CA tv rights discussion

[Timbo]

It depends what the deal would look like.

Under the anti syphoning rules the tests & ODI’s can’t go to fox exclusively anyway, so you’d be looking at just the some BBL matches being exclusive to fox.

Which in terms of exposure for CA is worse because that's where they get kids, families and casual fans.

I just can't believe they could possibly be so tone deaf as to think that the massive crowds and interest are not related to every game being live on fta over the summer period.

If they were to expand this competition, and move games on to Foxtel, they will take a hit - there is absolutely no doubting that.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Which in terms of exposure for CA is worse because that's where they get kids, families and casual fans.

I just can't believe they could possibly be so tone deaf as to think that the massive crowds and interest are not related to every game being live on fta over the summer period.

If they were to expand this competition, and move games on to Foxtel, they will take a hit - there is absolutely no doubting that.

It’s a balance between the extra money and the loss of exposure.

If the difference is only $10 million a year, then exposure wins.

But what if the difference is 40-50m a year for some exclusive content on fox?

 

[Timbo]

It’s a balance between the extra money and the loss of exposure.

If the difference is only $10 million a year, then exposure wins.

But what if the difference is 40-50m a year for some exclusive content on fox?

We have proof that's a short term win though - England.

It's gone from being the No. 1 summer sport, to being on the same tier as Rugby Union is here. Only private schoolkids and upper-middle class folks. And Indians, obviously, but that's an outlier.

 

[herbert henry1908]

We have proof that's a short term win though - England.

It's gone from being the No. 1 summer sport, to being on the same tier as Rugby Union is here. Only private schoolkids and upper-middle class folks. And Indians, obviously, but that's an outlier.

England was 100% pay TV.

Nothing like that is going to happen here.

A mix of free and pay tv works for other sports, why can’t it work for cricket?

 

[Timbo]

England was 100% pay TV.

Nothing like that is going to happen here.

A mix of free and pay tv works for other sports, why can’t it work for cricket?

No, England started as a mix and then when Sky kept outbidding the terrestrials the slide began. Sky started with simulcasts of ODIs. Then ODIs exclusively. Then a simulcast of one test match. Etc, etc, etc.

The problem is it's the product that Fox will be able to dominate - the BBL - which will get kids into the game. If it goes just to Fox, there will be a flow on effect to internationals.

 

[Front-Rower]

Unless I'm wrong, isn't Fox Sports position is that they want simulcast rights not necessarily exclusive rights to Test and ODI cricket?

From the outside looking in this would be more about blocking out Optus Sport who already have a partnership with CA more so than trying to take content off of FTA although the loophole is that if FTA decline to show any ODI cricket then Fox can show it exclusively.

 

[herbert henry1908]

No, England started as a mix and then when Sky kept outbidding the terrestrials the slide began. Sky started with simulcasts of ODIs. Then ODIs exclusively. Then a simulcast of one test match. Etc, etc, etc.

The problem is it's the product that Fox will be able to dominate - the BBL - which will get kids into the game. If it goes just to Fox, there will be a flow on effect to internationals.

But it ended up at 100% pay TV, didn’t it? That’s the real killer. The FTA landscape is a bit different in the UK too, only really 2 networks that can make a viable bid.


Again, though, it depends on how much exclusive content fox got. They’re expanding to a full home and away season, 60 matches, up from an original 35. I don’t think cricket Australia would consider selling the whole of the BBL to fox.

Trickle down effect of pro sports may not be as strong as you think either.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Unless I'm wrong, isn't Fox Sports position is that they want simulcast rights not necessarily exclusive rights to Test and ODI cricket?

From the outside looking in this would be more about blocking out Optus Sport who already have a partnership with CA more so than trying to take content off of FTA although the loophole is that if FTA decline to show any ODI cricket then Fox can show it exclusively.

ODI’s still rate very well, so no FTA network won’t bid.

Fox is going after the BBL, extra simulcast content will help them create a cricket channel. AFL & NRL channels are the two biggest on fox.

The biggest thing for them is stopping the summer churn rate, people leave fox when the footy season isn’t on.

 

[Timbo]

ODI’s still rate very well, so no FTA network won’t bid.

Fox is going after the BBL, extra simulcast content will help them create a cricket channel. AFL & NRL channels are the two biggest on fox.

The biggest thing for them is stopping the summer churn rate, people leave fox when the footy season isn’t on.

I would be fine with a simulcast - in fact I'd welcome it. Especially if they styled themselves as the 'serious' option commentary wise as opposed to Nine's constant dribble.

But the biggest thing cricket has going for it is every major game of the sport is live in HD on free to air TV. No other sport can claim that. And I think it'll hurt numbers if they give content to Fox.

 

[herbert henry1908]

I would be fine with a simulcast - in fact I'd welcome it. Especially if they styled themselves as the 'serious' option commentary wise as opposed to Nine's constant dribble.

But the biggest thing cricket has going for it is every major game of the sport is live in HD on free to air TV. No other sport can claim that. And I think it'll hurt numbers if they give content to Fox.

