Australian Rugby / RA

[sunnyboys]

let's not assume foxtel survives. Things were bleak there before everyone pulled their discretionary ad/subscription spend.

perhaps it is McLennan's Network Ten contacts we will be relying on... and if thats the case... yikes!!!

 

[kiap]

let's not assume foxtel survives. Things were bleak there before everyone pulled their discretionary ad/subscription spend.

True. I think it's more likely they downsize and stick around at least a while longer.

But let's say they close doors in three months time.

After leaving a voice message for Optus or Ten, RA better be on the phone to Benny Alexander and his live stream startup idea.

At that point RA is AR - amateur rugby.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Nothing to report from the RA presser with Rob Clarke

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Interesting to see NZ launch Super Rugby AOTEAROA (H&A for the 5 NZ super teams over 10 weeks). Not sure what the broadcast agreements look like but shouldn't this mean money in RA pocket?

 

[hoggy]

Nothing to report from the RA presser with Rob Clarke

Yes, was a bit disappointing really. Hard for him to come in with anything concrete so early, but concerned me as it sounded like a lot of previous RA media conferences, lots of fluff and lets all come together type comments, from someone that won't be here in 6 months.

 

[Quick Hands]

let's not assume foxtel survives. Things were bleak there before everyone pulled their discretionary ad/subscription spend.

Overnight Foxtel signed a major deal with Warner entertainment giving them rights to Warner Bros and HBO content, so I wouldn't be writing them off yet.

 

[Quick Hands]

Interesting to see NZ launch Super Rugby AOTEAROA (H&A for the 5 NZ super teams over 10 weeks). Not sure what the broadcast agreements look like but shouldn't this mean money in RA pocket?

Why? Don't the SANZAAR countries have separate broadcast deals?

 

[Quick Hands]

From smh:

Before the coronavirus outbreak hit in March, the telco was days away from making a formal offer for the next five years' worth of Wallabies Tests, Super Rugby matches and a new national club competition.​

​

Optus and Rugby Australia agreed to suspend talks for six months, but a senior source in the telco told the Herald that the Singapore-based business would not be in a position to restart negotiations for "12 months".​

That assessment might (or might not) not bear out. The deal was reportedly for ~$30m p.a., but there are some other factors against Optus as well.

Front and centre is Hamish McLennan joining the RA board - and probably as Chairman. If that doesn't scream NewsCorp, I don't know what will.

Maybe the only way an Optus deal is not dead is if RA somehow only sign a shorter term alternate deal, maybe 2 years. But it's hard to see past another 5-year Foxtel "soup plus" deal being taken - and at a lower price than the last deal.

Should that occur, RA puts head between knees, kisses its arse goodbye, and bends over.

It's cap-in-hand time.

People keep talking about an Optus "deal" as though it was a complete agreement. There may have been negotiations with Optus (as there should have been and should still be) but nobody other than unnamed sources have said that a deal was done or even imminent. I'd also note that the SMH is published by the main competitor to News in Australia, so they'd be pumping up anything from Optus.

As I've said a number of times, I don't care whether Fox or Optus or someone else gets the rights, as long as the deal is the best for the game.

People need to remember that it's a business deal pure and simple. Neither company are going to pay one cent more for the rights than they think they're worth and in the absence of a competitor they might not even pay that much. It's probably better for rugby that Foxtel is still in the running for the rights, otherwise there's no incentive for Optus or anyone else to pay top dollar. Similarly, if Optus are out of the picture, then there's no incentive for Foxtel to either increase their offer or even maintain it. These companies don't televise a sport because they like the sport or because they think we're good blokes. They want to make as much money out of the deal as possible.

Finally, the idea that some on here say that a deal with Fox means no FTA is simply not supported by the objective evidence. Fox have rights to NRL, AFL and cricket and all three are also on FTA. The reason that they are on FTA is because the FTA networks think that they can make money out of broadcasting them.

It's been open to rugby all along to try to get Super Rugby onto FTA, but that would have meant less money from Foxtel because the value of the rights diminishes if they aren't exclusive. Rugby would have had to convince an FTA broadcaster to pay the difference to televise the game. ARU/RA have always taken the decision to take the highest offer and give exclusive rights to Fox. And my recollection is that there has been little to no interest from FTA to televise Super Rugby beyond a 1 hour highlights package on a Sunday afternoon.

 

[Quick Hands]

Meanwhile, back in the real world the coherent governing body of a Tier 1 nation shows the way;

 

[Juan Cote]

RA's would be:
10 Weeks
5 Interim CEOs
20 Resigned board members

 

[Derpus]

As I've said a number of times, I don't care whether Fox or Optus or someone else gets the rights, as long as the deal is the best for the game.

Nah stuff that jazz. I want Murdoch's filthy mitts off Rugby.

 

[The Honey Badger]

Finally, the idea that some on here say that a deal with Fox means no FTA is simply not supported by the objective evidence. Fox have rights to NRL, AFL and cricket and all three are also on FTA. The reason that they are on FTA is because the FTA networks think that they can make money out of broadcasting them.

