Rugby TV ratings 2015

[Train Without a Station]

But at what cost? They aren't going to be drawn into an irrational bidding war.

Foxtel's general best viewing numbers is probably best estimated around 350,000 (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-on-2014-figures/story-fni3fbgz-1226855693237).

No if you consider the cost of the sports channel only at $25, and take their peak viewers, the NRL nets them around $525M over the length of their TV deal.

This is somewhat simplified assuming:

* Peak Numbers is max viewers that NRL draws;
* Not considering broadcast costs, etc. to be deducted;
* Excluding advertising revenue which would be minimal with no advertisements;
* Not considering subscribers who would remain without NRL content.

So why would Foxtel offer any more than $525M? ($105M per year) Or actually less to allow for broadcast costs, risk, profit, other content to fill channels, etc.

When you look at that, my $50M per annum estimate seems closer to what they should be spending for what they will now get.

To offer more they'd have to expect an increase in viewers. Considering they have already lost the Saturday night game, I'd doubt that.

 

[TahDan]

Very much agree with GPSM.

Fox certainly have some bargaining power, but no where near as much as you're suggesting TWAS. Offer a piddling amount it absolutely makes perfect sense for the NRL to block them out completely from a business standpoint.

The suggestion of a war is a little overblown too. If the Tele and CM stopped covering League then their sales would plummet almost as bad as Fox's.

There'll be no war. My money is on Fox paying for simulcast for all games and keeping their subscriber base in tact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

It doesn't need to be a war though.

It's quite easy to change your general spin on the issue to show it in a more negative light. Fans will still read it.

It's basically News' bread and butter!

 

[Train Without a Station]

Fox certainly have some bargaining power, but no where near as much as you're suggesting TWAS. Offer a piddling amount it absolutely makes perfect sense for the NRL to block them out completely from a business standpoint.

Offering $50M a year for 96 games is not a piddling amount. When you consider the viewers they get now with a better deal, I don't see how they can offer any more unless they intend to not make any money.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Good point Braveheart81, that would be my only fear for the NRL is an all out war, but what's the end game for News Ltd there? Go with AFL and push the Daily Telegraph to boost Fox Sports. AFL's ratings are not flash in Sydney, push Brisbane Lions through Courier Mail to boost Fox Sports. Ratings for Lions in Brisbane are beaten by Toyota Cup and QLD Cup.

The reality is that NRL is incredibly important to Foxtel and to News Ltd's papers in QLD and NSW. The other factor is where will Telstra stand if they think Foxtel will lose NRL? Remember they don't own FOX Sports, but they effectively pick up a chunk of the tab. There is much to play out, much smarter minds than mine are putting this together, I'm quite sure they've thought through the strategic implications.

Yes, but you can make strategic mistake as well. Rupert and News don't care for RL outside of its profitability for its network. The deal with 9 could potentially damage that. What the NRL are offering is at best 4 games a week. Three if 9 continue their current Friday night schedule. Fox could pay 9 for the simulcast but how does that add value to the NRL's deal?

Why would Fox decide to up their offer when they are essentially being presented with less product?

Fox sports could survive without the NRL. It would be tough to begin with but they have other properties that they can back or invest in.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Last Saturday Night Foxtel got 249,000 for their exclusive game. 244,000 for their Monday night game before that. 275,000 for the Saturday night before that. 293,000 the Monday prior.

293,000 on a Monday night appears to be their peak in August.

If they can't crack 300,000 viewers for any games, do you think there's any more people that have the service just for the NRL? With their subscriptions over 2,000,000 whilst it would be a hit to the numbers, at the costs is it really bad for their business?

 

[Train Without a Station]

The Sports package is $25 extra. In disregarding the $25 basic package, I have not considered what it costs Foxtel to have basis content, but also the cost of the other sports content that's included. If anything it's less when you consider the amount they have invested in the AFL.

Super Rugby ratings haven't dropped off though. They briefly peaked and have seemingly returned to their norm in fact.

So the simulcast knocks $25M per year off the 9 deal already. Why are Foxtel going to go for broke to pay to televise what you can watch for free somewhere else? Why would I bother paying for that as a customer? I don't understand how you expect they'll pay even more to share the telecast of something. Exclusivity is their whole business model.

I'm stuck on viewership, because if nobody's watching, why would Foxtel lose by not having it?

