Cop that 10... too clever by half

[Groucho]

Don't know if this has been posted;

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...r-afl-tv-rights/2005/12/28/1135732642184.html

Push to trump Packer bid for AFL TV rights

December 29, 2005
YOUR SAY AFL Rights
KERRY Packer's final act on the Australian corporate stage — his spectacular $780 million bid to keep AFL football on Channel Nine — is in danger of failing as rivals Seven and Ten consider making a last-ditch counter-offer to snare the deal.
Less than a week after the bid by Mr Packer's Publishing and Broadcasting Limited was revealed, the rival consortium is believed to be preparing a final assault for the prized AFL broadcast rights from 2007 until 2011.

Seven and Ten executives are believed to have broken into their Christmas holidays in recent days to analyse the PBL document and decide whether to exercise their legal right to match it.
AFL chiefs announced on Friday their acceptance of the PBL bid — with every second AFL game to be presented on pay TV network Foxtel — in the absence of a better offer from Seven and Ten within 14 days.

While AFL clubs largely applauded the PBL deal and its financial rewards, the Sydney Swans and Brisbane Lions are concerned about the rights going to a free-to-air network committed in NSW and Queensland to rugby league.

Initially stunned by the size of the Packer bid, which includes a cash component of $700 million, the rival alliance now appears determined to fight on — despite the threat of slim profit margins and bad feelings that exist between the league and both Seven and Ten.
The moves on AFL rights came as James Packer returned to PBL's Park Street offices in Sydney yesterday to begin the formal process of restructuring the company's executive ranks following the death of his father.

Interesting also that,in the same paper, Alan Kohler,business analyst and writer,says that 7/10 will "easily" match 9's bid and take the rights. He says that having the AFL rights will "guarantee" 7 taking over as the number 1 TV station and that will more than offset any losses incurred from paying a higher than anticipated price for them.

 

[FIGJAM]

Thought as much. Eagle87, thank you very much for doing my dirty work.

Please read my post above. Eagle87 has miscounted some years.

And we're going backwards. Could it be that two lean years means that the AFL simply don't schedule us for these games? Imagine them having all the control and not Eddie/Channel 9! Shock of the year!!

 

[Z_K]

Interesting also that,in the same paper, Alan Kohler,business analyst and writer,says that 7/10 will "easily" match 9's bid and take the rights. He says that having the AFL rights will "guarantee" 7 taking over as the number 1 TV station and that will more than offset any losses incurred from paying a higher than anticipated price for them.

I read that.

I am no TV analyst, but IMO he would be correct. 7 made big steps this year, buying American rubbish that was eaten up by the masses. If they landed FNF, some Satdy nights etc etc, with the available cross promotion, footy shows and of course the hard ratings numbers, they would surpass 9 I reckon. Which is absolutely laughable, because Channell 7 are a horrid network with crap shows. But the tallest midget still gets the blue ribbon in a tallest midget contest doesn't he?

I am not a McGuire basher, and I am not a Collingwood hater really, but anyone who denies a link between 9 getting TV rights, McGuire and the number of Collingwood FN games is silly or lying to themselves to defend an argument.

 

[FIGJAM]

Interesting also that,in the same paper, Alan Kohler,business analyst and writer,says that 7/10 will "easily" match 9's bid and take the rights. He says that having the AFL rights will "guarantee" 7 taking over as the number 1 TV station and that will more than offset any losses incurred from paying a higher than anticipated price for them.

Seven would be daft not to even cop a loss on this. It's terrible to use the death of someone as an excuse, but the timing is incredible, and business is business.

 

[Z_K]

Does Kerry Stokes still run 7?

Anyone guess who he barracks for? Come on Kez, give us a break champ.

 

[1jasonoz]

The Kohler article on 7's bid;

Still the one, but not for long
By Alan Kohler
December 29, 2005
Page 1 of 2
AdvertisementKerry Packer's last act as the titular head of his empire was to sign off on a desperate, futile attempt to avert the Nine Network's greatest crisis - the bid for the AFL broadcasting rights.

It will be futile, in my view, because Seven and Ten will comfortably trump the Packer group's $780 million bid and as a result Nine will slip decisively to No. 2 in the ratings within 12 months.
Kerry Stokes thought Seven could do without the footy and he was wrong, but with the help of Nine's David Leckie, Seven has stayed close enough to Nine to knock it off when it gets the AFL back - that prospect will be irresistible for Stokes and the profits from being No. 1 will easily compensate for any losses on the AFL contract itself.
Next week when Nine loses the AFL and stares over a precipice, all eyes will be on James Packer. How will the third generation scion respond without his father around? Will he sack Kerry's man, Sam Chisholm, or even sell Nine (again)?

