Last week, I was looking through the sports sections of the two major Sydney newspapers, The Sydney Morning Herald (Fairfax) and the Daily Telegraph (News Ltd). What I found were two different headlines and stories related to the NRL TV deal.
Over at News Ltd, under the headline “NRL much hyped $1billion broadcast deal unlikely to be realised“, the story written by Paul Kent, began with “Blame it on the AFL. Channel 9 and Fox Sports lodged independent bids for the game’s new television rights to begin next year but it was considerably less than $1 billion it sought”
I found the headline and article very disappointing on a number of fronts. Firstly, the article was trying to start a code war and blame the AFL for the NRL receiving a lower figure.
It stated that there are fears that Seven and Fox have paid “overs” for the AFL, which would therefore mean a lesser deal for the NRL.
From all other reports, the simulcasting part of the agreement for the AFL is working successfully. With only six months into a five year deal, it’s early days, however, in a couple of years time we may see the deal’s true value. But at this stage for the AFL, so far so good.
Secondly, Paul Kent has forgotten to realise that both codes have very different content. The AFL has an 18 team competition for five years, while the NRL may have an 18 team comp in the last two or three years of its deal. The NRL also has State of Origin, Tests and All Stars. The AFL doesn’t have rep football (unless you count International Rules).
Thirdly, the weirdest part of the article: “If the NRL rejects the bid, as is likely, Nine and Fox Sports will next come together to see if they can provide a joint agreement before the NRL goes to an open market.”
Nine and Fox have already lodged independent bids, as was mentioned very early in the article. Nine and Fox’s three month negotiation exclusivity is over and the NRL is already on the open market with Channels Seven and Ten entering the fray.
Paul Kent’s article is all over the place. A real pity because in the past, I’ve actually enjoyed some of his work and does talk common sense when he wants to, or is allowed to, depending on the mood from his employers.
Over at the Herald, the headline was “Ball in the air as Nine and Fox bid $1b for league” in which the story, written by Brad Walter and Julian Lee commenced with “Channel Nine and the pay TV programmer Fox Sports will have to wait three months to see whether their $1 billion-plus bid for rugby league broadcast rights has been successful.”
Already, there’s a point of difference with both articles from the start. News Ltd says $1 billion broadcast deal unlikely to be realised, while at Fairfax, it suggests that Nine and Fox bid $1b for the league.
Confused! Well you’re not the only one.
The Fairfax article points out a couple of things. Firstly, “Nine has first and last rights on the bid, but only if another bidder does not exceed Nine’s initial bid by 20 per cent.Seven and Ten have until August to come up with a better offer for the five-year contract.”
This is Seven’s best opportunity to either deny Channel Nine any NRL, or make Channel 9 pay overs, and Seven and Ten have until August to finalise their respective offers.
What was then interesting about the Fairfax article was the difference between AFL and NRL advertising revenue. In 2011, the AFL managed between $115 to $125 million, while the NRL was closer to $100 million.
I found that to be the most revealing part of both articles. Here is my take on things.
The AFL achieved those figures ($115-$125 million) with four free to air games per week with consistent nationwide coverage. The NRL figures (near $100 million) were achieved with three free to air games per week, rep football and coverage in just two states.
What’s positive for the NRL is there are a few ways that the NRL could improve its ad revenue. The NRL may allow broadcasters to install more ads in existing stoppages of play, and increase the half time break from 12 to 14 minutes. The NRL could go from three free-to-air games to four, and provide nationwide coverage on FTA digital channels in the southern states.
With that in mind, it is very possible, that the NRL can increase its ad revenue share, and therefore be in line for a $1 billion deal.
Now getting back to the headline of my article: who do you believe out of News Ltd or Fairfax?
I certainly found the Fairfax article informative, while with News Ltd, the article was written in an agenda driven spin piece, while trying to inflame a code war in the hope it would sell newspapers and online clicks. There may be an element of truth that the NRL may not get a billion dollars, but the way the article was written was very shallow, and it lacked facts.
From my point of view, I have to go with Fairfax. I would certainly follow journalists like Brad Walter. Key point of difference is, Fairfax is independent, and wasn’t involved in part owning the NRL, while News Ltd was, and may have an axe to grind.
