Joint Channel 7 & 10 bid for AFL rights.

yob · Post by **yob** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:35 pm

Today is the day that a myth in Australian sport was absolutely smashed. The myth that the success of one football code will directly harm the success of another.

9 hasn't just won the FTA rights. They've won the right to sublease matches to the highest bidder. And with 780 million out of their pocket, they'll damn well try hard to make a return on that investment. This will most likely result in up 4 to matches being subleased to Foxtel, who themselves may be in a little bidding war of their own with channel 10.

Foxtel have repeatedly stated they will significantly increase what they pay on the grounds that they receive a better (higher rating) mix of games to boost their pathetic subscriber levels in WA and SA, and a lesser extent Victoria. It's long been proposed that this will be achieved by granting exclusive coverage of some Fremantle, Adelaide, West Coast and Port games into perth/Adelaide, and higher rating matches in Melbourne. Perhaps in the short term those clubs will have a financial hit due to lesser exposure than FTA. Boohoo, here's $780,000,000 worth of chockies to get over it, fast.

The flow on benefit of increasing subscribership levels of foxtel benefits all codes. Increased subscribership in WA and SA, due to exclusive coverage of AFL matches in the capital cities, will dramatically increase the number of households capable of receiving live telecasts of NRL, A-League, Super 14, NBL. Likewise, the strong subscribership levels in NSW and QLD, largely owing to strong NRL coverage, has provided a very good alternative broadcaster for the AFL in those states. 9 is committed to live NRL coverage. Channel 7 weren't willing to telecast in Sydney before 10:30pm on Friday nights. Fox has the fox footy channel, so they can go live into those markets.

Today wasn't just a massive day for the AFL. All codes in Australia have won big.

Assuming 7/10 don't match the bid. In which case, the AFL has absolutely hit the jackpot, thanks to Fox/9 inflating the price

Massive money AND no concession on coverage in the home states. Cake + Eat.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:01 pm

Does anyone know how this compared to EPL Rights?

And other major competitions around the world?

Cheesie-the-Pirate · Post by **Cheesie-the-Pirate** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:58 pm

Simmo79 wrote:I was quite stunned when I heard this...where does it leave the negotiations for the NRL rights?

NRL rights for the next few years have been decided. 500 million. Deal runs to 2012. This was all the way back in July.

780 + 500 = A shitload of money.

yob · Post by **yob** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:08 pm

A-League got $4 million over 3 years!

Cheesie-the-Pirate · Post by **Cheesie-the-Pirate** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:11 pm

780 + 500 + 4 is still a lot of money!

22tone · Post by **22tone** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:55 pm

for a small country the aussie like alotof sport.

dan027 · Post by **dan027** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:29 pm

this may be abit off the subject, but how much do the cricket rights cost them?

Dasher39 · Post by **Dasher39** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:03 am

Egan wrote:Does anyone know how this compared to EPL Rights?

And other major competitions around the world?

Not sure about the EPL, but it was reported on one of the news over the weekend that the NFL TV rights for the same period were recently sold for $11.5 billion US. Makes the AFL rights seem like loose change in comparison!

I would imagine the EPL rights are somewhere in the ₤4 billion mark.

I think the AFL's next TV rights for 2012-2016 will reach the $1 billion mark for the first time.

this may be abit off the subject, but how much do the cricket rights cost them?

Not sure what the Cricket rights go for. I am pretty sure Ch9 and Cricket Australia got that sorted recently but I am not sure on a figure. I think, and I am more than likely wrong, that it was about $100-120 million. But don't quote me on that. Will do some research and see what I turn up.

Dasher39 · Post by **Dasher39** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:51 am

Did some research and come up with this:

AFL (propsed): $780m AU
Australian Cricket: Originally thought about $120m, now would think about $200m AU. Wouldn't have a clue what FoxSports pays for it's cricket.
NRL: $500m+
Super 14: $770m AU (was a 10 year deal from 1995-2005)
NFL: $11.5b US
EPL: ₤1.1b (new deal currently being worked on)
NBA: $4.6b US
Major League Baseball: approx $6b US. MLB is shown on a variety of channels and each channel negotiates its own rights. It isnt sold as one bundle.
A-League: $4m AU
La Liga: €260m (The 12 biggest clubs in Spain negotiated their own TV rights deals)
Serie A: approx. €70m (this only affects smaller clubs because as with La Liga, the big clubs broker their own rights deal. Juve's TV rights is about €60m per year)

Jeffles · Post by **Jeffles** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:19 pm

KP certainly left at the top of his game. A huge deal and a great deal. The bubble hasn't burst yet.

sandyhill · Post by **sandyhill** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:46 pm

Dasher39 wrote:Did some research and come up with this:

AFL (propsed): $780m AU
Australian Cricket: Originally thought about $120m, now would think about $200m AU. Wouldn't have a clue what FoxSports pays for it's cricket.
NRL: $500m...
Super 14:

To clear things right up, probably also need to specify the length these contracts go for eg
AFL - $780million for 5 seasons = $156million per season
NRL - $500million for 6 seasons = $83million per season
Forgotten the cricket one, but I think it was about $40m per year.

