With the Murdoch and Packer penchant for buying intellectual and physical properties, reducing them to the absolute lowest common denominator and then wringing out every penny they can, I am unsure that this is the best move the AFL could have made.
-
Guest - BigFooty Tipping 2026 - Get on! - $500 first prize - Weekly Prizes - Click to Join
PLUS Your club board comp is now up!
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Opening Round
The Golden Ticket - Official AFL on-seller of MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Unsure...
- Thread starter Bluey
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Posts
- 2,698
- Reaction score
- 255
- Location
- Brisbanópolis
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- S’roos, Brisbane Lions, N Syd Bears
I agree to a certain extent with Bluey on this, Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch have almost a virtual monopoly when it comes to printed media, and to a lesser extent television in Australia. They virtually control Rugby League in this country, have a big interest in Rugby Union in this country, and from 2002 will have a big interest in Australian Football in this country. I was reading 'The Australian' newspaper yesterday and it was full of articles describing the AFL rights and proclaiming how great it will be for football fans, then again 'the Australian' is a News Limited newspaper, a Rupert Murdoch
company.
With the cross-media ownership laws these days it has made it possible for two men (Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch) to have enormous power on what we read and what we see, that goodness for the internet! Newspapers seem to be getting more and more biased each year and more often than not journalists are just following the line so that their job is safe.
The AFL television rights decision could very likely be great for football but now AFL is another item in Australia which Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch have an interest in.
[This message has been edited by Sydneyfan (edited 21 December 2000).]
company.
With the cross-media ownership laws these days it has made it possible for two men (Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch) to have enormous power on what we read and what we see, that goodness for the internet! Newspapers seem to be getting more and more biased each year and more often than not journalists are just following the line so that their job is safe.
The AFL television rights decision could very likely be great for football but now AFL is another item in Australia which Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch have an interest in.
[This message has been edited by Sydneyfan (edited 21 December 2000).]
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2000
- Posts
- 6,149
- Reaction score
- 80
- Location
- Belgrave
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
My principal concern with this decision is the effect it will have on television competition.
Let's assume the Channel 9 / 10 consortium will win control over the Free to Air rights and Channel 7 refocus themselves successfully in producing and programming dramas etc. C7 will be wound up and Optus Vision become a minnow in comparison to Foxtel.
The salary cap over the next 5 years inflates with players being in very lucrative positions. The $500 million over the next 5 years does ensure the survival of each 16 clubs who individually grow in relation to there improved revenue streams.
What happens next time TV rights are up for renewal? Channel 7 are happy and profitable with Blue Heelers and Better Homes and Garden and no longer have the taste for the football. Optus Vision and Channel 10 are too small to seriously challenge the might of Packer / Murdoch.
With no competition to force the price of the TV rights, they could well be renewed at a substantially reduced price.
What affect will this have on the clubs? They will have this huge wages bill without the necessary revenue streams to satisfy it. Will this force some clubs to the wall?
The Murdoch / Packer consortium have been all warm and fuzzy about saving the 16 clubs this time around - it was in their interests to do so because of the competition. Next time, when there is none of this competition, they will not be so compelled to do so. It would probably be more in their interests to have a smaller AFL competition.
Economic rationalisation here we come.
------------------
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.
Let's assume the Channel 9 / 10 consortium will win control over the Free to Air rights and Channel 7 refocus themselves successfully in producing and programming dramas etc. C7 will be wound up and Optus Vision become a minnow in comparison to Foxtel.
The salary cap over the next 5 years inflates with players being in very lucrative positions. The $500 million over the next 5 years does ensure the survival of each 16 clubs who individually grow in relation to there improved revenue streams.
What happens next time TV rights are up for renewal? Channel 7 are happy and profitable with Blue Heelers and Better Homes and Garden and no longer have the taste for the football. Optus Vision and Channel 10 are too small to seriously challenge the might of Packer / Murdoch.
With no competition to force the price of the TV rights, they could well be renewed at a substantially reduced price.
What affect will this have on the clubs? They will have this huge wages bill without the necessary revenue streams to satisfy it. Will this force some clubs to the wall?
The Murdoch / Packer consortium have been all warm and fuzzy about saving the 16 clubs this time around - it was in their interests to do so because of the competition. Next time, when there is none of this competition, they will not be so compelled to do so. It would probably be more in their interests to have a smaller AFL competition.
Economic rationalisation here we come.
------------------
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.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Posts
- 2,698
- Reaction score
- 255
- Location
- Brisbanópolis
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- S’roos, Brisbane Lions, N Syd Bears
Good point about the television bidding for the AFL next time round, CJH
I have a bit of trouble trusting Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch after the Rugby League "Super League" drama, the main interest these men seem to have is the bottom line, making profits. I hope a similar scenario doesn't occur in AFL but Murdoch and Packer have the power to do virtually whatever they want and often do, regardless of how it affects people in the meantime (possibly in the future, the fans).
I have a bit of trouble trusting Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch after the Rugby League "Super League" drama, the main interest these men seem to have is the bottom line, making profits. I hope a similar scenario doesn't occur in AFL but Murdoch and Packer have the power to do virtually whatever they want and often do, regardless of how it affects people in the meantime (possibly in the future, the fans).
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
CJH,
Interesting points but I don't think it will be a vast reduction in price the consortium will look for. Much more likely it will be to slowly (but surely) move games from free to air to pay tv. No better way to get back the intial investment. Plus the precendent has already been set with BSkyB.
Interesting points but I don't think it will be a vast reduction in price the consortium will look for. Much more likely it will be to slowly (but surely) move games from free to air to pay tv. No better way to get back the intial investment. Plus the precendent has already been set with BSkyB.
Bernie
Senior List
elt, CJH etc,
This 'debate' requires a review of where this has happened elsewhere - UK Premier League on PAY, UEFA Club Champions on PAY, media companies buying into 'glamour' clubs, clubs going public, expanding 'viewing' membership by the Web etc. It's all about PAY-TO-VIEW. Viewers as transactions.
This was much discussed earlier this year in this forum, esp. around Colonial and the concept of exclusivity ( stimulating demand, restricting supply - small grounds ), forcing us into the PAY world. The Internet / cable vendors are looking for the 'killer application' that will make EVERYONE get into cable - it could possibly be sport ( a fair bet in Australia ). Once the cable world is rationalised - ONE cable vendor - it's game set and match for the owners Kerry and Rupert ( what don't they own already ? ).
Isn't globalisation wonderful ?
This 'debate' requires a review of where this has happened elsewhere - UK Premier League on PAY, UEFA Club Champions on PAY, media companies buying into 'glamour' clubs, clubs going public, expanding 'viewing' membership by the Web etc. It's all about PAY-TO-VIEW. Viewers as transactions.
This was much discussed earlier this year in this forum, esp. around Colonial and the concept of exclusivity ( stimulating demand, restricting supply - small grounds ), forcing us into the PAY world. The Internet / cable vendors are looking for the 'killer application' that will make EVERYONE get into cable - it could possibly be sport ( a fair bet in Australia ). Once the cable world is rationalised - ONE cable vendor - it's game set and match for the owners Kerry and Rupert ( what don't they own already ? ).
Isn't globalisation wonderful ?