Unofficial Partner Podcast
Unofficial Partner Podcast
UP482 The Bundle: Disney and Women; Pirates and Sky; Rugby and YouTubers
Welcome to The Bundle, our regular series on the sports media and streaming marketplace with co-hosts Yannick Ramcke, General Manager of OTT at the streaming service OneFootball and Murray Barnett, founder of 26West Consulting and formerly of F1, World Rugby and ESPN International.
What are the stories the sports media industry is talking about and what do they mean?
Unofficial Partner is the leading podcast for the business of sport. A mix of entertaining and thought provoking conversations with a who's who of the global industry.
To join our community of listeners, sign up to the weekly UP Newsletter and follow us on Twitter and TikTok at @UnofficialPartner
We publish two podcasts each week, on Tuesday and Friday.
These are deep conversations with smart people from inside and outside sport.
Our entire back catalogue of 400 sports business conversations are available free of charge here.
Each pod is available by searching for ‘Unofficial Partner’ on Apple, Spotify, Google, Stitcher and every podcast app.
If you’re interested in collaborating with Unofficial Partner to create one-off podcasts or series, you can reach us via the website.
Hello there. Welcome. It's Richard Gillis here, and you're listening to Unofficial Partner, the sports business podcast. this is the bundle, our regular series on sports media and streaming with Co hosts Yannick Ramker, the general manager of OTT streaming service OneFootball. And Murray Barnett, founder of 26 West Consulting, formerly of Formula One, World Rugby and ESPN Disney.
Richard Gillis, UP:But there's no spur show. I thought you, I thought there was a list of European champions there for a moment, but it's, it's obviously not. But
Murray Barnett:Well, I'll show you. I went to, I dunno if you can see that, but I went to the game and I made it to the player's party afterwards.
Richard Gillis, UP:he is a listener, by the way, Ben Davis.
Murray Barnett:Ben Davis. Yeah. And then that's me with with Olson.
Richard Gillis, UP:So just on Ben, I met him at the Ft. Business, conference, and he, we had a really nice chat. I really liked him a
Murray Barnett:He's a good dude.
Richard Gillis, UP:he's a listener to Unofficial Partner. He's a big big supporter. And at some point it'd be lovely to get him on, but yeah, no, he's a, he, he's really into the whole business conversation.
Murray Barnett:But I'll tell you what would be an interesting one would be, and maybe this is too obvious, like his take on welcome to Reham and those kind of things as a Welsh player, but at the same time, not somebody that's sort of, you know, he's, he's from, he's a Swansea boy, so, or a Newport boy I think, actually. So it's not like it's sort of too close to home as it well, but it could be kind of interesting to get his take on what he thinks it's done for sort of lower league football.
Richard Gillis, UP:Do you know what that is? A, a very, very good idea. I'm gonna go back, we're gonna go back to the, we're gonna try and work my way back to Ben Davis and put that to him. I think that's a fantastic idea. Well, he'll listen to this and he'll, he'll be in touch, I'm sure.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:I mean, just to give my 2 cents on that, I must say I was shocked because you know that I lost my fandom, like, which some point of the past, I dunno, five years, so I'm not like on top of things when it comes to standings and tables and all of this. said, okay, those two underperforming teams in the Premier League, I was okay. Like they may miss out on European competition, they were like next to last. When it comes to not being relegated, those two teams, I mean, this was shocking. back
Murray Barnett:Okay. But I mean with, I mean, that's a whole, that's a listen now I want to, I want to have some food later at some point. I mean, that, that's a whole, that's three hours worth of conversation there.
Richard Gillis, UP:As I, as I put in the newsletter, what was wrong with the UA for Cup Cup Winner's, cup and Champions League, you know, Berlusconi's legacy is, is profound and deep. Anyway, let's, let's move on. We'll, we'll, we'll we, we haven't even started yet, right? We have got, I've got really, I think these are great stories. So gonna start with Disney and their Women's Champions League's rights. So there's quite a bit in that, which I wanna get into. Then we are gonna talk about influencers or creators rescuing the sports rights market. Question mark, YouTube and various other bits and bobs in there. D Zone, inevitably, is D Zone going to make money from the club World Cup? Is that what they actually want to do? So that's one of the questions for later and piracy, we've got a good piracy question.'cause that's of, it's always, I. Part of the conversation, but it's seems to have had a bump. And I'm interested, I was reading the FT at the weekend, which had quite a big spread on piracy and you always gotta wonder why that is the case. But let's start with Disney. So gonna read from the ECA Europe it I, yes, they still exist. Uc three and Disney plus have announced a landmark agreement that sees the streaming service become the home of the U AFA Women's Champions League across Europe from the 20 25, 26 season through to 2030. The five year deal will ensure that each of the 75 matches in the newly expanded competition is available. To Disney plus customers in Europe at no additional cost. So I'm a Disney plus, I think for I, I am a Disney Plus. It sounds like a Alcoholics Anonymous. I, my name is Richard and I subscribed to Disney, but I do, and for a while I was in that sort of gray area of password sharing, but now I've, I sort of, pay my way to to Disney and I sort of quite like it. I can't remember why we did it initially, but then, and then it's there. But I, there's a few questions on here, but just Murray, just take us through what's happening here.'cause I've got questions about, there's two circles involved in this. Is, this is one of two circles. First media deals, I think, or the manifestation of one of the first media deals that they've in terms of the contract that they've got with uc. Three. But take me through what's happening.
Murray Barnett:Well, firstly, I think it's really, Disney Plus is a really interesting platform.'cause I think that you, when you think of Disney, you think just of kids content. And indeed, when I first sort started subscribing to it, it was when my kids were much younger. But they have actually got a really interesting mix of programming. So obviously they've got all of the Star Wars, universe, all of the kids' content, and they've got a, a, a large array of movies as well as as well as some really interesting stuff that's come through the Fox acquisition. And one pretty senior female executive in the sports business described this as. Perfect because their guilty pleasure is is keeping up with the Kardashians and that is why they subscribe to Disney Plus. And then this is actually giving them a legitimate reason to subscribe to it because they're naturally a a real football fan. And so rather than having to keep their Disney Plus Secret, they can now become an overt Disney Plus fan because it's brought women's football. And I'm slightly jesting because I think the other key point is that Disney plus skews younger and more female focused, which probably mirrors the audience, generally speaking for women's football. So it fits quite nicely into that. I think it also does an interesting job of shaping it as a different proposition to sort of men's European football, if you like. And so I think that's been. After a couple of miss, you could argue Miss starts with sort of D zone and women's football, where D Zone created a ton of content and did a really good job with it, but it just didn't really work behind a sort of a sports exclusive paywall. And so I'm really intrigued to see how it stands up in a, in a sort of a general entertainment world and actually probably a much better cultural fit for it.
