Play Nice 2020 Non AFL Admin, Crowds, Ratings, Participation etc thread

[The_Wookie]

This also doesn't include the NZ rights IIRC. I assume Sky Sports NZ will have it's own deal in how to broadcast its matches plus TV rights(which will be immaterial)

I wouldnt be surprised if it is included in this. paramount launching in Australia and New zealand at the same time I believe.

 

[RedV3x]

Productions costs can be done dirt cheap if one wanted to.

And it definitely shows if you do and people won't watch.

 

[RedV3x]

It is very possible that it is misguided on its assessment of the potential of the A League though

Coming from the U.S.A. they have probably thought the MLS is a good model to go by.
The difference is the that the NFL is a relatively short season and the NFL has concerns.
In Australia, we have the AFL, NRL, RA and even AFLW in opposition.

 

[BobbyMorri]

I wouldnt be surprised if it is included in this. paramount launching in Australia and New zealand at the same time I believe.

So who knows atm.

And it definitely shows if you do and people won't watch.

I don't disagree.

 

[RedV3x]

In saying that atm my family already have Stan, Netflix, Amazon, Disney and Foxtel so they add up and anther one wouldn’t go down too well. I imagine if you like soccer and any other sport you probably will need this new streaming service, Optus and Kayo then worry about the other ones for tv/movies.

I'm amazed at the amount of people who waste their money.
FTA suffices for me and if I was serious then I'd get the AFL App.
Foxtel doesn't have much to offer these days and people want the convenience of streaming.
Even if I had kids there is more than enough content on FTA and one service to make Disney redundant - don't your kids have a life ?
Stan, Netflix and Amazon - don't you have a life ?

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I'm amazed at the amount of people who waste their money.
FTA suffices for me and if I was serious then I'd get the AFL App.
Foxtel doesn't have much to offer these days and people want the convenience of streaming.
Even if I had kids there is more than enough content on FTA and one service to make Disney redundant - don't your kids have a life ?
Stan, Netflix and Amazon - don't you have a life ?

Take my wife and four kids to the movies once a month costs us more then having all those so it’s all relative.

I’m also the only one in the family who watches FTA

 

[RedV3x]

Take my wife and four kids to the movies once a month costs us more then having all those so it’s all relative.

I question the use of "having all".
The ABC runs a FTA kids channel. Netflix alone has more than enough.
The funny thing is that kids don't watch much (except for there favorite) because of their short attention span.
It is really poor parenting to use television as baby sitting. It's got it's place but the way it's used now, it just feeds the "me want" generation.

 

[NoobPie]

Productions costs can be done dirt cheap if one wanted to. I mean, there is a reason why live streaming of local leagues of all kinds of sports can be done now.

I am guessing a better standard than those will be used as a baseline for telecasts and we go from there. Say, you 3 cameras per a W-league match and if you want more, you can pay for it.

This also doesn't include the NZ rights IIRC. I assume Sky Sports NZ will have it's own deal in how to broadcast its matches plus TV rights(which will be immaterial)

This is where wishful thinking kicks in. Some harsh truths:

• There is no reason to think that all possible rights are included in this deal. A moderate part of the value, I'm sure, is A League-as-soccer-filler in other countries.
• Given that multiple other reports are saying that the APL has taken over responsibility for production, any co contribution is almost certainly already included in the headline figure.

Like with the 2.5% equity, the question anyone wanting to engage in honest and robust conjecture needs to ask themselves "why wouldn't the A League owners include the production cost contribution in the headline figure when there is every reason to maximise that headline figure"?

If can't think of any plausible reason why they wouldn't.

 

[BobbyMorri]

This is where wishful thinking kicks in. Some harsh truths:

• There is no reason to think that all possible rights are included in this deal. A moderate part of the value, I'm sure, is A League-as-soccer-filler in other countries.
• Given that multiple other reports are saying that the APL has taken over responsibility for production, any co contribution is almost certainly already included in the headline figure.

Like with the 2.5% equity, the question anyone wanting to engage in honest and robust conjecture needs to ask themselves "why wouldn't the A League owners include the production cost contribution in the headline figure when there is every reason to maximise that headline figure"?

If can't think of any plausible reason why they wouldn't.

1. any overseas rights are immaterial outside NZ, so who cares. In NZ, the actual payment is small and work needs to be done to increase it. If anything, production costs would be most beneficial here. But as Wookie has said, it would make sense that this was a deal for both Aus+NZ, as paramount is launching in both countries. But Wellington Phoenix said above that TV broadcast deals will be announced in the coming months. That could mean any number of things. So who knows.

