AFL on 9 and Foxtel

[Arch]

I assume you've all read this story at AFl.com.au ???

I quote:
"The deal would mean fewer live AFL games would be seen on free-to-air television and more on pay because of the Nine Network's other programming commitments, especially rugby league, the newspaper said."

Well isnt that just f*cking dandy ????

Nine in conjunction with Fox, wants the rights, but just so long as it doesnt interfere with their rugby commitments.

Which sport was Australias most popular again ???

Someone remind me ????


A.

For those too lazy to click favourites- afl.com.au- etc etc................
http://www.afl.com.au/news/story_204035.htm

 

[CJ]

If thats ch. 9 opinion on AFL - AUSTRALIA'S MOST POPULAR SPORT, them stuff 'em.

I never thought I would say this but I hope the AFL stick with ch. 7. At least they know their onto a winner!!

O.K. Lets have a raising of hands:

Who here cares about Rugby league??
*CJ sits on his hands*

 

[Arch]

oh the other thing-

if the AFL gets 100 Million for the rights, is that distributed amongst the clubs or does the AFL take its slice out of it, and then distribute ????

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

NOT HAPPY JAN

I always knew this was going to happen - I hope the AFL stick with Seven, I hate them with a passion but now it seems that they will be the lesser of two evils.

I really can't see Nine getting the nod though, as I have said earlier, Channel Nine is Rugby League through and through, they wouldn't have a clue about broadcasting Aussie Rules.

cheers

 

[Shinboners]

On radio this morning, the rumour was that the deal would see Channel 9 showing one game on Friday night and all other games being available only on Foxtel.

As for the money, don't believe that it will go into helping clubs survive. The money will go to the same place as it did when huge amounts of money were pumped into European soccer and Australian rugby league...it will go into the pockets of the players.

 

[CJH]

Arch,

This is interesting on a number of fronts.

1. Free to air television as we know it is dying. In the few years since the advent of Pay TV in this country, people are becoming used to having far greater choice and flexibility in their viewing habits. I believe that in the USA and UK, Pay TV is now stronger than the Free To Air equivalent. Perhaps StealthBomber or someone who has recently been in the UK would like to comment further on this.

Regardless, the Free To Air channels must adapt or they will die. This is why Channel 7 are building new digital studios at the back of the Dockland stadium.

2. If you have Foxtel - as it is now available nationally in some shape or form, either by cable or satelite - this would work out quite well. I have Foxtel satellite and I also like watching a bit of Rugby League. I know how Channel 9 treat Melbourne with contempt wrt to showing league but the Foxtel / Ch 9 combination actually works pretty well. I can actually watch every League game over a weekend if I so chose.

3. The recent Carlton / AFL joust regarding TV and Internet rights has shown that the owners of the venues actually own the rights to the images being shown from that arena.
Consider this: Channel 7 are a significant stakeholder in Colonial Stadium They control the rights to what is shown from there. (This is the principal reason, until recently, why the Melbourne Storm were precluded from playing there)

The sale of the next TV rights is considered by all to be the Golden Goose that will save all the clubs from financial destitution. But will this come to pass? Probably yes, but not until Carlton (Optus Oval), the MCC and whoever the owners of the other league venues have taken their cut.

As a side issue, is this one of the reasons why the AFL has been rationalising the number of venues used? Limiting their liability?

My own feeling is that the TV rights will be too big for any one entity to own and they will be split between Channel 7 / 9 and Optus / Foxtel.

Irrespective, you will need pay TV to take the full benefit of it.

------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.

 

[Shinboners]

I've just looked on one of the news sites and it's been announced that channel 7 has asked the ACCC to investigate the joint bid by 9 and Foxtel for the football rights. The ACCC is able to launch an investigation under the premise that the combined bid is an abuse of "market power" by channel 9 and Foxtel.

People who follow the ACCC know that this could tie up any potential bid by C9 and Foxtel by at least 12 months if they do a full investigation.