Richard Gillis, UP:Yeah, it is quite a sort of and we did our Unofficial Partner did a, did a live women's football brainstorm at D Zone and we had Alison Lomax on from YouTube and we had a, a cast of thousands, I think it was about nine or 10 people on stage over, over the course of the evening. And, but that was all about, they had just bought the rights and were sharing them with YouTube or that, I mean, it must be three years ago now, I suppose.
Murray Barnett:Correct.
Richard Gillis, UP:So I looked at this, so there's two pi two things I thought of. One was, I, I spoke to Gareth Bch on the podcast of two circles obviously a couple of weeks ago. And then he, he was, we were at his office and he, and he was, they were very excited about the Disney deal. We hadn't, you know, they had, they hadn't announced it at that point. but there was a status question. This is a big name, you know, so it's Disney. So there is that bit, there's the audience point in which you've just identified there. and then there's the other question about what, because YouTube, again is flavor of the month with all sorts of, of, you know, stories hanging around in terms of what sport is gonna do. YouTube. But this didn't work on YouTube. This was D Zone and YouTube. was a, that you know, the big sell there was all the obvious things that you can imagine. It. We're, here we are three years down the road and they've gone a different direction. So it's sort of, it's interesting what's happening now and what's gonna happen, but it's also interesting about what's not worked in, in the past.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:I agree and I. Fashions left, including my fashion that Richard being subscribed and don't know about it. Is this a feature or a bug of the soil system? But with that being said,
Richard Gillis, UP:Well, whether I know I'm a subscriber or not.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:Indeed but with that being said I mean, uhm, your sample size.
Richard Gillis, UP:one more, just while we're on that, just I know, just, I just wanna finish this off, and this is really annoying, is that on the, on the Disney front page where you log in, avatar is the, the old bloke from up and my daughter has put it on and I can't get it off. So every time it comes up, it's really, it's really, it really annoys me and I really get, have a go at her and she's laughing head off, she's 22. She's not like four.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:Maybe that says more about who is like, like decision maker in your household, but absolutely. Now back to Murray's point, regarding your sample size of one that, okay, this might be now the main driver to to sign up or like this brought them over the line. I think that this might not be representative for the marketplace in the sense of, I think it says a lot about women's football, that we get some alternative. Buyers to the table and not the traditional ones. And I think the big question, or like one of the questions around women's football in the past 2, 3, 4 years as the commercial value of the property has yeah, almost grown exponentially was does it have pay value or it was unproven? Does it have pay value and can serve for a mass? Ma mass market audience as a subscriber acquisition tool. And I think this is one further indication that that might not be the case which Inva deflates media rights, valuations from traditional buyers if, and live sports in particular are often supposed to serve as subscribed acquisition tool at the same time. I, I do see the fit here. I mean, women's football I think can work as an engagement as an engagement driver. It can't overcome pay vault, but if there is like broad reach and access and Disney plus, I just, I don't know, Murray, if you have the subscriber number on top of your head, but there is a certain build in audience that just need to. Engage with. Instead of that women's football and champion in particular need to overcome the cost barrier, the signup barrier. So to this, this extent, I see a lot of positives and potentials, but also a reflection that, also with the EBU brought free to air coverage. It's a function of the revenue mix, right? Like meteorites, far less dominant for women's football, commercial revenue, which requires some reach and visibility, much more prominent in the revenue mix. So I think these are all then downstream implications that how revenue is made and accordingly, you have your distribution mix where and when you are available to give also the exposure to, to brands involved.
Murray Barnett:Yeah, so Disney Plus has about 35 million subscribers in Europe, and then you've got roughly the 200 billion subscribers from the 10 or so, or sorry, the 30 or so EBU territories. So, you know, it's almost like that classic mix of a little bit available on free to air to the widest possible audience, and then every game available behind a paywall.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:but you say like, a little bit available on math reach feature AI linear broadcast. I think this little bit significantly also dilutes maybe the little drawing power that women's football has as an subscriber acquisition tool even further, because the most relevant matches will be on future.
Murray Barnett:I mean, you're right, but I think that Disney think about it a different way because they're not a pure play sports broadcaster. I think that they're thinking about it a lot more as an audience engagement mechanism. And so, you know, they've already dipped their toe in the water with Uafa before in terms of having, I think it was Europa League and Conference League in Scandinavia, and then they already had a relationship with, with UFA through the foundation. So it was kind of a bit of joining of the dots, I think. And it, to me, it feels like it makes a per makes perfect sense for both the broadcaster in Disney Plus and the rights owner in, in in ufa.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:absolutely, and I'm not questioning Disney's decision to acquire because I don't think that new signups is like the North star metric for that that rights investment. At the same time, I also don't think that Disney plus in Europe has a bespoke sport programming strategy. I think for them they have a, content budget and whatever content best or is expected to best serve and deliver against business objectives. And here you rightly pointed out that I think this plus tries to really position itself as a, learned this term. Recently, like a four quadrant streaming service. So you're from young to old, from female to male, like trying to cover the entire household. This is like, they are positioning and I think by weighing different content acquisition opportunities that not because it's sports, but because it's like this particular property that they found and considered this interesting. I think they paid over the moon? I don't think so. I think for that, as said there's not a bespoke enough sports strategy where it is of strategic relevance, but it just fit like their programming portfolio and strategy and can deliver against the objectives. So not saying at all that this cannot work out for Disney Plus and for OR, same thing. Nice narrative. So I can see that this being fruitful and beneficial for, for both parties.
