The TV rights thread

[Raiderdave]

So it's all about money and quality is irrelevant..

Ok then.

we should try for both
but if we can only get one .... its the dollars that will see our game thrive

Fox will be spluttering from one end of fox studios to the other if we show some balls & tell them to take a hike
then we will get both
the $$$... & the quality ;-)

 

[Mong]

we should try for both
but if we can only get one .... its the dollars that will see our game thrive

Fox will be spluttering from one end of fox studios to the other if we show some balls & tell them to take a hike
then we will get both
the $$$... & the quality ;-)

A spread of live games as per the AFL deal with less money will be great IMO. Having a good quality product to show will be what brings the folks in, so be it if the code gets less money than what the AFL did to show that product. Continuing to lower the standard of viewing by not having live ad free games is simply unacceptable.

 

[Raiderdave]

I might add that even today certain companies are murmuring that they might be unwilling to pay the additional premium over their existing 7/AFL contractural agreements for effectively the same (and in future smaller) F2A audience. It will be interesting to see how much drift there will be to other sports.[/QUOTE]

problem is Australians only watch 2 sports in winter

if merchants want to try their hand at advertising during union .. or soccer telecasts .. they'll get no return because no one will be watching

 

[gutterfax]

If I'm Ford (generally speaking, a national advertiser) I'd prefer 500,000 people seeing my ad to 450,000 people if I'm being charged the same rate, or if I'm paying the same amount per person and I can afford it I'd still rather have more people see it.

Nope.
FORD, the company, have an obligation to promote their new models to ALL areas where they have franchises......NSW/QLD get the massive TV audiences for NRL and pretty poor stats elsewhere.....AFL, whilst not ripping up trees, gets good figures across 7 states......ergo, FORD will place more ads with that programme.
If you can explain another reason why the AFL gets more cash, I am prepared to listen, BUT I believe this is the main reason. It may not be a factual statistic, but it is perception and the advertisers and TV execs seem to agree.

 

[Raiderdave]

A spread of live games as per the AFL deal with less money will be great IMO. Having a good quality product to show will be what brings the folks in, so be it if the code gets less money than what the AFL did to show that product. Continuing to lower the standard of viewing by not having live ad free games is simply unacceptable.

yeah ... but it won't see the game progress
fumble ball has suceeded to where it has now on the back of over inflated TV deals .. by doing the exact opposite of what your advocating
by not settling
by not being bluffed
by not bending over

as David Leckie said ... it was a brawl everyday for a year
& the AFL never blinked
neither should we

 

[Mong]

I didn't say to settle or be bluffed. if you look at what i am actually saying you will see its around quality of the presentation so the product is being displayed properly. There should be no ground given on that front. The way it is currently is a disgrace and should be the first thing corrected.

 

[gutterfax]

as David Leckie said ... it was a brawl everyday for a year
& the AFL never blinked
neither should we

Spot on.
Regardless of who, where, when or what, if TV wants eyeballs (and web wants eyeballs) then they have to pay for them!

 

[docbrown]

I might add that even today certain companies are murmuring that they might be unwilling to pay the additional premium over their existing 7/AFL contractural agreements for effectively the same (and in future smaller) F2A audience. It will be interesting to see how much drift there will be to other sports.[/QUOTE]

problem is Australians only watch 2 sports in winter

if merchants want to try their hand at advertising during union .. or soccer telecasts .. they'll get no return because no one will be watching

Well that's what 7 will be out to remind them. Basically 7 is funding the AFL and now 7 will be wanting the advertisers to pay for that commitment, not just through AFL programming but across the board.

I'm not saying they will dump AFL enmasse - but it will be interesting to see how those ad dollars are redistributed. I can actually see some of it coming the NRL's way.

There's a whole new suit of negotiations now between the network and media buyers - however there have been several high profile managers saying their clients are sceptical and may allocate their resources elsewhere where cost to profit ratios serve them better.

