Play Nice 2020 Non AFL Admin, Crowds, Ratings, Participation etc thread

Remove this Banner Ad

You need to weigh the ability to pay the money that athletes believe they are worth. FTA is not the money tree it was once & there are few signs anything is changing there.
In Australia the problems of FTA is not recognised by the multitude of fans who want top level sport for nothing.
that's not a huge issue. Last time I checked, the Australian cricketers get a share of the revenue.
 
Money is not everything. Ask anyone in England how Sky's monopoly has done to cricket in England. There is nothing wrong with pay tv. But a balance needs to be maintained. 500K watching pay-tv is fantastic. But if that was on FTA, people would be calling it the death of cricket.

I don't think 9\10's offer was that bad. 900 mil over 6 years, 150 a year for FTA coverage, with clearly defined boundaries on who gets what. And 10 did a very good job promoting the BBL. 30 mil a year is quite a lot but I don't think it was worth the lawyers or bad press and lack of coverage for the "common" man.
And if Fox actually had a monopoly on cricket in Australia, your example of Sky/England wouldn't be utterly asinine. Why don't you make a vaguely accurate comparison... tell us all about how the AFL is going down the drain because less-than-half of its games are on FTA?

Ten did a good job of using the BBL to promote its jungle and cooking shows. CA is responsible for turning the BBL into a juggernaut by getting it so much FTA exposure (which they are continuing to do). Not sure why you're assuming the lawyers and bad press wouldn't be happening if Nine and Ten held on to the rights, very naive.

The current FTA arrangement for each season is made up of 4-6 Tests, 45 BBL games, 6-12 women's internationals and 24 WBBL games. And there's also men's and women's World Cups as well as away Ashes series. A tonne of cricket for the common man. If that offering is not good enough for somebody, they're either a diehard or a snob.
 
And if Fox actually had a monopoly on cricket in Australia, your example of Sky/England wouldn't be utterly asinine. Why don't you make a vaguely accurate comparison... tell us all about how the AFL is going down the drain because less-than-half of its games are on FTA?

Ten did a good job of using the BBL to promote its jungle and cooking shows. CA is responsible for turning the BBL into a juggernaut by getting it so much FTA exposure (which they are continuing to do). Not sure why you're assuming the lawyers and bad press wouldn't be happening if Nine and Ten held on to the rights, very naive.

The current FTA arrangement for each season is made up of 4-6 Tests, 45 BBL games, 6-12 women's internationals and 24 WBBL games. And there's also men's and women's World Cups as well as away Ashes series. A tonne of cricket for the common man. If that offering is not good enough for somebody, they're either a diehard or a snob.
and no ODI, a complete pay-TV monopoly on that.

And the BBL only grew on c.10. beforehand, it was on pay-tv for 2-3 years, and hardly anyone cared. a couple of years later, they got 80K for one match.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

and no ODI, a complete pay-TV monopoly on that.

And the BBL only grew on c.10. beforehand, it was on pay-tv for 2-3 years, and hardly anyone cared. a couple of years later, they got 80K for one match.

10 took it off pay because of its earning capacity, from the advertisers. Its a good example of the changing landscape of sports media rights.
 
and no ODI, a complete pay-TV monopoly on that.
I've already pointed out that the most meaningful ODIs remain on FTA.
And the BBL only grew on c.10. beforehand, it was on pay-tv for 2-3 years, and hardly anyone cared. a couple of years later, they got 80K for one match.
Yes, several years ago CA made the strategic decision to prioritise Tests and BBL in its home summer scheduling over ODIs and T20Is. Not an especially groundbreaking assertion but glad to agree on something.
 
and no ODI, a complete pay-TV monopoly on that.

And the BBL only grew on c.10. beforehand, it was on pay-tv for 2-3 years, and hardly anyone cared. a couple of years later, they got 80K for one match.

Bullshit, it rated its arse off on Fox. That's what got FTA interested in the BBL in the first place.
 