Murray Barnett:Well, I did, I did help D Zone in terms of some of the sublicensing for the last round of women's Champions League and. If you balance what I think Disney paid for it with the reach that they give, I think that this is probably a much better deal for everybody than was than Deone was able to achieve with Sublicensing because, you know, Deone is probably more conflicted as well in terms of how much it wanted to sublicense because it's that pure play sports broadcaster, rather than seeing this as sort of extra nice content to have as it were or high quality content to have. I I, I do think that the, one of the dangers that women's football is falling into, certainly when you look at it through a UK lens, and I think this has brought up on with Matt on on expected goals is sort of the fragmentation of the market now, though you've got all the different women's competitions seem to be spread across a number of different broadcasters and that could end up being a challenge both. It could be a benefit, but it could also be a challenge in the sense that you have so many, there's no appointment to view destination. But, but maybe that's not such a big issue. It remains to be seen, I guess.
Richard Gillis, UP:I've got a question about Disney and DSPN. Why Disney Plus and not ESPN?
Murray Barnett:Well, they don't, they don't have an ESPN Europe channel other than in Holland. I.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:Yeah, I,
Richard Gillis, UP:Okay, so it had to be Disney.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:not a part of the plan to bring ESPN in many, many international markets. They have used other sub brands or Disney plus whenever they did some sports selectively here and there, including, I think they did star star sports in India. I think they even used the star sports brand in South America. And more and more also sports being part of the Disney Plus proposition, because as said, they want to be really like capturing the entirety of of the addressable market.
Richard Gillis, UP:The other question I had was I noticed that, that the UK broadcasters, so ITV or B, BC, were not in the EBU. So part of this is the EBU bringing public television broadcasters together as part of the the group that is, in this, why would ITV. be in that, why choose not to go in with the, the EBU and do it separately?
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:I do have hypothesis, I have an idea, but you, that might be rather
Murray Barnett:I, I,
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:domain.
Murray Barnett:I mean, I think between between WSL and FA Cup, there's probably a tacit feeling that they already had enough women's foot, you know, high quality, locally relevant women's football. Maybe they're ruining it after arsenals victory. And that gives them, would've given them some extra, which I, I, I don't really know, to be honest with you.
Richard Gillis, UP:I've, I've said actually I think it is BB, CI know. I mean, we were in bra lava with the EBU and, and Glen Klain mentioned
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:I don't think
Richard Gillis, UP:BC.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:BB, C or ITV, I could imagine that any one of the two would have loved to write along the way with the EBU framework. But I think then also like expectations from the UFA side. May come in that they said, okay, like, this is not good enough. Given that willingness to pay may also be limited due to the reasons that you mentioned of saturations and so on, like having content coverage on women's football. So I think if any of the two or like in this case BBC, given that we are talking about EBU would've like, tagged along, I think they would've done it. But I think your expectation come in and that doesn't mean that there is not a unilateral or like bilateral deal. Later on, I would say.
Richard Gillis, UP:Okay. One more question is, is how big a deal is it? I mean, top line. I'm, I'm all over it. One of the things, it's Disney, so people start to project onto it. Oh, okay. What will they do with the rights? And you start to get into the game of sort of cross-platform content strategy, embedding it into various dis other Disney properties. As you say, mark, you know, Murray, they've got a lot of IP across Marvel, star Wars, Pixar, blah, blah, blah, blah. But how big a deal is this really? If they, I mean, I can imagine if they bought the Premier League, it would be, would be looking at this in terms of, complete cross pollination. But is that something, is this a big enough deal for that sort of conversation to, to be had?
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:Do I think that it made the initial pitch deck to a a absolutely. Like all the, as you called it, in terms of cost pollination that you can imagine both digitally, but also in real life and everything? think that the vast majority of all the different ideas and imaginations will be realized? I doubt it because at some point just reality hits and then it's like one of many, and you can't, you just don't have the head space and capacity to give it the care that I'm not saying pretended. to do, just to secure the right. So I think it's, but that's like not specific to this to this particular opportunity. I think all, always like the pitch decks, like have a lot of fantasy in there. And then reality hits. So do I think that we do see one off activation here and there? Yes. Is it like this fully immersive and cross platform and cross experience approach? I don't think so.
Richard Gillis, UP:So it's a sponsorship. There might be some sponsorship activation that talks to that. It'd be interesting to see if there is any rights sold across that. Do you think that, would that be feasible?
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:Absolutely. But at the same time, look at like what is the bottom line value of the content and property that we are talking about. It's still like tiny to
Richard Gillis, UP:Yeah.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:content investments that Disney plus may or may not do. So I think that's a difference between like concept and then reality. Obviously it would be a unused opportunity and chance if they not do anything. So,
Murray Barnett:I think, I think this is a, this is a one of the rare times where you actually have a deal where everybody's happy. You know, two circles are happy'cause they've managed to bring somebody new to the party. UAFA are happy because they're expanding their audience'cause they've got mask coverage with free to wear, but they've got this sort of, let's call it family and female skewed audience with Disney plus and Disney plus have got some great programming, which is both the subscriber driver and an anti Chen mechanism at a, at a reasonable price. But it's probably a nice deal for everybody as opposed to there being a winner from it.
Richard Gillis, UP:Okay. Well, I like, I like a good news story. That's good.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:everything ends up in a press release, right? So that's, I'm not saying that's why we are here, but I think they were all happy about getting this out in the, out in the white.
Richard Gillis, UP:Okay. Right. We are going to second story. Will influencers rescue the sports market? Question mark. And, a, a very old news editor of mine used to say that if the headline has got a question, mark it, the answer is no, but we'll move on very swiftly from that. But is interesting for a number of reasons. We bumped into this. We're using this as a RO in really because this is the rugby story. And Tim Cocker, a UK YouTuber and host of the Egg Chasers Rugby podcast has secured the UK and island broadcasting rights for France is Pro D two Rugby League alongside former England International Joe Worsley. They're launching FR UK rugby a YouTube channel that will stream full matches for free and create additional content like highlights and analysis, the first YouTuber to hold official rugby streaming rights on the platform. So we've bumped into this a few times. We've had conversation about Ronaldo and Paddle. We've talked about casimiro or CAE in Brazil and around the Qatar World Cup hosting streaming games. It's interesting. Murray there's a few angles into this, but gimme your first sense.