At the end of the day, its all guesswork on the part of the journalists as far as the dollar figure of the tv deal is concerned. When David Gallop announces a press conference and reveals the deal, that’s when its official.
If the NRL got a figure of over $900 million, ($1 billion plus would be nice) that would be great, especially for a 16 team competition to start with. It would double what the NRL got last time. In that context, I’m sure many people out their would love their blue chip shares to double over a six year period.
The NRL is blue chip code in Australia, and critics shouldn’t think otherwise. However, News Ltd, Nine and Fox in my opinion have been treating the NRL as a victim for a very long time. I hope Seven and Ten treat the NRL as a leader.
That’s what many NRL fans would want.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
I thought you would have probably done that by now TC,do whatever you please, you leave me for dead with posts on rugby league anycase.The fact no name was mentioned,I am at a loss why the intrusion or baton or whatever. BTW where did I call anyone a liar?Spell it out.Varying bids!!! which I spelt out, is not a sign of lying but changing the goal posts and I made that obvious in the past.You made the intial statement about exclusivity on a figure not me. How can you lie about something that hasn't been decided FFS.. Sarcasm my friend is not insuating someone is a liar.Your defensive apparatus is working overtime..This is a robust rl debate thread,people from all sides get criticised journos in particular and they are named.You are quite happy to call Masters ,Gould liars. I am not infallible ,and have had my fair share of shots about my posts.Harden up man, it''s a big world out there ..
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Crosscoder I'm standing ready to pass on the baton. Or would you prefer that I do your trick, trawl through all of your past posts, and assemble bits and pieces from anywhere and everywhere and then call you a liar?
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
That is the word I am getting FWIW,a better chance of a combined 9 and Foxsports bid,with live simulcasting for the pay channel. I agree with your point,Foxsports needs all live to really give the bid/s a boost to where the ARLC gets excited. The intial bids were separate,that we know J/man.Whether the figure estimate of $790m is true or not as a first up bid,is in the laps of the gods.If it is on the mark, the figure is aready nearly double the last deal.And yes it wouuld be a big jump to $950m.But add a Brisbane side and that is worth $100m over 5 years (according to 9) Citygroup would have no idea whether the NRl plans to expand in 2015,so I assume they did not take that into their calculation.There is a good csance,but nothing is 100% until NRL says so. It is again fair to argue as the NRL has now gone to the market,due toperhaps low intias bids,they will get more.For 9 and Foxtel to secure the deal ,a combined bid would give both outlets a better chance. Neither 7 nor 10 have played there hand and between the two, if they decided to combine who knows the impact.10 would be more appealing to the ARLC due to the 10 media controlling all of their cap city stations,and 7 pick the eyes out of SOO and intnls. I have never felt the code would secure $1,25bn,but supported those people who gave reasons it would The result being too many people were caught with their pants down on the last AFL deal.I was one of them ,and admitted so. This looks as if it is going to play out for 2-3 months,but getting Samuel involved plus Lek,( experts in the media field) is a plus for any code looking to maximise its Tv deal.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Maybe in future I should quote a newspaper article that dissproves my case Jaceman,that will really boost my chances.. The Australian is owned by News Ltd,and P Smith is a Vic based journalst ,up til the last couple of years ,he has not held back on the NRL,now he has mellowed.When M Johns had his issues,and a player was decked inan SOO game ,the southern press had a field day. Look I must be living on a different planet,wherever I look in Sydney there are stories about GWS ,the win,Folau,the kids who won a rising star award,everyone hanging on to Sheedy's every word,the new ground at Skoda Homebush,a story about a Wagga student at St Gregs playing for GWS,comments by GWS committee Rooty Hill PS principal,. One word of advice never mention Elliot when I am around. Please your distaste for News is obvious ,but dont let it colour all the facts.Ever heard of reading the news on the web,it can be doné and not all stories are there granted.But more than enough over a period to form a pretty goodguide as to coverage of rl . I have no idea of what your last para and I was struggling to find the para.Let me just say this I purchase the Australian daily,The Fin review now and again,the others via the web.If there is a paywall block,tuff t*tty I don't get to read it. When I see the likes of a fomer Sharks player Seymour making the front page of the Telegraph as though he had committed some crime,but was in fact drunk ATT at Cronulla Mall',I ask myelf is this media organisation trying to protect its product it part owned.Are there not more important news issues out there? All I know from what I have seen on the Age and Hun sites,the former pays little heed to rl,the latter by matter of course (Storm ownership) .now if the ARLC has to pay for positive stories in the Vic press in the future so be it.It happens.I have visited your state. All I can offer,if rugby league receieved anywhere near the volume of coveage down south as AFL does in Sydney ,I would fall off my chair..NO doubt it will with SOO,but should some unseemly act occur ,the jpournos will have a field day. Champ it is terribly difficult for me to decipher your post,when it is massed together like a stop work meeting.
