The TV rights thread part II

[docbrown]

First up, thank you for your detailed reply much appreciated.

Now that said, I still don't see how anyone in the deal has come out of it without getting what they wanted

Channel 7 didn't want to simulcast.

Not only were they forced to do but they were forced to pay more $$$ for something they didn't want to do.

All this other stuff about AFL & fans getting what they want isn't what I'm talking about. It's purely about about Foxtel offering AFL something which didn't cost Foxtel anything at all and getting AFL to screw over 7. I only mentioned the sequence of what went down as an example of great negotiating tactics by the Fox team.

But any how take out of it what you want. As for 7, I disagree with your 8 out of 10 assessment. More like 5 out of 10. They pretty much dropped their pants and that's the point.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

I'm not sure a dedicated channel is the way to go unless they actually replace one of the current fox 1-3 channels with the League Channel. Have not seen one game of afl on tv at the local pub since the fox footy channel started. Exposure has gone to 0.

This is because businesses have to pay extra for the AFL channel. I doubt many pubs, clubs or other businesses would pay that extra $45 a month (That's right. $45 a month) to broadcast a one dimensional channel. This is especially true in NSW and QLD.

A dedicated NRL channel may not be so good.

 

[CC_Roosters]

This is because businesses have to pay extra for the AFL channel. I doubt many pubs, clubs or other businesses would pay that extra $45 a month (That's right. $45 a month) to broadcast a one dimensional channel. This is especially true in NSW and QLD.

A dedicated NRL channel may not be so good.

f**k me. not often that they commit so big an oversight/mistake. Can't see any of the local clubs forking that out a month.

 

[Reborned]

TBF though it is a win win, AFL didn't lose anything and gained a Fox channel of their own plus god knows how much Fox focus and advertising in the process. If they close it down in 5 years AFL are no worse off than now except they have had 5 years fo having a channel dedicated to their sport and all the positive sponsorship opportunities etc that come with it.

Be honest, who on here wouldn't be extremely happy if NRL got a Fox dedicatd channel, even if it was for 5 years only?

Honestly I see no real advantages to having a specific Rugby League channel on Fox Sports. I would rather have Fox Sports made to show all Rugby League content on Fox Sports 1 with other sports to be moved to FS 2 & 3 when there is a clash. These type of channel's won't rate over the off season and if Fox Sports were smart they would close it over the off season.

I'm not sure a dedicated channel is the way to go unless they actually replace one of the current fox 1-3 channels with the League Channel. Have not seen one game of afl on tv at the local pub since the fox footy channel started. Exposure has gone to 0.

Exactly and this is a problem for AFL in the Northern States, the same states they are desperately trying to make up ground on other codes.

 

[CC_Roosters]

Just had a look at the fox tv guide. A-league is still being broadcast on FS1, NRL on FS2 in round 1.

Surely this will change when the a-league is finally finished.

 

[TheRam]

Channel 7 didn't want to simulcast.

Not only were they forced to do but they were forced to pay more $$$ for something they didn't want to do.

All this other stuff about AFL & fans getting what they want isn't what I'm talking about. It's purely about about Foxtel offering AFL something which didn't cost Foxtel anything at all and getting AFL to screw over 7. I only mentioned the sequence of what went down as an example of great negotiating tactics by the Fox team.

But any how take out of it what you want. As for 7, I disagree with your 8 out of 10 assessment. More like 5 out of 10. They pretty much dropped their pants and that's the point.

Oh ok I get where you are coming from now and in light of what you have said 5 out of 10 seems to be about right.

But still your assessment of the AFL fan being "idiots" because after 5 years the channel may be pulled, I still don't see it...well they're not "idiots" for that reason anyway.

 

[TheRam]

This is because businesses have to pay extra for the AFL channel. I doubt many pubs, clubs or other businesses would pay that extra $45 a month (That's right. $45 a month) to broadcast a one dimensional channel. This is especially true in NSW and QLD.

A dedicated NRL channel may not be so good.

Sh*t!!! I didn't know it was that much, what a joke on them.

Yeah maybe we shouldn't be wanting our own channel after all.

 

[docbrown]

But still your assessment of the AFL fan being "idiots" because after 5 years the channel may be pulled, I still don't see it...well they're not "idiots" for that reason anyway.

