Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[Slim 293]

The ban on gaming ads in family viewing times will be interesting..........

That's going to be a lot of lost revenue for the broadcasters, but fuck 'em.

 

[TOCC]

that's why the license fees were cut, to offset some of the costs for banning gambling advertising, that and its hard to justify a $130milion license fee in the age of broadband internet

 

[TOCC]

With the news today betting advertising will be banned on live sport broadcasts, Australia's share of sporting revenues just took a shot to the nuts.

the biggest impact will be on cricket advertising revenue rather then rugby, NRL or AFL. The ban on advertising is only during the live broadcast itself, so broadcasters can still advertise sports betting up to 5min before, and can advertise from 8:30pm onwards. So prime time matches, which kick off at 7:45 will feature a bombardment of sports betting in the lead-up, and then immediately following the 8:30pm cut off...

If it makes a big impact to the bottom line of the broadcasts, i wouldn't be surprised to see broadcasters slowly slip the kick off time later into the night. State of Origin for instance, didn't kick off until 8:22pm despite an 8:00 kick off time advertised. They do this to slip in extra adds during the pre-match phases and extract greater value from the broadcast.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Interesting article re the ALeague's current financial issues, brought on because they couldn't get the broadcast deal they forecast Worth a read for those coming up with their own domestic rugby comp

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...l-war-in-australian-football?CMP=share_btn_tw

Ever since the federal government gave Frank Lowy $15m in 2003 to revolutionise the sport, revenue has moved from being almost totally reliant on the fortunes of the Socceroos to the national league being the main source of income – much to the annoyance of A-League club owners with a combined loss of around $250m.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Brumby Runner]

So prime time matches, which kick off at 7:45 will feature a bombardment of sports betting in the lead-up, and then immediately following the 8:30pm cut off.

Exactly what I'd expect to happen if FTA get their hands on live coverage of the rugby. Could be the end of uninterrupted sports coverage.

 

[The Honey Badger]

Heard Allan Jones last week talking about an idea of Benny Ellias for NRL to launch a takeover of Channel 10, I presume so the NRL owns its own broadcast vehicle and retains control of the content and the TV revenue stream. . Dont think it got much coverage anywhere, but got me thinking.

If Channel 10 is a basket case and losing money, then its probably not worth much. I know ARU not particularly flush at the moment, but all they would really want is a long term lease on one of the digital channels (Eleven or One).

If the station is not making money from its main channel it would be loosing plenty on the other 2. So I would think they would be open to the idea, and it shouldn't cost too much. They would get a guaranteed income stream and one less station they have to buy content for.

ARU could talk to Cricket Australia for some sort of Joint Venture. (Some talk about 9 not wanting to broadcast Test cricket)

Channel 10 could do the coverage and production and part of the deal they would have to cross promote on the main channel.

The end result we have a dedicated Rugby channel, All Super is Free to Air, all Schute Shield and club rugby from the other states. Should be plenty of content, plus what is available from Overseas. Be great to get Schools involved at least for the Rep rugby.

But they could do so much if it were to happen.

Say the ARU committed to send a film crew to cover 1 club game of every club in the country. Lets say every A team over U12 gets 1 match highlights pack broadcast FTA. That would generate a fair bit of interest. Plenty of kids that play Leauge would want to be part of that.
When people keep banging on about grass roots, don't think you could do more than that.

Not sure where Fox fits in, perhaps they retain rights to the overseas Super matches but the Home Super and Tests need to be FTA

Thoughts?

 

[wamberal]

Mate,


We cannot run rugby properly and profitably. What makes you think we could be part of running a loss making television network?


Our best chance is that Rupert is allowed to take over the remnants of Network TEN. Then we would surely pick up some crumbs in terms of FTA coverage, because of the obvious crossover of interests with Fox Sports.

 

[The Honey Badger]

Mate,


We cannot run rugby properly and profitably. What makes you think we could be part of running a loss making television network?


Our best chance is that Rupert is allowed to take over the remnants of Network TEN. Then we would surely pick up some crumbs in terms of FTA coverage, because of the obvious crossover of interests with Fox Sports.

Fair point, but I am not suggesting ARU run a TV network.

Secure a channel as your own broadcast vehicle and I would think Broadcasters would come from everywhere to partner you. Its really about taking control of your most valuable asset Not knowing what the next broadcast deal looks like is not a good place to be.

 

[Braveheart81]

Fair point, but I am not suggesting ARU run a TV network.

Secure a channel as your own broadcast vehicle and I would think Broadcasters would come from everywhere to partner you. Its really about taking control of your most valuable asset Not knowing what the next broadcast deal looks like is not a good place to be.

Having an entire channel isn't really much different from running a TV network. Not that many years ago, the FTA networks were single channels.

Why would a TV network want to do it unless the money on offer was massive?

They're giving up control over a significant portion of their broadcast right and along with that quality control etc.

 

[The Honey Badger]

Why would a TV network want to do it unless the money on offer was massive?

Consider channel 10, is forecast to lose $30m this year. Hardly an abnormal result they have been in trouble for some time.