Jaceman
Guest
CC It just depends - if Foxtel get the rights to show all games live (like AFL) then they will pay a lot - if they get the same deal they have now they will pay a lot less...As the 2 groups (nine, Fox) put in separate bids, I assume Fox bid for the lot...
Jaceman
Guest
Yes CC you can take any example you like to prove your case. the Victorian media are anti NRL even though the herald Sun who were trying to push Pay Tv subscritptions for thir boss and subsidising the Storm. Go figure?? The SMH ran a lot of anti AFL stories when they saw all the AFL money going into News Ltd western Sydney suburbans and had no coverage of the Sydney season launch but since the season started have had some coverage. But there is coverage and then there's coverage. After the GWS win on the Monday, they had a very large picture of a bored looking Folau at a fan day in Canberra which gives an unhealthy impression with one picture. I remember being at the SCG behind John Elliott and a photographer on the ground stood in front of him for 20 minutes of half time taking pictures. The next day on the front page there was one picture (out of the 30 the photographer took) of Elliott yawning and the subtitle said it was Elliott watching Carlton AFL giving the impression he was yawning during the game rather than half-time. One bad picture is worth 10 thousand words...BTW do you read the Age and Herald Sun each day to get your impressions - you are so keen in Cronulla you get an online Hun subscription and of course not all Age articles are on the website.and vice versa not all Age website articles are in the paper...???
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Just to add a little more spice to the debate,noticed in Thursday's Australian Sport Mascord and read noted" Investment company Citygroup has completed an analysis of the value of television rights,finding the game stands to earn as mcuh as $950m from its deal." Now based on what has happened with American banks and financial institutions of late, my feelings as to their reliabilty and credibility,is looking rather shaky. The question I ask,was their estimate based on 16 teams or 18 teams ?. BTW the $950m if it eventuates ,the figure is also the one I estimated in other threads .Can I as a humble layman , claim to be the only person(no one else nada,nix) to have done so in the whole universe,and thereby be awarded a medal of distinctive service to rugby league?.Ok stage left, where's my hat?.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
The Link Obviously NRL rates extremely well on Fox, it regularly has the highest rating games - no question. All we're saying is to have an average rating of around 190k across 9 games, which includes 4 games conflicting with each other, is not bad. But on top of that, Fox Footy is killing it in overall ratings, absolutely killing it, in aggregate terms, it's almost double Fox Sports 2, and is actually outrating some FTA stations (across the week).
jamesb
Guest
Hey Middy, thanks mate, I'm not 100% sure, but I think it would be around July/ August at the latest.
The Link
Guest
That ex-10 advisor getting punted got mentioned again here. Interesting that it was done after complaints from one of the potential bidders. If there was any investigative digging to be done on this topic its this little tiddbit i'd say.
Midfielder
Guest
James Enjoyed your article and many of the posts ... any idea on the timing of the announcement ...
jamesb
Guest
Hey Crosscoder This is the article your talking about: http://www.afr.com/p/national/samuel_in_the_scrum_for_nrl_jePGpv657SyIiqtrqVK0HJ Its good that the nrl is not leaving any stone unturned. As I pointed earlier with Dean- Surrey Hills, all newspapers are the same. I suppose the point of my article is who do you believe. Its a tough one, but with Tv rights issue alone, you go with Fairfax reporting, simply becuase of the News' prior involvement in the NRL. But on other issues, News and Fairfax are as good as each other.
