Sports events 'must be on free TV'

[Oldschool]

Did anyone notice in Thomond Park this evening the RTE cameraman making a mad dash to get behind the posts followed by the assistant dragging about 300 feet of cable everytime there was a penalty or a conversion ?

I have yet to see the tv coverage of the game so I cant comment on the quality on screen , but to compare what was on display technically with the saturation approach of Sky does not bode well for this free-to-air lark or even the Magners

I though cabled cameras were a thing of the past.

[meinster]

Did anyone notice in Thomond Park this evening the RTE cameraman making a mad dash to get behind the posts followed by the assistant dragging about 300 feet of cable

They're likely to be the exact same cameraman/runner that would do the Sky coverage anyway. I watched it, but I don't remember anything unusual about the coverage. Most of the goal shots seemed to be from the kicker PoV, I see to recall.

I though cabled cameras were a thing of the past.

For live events? I don't think so. Power and bandwidth just haven't caught up yet. Short spurts of coverage (like an interview) are still done, but I don't know about live. I've never seen a wireless camera do a sideline interview anyway (that was live, I mean). Plenty of wireless stuff for non-live coverage (so a poor quality live stream is sent to the OB unit to let the producer know what's coming, but the broadcast-quality video is either streamed in a non-realtime fashion, or stored on the camera).

Either way, RTÉs coverage is more than technically adequate, and I wouldn't consider that a factor in the FTA debate. I think I'll stick to the "if it ain't broke..." side of the debate, but the IRFU have really gone about this the wrong way, IMO. As long as the combined rights negotiation isn't anti-competitive, then I don't see the need for us to interrupt. Ireland is doing well out of the deal (both broadcasters and IRFU alike; and the public, by extension). Maybe there's more to this (and Ryan has got wind of the 6N going to Sky in UK/Ire or something), but there's a stunning lack of facts from Ryan (and, to a lesser extent, the IRFU).

[Donny B.]

McGuirk came out with the most stupid of comments tonight at the end of tonights broadcast.
If ever you wanted to discount his opinion to an Infinitesimally small level it was tonight.

Apparently RTE are in the proud position to show the two test matches on a 'Free-to-air' basis, the fact that this will take place 10 hours after kick-off was surprisingly glossed over..........


Truly laughable...........

Pathetic stuff alright. Someone should point out to him that the HC highlights are also "free to air"

[backrower8]

there's a stunning lack of facts from Ryan (and, to a lesser extent, the IRFU).

Facts from IRFU are posted on their web-site as was given to the Oireachtas Committee (http://www.irishrugby.ie/save/20953_the_facts.php) and their annual accounts are published in full every year and also on the web-site.

Not sure what more one could want from the IRFU....meanwhile the Minister has produced one opinion piece in the Irish Times (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opi ... 08161.html)

Go figure!

The arguments of his I detest are wafle such as the trotting out of the Nielsen figures to suggest that only Sky only gets 20% of the audience that free-to-air gets. He doesn't admit that these digures do not count ANYONE who watches in a club or pub or hotel or the multiple viewers that call round to friends houses to watch on the same TV

The other one is how poorer households cannot afford Sky - eh two words - THE PREMIERSHIP!

His social agenda misses the point that there is no greater social agenda than having the players live, work and train in their local communities instead of just being seen on TV

As for the tax revenue the IRFU got for the Aviva or the tax breaks for the players. Neither of those benefits were freebies or gifts. They were carefully given for many reasons all designed to encourage sporting participation and increase sports tourism revenues.

50% of the money for the Aviva was for soccer....not rugby. IRFU & FAI are also paying large sums into the stadium. Rugby is a €375 million ANNUAL economy with circa 50% of that being net inflows to the State.

The taxbreaks help to secure some of the best sporting talent in the world here in this country where they are an inspiration tyo the next generation mainly as a result of their on-filed achievements but also because thousands of children get to meet them in clubs, schools, hospitals and communities generallly.

Being able to bump into one of the world's greatest players on the street is invaluable - it says to the kids - they are real, you are real and they are parrt of your world....its normal.....good things don't just happen on TV or in other countries.....what is the social value or price yyou put on that Dan Boyle?

