Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[molman]

Jamie addressed that issue too:

The lack of formal interest has forced them to extend their period for offers for another week.​

Initially, all contract questions were to cease by next Wednesday, after which prospective buyers would have to table offers. Late on Thursday, it was confirmed this would be pushed back another week.​

As you say and JP notes, it's "formal interest" that is being reported on not behind-the-scenes negotiations.​

​

Yes, I noted that, it's hard to seperate some of the moves being made from where the situation really is at. It's always in my mind who the source is and who this information/report most benefits.

Hypothetically if as reported by JP the situation is such, then obviously that would be far from ideal and not what we want. It's not too much longer before we'll know the truth of the matter one way or the other. For the sake of the game we love hopefully it's a positive outcome.

 

[RedsHappy]

^^^ @adam84 was just a joke mate - enjoy the put down nonetheless, there’ll be plenty more opportunities

 

[RedsHappy]

Yes, I noted that, it's hard to seperate some of the moves being made from where the situation really is at. It's always in my mind who the source is and who this information/report most benefits.

Hypothetically if as reported by JP the situation is such, then obviously that would be far from ideal and not what we want. It's not too much longer before we'll know the truth of the matter one way or the other. For the sake of the game we love hopefully it's a positive outcome.

We need to keep in mind - R Castle is in London this very week listening to a possible PE pitch by CVC C to invest in SANZAAR and/or link SANZAAR in media rights terms to the 6N comp, that could well be the RA fall back option (in some odd form) if the broadcast deal for RA’s 2021-> media rights goes pear shaped (which it well might)

 

[Adam84]

^^^ @adam84 was just a joke mate - enjoy the put down nonetheless, there’ll be plenty more opportunities

Thought I was joking also by having a light hearted dig at someone gloating.
I don’t actually think you’re Nostradamus

 

[Slim 293]

Jamie Pandaram in the Telegraph says today
Three weeks after putting their broadcast package to the open market, Rugby Australia has not had a single offer, leaving Optus to snap up the broadcast rights in a new low for the game.


Optus is favoured to become the new home of rugby, but the final deal could be disastrous for the code if the telco low-balls Rugby Australia as expected.


It can also be revealed that Optus has begun talks with production companies, who they will need to film and package Super Rugby, club rugby and women’s rugby games, given they do not have the capabilities to do this in-house.

It’s estimated that these production costs will be around $10 million a year, and Optus will fold this into their offer to RA.

Knowing Fox Sports is no longer in the mix, having already had a $40 million-a-year offer rejected by RA late last year, insiders expect Optus to come in with a dramatically lower figure given the lack of options.

Disastrous? A new low for the game?

A newscorp exclusive?!?!

Utterly shameless.........

 

[barbarian]

If you're Optus, surely you are reading the Tele with a very suspicious eye. Today's article is basically goading them into putting in a low-ball offer.

Again, I have no idea how these things work, but taking your cues from a publication funded by your rival bidder would be a very dangerous strategy.

 

[RedsHappy]

Btw all interested - I see in The Australian on Feb 28 Patrick Delaney of Foxtel states categorically that the ARU/RA did go to open market in the last 2 rugby media rights bidding cycles, indicating that reports this did not occur are wrong.

He went on to say that this cycle Foxtel and RA had a ‘6 week exclusive one on one negotiating period’ which has clearly now expired.

He then stated ‘Foxtel and RA know where each other stands’ which is some way from a clear end withdrawal by Foxtel from the process.

So the fat lady hasn’t sung yet.

 

[RedsHappy]

If you're Optus, surely you are reading the Tele with a very suspicious eye. Today's article is basically goading them into putting in a low-ball offer.

Again, I have no idea how these things work, but taking your cues from a publication funded by your rival bidder would be a very dangerous strategy.

Yep, I don’t think Optus will take any notice of News Corp emanations re this process.

I still do think though - given the code’s current metrics and that they have to deal with production of at least all the non Test rugby - that they’ll bid cautiously if they finally do bid.

 

[Ignoto]

Nostradamus? Hahaha # 2553

Mate, if you're going to be a smart arse, it might be wise to check other sources outside of News Corp.