James Packer has been responding to the decline of Nine for six years, ever since he initiated and engineered the acquisition of Crown Casino, or perhaps even for eight years, since he formed ninemsn, the joint venture with Microsoft. He later suffered the setback, and public humiliation, of the One.Tel debacle and both his confidence and his standing with his father were damaged by it (mind you, there was, and still is, a lot of sympathy in the business world for him after the appalling way his father treated him).

In any case James Packer has since recovered strongly, expanding PBL's gambling franchise into Perth, Macau and online through Betfair and further into the internet by buying control of the leading employment and motor vehicle classified advertising websites seek and carsales.com.au.

He has been running the family business for more than 12 months and is now the embodiment of why the internet has rendered Australia's cross-media rules irrelevant - and why the Packer group will play little or no part in next year's discussion about removing them, along with foreign ownership restrictions.

One thing that definitely changes about the future of the Packer empire following the death of Kerry is that there is now no prospect of PBL attempting to take over John Fairfax if, or rather when, cross-media restrictions are removed.

Both Fairfax and Nine are old media; James Packer is new media and becoming the dominant Australian player. So does that mean he will sell Nine, and therefore press for the removal of cross-media rules to increase the number of potential buyers?

Very unlikely. Nine might be old media and it might be about to lose the title it has held for 50 years as the leading commercial network, but it remains fundamental to James Packer's ambitions because it supplies both cash and content.

The hottest game in new media right now is the use of mobile phones to deliver content, including TV pictures. James Packer's attitude to this is shown by his deal to allow the Hutchison-owned 3 network to broadcast live cricket this summer to 3G phones.

It seems every second advertisement during the TV broadcasts of the cricket has been an attempt by Hutchison to get you to watch the game on your phone. Why would a TV network allow that? Because this is the future of its own business as well.

At a recent industry forum, Sam Chisholm memorably declared that the future of TV is mobile. What's more, News Corp and PBL have joined Foxtel to make a submission to the Federal Government for the "datacasting spectrum" (basically two potential TV channels that can't be used for TV but can be used for a sort of TV lite that no one wants to watch) to be made available for broadcasting to mobile phones.

Seven is also preparing for this through a recent deal with Yahoo. Telstra is moving all mobile telephony to fast 3G; 2006 is likely to be the inflexion point for high-speed mobile telephony and mobile TV.

Ownership of even a football-less Nine, plus ninemsn and online classified advertising leadership, will give James Packer a powerful content base for pushing into this new media and internet broadcasting.

As for Nine's ability to provide cash to finance James' ambitions, the only thing that would threaten that would be competition, and that's just not about to happen.

No one is pushing for a fourth commercial TV network any more and the Government has no stomach for it. There will be no early forced switchover from analogue to digital TV, so broadcasting of both signals will tie up all available TV spectrum for up to another 10 years.

What else will change about the media landscape and PBL's place in it in the absence of Kerry Packer? Not much. There may have been a time when he was single-handedly responsible for what the Government decided, but that time passed a while ago.

As a businessman, Kerry Packer was both hard and lucky, but he lacked vision and humanity. James Packer is perhaps a bit soft and quite unlucky, but he has far more of the other two qualities than his father. That is likely to make him a better businessman for these times.

Alan Kohler is a senior columnist.

 

[Eagle87]

Please read my post above. Eagle87 has miscounted some years.

And we're going backwards. Could it be that two lean years means that the AFL simply don't schedule us for these games? Imagine them having all the control and not Eddie/Channel 9! Shock of the year!!

Yep, I included the Thursday night games - which were instead of FNF i.e. no FNF those weeks. These were in effect the FNF games so reasonable to include.

I did inadvertently include the 2 Anzac day games. One was on a Friday (day game) and one was on a Thursday.

So correct figures for 2002 and 2003 are 7 (not 8) and for 2004, 2005 they remain as per my earlier post (i.e. 8 & 6).

Collingwood have had 28 FNF games in first 4 years with 9. In last 4 years with 7 they had 12.

Cheers

 

[1jasonoz]

Does Kerry Stokes still run 7?

Anyone guess who he barracks for? Come on Kez, give us a break champ.

Yep he does mate.

I live 200 metres from the seven HQ in Dorcas Street, and taking pride of place on the wall in the entrance way, is a painting of no other than North Melbourne ex-pres Ron Casey . He is the bloke responsible for making Football Televsion what it is today.

 

[Z_K]

Yep he does mate.

Righto, now we have a game.

Come on lucky 7!!!!!

