Removing interstate clubs from FTA broadcast

[Underarm]

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

So 41 times non vic representation robbed vic clubs on FTA coverage.

 

[The_Wookie]

Actual FTA games to the end of round 23

Team	Home	Melb	Fox Exc	1 mkt	2 Mkt	3 Mkt	4 Mkt	5 Mkt
Adelaide	22	2		14	7	1
Brisbane	22	11		6	8		2	6
Carlton	13	13	2	7	2	1	3	6
Collingwood	13	13	3	7	1	1	3	7
Essendon	10	10	2	10	1	4	2	3
Fremantle	22	4		12	6	1	1	2
Geelong	9	9	5	8		1	3	5
Gold Coast	22	2		13	7		1	1
GWS	22	3		8	9	2	2	1
Hawthorn	8	8	10	4	2	2	3	1
Melbourne	15	15	3	4		4	2	9
North Melbourne	1	1	10	12
Port Adelaide	1	4		10	5	1	3	3
Richmond	13	13	4	4	2	2	3	7
St Kilda	12	12	5	5		2	2	8
Sydney	22	7		7	6	2	1	6
West Coast	22	1		13	8			1
Western Bulldogs	16	16	1	6		2	5	8

Note that Norths 1 game in Melbourne was a single market game.

 

[Scotland]

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.

I do! I support WC, but I also like watching good games. Those 2 things don't go together so much this year.

The current arrangement certainly works for viewers in Victoria, since almost every game on FTA involves at least one Victorian team. 36 Vic vs Vic, 39
Vic vs Non-Vic, 1 non-Vic vs non-Vic.

As I've said I think people need to be careful what they wish for. It would not be a good outcome for Victorian footy fans if that 1 all non-Vic clash in the FTA schedule became 10 or 20 or more. There are 10 teams in Victoria and 10 main fan bases that go with it. Would be pretty dumb to have Collingwood playing Geelong while Channel 7 broadcasts Adelaide vs GWS - which is what people are advocating for in WA and SA. Unless we go back to the good old days of every game being on Channel 7 (if you don't want to know the score, look away now... 'riiiiight on the tip of my tongue') there are always going to be disappointed fans in Victoria. This week there are 6 games involving one Victorian side plus Rich/Haw and Melb/Carl. 6 into 3 doesn't go. Meanwhile there's only one game involving the WA sides as the derby is on - a Fox game. Would be pretty daft to show the derby into Melbourne and Melb/Carl into Perth, the schedule needs some flexibility.

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.

Well yeah, that's why this thread exists. Those are the games that are produced and broadcast by Channel 7. BT, JB, Richo, Darce - the whole crew! It's not coincidental that all games bar one for the season produced by 7 feature at least one Victorian team. Every game produced by 7 except the GF is live on Fox. Many Fox games are broadcast live on 7/7Mate outside Victoria.

The whole issue at play is whether it's 'fair' that Channel 7 Perth/Adelaide broadcast Foxtel content over their own content into local markets, or more accurately whether the AFL can extract more money in the TV rights deal by changing this arrangement.

 

[JohnZ]

This week there are 6 games involving one Victorian side plus Rich/Haw and Melb/Carl. 6 into 3 doesn't go. Meanwhile there's only one game involving the WA sides as the derby is on - a Fox game. Would be pretty daft to show the derby into Melbourne and Melb/Carl into Perth, the schedule needs some flexibility.

Why should any game be guaranteed on FTA? Some weeks my team is on FTA, some weeks it isn't. As long as the AFL makes all my club's games available in some manner (be it Foxtel or Streaming) that's all I care about.

 

[Scotland]

Why should any game be guaranteed on FTA? Some weeks my team is on FTA, some weeks it isn't. As long as the AFL makes all my club's games available in some manner (be it Foxtel or Streaming) that's all I care about.

No game should be guaranteed on TV full stop. Broadcasters pay $400m a year or so for the right to televise the AFL because they believe they can make a profit on that.

There are competing forces in play. The AFL want a Vic-centric FTA schedule because that's the biggest market, and they want to push Foxtel games onto FTA in NSW and Qld where no one cares. Channel 7 want 3 games most weeks with select others, Foxtel settle for all 9 with 4-5 exclusive. If Foxtel had their way they would have exclusive rights to all games and all finals which is no different to when they had the A-League and Super Rugby - but is unpalatable to footy fans who have had FTA coverage for 50 years.

Make no mistake about it Channel 7 doesn't care about Perth (or Adelaide) footy fans. If it wasn't for Foxtel pressure Channel 7 would still have Friday Night Footy starting at 8.30pm after the game has finished. All they really care about is having WC and Freo content because that gets ratings. Friday night footy at 5.50pm on 7Mate and Sydney vs Brisbane at 1.20pm on a Sunday aren't ratings winners.

 

[My_Username]

The current arrangement certainly works for viewers in Victoria, since almost every game on FTA involves at least one Victorian team. 36 Vic vs Vic, 39
Vic vs Non-Vic, 1 non-Vic vs non-Vic.

Catch-22

Vic clubs only get on FTA into their own market if they're on the 'national' games.

Non Vic clubs get on FTA into their own market all the time.

 

[Coolangatta]

First thing I'd do as CEO is give Tassie a provisional licence to enter the competition when they have a new stadium in Hobart, regardless of what the club presidents say.

Second, I'd get some feedback from the good people of BigFooty on what rules to scrap.

The third thing I'd do is have everyone play each other once before anyone plays each other twice (reversing the fixtures every year).

Number four is all games would be live on free-to-air all across the country, shared by two broadcasters.

 

[calculon559]

First thing I'd do as CEO is give Tassie a provisional licence to enter the competition when they have a new stadium in Hobart, regardless of what the club presidents say.

Second, I'd get some feedback from the good people of BigFooty on what rules to scrap.

The third thing I'd do is have everyone play each other once before anyone plays each other twice (reversing the fixtures every year).

Number four is all games would be live on free-to-air all across the country, shared by two broadcasters.

Make it three broadcasters and you've got a deal

 

[Scotland]

Number four is all games would be live on free-to-air all across the country, shared by two broadcasters.

This would conservatively reduce the value of the TV rights deal by $100m a year.

 

[theyellowsash]

Would this effect the integrity of the draw, if the clubs are missing from the fta deal surely they're less likely to get the prime spots?

dont think it effects the integrity of the draw, this would just change when games are played not who and where. for a general footy fan it would be a stupid idea though, although i can see why the broadcasters dont want to spend money broadcasting fremantle vs gold coast into melbourne on a friday night.