Murray Barnett:I love this story. I thought this was great, and I was lucky enough to have a chat to Tim yesterday and to hear his passion and excitement about not just rugby, but D two rugby, because, just to give it a little bit of context Joe Ley is, I think the defensive coach for brief who play in the second division in France. D two has also seen a big influx of sort of named British players like Courtney Laws, George North, Johnny May and. Like all the best conversations came out of a couple of beers in the pub that they were having lamenting the inability to watch this. And then whilst and Tim described it to me brilliantly, he said, whilst he was nursing a hangover, he got a call from from Joe Wesley to say, I haven't been feeling sorry for myself. I've called up the D two to find out who's got the rights and how we're going to buy them. Which was not what Tim was necessarily expecting, but was absolutely, you know, delighted with it because it's that classic case of you have a very well produced feed already because it goes out on. Nobody was nobody was broadcasting it in the uk. So, you know, full credit to the league and to, and to Canal and to everybody for just saying, let's, let's give this a go. And, you know, they've already broadcast some of their first matches and seem to be doing, you know, reasonably well considering it's from a standing start and sort of four people in a garage. You know, I don't mean that.
Richard Gillis, UP:I mean, I, I'm fascinated because one, I don't know how difficult this is to do, but also would they, would money have exchanged hands here or are they just,
Murray Barnett:So I think he's quoted in one of the articles as saying he told his wife it was Buy the Rights or a new car. So, I think some money did change hands, or certainly there was some investment required. And the production, as you can imagine, is, is fairly rudimentary. I mean, I watched it yesterday. I watched a replay yesterday, and they're, you know, in television parlance, they're crashing into the feed. But, you know, they had really good commentary on it in terms of two people that are really passionate about it. Really great, graphics and presentation already. So, you know, they've, for the first match, I, I think I saw that they got 15,000 views, which, you know, in the bigger scheme of things is. Pretty, pretty damn good considering that it's with very little publicity and from a standing start. And, you know, it helps that he's got a, a decent presence through egg chasers of about 140,000 subscribers. But again, he's only been doing this a few years. And the thing that struck me most about this was. It was follow your passion, not a business plan. It was do something that you really enjoy and that you are really passionate about and you think other people are passionate about, and people will find you, or the audience or, or, you know, you'll connect with the audience. And it wasn't sort of looked at as a commercial opportunity, unlike, perhaps say, paddle and Ronaldo. And, you know, I don't know enough about the origins of, of Kaza TV and Kamir, but my guess is that it started in much the same way. It was just a very passionate football fan who was doing it with his own voice. And it's very much the same with, with the rugby. It's not, it's not treating it irre, ire, irreverently it's just. Treating it with a lot of passion and and from a fan, a fan's perspective, which I think is a, a real market for in the, in this new economy or this new sort of world we live in, where actually to broadcast anything is, is relatively cheap.
Richard Gillis, UP:I love it. And also those numbers, they're more than live golf initially.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:I mean, there's, there's a lot a lot in there. I think one of the key points that Murray made along the way is a thing, okay, what does it actually say about the state of rugby media rights because you said like no one was willing to pay so that this became an option. So the question is, and I think this also relates to this whole topic of like this, that we, talked about this bifurcation of the media rights markets have and have not because it must be a deflated level where something like this becomes an option, whether it's a viable option or a last resort people can can discuss.
Richard Gillis, UP:Okay, I've got a question. So if I'm, let's switch it around. I'm the rights holder on this there is the number and, you know, a new audience from nothing. It wasn't being shown. I would be worried about brand, I would be worried about control of the product a bit. I'm sure those are conversations which stop this becoming. A massive thing. I don't think that if you are a, in brackets or in or you know, rights holder see, you identify small markets that this could work. Are you worried about the product and the intangible
Murray Barnett:I, I mean, I disagree completely because, you know, you've got everybody from, you know, NFL with Manning cast, where they're effectively letting it loose to a couple of, you know, ex pros in, in the Manning brothers. Albeit on a simulcast basis. Well, no, but it's the, it's the same idea of allowing people to sort of treat your product in a, in a, in a less reverential or less staid way. I think the key thing to remember here is we're talking D two French rugby, which without wishing to denigrate it is. It it is, it's not domestic. It's UK and Ireland only. So there's no sort of reputational risk if you're sitting in France be and full credit to them for turning around and saying, look, nobody else has came up with a smart idea about it, so we're gonna, we're gonna give it a go in a foreign market, and it's not our top property. So if you like, they've mitigated a lot of the risk that they reputational risk that they might feel.
Richard Gillis, UP:and also London is about, is it the second biggest French city? I can't, I can't remember. There was that stat that might have that, that might be a pre Brexit stat. But there was a whole load of French financiers working in the city that were, there's an enormous number of French people
Murray Barnett:Also, you know, go back to my point. This isn't, this isn't something that was done with a spreadsheet. This was something where, you know, happened over, over a couple of kronenberg in a, in a, in a pub, and by two people that are extremely passionate about it. I mean, I should also say that, you know, that Tim is the first to say that he has, you know, three partners in this business, and they all are connected to rugby and, and or rugby TV production. So it's not like he didn't have some smart people working with him, but it's very much done as something that they all love rather than something that they're thinking that they're gonna get rich out of.
Richard Gillis, UP:The other, the other bit, which I don't, again, this is, it's not really relevant, but I didn't realize that Courtney Laws, George North, Johnny May, were all playing in the second division in France. I assume they, they still had careers at a higher level than that.
Murray Barnett:There are some very wealthy car, very wealthy clubs, and not only that, you know, if you're, if you offered the opportunity to play for, you know, whatever it is, cut rugby, then I, that's a damn site more interesting than going to somewhere up north where it rains all the time.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:Okay, let me, let me crash your inside rugby, inside baseball conversation because I checked out like a couple of minutes ago. But I want to agree with Mely regarding this reputational risk. I mean these are strictly contracted relationships and in that case it's just another broadcast, right? Different distribution revenue model or like, less traditional distribution and revenue model, but ultimately a broadcaster who has content trying to reach, engage and monetize, an audience. I as the rise owner. So from the rugby peace federation's perspective, obviously I prefer broadcaster that is as accessible as possible and probably there's there. Very few platforms that are more accessible than than YouTube if if any. So I think from a rights owner perspective I think risk is is limited on the other side we mentioned.