It's been open to rugby all along to try to get Super Rugby onto FTA, but that would have meant less money from Foxtel because the value of the rights diminishes if they aren't exclusive. Rugby would have had to convince an FTA broadcaster to pay the difference to televise the game. ARU/RA have always taken the decision to take the highest offer and give exclusive rights to Fox. And my recollection is that there has been little to no interest from FTA to televise Super Rugby beyond a 1 hour highlights package on a Sunday afternoon.

Actually the main reason they remain on FTA is the Anti Siphoning legislation that came in when Pay TV first appeared in AUS. That guaranteed that sports that were always on FTA remained on FTA. Hence NRL, AFL & Cricket & Test Rugby remain on FTA today.

Unfortunately this pre dated the advent of Super Rugby and it wasn't covered by the AS legislation. This allowed Fox to have exclusive rights to all live Super Rugby matches. Great for Fox as it was a subscription driver for what is a wealthy and not price sensitive demographic.

Whilst you say there is no interest in Super Rugby by any of the FTA broadcasters and imply that that the product is not a commercial proposition for a FTA broadcaster. You could well be right, but we dont know what audience it might attract on FTA because it has NEVER been tried (that is LIVE Super Rugby matches).

The one thing that Raelene Castle was doing that I was prepared to forgive all her other mistakes was attempting to get Super Rugby Live on FTA. I was 100% behind her for this as I believe the biggest handbrake on the game has been the Foxtel Paywall. And I am certain it was her attempts to get a match onto FTA was the reason there was a coordinated attack on her by Fox/News leading to her demise.

At the end of the day if Fox hold the Pay rights, I dont really care. The key to me in these media rights is the live Super Rugby match on FTA.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

?.....In better news the $16m from WR (World Rugby) is apparently coming today.

In which case it's no longer a loan contingent on the auditors signing off on RA's accounts but an advance per the scheme WR (World Rugby) announced on 17 April, well after the accounts would've gone to the auditors. This is going to sound batshit crazy but bear with me & please don't burn me at the stake for heresy, but it's looking increasingly likely that some of the info being leaked is being pre-spun.....

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Well my avatar would suggest the gent in the middle The redoubtable Keith Emerson.

I prefer to think of him as the hopefully inimitable KE but each to their own . Being from WA I imagine you killed the sheep with your bare hands, skinned it with your teeth & tanned the hide by pissing on it?

 

[KOB1987]

In which case it's no longer a loan contingent on the auditors signing off on RA's accounts but an advance per the scheme WR (World Rugby) announced on 17 April, well after the accounts would've gone to the auditors. This is going to sound batshit crazy but bear with me & please don't burn me at the stake for heresy, but it's looking increasingly likely that some of the info being leaked is being pre-spun...

don't know the structure of it, all it said was this:

Still, he (Clarke) probably will arrive on the same day as the rescue cheque for around $17m, with re-elected chairman Bill Beaumont apologising for its delay because of the World Rugby elections.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Why? Don't the SANZAAR countries have separate broadcast deals?

Yes, however my understanding is that the rights are pooled and distributed to the nations based on number of teams after the costs to run the competition (travel, accom, refs etc) are deducted.

 

[Rob42]

At the end of the day if Fox hold the Pay rights, I dont really care. The key to me in these media rights is the live Super Rugby match on FTA.

I used to agree with this idea, but then the A-League used to think this way too. Then they got a match live on SBS, now it's moved to ABC, and the ratings are abysmal. If you want FTA exposure to actually change the visibility or scale of your competition, you need more than just a game per week. You need that FTA network to make your sport a pivotal part of their brand. Like 7 and AFL, or 9 and NRL. Those sports get massive promotion from the network, directly through advertising, and indirectly through news reports, cross-promos on other programs, etc.

The idea that people will just happen across a Super Rugby game when channel-flicking, and be converted to the code, isn't realistic.

 

[Rob42]

At the end of the day if Fox hold the Pay rights, I dont really care. The key to me in these media rights is the live Super Rugby match on FTA.

I used to agree with this idea, but then the A-League used to think this way too. Then they got a match live on SBS, now it's moved to ABC, and the ratings are abysmal. If you want FTA exposure to actually change the visibility or scale of your competition, you need more than just a game per week. You need that FTA network to make your sport a pivotal part of their brand. Like 7 and AFL, or 9 and NRL. Those sports get massive promotion from the network, directly through advertising, and indirectly through news reports, cross-promos on other programs, etc.

The idea that people will just happen across a Super Rugby game when channel-flicking, and be converted to the code, isn't realistic.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Yes, however my understanding is that the rights are pooled and distributed to the nations based on number of teams after the costs to run the competition (travel, accom, refs etc) are deducted.

Remind me how many Strayan teams there'll be in SUPER RUGBY AOTEAROA

 

[Quick Hands]

Nah stuff that jazz. I want Murdoch's filthy mitts off Rugby.

Well, that's your right to do so. Of course, if you eliminate a major competitor from buying your produce, you realise that the value of the product diminishes and you're less likely to get top money?