Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[dru]

QPR/Pillar to Post lads could be an option.

Is that "Sauce"? Like Maloney, maybe.

If I wanted "colour" I'd look to Greg Martin <ducks for cover>

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

I was talking more about Jaybor (who is related to Marto). Sauce is the Reds media manager.

 

[Finsbury Girl]

^ the dynamic duo. Love their footy and not afraid to show it. Best in the country by a mile.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Sean Maloney is great in commentary and he was particularly good during the last RWC. I'd love to see him back in OZ covering those games.

 

[Aurelius]

I think it's been discussed before on this thread - the investment required would not be that large. Foxtel already outsource production to NEP, who provide all the broadcast facilities. Taking production in-house would mostly be a matter of RA paying NEP directly, and then being able to package a finished product to Foxtel, Optus, whoever, who in turn don't have to pay a production company. That could be more attractive for someone like Optus. The requirements from RA would be providing the commentators, and the content outside of the games themselves.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald the A-League is looking at doing the same thing. It might be the way all sports go from now on.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer...tion-rights-for-a-league-20200508-p54r2c.html

 

[Derpus]

Supposedly the NRL is on the verge of a 1.9 billion rights deal.

 

[louie]

Supposedly the NRL is on the verge of a 1.9 billion rights deal.

its an extension of 4 extra years at 30million less a year.

 

[John S]

Sounds like a case of 'watch this space' to me. Does this mean we get to look forward to a Dan Herbert and Phil Waugh commentary team?

Anyone but Kearns

 

[half]

HHHHHMMMMMmmm AAAArrrrrrggggggaaaa

Spoke to a client today who is reasonably well connected in the Football world. What follows may not be true and all aspects may not be true however that Fox and FFA have signed off on a a number os aspects of the deal.

If this is true this could work for us as well. The key is the decent big backer...

He said he believes FFA on behalf of the A-League clubs is negotiating a seven year contract with Fox and its a very clever deal. Fox will pay 40 million per year and FFA will pay the broadcast fees and do the broadcast which they expect to be between 12 to 15 million. Meaning FFA are left with between 25 & 28 million instead of the 50 million cash they get today. But FFA will get the broadcast rights and be able to onsell to both FTA [I assume a specified number] and overseas...

 

[Ignoto]

Supposedly the NRL is on the verge of a 1.9 billion rights deal.

Sources with knowledge of the negotiations say Nine’s revised deal could represent a saving of up to 20 per cent on what it was originally due to pay in the final three years of the deal. Based on that discount, Nine will pay about $85-$90m in 2020, a discount of up to $30m. It will pay in the vicinity of $90-$100m in the final two years.

 

[Derpus]

HHHHHMMMMMmmm AAAArrrrrrggggggaaaa

Spoke to a client today who is reasonably well connected in the Football world. What follows may not be true and all aspects may not be true however that Fox and FFA have signed off on a a number os aspects of the deal.

If this is true this could work for us as well. The key is the decent big backer.

He said he believes FFA on behalf of the A-League clubs is negotiating a seven year contract with Fox and its a very clever deal. Fox will pay 40 million per year and FFA will pay the broadcast fees and do the broadcast which they expect to be between 12 to 15 million. Meaning FFA are left with between 25 & 28 million instead of the 50 million cash they get today. But FFA will get the broadcast rights and be able to onsell to both FTA [I assume a specified number] and overseas.

What are fox paying for if the rights remain with the FFA?

 

[Quick Hands]

its an extension of 4 extra years at 30million less a year.

TV rights aren't the bonanza for sports that they used to be. If the NRL is getting $30 million less a year then I'd hate to think what rugby would be worth now.

 

[half]

What are fox paying for if the rights remain with the FFA?

My understanding is the existing Fox / FFA contract with a team team format is 60 million which is spilt between cash and ads with cash amount being around 50 million.

There is 3 years left on the deal, however because FFA could not finish their season by 15 May, they are in breech of the contract and arguably Fox could rescind the contract. But it would be messy if FFA took it to court.

Rating where down anyway and were not meeting agreed metrics meaning a reduction is on the cards anyway, as per contract.

Optus has a number of Football products but is showing no sign of wanting at this point the A-League.

FFA's position is somewhat different to ours in that they still have a contract with 3 years to run, failing in metrics and capable of being rescinded but a contract to take to court anyway. Further in Optus have a streaming service with a number of Football products.

So there new CEO backed by a number of business owners of the A-League teams are looking to solve this. Rather than fight each other they kinda recognise they need to show a common face and be united.

I have no idea if it will work and they will get what they want but it clearly illustrates that as an organisation the various stakeholders have come together for a common and shared problem and are working quietly towards a solution rather than fight it out in the media.

This is so different to us with RA starting a media game with News who have hit back so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so hard. According to the head of Optus on the podcast on the RA thread Optus never considered or got close to looking at rugby.

In brief instead of 50 million, FFA will get 40 million less 12 to 15 million to broadcast so say 25 million or half, but own the game and can onsell to whoever else may wanta buy.

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^Are you saying that Fox pay effectively pay FFA for non exclusive rights and FFA are free to then sell the product to anyone who is willing to pay for it?

But that the quantum of money that Fox pay for the rights is reduced by 50%

Forgive me if I have misunderstood, just need it in simple terms.

 

[Aurelius]

FFA's position is somewhat different to ours in that they still have a contract with 3 years to run, failing in metrics and capable of being rescinded but a contract to take to court anyway. Further in Optus have a streaming service with a number of Football products.

