The 2017 Rights Deal Discussion thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Story in the telegraph this morning suggesting Gyngell is meeting with Ten to offload the Saturday night NRL game, which would be best case scenario for Fox's Super Saturday, if their 15% stake in Ten is approved. I'm not convinced Nine would do it considering their weakness on Saturday's and Gyngell's war with News Corp, but it would save them a lot, enough to go after a Sunday arvo AFL game they have been said to be interested in.
 
bigleague said:
Story in the telegraph this morning suggesting Gyngell is meeting with Ten to offload the Saturday night NRL game, which would be best case scenario for Fox's Super Saturday, if their 15% stake in Ten is approved. I'm not convinced Nine would do it considering their weakness on Saturday's and Gyngell's war with News Corp, but it would save them a lot, enough to go after a Sunday arvo AFL game they have been said to be interested in.
Click to expand...

they wouldnt be offloading saturday night nrl to get saturday afternoon afl. that makes no sense ratings wise.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Gigantor said:
As a couple of posters have mentioned - Fox is interested in subscriptions (in the main).

The bulk of subscriptions remain in NSW and Qld (primarily because of NRL).

In the current TV deal (with two more years still to run) - a Fox subscriber gets to see 5 live games, including Monday nights, plus the various talk shows - as compared to one live game on FTA (plus two on replay).

So the very first thing we notice is the very strong incentive for NRL fans to get a Fox subscription, because the FTA offering has been pretty small in comparison to date.

Now (in two years time) we have Nine showing four live games, including Thurs and Friday nights (no Monday nights) - meaning Fox are bidding for the four remaining games - the incentive for an NRL fan to get a Fox subscription isn't as strong anymore.

Fox are going to want a more attractive offering to retain NRL subscribers.

The NRL is going to force Fox to play top dollar, and it's in a position to do so because:
1. if Fox just tries to retain the remaining four games, it's going to leak subscribers (and head to irrelevance a bit quicker than it is currently doing); and
2. if it has no NRL at all, it goes out of business overnight (a la C7).

Fox doesn't really have a lot of choice - it has to pay to offer enough NRL to retain subscribers (not to grow them - just to retain them).
Click to expand...

your over estimating, this will not shut down foxtel even in a worst case scenario.
what happens is it loses market penetration.
This has two effects yes some subs are lost, but the days of fox relying on subs is over its advertising revenue is what keeps it afloat. But with less market penetration particularly in the largest market? That hits the ad revenue streams that fox needs.

overall foxtel makes less money, but they don't go "out of business" instead they have to readjust their expenditure during that time they have one of two options.
A take a hit large hit in share price due to reduced profits
B partially offset it by increasing subscription costs.

Now it might seem easy as piss to choose option B, But the radical cuts in the price of foxtel come in from an expedited short term shrinking in profits in order to expand penetration into new markets. So increasing costs needs to be carefully weighted against reducing or even losing market penetration in the south by the price no longer being offset by the number of consumers in the industry's heart. Which again means that make less then predicted leading to another fall in share prices.

share price represents investment in the business if the share price drops too low it affects their ability to continue to acquire new content which begins another downturn and on and on it goes.

foxtel is too big to go **** up overnight, we are talking 5-10 years down the track, C7 over invested in one product which is why it failed, fox doesn't have that problem. what it does have is a problem with the fact that many of its subscription services no longer represent value for money. Programs like netflicks and stan for example target people interested in movies, tv shows and doco's the number of providers is increasing all the time as is their content.

this represents another risk to foxtel because it means the that some of its content now becomes assessable to rivials unless foxtel increases its offer for that content to keep it exclusive and on and on it goes.

Because thats thing, nobody has foxtel for one thing. But if the only sport your interested in is RL and foxtel loses it, you can get your movies, your documentary's and kids content from other providers.

these reasons and more are the reason foxtel will not walk away from the NRL it is trying to stop being reliant on Sydney by offering affordable packages which have a lot of premium content the south want. they cannot keep up their expansion model whilst taking a large unexpected drop in ad revenue due to lost subs in Sydney.

The NRL has seen this vulnerability and exploited it to regain control of a lot of its content. full well knowing foxtel either needs to pay up or risk significantly remodelling its forecasts and paying even more to keep the rest of content while making less money overall for a significant period of time.

Basically the risks outweigh the reward. Fox will not risk losing the NRL, It may try to lowball but looking at what the NRL has done, Its unlikely to work. this leaves them with two options
A) try another super league
B) pay the money to protect its revenue streams, Because its aim is to make money not win big footy dick measuring contests.

TLDR: fox isn't going out of business with or without the NRL, they will pay between between 5 and 8 because it represents the overall worth of the product to Foxtel, and no this doesn't leave "less" money for the AFL because foxtel doesn't lose money on the NRL it makes it through ad revenue increasing its ability to bid on other sports.

