Talking Footy

How does it negatively affect crowds?

pussycat wrote:

How does it negatively affect crowds?

you tell me. Members on LU use it as an excuse for poor crowds every year.

Hey justa, still think the NRL will reap $1.2B?

Insiders have said all along that it was unrealistic for anyone to expect league to be able to match the AFL's current television rights deal of $1.25 billion over five years, pointing to the fact AFL had nine games a week to league's eight and that there was 30 per cent more advertising time available in AFL games.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z243En2eHO

Discussions are just stating to warm up . $1B looks pretty likely. Insiders (Beeau and other AFL nuffies included) have said all along they wouldnt get near $1B. Insiders also said the AFL would'nt get a billion.

Beaussie wrote:

Hey justa, still think the NRL will reap $1.2B?

Insiders have said all along that it was unrealistic for anyone to expect league to be able to match the AFL's current television rights deal of $1.25 billion over five years, pointing to the fact AFL had nine games a week to league's eight and that there was 30 per cent more advertising time available in AFL games.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z243En2eHO

Maybe the insiders have vested interest?

Do the insiders also mention that regionals in NSW & Qld make from advertising 3 times what the entire state of South Australia brings in. And wouldn't the networks be just salivating at the thought of the 12K GWS brings to the table each week. If the NRL put up a second Brisbane team then thats would be at the very least 350K viewers a week.

Beaussie wrote:

Hey justa, still think the NRL will reap $1.2B?

Insiders have said all along that it was unrealistic for anyone to expect league to be able to match the AFL's current television rights deal of $1.25 billion over five years, pointing to the fact AFL had nine games a week to league's eight and that there was 30 per cent more advertising time available in AFL games.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z243En2eHO

They've already hit the minimum package estimate of 1B over 5 years. The question now is how much more can be extracted through competition and if the NRL can get best quality out of the coverage.

Remember the LEK numbers -

$1b
$1.2b
$1.4b

Beaussie wrote:

Hey justa, still think the NRL will reap $1.2B?

Insiders have said all along that it was unrealistic for anyone to expect league to be able to match the AFL's current television rights deal of $1.25 billion over five years, pointing to the fact AFL had nine games a week to league's eight and that there was 30 per cent more advertising time available in AFL games.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z243En2eHO

They've already hit the minimum package estimate of 1B over 5 years. The question now is how much more can be extracted through competition and if the NRL can get best quality out of the coverage.

Remember the LEK numbers -

$1b
$1.2b
$1.4b

I wonder if you AFL dropkicks are still convinced that 7 & 10 aren't interested...

Stokes boosts Seven bid for NRL rights



NEGOTIATIONS over the rugby league television rights have heated up, with representatives of the Nine, Seven, Ten and Fox networks making critically important presentations to the league on Friday followed by further talks via the telephone over the weekend.

According to television industry insiders, Channel Seven is making a strong run at taking the free-to-air rights away from long-time holder Channel Nine in the new deal.

''Seven would be the favourite at the moment,'' one insider told the Herald. ''Nine would be the underdog, but don't write them off. They're still in this battle. Seven have the shareholders with the deep pockets, but Nine still has the advantage of the first and last rights agreement.''

A clear indication of how keen Seven is to win the contract is that its chairman, Kerry Stokes, was at the league on Friday, along with the usual negotiators for his network.

Insiders say there isn't much difference in the money being offered by the free-to-air networks at this stage, and that the figures are indicative of how serious the competition is for the rights. Channel Ten is still in the race for a piece of the free-to-air league pie, which has the potential to be cut up between at least two of the three networks.

The league is said to want more money from Fox than the network is prepared to outlay for the pay television rights at this stage, leaving something to be thrashed out in further negotiations.

The word after the latest talks is that the overall rights deal has a very good chance of reaching the $1 billion mark, with one insider saying: ''It looks like being a billion, or very close to that, over five years. The game is in very good shape, and that is being reflected in the level of interest from the networks.

''Everyone has put their bids in now … according to the three-game-a-week package that is Nine's rights deal now, and they are being asked if they want any more games outside of the three games.'' The Herald

reported on July 13 that the Australian Rugby League Commission had told the networks what it would like from the deal, in terms of scheduling arrangements, and that it was keen to not only add a free-to-air game on Saturday nights, but also to have all the free-to-air games simulcast on Fox, which is what happens with the AFL.

Whether those prospects become realities will depend on the negotiations that follow Friday's presentations and the weekend talks.

Insiders says the rights deal is still on track to be finalised some time next month, during the finals series. An announcement of a billion-dollar deal in the lead-up to the grand final would be fantastic timing for the code.

''The negotiations are moving into the final stages now,'' one insider said. ''The networks were represented by all of their heavyweight negotiators at the ARLC offices on Friday, and there are two things that are clear - there is a lot of interest out there for the rights, and because of that there is no certainty about who is getting what at this stage.

''The league is headed for a good outcome. The free-to-air networks are being very aggressive in their pursuit of the rights, and the game is going to do well out of it as a result. That seems fitting, because the game appears to be in very good shape at the moment.''

Insiders have said all along that it was unrealistic for anyone to expect league to be able to match the AFL's current television rights deal of $1.25 billion over five years, pointing to the fact AFL had nine games a week to league's eight and that there was 30 per cent more advertising time available in AFL games.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/l...819-24gnq.html

pussycat wrote:

Discussions are just stating to warm up . $1B looks pretty likely. Insiders (Beeau and other AFL nuffies included) have said all along they wouldnt get near $1B. Insiders also said the AFL would'nt get a billion.