Most importantly, I'm looking at peak numbers. I'm looking at best case scenario and that everybody who watches a game would drop Foxtel without the NRL.

 

[Braveheart81]

Channel 9 might reduce their payment by $25m a year if a simulcast deal is sold to Foxtel but would Foxtel have to pay $25m a year for that privilege?

It's also in the NRL's interests to have their product available in HD.

There are plenty of swings and round abouts to this. On one hand, Foxtel's potential for exclusive content is reduced both by one match per week and more substantially by the potential quality of the matches they have available to them. On the other hand, they could pay to simulcast everything which would be appreciated greatly by Foxtel subscribers who are big NRL fans.

 

[Slim 293]

But let's have a look at the games right.

Friday night - Channel 7 have AFL Friday night's. I imagine they'll want to keep it. That reduces the betting war to 10 and Foxtel for a 2nd Friday game. And again, with the first one being in the same time slot, it doesn't offer the value of an exclusive game as 50% of your target audience won't tune in because the teams in the other game suits them better.

Saturday Afternoon - Currently 7 have the AFL afternoon game. Again, can't see them walking away from that. Therefore the NRL afternoon game offers no value to them. That leaves 10 and Foxtel to fight it out.

Saturday night - Same again. On 7.

Sunday - Again. 7.

I absolutely doubt Channel 7 will even make a bid. All they would be bidding on is product that competes with all their current product.

That leaves 10. There's been talk of them wanting live sport but they have never previously gone big for sport. I think they peaked at 1 AFL Game on Saturday nights in fact.

I wouldn't be surprised if they see a bit more value for money in their international rugby also.

But my point is there are 4 total players. 9, 7, 10 and Foxtel.

9 are tapped out. They've spent almost everything they can afford to get what suits them.

7 are well tied into AFL. They already basically have what 9 have just bid for in NRL. Can't see them looking to walk away from their prime AFL coverage to be the secondary NRL coverage.

That leaves 10 and Foxtel as the real competitors. Ignoring the potential Foxtel buy into 10, when has 10 in the past shown an inclination to throw $100Ms at sports? What they have shown is the inclination to step away when it gets to that level.

There's more money there for the NRL. Anybody who thinks that there's going to be huge bidding wars is filled with NRL head quarters hubris there.

Seven will likely still put forward a small bid for the remaining NRL matches just to chance their hand...........

They're putting forward a lot of money to sport lately, having picked up a number of Nine's former programs in the past few years, regaining the Olympics, and they are about to launch a 24 hr racing channel on FTA (which is currently streaming racing.com on channel 74)...........

But, it's unlikely to be a serious bid as they'll be doing everything they can to retain their AFL rights which Nine have already indicated they want to have a crack at

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Not sure about your logic here WorkingClassRugger, I think you'll find there is a significant amount care within News Ltd about NRL.
- NRL has been the backbone of FOX Sports, they've invested in NRL for a long time.
- Despite many offers to purchase they have refused to sell the Broncos.
- Lachlan is a fan.
- NRL drives newspaper sales.
- "NRL are offering at best 4 games a week", this is wrong, it is all set and been negotiated that Simulcast Rights are available, the number one thing Foxtel has wanted. Sure they wouldn't be happy about being wedged and potentially having to pay more, but they can have every game live if they want.
- FOX couldn't pay 9 for the Simulcast Rights, all properties are the NRL's not 9's. I think that would be covered in the contract!
- Love the passion and I understand where you are coming from, any way let's check back in later, it could be two years before this plays out, of course it may have been agreed to when Rupert had lunch with Dave too. Wait and see!

I'll try to address each point.

1. True, the NRL has provided the bulk of Fox Sports content over the years. But this is also the organisation that created the SL war, so its not without precedent that they would be willing damage a product in their own interests. Another point that I alluded to above is that they have diversified their holding particularly in the last decade. While the NRL still holds a prominent place its not their only holding. Part of the reason they bought rights to the AFL was to tap into the very large percentage of viewers not holding subscriptions. They also have the A-League that is beginning to really develop traction and you can bet the next time the BBL rights come up they'll be in hot pursuit of those.