Well yeah, you know I hate AFL and their gospel choir so it just amuses me that the same group who bought into it and are shouting from the hilltops now are going to be crying and pouting in five years. It just amuses me knowing what's in store for them but furthermore how willing they are to help make it happen.

 

[Collingwood Storm]

Just had a look at the fox tv guide. A-league is still being broadcast on FS1, NRL on FS2 in round 1.

Surely this will change when the a-league is finally finished.

NRL stays on FS2... when AFL games overlap, one game will be on fox footy and the other game will be on FS1.

Basically 2 AFL games on FS1 on Saturdays and 1 AFL game on FS1 on Sundays.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Just a thought that may or may not have been brought up before. Would it be possible to have the games which are shown on FTA in NSW and QLD simulcast on Fox nationally but with a blackout applied for NSW and QLD?

That would be a sort of half way house from us wanting all games broadcast nationally live and the large and seemingly unlikely step of FTA channels, especially 9 having to broadcast the NRL nationally on secondary channels.

Very good point.

I've just looked at the TV guide and both the Knights-Dragons and Eels-Broncos games are on at 7:30pm on Foxtel, which is a three hour delay here in Perth but still good viewing time.

On free-to-air though, the Knights game is on at 1:15am after the Footy Show, and Parra is on at midnight - both hefty delays, and the Knights game well after my bedtime.

I'm just lucky I've got Foxtel, but if they lost broadcast rights I'd have to wait until the early hours to watch a game. In Melbourne it was worse because I had to wait until after midnight to watch games on Fox. At least on the west coast the time difference means Foxtel shows games at a reasonable hour.

Anyway, I hope the NRL gets the best deal it can, but if that means I can't watch the footy until after midnight then it's a bit shit.

 

[Perth Red]

Honestly I see no real advantages to having a specific Rugby League channel on Fox Sports. I would rather have Fox Sports made to show all Rugby League content on Fox Sports 1 with other sports to be moved to FS 2 & 3 when there is a clash. These type of channel's won't rate over the off season and if Fox Sports were smart they would close it over the off season.



.

Biggest advantage is it would force Fox to generate RL content above and beyond the NRL. To fill the channel they would need new shows, ESL and any other RL they could get their hands on. SL is a great RL competition and the fact Ch9 has bought the rights just so no one else can show it stinks.

As for Fox suddenly realising its golden goose is mistreat and putting every game on Foxsports1 or not cutting games short or not showing them at all when sports schedules clash, yeh like that is going to happen!

 

[Perth Red]

Very good point.

I've just looked at the TV guide and both the Knights-Dragons and Eels-Broncos games are on at 7:30pm on Foxtel, which is a three hour delay here in Perth but still good viewing time.

On free-to-air though, the Knights game is on at 1:15am after the Footy Show, and Parra is on at midnight - both hefty delays, and the Knights game well after my bedtime.

I'm just lucky I've got Foxtel, but if they lost broadcast rights I'd have to wait until the early hours to watch a game. In Melbourne it was worse because I had to wait until after midnight to watch games on Fox. At least on the west coast the time difference means Foxtel shows games at a reasonable hour.

Anyway, I hope the NRL gets the best deal it can, but if that means I can't watch the footy until after midnight then it's a bit shit.

yeh the time difference with WA makes viewing on Fox on delay even better than live on FTA in my case! Can get home from work on a Friday and settle down with a few beers after dinner to start watching the game at 7.30 or 8.30 depending on daylight saving. Live on Sunday would be nice though!

 

[Tom Shines]

The best thing about this deal between AFL and Fox is that NRL is back on Fox Sports #1.

Wouldn't be so sure about that.

 

[Lockyer4President!]

NRL stays on FS2... when AFL games overlap, one game will be on fox footy and the other game will be on FS1.

Basically 2 AFL games on FS1 on Saturdays and 1 AFL game on FS1 on Sundays.

After the complaints from fans wrt games being on FS2 you'd hope the new deal by the ARL would have the games put back on FS1.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Why does it matter which Foxsports channel it's on?

 

[hutch]

Why does it matter which Foxsports channel it's on?