2.

The APL has also agreed to share responsibility for broadcast production, a move rarely undertaken by major sporting competitions in Australia. This ensures a minimum standard of production will be upheld across both the A-League and W-League and the ability to scale the number of cameras used at matches up or down based on the importance of certain fixture

Share and total production costs are 2 different things. Now, I guessed one option of sharing costs. They mention cameras in that quote above, so you can see why I guessed what I did. Perhaps Paramount will just provide the commentators and the APL provide the equipment. Perhaps that is the share. We don't know.

but SHARE. that is the important word

 

[NoobPie]

1. any overseas rights are immaterial outside NZ, so who cares. In NZ, the actual payment is small and work needs to be done to increase it. If anything, production costs would be most beneficial here. But as Wookie has said, it would make sense that this was a deal for both Aus+NZ, as paramount is launching in both countries. But Wellington Phoenix said above that TV broadcast deals will be announced in the coming months. That could mean any number of things. So who knows.

Haha, it says broadcast details.....but you read deals....Like I said, wishful thinking

2.

Share and total production costs are 2 different things. Now, I guessed one option of sharing costs. They mention cameras in that quote above, so you can see why I guessed what I did. Perhaps Paramount will just provide the commentators and the APL provide the equipment. Perhaps that is the share. We don't know.

but SHARE. that is the important word

There you go again, your wishful thinking has ensured a cognitive dissonance that meant you weren't able to grasp my last post. You are clinging to "we don't know" when the only plausible explanation is that any contribution to production costs are incorporated into that headline figure.

Sports production costs are not really divisible. Perhaps you could split off commentary but for instance this clearly says...

Why new broadcast deal smells like Ten spirit

YOU have to read a little way down the press release announcing a radical broadcast deal for Australian professional football to get to one of its most interesting points. As part of the five-year tie-up between the Australian Professional Leagues...

www.melbournecityfc.com.au

APL will from next season produce its own “product” – that’s the A-League and Westfield W-League games, plus myriad features and news around them - and package it appropriately, in readiness for distribution via the commercial stature of the Ten Network and on Australia’s newest streaming channel

l

So:

-if CBS are contributing to the production it is in financial terms
-if it is financial terms there is simply no basis to believe that it is not included in the headline figure

 

[BobbyMorri]

Haha, it says broadcast details.....but you read deals....Like I said, wishful thinking







There you go again, your wishful thinking has ensured a cognitive dissonance that meant you weren't able to grasp my last post. You are clinging to "we don't know" when the only plausible explanation is that any contribution to production costs are incorporated into that headline figure.

Sports production costs are not really divisible. Perhaps you could split off commentary but for instance this clearly says...
l

So:

-if CBS are contributing to the production it is in financial terms
-if it is financial terms there is simply no basis to believe that it is not included in the headline figure

whatever.

 

[Gigantor]

There's plenty of ambiguity, but as we've seen from recent A-League deals, the ambiguity is deliberate to get as large a "headline" figure as is possible.

Last time out it was a $340 million deal over 6 years, and you're thinking, geez, that's almost $57 million per annum, but then you discover that the contra is a tiny bit bigger than you were anticipating, then you discover that $5 million is only receivable once a particular ratings target was achieved a few years down the track, which clearly was never reached, then you discover that another $5 million, or was that $10 million? is earmarked for expansion into the bigger cities, which was eventually achieved, but then COVID kicked in, so the money was never received.

But even the deal before that, it looked like the A-League had jumped from $17 mill per annum to $40 mill per annum, and you're left thinking, geez, that's actually pretty good, more than doubled, the A-League is going places, but it was around this time that we learned the true meaning of "headline" figure.

Mind you, A-League is not alone in this, but I reckon in recent years they have taken it to new levels.

I can remember one NRL deal where the annual broadcast revenue figure actually included the league's major sponsorship package!

 

[NoobPie]

There's plenty of ambiguity, but as we've seen from recent A-League deals, the ambiguity is deliberate to get as large a "headline" figure as is possible.

Last time out it was a $340 million deal over 6 years, and you're thinking, geez, that's almost $57 million per annum, but then you discover that the contra is a tiny bit bigger than you were anticipating, then you discover that $5 million is only receivable once a particular ratings target was achieved a few years down the track, which clearly was never reached, then you discover that another $5 million, or was that $10 million? is earmarked for expansion into the bigger cities, which was eventually achieved, but then COVID kicked in, so the money was never received.

