You're advocating favourable scheduling for Vic clubs because there's too many Vic clubs?
The Victorian Fixture Favoritism thread
- Thread starter The_Wookie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
You're advocating favourable scheduling for Vic clubs because there's too many Vic clubs?
telsor
Hall of Famer
So let me get this straight - because there are too many Victorian clubs to guarantee FTA access in their home market, you want other teams - and consequently the bulk of other supporters in those states - to get penalised?
That's like saying schools should penalise the students that get better marks to make it fair for the other kids.
telsor
Hall of Famer
That's cool, but i'm sure you'd accept that is the reason why all Victorian teams can't have FTA coverage in Victoria every week.
Guaranteed exclusive national coverage in the highest rating slot that AFL games are played. Seems to be good for crowds as well.
It's no coincidence that GWS played their first Friday night game and they achieved their highest national audience for a regular season game ever.
telsor
Hall of Famer
I understand the why, but it could be done. The AFL could insist that they all get shown on FTA as part of the deal, like they do in other states. 7mate becomes 7AFL for the weekend...Instead, most weekends are like this one..3 matches, showing a total of 4 local teams. (nb. As wookie's TV stats have shown over the years, Vic gets fewer FTA games in total than other WA & SA).
That would make the Vic clubs more money from sponsors, etc. but of course that would cost the league money in the broadcast deal, so once again the league puts it's interests ahead of those of Vic clubs, costing the Vic clubs money (that you would doubtless scream about if any compensation was given), while Vic fans are putting in disproportionately to support the league (Foxtel would pay more knowing Vics need it to see their clubs play).
So currently, you get guaranteed exclusive coverage in your local market 22 times + some shown in other states and a few national.
Vic clubs get....about half a dozen televised at all (on average), some of which are national.
Without doing the maths on total potential viewers per year, pretty sure you get the better deal already, but you still want to change it so that you get an even better deal. The fact that most Vic clubs are on FTA outside of Vic more than they are inside shows just how crappy the situation is.
The other aspect is, most in WA tend to dislike night games from the eastern states because the timezones make it for a crappy timeslot in WA....So really, you're wanting a WORSE deal for WA fans, just because you want to screw Vic clubs (even more).
10 wont be offering for the next rights deal, FTA a diminishing money spinner e.g cricket:
With their current $500 million deal with Cricket Australia expiring next year, the broadcaster is reportedly negotiating another five-year deal but financial analysts UBS isn't so sure it's the right move.
"The existing cricket deal costs Nine circa $100 million per annum,” UBS media analyst Eric Choi wrote in a note to clients.
"We estimate the existing deal likely only generates gross revenues of $60-$70 million.
"We think it would seem logical for Nine to enter negotiations with the following mindset: i) more cricket content at no additional cost, or ii) to step away from the cricket contract."
http://www.sportingnews.com/au/cric...australia-big-bash/1hatr2325opwr18oxa5oawn13e
Not mention supply of the product.
You're realistically asking for 7 to cannibalise their own audience by broadcasting multiple games at the same time?
I mean seriously......sometimes I reckon you paint yourself into a corner with some of the stuff you claim and the only way for you to defend it is to come up with ridiculous scenarios that have literally zero chance of happening.
OK, so let's analyse the only possible realistic outcome here - that being no club gets specific local market coverage and the same game is scheduled on FTA nationally.
Suddenly Channel 7's priorities in regard to their preferred game now changes. I'm sure you'd acknowledge that because 7 knows it can broadcast local teams to local markets, it chooses games based on prospective appeal to Melbourne audiences. The last 2 weeks have been a good example on Saturday night - 7 went with the North game both weeks over 2 derbies that it knew it could screen locally anyway. No way 7 is picking the North game if they have to screen the same game nationally. So there's 2 less FTA games for North right there.
With greater national focus, the end result is the Vic teams are worse off because 7 are less likely to choose the game that appeals to Victorians. But you're happy because the non Vic teams are also worse off because they don't get local coverage for all their games.
Utterly perverse logic. You're simply cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Then there is the issue of money, revenue for 7 to offset their contribution to footy - advertisers target audiences so dud ratings in any market are reflected in the rates 7 can charge ..... its a bit more complex than motherhood claims.
The AFL over successive broadcast agreements has deliberately and substantially reduced the number of FTA matches from 5 out of 8 to 3.5 out of 9 to increase total revenue for the League (and all the clubs). This has had only a minor effect on non-Vic clubs but has substantially reduced the exposure of the Vic clubs as a whole especially in their home market.
