Removing interstate clubs from FTA broadcast

[My_Username]

Why does anyone outside SA/WA care what the local FTA stations do?

I doubt they do all that much, except as a cause/effect counter to WA/SA fans sooking about not getting as many national FTA/primetime games as they'd like.

Foxtel on the other hand wants to sell more of it's football packages into those markets, and seems to be willing to pay the AFL more than the local stations are for enough games to 'encourage' such sales, and that is the only 'reason' that matters.

 

[JohnZ]

Why does anyone outside SA/WA care what the local FTA stations do?

The reality is that we don't.

All we're saying is that Foxtel wants more bang for their buck and we don't care if your too good to be true deal gets the cut. It's all very sooky. Honestly don't know why any of your home games should be guaranteed on FTA (but I'm sure Fox would rather your away games be on their platform to drive subscriptions).

 

[calculon559]

Not sure if this is the general AFL TV rights thread or just focused on this particular topic, so I'll just say this:
If Foxtel HAS to make some SA/WA games exclusive, then they should only be home games; away games should still be FTA over there.
Heck, I think 9 or 10 should put their hands up and say they'll take all Vic teams Away games and beam them into Victoria, but that's a whole other tangent...

 

[Scotland]

Don’t care that much at all but if the tv rights deal says no more mr nice guy on FTA then I totally understand it.

Which is exactly what I said the first time in the post you responded to.

Like you say it’s 2022.

The outcome that should happen is 7 reaching into their pockets.

 

[Scotland]

I doubt they do all that much, except as a cause/effect counter to WA/SA fans sooking about not getting as many national FTA/primetime games as they'd like.

Foxtel on the other hand wants to sell more of it's football packages into those markets, and seems to be willing to pay the AFL more than the local stations are for enough games to 'encourage' such sales, and that is the only 'reason' that matters.

The reality is that we don't.

All we're saying is that Foxtel wants more bang for their buck and we don't care if your too good to be true deal gets the cut. It's all very sooky. Honestly don't know why any of your home games should be guaranteed on FTA (but I'm sure Fox would rather your away games be on their platform to drive subscriptions).

There's currently a huge disconnect. West Coast get 1 actual FTA game this year, 1. The FTA schedule is centered around Victoria where 10 of the 18 teams are and the largest number of people who watch footy live. No one in Victoria has a problem with that. And while the current arrangements are in place no one in SA/WA does either.

We are currently looked after by default, because the AFL knows they can schedule as many FTA games as they can that suit the Victorian audience and shunt other games to Foxtel safe in the understanding that 7 Perth/Adelaide will come to some sort of agreement and no one buys Foxtel subscriptions in NSW/Qld to watch footy so may as well have all those games on FTA anyway.

As a pay TV subscriber and watcher of games other than WC/Freo I don't really care if our games are on FTA or not, but I know that Channel 7 Perth showing a 'national' game while WC or Freo are playing on Foxtel is a dumb outcome for WA fans. If the plan is to keep pushing WC games onto pay TV and then erode how many of those end up on FTA TV in WA over time that's not a great outcome for WA fans.

If the AFL want to maximise revenue by having a Vic-centric FTA schedule at the expense of SA/WA markets then obviously SA/WA fans are going to tell them to get ****ed.

 

[My_Username]

There's currently a huge disconnect. West Coast get 1 actual FTA game this year, 1.

That's an odd way to write 22, 22.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The outcome that should happen is 7 reaching into their pockets.

You got a business case to support that? Channel seven should dip into their pockets so that WA and SA viewers don’t have to, and continue to inexplicably get all 42 home state games shown on Fta? Not sure I understand the why, but if you can sell that argument to Seven it’s no skin off my nose.

 

[Scotland]

You got a business case to support that? Channel seven should dip into their pockets so that WA and SA viewers don’t have to, and continue to inexplicably get all 42 home state games shown on Fta? Not sure I understand the why, but if you can sell that argument to Seven it’s no skin off my nose.