Richard Gillis, UP:Do just, sorry. Uh uh Yeah. But do you think that if you are Tim from Egg Chasers are, is he gonna make a profit on his outlay? he, how is he gonna monetize this and do those numbers work? Just again, I love the story about the pub and I love the fact that he is doing it and all of these things I'm just interested in because obviously people will look at this and, you know, want to jump on a, a stage, but is it fi feasible that he makes money from this?
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:let's not speculate, but
Richard Gillis, UP:Oh, come on,
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:I, I said, but so, let me get into it.
Richard Gillis, UP:speculate. I love a
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:I mean, one thing profit is an
Murray Barnett:before, before you, sorry, before you start, I mean, I should say that Tim was quite clear that he didn't, you know, that he has a day job. This isn't, he's not putting all of his eggs into one basket.
Richard Gillis, UP:I saw what you did there.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:disclaimer out of the way is an equation, right? That the revenue, that's the cost side, if the cost side. Speculating, it's a pure revenue share. Then obviously, like the threshold to make this not a loss making endeavor is much much lower the other side. I also, or here, I won't speculate on like any involvement from the YouTube side because obviously that this is like tremendous narrative and press that they're getting out there, that content creators on the back of the platform, that YouTube build, they are, they are empowering, equipping creators with the tools necessary to run a business. That's a tremendous narrative that they obviously would be incentivized to subsidize or support. So I think that at the end of the day he will lose money? don't think so. it like like a life changing investment? Probably also not, and that's then my final point that I wanted to make on the revenue side. we mentioned the other example. It's like car, tv, I think ads supported businesses. It's about scale and car TV has scale because it's a, a market with Brazil that has millions and millions of of people. Second we are talking about top of the pyramid properties that can attract the mainstream audience. And then I think at this scale, advertising can work Here we are rather talking about the niche audience, and I think the more narrow and smaller the addressable market is for a comp for a property, less only, in my opinion, is a viable revenue model. With the disclaimer that the profit is always a equation of revenue and costs. So I was referring to the cost side to the revenue side. If the cost side is non-existent or there is no economic risk because it's a revenue share or whatever, then obviously things things change.
Richard Gillis, UP:as you know, you know, Murray's one of his mantras, he's got it written on his forehead, is there's riches in the niches. That's what he's, that he's always saying that,
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:right? You need not, I mean, you can like forget about advertising. It's about being directly paid by the very few that have a high willingness to pay problem is there are only a few of them in those niches. I.
Murray Barnett:Well, there, there, there's a, there's a couple more really important points about this, is that they're doing the Thursday night game live, which is a clear slot for rugby. Meaning that there's no there's no other domestic competitions happening in, in, in the uk. And it, it reminded me a lot of. Way back when buying a FL and MLB for ESPN UK, where they have no real intrinsic value in the uk, but your opportunity cost is nothing because there's no other live programming you can put on. So, so long as you don't have a super greedy rights owner then you get this very highly or very well produced product that you can put out in a time when you're not putting something else out. So there's that, that, that aspect to it as well that they, that, you know, it's a
Richard Gillis, UP:good quiz. Good quiz question. Name an greedy, right.
Murray Barnett:Well, no, but you know, you looked at, I mean, I remember, I remember talking to the guys at a, at a FL and they were very sort of, you know, their key thing was to make sure that they actually had had got some live programming on air in the UK because they were making their. Huge amount of money on their domestics deal. And it was much more about, you know, furthering the cause of the sport more than looking to make money. I mean, it's slightly different when you talk about things like, you know, football, where you would argue that, you know, there's, there's very little football that doesn't have an intrinsic value in internationally.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:No, I agree
Richard Gillis, UP:Yeah.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:ultimately. We should not assume that every rights owner is greedy, because the fact of the matter is that if I have to refinance, like a huge fixed cost base, whether it's player salaries or whatever, I can't do concessions. I can't do shortcuts or like, do reach over revenue to an extreme because it just doesn't work when it comes to the budgeting process. But I think there are rights owners who can afford to think longer term. And then as it might also be a more balanced approach between reach and revenue over what we describe as being greedy.
Richard Gillis, UP:Excellent. I was joking. Obviously. I met one. It was a Tuesday. I'm, I'm kidding again. Right. Next story is D Zone going to make money from the FIFA Club World Cup and is that what they want to do? Interesting story. Frank Dunn, one of the Doen, we call him a doen of the sports media industry and a reporter for sport business. Of course, he's the headline and the journalist doesn't write the headline. But D Zone's Club, world Cup Sublicensing defies industry expectations. Now, I dunno who he's talking to, talking about there, but you two are. Setters of industry expectations. So I'm wondering if he's talking about defying YouTube, but let's, let's get into this, what the Zone is on course to generate$170 million, 152 million euros, or up to 180 million from the sublicensing of Coex exclusive rights, which was many higher than many industry experts had. Expected ad sales at$200 million of a chance at a flurry of late sales. I like a flurry of late sales. Could still push that to 250 million. Murray. What is going on here? Because there's, is, is a story that we are gonna follow all the way through the year. Both people looking at the product itself, what it's gonna look like. We've got the sort of MAGA Club World Cup aspect to this. You've got Infantino in the oval room, blah, blah, blah. But the media writes question is a really big one and everyone is looking at this very closely.'cause obviously of, you know, the stories that have attached to it. Tell me, what's your what's your instinct?
Murray Barnett:Well, you know, as you both know, I've been working on, on this with design and. I think that there has been a much higher level of interest in the tournament than perhaps people thought. And in the way that D Zone is trying to approach it in most markets is a good balance between DN being the home of every ex, every game with some reduced exclusivity on certain games, sharing it with broadcasters in different markets. So you've got some markets showing sort of 20 or 30 games one a day kind of thing but then design being your home of everything with most of it being just behind a, a, a registration OnOne. So it's a nice balancing act and I think that Dione is proving itself to be one of the few people that can actually manage this kind of thing on a global scale. That's, that's kind of gonna be an interesting thing for a number of rights owners going forward. I think this idea that you've got a one stop shop to sell rights on a global basis, not just media rights, but also ad sales efforts and having multiple different ways for them to monetize it.
Richard Gillis, UP:So what is D Zone at this point? I mean, D Zone sounds a bit like media and or in front with a television station.