 

[Rob]

I'm not talking about requests for home games. I'm talking about for all games. Collingwood have been exposed to FNF on average 10 times a year since 2002 (that's off the top of my head - maybe slightly more, maybe slightly less). Other clubs have been exposed to FNF football once a year on average during the same time. No-one can possibly deny that this has greatly benefitted Collingwood to attract far greater sponsorship revenue by the fact that their existing and prospective sponsors are guaranteed to be seen in front of 750,000+ on the box 10 times a year (and that's just in Melbourne). That equates to an additional 6,750,000 more people being exposed to the Collingwood brand annually via FNF than clubs who get one FNF game a year. Ka-ching. And some ignorant, blinkered supporters still complain about the reasons for the AFL having a CBF in place

Yet the CBF is still only going to a small minority of clubs, critically 12 of the clubs not on the CBF drip are not Collingwood.

Bitch and moan about Collingwood all you like, but the fact remains that a vast majority of other clubs do not need the CBF yet don't get Collingwood's exposure (maybe you could argue Essendon does as well).

 

[Z_K]

Collingwood have had 28 FNF games in first 4 years with 9. In last 4 years with 7 they had 12.

Scam.

Why can't we adopt a model simmilar to RL, whereby the FN games are set out a month (?) in advance in an attempt to use current form as a gauge to allow the best actual GAME on FN?

That way, we could have NO Collingwood games on Friday night.

 

[littleduck]

If you're a commercial broadcaster with telecast rights to a sport like AFL then it makes commercial sense that you want the highest ratings teams televised in the highest rating timeslots to get value for money. Collingwood is a high rating team in Melbourne (some might say the highest) and therefore the disproportionately higher number of FNF games for Collingwood is justified as it makes commercial sense.

 

[littleduck]

Scam.

Why can't we adopt a model simmilar to RL, whereby the FN games are set out a month (?) in advance in an attempt to use current form as a gauge to allow the best actual GAME on FN?

That way, we could have NO Collingwood games on Friday night.

The best NRL game of the round doesnt necessarily get televised on Friday Night. 9 use to pick FNF games involving the big Sydney clubs by assessing their form, ladder position, and if they were playing Brisbane. The idea was to maximise ratings in Sydney and Brisbane. Then Brisbane asked for more Sunday games and less Friday games and 9 obliged because 2 big Sydney clubs still ratings well in Brisbane.

My point.... its not as simple as picking the best game for FNF.

 

[Eagle87]

If you're a commercial broadcaster with telecast rights to a sport like AFL then it makes commercial sense that you want the highest ratings teams televised in the highest rating timeslots to get value for money. Collingwood is a high rating team in Melbourne (some might say the highest) and therefore the disproportionately higher number of FNF games for Collingwood is justified as it makes commercial sense.

Agree that the commerciality of the broadcast is a key consideration, I am just not sure that this is achieved by just picking Collingwood.

I reckon that footy fans who are watching a game on TV look at the quality of the teams. If FNF in round 1`next year has a game between Adelaide & Saints, I would want to watch that. If it was a Showdown or Western Derby, I would also want to see it. If it was Collingwood v Hawthorn I wouldnt be as keen.

Collingwood, this season, were in general, not great TV. The fact that they were on more than anyone else made watching FNF more of a chore than enjoyment.

Cheers.

 

[FIGJAM]

Agree that the commerciality of the broadcast is a key consideration, I am just not sure that this is achieved by just picking Collingwood.

I reckon that footy fans who are watching a game on TV look at the quality of the teams. If FNF in round 1`next year has a game between Adelaide & Saints, I would want to watch that. If it was a Showdown or Western Derby, I would also want to see it. If it was Collingwood v Hawthorn I wouldnt be as keen.

Flawed logic and the AFL aren't dumb enough to use it. Assuming that the higher placed teams from a previous year will be the greater match, is a recipe for disaster.

Things change on a yearly basis. This year, the super-duper Grand Final replay was between two ordinary outfits! A pathetic match-up between the 12th vs 14th placed teams, Adelaide and the Doggies, would have been a highly entertaining match.

What is for friggen certain though, is that giving the bulk of Friday night games to Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton and Richmond, will draw the higher ratings and therefore draw $780Mill bids in four years time when the networks are crunching numbers.

Have a look at ladder predictions by posters here. They are always nigh on identical to the preceding year and due to sometimes dramatic movements up and down by clubs, they are always miles out. About the only way to ensure a "best match" scenario, is to do the draw weekly...and we know that ain't happening.

But the way to ensure high ratings is to give the bigger clubs the bulk of the prime time games. Higher ratings means more money, means the lesser clubs can survive. The end!

