Rugby TV ratings 2015

[p.Tah]

Will Fox pay more? The digital rights will be very large, but who is going to push Fox up for TV? The NRL have revealed their hand by trumpeting the deal with Nine. I wouldn't think Nine are going to allow Ten or Seven purchase the remaining games. That leaves Fox. Why would Fox pay more? Yes they want/need the subscribers but they don't have to pay overs.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Will Fox pay more? The digital rights will be very large, but who is going to push Fox up for TV? The NRL have revealed their hand by trumpeting the deal with Nine. I wouldn't think Nine are going to allow Ten or Seven purchase the remaining games. That leaves Fox. Why would Fox pay more? Yes they want/need the subscribers but they don't have to pay overs.

By 2022 the options for watching NRL live could be significantly different to they are now.

If Fox want to make sure they are as limited as they are now, basically if you want to watch your team every week you'll have to have Fox (Broncos excluded), they will have to pay up.

 

[p.Tah]

By 2022 the options for watching NRL live could be significantly different to they are now.

If Fox want to make sure they are as limited as they are now, basically if you want to watch your team every week you'll have to have Fox (Broncos excluded), they will have to pay up.

If that's their motivation Fox only need one game per week to achieve that.

 

[Happy]

Once again this is a huge exaggeration about what 9 is actually paying. Yes, the total figure is reportedly $925m but in the fine print reporting it says this "includes contra". In other words, a significant portion of the total is free advertising on 9.

The total also includes digital rights, and the only things left to sell are Pay TV (which will be receiving significantly less than they currently have), international rights (negligible value) and New Zealand. Not a whole lot left to sell.

All this at a time when their has been 2 recent significant stories about Channel 9:
1. In today's Australian, in the Media section, it reports that channel 9 has been forced to offer half price advertising. A quote from the story:
"Nine has been secretly propping up its faltering share of the free-to-air television market by selling advertisers half-price online ads.

To stop advertisers pulling marketing budgets because of weak TV ratings, Nine has sweetened its television inventory with sharply discounted online advertisements as long as advertisers agree to maintain their spend levels on Nine’s TV channels. The ploy is designed to stop Nine’s share of the $3.4 billion TV ad market plummeting any further following a shock earnings downgrade in June that smashed it share price."

2. Note the mention of "smashed share price" at the end of that story. The rise of Netflix has destroyed 9's share price. Channel 9 listed in December 2013 at a price of $2.05 a share. Today's price? It closed at $1.40.

 

[The_Wookie]

Once again this is a huge exaggeration about what 9 is actually paying. Yes, the total figure is reportedly $925m but in the fine print reporting it says this "includes contra". In other words, a significant portion of the total is free advertising on 9.

The total also includes digital rights, and the only things left to sell are Pay TV (which will be receiving significantly less than they currently have), international rights (negligible value) and New Zealand. Not a whole lot left to sell.

Fox want simulcasting like they do with the AFL, and the deal penalises the NRL if they take this option by reducing the overall FTA payment. It will have to end up revenue neutral at the vey least for Fox to get simulcast deals.

Streaming is an interesting one. The SMH says Telstra arent really in the market for streaming rights, which is a big loss in that case - and likely to be less so if they only have access to half the games.

 

[Train Without a Station]

How do you see AFL being impacted? Fox provides an AFL dedicated channel because they consider AFL to be the biggest value provider to them. It's the most popular sport in the states where they have the lowest subscription rates.

I can't see how they will break the bank for league. It likely will not grow their audience at all, where as AFL still has potential too.

And apparently the contra amount was $200M last deal. That's much more than 10%.

 

[Happy]

Sorry, I just tried to post and mucked up the quoting format. I'll try again.

The ABC News reported last night that the deal included digital rights. Here is a quote from Dave Smith, the NRL Chief Executive, in the item on the ABC website:

["And we still have simulcast rights, pay TV, New Zealand and international television rights to be negotiated.

No mention there of still having digital rights available for sale. It is probable that the digital rights bought by 9 are only for their 4 games a week, but they would be the higher rating games for the week. Regardless of the NRL saying they have taken back control of their scheduling, there is no possible way that 9 would accept very many games between low rating teams.

Further, the $50 million is not additional, but an advance in an attempt to save their cash strapped clubs. From today's Australian:

Struggling clubs are set to receive an early windfall from the game’s new broadcasting deal with the Nine Network after it emerged the NRL had negotiated a $50 million advance as part of the record-breaking agreement.
The Australian understands the NRL will direct some of the advance on its $925m deal towards the clubs, four of which are currently surviving in large part on financial support from the game’s governing body.

Further on in the same article is the first mention of what we know will happen with the extra money to clubs. All the extra will be used up by increasing the salaries of the top 3 or 4 players at each club.

The news was also met warmly by the players. Sydney Roosters prop Jared Waerea-Hargreaves said it was important some of the fresh funds were passed on to the players through the salary cap.

Only a handful of players currently earn $1m-plus a season but a host are set to cash-in when the new deal comes into effect from 2018.

