The TV rights thread

[bobmar28]

My hope is that Fox get the rights and we get 8 live games a weekend.
Sunday footy proves how bad it is to watch the footy game on Nine after watching the live game on Fox.
Nine = boring footy
Live footy gets my vote/ Fox gets my vote.

How wonderful for the 23% of people who can afford pay TV. With only 23% of the population tuning in the game would die a slow death due to a lack of interest.

 

[dollyhands]

How wonderful for the 23% of people who can afford pay TV. With only 23% of the population tuning in the game would die a slow death due to a lack of interest.

Pay TV's percentage would probably go up, and crowd figures down..... NRL lose, Rich people win

 

[Ray Mosters]

http://www.smh.com.au/business/plenty-of-cooks-stir-the-pot-at-network-ten-20110405-1d2zu.html

Wait, so 10 and 7 are bidding together for NRL rights? Thats big news if true, a little big to be throwing around off hand deep into an article.

 

[smithie]

Wait, so 10 and 7 are bidding together for NRL rights? Thats big news if true, a little big to be throwing around off hand deep into an article.

I'm pretty sure that is a mistake and she meant AFL.

 

[Raiderdave]

what is the benefit to pay TV to simulcast live coverage with an FTA broadcaster ?:crazy:

how does that drive up subscriptions ?
if all the games are live on an FTA provider/providers that doesn't cost you anything
why would you then pay $60 a month to get the same games ?

lunacy :sarcasm:

 

[herbert henry1908]

what is the benefit to pay TV to simulcast live coverage with an FTA broadcaster ?:crazy:

how does that drive up subscriptions ?
if all the games are live on an FTA provider/providers that doesn't cost you anything
why would you then pay $60 a month to get the same games ?

lunacy :sarcasm:

Because pay tv has ads aswell.

Not in the middle of games , but still they generate revenue from it.

The more live sport they have , the less chance people change the channel.

 

[Raiderdave]

Because pay tv has ads aswell.

Not in the middle of games , but still they generate revenue from it.

The more live sport they have , the less chance people change the channel.

yes but thats hardly going to keep subscribers .. & the attraction of no adds during games won't be enough for me to subscibe either , then they'll be no one to see the adds
if its live at same time & free .. its a no brainer

like I said .... why pay 60 a month to " pay " to watch sport when you can watch the same games .. at the same time ... for nothing
I'd put up with a few adds if it saved me 800 dollars a year

 

[BunniesMan]

yes but thats hardly going to keep subscribers .. & the attraction of no adds during games won't be enough for me to subscibe either , then they'll be no one to see the adds
if its live at same time & free .. its a no brainer

like I said .... why pay 60 a month to " pay " to watch sport when you can watch the same games .. at the same time ... for nothing
I'd put up with a few adds if it saved me 800 dollars a year

You do realise they won't all be simulcast? Pay tv will still have exclusive games...

 

[Raiderdave]

You do realise they won't all be simulcast? Pay tv will still have exclusive games...

No I didn't
& thats makes sense .... I read another poster on another forum saying all 9 AFL games would be broadcast live on both Foxtel & Ch 9 from next year , & both broadcasters were going to pay 500 Million each for the rights which didn't make sense to me

what he should have written is
Foxtel will get 5 a week live... exclusive
9 will get 4.. & allow these to be simulcast on Foxtel

9's outlay of 500 million though is a bit pricey for 4 games a week I would have thought , live or otherwise :shock:

 

[Bulldog Force]

10 broadcasting games live on OneHD =

 

[Collingwood Storm]

what is the benefit to pay TV to simulcast live coverage with an FTA broadcaster ?:crazy:

how does that drive up subscriptions ?
if all the games are live on an FTA provider/providers that doesn't cost you anything
why would you then pay $60 a month to get the same games ?

lunacy :sarcasm:

Because with 5 metro markets there are currently blackouts in the AFL states.

e.g. if Ch10 have Melbourne vs Sydney and foxtel have Adelaide vs Fremantle... both games on a saturday night

MELB/SYD/BRIS currently get Melb vs Syd on Ch10/ONE and Adel vs Freo on Foxtel

ADEL/PERTH currently get Adel vs Freo on Ch10/ONE (as it's their local market team) and Adel vs Freo on Foxtel as well, with no coverage of Melb vs Syd until it gets replayed on Foxtel at a later date.