 

[Z_K]

What is for friggen certain though, is that giving the bulk of Friday night games to Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton and Richmond, will draw the higher ratings and therefore draw $780Mill bids in four years time when the networks are crunching numbers.

Does anyone have the actual rating stats for each clubs on a Friday night? I am assuming your above comment would be about right, but it would be interesting to find out for sure, just to clear that up.

Have a look at ladder predictions by posters here. They are always nigh on identical to the preceding year and due to sometimes dramatic movements up and down by clubs, they are always miles out. About the only way to ensure a "best match" scenario, is to do the draw weekly...and we know that ain't happening.

Agreed, but every second or third week in 2005 the footy public was subjected to rubbish Collingwood games. Absolute torture. Is that the brand we wish to spread to the northern states? Rubbish, largely.

Every Friday night game we have played in the past two years has been a quality game for one reason or another.

But the way to ensure high ratings is to give the bigger clubs the bulk of the prime time games. Higher ratings means more money, means the lesser clubs can survive.

Clubs with less money will be fine, thanks. Pfft, lesser clubs.

North didn't have many games on FTA TV in 2005. How in god's name are we expected to get our brand into the market and make money for ourselves? Does anyone think we want to recieve the CBF money? North would love to stand on our own two feet and have everything the bigger clubs have, but it is increasingly hard to increase our corporate support, membership and hype when we are hidden away on a Sunday arvo on Foxtel.

 

[Sedat!]

What is for friggen certain though, is that giving the bulk of Friday night games to Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton and Richmond, will draw the higher ratings and therefore draw $780Mill bids in four years time when the networks are crunching numbers.

Agree with what you posted except this paragraph. It is a furphy that only these clubs rate well on TV. If you're talking gate attendences, then I agree 100%, but substantial TV ratings have been achieved from the most unlikely match-ups.

Also by your logic, the AFL would not have been able to extract $500M for the current TV deal as Collingwood were only playing 3 Friday nights a season in Channel 7's last 4 years.

 

[Joffaboy]

Agree with what you posted except this paragraph. It is a furphy that only these clubs rate well on TV. If you're talking gate attendences, then I agree 100%, but substantial TV ratings have been achieved from the most unlikely match-ups.

Also by your logic, the AFL would not have been able to extract $500M for the current TV deal as Collingwood were only playing 3 Friday nights a season in Channel 7's last 4 years.

Correct. The days of the big 4 dominating football are gone. This includes ratings. For example, the highest rating football game for the 2004 season in Melbourne was Brisbane v St.Kilda, not sure what was the highest last season but the way Richmond, Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon performed, I would be suprised if they figured in it.

Many would be suprised how well a team like the Bulldogs rate when given the chance.

 

[Joffaboy]

But the way to ensure high ratings is to give the bigger clubs the bulk of the prime time games. Higher ratings means more money, means the lesser clubs can survive. The end!

Too simplistic for words. 8 games a week ensures more money not just ratings. This is to spread production costs. granted, if football didn't rate, it wouldn't be getting $780 mill over five years, but Collingwood is only 1/16 of the current model, so it brings in $9.75 mill a year from TV rights, just like every other team.

The sooner you ex big 4 clubs realise that, the better it will be for you.

 

[FIGJAM]

Agreed, but every second or third week in 2005 the footy public was subjected to rubbish Collingwood games. Absolute torture. Is that the brand we wish to spread to the northern states? Rubbish, largely.

I don't really want us shown on the biggest stage when we're crap either! It's a two edged sword. And it's closer to every fourth week, but don't worry about exaggeration, I understand your point.

In 2002 and 2003, we were the best Friday night games and we had 6 in each year. The AFL went overboard in 2004 with 8 games (yes, read again, the AFL selected our draw presuming that we'd stil be up there) and it bit them in the arse. 2005 they scaled it down a bit and next year we have a mere four games.

You can see pretty clearly, that the AFL want the best possible games on Fridays, but are well aware that it is impossible to predict who's going to be the better teams. As such, it is prudent management to mix in a high amount of the traditional big four, especially games against each other, in order to maximise revenue for the TV rights.

Sorry that I don't have figures to back my theory up, but it'd be common sense.

Every Friday night game we have played in the past two years has been a quality game for one reason or another.

Yeah, but your game against us this year sucked. Close yeah, but it was terrible quality. Probably the worst standard I watched all year!

And herein lies a problem; you as a lower number of supporters club, walk up here and say, "Hey, whaddabout me??". If the AFL were to turn and go, hey the Norfers have done OK, made finals and stuff; so they must be certs to be quality games for Friday night. But the fact remains, in the games against us, you were barely better than us at full strength, and there's no real reason why you guys won't finish bottom four this year and be cod ordinary. I'm not saying you will and I think you'll go better than that, but it's actually quite feasible (as opposed to likely...but this isn't the argument).

