Foxtel slams TV rip-off claim

[Dogs Of War]

couldnt afford it.

Who knows what Channels are willing to put up now, with digital multicasting available. Channel 7 having the rights to Tivo will want as much content on free to air as possible.

shift some games to 7.

if AwFuL can split them up, why cant we.

MNF on FTA would be massive.

That would be great. Still want to see State Of Origin/Test Matches sold as a separate package to NRL rights. Sum of the parts is worth more than the whole. I can imagine that all channels want a piece of that action.

 

[Digga Hole]

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.

I believe that they must have promised something like that to Ten to get them on board.

In regards to Melbourne games, I don't think those with a little soccer history would put their faith in Seven.

I can't for the life of me understand why the Storm is not scheduled and shown on 9 in Melbourne at 1pm on Sunday which would have not AFL FTA competition.

Not to you DOW: I am simply trying to explain how the current situation came about, not bag any sport.

Having multiple channels with both the ability and cash to bid is what seems to have been important in the past. This prvides cash, but just as importantly coverage/promotion. Multichanneling may blow this all away by the next rights.

 

[dallymessenger]

Who knows what Channels are willing to put up now, with digital multicasting available. Channel 7 having the rights to Tivo will want as much content on free to air as possible.



That would be great. Still want to see State Of Origin/Test Matches sold as a separate package to NRL rights. Sum of the parts is worth more than the whole. I can imagine that all channels want a piece of that action.

yep agree on the origin thing.

by packaging it with the nrl it undervalues both.

RL could do with some fresh blood broadcasting the game.

MNF is the one that could do it.

 

[Dogs Of War]

I believe that they must have promised something like that to Ten to get them on board.

But you don't know that for fact. You are just guessing.

Really with how the NRL rights were handled, no other channel got a look in anyway, so no one really knows if Channel 7 would have put a decent offer out there. I sure they would have, if only to force Channel 9 to beat it, and thus have a better chance of grabbing the AFL rights.

In regards to Melbourne games, I don't think those with a little soccer history would put their faith in Seven.

Soccer has never rated in Australia other than International Matches, so why you compare that to NRL has me beat.

I can't for the life of me understand why the Storm is not scheduled and shown on 9 in Melbourne at 1pm on Sunday which would have not AFL FTA competition.

Oh there are so many things the NRL could do, even if it's just get the Storm playing every Sunday when they are at home, or showing replays the next day of the Storm matches (say they play Friday night), rather than in the middle of the night.

Having multiple channels with both the ability and cash to bid is what seems to have been important in the past. This prvides cash, but just as importantly coverage/promotion. Multichanneling may blow this all away by the next rights.

For sure Kerry Stokes having been killed in the pay tv war, is now looking to have his revenge. AFL and NRL will be the main benficiarys of this, but only if they play there cards right, which I know the AFL will, but do the NRL even know the rules?

 

[El Diablo]

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.

your story is changing

before you were posting that 7 were unable to bid for the rights as if it was a fact. now it's had a dramatic change and is just your opinion which basically means you have no idea

so your geniused opinion says 7 couldn't afford the NRL because they wanted the AFL rights.

so tell us how you came about this knowledge of what 7 can and cannot afford?

9 were able to secure the NRL rights and then make a sole bid of $780 million for the AFL rights

7 were not going alone when bidding for the AFL rights as they were with 10 yet somehow you figure they could not afford the NRL as well

so how can 9 afford both on their own?

why would 9 offer better coverage?

PBL don't even own Perth and Adelaide yet Stokes owns 7 in every capital city yet you figure their coverage would be worse

i'd love to know how any network could possibly offer inferior coverage compared to 9 :?

7 could easily match 9 leage times in Sydney and Brisbane. i'd like you to explain how you figure they couldn't. 7 were also iterested in showing league on Saturday nights

 

[Digga Hole]

Soccer has never rated in Australia other than International Matches, so why you compare that to NRL has me beat.

I only mentiond soccer as a comparison for League in Melbourne.

Soccer in Melbourne is more popular than League and they couldn't get FTA coverage from Seven.

It sems likely that it needs to be written into the contract to make it happen.

 

[Dogs Of War]

I only mentiond soccer as a comparison for League in Melbourne.

Soccer in Melbourne is more popular than League and they couldn't get FTA coverage from Seven.

It sems likely that it needs to be written into the contract to make it happen.

But soccer was never that big, well the local league anyhow when it was shown on TV. It was (and still is in some areas), very ethnic orientated. Thus the matches shown where only ever going to be watched by supporters of those teams.