They could easily look to start pushing their other interests hard if they lose the NRL. Which they won't. The other question is, outside of 9 who else is there out there to compete? Channel 9 has essentially played their hand when it comes to the next round of AFL rights. Channel 7 will be odds on for those again as 10 and Fox are very likely to end up under the same banner. And frankly 10 would be struggling to afford it anyway. Unless the likes of BeIN Sports pops up the market is pretty limited. This puts Fox in an interesting bargaining position.

2. Aren't the Broncos floated on the ASX? Which makes them a publicly traded company. News owns majority shares and they'll likely continue as long as it delivers positive dividends.

4. So what, business is business. Newscorp is a listed company that has to do what's best for its shareholders. That means acquiring content for the best possible price and then adding value from there. Whether Lachlan's a fan or not really doesn't mean anything.

4. And it will continue to drive newspaper sales (a dying medium by the way) whether Fox has the rights or pays $50m or $500m for them. Again, business is business.

5. Channel 9 holds the exclusive rights to at least 4 games a week. The NRL has sold them those rights as part of their deal. As part of that sale it gives 9 the rights to do as it wishes with them. If simulcast occurs Fox won't be paying the NRL. They'll be paying the rights holders. Which are channel 9 who will then penalising the NRL for losing its exclusivity. This happens in Rugby where channel 10 pays Foxs the rights to simulcast Test matches.

6. As above.

 

[boyo]

It's also in the NRL's interests to have their product available in HD.

This

 

[Slim 293]

All interesting points. Again, lets see how it plays out.

I will take you to task on point 5.

- "Channel 9 holds the exclusive rights to at least 4 games a week", they hold the rights to 4, not "at least 4".

They could on-sell one of those games.........

Not saying they will, but they could - so, at least 4.........

- "As part of that sale it gives 9 the rights to do as it wishes with them", no contract would be agreed in this way. Why would they negotiate an amount by which the broadcast fees drop if Simulcast rights are sold if this was the case? The rights are for the NRL to sell not Ch9.

Not true, the option to on-sell the rights is often included and sometimes exercised in sports deals.........

 

[Train Without a Station]

Isn't this the whole issue with Ten not showing the odd UK test match as it's the property of the UK broadcaster?

 

[Miggie]

This thread sums up why rugby is where it is in Australia. Pretty delusional stuff.

Fox aren't going to write off their business here. Expect the NRL to rake it in.

BTW, I take no pleasure from what is obviously going to happen.

 

[TOCC]

Take this mungo chat elsewhere... This thread is for rugby TV ratings..

I'm pretty confident the NRC will have decent growth in ratings from last year, there's a lot more awareness about the comp this year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

You're the bloke talking about Fox offering more money than they appear to make based on max viewers.

What? No I'm not


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Train Without a Station]

This thread sums up why rugby is where it is in Australia. Pretty delusional stuff.

Fox aren't going to write off their business here. Expect the NRL to rake it in.

BTW, I take no pleasure from what is obviously going to happen.

You're the bloke talking about Fox offering more money than they appear to make based on max viewers.

What? No I'm not


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed you are not. I incorrectly quoted you.

 

[Hawko]

I think logic would stop that mate.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

With the CH9 NRL rights for 4 games thursday, friday, saturday and sunday. Well whats to stop Fox from getting the other 4 games on the proviso they are also on thurs/fri/sat/sun and at a time 2 hours before the games on 9.

And then, just to throw a spanner in the works, since Fox are partnering up with TEN, they might like to offer TEN delayed telecast of those 4 games. With that delay accidentally colliding with the time of 9's matches..

If I understand your thought correctly, that might be true if Ten and Nine were rating roughly the same. But, if Ten is only rating 25-50% in those timeslots, then showing repeats of the Fox coverage two hours later might deliver close to the same ratings while substantially weakening their competitor. Note that this doesn't have to be their main channel, can easily be one of their HD offshoots which allows them to advertise "league in High Definition". They would possibly garner that audience from:

1. People who didn't have Foxtel and
2. People who followed teams other than those playing on Nine.

Unless I miss my mark, the only way for Nine to counter this would be to demand that it got the four top rating games every week and Foxtel got the dregs. Then the ARL have lost control of scheduling, which they thought they have just got back.

 

[Pfitzy]

Anyway, fox to show the NRC complete.

Fuck yes

 

[Train Without a Station]

Anyway, fox to show the NRC complete.

Fuck yes

Not quite. They will stream the NRC complete.