The Mediaweek ratings tweets which we are seeing overall show how critical the Melbourne (and presumably the Vic regional market) is to Foxtel and why they now pay far more to have all of these exclusive games.
I haven't been collating the stats but Melbourne is very regularly (the WA Derby yesterday was a rare exception) contributing well over half the number of Foxtel metro viewers. Even the Bris v Port match yesterday had 54% (79/145) of Metro viewers in Melbourne despite no Victorian team being involved.
The overall reduction of FTA matches to secure more revenue for the League (through creating Foxtel subscribers in Victoria) means that there is a strong case for Vic clubs to have greater access to the available FTA matches (and that includes Friday nights) than non-Vic clubs.
The Mediaweek ratings tweets which we are seeing overall show how critical the Melbourne (and presumably the Vic regional market) is to Foxtel and why they now pay far more to have all of these exclusive games.
I haven't been collating the stats but Melbourne is very regularly (the WA Derby yesterday was a rare exception) contributing well over half the number of Foxtel metro viewers. Even the Bris v Port match yesterday had 54% (79/145) of Metro viewers in Melbourne despite no Victorian team being involved.
The overall reduction of FTA matches to secure more revenue for the League (through creating Foxtel subscribers in Victoria) means that there is a strong case for Vic clubs to have greater access to the available FTA matches (and that includes Friday nights) than non-Vic clubs.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #62
66% of Foxtel metro viewers are in Melbourne. Most of the regionals will be Victorian as well. For FTA its 51% of metro, with regionals about 70% Victorian.
Seven are paying $900m and Foxtel $1300m over the six year deal.
Victorians are obviously bludgers and have too many teams in the League.
As a Western Australian the anti-vic chips on both my shoulders are as big as anyones, but I never ascribe anything to a conspiracy where money is involved.
The AFL like money. They Like it alot.
This is likely to be the driver of any decision way before anything else.
The AFL like money. They Like it alot.
This is likely to be the driver of any decision way before anything else.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Huh?
What about this realistic outcome.
Non Vic clubs get FTA access into their local market for all their games, and Vic clubs get priority access to the 'big' games/timeslots to partially make up for being shafted.
If Non Vic clubs want equal access to such timeslots, they can pay for them. (well, actually pay back some of the money Vic clubs subsidise you for).
Melbourne (not Vic, just Melbourne) earns...lets see 51%*900m + 66% of 1300m = 459+868=1327m, or roughly 60% of the national tv rights for the competition (obviously, more if the rest of the state was included), and because of how that's done, the Vic clubs earn less money themselves.
If you want to screw Vic clubs out of direct revenue sources, then we want the money we earn indirectly. Be careful what you wish for, because you can bet that if that proposition went to your club board, your club would be begging the AFL to fixture Vic clubs on Friday and Saturday nights every week.
telsor
Hall of Famer
telsor
Hall of Famer
Like routinely getting double digits into Sydney, while Melbourne has the majority of viewers, nationally, in spite of getting fewer FTA games than any other market.
They do pay for them via higher ratings in those slots in their home market.
In any case, Victorian clubs get the subsidy by getting far more national FTA games as a consequence of the above arrangement.
I have no idea the point you're trying to make here. Vic clubs are hardly getting screwed given they (as a general rule) get far more national TV exposure than non Vic clubs. They'd get a lot less if 7 picked their games purely on national appeal.
The only downside for them is they don't get guaranteed FTA coverage in Melbourne, which is a result of there being too many clubs in Melbourne. If that's such a concern, move to a less crowded market. Tassie would be a good place - I can assure you they'd get guaranteed coverage in Tassie every week.
BTW, are you really suggesting that Melbourne has 5 times the Fox Footy subscribers and FTA audience of Perth and Adelaide?
(I actually don't know the answer to the above, but anecdotally i'd be surprised if that was the case)
Ha ha ha got it.
Well I do try to go for logic/being objective despite my biases, though it burns my mouth sometimes.
So a national package for an advertiser is of dubious value ?
telsor
Hall of Famer
Depends what they paid for it.
I assume advertisers would factor in that while broadcast nationally, very few in NSW/QLD would watch it and would pay accordingly, that being roughly twice what they would for a 'Melbourne metro only' package (for FTA).
I doubt they pay any massive premiums just because it says 'national'. To assume otherwise would be to assume that advertisers (or more correctly, those working on their behalf) are really dumb.
Buy a big block & pay less.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Just how much of a discount do you think they'd need to get to make up for half the country (NSW & QLD) isn't going to be watching?
Same problem as the NRL.
Similar threads
- Poll