But even the deal before that, it looked like the A-League had jumped from $17 mill per annum to $40 mill per annum, and you're left thinking, geez, that's actually pretty good, more than doubled, the A-League is going places, but it was around this time that we learned the true meaning of "headline" figure.

Mind you, A-League is not alone in this, but I reckon in recent years they have taken it to new levels.

I can remember one NRL deal where the annual broadcast revenue figure actually included the league's major sponsorship package!

That's exactly right.

So when there is vagaries for instance around "sharing production costs" or getting granted 2.5% equity into the league, there is simply no basis to make any other assumption but that these are priced into the headline figure. Only a fool would think otherwise.

It is different to, say, the option CBS have to extend for another three years. It is quite plausible that this option is for the rights priced at the same level as the first five years, it is also plausible that it is significantly higher. To say in that instance "We just don't know" isn't just a glib resistance to facing up to reality.

 

[BringBackTorps]

So when there is vagaries for instance around "sharing production costs" or getting granted 2.5% equity into the league, there is simply no basis to make any other assumption but that these are priced into the headline figure. Only a fool would think otherwise.

NZ Rugby has recently reached an agreement to sell 12.5% of ALL its revenues (currently c. $200m pa, including the very lucrative All Blacks Rights' $, & ticketing $, merchandise $ etc.: plus Super Rugby Rights' $ etc.) for NZ $387m.
Silver Lake funds private equity will receive this 12.5% for perpetuity.

C. $200m X 12.5%= c.$25 pa for Silver Lake. (In the first year will be less $, due to covid & fewer All Blacks' games).

Do we know if this deal allowing Paramount a 2.5% ownership of the A League & W League is also based on the A League's annual revenues? And for perpetuity?

Any idea of the current annual revenues of the A League & W League?

Last time out it was a $340 million deal over 6 years, and you're thinking, geez, that's almost $57 million per annum, but then you discover that the contra is a tiny bit bigger than you were anticipating...

There was previously much speculation previously as to the $ value of the contra, re the 2018 Foxtel Rights' deal with the FFA.
In the covid Force Majeure dispute with Foxtel in 2020, it was revealed that Foxtel was witholding the usual quarterly payment of $12m- thus revealing the deal was $48m cash pa. Contra was, therefore, $9m pa.

Is this the usual % for contra in Australian Rights' deals?

 

[NoobPie]

NZ Rugby has recently reached an agreement to sell 12.5% of ALL its revenues (currently c. $200m pa, including the very lucrative All Blacks Rights' $, & ticketing $, merchandise $ etc.: plus Super Rugby Rights' $ etc.) for NZ $387m.
Silver Lake funds private equity will receive this 12.5% for perpetuity.

C. $200m X 12.5%= c.$25m in the first year that will go to Silver Lake.

Do we know if this deal allowing Paramount a 2.5% ownership of the A League & W League is also based on the A League's annual revenues? And for perpetuity?

Any idea of the current annual revenues of the A League & W League?

I suspect the 2.5% is actual equity rather than a perpetual share of 2.5% of the revenue. Could be wrong.


More likely that the 25% private equity they are looking for is structured like the NZ rugby deal.

Couldn't imagine the a league central revenues being too far north of $40m at the moment

There was previously much speculation previously as to the $ value of the contra when the 2018 Foxtel was reached with the FFA.
In the post covid Force Majeure dispute with Foxtel in 2020, it was revealed that Foxtel was witholding the usual quarterly payment of $12m- thus revealing the deal was $48 cash pa. Contra was, therefore, $9m pa.

Is this the usual % for contra in Australian Rights' deals?

More likely the $57m was a bullshit figure and the contra was less tHan that

 

[BobbyMorri]

NZ Rugby has recently reached an agreement to sell 12.5% of ALL its revenues (currently c. $200m pa, including the very lucrative All Blacks Rights' $, & ticketing $, merchandise $ etc.: plus Super Rugby Rights' $ etc.) for NZ $387m.
Silver Lake funds private equity will receive this 12.5% for perpetuity.

C. $200m X 12.5%= c.$25m in the first year that will go to Silver Lake.

Do we know if this deal allowing Paramount a 2.5% ownership of the A League & W League is also based on the A League's annual revenues? And for perpetuity?

Any idea of the current annual revenues of the A League & W League?