Bullshit, it rated its arse off on Fox. That's what got FTA interested in the BBL in the first place.
I whole 200k-300k(guessing) That is very impressive figures until you consider that FTA figures were 3x that.

It's reach to the general population was limited and that showed in the attendance figures. From the 2nd year, average attendance were around 14k, attendance would grow by 4-5k a year to reach a max of 30k. Ten took the contract in the 3rd year. I know my interest in the league grew once it was shown every night at 7.

No league in this country can gain mainstream popularity if it is locked away in a paywall for 30% of the population (or whatever that figure is nowadays) . Not at the moment anyway. And before you say it, the AFL has a large amount of programming on FTA.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 
'Interesting article on Aunty over crickets travails with 7/FTA:

Yet it was only a few weeks ago that it seemed cricket would be broadcast at knifepoint this season with reluctant TV networks attempting to wriggle out of water-tight contracts or demanding considerable discounts.

The obvious assumption was that Seven and Fox Sports were suffering a severe case of buyer's remorse for their combined six-year $1.182 billion deal and were using the cover of COVID-19 to abandon the game.

Seven's chief executive James Warburton, particularly, used the blunt instrument of inflammatory and even insulting statements toward CA in order to argue Seven could not have been handed worse content if Australia played a nine-Test series against Angola.'
 
The Australian J. Stenshalt 1.12

Stenshalt writes that the NRL has emerged from covid in a FAR better financial position ("stunning result") than many originally believed in the early months of covid- with a net NRL loss of only c.$20m (up to 1.11, so not counting lucrative SOO gate sales etc.; but includes income from crowds up to & inc. the NRL GF).

(I'm not sure if this $20m net loss includes the losses of the 16 NRL clubs also- probably not).

NRL revenues dropped from $528m in 2019, to c. $400m in 2020. The NRL was helped by an unexpected c. $8m -$10m in extra "wagering revenues" .

Rights were down c. $50m, after covid reductions by Nine & Foxtel. The NRL did not use its Line Of Credit.

(Scroll to Sports Industry Twitter 1.12- then click on "The Australian J. Stensholt Tsunami Of Gambling Revenues Swamps NRL Finances".

This is a superb result for the NRL- SOO profits not included!
Gaming appears to have been its saviour, again.

The AFL had to spend c. $60m on hub costs- NRL far less.
 
Last edited:

Supposedly the deal on the table is £75m ($135m) to purchase 50% of the Super League. That's $135m not being spent on grassroots investment or in promoting the NRL in Australia. I really don't see the benefit to the NRL considering the sum of money involved.
 
That's $135m not being spent on grassroots investment or in promoting the NRL in Australia.

That's undoubtedly true.

I really don't see the benefit to the NRL considering the sum of money involved.

I don't see how investing in a lower league will enhance, promote or propel the NRL forward
but I do see it as a security fallback option - much like a retirement home for NRL players.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The Australian J. Stenshalt 1.12

Stenshalt writes that the NRL has emerged from covid in a FAR better financial position ("stunning result") than many originally believed in the early months of covid- with a net NRL loss of only c.$20m (up to 1.11, so not counting lucrative SOO gate sales etc.; but includes income from crowds up to & inc. the NRL GF).

(I'm not sure if this $20m net loss includes the losses of the 16 NRL clubs also- probably not).

NRL revenues dropped from $528m in 2019, to c. $400m in 2020. The NRL was helped by an unexpected c. $8m -$10m in extra "wagering revenues" .

Rights were down c. $50m, after covid reductions by Nine & Foxtel. The NRL did not use its Line Of Credit.

(Scroll to Sports Industry Twitter 1.12- then click on "The Australian J. Stensholt Tsunami Of Gambling Revenues Swamps NRL Finances".

This is a superb result for the NRL- SOO profits not included!
Gaming appears to have been its saviour, again.