Why shouldn't the biggest sport on tv be on fox sports 1?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Why shouldn't the biggest sport on tv be on fox sports 1?

Because it's just a name.

I don't even notice what channel it's on, I just press the TV guide button on my remote and scroll to the footy.

What difference does it make?

 

[Pigskin]

a lot of pubs, clubs and even hotels/motels with limited pay channels will have fox sports 1, but not fox sports 2

you know, you go to a motel for the night, and they invariably have about 15 channels total including 1 sports channel

the reach of having the product on fox sports 1 has to be significant surely ... i'm sure docbrown will know

thats my understanding of why it has value

Oink !

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

a lot of pubs, clubs and even hotels/motels with limited pay channels will have fox sports 1, but not fox sports 2

you know, you go to a motel for the night, and they invariably have about 15 channels total including 1 sports channel

the reach of having the product on fox sports 1 has to be significant surely ... i'm sure docbrown will know

thats my understanding of why it has value

Oink !

I'm pretty sure you're spot on. FS1 is the default channel. The last few motels I've stayed at all had FS1 as the default sport channel.

 

[Joe's Magpies]

FOR the first time in more than 20 years, Channel Nine might not have the rights to broadcast rugby league next year.
Fox Sports is also not guaranteed to retain the five live matches a week to which it holds the rights, games are likely to be available on the internet and the NRL premiership could have a new naming-rights sponsor.
Welcome to the brave new world of rugby league, where the newly formed ARL Commission makes decisions in the best interests of the game and no one else.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The first positive sign came last week when the commission decided to scrap the controversial McIntyre system used in the finals series since 1999.
For years, NRL officials had publicly and privately defended the finals format but at their first board meeting since being appointed on February 10, the eight commissioners voted to adopt the model used by the AFL.
Many more important decisions that will affect the future of the game lie ahead this year - not the least being the next broadcast deal. How much the game gets for the television rights will determine the amount of the salary cap, the size of grants from the NRL to clubs and whether new clubs are admitted to the premiership.
NRL clubs have agreed to work on the salary cap being increased from $4.3 million to $5 million next season so anything less than $1 billion for a five-year broadcast deal would be seen as a failure.
Some within the game are anticipating the deal will be worth up to $1.4 billion, putting the commissioners and ARLC chief executive David Gallop under pressure to better AFL's $1.25 billion deal.
To achieve that, the ARLC is prepared to break up the cartel of Nine, Fox Sports and Telstra that has controlled the NRL's free-to-air, pay-TV, new media and sponsorship rights deals since the end of the Super League war in 1997.
Channel Nine has been the game's free-to-air broadcaster for even longer, having assumed the rights from Channel Ten in 1990 after the rival network failed to meet payments for its $43 million three-year deal.
Nine owner Kerry Packer was also given the pay-TV rights by the ARL, prompting Rupert Murdoch to start the breakaway Super League competition as News Ltd needed league content for Foxtel.
As part of the Super League peace deal in 1997, News Ltd was given the first and last right of refusal on broadcast rights until 2022 and Channel Nine the free-to-air rights until 2007.
News Ltd gained a five-year extension on those terms as a condition of handing control of the game to an independent commission, but that is no longer the advantage it was when the media empire ran the NRL.
From now on, Fox Sports will be expected to pay the code that easily dominates the most-watched programs on pay TV each year more than AFL receives per game.
Coincidentally, it could be Murdoch's son Lachlan - a key figure in the Super League war - who could help end the stranglehold on the game by Nine, News and Telstra - partners in Foxtel.
Lachlan Murdoch was at last week's NRL launch, and the Channel Ten chairman is interested in bidding for matches from next season, including Monday Night Football and State of Origin.
Channel Seven is also believed to be interested in securing rights to some league matches, and the Herald has been told the commission will wait until after the exclusive three-month negotiating period with the present rights holders expires on May 1 before making any decision, so it can talk to rival bidders.
Both Ten and Seven have money to spend on league as Ten no longer has the rights to any AFL matches, and the $95 million a year that Seven is paying for four free-to-air matches is similar to the previous deal the two networks shared.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...e-new-world-20120226-1twjz.html#ixzz1nWXNAHpe​