10 might. Aren't they controlled by the same guy?

For an example of a highlights show for a competition that's exclusively on Fox look no further then the super rugby highlights show nine has, when was the last time you watched it......

This, although your last comment I'm a bit shady about, are you trying to say you doubt many people watch it, that's what I took out of it and I agree with that viewpoint if so.

I don't even know the name of it. What's it called? We might not get it out here.

Never heard of it either.

If we chase a even a highlights show on FTA, it will likely reduce the Pay TV money offered to us, and will likely get very little reward for the exercise.

Good point.
I think Foxtel will offer around $300 million for 5 years next time for 100% exclusivity.
Even a glimpse of FTA exposure would be awesome for the A-league, but I don't think we can afford to give it up at this stage.
This next TV deal should set the league up financially for a few years, so if that means no A-league on FTA for the next 5 years, so be it.
To be honest, at this point in time, the A-league isnt ready for FTA, and the viewers wouldnt warrant a primetime timeslot.

10 wont buy it as Murdoch is getting paid to show it on Fox, bad business sense.

The FFA pay fox to telecast? Damn, that is bad business sense by the ffa but very smart by fox.

No ffa do not pay fox to telecast.

I was being sarcastic. On a similar note, the the federal government provided extraordinary funding to the ABC specifically for the telecasting of the W-League.

It was called Super Rugby Extra Time it got great exposure for super rugby and really helped drive home the ratings & support for the fox sport coverage, i mean think of all the insomniacs who would have been tuning in at 12 am, rating bonanza for nine. Think of the $$$ the aleague will get for their highlights package, must be millions.

Honestly don't understand why a delayed broadcast with ads is seen as some sort of horrible insult to the sport, but having a highlights show, which is essentially a stripped down days delayed coverage is talked about with such excitement.

I'd take a 3:00 Sunday arvo game delayed broadcast to air at 4, with ads leading into the news on a summer arvo over a stupid late night highlights show, hell I'd even be happy if it was on a digital channel, where the ratings expectations are much lower. If we could boost the ratings to around 120k on FTA that would be acceptable for a digital multi channel broadcast in the afternoon.

How much does FFA get now $180 mill? At $300 mill = $24 mill a year over current.

More than enough to place all clubs in the black and a little something for FFA to keep.

Hope you're right.

I can't find it any where in the ratings during the S15 season. Do you have a link? What day/night was it shown?

$120 mill over 7 years. 17mill. per year.

Cheers for the correct figure.

So if they achieve $300 million over 5 years it's an extra $43 mill per year. This will set up the A-League for a generation and will become a genuine threat to other codes.

Too good to be true if it eventautes.

Was shown every Tuesday night (Well, Wednesday morning) on Nine at about midnight or later.

You won't find it in the ratings because no-one could stay up that late...

IF it eventuates... It's a number that Sanchez has picked out of the air - like you, I hope he's correct, but I see no evidence that it will happen.

Also worth noting that whatever the increase is, 50% of it will go to the FFA for non-A-League work (from the various national teams right down to grass roots coaching). So, even if it was the $300m, it would actually represent (at most) an extra $21.5m to the A-league.

Personally, I expect an improved deal - but not the bonanza required to set everything right... Perhaps $150m over 5 years, which equals an extra $13m per season = approx $6.5m more to the A-League each year.

I picked no figure out of the air, I picked Sanchez's.

Whilst $300 mill may appear high, I would equally suggest that your figure of $150 mill appears low: particularly if we continue the way have with the A-League this season.

Fox just paid 500m for AFL (albiet not exclusive). They're not going to pay just under 2/3's of that for the A-League/socceroos with no competition. We're kidding ourselves. And that's before anti-syphoning.

Boca juniors v MVFC game on FTA had adds during the game - and it was no problem, so it CAN be done successfully. If it's the price to pay for getting a better rights deal then so be it.

It's an investment in the future growth of the game and gets us closer to a time when the bargaining power is more in the hands of HAL as the product improves using the extra money.

We need to make compromises to make the product more attractive to those with the deep pockets.

You have to remember that the FTA networks have a lot of old content that doesn't cost them anything, for the A-league to be worth anything it will have to rate higher than the old content that they have. It's not as simple as one program rating double another means its worth twice the value.

I haven't got the faintest on value but $300 Million does seem high when you compare it to the ratings and publicity coming from AFL and NRL, if the A-league rates 4 times less than the AFL then it is worth a lot less than a quarter of what the AFL gets.

Regardless, we are a mile in front of where we were last year.

Only because it was a replay of the game, not being shown live. ONE never showed ads during any live match when they were interested in football and sport.

FTA would not be able to show ads during live games other than on-screen ads constantly popping up during play.

And I too think that $150m is a much more realistic guess than the $300m.

We will get more than the old deal, but not much more.

For me all I want is every game to remain live on Fox and then two or so games a week to be shown on FTA (Preferably Friday night and Sunday arvo).

5 afl games a week will be exclusive to fox and the other 4 are live in conjunction with fta. 9 live games a week in total. Plus they also have the nab cup series exclusive and the finals which they previously had zero access to.

We will have a Cup comp plus 5-6 games a week for about 27 weeks plus finals and ACL, we also have the advatage of being in all markets(by 2013) including the important western Sydney market and we will be a solid number 2 sport in all markets, which is something neither the AFL or NRL can boast...we'll be do better than last time plus digital value plus Socceroos on FTA as well. I think we will get about $400 - $450 million across five years in total.

Not an advantage over the others being in all markets, joffa, if on the same broadcaster your still dwarfed by the others that aren't. At the moment the fta interest in the socceroos is an unknown. They had better get their fingers out re viewer interest to spike fta interest in the product.

450 mill over 5 years is a 530% increase over the existing contract, btw. One hell of an expectation. The afl's increase is about 75%.

I agree I am being a trifle optimistic, but $120 mill across 7 years was way under valued and Fox have already offered and had knocked back a significant increase.

I agree with Joffa, anything over $200m for 5 years imo is good, over $250m is great, $300m+ and I will chop off my left nut.

joffa,no one gives a rat arse about a cup comp

Wrong.

Channel 7 used to screen (some) Glory matches back in the NSL days. They had 10-second adverts that would play when the ball went out for a goal kick.

Really? Did you conduct a survey on everyone's behalf did you? ](*,)