 

[elt]

There is an article in the Financial Review about it too ...
http://www.afr.com.au/premium/australia/2000/11/10/FFXM2OEWBFC.html

This throws another spanner in the works with rumours of Nine's rugby league being taken over by Ten to allow Nine to broadcast AFL on Friday nights and Sundays.

the plot thickens....

 

[InTheBack!]

If the AFL can create a bidding war & get 7 & 9 to bid up against each other mabye we will have better footy on the tele. Footy costs nothing to broadcast, some tired on footy hacks to commentate & 4 cameras - & it returns great ratings, so I think it is a great cash cow for 7 at the moment & they should be willing to bend a bit if they want to keep it.

I understand the AFL is keen to use their leverage to ensure more big key games are shown live. This is a big problem in Brisbane where Friday & sat night footy Lions away matches are shown at 11-12 at night. The 5th highest rating program for Ch 7 in QLD in 1999 was the live Roos/Lions final at the MCG. You would expect that Ch 7 would show more night matches after that sort of rating - but no we get 1970's z grade movies & other crap.

I wonder how confident anyone would be about the uptake of subscribers to pay TV.

I know there have been reports that Pay TV has not made the inroads into Rugby League that they expected due to the resistance by working class people to subscribe due to the $$$ involved.

I think the pay TV market is to small & immature in Aust, which is why free to air is still going strong.

I cannot see the AFL accepting any deal that does not involve extensive free to air.

If they do well they are fools & I will not be plugging in the cable - I will be listening to the ABC radio coverage!

 

[RICE80SF]

HA HA HA aint that fitting, "Heavyweight" Channel Ten to televise Rugby. Surely their too big, I think Channel 31 would be more appropriate

.

I agree about 7 & 9/Fox, it's a bit like the US Presidential candidates they'll both screw you, it's just who'll use the Vasceline.?

Cheers

 

[CJH]

ITB,

The current limitation of free to air is that it is limited to showing only one thing at a time. It is in their interests to program something that they believe will appeal to the greatest number of people. Unfortunately they believe that the Z grade movie will attract more viewers than a live Lions game.

Yes, the Pay TV market is immature in Australia and the uptake has been slow but as people get used to the idea that they don't have to watch the Z grade movie, there will increased subscription to Pay TV. With increased patronage and competition, the cost will decrease. Also, the cost of Pay TV will be in part subsidised by advertising on their channels.

The fact that uptake is slow is irrelevant in the long term. Cultural change will occur. Just remember, when ATM's were first introduced, there was many people who were reluctant to use them. Now I can't think of the last time I actually spoke to a teller.

------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.

 

[elt]

lmao@rice
The other question is would Rugby League actually outrate the goldfish on Ch 31

[This message has been edited by elt (edited 10 November 2000).]

 

[Arch]

CJH,
the point about Colonial Stadium is interesting especially. How will 9 fare when theyre trying to broadcast Colonial games , when channel 7 is virtually the owner of the "images" ??? Will 9 have to pay 7 compensation- and will that money have come from what the AFL (and its clubs) might have got ???

I think the rationalisation of the venues is a good point too.
I would think the stadium owners would be happy enough to have a money generating, crowd pulling event being regularly "staged" at their ground, without having to try and score the rights to the "images" which come out of it. Rightfully, the AFL should be owners of all images, footage, pictures, sound etc, that its game creates, and ditribute profits to its clubs from what it makes out of them. I mean why should the MCC, Carlton "social" club and other groups get a cut of what rightfully belongs to the game and the clubs. Why are their interests more important than the financial welfare of the game itself, when its that game which is lining their pockets.

 

[FreoRules]

This is an interesting development in the game and one which could have far reaching implications.

Firstly, outside of the major cities and even in some cities it is extremely difficult to get AFL so if everyone in Australia can't get it does this again create the city is better mentality and the east coast is better.

Have a think about which markets are the most important in Australia and it will be Sydney everytime. Because of this, AFL will be shown at ridiculous times like the ARL is shown at the moment.

If 9/Foxtel get the rights, it will be the end of football coverage as we know it.

Besides all that, do you really think that the AFL will just give it to one station.