So there new CEO backed by a number of business owners of the A-League teams are looking to solve this. Rather than fight each other they kinda recognise they need to show a common face and be united.

I have no idea if it will work and they will get what they want but it clearly illustrates that as an organisation the various stakeholders have come together for a common and shared problem and are working quietly towards a solution rather than fight it out in the media.

That's why I've always thought the FFA/A-League was in a better position than RA and Super Rugby. There are obvious issues with the A-League, and there's plenty of discussion as to how to improve the product. Should they shift to winter? Scrap the salary cap? Get rid of the VAR?

They're already committed to adding teams instead of cutting them, and a number of clubs are planning to shift to boutique stadiums to better serve the actual crowd numbers.

And now this self-production idea, driven by a CEO who seems to have developed a good working relationship with the existing broadcaster ...

Contrast that with RA. Their big idea to rescue Super Rugby a few years ago was literally:

Step 1 - Axe the Force.

Step 2 - ???

Step 3 - Profit!!!

And when that didn't work, they didn't really have anywhere to go. Not even a broadcaster.

 

[half]

^^^Are you saying that Fox pay effectively pay FFA for non exclusive rights and FFA are free to then sell the product to anyone who is willing to pay for it?

But that the quantum of money that Fox pay for the rights is reduced by 50%

Forgive me if I have misunderstood, just need it in simple terms.

Yes. Hope this explains it. REMEMBER ITS NOT SIGNED JUST A WELL SAUCED RUMOUR

As I understand it and remember its via a client.

Fox currently say they pay for Football overall 100 million, this includes A-League, International matches, broadcast costs, and various panels, with by far the two biggest expenses being 60 million [including ads] for the A-League and broadcast cost broken down into broadcast expenses and the commentators.

Fox have publicly stated the broadcast cost are close to 85K a game. No idea what makes up the 85K per game.

So Fox will pay for 6 instead of 5 games 40 million with no broadcast costs. Essentially Fox are paying less than half what they do now.

In return FFA want to have the rights as the broadcaster so they can onsell matches to FTA and I assume their is a game limit and to anyone overseas.

Further Fox want 7 years which takes Optus out of the picture for a long time.

FFA instead of receiving in cash around 50 million will receive 40 million but have to pay broadcast costs, which they believe will be between 12 & 15 million.

So today Fox pay 60 million plus broadcast cost according to Fox 12 million, combined its 72 million. Fox will now if this is correct pay 40 million almost half and get another 4 years at a low costs. Also Fox are getting one extra game. So effective Fox are paying half.

FFA in return are getting in spite of very poor rating over the last two to three years, say net 25 million and the ownership of their league to onsell.

In essence FFA will own their own product and have made a 40 million dollar sale as a start if the story is correct.

The clubs who despised Gallop are said to be massively impressed with the new CEO. Tony Sage the owner of Perth Glory recently on air on a Perth radio station and in the local press has sung his praises the same guy who tore into the previous FFA Admin.

 

[half]

^^^^^

BTW the above is all from a client and is still in negotiation but according to my client this is very close to being signed off.

So until the ink is dry please treat as a well sauced rumour.

But the approach and cooperation is so different to ours. Especially now we understand Optus showed almost no interest.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

^^^^^

BTW the above is all from a client and is still in negotiation but according to my client this is very close to being signed off.

So until the ink is dry please treat as a well sauced rumour.

But the approach and cooperation is so different to ours. Especially now we understand Optus showed almost no interest.

Plenty of tomato

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I don’t know what to believe as to Optus and Foxtel interest in doing a deal as let’s face it Covid crisis put them back in the box seat for negotiations esp as we don’t have any deal on the table and complexities of super rugby as cross border competition so Optus and Foxtel saying no interest to me could well be all part of the game to get low ball deal.

But at this point I am concerned about what sort of deal could be arranged and at what price. Surely NZ must be as well as they might have a deal but if no oz sides in super rugby then than they have a deal to provide super rugby content that ain’t going to happen. In all this I can’t see how nz and South Africa can’t not be tied to oz rugby deal situation as surely their own deals would be at risk if no oz super rugby sides involved (ie no oz deal).

Am I missing something here but nz and Sa broadcast deals still very much dependent on what happens on oz deal front.

 

[Quick Hands]

I don’t know what to believe as to Optus and Foxtel interest in doing a deal as let’s face it Covid crisis put them back in the box seat for negotiations esp as we don’t have any deal on the table and complexities of super rugby as cross border competition so Optus and Foxtel saying no interest to me could well be all part of the game to get low ball deal.

But at this point I am concerned about what sort of deal could be arranged and at what price. Surely NZ must be as well as they might have a deal but if no oz sides in super rugby then than they have a deal to provide super rugby content that ain’t going to happen. In all this I can’t see how nz and South Africa can’t not be tied to oz rugby deal situation as surely their own deals would be at risk if no oz super rugby sides involved (ie no oz deal).

Am I missing something here but nz and Sa broadcast deals still very much dependent on what happens on oz deal front.

If Super Rugby doesn't continue in its pan-continental form or it continues and Australia isn't part of it, then SA and NZ would need to renegotiate their respective broadcast deals. SARU and NZRU aren't in the same position as RA though - no AFL in either and league is virtually non-existant in SA and very much a minor sport in NZ. Rugby rights in SA and NZ are a far more attractive proposition to broadcasters that they are in Australia.