When all is said and done though....this is not about sport (the business side included) any longer....this is about politics.

Why oh why are the Greens continually going out to bat on this when a landslide of people think they are very wrong.....why are they prepared to be publicly embarrassed when they could just let it peter out?

[meinster]

Facts from IRFU

Not sure I trust those "facts" given the deliberate lack of naming any independent source, given the inadequacy in their addressing the fact that the FTA must pay fair market rates (so all the money is not lost, if any; they just say it'll spoil the group-buying cartel, when it hasn't done in 2 other countries much, much larger than ours), and given that they've twice revised (downwards) the "official" figures. I still don't think there's enough justification for Ryan to add the events to the list (especially for any HC fixtures; I'm OK with 6N being added to the list, but don't see the point in changing the system now unless there's wind of a change in the broadcasting that he's heard of).

His social agenda misses the point that there is no greater social agenda than having the players live, work and train in their local communities instead of just being seen on TV

Yeah, that really is key. It's more social now to get people down to pubs/clubs(does that really happen!?)/freinds houses, than having everyone watching it at home on their own.

[West Brit]

Not sure I trust those "facts" given the deliberate lack of naming any independent source, given the inadequacy in their addressing the fact that the FTA must pay fair market rates.

The problem being we're not currently getting fair market rates - we're currently getting better than that.

[meinster]

The problem being we're not currently getting fair market rates - we're currently getting better than that.

Yeah, valid point. But, would it change if 6N coverage was FTA-listed? It doesn't seem to have affected the group negotiations when it was listed elsewhere. I don't know enough about the controls on what's a fair market price, but surely it must be at least what RTE pay now? I don't know. I know if it was, Ryan should be putting that forward as a point, and not seek sympathy because his kid isn't allow to go to his friend's house to watch it (much more sociable!)

[Dave Cahill]

The problem being we're not currently getting fair market rates - we're currently getting better than that.

Yeah, valid point. But, would it change if 6N coverage was FTA-listed? It doesn't seem to have affected the group negotiations when it was listed elsewhere. I don't know enough about the controls on what's a fair market price, but surely it must be at least what RTE pay now? I don't know. I know if it was, Ryan should be putting that forward as a point, and not seek sympathy because his kid isn't allow to go to his friend's house to watch it (much more sociable!)

By definition, there can't be a fair market price under this legislation.

[meinster]

By definition, there can't be a fair market price under this legislation.

Eh? Why not?

[West Brit]

By definition, there can't be a fair market price under this legislation.

Eh? Why not?

Because it wouldn't be a fair market by definition.

[johng]

By definition, there can't be a fair market price under this legislation.

Eh? Why not?

Because it wouldn't be a fair market by definition.

Because Sky would be out of the picture. And they have the biggest wallet.

[Dave Cahill]

By definition, there can't be a fair market price under this legislation.

Eh? Why not?

Because one of the potential purchasers is prohibited from purchasing by that legislation.

[meinster]

What's to stop Sky bidding? This is the first I've heard of the FTA EU Directive preventing broadcasters. I thought it was just related to ensuring some (FTA) broadcasters had to be allowed access to those rights (again, for "fair market price"). So, in theory, Sky could bid for the rights in UK + Ireland and resell Ireland-only to RTE. RTE are paying fair market price now, surely? So Isn't it reasonable to expect them to have to pay (roughly) the same if it was to go FTA? I don't see how Sky are blocked in that case (legally, or commercially).

EDIT: I'm just talking 6N here, not HC coverage. And I'm just trying to understand the issue a bit better, not argue that 6N must be FTA (I think there might be a case for it, but I'm not convinced listing as FTA is the right solution right now).

[Dave Cahill]

What's to stop Sky bidding? This is the first I've heard of the FTA EU Directive preventing broadcasters. I thought it was just related to ensuring some (FTA) broadcasters had to be allowed access to those rights (again, for "fair market price"). So, in theory, Sky could bid for the rights in UK + Ireland and resell Ireland-only to RTE. RTE are paying fair market price now, surely? So Isn't it reasonable to expect them to have to pay (roughly) the same if it was to go FTA? I don't see how Sky are blocked in that case (legally, or commercially).