Mark my words, the AFL will give the majority of Colonial Stadium games to Channel 9 and leave Channel 7 to the rest. Channel7 will gain rights from owning the stadium and the AFL can use both stations to up the bidding.

As for the players getting a higher proportion of the money, this will cause some very ugly scenes similar to what happened in USA with NBA and baseball. Players will want a percentage of the gate while the clubs will continue to struggle. Because the clubs are not privately owned in most cases it will cause some serious problems, especially with agents looking to get a higher percentage of the money.

I think that the end of the AFL as we know it if Channel 9/ Foxtel get the votes. Look at the decimation that 9 has done to all the sports that it has had. Mind you, 7 killed off soccer in this country but that was to keep AFL foremost in ppl's minds. I am happy with the 6 games a week coverage given by 7 and would be disappointed if it went to 9.

A mix would be reasonable but they will both want finals and Friday night footy, the others are just irrelevant.

 

[Grendel]

Very scary thought, pay tv is still a very small percentage of viewers in this country. Growing though it is. If as someone else suggested in another thread that Lachlan Murdoch is ready to cut his losses on Rugby and the spiralling debt that they are now taking at Newcorp over it. Will they then target (you would assume so) AFL as their national pay tv/sports generating audience?

It may be the way of the future, but gee the future is looking bleak.

 

[CJH]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel:
Melbourne Storm are not well managed
They exist not because they make a profit, they exist because because News Limited finance them to the tune of 10 million every year.

Just on that - News Limited have sunk a truly staggering 600 MILLION DOLLARS into Rugby League since 1995 - with no end in sight.

I understand that Lachlan Murdoch has looked at the figures and doesn't like what he sees - News Limited is giving very serious thought to the idea of pulling out of Rugby League alltogether quite simply because they are sick and tired of throwing good money after bad.

If Murdoch is tipping in so much money into League as suggested by BSA AND is not happy about it AND is prepared (along with Packer) to bid for the AFL rights, then this has even greater implications for the viability of League. If Murdoch cans his support of League, then they are up the creak sans paddle.

FreoRules, I have to disagree with you on a few points:

• There is no way that Packer / Murdoch would tip in $100 million a year just to consign it to the backburner. They would be using this as leverage into obtaing greater market size / share in Pay TV. There is no doubt that Free to Air would suffer as a consequnce of this.
• Channel 7 have an interest in Colonial Stadium in order to protect themselves wrt AFL TV rights. Regardless of what happens, Channel 7 will cover games out of Colonial.
• As you suggest, the players will get a bigger share of the revenue. Indeed this is already happening with the recent rises in the salary cap. At least we have the salary cap mechanism in place as a means to check this.
• Clubs do not exist to be necessarily profitable. They more so need to be viable. As long as the clubs are getting enough revenue to cover their expenses, increased player / manager expenses should not be a major concern. Remember that the salary cap is only at about 30% of the average revenue for clubs.

I would suggest that the AFL will negotiate to protect themselves regardless of who wins the TV rights war.

You are right when you suggest that this will have far reaching implications. This is probably the single biggest issue that the AFL has faced, and it could either make or break the game.

There is the danger that Channel 9 or 7 will overcommitt themselves and find that the Australian marketplace is not big enough to provide them with the necessary returns.

------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.

 

[Guest]

Well well well what a dilemma we have here what does the AFL do:

A, Take the 100m giving it to a network(s) which have a genuine bias towards rugby league and have the game diminshed even further in the 2 states which the AFL is so keen to conquer, which is of course is one of the main points in any new contract as the AFL continually says - expanding the game in the northern states.

OR

B, Take significantly less money and pray that a network which has been in some areas of it's coverage appalling improves to a level which the AFL is satisfied(not likely).

With the AFL the most popular sport in this country it is in a very strong position and should use this to get what they want and not give in.

As this is the most important decision in the league's history they better get it right.

 

[Tim_in_Philly]

It seems to me it is pretty simple for Channel 9 and Foxtel. If they win the rights to the AFL and keep the rights to rugby league then they'll work to their markets. In Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide you'll see as many AFL games as ever because that is what rates there. In Sydney and Brisbane there will be basically no AFL games on 9 but many most/all will be shown on Foxtel so if you want to watch the AFL (a minority sport in that market) you need cable. Similarly, RL will be shown on 9 in Sydney and Brisbane where it rates very highly and people outside NSW and Qld will be only able to watch RL on cable (as it is a minority sport in that market).