Included in the projections is about $51m in media revenue for 2022, rising to almost $59m within five years, including about $4.3m in international broadcast income.

The new Ten deal falls short of the projection, though A-League officials said they were happy to clinch the new contract that brings an end to a 16-year association between Fox Sports and the league.

.................
The information memorandum says the A-League would generate about $72m revenue in 2022, including almost $10m in sponsorship, another $10m in gate receipts from hosting the grand final and other important games and almost $2m in merchandise sales. Income would rise to $98m within five years.

International friendlies with big clubs touring Australia would also be an important strategy, bringing in about $3.3 revenue from next year. A “street football” pre-season tournament is also planned.

projected for next year. They will be short on several areas but gives you an idea.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I question the use of "having all".
The ABC runs a FTA kids channel. Netflix alone has more than enough.
The funny thing is that kids don't watch much (except for there favorite) because of their short attention span.
It is really poor parenting to use television as baby sitting. It's got it's place but the way it's used now, it just feeds the "me want" generation.

Haha righto mate

 

[VFL13]

Simply put, its not a massive deal, but its far more than what was expected and very promising having such a big partner invested in promoting and growing football in Australia. The $150-200 million investment is massive news if it comes to fruition.
All this plus more to come with FA Cup and national team games and NPL. NPL has a bigger following than we give it credit. An NPL 2 (essentially 3rd div) in Victoria gets 1-3k crowds. The old school NSL clubs still garner a lot of interest.
Promising times, but its Australain football, we will find a way to implode

 

[weewilly]

I don't know what the excitement is all about $40 million per year by 12 clubs = $3.3 Million each not going to buy very much!

This deal wont take soccer to the promised land that their supporters all dream about!The private owners will still have their hands deep in their pockets to keep the clubs afloat.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I don't know what the excitement is all about $40 million per year by 12 clubs = $3.3 Million each not going to buy very much!

This deal wont take soccer to the promised land that their supporters all dream about!The private owners will still have their hands deep in their pockets to keep the clubs afloat.

Because for the amount of interest there is in the A league $40mil is bloody enormous and their supporters can watch every game for about $100 per year and get a heap of other programs thrown in.
It’s probably as good as they could’ve ever hoped for.
They also have a FTA channel that has an invested interest in only soccer

 

[RedV3x]

All this plus more to come

Whatever floats your boat, but I thought your remarks were hysterical.

 

[VFL13]

Whatever floats your boat, but I thought your remarks were hysterical.

I dont understand why the obvious addition of socceroos, matildas, fa cups and npl is hilarious? Its a considerable addition and will garner some extra money. I know the idea of a national team plus cup games is foreign to AFL only supporters but its big stage stuff.

 

[VFL13]

I don't know what the excitement is all about $40 million per year by 12 clubs = $3.3 Million each not going to buy very much!

This deal wont take soccer to the promised land that their supporters all dream about!The private owners will still have their hands deep in their pockets to keep the clubs afloat.

Thats a considerable jump from this season of 2.1 million.
But its more that fact we were in no mans land for a while and now we have a major partner and for bigger bucks than expected with main stream media backing us now

 

[NoobPie]

Simply put, its not a massive deal, but its far more than what was expected and very promising having such a big partner invested in promoting and growing football in Australia. The $150-200 million investment is massive news if it comes to fruition.

I think unpacking the detail, we have established it is effectively far less than that once you account for production costs and a rather large contra...

All this plus more to come with FA Cup and national team games and NPL. NPL has a bigger following than we give it credit. An NPL 2 (essentially 3rd div) in Victoria gets 1-3k crowds. The old school NSL clubs still garner a lot of interest.

Neither the FA Cup or the NPL have any broadcast value.

Promising times, but its Australain football, we will find a way to implode

"We" will be a victim of unbridled expectations yet again

 

[NoobPie]

I dont understand why the obvious addition of socceroos, matildas, fa cups and npl is hilarious? Its a considerable addition and will garner some extra money. I know the idea of a national team plus cup games is foreign to AFL only supporters but its big stage stuff.

Haha, "big stage stuff" .....the AFL's rights are worth almost $1B over 2 years in 2023/24

Thats a considerable jump from this season of 2.1 million.
But its more that fact we were in no mans land for a while and now we have a major partner and for bigger bucks than expected with main stream media backing us now

Except there is no jump.

And soccer had two of the four biggest media organisations in Australia (News limited and the ABC) and now the A League is moving to one that isn't in the top 4 at all.