Murray Barnett:Z is, is a combination of a broadcaster and a, and a technology platform. So, you know, without sort of rehashing all the details about exactly what design is, but you know, they've obviously got their own programming, which they're buying themselves, but then also distributing other people's content like, you know, NFL Game Pass and, and so on. So you, you know, the theoretically, certainly in its core markets, it's a one stop shop for. Mainstream sports rights and, and indeed some, some niche sports as well. So I think you have to be careful because on the one hand they're operating, they're thinking globally, but operating locally. So they, as Yannick will know in Germany, they have a very specific strategy around what they're acquiring in Germany. Just in the same way that they haven't gone particularly mainstream in the UK because there's a lot of they, they identify the market as being highly competitive for, for key driver rights already. So I think that there's a, a careful balance that's happening with Club World Cup in certain markets where Dione consider it to be a core market and therefore they're looking to retain more exclusivity or gain more concessions than any sublicensing they're doing. Then there are other markets which are non-core markets for Dione, where there's perhaps a bit more flexibility.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:No, I so there's a lot in there and I would also like to touch at some point on impact on FIFA and and the clubs. But let's start with with the zone. What is the zone? I mean, just to get on that question, I think it's ever evolving. I mean, the latest is that I think the overall overarching objective is to become a destination platform, right? 24 7. Not only like two minutes before kickoff and then the minute after or once the game is decided that people are gone. It's about like 24 7 having some proposition that makes it attractive for their subscriber or freemium members to seek out the destination. Part of it that they're now getting into stats and news and articles to further complement the video experience, which has been, core and core competence since since launch. Then this whole topic of global versus local I think that it's like a two pronged approach. They have their local focus markets that are, the post one is serious subscription based, business, and then there's the global platform. I think that's the reason, for example, why they don't go paid globally. Because running a D two C business, like a D two C subscription business in like, I don't know how many jurisdictions there are in the world, but let's say 190 different jurisdictions being data privacy compliant, being tax compliant, being local language, local currency support, all of these kind of things. This is nothing that you do like out of the box. So, and even like the zone, the paid offering is. Available in select markets. So in many, many markets there is not even like a paid offering, so they couldn't even go globally, fully paid. that being said, my base hypotheses or like my biggest takeaway from this whole thing, FIFA Club world coverage we discussed before, is that this will be a major and tremendous commercial success for fever. I think this has been a little bit underestimated how also consumer interest will be, but let's face it, we are entering ju mid-June to mid-July, like that period of the summer football pants are craving football. They made it interesting enough and attractive enough for the clubs to be invested. I mean, if you look at the price money available and how and when to put. Potential price money in relation to some club's revenues, like annual revenues. I mean, this makes two, three times their budget or their player salary cost. So the clubs will be invested. They got the sponsorships along the way because I don't know how they did it, but seems like they bond it somewhat with like, also having the sponsorship then for the 2026 World Cup. So you needed to invest here to be present there. So they had all the brands taking along, they had the zone and any other, forces attached to the zone bit coming to the table. Like hitting the 1 billion mark, which was always the communicated number. So I think the big winner is fifa. I think the zone, whether it's a profit or not, depends on how you calculate, right? There will be a lot of different factors going into this calculation mix in order to attribute both tangible and intangible value to the 1 billion that is at least reported and quoted. And finally the one lose be the leaks. I think the domestic leaks, I mean, if you just add up the numbers, both in terms of how much competitive imbalance introduce, given just the huge revenue inflow for select teams. at the calendar, I. I dunno if normally league start at the beginning of August. I mean this is pretty much where a few players would need to start their vacation. And I can see really that a few clubs where the deaf of the roster allows, will hold out people for like, or player star players for two, three match days at the beginning. So fifa, big success big success. The zone will make it work. Clubs benefit from the price money and that's ultimately as simple as it is and the leaks, domestic leaks, both in terms of competitive balance, but also like final point, like for example, the Premier League US tour, right? I would imagine that they're struggling both because participating teams might be subpar I dunno, ticket sales and so on. I can't imagine going well. So
Richard Gillis, UP:Yeah, I think it's a really interesting point. So, I mean, my head goes to we went to Brad Lava. We had Mark Oliver stage, and we, I, we had a session with him talking about specifically this, and one of the, the points he made was that, you know, so the billion. Quid, you know, and the question was, what is it worth a billion quid? you know, people were saying, well no, it's not. Have Deone got another go at this? Is that, you know, because if you even look at even the most bullish interpretation of the numbers, you know, you're looking at, you know a hundred and seventy, two hundred eighty, those are being banded about plus ad sales of 200. I mean, you, you know,
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:Will they earn back the 1 billion? No. Will it be worth
Richard Gillis, UP:no, the question is do they have another go at it? So you know, if you've paid a billion, do you then get the second tournament? And if it is a success and if it's at the top of everyone's expectation list in terms of, okay, this is, this is infantino is right, it's blown it out the park, blah, blah, blah. It's a valuable property. Can't wait for next time. And we go again and are zone. There, you know, or is it being sold somewhere else? That's a question. And Mark was his point being, you know, it, it surely has to go to D Zone again. And that must have been part of the initial conversation. I just dunno the answer to that question. The other one is, your point about the clubs is very well made because actually it's not the premier league where that's gonna impact, it's gonna impact it significantly, but it's in the very, it's in the much smaller leagues where the amounts of money that the, the, the clubs that are getting in is disproportionate to the amounts of money that every other club is making. So it's, it's almost like a sort of creating another champions league. Effect above the Champions League. So you've got this, the big getting bigger question. And I, I quite often say that, Infantino, I, I think he's right about the global, you know, it's the Bacca Juniors question of you. There are club brands around the world that are locked outta PHAs monopoly and they should be allowed to thrive more. And, you know, it's good for the game globally for that to work every country around the world. I get that and I understand it. I think that's the strongest argument for it. But actually what you're gonna do here is actually just completely undermine the competitive balance in those leagues because you're just over rewarding the one or two clubs that are gonna be there.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:am I if I am or if I would be Liverpool, am I happy to pick up an incremental 10 to 20% of my revenues? Absolutely, with a completely skew the competition. incrementally, but not completely. As you said, whether it's the Argentine leak, the Brazilian leak, the, I think the most extreme case is the South African League, the MLS, it's a case for itself because it's actually not distributed or translates into player salaries and all of this. But this was a imperative for the FIFA to get this up and running to get the buy-in. Right. And I mean, they floated the 1 billion number from the very beginning. They got there somehow, somewhere. but this was like necessary. And maybe it's like, it's like a risk and a danger and a downside that you take mean for the quote unquote greater good, but it was imperative to get the buy-in from the clubs.
