Expect TV revenue for the NRL and AFL to only go up, and up

Im not local but they have seemingly from reading about people who are. They can double that or triple for Melbourne games surely with similar treatment

Ok so here's an article from Roy Masters. Its nice that I understand them ,rather than me saying hey I was right. I dont think of it like that. Im glad its backed up in independent other areas. Claiming 2B is possible for both sports. http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/03/04/expect-large-tv-revenue-increase/

Then I have not gone into things like alerted competition structures and things like designated 1 min or 30 second ad breaks during match. I honestly think they are needed and welcomed. But I do hope to try again for roar support a season schedule and finals series, of which I wrote about before but think is the future. This section was separate to main article and is limited in scope and may or may not include some of those things in the initial figures.

And finally we must consider if the NRL wants to reduce rounds of the season proper and if that means a hit. The base of the game is assured that's why in terms of funding for investment they'd probably have to keep down player payments which I addressed and give the clubs more to invest. This lines up with making them more sustainable... And the increased market exposure for Melbourne and Perth and Brisbane helps too. So if its 1.6 that's highly workable. But in terms of talking about it the NRL as I demonstrated is right to say $2b. This is like saying something you're selling to someone as in hold on the item is worth 100 bucks and here you are offering 10... Its not wrong to claim that What will help ratings is more games on FTA. I think fox has an exclusive oversupply. So you're spreading them out to Melbourne, promoted, and Perth, and second Brisbane team, and even showings/building of teams we don't see much of. That's all for the working out. I think the networks have let some teams wither. Home market live matches FTA need more thought But neither have I considered each potential buyers own interests to a great degree. So I hope I've demonstrated it well enough, and owing to the fact digital may play a larger part in this I can't go into but surely it will figure more in revenues in years to come

So just explaining my methodology. The new deal will be about investment and the clubs and further investment. I'm next to certain there will be expansion. Made some basic assumptions about Melbourne's value and as cc pointed out extra ratings from Sunday live, extra game, and extra exposure at least sometimes for Melbourne. Used a big margin for error that seemed in line with what experts have used and it returned the same value as reported in paper last year but I've also used figures that emerged from the last TV deal. Then I've removed impossible odds or values that returned null... Example the deal can't possibly be less. Melbourne's value only increased with national importance of comp in relation to foxes value on it and who knows where that will go with more FTA exposure, which links up with national capital city outlook along with Perth - preference, and strategy. To be fair we can't quantify any tension or bidding war... And given that 7 want afl and 9 want NRL I have not let those values enter into it But as a fan going hard in negotiation I would not say 1.5 I would be looking for 1.6 or 7. That's where I think personally it will end up but have not allowed such biases to put off my 1.6 base.

World club series was missing. Not sure of value. The closest thing we have is the stg Wigan game last year. And that was only on fox. But just say I was out by 40% which is a huge margin for error, that still takes in a number from the current value all the way up to 2b. If basing it on 1.5b. It won't be less so only more.