So say the AFL designated you 7 games, and you were relative easy beats. Now the AFL are in trouble. You simply won't rate if you're getting flogged by someone like the Saints. In fact, we'd get more interest from Melbourne viewers wanting to watch us get flogged by the Saints, plus our very loyal viewing supporter base, would probably outnumber your entire membership!

Clubs with less money will be fine, thanks. Pfft, lesser clubs.

There are 15 lesser clubs to Collingwood. Excuse my bias!

North didn't have many games on FTA TV in 2005. How in god's name are we expected to get our brand into the market and make money for ourselves? Does anyone think we want to recieve the CBF money? North would love to stand on our own two feet and have everything the bigger clubs have, but it is increasingly hard to increase our corporate support, membership and hype when we are hidden away on a Sunday arvo on Foxtel.

It's a hard argument. For you there's only one answer; to be given more FTA time. That'd fix it! And I agree it wouldn't hurt, and I'd like to see Norf survive in their own right as I love their spirit, but I dunno if they'd survive without the telly money. It's a big business, and figures like $780M make us all go "Gee, all clubs are set!", but it's considerably tighter than that on the bottom line at both club and competition level.

An unfortunate reality, and one which I know causes much angst, as is highlighted by the barrage of posts aimed directly at Collingwood and Essendon. It's not our fault we've got the weight of numbers...oh wait...actually it is!!

 

[Grantwhy]

In a game of cards a 9 & a fox trumps a 10 & a 7

But does a 9 & a Fox trumps a 10 & a 7 + a Fox bid?

Fox will still show (and pay for) AFL games regardless of who wins the rights.

It may be a bit less than what 9 would get but, just like the 9 bid, the 7/10 bid will be subsidised by selling games to pay-tv.

 

[windsock]

Are the Satdy nights chopped liver mate??

I was just taking it as read that people saw Saturday nights and Sunday arvos as pretty similar in audience reach and therefore ad revenue.

Anyway, the argument was that FNF was outstripped by finals matches in terms of revenue for the respective networks, an argument I have yet to see proven by the main person who was making the suggestion.

 

[Eagle87]

Flawed logic and the AFL aren't dumb enough to use it. Assuming that the higher placed teams from a previous year will be the greater match, is a recipe for disaster.

Things change on a yearly basis. This year, the super-duper Grand Final replay was between two ordinary outfits! A pathetic match-up between the 12th vs 14th placed teams, Adelaide and the Doggies, would have been a highly entertaining match.

What is for friggen certain though, is that giving the bulk of Friday night games to Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton and Richmond, will draw the higher ratings and therefore draw $780Mill bids in four years time when the networks are crunching numbers.
Have a look at ladder predictions by posters here. They are always nigh on identical to the preceding year and due to sometimes dramatic movements up and down by clubs, they are always miles out. About the only way to ensure a "best match" scenario, is to do the draw weekly...and we know that ain't happening.

But the way to ensure high ratings is to give the bigger clubs the bulk of the prime time games. Higher ratings means more money, means the lesser clubs can survive. The end!

Nothing like an insular Victorian bias to show your lack of capacity for actual thought!

The "big 4" clubs are not the ones you mentioned. In terms of any measure, the Big 4 would definitely include West Coast and Adelaide.

The TV rights are national and anyone who thinks that West Coast v Adelaide on FNF won't rate NATIONALLY better than say Richmond v Carlton is a complete clown.

You are correct in your contention that things change from year to year and it is a flawed scheduling model but the notion that we just put Collingwood on and the ratings will follow NATIONALLY, is just as flawed.

Cheers

 

[kirky]

His argument is that even if 7 lose cash on the football having the rights will put them to #1 ahead of Nine and the increased ad revenue from that will more than compensate.

Spot on - Seven have a number of shows which are rating well in the current USA TV season. Whilst this not a guarantee that they will succeed here, in all probability they will (Lost and Desperate Housewives have done well on 7 whilst the CSI franchises on 9 have also done well). Seven was only a couple of rating points behind 9 this year and the difference was Friday nights. & gaining FNF will swing the pendulum and once they become the No 1 TV network the more money you can recover from the advertising across your total programming.

This is not just about footy rights but also being the no 1 network and at this point in time following the death of Kerry Packer, the Nine Network is at its most vunerable.

 

[ChrisFooty]

Alan Kohler isnt a fool and he thinks 7 will win the bid (comfortably).

Alright, i sure hope so.