But Castle remained confident they would still bid for the rights, with the process expected to be concluded by mid-March.

Last I checked, the 5th/6th is not the middle of March.

 

[RedsHappy]

Mate, if you're going to be a smart arse, it might be wise to check other sources outside of News Corp.
Last I checked, the 5th/6th is not the middle of March.

Oh FFS! See the ‘Hahaha’ in my post, it was all merely lighthearted stuff and so intended.

And more seriously - at no stage did I say Foxtel would def not bid and was out and that process over. The issue arose over keeping the process ‘open’ in some way for a longer period than perhaps originally anticipated.

Whatever - we’ll all know soon enough.

 

[Finsbury Girl]

If you're Optus, surely you are reading the Tele with a very suspicious eye. Today's article is basically goading them into putting in a low-ball offer.



Again, I have no idea how these things work, but taking your cues from a publication funded by your rival bidder would be a very dangerous strategy.

Is the implication that the journalist lacks integrity and the story is a fabrication?

Whilst the tone of an article can definitely be informative, I think it is unfair to infer the journalist/newspaper is essentially a shill for Foxtel.

 

[barbarian]

Yes, I believe the journalist is not interrogating the motives of whoever from Fox Sports 'leaked' him this story.

They could at least acknowledge the possibility that this is a ploy designed to create doubt in the mind of other bidders.

Instead the journalist has regurgitated the Fox line without one iota of critical thought.

 

[Dctarget]

Is the implication that the journalist lacks integrity and the story is a fabrication?

Whilst the tone of an article can definitely be informative, I think it is unfair to infer the journalist/newspaper is essentially a shill for Foxtel.

Rule of thumb with Murdoch papers: nothing is unfair.

 

[Finsbury Girl]

So is it fabricated or not?

 

[barbarian]

So is it fabricated or not?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I never said anything was fabricated, just that the journalist is a mouthpiece for the interests of News Corp. That means amplifying the potential for disaster (ie if Optus put in a low offer), and being deliberately vague about the intentions of Fox Sports.

 

[Finsbury Girl]

My point is that there are a number of things in the article that are extremely concerning.

We should not be waiving these away purely due to them being reported by a journalist working for a News Corp owned publication.

 

[barbarian]

No, but it's a reason to be skeptical at the very least. If the prognostications in the article turn out to be true then yes it would be concerning news.

 

[Adam84]

My point is that there are a number of things in the article that are extremely concerning.

We should not be waiving these away purely due to them being reported by a journalist working for a News Corp owned publication.

We shouldn’t simply waive them off but we should also be extremely wary and sceptical of any articles produced by the newspapers owned by the same company bidding for the broadcast rights. There is vested interest in articles with an aim of to drive down the value, and undermine the value of the rights to a bidder now that it has gone to open market. Alternatively they want to undermine the boards confidence in the decision they’ve made, in the hope they return to Foxtel.

 

[Wilson]

If you're Optus, surely you are reading the Tele with a very suspicious eye. Today's article is basically goading them into putting in a low-ball offer.

Again, I have no idea how these things work, but taking your cues from a publication funded by your rival bidder would be a very dangerous strategy.

Absolutely. Can't see it being in Optus' interest to (significantly) low ball an offer either. If the buy the game at a price that kills it it's not going to help them build their subscriber base much.

 

[Lorenzo]

News Corp has weaponised its papers before in circumstances like this. Consequently, I'd be inclined to believe approximatelt zero percent of what is written.

Happy to be wrong about this but my money is on a new deal with fox. The reason being that, despite the near weekly public pronouncements of them 'walking away' from Rugby, we know they are interested (if you are prepared to believe they wanted a deal during the exclusive period) in the product and are likely able to extract more money out of it than the others are. Whilst they are operating in a challenging environment to say the least, their ARPU is still AUD77, which is more than Amazon, Stan, Netflix and Rugypass combined.

I doubt Optus is interested at any price other than a bargain. If they pay big, they need to lift their price, which whilst not necessarily the end of the world, is unlikely something they would be willing to do with Rugby as the launch product.