From the network point of view it is much more attractive than currently where 7 tries to convince Sydney and Brisbane to watch AFL while 9 tries to convince Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth to watch RL.

 

[Max Power]

We went through this argument in a thread weeks ago, but I'll stick by my prediction then.

That the AFL will split the FTA rights between 7/9 and Foxtel will get the PTV rights.

Friday Night - 7
Saturday Afternoon - Vic Based Games - Fox
Saturday Night - 9
Sunday Afternoon - Vic Based Games - Fox
- Interstate Games - 7
Replay all all games - Fox
Grand Final to alternate between 7 & 9 each year.

Strange bit I heard on one of the news services yesterday was that the 9/Fox bid included the purchase of Waverley. Why bother?

Footnote - In the NFL in the US out of 15/16 games per week only 1 game is broadcast on pay tv.

 

[Gayle]

Channel 10 for me.
Then up here in Queensland we actually might get some live footy. It does rate up here, we just never get it live.
5th highest ratings of all shows in 1999.

 

[CJH]

Tim In Philly,

The RL half of your scenario is already in place with 2 Live games each weekend and every other game replayed at least twice.

It is also fair to say that if Channel 9 are attempting to convert Melbourne to Rugby League then they are not trying to hard! I guess they are focusing their strategy on those who watch TV after midnight!

Max Power,

The decision to also offer to buy Waverley seems to be initially very smart for two reasons.

Recently Waverley Park was listed as a heritage building which would make it very hard for the AFL to sell. If it is bundled up with TV rights, then the AFL can be rid of it quite easily.

Secondly, refer to the recent point I made yesterday about the owner of the ground owning the rights of the images coming out of the ground. If Channel 9 own Waverley, then they would be able to tart it up, play AFL matches there and have exclusive ownership of the images of those games. This becomes similar to the Channel 7 / Docklands scenario.

------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.

[This message has been edited by CJH (edited 11 November 2000).]

 

[Mags]

I want foxtel to have the pay tv rights! Who buys optus vison for there shows? No One! They buy it only coz it has footy on it! That would be the only reason i would get or want optus!

The rights will go to whoever pays wants to pay the most money. Ch 9 bid more they will get the rigths coz the afl are gready and want as much money as possible! Just so Wayne Jackson can have a sallary increase!

On Waverley if Channel 9 purchase's it i think it would be a pretty good idea not a stuipd one.
Channel 7 arent going to let 9 use colonial for much longer now I can tell!

Channel 9 will probably do Waverley up as well to make it a state of the art stadium!

 

[Aussie_Roo]

Everyone is forgetting the main point here, if Channel 9 get the footy rights, it will mean another 'Eddie Show' which translates to more publicity for Collingwood....

Noway, as bad as Channel 7 is in their coverage, I'd rather much listen Bruce go one about his special moments than having another show with Eddie shoving Collingwood down our throats.

 

[Mags]

Comments this year by Channel Seven managing director David Aspinall when he said he believed there was too much free-to-air football and that the station would look to reduce it in the future. Channel Seven was also the driving force behind the huge reduction in live Ansett Australia Cup coverage next season cutting coverage from 27 games to as few as 11.

Man i dont think Channel 7 really need the afl with comments like this. This tv rights thing should make soccer australia very intersted and quite happy.

Mags
Black And White Forever

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

"Pig's Arse"

Sorry but that would be the standard Carlton retort.

This is not "typical Carlton arrogance" but we own Princ....um, I mean OPTUS oval right?
OPTUS have C7 right? Channel 7 provide for C7 right?

May be a fly in the AFL/9/Foxtel ointment yet again.

I hope so. I don't want to watch edited highlights at Midnight. 9 have already done it to League. They just want the monopoly and then when they are the only sports providers, we can't go elsewhere no matter what they serve up to us.