The AFL had to spend c. $60m on hub costs- NRL far less.
You would think the NRL would have to save more money as they have far less players to cover plus all the Victorian AFL clubs had to go into hubs a for a lot longer than the few NRL clubs that went into hubs.
I'm not worried at all as the AFL will bounce back next year if the virus is kept at bay!
 
Last edited:

Supposedly the deal on the table is £75m ($135m) to purchase 50% of the Super League. That's $135m not being spent on grassroots investment or in promoting the NRL in Australia. I really don't see the benefit to the NRL considering the sum of money involved.
 
I can't say I really understand why you'd sell off the league itself. To look at it from an AFL lens, the league takes in revenue, and ultimately either spends it in the interests of the game or distributes it back to clubs. If the AFL had a private owner, then presumably that owner would look to get a return from either cutting expenditure at lower levels, cutting distributions to clubs, or (most likely) both. So of the AFL privatised, they'd effectively be selling off future income for a lump sum now. Which, if clubs' past behaviour is any indication, would be pissed up against the wall and in a few years all the clubs are getting less.

Now I realise Super League is a slightly different setup - I believe all clubs are privately owned for starters. But surely the principle is the same - money is effectively going to be stripped by the league owners to the detriment of the clubs. They're selling future revenue for a lump sum now. Unless they thing the whole league is on a high and is about to take a dive, why sell? It just seems like a complete lack of confidence in the league itself. They'd rather take money now instead of a larger share of money going forward - which seems to me like they think the money going forward isn't going to be all that much.
 
1. SMH V. Rugari 10.12

Chinese lighting magnate & Jets' owner, M. Lee, has bailed out on the Newcastle Jets (who, IIRC, have recent debts of c. $3m).

The A League clubs, in a novel approach, will probably take full control & ownership of their "rival club". They will seek a long term new owner.




2. Melb. City is moving all its teams & HQ to Casey Fields (54 kms from CBD), Cranbourne, in the SE, from 2022. City also might build seating for 4k. It will also build new soccer grounds & training facilities etc. there. Four soccer grounds already there, available to be used by City.


City (owned by Mid Eastern oil interests) has spent c. $15m on its synthetic training fields etc, training facilities, & HQ at Bundoora (mid NS).


Will there be any problems (parking etc.) if AFLW & A League games are played there concurrently?



3. Re R. Slater on 14.12

"He said he is unsurprised by the dearth of Australian talent in Europe's top leagues"; & he suggested all these Aust. players struggling to get game time in Europe (apart from the only regular player, M. Ryan at Brighton) should return to the A League, to get game time.

Has the time passed when many Aust. soccer players are good enough to play in the top 5 Leagues in Europe?

It would be a big boost for the A League/higher skill standards/ratings/crowds etc. if they all returned- but many struggling players prefer to switch to the Middle East or Asia, for higher $ than the A League could pay.




4. SMH V. Rugari 14.12.20


Gloom for the A League again in 2021?
 
Last edited:
Only thing soccer in Australia has mastered is shooting itself in the foot over and over again.
 
The media rights issues in cricket continue.

'It will be up to the Federal Court to decide whether Channel 7 should be allowed access to confidential documents and correspondence between Cricket Australia, the Indian Cricket Board, State Governments and Fox Sports.


Channel 7 filed an affidavit to the Federal Court a fortnight ago to start a ‘pre-discovery’ process, with its head of sport Lewis Martin outlining his belief that Cricket Australia had breached its contract with the free-to-air network.

The broadcaster is claiming it was CA’s subservience to India and inducements from State Governments, not COVID-19, which drastically altered the summer schedule.

Cricket Australia vehemently denies those allegations, and the Tasmanian State Government has come out and denied any financial inducements were provided to start the Big Bash in Tasmania, with the head of Tasmanian Cricket describing Channel 7 as “Trump like”.'


Makes me wonder about the international finance arrangements for the coverage, specifically India?
 
