Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[hawko07]

Devils in the detail, like Strewth mentioned;

If it's $210 million over 5 years with an additional $30million on offer then it's well ahead of inflation, if it's $210 million and $30million of that is made up of incentive bonuses and RA achieve all of those, then it's marginally ahead of inflation. But if it's $210million and RA don't achieve those incentive bonuses, then it's below inflation.


*$40million p.a. - Exsisting 20-25 Broadcast Deal
$48million p.a. - $210 million + additional $30million incentives
$42million p.a. - $210 million (achieved $30million incentives)
$36million p.a. - $180 million (didn't achieve incentives)

**2020 figures factored for inflation

So depending which one of those it is, it's overall a net increase and could exceed inflation.
This doesn't address the contra-cash advertising topic either, all these figures are total costs and don't break down cash vs advertising.

Doran has written that "The extra cash would be in addition to a five-year deal worth a fraction over $210m – or 42m per annum."

 

[Strewthcobber]

The Financial Review revealed that the cash-strapped governing body could earn as much as $30m in incentives should its teams meet certain criteria. The extra cash would be in addition to a five-year deal worth a fraction over $210m – or 42m per annum.

Christie at the Roar reporting it's on top of the $210m, but unclear what his source is on that given everything else appears to be a rewrite of the AFR article

 

[Adam84]

Doran has written that "The extra cash would be in addition to a five-year deal worth a fraction over $210m – or 42m per annum."

the sceptic in me thinks that Doran's comments aren't worth much; there's a hint of plagiarising off others.. there's no new info in his article that wasn't already captured in the AFR exclusive by Zoe Samios, who is often on the money given she's in the SMH/Nine sphere.

He also claimed $ 250 million..... which is a new figure entirely and doesn't reflect the $210million + $30million figures mentioned

 

[Adam84]

Assuming Doran is accurate, that the $30 million is in addition to the $ 210 million, and assuming incentives are hit.

Then it's up to a 60% increase in net value ($30 million to $48 million p.a.), which is also a 20% increase above inflation.

Devils in the detail, like Strewth mentioned;

If it's $210 million over 5 years with an additional $30million on offer then it's well ahead of inflation, if it's $210 million and $30million of that is made up of incentive bonuses and RA achieve all of those, then it's marginally ahead of inflation. But if it's $210million and RA don't achieve those incentive bonuses, then it's below inflation.


*$40million p.a. - Exsisting 20-25 Broadcast Deal
$48million p.a. - $210 million + additional $30million incentives
$42million p.a. - $210 million (achieved $30million incentives)
$36million p.a. - $180 million (didn't achieve incentives)

**2020 figures factored for inflation

So depending which one of those it is, it's overall a net increase and could exceed inflation.
This doesn't address the contra-cash advertising topic either, all these figures are total costs and don't break down cash vs advertising.

 

[Derpus]

I guess they might never tell us but the incentive structure would be interesting to understand. I wonder if it includes nonsense like winning RWC27 which we almost certainly will not do.

 

[JRugby2]

the sceptic in me thinks that Doran's comments aren't worth much; there's a hint of plagiarising off others.. there's no new info in his article that wasn't already captured in the AFR exclusive by Zoe Samios, who is often on the money given she's in the SMH/Nine sphere.

He also claimed $ 250 million..... which is a new figure entirely and doesn't reflect the $210million + $30million figures mentioned

This is just standard breaking news journalism. One outlet breaks the story and everyone else quickly follows rewriting the same information from the source - so that they can benefit from the attention and traffic.

I assume that the 250 is just a typo. Will probably be edited in due course.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

If this I feel like this is a great result.
Plausible of hitting $50M plus a year

Assuming Doran is accurate, that the $30 million is in addition to the $ 210 million, and assuming incentives are hit.

Then it's up to a 60% increase in net value ($30 million to $48 million p.a.), which is also a 20% increase above inflation.

 

[Wilson]

This is just standard breaking news journalism. One outlet breaks the story and everyone else quickly follows rewriting the same information from the source - so that they can benefit from the attention and traffic.

I assume that the 250 is just a typo. Will probably be edited in due course.