Richard Gillis, UP:Okay. us move to piracy story. Four. Piracy is gonna kill traditional sports broadcasting. That's the enthusiastic headline or the headline.
Murray Barnett:By, by the way, if you haven't figured it out, Richard, it's me that makes up these headlines.
Richard Gillis, UP:I did, I did. Yeah. I didn't, well, I mean to be discussed obviously, because I think you are very, you've got talent there. antiquated regulation and the unique time specific characteristics of live sport. I think you've also written that first sentence, have conspired to make it incredibly easy to pirate sports. This coupled with lazy rights owners making sensible decisions, make piracy an existential threat to sports rights revenue. Now,
Murray Barnett:That was all me.
Richard Gillis, UP:that was all you and I think it's. A very nice sentence. what does it mean? Why are we to I read the FT of the weekend. They had a big spread on piracy. There's been a, I'm always wondering why stories appear when they do, and I had a little thought that, Was this sky negotiating early for the premier League rights? Because this is, it's so impactful potentially on the value of football and it's always about football. We talk about football and it's always about men's football because that's such a big part of what this is, but it's a huge problem. The Premier League makes, you know, increasing a lot of noise about it. But if I'm sky, this is a lever but it's also a real challenge. So what do we think
Murray Barnett:Well, firstly, last weekend I went to see a friend who's just moved house and. He had a pirated fire stick and he put, he had put it in the, in his tv. And I was astonished and mainly because I, I just, I don't see that much of it, I guess. And, you know, I pay a fortune. I think he paid 70 pounds for a chipped fire stick. And not only was he getting every possible sports channel you can imagine he was literally getting regional sports networks in the us. Everything. I mean, the only downside that I could see was that there wasn't much of an EPG to speak of. It was just a long list of all the channels available. But it just struck me how it, the mentality around anti-piracy by rights owners is a, seems to also be coupled with a, a sticking their head in the sand kind of perspective on it. And I think just to come back to your original point, there's no doubt that these things come up. Exactly the. The time when there's a big rise negotiation because that there, there's some vested interests in there, but I think it's a perennial problem that we're just not effectively solving. And in the research to do the story, some of the numbers are just absolutely astonishing about the amount of piracy that goes on. And I shouldn't be surprised and I'm not surprised, but they're still huge numbers.
Richard Gillis, UP:Yeah, the, the numbers are interesting because they quite often quote the same number, and there, there is a, you know, there's a AMPI analysis number, which is about 28 billion, I think, which has been around for a while, but it's still the central bit because I think that's of the only bits of research that, you know, this argument is based on. And again, I'm not for a minute saying it isn't a very serious question. The other bit of, in the, I'm just picking nicking this off the ft which talks to your question there about your mate and his or her fire, fire stick, to 2025, data provided by Skye, cited by Enders analysis 59% of people in the UK said that he, they had used pirated feeds in the last 12 months using a physical device. Said they used. An Amazon fire device. So that sound, just read that again.'cause actually it's, I, I, first time I read it, I thought two thirds of people are pirating. It's not saying that, but it's saying that if you have pirated nearly two third, well nearly two thirds of them are using an Amazon fire, stick. So, Yannick.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:yeah, I guess, I guess the 28 billion in lost revenues due to piracy is the 300 million basketball fans that are in China. That number that you quote like, probably for a decade now and don't change. And let's not touch on methodology and all of this because simply the most powerful proposition, the word is free, right? And just ex extrapolating audiences and then assuming that they would have all paid. So let's not get down this repertoire, but thinking in problems and solutions and about consumers. Marie, what your friend had pretty much. Seems or sounds like the solution for the end consumer, right? It's free everything in one place, nicely aggregated and curated. This is like what services are competing against, in addition to the fact that nowadays the competition for time and wallet share is like bigger than ever anyway, above and beyond sports. this is pretty much what the legitimate players who at least as of today, pay billions and billions for the IP are competing against. And before.
Richard Gillis, UP:I think the other point though is this is a conversation. I mean, as we know, we've done a whole documentary series on piracy don't, but, thing doesn't move forward in any sense because the market is locked into a particular model and, and the, you know, it's perfect for piracy because they can't move. So, they have to of make noise about it. actually it's, it's stuck,
Murray Barnett:It doesn't need to be. Doesn't need to be.
Richard Gillis, UP:why not?
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:is, are we now at a tipping point? Right? Because until a couple of years ago, there were a few first mover, let's call them first movers, like the zone, be in sports, who said be in sports? I think, I mean, not to quote them, but we pretty much consider all media, right. Acquisition as non-exclusive or coex exclusive acquisitions in terms of modeling, because we know that privacy is pretty much the thing and the programmer that we are competing against. I think we might be at the tipping point because this was like a first mover opinion and perspective. The consensus was privacy is marketing, right? It's like a marketing funnel into the paid product, and this
Richard Gillis, UP:Yeah.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:Seems to change. And I think we also, I'm not saying piracy is a stalking horse right now for rights for broadcasters to complain on, like margin pressure in the industry and everything. And the, and piracy is, is to blame for it. But I think we are in a tipping point for many, many reasons including the fact what happened in Italy where designed pretty much used Paris as a legal ground to put out of a contract is that can be a dangerous precedent, but it, because at least guaranteed were supposed to be secured revenues until recently, and I think this is like, can be a slipping slope, over the next couple of years. So we might be at a tipping point and the music industry just to do this, Ana this comparison needed also a tipping point where revenues declined again to come up with innovation to solve the problem.