1. SMH V. Rugari 10.12

Chinese lighting magnate & Jets' owner, M. Lee, has bailed out on the Newcastle Jets (who, IIRC, have recent debts of c. $3m).

The A League clubs, in a novel approach, will probably take full control & ownership of their "rival club". They will seek a long term new owner.




2. Melb. City is moving all its teams & HQ to Casey Fields (54 kms from CBD), Cranbourne, in the SE, from 2022. City also might build seating for 4k. It will also build new soccer grounds & training facilities etc. there. Four soccer grounds already there, available to be used by City.


City (owned by Mid Eastern oil interests) has spent c. $15m on its synthetic training fields etc, training facilities, & HQ at Bundoora (mid NS).


Will there be any problems (parking etc.) if AFLW & A League games are played there concurrently?



3. Re R. Slater on 14.12

"He said he is unsurprised by the dearth of Australian talent in Europe's top leagues"; & he suggested all these Aust. players struggling to get game time in Europe (apart from the only regular player, M. Ryan at Brighton) should return to the A League, to get game time.

Has the time passed when many Aust. soccer players are good enough to play in the top 5 Leagues in Europe?

It would be a big boost for the A League/higher skill standards/ratings/crowds etc. if they all returned- but many struggling players prefer to switch to the Middle East or Asia, for higher $ than the A League could pay.




4. SMH V. Rugari 14.12.20


Gloom for the A League again in 2021?
I honestly don't know this, but are there any Aussies who are regular starters for any of the 5 top leagues in Europe? and by the top league i mean, England. Italy. Spain France, Germany.
 
I honestly don't know this, but are there any Aussies who are regular starters for any of the 5 top leagues in Europe? and by the top league i mean, England. Italy. Spain France, Germany.

Matt Ryan. That's it I think. Leckie plays in the Bundesliga, but I'm pretty sure he's not a regular starter.

We might have had a couple more if we weren't part of Asia. Australians can make more money as a top player in an Asian league as opposed to being a mediocre player in Europe.
 
Seems the long disputed issues between the A-League clubs & the FFA (is now FA?) MIGHT be resolved:


'The A-League has secured its independence from Football Australia.
FA and the newly formed Australian Professional Leagues on Thursday confirmed the “unbundling” of A-League, W-League and Y-League from the sport’s national governing body.

While APL will run the operational, commercial, and marketing control of the three leagues, FA will retain regulatory functions, including disciplinary and integrity matters, the registration of clubs, players and officials, the transfer system, and the domestic match calendar.'


APL chairman Paul Lederer said:
“It’s now time to earn and deliver the future our game deserves,”
“The handbrake on the game is off. Owners can finally invest in what they own and create value for the entire footballing ecosystem.

“Players can plan their careers in Australian football, fans can reconnect with the game that they love, and clubs can create meaningful moments for the whole Australian football family.”

.....

'FFA chief executive James Johnson said: We have been able to create a unique model which draws upon global best practice whilst allowing for local specificities.

“Significantly, the model establishes a framework for a strong partnership between Football Australia and the APL which recognises the value of a thriving domestic professional league to the ongoing growth of the game in Australia.”

The APL board will be made up of five directors from clubs, three independent directors, and one FA-appointed person.
A FA-ratified independent chair ...... will have a casting vote on the APL board.'



For soccer in Australia I hope it succeeds but ....
 
Out of interest, what was stopping owners investing in their club anyway? Were the FFA ripping a share of the gate out or something like that?

The FFA owned the IP of all clubs, had control over other related aspects, applied a heavy hand on sponsors, clubs could not use any sponsor that the FFA already had for HQ, and, perhaps most significantly, for a long time, clubs thought HQ was taking too much of the consolidated revenue, which they felt were driving almost 100% (which they were).
That was the genesis of the governance revolution a few years back.
Clubs now have a lot more control, will probably take a bigger cut of the cake, and clearly that bigger cut is going to come from things like funding for grassroots.
The song remains the same.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top