They pay $23M for a broadcast licence based on a % of revenue.

I am sure most of their revenue is earned from the main channel and channels One and Eleven would probably be more of a burden. They have to buy content and clearly not much revenue generated.

I would think channel 10 would be open to a discussion on some sort of long term lease over one of the digital channels.

I was just suggesting another way the ARU could spend money they apparently have to buy back the Rebels licence. I think the same money might buy a lot of FTA TV.

Sent from my F3115 using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

Consider channel 10, is forecast to lose $30m this year. Hardly an abnormal result they have been in trouble for some time.

They pay $23M for a broadcast licence based on a % of revenue.

I am sure most of their revenue is earned from the main channel and channels One and Eleven would probably be more of a burden. They have to buy content and clearly not much revenue generated.

I would think channel 10 would be open to a discussion on some sort of long term lease over one of the digital channels.

I was just suggesting another way the ARU could spend money they apparently have to buy back the Rebels licence. I think the same money might buy a lot of FTA TV.

Sent from my F3115 using Tapatalk

Channel 10 had revenue of $676 million in the 2016 financial year.

If they were going to lease the rights to an entire channel I would be guessing the fee would be somewhere around $100m. They're not going to offload it cheaply.

How many people do you think the ARU would need to hire to have the expertise to run a TV channel?

 

[The Honey Badger]

How many people do you think the ARU would need to hire to have the expertise to run a TV channel?

You need a broadcast partner, and that would be part of the deal. I would suggest Fox.

Don't think it would be anything like $100 m.


Sent from my F3115 using Tapatalk

 

[The Honey Badger]

Channel 10 had revenue of $676 million in the 2016 financial year.

If they were going to lease the rights to an entire channel I would be guessing the fee would be somewhere around $100m. They're not going to offload it cheaply.

How many people do you think the ARU would need to hire to have the expertise to run a TV channel?

You need a broadcast partner, and that would be part of the deal. I would suggest Fox.

Don't think it would be anything like $100 m.

In April the whole Station was only Worth $177M on the stock market

So I think if you did a deal for 1 station say Friday to Monday during the season wouldn't cost too much.

Sent from my F3115 using Tapatalk

Sent from my F3115 using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm not sure what's in it for Fox. Why would they want to put their content on FTA or put their staff towards running someone else's TV channel?

What sort of figure would you guesstimate that Channel 10 would give away the rights to one of their secondary channels for?

The company is not worth much because it is struggling to make a profit. It still generated $676m in TV revenue in 2016.

I think this is an incredibly unlikely proposition.

 

[The Honey Badger]

I think this is an incredibly unlikely proposition.

Yes it is, just a crazy idea posted by a delusional fanatic that would love nothing more than to see Rugby on FTA.

But I do think lots of things will be considered come next broadcast deal, especially live streaming options.


Sent from my F3115 using Tapatalk

 

[dru]

FTA is dead.
Hell, TV is dead.

It was an historical error to have no FTA in rugby, but in 2017 to move to FTA would be like entering a steam-powered traction engine in F1.

The digital is not "going to happen" nor is it "happening now". It snuck into the world some time ago. Not too quietly either.

Time to get on board. Find a way to stream. QRU doing OK with QPR but get fans and the clubs involved and expand to all games. Ditto Shute Shield.

Get this moving next season so we have some experience prior to the TV deal (and possibly Soup) imploding in 2020.

 

[kiap]

FTA is dead.
Hell, TV is dead.

It was an historical error to have no FTA in rugby, but in 2017 to move to FTA would be like entering a steam-powered traction engine in F1.

The digital is not "going to happen" nor is it "happening now". It snuck into the world some time ago. Not too quietly either.

Time to get on board. Find a way to stream. QRU doing OK with QPR but get fans and the clubs involved and expand to all games. Ditto Shute Shield.

Get this moving next season so we have some experience prior to the TV deal (and possibly Soup) imploding in 2020.

Sooner the better.

With all this stuff, though, it's not an immediate switch off for old options.

Even Soup is not disappearing instantly. It's being eroded away over time until it loses viability.

If TV is steam powered then radio is pedal powered – but it is still going. FTA will be around a while yet, imo, and remains a useful part of a broadcast mix.

 

[GTPIH]

If Fox wanted to get involved they could just set-up a Rugby Channel similar to the AFL and NRL Channels. No need for them to do it on Channel 10.

 

[Slim 293]

If Fox wanted to get involved they could just set-up a Rugby Channel similar to the AFL and NRL Channels. No need for them to do it on Channel 10.

Being a proper international sport, there's actually significantly more rugby content over 12 months to support a channel, but in Australia there's not really the interest.........

For a large part of the year Fox's AFL and NRL channels are just back to back replays.

 

[The Honey Badger]

If Fox wanted to get involved they could just set-up a Rugby Channel similar to the AFL and NRL Channels. No need for them to do it on Channel 10.

You miss the point. I don't think Fox are part of the solution, more likely they are the problem. By hiding Rugby behind a pay wall they have contributed to the detriment of Australian Rugby.

Sent from my F3115 using Tapatalk