Foxtel slams TV rip-off claim

[Monk]

this guy is a joke :lol:
"I might contradict myself, but at least i dont contradict myself"

 

[Digga Hole]

this guy is a joke :lol:
"I might contradict myself, but at least i dont contradict myself"

If your own preconceptions make you unable to comprehend my points then that is not my fault.

Hows complaining and laughing working out for you so far :lol:

 

[El Diablo]

Obviously ED I am not going to convince you no matter what.

If you want to believe that Channel 7 ws going to bid the highest dollar amount and agree to all of the coverage demands from both sports (cutting the country in half and destroying any growth in either sport as they will only be shown in their home markets)

you're on some serious sh*t dude. AFL and NRL never go head to head in any state. there is no reason one network can't show both. 9 did it previously.

without a pay TV ageement (on price or coverage) which could mean that the are obliged to show 2 games at the same time in the same market then I won't bother trying to change your mind.

are you thick?

the pay TV rights were SEPERATE. the FTA and pay TV rights for NRL didn't expire at the same time.

Fox Sorts ended at the end of 2006 and the FTA ended at the end of 2007

9 had no agreement with Fox. what would make 7 any different??

7 could only bid for the FTA rights

get a f**king clue!

 

[kurt faulk]

to put it in another posters words on another forum, for those that don't understand bussiness.

Quote:
It's not as simple as that. It's an investment decision.

If you had 2 sports - Sport A & Sport B - and you thought that Sport A was already at 90% of it's potential viewing capacity, and Sport B was at 50% but had the potential to be as big as Sport A, then the logical investment is in Sport B. You already have the Sport A viewers, so to grow your business you need to attract those additional Sport B viewers.

If both sports had potential viewing figures of 2m people then Sport A already has 1.8m viewers. Sport B has 1m viewers.

So, do you invest to get the 200k viewers for Sport A, or the 1m viewers for Sport B ?


what a stupid argument.

if the ceo of sport a didn't have murdoch's arm stuffed up his butt he would know he has foxtel bent over in front of him and could force them to pay top dollar for the rights to televise sport a. if not they don't get the rights and then watch the subscribers start cancelling their subscriptions.

unfortunately gallop, the news ltd patsy, has rugby league bent over in front of foxtel.

.

 

[Digga Hole]

you're on some serious sh*t dude. AFL and NRL never go head to head in any state. there is no reason one network can't show both. 9 did it previously.

are you thick?

the pay TV rights were SEPERATE. the FTA and pay TV rights for NRL didn't expire at the same time.

Fox Sorts ended at the end of 2006 and the FTA ended at the end of 2007

9 had no agreement with Fox. what would make 7 any different??

7 could only bid for the FTA rights

get a f**king clue!

Who needs a clue?

You do realise the AFL demanded live Friday night coverage in Qld and NSW don't you? You assume agreements that were not done until later were going to solve all the problems. At the time of the NRL agreement Seven had no agreement in place to get them out of live Friday nite AFL in NSW & Qld. If they has signed both sports and Fox were their only way out then Fox would have bent them over.

Add to this the FTA clash on Sunday in NSW & Qld. Its not that hard to understand.
http://www.yourtv.com.au/guide/index.cfm
There is never a FTA clash :roll:, get a f**king clue.

 

[El Diablo]

Who needs a clue?

You do realise the AFL demanded live Friday night coverage in Qld and NSW don't you?

they actually didn't

7 just had to mtch the 9/Fox bid which had AFL on pay TV in NSW and Queensland on those nights


as it is Fox show those games so 7 having NRL would not matter one bit. why? because 7 don' f**king show AFL in Sydney and Brisbane on Friday nights

comprende?

You assume agreements that were not done until later were going to solve all the problems. At the time of the NRL agreement Seven had no agreement in place to get them out of live Friday nite AFL in NSW & Qld. If they has signed both sports and Fox were their only way out then Fox would have bent them over.

Fox did bend them over as they were their only way out as SBS and ABC weren't willing to show it and the AFL said channel 31 was not good enough

you could very well be the stupidest poster on this forum

Add to this the FTA clash on Sunday in NSW & Qld. Its not that hard to understand.

there is no clash you moron

AFL and NRL do not go head to head on Sundays in NSW and Queensland

the AFL goes from 1pm to 4pm and the NRL goes from 4pm to 6pm

9 used to show AFL then NRL on Sundays when they had the rights so 7 could do the same

 

[VictoryFC]

our fault.

your a soccer fan you dead s**t.
:lol:

Actually, I'm a multi-code fan. And this discussion is between AFL and NRL, and my allegiances lie with the NRL at that level. So yes, "our fault" is exactly what I meant.