A-League on the other hand, probably would have been perfect for commercial TV, especially with how they organised the league, but in a silly move, they decided to go pay TV only. If there is one thing the A-League has got wrong, it is that. They should have at least made it that the match of the round was televised, to help generate some further interest in the game.

 

[El Diablo]

I only mentiond soccer as a comparison for League in Melbourne.

Soccer in Melbourne is more popular than League and they couldn't get FTA coverage from Seven.

It sems likely that it needs to be written into the contract to make it happen.

that's because 7 tried to kill soccer

http://www.theage.com.au/news/busin...rights-revealed/2005/12/18/1134840740656.html

If News Ltd is perceived to have acted dishonourably in buying pay TV rights for sport, so has C7. An email from C7 executive Steve Wise, cited in the Federal Court, makes it clear the network bought the rights to football only to bury it, to please the AFL.

Written in November 2000 when Channel Seven still had the AFL rights, it lamented the AFL's ingratitude, saying: "There is no credit that we have secured the soccer rights and sufficated (sic) the sport, much to the chagrin of its supporters."

 

[Digga Hole]

your story is changing

before you were posting that 7 were unable to bid for the rights as if it was a fact. now it's had a dramatic change and is just your opinion which basically means you have no idea

so your geniused opinion says 7 couldn't afford the NRL because they wanted the AFL rights.

so tell us how you came about this knowledge of what 7 can and cannot afford?

9 were able to secure the NRL rights and then make a sole bid of $780 million for the AFL rights

7 were not going alone when bidding for the AFL rights as they were with 10 yet somehow you figure they could not afford the NRL as well

so how can 9 afford both on their own?

why would 9 offer better coverage?

PBL don't even own Perth and Adelaide yet Stokes owns 7 in every capital city yet you figure their coverage would be worse

i'd love to know how any network could possibly offer inferior coverage compared to 9 :?

7 could easily match 9 leage times in Sydney and Brisbane. i'd like you to explain how you figure they couldn't. 7 were also iterested in showing league on Saturday nights

Settle down.

I haven't changed my story at all. My entire point (it actually was Eastsrules first) was that Channel 7 couldn't provide appropriate coverage to the NRL (and turn a $) as they were planning to bid for AFL. This is what was meant by CAPABLE.

C9 could do these things as they were doing them with Fox.

Its not a case of being able to simply afford it, you misundrstand. Its about being able to make an appropriate return, and provide both Leagues with the coverage that they require for their Leagues without a partner (C9 had one for NRL, Seven didn't).

As I have said on numerous occasions, multi-channeling in the future may make these situations redundant, but it is why we are where we are currently.

 

[Digga Hole]

But soccer was never that big, well the local league anyhow when it was shown on TV. It was (and still is in some areas), very ethnic orientated. Thus the matches shown where only ever going to be watched by supporters of those teams.

A-League on the other hand, probably would have been perfect for commercial TV, especially with how they organised the league, but in a silly move, they decided to go pay TV only. If there is one thing the A-League has got wrong, it is that. They should have at least made it that the match of the round was televised, to help generate some further interest in the game.

I think without the Fox deal there would be no A-League, it was a risk. But you are right, if they could go back knowing what they know now they woul definately push for FTA.

Maybe they will get some with the expansion plans?

 

[Dogs Of War]

Settle down.

I haven't changed my story at all. My entire point (it actually was Eastsrules first) was that Channel 7 couldn't provide appropriate coverage to the NRL (and turn a $) as they were planning to bid for AFL. This is what was meant by CAPABLE.

C9 could do these things as they were doing them with Fox.

Its not a case of being able to simply afford it, you misundrstand. Its about being able to make an appropriate return, and provide both Leagues with the coverage that they require for their Leagues without a partner (C9 had one for NRL, Seven didn't).

As I have said on numerous occasions, multi-channeling in the future may make these situations redundant, but it is why we are where we are currently.

But you ignore the fact that Channel 7 would have liked to bid for the NRL rights, if only to make Channel 9 pay more. But they were never really given an opportunity.

 

[Digga Hole]

that's because 7 tried to kill soccer

http://www.theage.com.au/news/busin...rights-revealed/2005/12/18/1134840740656.html

Exactly my point, would you trust them with your product given a reasonable choice? I don't think the AFL wanted to, but the first and last rights contract had them stuffed.

 

[Digga Hole]

But you ignore the fact that Channel 7 would have liked to bid for the NRL rights, if only to make Channel 9 pay more. But they were never really given an opportunity.

I'm not trying to ignore it. I agree with you, I think they woud have loved to bid if only, as you said, to make Nine pay more.

However I think that the NRL knew that they couldn't provide the appropriate coverage so tried to get the best they could out of Nine (whatever that revenue brought forward story is).

