Foxtel slams TV rip-off claim

[El Diablo]

OK dickhead, I will.

It NEVER mattered what Nine thought, wanted or planned to do.

Well before the NRL deal was signed Seven and Ten joined forces to bid for the AFL.

Easy to prove you wrong

Seven and Ten join forces in March 2005

Seven wants leage rights in May 2005

care to tell me which month comes first?

so despite joining forces with Ten for the AFL rights Seven STILL wanted the NRL rights

are you getting this yet?

 

[dallymessenger]

You got it right.

Don't expect much logic from chandos and friends. They still think the SL war is on.

i know you havent finished your degree and dont know much about the real world, but when you start losing customers it does trouble a business.

especially when its for the one program that makes your network.

 

[dallymessenger]

just keep digga mate.

your well on the way to china.

 

[dallymessenger]

for the 2 merkins :

AFL vs RL on Foxsports.
ratings : RL > AFL by 40%
Value of TV deals AFL > RL by 20%

Why dopes?

 

[scruffy_tyson]

Fox Sport don’t pay the AFL, they pay channel 7 and 10. The AFL sold the rights to Channel 7 and 10 for $780 million over 5 years. Then 7 and 10 on sold the rights to fox, but it took a long time for a deal to come together and at one stage it seemed that 7, 10 and fox weren’t going to come to an agreement. The deal almost didn’t happen as 7 and 10 wanted $50 million per year and fox were only offering $40 million. Fox only buckled once 7 and 10 started talking to SBS about selling 3 games to them at a lower price.

The NRL should sell their games to one or two FTA stations, who would on sell the games to Fox. This means that the Fox have to negotiate with the FTA station and come to a deal and if they cant come to an agreement it would mean that all games would be on FTA. If the NRL can get 7, 9 and 10 to all bid this would increase the price of the TV deal, like the AFL is able to.

 

[dallymessenger]

Fox Sport don’t pay the AFL, they pay channel 7 and 10. The AFL sold the rights to Channel 7 and 10 for $780 million over 5 years. Then 7 and 10 on sold the rights to fox, but it took a long time for a deal to come together and at one stage it seemed that 7, 10 and fox weren’t going to come to an agreement. The deal almost didn’t happen as 7 and 10 wanted $50 million per year and fox were only offering $40 million. Fox only buckled once 7 and 10 started talking to SBS about selling 3 games to them at a lower price.

The NRL should sell their games to one or two FTA stations, who would on sell the games to Fox. This means that the Fox have to negotiate with the FTA station and come to a deal and if they cant come to an agreement it would mean that all games would be on FTA. If the NRL can get 7, 9 and 10 to all bid this would increase the price of the TV deal, like the AFL is able to.

why did fox pay more though?

its not as if they had to?

they chose to pay it and are now justifying it.

 

[scruffy_tyson]

for the 2 merkins :

AFL vs RL on Foxsports.
ratings : RL > AFL by 40%
Value of TV deals AFL > RL by 20%

Why dopes?

NRL are unable to negotiate a good deal

 

[dallymessenger]

NRL are unable to negotiate a good deal

aint that the truth.

its hard to get much money when you are negotiating with yourself.

 

[Digga Hole]

OK dickhead, I will.

It NEVER mattered what Nine thought, wanted or planned to do.

Well before the NRL deal was signed Seven and Ten joined forces to bid for the AFL. /quote]

no source to back you up

I'm not sure which part you want me to back up? It was widely reported at the time.

Even this article from Ninemsn:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=78696

Which includes:

While Seven and TEN would not comment publicly on the difference between the rival bids, it is understood they do not feel the gap is significant.
Nine's bid was apparently $80 million more than what its rival was prepared to offer.
Of Nine's bid, $700 million is understood to be cash and the rest "in kind", such as advertising and marketing.
"We look forward to participating in the next phase of our first-and-last agreement with the AFL," a Seven spokesman said.
"In the first phase, we presented a significant financial offer and a compelling case that delivered broad national coverage of the AFL across Australia - including enhanced coverage of the major AFL matches in the primary growth markets (NSW and Queensland).

This article was from after the NRL deal as before 9 put in their final bid for the AFL there was no need for channels 7 & 10 to show their hand. It was always going to happen.

 

[dallymessenger]

this is where digga is posting from atm :

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/07/12/beijing.olympics.post/dateline.beijing.gif

 

[Digga Hole]

Easy to prove you wrong

Seven and Ten join forces in March 2005

Seven wants leage rights in May 2005

care to tell me which month comes first?

so despite joining forces with Ten for the AFL rights Seven STILL wanted the NRL rights

are you getting this yet?

Wanted but were not CAPABLE of doing it justice. Do you get it yet?