But its quite funny that you resort to lowest levels of "trying", and I stress trying, in order to exert your ideologies onto others. But if it helps you sleep :lol:

 

[Digga Hole]

they actually didn't

7 just had to mtch the 9/Fox bid which had AFL on pay TV in NSW and Queensland on those nights


as it is Fox show those games so 7 having NRL would not matter one bit. why? because 7 don' f**king show AFL in Sydney and Brisbane on Friday nights

comprende?


Fox did bend them over as they were their only way out as SBS and ABC weren't willing to show it and the AFL said channel 31 was not good enough

you could very well be the stupidest poster on this forum



there is no clash you moron

AFL and NRL do not go head to head on Sundays in NSW and Queensland

the AFL goes from 1pm to 4pm and the NRL goes from 4pm to 6pm

9 used to show AFL then NRL on Sundays when they had the rights so 7 could do the same

f**k me. Your whole point revolves around Fox showing Friday night. SEVEN DIDN"T HAVE A DEAL WITH FOX!

So now you are saying Fox did bend channel 7 over? This whole thread is about Fox paying too much! Which is it??? My god this is a stupid conversation.

Also there is a clash in Sydney tomorrow. I don't even have to look 24 forward to prove you wrong.

I've had enough, will this do you then: There is NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION why Nines rights to FTA NRL was extended other than that the NRL by choice screwed itself, and all the clubs and ruined everybodies reputation to do a favour to 9 and give them the rights cheap because they own 25% of Fox who is also owned 25% by News Limited who have a share in the NRL.

 

[El Diablo]

you should quit

you've been battered from pillar to post by every man and his dog

 

[parra-matters]

Why would they pay too much for it? they own 50% of the NRL, they make the decision, Gallop is a former employee or NEWS LTD, isn't he?
It's just money going round in a circle to avoid tax.
The hole thing is a money making rout and we are all pawns.

 

[Canard]

So by this logic would that mean that Foxtel offer $100 million for some Romanian art house TV series because it has the potential to "grow an audience" and only offer $1 Million for shows like 24, Prison Break, Lost etc. because they audience is already in the millions??

 

[dallymessenger]

Actually, I'm a multi-code fan. And this discussion is between AFL and NRL, and my allegiances lie with the NRL at that level. So yes, "our fault" is exactly what I meant.

But its quite funny that you resort to lowest levels of "trying", and I stress trying, in order to exert your ideologies onto others. But if it helps you sleep :lol:

Victory FC.

which RL competition do they play in merkin

 

[Brutus]

More predictable stuff from the grubs at the Telegraph
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24046329-5016360,00.html

THE Fairfax anti-league/News Limited campaign was in full swing during the week with a story suggesting TV ratings show Foxtel had dudded the NRL in its TV rights deal. Once again, they seem to have missed the mark. The first NRL deal - which was done years before the AFL appeared on pay TV - was valued by the number of subscribers it could generate for Foxtel. Rugby league had an eight-year start on AFL in the pay TV stakes, so the market penetration in NSW and Queensland is currently much higher than Victoria, South Australia and Victoria. When the AFL rights came up two years ago, their value was based on the estimate of how many new subscribers could be won in the southern states.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Sooooooooo predictable.

 

[dallymessenger]

todays sun telegraph by phil rothfield and his female? sidekick rebecca wilson :

to quote : the first nrl deal - which was done years before the AFL appeared on Pay TV - was valued by the number of subscribers it could generate for foxtel.

RL had an 8 year start on AFL in the Pay TV stakes, so the market penetration in nsw and Qld is much higher than victoria, sa and wa.

when the AFL rights came up 2 yers go, their value was based on the estimate of how many new subscribers could be won in the southern states"



Good to see the news ltd media backing up their partly owned TV station. all makes sense when put like that. they just guess that loads of new viewers will show up watching AFL who havent turned out so far, and pay them 20% more than we get.

funny how they still havent shown up yet in sufficient numbers to come close to league.

the other question to be asked is why packer and murdoch get the nrl rights themselvs and onsell it to fox, but ignore the AFL deal which goes straight to fox. surely its not because they think the AFL deal is a lemon.

good to see the evil empire striking back