 

[El Diablo]

Settle down.

I haven't changed my story at all. My entire point (it actually was Eastsrules first) was that Channel 7 couldn't provide appropriate coverage to the NRL (and turn a $) as they were planning to bid for AFL. This is what was meant by CAPABLE.

you've yet to explain why they couldn't

they don't show AFL on Friday nights in Sydney or Brisbane. they don't show AFL on Saturday nights in Sydney r Brisbane. they don't show AFL between 4 and 6pm on Sunday afternoons in Sydney or Brisbane.

so how are they not capable of matching what 9 do and there's every chance they could do it BETTER!

C9 could do these things as they were doing them with Fox.

and 7 were doing AFL with 10

do you somehow think that Fox would not have got the pay TV rights for the NRL if 7 had the FTA rights?

that makes zero sense seeing Fox bought the py TV rights for AFL rights off them

Its not a case of being able to simply afford it, you misundrstand. Its about being able to make an appropriate return, and provide both Leagues with the coverage that they require for their Leagues without a partner (C9 had one for NRL, Seven didn't).

9 did not. the FTA and pay TV rights were seperate. tere was no partnership.

As I have said on numerous occasions, multi-channeling in the future may make these situations redundant, but it is why we are where we are currently.

f**k the future. you can't explain the past

 

[El Diablo]

Exactly my point, would you trust them with your product given a reasonable choice?

because there is no possible way they could do worse than 9. pretty f**king simple

 

[Dogs Of War]

I'm not trying to ignore it. I agree with you, I think they woud have loved to bid if only, as you said, to make Nine pay more.

However I think that the NRL knew that they couldn't provide the appropriate coverage so tried to get the best they could out of Nine (whatever that revenue brought forward story is).

How could they know if they didn't talk? You have no idea about how business works. You always talk to other companies, only to see what they are prepared to offer, and thus assist you with negotiating the best deal possible. The NRL are just too far in bed with channel 9 and foxtel, who because of the SL war, believe they own these 2 companies something. But that was repayed a while ago, and it's only fair that market rate is now payed. Just look at Foxtel's attitude to NRL. They concede that it is there best product, but provide less money because of the SL war. It's nothing more than that.

It's time News Ltd was out of the NRL partnership. Maybe thats something the NRL should negotiate next time the TV rights come up.

 

[KalgoorlieRed]

THEN CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS THEN!!! Then we might see something actually happen with the whole mess! I've already cancelled, it's a disgrace that my money is going into AFL coffers!

 

[Digga Hole]

How could they know if they didn't talk? You have no idea about how business works. You always talk to other companies, only to see what they are prepared to offer, and thus assist you with negotiating the best deal possible. The NRL are just too far in bed with channel 9 and foxtel, who because of the SL war, believe they own these 2 companies something. But that was repayed a while ago, and it's only fair that market rate is now payed. Just look at Foxtel's attitude to NRL. They concede that it is there best product, but provide less money because of the SL war. It's nothing more than that.

It's time News Ltd was out of the NRL partnership. Maybe thats something the NRL should negotiate next time the TV rights come up.

Where did i say they didn't talk? They would have known what Channel 7 could offer by talking (either directly or through advisors). Rather than going to competitive tender when the knew the result they offered one party an exclusive bidding period in order to get the best deal.

This is how most business deals work. You may have learnt your business skills reading about the hostile takeovers in the Daily telly, but trust me I didn't.

 

[Digga Hole]

you've yet to explain why they couldn't

they don't show AFL on Friday nights in Sydney or Brisbane. they don't show AFL on Saturday nights in Sydney r Brisbane. they don't show AFL between 4 and 6pm on Sunday afternoons in Sydney or Brisbane.

so how are they not capable of matching what 9 do and there's every chance they could do it BETTER!



and 7 were doing AFL with 10

do you somehow think that Fox would not have got the pay TV rights for the NRL if 7 had the FTA rights?

that makes zero sense seeing Fox bought the py TV rights for AFL rights off them



9 did not. the FTA and pay TV rights were seperate. tere was no partnership.



f**k the future. you can't explain the past

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) 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.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Where did i say they didn't talk? They would have known what Channel 7 could offer by talking (either directly or through advisors). Rather than going to competitive tender when the knew the result they offered one party an exclusive bidding period in order to get the best deal.

This is how most business deals work. You may have learnt your business skills reading about the hostile takeovers in the Daily telly, but trust me I didn't.

You do realise it was all done and dusted in a week with channel 9 don't you. Well before the rights were coming up. Channel 9 got in early to take that away from channel 7.

And mate. I never buy the Tele. I wouldn't wipe my arse with that paper.