CC - I dont complain about the current deal that is right. Another good post to read from you CT - I always think, even with Origin shown in Perth - what it would be like if 2 local teams were playing. I think the reputation of the NRL precedes itself. Definitely potential there. cheers This is the deal they want to set the game up with for the future - and I think it deserves it. Not for the premium just wanting to set it up for the future should attract (without the sport there will be no NRL coverage, so that holds weight in my mind) but because of the increase value across the game now. So if I remember, and its a rough calculation i think fox give 500 roughly and ch9 give 450 roughly over 5 years. either way fox give more than nine thats only 90 and 100 a year each. if that went up to 125 each per year (and you have to find value for the rise, which I think is or will be there) then thats 1.5B over 5. to get to 2B both networks would need to contribute 200 each/year. its a nice ramp to come off of with sunday live football. The worst thing about the sunday game which made it next to unwatchable was the ads and the fact you could go check on the score. Ratings look set to go up one would think. I think undoubtedly they will. Doing something sunday arvo - check the score. Looking like a dour game - check the score (lowers the threshold to walk away/or not watch at all; no chance to become engrossed) The beauty of getting a perth team next time round is, coupled with simply showing melbourne live into victoria, it makes it a national game virtually (minus Adelaide/Hobart). But thats pretty much national. I can't see why melbourne would not watch at 150k and perth 100k to start off with provided their own teams are on and they have some certainty they can follow the team. People may not watch each and every single game but as time goes on and they know its on - it becomes easier to follow the storm, they become instantly more relevant. Thats got to be a big factor - their out of sightness must hurt their popularity in terms of being fan-active (and I know people say they're fans on surveys, but its hardly participating in watching; not everyone has fox) cumulative totals for the season would then be 6 or 7 million more. Thats almost another Origin series. Its not all at once so maybe ad money won't be as much of course, but thats 7 million eyeballs the game didn't have before. You'd think that would open up new people and new sponsors and new opportunities for the game to grow. --- I already think the value of the storm per year which was seemingly worth 20m last time, is now worth 30-50 before you even put them on FTA.....so lets make it 10M for FTA coverage (its the 2nd biggest market), making the 50 and subtract 10 just in case its too generous..... thats 200 over 5 years. .. so before we go anywhere I think the deal is worth an extra 200..... 1.2B .. then consider a second brisbane team, lets say its 20M a year (which a fledgling melbourne was valued at; but should be more - so the networks will probably get great value out of a second brisbane side) thats another 200....1.4B The things not being paid for: take the Four Nations. Thats probably worth 10-15 and its only growing. 1.45....RL 9s lets say10/year because its many hours of coverage, a weekend virtually of NRL - 1.5B. approx Im sure there's one more we're missing thats bundled in. Now lets suggest that its a 10% year on year increase in the rest of the game (but only apply it to 2 of the 5 years so we remain conservative) and do Origin last. 1.8B And Origin. it accounted for 1/3rd the value possibly in the deal last time, so that immediate throws the number of 10% increase in value for the rest of the game off (which we accounted for by applying former increase to only 2 of the 5 years) . So lets just say thats anther 10% increase. Well we just nudged 2B, at 1.98B __ Well, there better be the money in the market for 2 sports with 2B deals or thereabouts. So lets tidy it up. Didn't talk about Perth, Im assuming a rise in melbourne value and the 2nd brisbane teams value will negate any risk in setting up a perth team. We didn't talk about NZ tv money which will only go up. We did not talk about digital stuff which will only go up. We did not consider the value for the networks, so take 10% off, they need to make money. All in all, its still well over 1.5. So when more factors are weighed in, like a justice scale of economy....it may go up past 1.5 and below it....but I think the game has a lot to make it push up to 1.8 and even 2B. Then there's loads more factors none detrimental to league. AFL could probably do some similar outline. So they'll both be saying upwards of 1.6 is my thinking. To offload costs maybe RL needs to spread costs for broadcasters and use 1 element where they can - so shared shows/commentators, I dont know, this is not about that. But things for efficiency can be done. And if only 10 or 7 can show perth games, hope they do that. as an example.

My personal view is that while they eventually panned out it is true that generally gws doesn't rate, the lions are on the sidelines atm but matches like lions v suns were hits and a few others. Its probably performing as best they'd expect/expected. They'd be pretty happy, if not thrilled

It was my understanding they were flat then went up. And subscription was not picking up then it did. Then the ratings became impressive in line with the hoped for increase iirc The deal took a year or so to see effects. Im pretty sure the govt is trying to get foxtel to have a higher penetration for infrastructure means. I don't know if cathar has any links but little bits n bobs floated around. Could be wrong but there was some sweating. May be the whole conroy saga has something to do with that.

That's a case for Melbourne on FTA. I've been following their advancements on such a limited footprint. Maybe reasons like that one and the nationwide coverage are why the NRL is saying exponential growth for the deal. If their value alone has gone to 50m a year and there's room for live Brisbane footy each week, then there's room for Perth and some more viewers and of course live Melbourne FTA Such is why I claimed a larger increase for NRL than afl in theory. Though the afl seem destined as per reports to move away from TV reliance first.

Obviously I'm just looking at ways to spread the cost. Foxtel cameras, FTA coverage, shared commentators, NRL chipping in money, on second channel so they can put on another show. Plus NRL would absorb some cost, and who knows Marvin may want to invest or some other investors. In terms of sponsors you'd think a second Brisbane and a Perth team would go okay. And then everyone is getting paid I'd hope from that for their work in one way or another.

And if 9 or whoever does not want to stump up the expansion and exposure costs of Perth and Melbourne and commit to growing it, give it to someone else. 9 10 SBS even or channel 7. There's 4 to pick from

And I'm talking of only simulcasting Perth and Melbourne games. They could also actually use their second channels for once. But would be nice if Melbourne was on main occasionally. Yeh I know it's going up against afl.