Boomshanka
Guest
Last weekend according to the ratings system (like you say, figures are figures), 184 thousand people (average) in metro areas watched rugby league on GEM (and Nine) outside of NSW and QLD. Contrast this with say round 3 (when games were shown after midnight), approx 20 thousand people watched in the same area. That's a 160k per round difference or an additional 4 Million people over the year that advertisers have the potential to reach (haven't even included regional figures or finals series or All Stars games which have to date been buried). People who should know better, go off half cocked about 1, 2 or 5k ratings into Melbourne which is now well and truly buried. There are posts on this site which quote a figure of $250M contra deal or pure advertising for the AFL. The current increase in viewers for the NRL is real and comes of the back of no to very little advertising after being hoarded for many years. Check out next week with State of Origin followed by a top of the table clash two nights later all shown live and in HD through GEM. Expect real growth with proper promotion across the nation. This growth should be factored into any bid from the FTA's. For me, I'm currently enjoying the coverage on GEM.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Newspapers go whichever way the wind blows.When SL was in its embryonic stagee up to and including the end of SL 97,the Herald(Fairfax) took the opportunity to post as many negative stories as possible ,about the game ,and SL in particular.News Ltd SL owner their main competitor. Since SL ended the coverage by the has been more in keeping with pre war levels.And since News pulled the plug on the partnership,they have adopted a very strange mix at times.Even when the organisation part owned the NRL,negative stories on and off the field received prominence.That is understandable at times given a high profile sport,but commercially they are cutting away the very game they helped underpin. Rothfied and Bec Wilson chopped and changed at the whim,of their moods. Sydney media tries to spread the various codes storíes,seemingly based on the popularity of the code.I dont know about playing one off the other,when negative rl stories have no trouble appearing in the Vic press.Is that playing a code off against the other?' For quite a few years and certainly more so since GWS,the AFL has paid for ads and stories in Sydney media ,that under normal circumstances would not hold that much interest.That is good marketing,let consumers know you are around.It may well be part of contra(the current deal) or payments,who knows . I find people like Kent, who appears not to understand some of the negotiation issues,putting a downer on the exepected TV contract resul,as being par for the courset.It would make my day but it wont happen,Foxsports missing rugby league,if they are trying to downplay the value. I note James Chessell and Ben Holgate (Fin Review 17/5) advised Graeme Samuel is expected to be enlisted by the NRL to help with its media rights.He of course was a key figure in the AFL a fomer Commissioner and Life Member. Out of all the newspapers ,the Fin review IMO is the one who rarely stuffs up and has a reasonable balance.
JamesP
Guest
Wow, thanks for going to the trouble of finding that for me Boomshanka! You were a big advocate of live NRL into the Southern states on GEM. Every single story you somehow managed to get your agenda across. Figures are figures, make of them what you will.
FJ
Roar Rookie
You were originally replying to a comment on the AFL TV deal in which you included online rights when attempting to correct him.
The Greatest Game Of All
Guest
Yep, the man needs to get on the front foot. He also does not strike me as an imaginative persona, very boring, reminds me of squidward, thats our fearless leader.
Jaceman
Guest
Isnt that the case now with 3 FTA NRL games on Gem plus the NRL Sunday footy shows at 2PM.in Victoria at least.....
Australian Rules
Guest
Well...now we all know. Thanks cos
Boomshanka
Guest
JamesP Your analysis appears unchanged from when you posted back in 2nd May on The Roar (loosely based on one Melbourne game which was broadcast two days after a late programming change following many years of hoarding); "Non Swans games Sydney FTA AFL average is about 37k. With a little Foxtel added lets say 50k Storms 1 and only game on FTA which was a Friday night too mind you drew 26k on GEM – live into Melbourne Bottom line: even with live NRL into Melbourne, tv ratings are similar to what the Swans/AFL were getting into Sydney in the graveyard slots last year. Now with a like for like comparison, the Tv figures are accurately reflecting the gap that exists with average crowds (i.e. Swans are 2-3 times more popular in Sydney, than Storm is in Melbourne)" Great piece of analysis work! Nine Melbourne would be proud of you.