 

[griff]

at

why did fox pay more though?

its not as if they had to?

they chose to pay it and are now justifying it.

that's exactly right. 7 and 10 were extremely motivated sellers, and Fox had them over a barrel. The deal they signed with the AFL said that all matches had to be on TV, and at one stage it looked like they were going to lose millions of dollars by having to show all matches on FTA in the northern states. They were absolutely desperate to unload the matches and Fox could have essentially offered anything. Despite this, somehow they still are paying more than the NRL.

 

[yappy]

That is his post and not your quote you lying piece of crap.

lying piece of crap? Of course it's my quote. You're so stupid you didn't even go back to my post to see what a phukwit you'd proved yourself to be. It's dead easy - I've even provided a link for you filthy merkin http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showpost.php?p=4390464&postcount=81

Read my follow up post.

In regards to the one network showing both codes. So rather than trying to grow both games, your great idea is to spilt the country in half, show it on one channel and you think this will increse TV rights.

Seriously, give up now.

Your post doesn't prove sh*t other than you have it for brains. It ain't my idea to split the country in half - it's what happens today. The AFL at least are smart enough to insist they get decent FTA coverage in NSW and QLD - I have no argument with them, they've got it all over League for administrative ability. But your speculation re Seven's AFL deal is no where near the trump you'd like to believe. Last bid rights are no quarantee, and had Stokes already got league he may well have let Packer keep the AFL, or he could have gone for both. Whatever, a competitive bid from 7 would have forced a better deal out of 9 and Foxtel which is the crux of the argument.

Crawl back into your hole you lowlife.

 

[dallymessenger]

at

that's exactly right. 7 and 10 were extremely motivated sellers, and Fox had them over a barrel. The deal they signed with the AFL said that all matches had to be on TV, and at one stage it looked like they were going to lose millions of dollars by having to show all matches on FTA in the northern states. They were absolutely desperate to unload the matches and Fox could have essentially offered anything. Despite this, somehow they still are paying more than the NRL.

easy for fox.

they can take some of the massive profits they make from league to cover their expansion into AFL.

 

[Digga Hole]

Fox Sport don’t pay the AFL, they pay channel 7 and 10. The AFL sold the rights to Channel 7 and 10 for $780 million over 5 years. Then 7 and 10 on sold the rights to fox, but it took a long time for a deal to come together and at one stage it seemed that 7, 10 and fox weren’t going to come to an agreement. The deal almost didn’t happen as 7 and 10 wanted $50 million per year and fox were only offering $40 million. Fox only buckled once 7 and 10 started talking to SBS about selling 3 games to them at a lower price.

The NRL should sell their games to one or two FTA stations, who would on sell the games to Fox. This means that the Fox have to negotiate with the FTA station and come to a deal and if they cant come to an agreement it would mean that all games would be on FTA. If the NRL can get 7, 9 and 10 to all bid this would increase the price of the TV deal, like the AFL is able to.

No point using facts and reason. I actually think that they all know that the deals are about right given the circumstances, it just seems a lot easier to whinge and hope someone else fixes your problems. Society these days is f**ked.

 

[El Diablo]

Wanted but were not CAPABLE of doing it justice. Do you get it yet?

get what?

thats something you pulled out of your arse

there is nothing anywhere that says Seven were not capable of bidding for the rights

on the contrary there are articles saying they could seeing they'd actually met with the NRL and at no stage said they were no longer interested

 

[Dogs Of War]

Geez it would be good if we didn't see rights go to Foxtel at all, and just had 3-4 games on FTA instead. This would mean that crowds would have to go to games to see there team play.

 

[Digga Hole]

get what?

thats something you pulled out of your arse

there is nothing anywhere that says Seven were not capable of bidding for the rights

on the contrary there are articles saying they could seeing they'd actually met with the NRL and at no stage said they were no longer interested

Do you honestly believe that Channel 7, having decided to show AFL (in which they may have got 4 games per week, depending on negotiations with Fox) were CAPABLE of paying more for NRL than 9, and providing the NRL with better and broader coverage than 9?

I don't believe this. If you do then we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Do you honestly believe that Channel 7, having decided to show AFL (in which they may have got 4 games per week, depending on negotiations with Fox) were CAPABLE of paying more for NRL than 9, and providing the NRL with better and broader coverage than 9?

I don't believe this. If you do then we will just have to agree to disagree.

But the NRL rights went first. So if channel 7 had come to an arrangement with the NRL, do you think that Channel 7 would have gone after the AFL rights as hard?

Just sucks that it all happens under the table in the NRL, look after Channel 9 and Foxtel who both just dick us around. I reckon channel 7 would have had the balls to show some games in Melbourne at a decent hour.

 

[dallymessenger]

Geez it would be good if we didn't see rights go to Foxtel at all, and just had 3-4 games on FTA instead. This would mean that crowds would have to go to games to see there team play.

couldnt afford it.

shift some games to 7.

if AwFuL can split them up, why cant we.

MNF on FTA would be massive.