can muster to try and pull the wool over the eyes of broadcasters.Raiderdave wrote:what will they pay for a sport with rising ratings .. by far the most popular amongst the younger demographics & with 10 regions knocking each other out of the way to get on board
hmmmm
If Nine agrees to a doubling of its NRL TV rights cost – and that is a big “if” – it will be paying $80 million a year, or $400 million over five years.
To reach the $1 billion figure, let alone $1.2 billion or $1.4 billion, the NRL will need to convince Premier to also agree to a 100 per cent increase, to $120 million a year or $600 million over five years.
Under their new AFL deal, Foxtel and Austar will pay $658 million – an increase of 109 per cent – for the right to show all weekly matches, plus replays of all other games.
The current Foxtel-Austar deal costs them $315 million over five years for the rights to four live weekly matches.
Premier’s existing NRL TV deals give it the right to five live matches a week. The company has indicated it wants to show all eight weekly matches, some of which would be simulcast with the free-to-air TV rights holder.
But Premier will resist a 100 per cent increase in its NRL TV rights costs. Foxtel and Austar copped a big increase in their AFL costs because they are convinced their expanded coverage will hook more subscribers in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania.
The pay TV industry’s household penetration rate is lower in the southern states than in NSW and Queensland. NRL executives claim the higher rate in the northern states is largely due to Premier’s rugby league coverage and the next TV rights deal should reflect that fact – that is, Premier should be paying more for its valuable product in NSW and Queensland.
The problem for the NRL is that Premier and its shareholders are not convinced adding another three NRL games a week will produce a massive lift in subscriber numbers, certainly not a lift that would justify paying $120 million a year.
http://afr.com/p/nrl_tackles_billion...hcP93PMuKnjguJ
a billion plus on its wayBeaussie wrote:Oh give it a rest. The broadcasters have done the sums and are more than willing to pay what the AFL demands in order to have a piece of the jewel in Australian sports broadcasting.... the AFL.Raiderdave wrote:dunno about 20 yearsBeaussie wrote:You lot have been saying for the last 2 decades that the AFL is overpriced. Funny thing is the TV networks keep on paying the AFL record amounts for the media rights. Australian sports records in fact. When will you lot accept you have no ******* idea what you're talking about. Fair dinkum.
but certainly the last deal .. 2007 - 2011 was over priced & the ratings prove this with them dropping 30% in this period
but hey the bar has been set , if broadcasters are willing to throw even more good money after bad to a sport obviously in decline with a failing expansion program , with an aging demographic & all the problems that go with that .. like a shrinking disposable income base for this demograhic
Signs are not looking good. Foxtel already considers Rugby League a "downmarket product". Now this. Good luck. You lot are going to need all the luck you can muster to try and pull the wool over the eyes of broadcasters.Raiderdave wrote:what will they pay for a sport with rising ratings .. by far the most popular amongst the younger demographics & with 10 regions knocking each other out of the way to get on board
hmmmm
If Nine agrees to a doubling of its NRL TV rights cost – and that is a big “if” – it will be paying $80 million a year, or $400 million over five years.
To reach the $1 billion figure, let alone $1.2 billion or $1.4 billion, the NRL will need to convince Premier to also agree to a 100 per cent increase, to $120 million a year or $600 million over five years.
Under their new AFL deal, Foxtel and Austar will pay $658 million – an increase of 109 per cent – for the right to show all weekly matches, plus replays of all other games.
The current Foxtel-Austar deal costs them $315 million over five years for the rights to four live weekly matches.
Premier’s existing NRL TV deals give it the right to five live matches a week. The company has indicated it wants to show all eight weekly matches, some of which would be simulcast with the free-to-air TV rights holder.
But Premier will resist a 100 per cent increase in its NRL TV rights costs. Foxtel and Austar copped a big increase in their AFL costs because they are convinced their expanded coverage will hook more subscribers in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania.
The pay TV industry’s household penetration rate is lower in the southern states than in NSW and Queensland. NRL executives claim the higher rate in the northern states is largely due to Premier’s rugby league coverage and the next TV rights deal should reflect that fact – that is, Premier should be paying more for its valuable product in NSW and Queensland.
The problem for the NRL is that Premier and its shareholders are not convinced adding another three NRL games a week will produce a massive lift in subscriber numbers, certainly not a lift that would justify paying $120 million a year.
http://afr.com/p/nrl_tackles_billion...hcP93PMuKnjguJ