Fuck me not this shit again - if everything ends up at Nine, its still a “simulcast deal”, its just they have shared ownership (for now). Stan will still want exclusivity over some of the content
Nine now don’t like these deals because they believe they’re in a much better position to offer a complete service. The challenge for Nine is that they need to demonstrate that ditching a long-term partner in Foxtel makes sense, a potentially difficult task if the ARLC/NRL are happy with what they’re getting from Foxtel.
The value of the rights is also a magnitude higher than what they’ve done elsewhere for sports across all their platforms and the majority of that is going to have to come from the subscription portion of the deal, which means ensuring that the model is financially viable to stack up.
Convincing a sport to shift broadcasters is a significantly harder task than convincing to maintain the status quo, especially if the relationship is reasonably sound. Small premiums in price aren’t necessarily going to be enough.
Ten/Paramount were coming from a difficult place to secure any of the major rights that have been negotiated recently - having nothing of substance makes it hard to show intent and the insistence early in the negotiations to have to kiss the ring of their US overlords will wear thin with some sports. Their foray into the A-League isn’t necessarily going to be seen positively (but by the same token, it may not be seen particularly negatively though)
Like it or not, both have a significant back catalogue of coverage they can point to in selling themselves.
It might work out more flexible for Nine though given that Nine holding would be over seeing the deal. So they may also be able to get more games or at least better pick and choose what games end up on FTA.
The main edge that Fox Sports has had over it’s rivals in the past is that they have the satellite footprint as well as online, and also come from a position of being the ‘established player’.
This isn’t so much the case now as they (Fox) are doing everything in their power to move away from satellite (between the price hikes and with the increased focus on Hubbl), and they have also lost a lot of the rights that helped build them up to be the dominant force in the market. Streaming has also come a long way in the past 5 years, while it was somewhat hit and miss a few years ago the technology has now matured and our national internet infrastructure is significantly better than it was (especially in remote areas now that Starlink is an option too, it greatly reduces the ‘digital divide’ that was starting to develop).
Lack of quality in production, graphics and commentary. The lack of exclusivity diminishes the premium nature of the event. If someone else is also producing there’s no real compelling reason to watch.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the NRL set up its own media division and sell games across the spectrum. I think V’Landys would want as much control as possible and this is the way to do it.
Yes it’s going to be costly, but if he can justify it, he will do it.
Of course you’re entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong or right it may be.
I think the frustration may come from the fact that anyone who’s visited a sports rights or broadcast thread in the last year or two has seen you make the same point ad naseum. It can get a bit grating and doesn’t further the conversation because it’s ground that you’ve already covered so frequently.
I may be wrong, but I just don’t see any added value in repeating it every time there’s a news article about any major code’s broadcast deals.
Sounds like you’re watching everything except the actual sport.
A good deal for fans is the ability to access a sport on a regular, stable service, regardless of where you live to be able to watch your team.
Simulcast deals mean choice, I can choose to watch on free to air in HD, or I can choose to watch on a paid service, potentially in 4K.
I can choose to have one set of commentators over another, I can choose to pay to watch commercial free or I can watch on free to air with commercials.
Broadcasters sharing a sport can result in competition between them, different innovations, or they can become stale or take the viewer for granted (eg Ch9 with the cricket for however many decades which wasn’t just tired, it was needing CPR)
Whilst you’re entitled to your opinion, judging by some of the reactions - I think you may hold it exclusively.
100% that’s also what I think about for simulcast.
For cricket, 7 & Fox have different graphics & commentary teams and they have a competition to get the best visiting commentator & have the best team & graphics etc so viewers watch them.
When the new afl deal happens from 2025 it would be the same where both would try to improve their product so people choose to watch them.
Even 9 & Fox with NRL, it’s a similar competition between them to get viewers to like their product etc.
I can see Nine walking away and having a bigger crack at the AFL again (they and 10* each nearly won it), perhaps at the same time more likely if Foxtel reduce their bid while increasing their NRL bid
I wonder if 9 would go for NRL alone (like they did with the AFL) and if they would use the tactic that 10 did with the cricket and say all or nothing and walk away.
Personally I don’t think 9 would walk away from the NRL even if they have to share with Fox.
Same with Cricket, and I think by then unless 7 gets their own subscription service, 9 & 10 would go for sports alone & Fox with 7 (again assuming they still don’t have subscription service in 7yrs)
Not entirely sure why some people think Nine scoring the complete rights package will mean more or better games on FTA. They still have a product to sell in Stan Sport, and we’ve just seen NBC paywall a major NFL playoffs game on Peacock in the U.S.
I think it’s been evident for some time Nine and NRL’s relationship, especially since Fox League launched (as well as the optics of how strong Foxtel and NRL’s always appears) has been diminishing for some years now.
They offered the AFL an amount for the lot (exact amount and intentions given Foxtel-Seven who knows) and in articles Mike Sneesby said they were prepared to walk away from the NRL.
But based on all this, I’d say Nine would try again, even if it meant no winter code for a few years. They have the biggest shows on TV anyway, Olympics, Winter Olympics and would save them a ‘loss-leader’ revenue wise for a few years too, also cash flow from Stan. And they showed they’re prepared to shake things up with what they did getting the Australian Open (and were even prepared to wait another year - was meant to be 2020 until Seven sold 2019 to them so they could start a year early).
But yes, I am suggesting this on the condition Foxtel and/or Seven’s AFL bid (presuming the AFL still is what it is by then and the incumbents even want to bid similar) is lower and allows other parties in with a better chance, while the next NRL bid might be higher from Foxtel or even Seven (or 10 or Amazon etc) who knows.
I don’t think Sneesby said that re NRL, it was Hugh Marks.
9 used to bid with Fox because they had to. 9/Stan have said they want all NRL rights next time, but fully agree it is hard to see the NRL walking away from Fox barring a knockout bid.
Also agree 9/Stan will want all AFL rights next time they’re up for renewal.
Would 9 walk away if they have to share with Fox? p+/10 walked away from cricket because they didn’t want to share, would 9 want to lose it, especially if let’s say 7 works with Foxtel and just simulcasts Fox games on FTA or something like that?
Happy to be corrected, but it’d have to have been Sneesby, as Marks hasn’t been there for years now (the article quoted it upon the recent AFL rights negotiations), whether it was “Nine said” or “a Nine spokesperson said” or “a Nine insider said” or Sneesby directly.