It's worth noting the $210 million is actually quoted as "over $210 million" everywhere and these numbers are usually rounded one way or another for simplicity, which may also be the case for the $30 million in incentives. So it's entirely possible the whole package is more than $240 million (though still likely less than $250 million). I'm not sure it makes a huge difference either way at that point, at least not as far as the reporting is concerned.

 

[stoff]

Be interesting to see how the balance between the stated move towards driving down wage inflation, and the need to win to secure bonuses plays out. Depending on where the bonus is weighted (Super Rugby/Wallabies) it will either force more spending on player wages or we’ll end up open slather on overseas wallabies picks.

Does the CBA guarantee a proportion of revenue to the players?

 

[Adam84]

Does the CBA guarantee a proportion of revenue to the players?

it used to, yeah
doubt RUPA have given that up

 

[Slim 293]

This is just standard breaking news journalism. One outlet breaks the story and everyone else quickly follows rewriting the same information from the source - so that they can benefit from the attention and traffic.

It’s really not Christy…

 

[JRugby2]

It’s really not Christy…

I can't be everyone.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Does the CBA guarantee a proportion of revenue to the players?

29% of player generated reveune (probably - we haven't seen the latest CBA)

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

Be interesting to see how the balance between the stated move towards driving down wage inflation, and the need to win to secure bonuses plays out. Depending on where the bonus is weighted (Super Rugby/Wallabies) it will either force more spending on player wages or we’ll end up open slather on overseas wallabies picks.

Does the CBA guarantee a proportion of revenue to the players?

Good luck fighting wage inflation unless Japan and France do too. Seems like might moderate in UK & IRE etc.

 

[5StarStu]

Have we seen a performance incentive of this nature from a broadcaster before? Interesting model - don't hate it

The A-League deal with 10/Paramount is performance-based - they had incentives to drive subscriptions to Paramount+, and part of the challenge with the deal was that they failed them, which led to a significant decrease in distributions to clubs this season.

 

[Adam84]

The A-League deal with 10/Paramount is performance-based - they had incentives to drive subscriptions to Paramount+, and part of the challenge with the deal was that they failed them, which led to a significant decrease in distributions to clubs this season.

slightly different.

That was performance based on TV ratings/Streaming subscription metrics and reportedly made up a significant portion of the Broadcast Rights overall. What they are discussing in the article for RA is incentives for Wallabies and OZ Super Rugby teams on-field performance

 

[LeCheese]

The A-League deal with 10/Paramount is performance-based - they had incentives to drive subscriptions to Paramount+, and part of the challenge with the deal was that they failed them, which led to a significant decrease in distributions to clubs this season.

Yeah as Adam says, was more curious about ones directly linked to actual teams performance

 

[liquor box]

Here's a detailed breakdown:

• Performance-Based Incentives: The proposed five-year deal, valued at over $210 million, includes bonuses linked to the Wallabies' match victories. This structure is designed to reward Rugby Australia with additional revenue for each win, potentially amounting to millions of dollars.

I wonder if we can add winnable games to the schedule to increase our win percentage? Maybe a 1 match Bledisloe and 2 games against Morocco

I really like this incentive, is it only for the men, or does it also include the Women's team, or the 7's?

 

[Rhino_rugby]

Be interesting to see how the balance between the stated move towards driving down wage inflation, and the need to win to secure bonuses plays out. Depending on where the bonus is weighted (Super Rugby/Wallabies) it will either force more spending on player wages or we’ll end up open slather on overseas wallabies picks.

Does the CBA guarantee a proportion of revenue to the players?

Wages rise if weighted toward Super Rugby; if Wallabies-focused, more overseas picks. Does the CBA guarantee players a revenue share

 

[Brumby Runner]

slightly different.

That was performance based on TV ratings/Streaming subscription metrics and reportedly made up a significant portion of the Broadcast Rights overall. What they are discussing in the article for RA is incentives for Wallabies and OZ Super Rugby teams on-field performance

Does the winning bonus apply to Super Rugby? Seems a bit odd to single out the NZ sides for a beating. Every local derby, of course, has a winning and losing team, barring draws. I reckon it probably only applies to Wallabies' games.