I don’t see fox going for that.

Ads don’t really hurt cricket coverage much, so there’s not much for them to sell their coverage on.

I could live with say 40% of the BBL on fox exclusively. (The expanded version)

 

[Front-Rower]

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricke...still-in-play-insists-ca-20180407-p4z8bd.html

"Fox Sports has lobbed a bid for a large chunk of the rights, which could ultimately have the network enjoy exclusive Big Bash League matches and simulcast Tests held on Australian shores. One-day internationals and Twenty20 matches could be shown exclusively on Foxtel.

Tests and ODIs are on the anti-siphoning list but fifty-over matches can be exclusively shown on Fox if a free-to-air network does not bid. Fox understands it needs to beef up its summer content in a bid to attract subscriptions."

 

[Timbo]

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricke...still-in-play-insists-ca-20180407-p4z8bd.html

"Fox Sports has lobbed a bid for a large chunk of the rights, which could ultimately have the network enjoy exclusive Big Bash League matches and simulcast Tests held on Australian shores. One-day internationals and Twenty20 matches could be shown exclusively on Foxtel.

Tests and ODIs are on the anti-siphoning list but fifty-over matches can be exclusively shown on Fox if a free-to-air network does not bid. Fox understands it needs to beef up its summer content in a bid to attract subscriptions."

And there it is.

I sincerely hope CA makes the right decision for the game and doesn't go down the ECB route.

 

[herbert henry1908]

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricke...still-in-play-insists-ca-20180407-p4z8bd.html

"Fox Sports has lobbed a bid for a large chunk of the rights, which could ultimately have the network enjoy exclusive Big Bash League matches and simulcast Tests held on Australian shores. One-day internationals and Twenty20 matches could be shown exclusively on Foxtel.

Tests and ODIs are on the anti-siphoning list but fifty-over matches can be exclusively shown on Fox if a free-to-air network does not bid. Fox understands it needs to beef up its summer content in a bid to attract subscriptions."

And there it is.

I sincerely hope CA makes the right decision for the game and doesn't go down the ECB route.

I don’t see how they could have the ODI’s exclusively, we already know another network has made a bid for them.

 

[Front-Rower]

I don’t see how they could have the ODI’s exclusively, we already know another network has made a bid for them.

According to the Government website, a Pay-TV operator can purchase rights, if available, once a public or commercial network secures the rights or the rights have not been purchased up to 12 weeks before the event.

Furthermore, the FTA network does not have to use the rights it just has to obtain them meaning that the word exclusive used in the SMH article may be used in this context.

https://www.communications.gov.au/policy/policy-listing/anti-siphoning

 

[herbert henry1908]

According to the Government website, a Pay-TV operator can purchase rights, if available, once a public or commercial network secures the rights or the rights have not been purchased up to 12 weeks before the event.

Furthermore, the FTA network does not have to use the rights it just has to obtain them meaning that the word exclusive used in the SMH article may be used in this context.

https://www.communications.gov.au/policy/policy-listing/anti-siphoning

That’s the thing, we know a FTA network has made a bid, therefore they’ve effectively been purchased? Surely a sporting body can’t just knock back a bid & say “no one purchased them”. That’d be a really easy way around the list.

 

[Front-Rower]

we know a FTA network has made a bid, therefore they’ve effectively been purchased?

Not until the deal is signed. Once a FTA network has obtained rights CA can also onsell rights to Fox Sports. But just because a FTA network has purchased the rights it doesn't mean they have to broadcast the event. That's where the SMH submise that Fox Sports may be broadcasting ODI cricket exclusively.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Not until the deal is signed. Once a FTA network has obtained rights CA can also onsell rights to Fox Sports. But just because a FTA network has purchased the rights it doesn't mean they have to broadcast the event. That's where the SMH submise that Fox Sports may be broadcasting ODI cricket exclusively.

I get that the deal needs to be signed, but it feels like a ridiculous loophole if a sports body can simply reject a bid and then claim the rights weren’t purchased.

But if it’s the FTA network onselling the rights to Fox then CA need to put a stipulation in that they can’t do that.

 

[Front-Rower]

but it feels like a ridiculous loophole if a sports body can simply reject a bid and then claim the rights weren’t purchased.

That's not right.

Let's say channel 9 buy the rights from CA and CA also sell simulcast rights to Fox Sports, under the anti-siphion rules that is perfectly legal (unless of course channel 9 has an exclusive arrangement). If for what ever reason Channel 9 decide not to broadcast the cricket but Fox Sports do that is also legal. Channel 9 are under no obligation to broadcast cricket even though they have the rights to. They may have a problem under contract law but not the anti-siphion rules.

Edit - if you are talking about the 12 week rule I interpret the rule to be more on the side of the FTA networks not wanting the rights more so than bids being rejected by CA.

 

[herbert henry1908]

@Timbo

Don’t think you’re going to be happy.

 

[Timbo]

f**k.

I still think this is a bad move from CA.

The big shock is obviously the end of Nine for cricket. Kerry will be cartwheeling in his grave.