Yob was pretty spot on about the influence of pay TV. It now turns out that it wasn't just ch9 thats come upwith the big bucks, but News Ltd is also very much part of the deal, through Foxtel. Up til now, having pay TV hasn't been necessary much to follow AFL - thus leading to poor take up rates across Vic, SA and WA compared to NSW/Qld. Unfortunately, this may change in the near future - which means many FTA viwers of today will feel the need to help contribute to the AFL $$$ -through pay TV subscription. Unless ch7/10 pull a rabbit out of the hat.

sandyhill · Post by **sandyhill** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:37 pm

According to The Age, its still not over yet. I should point out, Carolyn Wilson and The Age has consistently reported all along that ch9 stand no chance against 7/10. I wonder if their arch rival, News Ltd's invovlement in the ch9 bid has coloured their view - or is its Wilson's well known antipathy with a couple of ch9 AFL indenties?

Push to trump Packer bid for AFL TV rights
By Caroline Wilson
December 29, 2005

KERRY Packer's final act on the Australian corporate stage — his spectacular $780 million bid to keep AFL football on Channel Nine — is in danger of failing as rivals Seven and Ten consider making a last-ditch counter-offer to snare the deal.

Less than a week after the bid by Mr Packer's Publishing and Broadcasting Limited was revealed, the rival consortium is believed to be preparing a final assault for the prized AFL broadcast rights from 2007 until 2011.

Seven and Ten executives are believed to have broken into their Christmas holidays in recent days to analyse the PBL document and decide whether to exercise their legal right to match it.

AFL chiefs announced on Friday their acceptance of the PBL bid — with every second AFL game to be presented on pay TV network Foxtel — in the absence of a better offer from Seven and Ten within 14 days.

While AFL clubs largely applauded the PBL deal and its financial rewards, the Sydney Swans and Brisbane Lions are concerned about the rights going to a free-to-air network committed in NSW and Queensland to rugby league.

Initially stunned by the size of the Packer bid, which includes a cash component of $700 million, the rival alliance now appears determined to fight on — despite the threat of slim profit margins and bad feelings that exist between the league and both Seven and Ten.

russ13 · Post by **russ13** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 10:18 am

Here is a bit more on the deal from an article from Roy Masters:

...While the Nine deal works out to $156 million a year, sources said that up to $100 million of the offer is in contra for advertising and promotion. This would make the cash component $680 million. The Seven and Ten offer equates to about $123 million a year.

Seven and Ten also argue their offer will provide superior coverage into NSW and Queensland.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/pokerf ... 84449.html

yob · Post by **yob** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 5:34 pm

russ13 wrote:Here is a bit more on the deal from an article from Roy Masters:

...While the Nine deal works out to $156 million a year, sources said that up to $100 million of the offer is in contra for advertising and promotion. This would make the cash component $680 million. The Seven and Ten offer equates to about $123 million a year.

Seven and Ten also argue their offer will provide superior coverage into NSW and Queensland.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/pokerf ... 84449.html

I'd accuse you of scraping the bottom of a barrel, but I can't even figure out your point!

sandyhill · Post by **sandyhill** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:48 pm

russ13 wrote:Here is a bit more on the deal from an article from Roy Masters:

...While the Nine deal works out to $156 million a year, sources said that up to $100 million of the offer is in contra for advertising and promotion. This would make the cash component $680 million. The Seven and Ten offer equates to about $123 million a year.

Seven and Ten also argue their offer will provide superior coverage into NSW and Queensland.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/pokerf ... 84449.html

Welcome back Rus, and Happy New Year! But you must surely know you're on slippry ground when you're quoting a Roy Masters article to us here. Hmmm - wasn't the last time you did that, he was writing about AFL and NRL ratings - except we caught him using figures of peak NRL ratings and comparing them to the average for AFL ratings! And unfortunately this article of his was also a bit off the mark. In his defence, I note he wrote that article only the day after the deal was announced, but all the other journalists seem to have got it right, whereas he (yet again) didn't ... Rus, a tip for you - its best when posting articles to do with Australian Football to avoid any by dodgy Roy. Afterall, think of your credibility here!

Anyway, as has been reported on numerous articles daily since in The Age, HUN, TV etc, the deal is for $140m cash per year (or $700m over 5 years) and $16m contra. This figure has been mentioned daily for the last week - eg, this in todays HUN (from many examples I could've chosen) -

Cash is the key to TV rights
30 December 2005 Herald Sun
Damian Barrett

... In its offer approved by the AFL Commission last Friday, Nine, in partnership with Foxtel and News Limited, publisher of the Herald Sun, pledged $780 million for the 2007-11 football rights. Nine was allowed to sub-license four matches a week to pay-TV.

... Nine's conditionally successful $780 million bid includes about $80 million of contra. It was at least $75 million more than Seven and Ten had offered at the first bid stage. The AFL said last week Seven and Ten had until next Thursday to respond to the Nine offer, but the networks are working to deadline of next Friday. Should a counter bid be made, Seven would take three Grand Finals within the 2007-11 period, leaving two for Ten.
___________________________________________________________

OK - there are issues about FTA v pay TV access that are of concern. Might talk about these sometime later, as I have to go now and party.