There have been times where WA and SA miss out on big blockbuster games and get a game between 2 bottom teams on 2 different channels.

 

[Jason Maher]

Same thing happened up here on Sunday. I wanted to watch the Swans-Essendon game after the Dragons-Knights game had finished, but instead had a choice between Lions-Bulldogs and Lions-Bulldogs.

 

[Raiderdave]

Because with 5 metro markets there are currently blackouts in the AFL states.

e.g. if Ch10 have Melbourne vs Sydney and foxtel have Adelaide vs Fremantle... both games on a saturday night

MELB/SYD/BRIS currently get Melb vs Syd on Ch10/ONE and Adel vs Freo on Foxtel

ADEL/PERTH currently get Adel vs Freo on Ch10/ONE (as it's their local market team) and Adel vs Freo on Foxtel as well, with no coverage of Melb vs Syd until it gets replayed on Foxtel at a later date.

There have been times where WA and SA miss out on big blockbuster games and get a game between 2 bottom teams on 2 different channels.

yeah , no I misunderstood as I was saying above
I had the notion fox wouldn't have any exclusive AFL games .. when of course they will .... 5
& 9 will allow them to cover the 4 they have too at the same time

wether its a ploy remains to be seen
but the word is this is whats going to happen
the only thing now is the price ... & what 9 will offer for their share

personally ... 500 million as 9's share for 4 live games for a sport that only rates in half the country & where only 37% of advertising is written .. is massive overs
so I smell a rat .......:x

 

[Perth Red]

How wonderful for the 23% of people who can afford pay TV. With only 23% of the population tuning in the game would die a slow death due to a lack of interest.

77% of the population can't afford $23 a week for decent TV entertainmnet? In Perth that's like going to the pub for 2 pints these days!

If simucast I'd pay for Fox with no ads and a better commentary team I reckon.

 

[andrew057]

77% of the population can't afford $23 a week for decent TV entertainmnet? In Perth that's like going to the pub for 2 pints these days!

If simucast I'd pay for Fox with no ads and a better commentary team I reckon.

Pretty sure i read there will be ads.

 

[nrlnrl]

Pretty sure i read there will be ads.

where abouts ? I don't think Fox will do that, it's one of their big selling points - no ads during live play

 

[gallagher]

77% of the population can't afford $23 a week for decent TV entertainmnet? In Perth that's like going to the pub for 2 pints these days!

If simucast I'd pay for Fox with no ads and a better commentary team I reckon.

Its not even that much.I pay no more than $65 a month for fox which is only about $15 a week. Whats that $2 a game?

According to some Red we must be one of the nations highest earners to be able to afford that!!!

 

[CC_Roosters]

I'm reading that foxtel will be paying around $500m for afl rights. Does anyone know what the NRL are forcasted to receive from fox and what did they get in the last deal compared to the afl from fox? That figure seems a bit high for the afl, but if they get it should the NRL expect/demand an equal or greater offer given it is the ratings winner on pav tv??

 

[blukablu]

I'm reading that foxtel will be paying around $500m for afl rights. Does anyone know what the NRL are forcasted to receive from fox and what did they get in the last deal compared to the afl from fox? That figure seems a bit high for the afl, but if they get it should the NRL expect/demand an equal or greater offer given it is the ratings winner on pav tv??

We got that amount for our entire last contract over a longer period of time (6 opposed to 5 years). So I'm guessing thats easily more than double what we got from Fox last round.

 

[undertaker]

We got that amount for our entire last contract over a longer period of time (6 opposed to 5 years)

And that's the part I cannot understand. The previous deal for both the AFL and NRL expired in 2006. The AFL's next deal was renegotiated before the NRL's was. Who was the idiot who decided to make our deal 6 years instead of 5 years, so that it would finish one year after the AFL's 2007-2011 contract expired, hence they have the upper hand on us by getting to renegotiate earlier (as someone else said, Ch9 hoped Ch7/10 bid up on AFL, so that Ch9 could get the NRL rights for peanuts again)?