EDIT: I'm just talking 6N here, not HC coverage. And I'm just trying to understand the issue a bit better, not argue that 6N must be FTA (I think there might be a case for it, but I'm not convinced listing as FTA is the right solution right now).

why would they bid for a set of rights they cannot fully exploit? It would be analogous to you buying a new iPad but being told you have to let the lad beside you, who couldn't be bothered paying for one in the first place, use it on odd days. Now, you have to let him use it, or you'll have the iPad taken away from you. Stingy McCheapskate knows this, so is he going to pay you 7/14s of the price? Of course not, you HAVE to let him use it, so he can offer you a greatly reduced amount.

[meinster]

Down to how fair market rate is calculated. I don't know how that's done, so I'm bowing out. It doesn't seem "fair" if RTE can come along and say "well, 6N is FTA in Ireland, you know. That means it's automatically worth 20% less, so here's 80% of what we spent last year". Maybe they can do, under the rules?

[Munsterboy]

Down to how fair market rate is calculated. I don't know how that's done, so I'm bowing out. It doesn't seem "fair" if RTE can come along and say "well, 6N is FTA in Ireland, you know. That means it's automatically worth 20% less, so here's 80% of what we spent last year". Maybe they can do, under the rules?

Problem is that there is no precise way to calculate fair market rate, you can only estimate it and those estimates vary wildly depending on the estimator's agenda.

In a free market, you'll only know what the fair market rate is when you see what the highest bidder ends up paying to win the rights. Take out the wealthiest bidder and that will inevitably drop substantially. Ryan and co can waffle all they like but that's basic economics.

[janeymac08]

Down to how fair market rate is calculated. I don't know how that's done, so I'm bowing out. It doesn't seem "fair" if RTE can come along and say "well, 6N is FTA in Ireland, you know. That means it's automatically worth 20% less, so here's 80% of what we spent last year". Maybe they can do, under the rules?

Problem is that there is no precise way to calculate fair market rate, you can only estimate it and those estimates vary wildly depending on the estimator's agenda.

In a free market, you'll only know what the fair market rate is when you see what the highest bidder ends up paying to win the rights. Take out the wealthiest bidder and that will inevitably drop substantially. Ryan and co can waffle all they like but that's basic economics.

There is a way to calculate it.
Method One is based on the no. of viewers and how attractive they are to advertisers. What you earn from that + a percentage of the Licence Fee, minus production costs, camera crews, panelists etc.= the value of the broadcasting rights.
Method Two is based on how many subscriptions can be sold to the target audience at €600 a pop (Anything over 5000 subscriptions for rugby in Ireland and Sky are making money at the moment - not difficult if you consider that Munster & Leinster can get 40/50K+ to a Heineken Cup final in another country).

[West Brit]

There is a way to calculate it.
Method One is based on the no. of viewers and how attractive they are to advertisers. What you earn from that + a percentage of the Licence Fee, minus production costs, camera crews, panelists etc.= the value of the broadcasting rights.
Method Two is based on how many subscriptions can be sold to the target audience at €600 a pop (Anything over 5000 subscriptions for rugby in Ireland and Sky are making money at the moment - not difficult if you consider that Munster & Leinster can get 40/50K+ to a Heineken Cup final in another country).

Both methods you've mentioned are certainly two valuation methods, and they may be perfectly acceptable methods too. I don't work for Sky so I'd have no idea how to value a HC.

But one thing they are certainly NOT is a way of calculating a fair market value. The ONLY way of seeing what the fair market value is, is to let a fair market decide. The Super 14 rights just went for $460m or something silly like that. That amount is well above the valuation that would be reached using either of your methods. And that's because neither of your methods include goodwill for a start. Goodwill is only really measurable in an open, free market. In fact, the whole right to broadcast a rugby tournament for a number of years would surely be an intangible asset on the books of a broadcaster, and intangible assets are notoriously hard to value. RTÉ would certainly be undervaluing the value of the rights using either of those methods, which would cost our sport, and our provinces money.