Remember there is significant competition between networks. Without it the NRL wouldnt get near 1b. One article was suggesting the NRL may get over 1b but that was for 6 years. Apprarantly foxtel are a real sticking point and I can see why. If the FTA games increase people will drop foxtel like a stone.

That why that wont happen. Foxtel knowns wherre there breads buttered. If they want to continue with there multi-million dollar profits they'll soon fork up the money. League provides Foxtel 75% of it top shows. Without league many people would drop there sports package. But worse for News LTD/Fox, without league , it would give rival Pay Tv networks an opportunity of gainning a foothole in the Australian market.

pussycat wrote:

That why that wont happen. Foxtel knowns wherre there breads buttered. If they want to continue with there multi-million dollar profits they'll soon fork up the money. League provides Foxtel 75% of it top shows. Without league many people would drop there sports package. But worse for News LTD/Fox, without league , it would give rival Pay Tv networks an opportunity of gainning a foothole in the Australian market.

But its a catch 22. If the NRL do get a better FTA deal NRL fans will drop subscriptions without a doubt. So what incentive is there for foxtel to pay heaps? Why would they increase their payment if subscriptions are going to drop?

AFL fans have never had to rely on foxtel to get decent coverage. In fact supporters in WA, SA, NSW and QLD get to see their team on FTA every week! Supporters of big teams in Melbourne see their teams most weeks. Where as supporters of some NRL teams barely see their team on FTA at all. Thats the reason fox subscriptions are so high in NSW and QLD, eswpecially NSW where subscription rates are reportedly 15% higher than SA and WA.

The Sydney Sides would be little different to Melbourne sies as far as FTA appearances. Brisbane are on FTA most weeks, the other two Qld teams are on every 2nd or 3rd week. Nz are on NZ tV every week.So theres no real differece in that regard. The reason for poor numbers for the AFL on Pay Tv is LACK OF INTEREST!

pussycat wrote:

The Sydney Sides would be little different to Melbourne sies as far as FTA appearances. Brisbane are on FTA most weeks, the other two Qld teams are on every 2nd or 3rd week. Nz are on NZ tV every week.So theres no real differece in that regard. The reason for poor numbers for the AFL on Pay Tv is LACK OF INTEREST!

Really?

given the AFL have 3 times the members, double the crowds, about double the media coverage, and 27 hours of game time per week on TV verse 16, I'd say you logic is a little off.

AFL states havent needed foxtel. NRL states have. Thats as simple as it gets.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... 6454476979

TELEVISION networks bidding for the highly coveted NRL rights are pushing for the new Australian Rugby League Commission to accept advertising as a bigger part of the package, meaning the cash value of the deal is unlikely to be worth more than $1 billion.


Ten has cleared the financial decks in a bid to make a genuine run at the rights while Nine has the option to put in the final bid. The cash component of the deal could be as little as $850m, leaving $150m in contra.

Doubts over pay TV sport
Date
August 21, 2012


Julian Lee
Media writer


Sporting chance?

AS NEGOTIATIONS for the broadcast rights for the NRL get under way in earnest, analysts and the media industry are questioning whether sport can deliver the numbers for pay TV.

Despite outlaying about $625 million for the AFL rights to 2016, Foxtel's subscriber numbers are lower than the market expected.

In the six months to the end of June, it signed up 20,000 new subscribers, despite offering sports lovers a dedicated AFL channel that could broadcast every game live and uninterrupted.

At the time Foxtel chief Kim Williams said the deal would be ''a very compelling proposition for our existing and potential subscribers'' and that it would ''lead to refreshed growth in the year ahead'' though he was careful not to quantify it. But at its annual results earlier this month there was no mention of the AFL.

Advertisement
Now as it backs a reported $1.1 billion bid for the 2013-18 rugby league broadcast rights, some in the industry are asking whether that last remaining weapon in Foxtel's armoury - sport - can lift subscriber numbers.

Although the Olympics was a critical success for Foxtel, it has come at a cost, with $20 million understood to be the amount it lost on the Games. The company says it won't know for a few more weeks if the Olympics delivers new subscribers or stops existing ones from cancelling their subscription.

A media analyst said the figures and 13 per cent churn rate among subscribers ''debunked the myth'' the AFL was driving growth. ''And now they are going to blow their brains out by doubling their bid for league,'' he said. ''The only thing it's going to do is drive up its costs.''

If Foxtel is unable to drive its penetration rates beyond 26 per cent of households it needs to lower the churn rate, attract more lower-paying customers or extract more revenue from its existing users, analysts say. The last option is proving harder as households cut back on discretionary spending and cheaper options such as broadband internet player iiNet offering IPTV and Apple and Google TV's pay-per-view models challenge Foxtel's subscription model. Foxtel would not disclose how many people had signed up for its cut-down services such as those available through Microsoft's Xbox and Telstra's T-Box.

Foxtel chief Richard Freudenstein was unavailable for comment but a spokesman said its business was affected by the general economy and market-specific factors, which have occasionally resulted in ''below trend growth''.

He said that its slower growth was not from greater competition but consumer caution, pointing out that just 10,000 of iiNet's 824,000 subscribers had signed up to its internet TV service. ''The AFL deal requires far fewer incremental subscribers than you indicate and was always assumed to build over time rather than provide a one-off step change,'' he said.\

http://www.smh.com.au/business/doubt...#ixzz246QoSCyK




Only 20k new subscribers from AFL states.........Fox got ripped off........

NRL KING ON PAY TV....... =D> =D>