Well the alternative is that Channel 7 screen 70 of 80 odd games into WA this year not involving WC or Freo. And similar for SA with Adelaide and Port. You got a business case for that? You reckon there would be much appetite for having 60 or 70% of games broadcast into Victoria not involving a Victorian team instead of <5%?

The broadcasters wanted a game per round in all 5 states and got it. Clearly the national audience is worth something. The current arrangement works. The AFL have have a national FTA broadcast schedule aimed at one state and the local FTA stations in WA and SA make alternate arrangements, so the AFL doesn't have to pretend anything is aimed a national market. The only thing that needs to be worked out is the financial arrangement between Foxtel and Channel 7 Perth/Adelaide. Fox still get get every single game live into WA whether it's on FTA or not.

If people want to go down a 'fair' route with an actual national FTA schedule then I'm open to that discussion, but that would inevitably just lead to a worse outcome for fans in Victoria, SA and WA.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Well the alternative is that Channel 7 screen 70 of 80 odd games into WA this year not involving WC or Freo. And similar for SA with Adelaide and Port. You got a business case for that? You reckon there would be much appetite for having 60 or 70% of games broadcast into Victoria not involving a Victorian team instead of <5%?

The broadcasters wanted a game per round in all 5 states and got it. Clearly the national audience is worth something. The current arrangement works. The AFL have have a national FTA broadcast schedule aimed at one state and the local FTA stations in WA and SA make alternate arrangements, so the AFL doesn't have to pretend anything is aimed a national market. The only thing that needs to be worked out is the financial arrangement between Foxtel and Channel 7 Perth/Adelaide. Fox still get get every single game live into WA whether it's on FTA or not.

If people want to go down a 'fair' route with an actual national FTA schedule then I'm open to that discussion, but that would inevitably just lead to a worse outcome for fans in Victoria, SA and WA.

Pay for Kayo like the rest of us do.

The current arrangement certainly works for viewers in WA and SA because FTA is, you know, free.

The financial arrangement between the broadcasters is I agree at the crux of it and if foxtel want a better slice of the cake and generate some revenue from wa and in line with what they see in Vic, then that sounds reasonable to me. You are confusing what I want with what I think is reasonable. I’d be happy to leave things unchanged from a selfish perspective but I am pragmatic and realistic too.

 

[Kwality]

You got a business case to support that? Channel seven should dip into their pockets so that WA and SA viewers don’t have to, and continue to inexplicably get all 42 home state games shown on Fta? Not sure I understand the why, but if you can sell that argument to Seven it’s no skin off my nose.

Seems the current arrangement suits 7s business model OR Mr Warburton would be chasing a better deal (more for performance bonus that was $1.1m last year).

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Seems the current arrangement suits 7s business model OR Mr Warburton would be chasing a better deal (more for performance bonus that was $1.1m last year).

Good luck to them if they can renogotiate on the same terms.

 

[MightyHawks]

Kayo is unbelievably cheap really for footy fans.

Can sign up in March. Pay $25 per month until August.

Then cancel. You don't need to pay in September as all finals are on free to air.

That makes it just $150 a year.

Way cheaper than when you had to pay $80pm for 12 months with Foxtel.

 

[maskmcgee]

Hopefully 10 just gets the rights back and puts the 5 minute warning back.

 

[jatz14]

I'm ok with it. I've had to pay to see my team for years. Suck it up sooks.

Get rid of a couple of excess Vic clubs, problem solved.

On SM-X200 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[BobbyMorri]

Kayo is unbelievably cheap really for footy fans.

Can sign up in March. Pay $25 per month until August.

Then cancel. You don't need to pay in September as all finals are on free to air.

That makes it just $150 a year.

Way cheaper than when you had to pay $80pm for 12 months with Foxtel.

Not everyone has the internet or has the ability to stream Kayo.

as a neutral footy fan, I wouldn't mind if this happens, but only if more interstate games are shown on FTA. No more missing showdowns or things like that. but I can totally understand the worry of SA/WA fans.

 

[Kwality]

only if more interstate games are shown on FTA.

Given the very definition of interstate in this discussion depends on where you are & who you barrack for.
Anyone supporting an interstate club cant get to an away game by jumping a train.