[janeymac08]

Both methods you've mentioned are certainly two valuation methods, and they may be perfectly acceptable methods too. I don't work for Sky so I'd have no idea how to value a HC.

But one thing they are certainly NOT is a way of calculating a fair market value. The ONLY way of seeing what the fair market value is, is to let a fair market decide. The Super 14 rights just went for $460m or something silly like that. That amount is well above the valuation that would be reached using either of your methods. And that's because neither of your methods include goodwill for a start. Goodwill is only really measurable in an open, free market. In fact, the whole right to broadcast a rugby tournament for a number of years would surely be an intangible asset on the books of a broadcaster, and intangible assets are notoriously hard to value. RTÉ would certainly be undervaluing the value of the rights using either of those methods, which would cost our sport, and our provinces money.

Super 14 rights are across three countries, one of which has a very large population and where it is their No. 1 sport (that might change now with the World Cup). Its the No. 1 sport in NZ, so I don't see how those methods I've suggested would not work. In the NH, rugby has very serious competition with soccer.

Goodwill doesn't come into it. RTE is the State broadcaster that we have to pay a licence fee to. The more money RTE pay the IRFU, the more money we will have to pay for our licence fee. It would be much simplar if those who are worried about the IRFU's finances should simply donate half their Sky sub instead. That way everyone would be a winner.

Worth considering also is that BOD, POC & Kearney earning potential from promotional work would stop. The Credit Union or Irish Milk won't be promoting their wares on Sky.

[Scott]

Experts to advise minister on rugby TV plan

COMMUNICATIONS Minister Eamon Ryan has asked experts to prepare a report on his controversial plans to broadcast rugby matches for free.

The Irish Independent has learned that the minister ordered independent consultants to carry out a report into his proposal to add the Six Nations and Heineken Cup to the Government's list of free-to-air games.

But the consultants' contract will not be awarded until July or August and the report will not be expected until at least eight weeks after that.

This means that the next Heineken Cup and Six Nations season will be well under way by the time the minister brings the recommendations of consultants to Cabinet.

The appointment of consultants after the conclusion of the public-consultation process on July 4 means the divisive issue of match rights will effectively be kicked to touch until October or November at the earliest.

According to the advertisement for tenders, consultants will have to take into account any research and analysis into the impact of pay television and the designation of events.

Their report will have to examine the cultural importance of sporting events, the financial impact of any changes and the impact of pay television on viewership and sport.

The Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU) has mounted a high-profile campaign against Mr Ryan's free-to-air plans. It claims that it will lose €12m if he makes Ireland's rugby matches free to view.

The minister has said he wanted consultants to take regard of submissions from the likes of the IRFU, rugby fans and clubs because the issue was "complex" and he wanted to get "outside advice".

The report will be used by the minister when he goes before the European Commission with his final decision on sporting events that are of "national importance".

Mr Ryan recently suffered the first blow to his plans when TDs and senators on a cross-party Oireachtas committee sided with the IRFU.

The committee passed a motion, stating that the IRFU should continue to have independence in selling off the broadcast rights to Irish rugby matches.

Revenue

At present, the Six Nations is available free of charge on RTE after it won the rights until 2013.

But the Heineken Cup is broadcast on pay television and is only available on RTE two hours after the final whistle.

Under Mr Ryan's proposals, both competitions would be added to a 'free-to-air' list, which would guarantee that they were broadcast free of charge in the future.

His plans would remove the possibility that the Six Nations would become pay per view in 2013 if RTE was outbid and outmanoeuvred by the bigger sports channels.

At the moment, RTE pays €3m for the broadcast rights but the IRFU receives another €11m from the central media pot, which is divided up among the six competing countries.

It gets another €2m from RTE for deferred coverage of the Heineken Cup and €3m from the central media pot that exists in relation to the European Rugby Cup.

In total, the IRFU gets €16m in broadcast revenue.

However, it argues that if the Government changes the way the games are sold, it will simply be left with the €5m from RTE.

Rugby bosses claim that the IRFU stands to lose between €10m and €12m because the minister's proposals would end the collective approach of splitting the media pot six ways.

- Aine Kerr

http://www.independent.ie/national-news ... 19633.html