The amount of bullshit around this topic infuriates me. 99% of all articles written about the subject are completely fabricated to sell papers. So you clowns can masturbate about one sport or another "winning" tv deals, When you don't even understand what "winning" is in terms of a tv contract. That is revenue that ends up in the hands of clubs, not who gets the biggest check.

a good deal for the NRL means a good deal for the AFL as far as foxtel is concerned we should all hope the NRL continues to generate a ****ton of money for fox, Because fox is reliant on Sydney and brisbane first and for most.
 
Last edited:
The_Wookie said:
Its what Seven thought they'd try when they offered big money before and ended up covering all the games themselves because Ten couldnt afford it. Seven and Nine arent likely to do a deal IMO, theres almost nothing to be gained by it.
Click to expand...

It's a very interesting landscape at the moment. Potentially we will see Ch.7, 10 and Foxsports unite to ensure the AFL remains on their programming list. Ch.9 have clearly displayed that they are very Sydney centric with no visible room for market penetration into the Southern States.

Call it what you will, however, the AFL has phenomenal market penetration in its indigenous states compared to the NRL (Fact). Without Football the average sports fan will seldom watch Ch.9, as they don't offer much more than the cricket in summer. Likewise, Ch.7 lack for the penetration in the northern states due to a lack of rugby content.

Although Sydney has the largest market place for advertisers, forecasters estimate that Melbourne will in turn over take Sydney population wise within the next 40 years. At some point in time, and I don't think it will be 40 years, we will start to see a shift in the market place. Some might see this as ridiculous, however, it's less than 8 broadcast agreements away.

One way or the other, one of Australia's major sports is going to entertain the idea of going it alone (NFL Style), when that happens, the essential bickering between the codes will come to an end, as market penetration will eclipse the need for the size of potential market. Market forces are shifting, and it's only a matter of time before we see what sport is really worth.
 
1873 United said:
It's a very interesting landscape at the moment. Potentially we will see Ch.7, 10 and Foxsports unite to ensure the AFL remains on their programming list. Ch.9 have clearly displayed that they are very Sydney centric with no visible room for market penetration into the Southern States.

Call it what you will, however, the AFL has phenomenal market penetration in its indigenous states compared to the NRL (Fact). Without Football the average sports fan will seldom watch Ch.9, as they don't offer much more than the cricket in summer. Likewise, Ch.7 lack for the penetration in the northern states due to a lack of rugby content.

Although Sydney has the largest market place for advertisers, forecasters estimate that Melbourne will in turn over take Sydney population wise within the next 40 years. At some point in time, and I don't think it will be 40 years, we will start to see a shift in the market place. Some might see this as ridiculous, however, it's less than 8 broadcast agreements away.

One way or the other, one of Australia's major sports is going to entertain the idea of going it alone (NFL Style), when that happens, the essential bickering between the codes will come to an end, as market penetration will eclipse the need for the size of potential market. Market forces are shifting, and it's only a matter of time before we see what sport is really worth.
Click to expand...
I thought after the last tv deal you'd be too embarrassed to give your opinion but here you are. Again.

You're in for a bit of a rude shock if you think time is on the AFL's side too. As with most other things you post the complete opposite is closer to the truth.
 
1873 United said:
Although Sydney has the largest market place for advertisers, forecasters estimate that Melbourne will in turn over take Sydney population wise within the next 40 years. At some point in time, and I don't think it will be 40 years, we will start to see a shift in the market place. Some might see this as ridiculous, however, it's less than 8 broadcast agreements away.

One way or the other, one of Australia's major sports is going to entertain the idea of going it alone (NFL Style), when that happens, the essential bickering between the codes will come to an end, as market penetration will eclipse the need for the size of potential market. Market forces are shifting, and it's only a matter of time before we see what sport is really worth.
Click to expand...

In 40 years time who knows how we will be watching sport. I'm not sure why it matters to anyone now.
 
Interesting article in the Australian. Big AFL deal looms after Nine- NRL shock. They think NRL has shot itself in the foot, and will get an overall reduction in what they would have got in a competitive bid, due to the changes reducing the value of subscription and digital. With AFL to benefit as everyone switches attention to them.

Also points out that even in USA, digital streaming of sport hasn't really got a foothold, and companies like Netflix, Google. YouTube who are not interested in American sport are not going to value NRL

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
 
jatz14 said:
Interesting article in the Australian. Big AFL deal looms after Nine- NRL shock. They think NRL has shot itself in the foot, and will get an overall reduction in what they would have got in a competitive bid, due to the changes reducing the value of subscription and digital. With AFL to benefit as everyone switches attention to them.

Also points out that even in USA, digital streaming of sport hasn't really got a foothold, and companies like Netflix, Google. YouTube who are not interested in American sport are not going to value NRL

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It would be nice to read some more snippets.
 