 

[boyo]

I should buy a Maroons jersey or a Reds jersey?

Neither

 

[Miggie]

League is going to pull nearly $2 billion out of this deal by the time it is finished. This is yet another disaster for rugby in Australia.

 

[Gnostic]

All the talk about increased Club grants etc, has the often quoted deal been finalised yet? Its 6 months to the start of the S20 or what ever its called and do we have a contract?

Here we have the NRL signing a CONTRACT for their competition in 3 years time. I understand the logistical issues of the contract covering multiple countries, but FFS this is a bad joke.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

League is going to pull nearly $2 billion out of this deal by the time it is finished. This is yet another disaster for rugby in Australia.

Oh well, I guess there's no stopping the inevitable. We should just lie down and die. Not look for alternatives or solutions just give up. You're onto the idea. Doom gloom, the end is nigh blah, blah, blah.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Funnily enough our TV deal is close to doubling this time around.

 

[Braveheart81]

The real piece of interest will be whether NRL salaries go up massively as a result of this deal.

The previous deal which was trumpeted as being a massive increase and maybe saw the marquee players' salaries increase but it didn't do much to the average salary of an NRL player.

The real risk from the NRL will be when the average salaries are substantially greater than what can be received playing Super Rugby.

 

[Miggie]

Denial, not a river etc.

 

[TahDan]

It's doubled, but so has what they're receiving. 4 live games per week instead of 2. So the value per game from FTA is effectively the same.

No doubt Fox Sports will pay a decent amount on top though - even if they get less exclusive matches than now.

That's not quite right; you're assuming a 1:1 ration for dollars and matches, and that's not really the case.

Origin and the finals series are worth around half the overall deal on their own (arguably more in fact), and they're staying the same. Meanwhile, 9 have had 3 games as part of their last deal, with technically all being live depending on your region.

So in that sense the dollar value of the addition assets they have to sell to advertisers is really more like an additional 15% on their last package and nowhere near "double the content."

You have to think of it in terms of eyeballs and advertising space, and one extra club game a week (live or not) doesn't come near to equating double viewing figures when you have 3 State of Origin matches and a GF all averaging around 4 million viewers apiece.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Denial, not a river etc.

You're one of those people others avoid at parties. You know the kind of person that just drags the energy out of the conversation. Neither I or others that have commented on this topic are in denial. We're aware of the current situation. However, at least from my perspective I choose not to take the defeatist angle you've elected for. Sure, comparatively out deal is shit. Though it needs to be mentioned that our deal is only one of three that will go into calculating the overall value of deal. There are several outside factors not taken into account with our deals that are not applicable to the NRL.

 

[Train Without a Station]

First reason our deal looks shit - Because we talk in annual figures not 5 years. So yes $40M vs $1B+ looks shit. That's because one is for 5 times as long.

Second reason our deal looks shit - Because one deal has to support 16 clubs, and the other has to support 5. Divide their deal by 3 and it's not so imposing either. Suddenly you're talking in the 10's of million on a comparative basis.

Third reason our deal looks shit - Because one is a 4 game season and the other is a 24 game season. More product = more money.

On a per game basis for Australian teams we are doing ok. Just ok. NRL are doing better, but with a fully domestic competition entrenched which they have more control over, you'd expect them to.

The battle is how do we transition from Super Rugby, to something that will be profitable in the future.

 

[TahDan]

All true TWAS. Although in terms of supporting clubs with TV dollars the ARU is having to prop up a larger proportion than the NRL (2 of 5 against 4 of 16 for the NRL), so there's that too of course.

In terms of making Super Rugby more profitable, RUPA had the best idea in terms of building a comp with more product and less overheads, and that was their proposal for a Super 10s trans-tasman comp.

Eliminate the South African time zone and you eliminate a huge part of the problem.

The other thing of course is FTA coverage. It's absolutely essential, as not enough people are aware of the context of the few bits of rugby they get in the form of international.

Sadly no one seems to be interested in buying Super Rugby for FTA though. Something does need to be done though, as the Bledisloe used to get around 2 million viewers, whilst now it's around half and some times as low as a quarter of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Miggie]

Apologies for telling it how it is but part of the problem with rugby in this country is that it sees things as it wishes they were not as they are. One of the few things JON ever got right.

 

[Happy]

Sorry for continuing to quote the Australian, but it is one I have access to. This is from their report yesterday on the Rugby TV deal between Foxtel and Channel 10:

It’s understood the ARU will make public within weeks a new agreement that will see Fox Sports maintain live coverage of all Super Rugby matches, and onselling the replay and rights to all Wallabies matches to be simulcast on Ten.
It will mark the first time Super Rugby has had a presence on free-to-air television since the competition’s inception 1996, enabling the code to compete on a more equal footing with the cashed-up NRL and AFL.

I read that as saying Ten will show a replay of Super Rugby matches. It must mean that otherwise the second paragraph, about Super Rugby on FTA, wouldn't make sense.