Murray Barnett:Yeah, but that, we have to be really careful on that point. And I've, and I've seen a few people talk about this on LinkedIn and stuff. I mean, it's kind of bullshit that like Spotify rescued the, the rescued the music business, right? What the music business had to do was reinvent itself. And that's why you are seeing such a massive boon in live touring is because it's basically one of the only ways in which an artist can now make money. And if you like, it's almost going back to what it was like when music first started, or you know, when people first were playing music for money, you know, many, many centuries ago that that was, that that's become their only revenue stream again. It's easy to say that like, okay, well, if people are not willing to pay so much for content or we have to pay less for the content, then all of a sudden that change is completely the business model. It doesn't mean that the business model is any easier, it's just forcing innovation and change. But the one thing I do think is that with all of the developments that we have in technology, and this is where it's very dangerous for me to read too much. Is that through things like AI and blockchain, we should be able to mitigate against piracy a lot more than we're currently doing. If you, if you look in the US, the, the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the D-D-M-C-A of 1998 is still the main tool that's used to prevent piracy. And that puts the onus on the content, on the, on the, on the content, infringing infringes to take this stuff down rather than giving any power to rights onus to prevent it. And that seems crazy to me that we're relying on technology sorry, on, on, on a legal framework that's nearly 30 years old to manage advances in, in the way in which the business is run, as opposed to sort of saying, let's take advantage of new technology to, to actually enforce some of those anti-piracy mechanisms.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:I mean, obviously that today's legal frameworks are not made for life event distribution. That if, you know, need to go through processes and courts and like then days after, you can pull something down that has an shelf life of, I dunno, two hours obviously doesn't work. But at the same time, I don't think, enforcement framework security technology, no product innovation alone will solve this. It will need to be a confluence. Of these things all together to reduce the leakage. I don't think we will ever solve it completely. But I mean, music industry and I fully agree, fundamentally different in terms of its, its characteristics, but they solved it pretty much as a combination of the three things. But it's not like, okay, AI and blockchain technically speaking will prevent privacy. That will always be a way. Can it help? Does it have to help in order to solve this the problem, absolutely. But I think it's this confluence of product innovation, legal frameworks and enforcement, and then just the more waterproof security stack on the
Murray Barnett:You, you're right. But the product innovation is around things like making the three o'clock Saturday window, like available, right? Because if that's what creates friction, the friction is created. And, and the push to piracy for those who are not sort of regularly, illegally using streams are, I want to watch the live content when I, when it's live, not, oh, because of some archaic rules around how the packaging is done. I can't watch what I want to watch, when I want to watch it.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:Now. Absolutely. And I think this is like a movement that won't stop. And long as you said, like. Buyers will only pay for what they can earn back, at least in the long run. There's always short term strategic prices and premier here and there. But long term, in terms of steady state of the industry you will only pay for what you can earn. And this will like, have a midterm impact on rights level and revenue level levels paid. And then people will act. I mean, then like will, and all of this.
Richard Gillis, UP:Okay. Right. One question I've got for both of you is any stories that you are keeping an eye on, anything that are around the ether that you think, eh, yeah, that's, that's, we might. Jump on that at some point.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:No, that's a great opportunity because now I can start with my inside baseball things and stuff. Now I think there has been some, it was always this somewhat moving topic around antitrust and the platforms and how much, do and do they abuse their power that they have. But there are some interesting developments both in the EU and in the United States around like the application store. So, apple and Google primarily, or mobile, like in terms of are content owners supposed to or allow to steer people away and off platform to do the transaction, which is then much higher margin, much more data rich and much, much much more flexible. So I would because it can be IC for the for the industry, we discuss how challenge the unit economics are of of streaming. And if a customer all of a sudden is 25 percentage points more, more revenue generating has the first and the last name and an email address and even payment details and can have a payment plan instead of one off transaction. This can be game changing for the economics of streaming. And we all know that are still like recuperating the profitability that we lost from the linear pay to V bundle and to reestablish this in the OTT streaming space. And I think those kind of things can make a major difference. Not in the headlines, but I think for those active in the industry. This or it could be bigger than that.
Richard Gillis, UP:Okay.
Murray Barnett:I think, I think two quick ones for me. The never ending saga of French football continues with ongoing discussions with D Zone about launching a service. And I think that that's gonna have a lot of implications for a bunch of other leagues, even, you know, Austrian footballers, nearing the end of their agreement with Sky and are actively talking about going direct to consumer. So I think that there's gonna be some interesting things developing there. And then on a more personal level, more quite interested to see how David Kogan does with the independent football regulator and what that might mean for media rights in the UK with him being a UK media rights fluffer.
Richard Gillis, UP:That's the headline. Right. Fascinating. And my head is in ai, so I am I just fresh off the back of a couple of conversations. We published one with Sam Sadia live score last week. And just the, what the impact is gonna be on the media industry is fascinating and scary and there's a bit of excitement, but
Murray Barnett:Well, just, just on that, it's, it's the ability to quickly create clips. I mean, I, somebody was showing me some technology the other day, which means you could literally create a. A hundred viral clips from a match within a matter of seconds at the end of the match along with a viral score effectively, how, how great a chance there is of that piece of content going viral came fully formed with commentary, subtitles, all the rest of it. And it was just astonishing how quick and how and how good those were.
Richard Gillis, UP:Yeah. Yeah, it is amazing. And the, as I say, the, there is that sort of impact. There's also the hollowing out impact. I mean, I, again, I'm, it's, it's absolutely scary and you sort of wonder what the, outcome is. We had, you know, we've had a couple of interviews with people who were looking for, you know, work and things and with us, and it's. terrifying how there that world on the production side is changing, you know, almost on a weekly basis. But anyway, we will keep in touch with that and see how that works. Sam Sadie said something really interesting about the, the middle market and the sort of plumbing in that betting world in terms of the and what rights holders can now achieve at very low cost compared to what they could in the past. But we'll come back to it. We will there'll always be podcasts. That's the good thing about ai.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:You think you, you sound secure.
Richard Gillis, UP:We'll see. We'll see. Won't we? One, one week. You know, one week I won't be here. And people will say, you know, who was that bloke? I.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:absolutely. And the, the thing that in the mid to long tail of properties, the betting rights are much more valuable than the media rights, I think says it all. Where business might might be made.
Richard Gillis, UP:Well, we'll do a whole thing on betting, but in the meantime we're going to go back to real world, real life and I'm determined to see the back, those shirts changing. Next time I see you, I'm expecting a spurs shirt, spurs launch of their away shirt. Should be coming up fairly soon. It's normally about this time of year.
Yannick Ramcke the Bundle:address. I'm open for business, so be easier than that.
Richard Gillis, UP:okay. Fair enough. Murray Barnett, Yannick, thank you very much.