 

[Raiderdave]

I didn't say to settle or be bluffed. if you look at what i am actually saying you will see its around quality of the presentation so the product is being displayed properly. There should be no ground given on that front. The way it is currently is a disgrace and should be the first thing corrected.

the only thing that is a disgrace about the present deal is the $$ we are getting for it
you are advocating at settling for less & you don't even realise it

Fox will tell us they won't pay any .. or much more because they believe we are at saturation with subscription

I'm saying ... well F em
stare them down & tell them we'll walk , taking their top rating program ( not just sports but all programs ) with us ... & we don't care if we have a few delayed games ... well give it all to FTA

watch the reaction that gets
we'll then get our dough ... & improved coverage just like the AFL has

your plan would see us never break the cycle of being dudded & eventually we would be overran by that kick n giggle garbage from down south.

 

[CMUX]

well if they did ... thats what they'd get in return
& be out of business by the time the next rights are due in 2016

Our game won't be bluffed by these dipsh.its
we've got the product ..
its ours to use to line our pockets ... not theirs

I seriously hope you are not suggesting that Foxtel would go out of business if it had no NRL. It would be the other way around.

At the moment there is a monopoly on Pay TV services, albeit 4 possible providers (Foxtel, Telstra, Optus, Austar) but it is the same stream and programs are financed bye the same people.

In the event of a large majority of league supporters withdrawing their subscriptions, the result would be Foxtel paying pittance for the rights. Once the rights are negotiated league fans would come back in their droves because in order to watch live footy.

 

[Mong]

the only thing that is a disgrace about the present deal is the $$ we are getting for it
you are advocating at settling for less & you don't even realise it

Fox will tell us they won't pay any .. or much more because they believe we are at saturation with subscription

I'm saying ... well F em
stare them down & tell them we'll walk , taking their top rating program ( not just sports but all programs ) with us ... & we don't care if we have a few delayed games ... well give it all to FTA

watch the reaction that gets
we'll then get our dough ... & improved coverage just like the AFL has

your plan would see us never break the cycle of being dudded & eventually we would be overran by that kick n giggle garbage from down south.

:lol::lol:

Giving all games to FTA won't see the game dudded? FTA going to be happy for league to use them in such a way? what kind of a deal do you think they would want time wise and in that time we have nothing but rubbish coverage all to try and teach fox a lesson?

You are losing the plot.

 

[Raiderdave]

I seriously hope you are not suggesting that Foxtel would go out of business if it had no NRL. It would be the other way around.

At the moment there is a monopoly on Pay TV services, albeit 4 possible providers (Foxtel, Telstra, Optus, Austar) but it is the same stream and programs are financed bye the same people.

In the event of a large majority of league supporters withdrawing their subscriptions, the result would be Foxtel paying pittance for the rights. Once the rights are negotiated league fans would come back in their droves because in order to watch live footy.

geez.....:roll:

Foxtel won't get the Rights
FTA will

they'll pay a premium ... or they'll get nada
resulting in those former subscribers having no need to " come back "
meaning a huge financial black hole

K ?:roll:

 

[BunniesMan]

raiderdave, your heart is in the right place but you're just plain wrong. To say "fox needs us but we don't need them" is BS, we need them just as badly if not more so. If we walked away from them the FTA networks would know they'd have us bent over and they'd run with it. We'd be forced to sign an awful contract with the FTA networks and hurt ourselves in the long term, either that or maybe we'll tell them to F off too and just shut up shop?

 

[docbrown]

You should all just chillax.

If you want to worry about something, worry about the IC. Because without that, all of this is moot.

 

[nrlnrl]

speculation at 172 pages and counting....

 

[nrlnrl]

does anyone genuinely think AFL & 7 with this big deal doesnt affect 7 and them going after the NRL still? Wheres all the room for the NRL there? I can only see them getting 1 game max

their big target is SOO....

 

[El Diablo]

104th page for me

depends on your posts per page settings

 

[docbrown]

104th page for me

depends on your posts per page settings

And here's to 104 more! ;-)

 

[nrlnrl]

If the NRL had balls they would refuse to give any games to Foxtel for such a low amount. Sell them cheap to the ABC instead - then watch Foxtel start upping their offer as subscribers leave them in droves if they have no NRL...

don't forget SBS !

 

[Lockyer4President!]

52nd page here. All of you sub-human non 50-posts-per-page people disgust me.