1873 United said:
It's a very interesting landscape at the moment. Potentially we will see Ch.7, 10 and Foxsports unite to ensure the AFL remains on their programming list. Ch.9 have clearly displayed that they are very Sydney centric with no visible room for market penetration into the Southern States.

Call it what you will, however, the AFL has phenomenal market penetration in its indigenous states compared to the NRL (Fact). Without Football the average sports fan will seldom watch Ch.9, as they don't offer much more than the cricket in summer. Likewise, Ch.7 lack for the penetration in the northern states due to a lack of rugby content.

Although Sydney has the largest market place for advertisers, forecasters estimate that Melbourne will in turn over take Sydney population wise within the next 40 years. At some point in time, and I don't think it will be 40 years, we will start to see a shift in the market place. Some might see this as ridiculous, however, it's less than 8 broadcast agreements away.

One way or the other, one of Australia's major sports is going to entertain the idea of going it alone (NFL Style), when that happens, the essential bickering between the codes will come to an end, as market penetration will eclipse the need for the size of potential market. Market forces are shifting, and it's only a matter of time before we see what sport is really worth.
Click to expand...

Take your blinkers off - is that an AFL cheerleaders outfit you are wearing.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kwality said:
Because we have an interest in industry that is footy, many of us for the business that is sport more widely.
Click to expand...
What I meant was there may not be 8 broadcast agreements because the way sports broadcast in 40 years probably doesn't exist.

The estimate that Melbourne may be more populated than Sydney may be realistic, but in 40 years NSW and QLD will still be more than half the population of the country. So Indigenous market wise Footy will still be well behind RL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jatz14 said:
Interesting article in the Australian. Big AFL deal looms after Nine- NRL shock. They think NRL has shot itself in the foot, and will get an overall reduction in what they would have got in a competitive bid, due to the changes reducing the value of subscription and digital. With AFL to benefit as everyone switches attention to them.

Also points out that even in USA, digital streaming of sport hasn't really got a foothold, and companies like Netflix, Google. YouTube who are not interested in American sport are not going to value NRL

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And who just happens to own the OZ thats right Uncle Rupe and he would be pissed off mightily being beaten by the hated CH9.If Murdoch wants to belt RU he still has a lot of firepower in his papers and as we know if his reporters(sic) smell the wind they will put the boots in on his behalf - interesting times.The one thing you dont do is touch Murdochs cash flow and get away unscathed.
 
Last edited:
Did you mean RL or RU? Because RU as a product puts the boot into itself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Our Game said:
And who just happens to own the OZ thats right Uncle Rupe and he would be pissed off mightily being beaten by the hated CH9.If Murdoch wants to belt RU he still has a lot of firepower in his papers and as we know if his reporters(sic) smell the wind they will put the boots in on his behalf - interesting times.The one thing you dont do is touch Murdochs cash flow and get away unscathed.
Click to expand...

Not happy with the Herald Sun coverage of Victorian footy, bit sketchy on AFL footy, but right into Victorian footy?
 
AFL close to $2b broadcast deal

August 17, 2015 - 8:56PM

The AFL is on the verge of announcing an historic new broadcast deal potentially worth $2 billion over six years with the Seven Network and Foxtel starting in 2017.

League chief Gillon McLachlan was finalising the finer points of the record agreement with News Corp, Channel Seven and Fox bosses on Monday night, with an announcement looking to come as early as Tuesday and certainly this week.

In the restructured deal long-time AFL broadcaster the Seven Network is expected to broadcast less games but continue to hold exclusive rights to the grand final, which would remain a daytime event despite a strong push by Seven to stage the game at night or in twilight.

As reported by Fairfax Media, Seven has come to terms with the AFL to go head-to-head with Channel Nine Thursday night NRL games on 12 occasions each home-and-away season.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...dcast-deal-20150817-gj199j.html#ixzz3j4Zqx13c
 
I wonder how that impacts on the region specific games (i.e. all Suns and Lions games airing live in FTA in QLD) with the apparent new timeslots?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

The_Wookie
North in $6m deal to sell WA 2 games a year over 3 seasons
Replies
20
Views
809
____
____
Bjo187
Play Nice The Reach is King thread
2 3
Replies
67
Views
6K
weewilly
W
The_Wookie
AFL reaps $80m from Gather Round deal
2 3
Replies
64
Views
4K
The_Wookie
The_Wookie
The_Wookie
Play Nice 2024 Non AFL Crowds/Ratings and other Industry thread
27 28 29 30 31
Replies
768
Views
50K
The_Wookie
The_Wookie
The_Wookie
Play Nice 2023 Non AFL (or lower league) Sports Industry Discussion
47 48 49 50 51
Replies
1K
Views
68K
pattymalone00
pattymalone00
D
Purple & The Weasel
Replies
0
Views
259
dudeintheswamp
D
The_Wookie
Pridham: it’s inevitable that the Sydney Swans will be the biggest sporting club in Australia
Replies
5
Views
2K
Walshawk
Walshawk

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top