 

[MightyHawks]

Not everyone has the internet or has the ability to stream Kayo.

as a neutral footy fan, I wouldn't mind if this happens, but only if more interstate games are shown on FTA. No more missing showdowns or things like that. but I can totally understand the worry of SA/WA fans.

Not everyone has the internet, but do the AFL really have to consider people who are able to watch TV but unable to access the internet?

For a number of years when I didn't have Foxtel I went to the pub or a mates place to watch a game when I really wanted to.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Free to air including Rd 23

Western Bulldogs 16
Melbourne 15
St Kilda 13
Richmond 13
Carlton 13
Collingwood 13
Brisbane 11
Essendon 10
Hawthorn 9
Sydney 9
Geelong 9
Greater Western Sydney 7
Port Adelaide 7
Fremantle 4
Gold Coast 2
North Melbourne 1
West Coast 1
Adelaide 1

Vic vs Vic 36
Vic vs Non-Vic 39
Non-Vic vs Non-Vic 1

 

[calculon559]

Free to air including Rd 23

Western Bulldogs 16
Melbourne 15
St Kilda 13
Richmond 13
Carlton 13
Collingwood 13
Brisbane 11
Essendon 10
Hawthorn 9
Sydney 9
Geelong 9
Greater Western Sydney 7
Port Adelaide 7
Fremantle 4
Gold Coast 2
North Melbourne 1
West Coast 1
Adelaide 1

Vic vs Vic 36
Vic vs Non-Vic 39
Non-Vic vs Non-Vic 1

That's free to air IN VICTORIA
Big difference
7 is obligated to air all interstate teams game in their home state on free-to-air, so this is irrelevant outside of Victoria.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Free to air including Rd 23

Western Bulldogs 16
Melbourne 15
St Kilda 13
Richmond 13
Carlton 13
Collingwood 13
Brisbane 11
Essendon 10
Hawthorn 9
Sydney 9
Geelong 9
Greater Western Sydney 7
Port Adelaide 7
Fremantle 4
Gold Coast 2
North Melbourne 1
West Coast 1
Adelaide 1

Vic vs Vic 36
Vic vs Non-Vic 39
Non-Vic vs Non-Vic 1

Try doing FTA from every state, or are you trying to make it look like it's #VICBIAS

This makes you look like a very dishonest person.

 

[BobbyMorri]

Not everyone has the internet, but do the AFL really have to consider people who are able to watch TV but unable to access the internet?

For a number of years when I didn't have Foxtel I went to the pub or a mates place to watch a game when I really wanted to.

Yes, the answer is yes.

All you have to do is look at the discussion regarding FTA rights for ODI cricket to see that cutting a portion of the populace can disenfranchise that portion.

The AFL's aim should be to get the most money while making it as easy to watch as possible.

 

[Kwality]

The changes around Supercars ownership happen a day or so later. Coincidence?

 

[My_Username]

Yes, the answer is yes.

All you have to do is look at the discussion regarding FTA rights for ODI cricket to see that cutting a portion of the populace can disenfranchise that portion.

The AFL's aim should be to get the most money while making it as easy to watch as possible.

and if those 2 goals conflict?

 

[Kwality]

and if those 2 goals conflict?

I'd suggest they have existed for a long time & the AFL manage it to their best advantage. The money dictates lifestyle for the game e.g musts for the AFL & its clubs, are the bottom line for the media rights.

 

[MightyHawks]

Yes, the answer is yes.

All you have to do is look at the discussion regarding FTA rights for ODI cricket to see that cutting a portion of the populace can disenfranchise that portion.

The AFL's aim should be to get the most money while making it as easy to watch as possible.

The AFL are indeed doing both.

We may all disagree about how best to balance these two goals, but they certainly are trying to achieve both goals.

Putting 8 or 9 matches on pay tv only would be a poor result - as the ARU, Soccer and Basketball have found out.

But having 9 matches on free to air TV is not something the networks would actually want and would result in a poor financial outcome.

Over the last few years we've had 3-4 matches each week on free to air, which is fairly close to the right balance even if it isn't perfect.