|
aufc_ole
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xGood to see the new Board has everything totally in control Whats it got to do with the new board ? Foxtel own the rights and they would be the ones doing any negotiating. Interesting you see inactivity by the new Bopard is acceptable. Stop it. You'd justify all of this if your mates Lowy/Gallop were in charge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xGood to see the new Board has everything totally in control Whats it got to do with the new board ? Foxtel own the rights and they would be the ones doing any negotiating. Interesting you see inactivity by the new Bopard is acceptable.
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
If TEN is deifnitely out of the running, then they shouldn't be doing promos on the A-League. They should not be behaving as if they have an ongoing commercial relationship with the A-League. If a channel was doing promos of the AFL, as an example, and didn't have the rights, someone would stop them from doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Feed_The_Brox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.3K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
petszk
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x10 is still running station promos showing they have the A-League... https://10play.com.au/a-league/aboutI mean - it could just be that they haven't updated their website since last year, but that would seem to be a major bit of laziness on behalf of whoever is in charge of their website...
|
|
|
|
|
miron mercedes
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xGood to see the new Board has everything totally in control Whats it got to do with the new board ? Foxtel own the rights and they would be the ones doing any negotiating.
|
|
|
|
|
Feed_The_Brox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x10 is still running station promos showing they have the A-League... still haven't seen it
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Good to see the new Board has everything totally in control
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x10 is still running station promos showing they have the A-League... That's suggests that the deal stands. You've seen them yourself? Not sure what its means TBH, could be 10 are lazy ...but normally stations don't promote other stations stuff.... Maybe until 2 is inked and signed off 10 will keep running the promos .. Odd strategy to take if they’re still negotiating rights.
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x10 is still running station promos showing they have the A-League... That's suggests that the deal stands. You've seen them yourself? Not sure what its means TBH, could be 10 are lazy ...but normally stations don't promote other stations stuff.... Maybe until 2 is inked and signed off 10 will keep running the promos ..
|
|
|
|
|
charlied
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x10 is still running station promos showing they have the A-League... That's suggests that the deal stands. You've seen them yourself?
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
10 is still running station promos showing they have the A-League...
|
|
|
|
|
CS
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 913,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xThey didn't have to up the price to put TEN off. Just naming a price was enough to put TEN off. For Foxtel to hand over 40% of the games, they'd want to be reimbursed 40% of what they paid, which is $20 mill per annum, approx. Can anyone imagine TEN paying $20 mill, or $10 mill, or even $5 mll? It was never going to happen. I sorta think you're missing the point somewhat. Foxtel and CBS are competitors in the USA and Fox feel they got shafted by CBS with the ch 10 purchase. We all agree with that. So why wouldn't Foxtell just tell ch 10 to get stuffed? There is no obligation from them to negotiate. But clearly there were negotiations at some point or else there wouldn't have been rumours and media repoirts about it. So Fox were either desperate (at some point) to offload 2 games, or they didn't see CBS/ch 10 as the competitor many of us think they are. it has to be one of the two (or both). I'm a long time critic of Foxtel, but my analysing of these events would suggest that it was ch 10 that didn't come to the party. +xwhere sport has an appeal to FTAs is it has cut through across platforms - you don’t see Pepper Pig featuring on the news at six, or sister act. Nor do they drive eyeballs to social platforms. Sport can do that, in addition to providing video snippets that can be prefixed with a 10 second laid commercial. Viewership is one thing, but there’s a much broader commercial model in play and Lowy/Gallop never understood this so created a straight jacket of a media deal which means commercial channels will struggle to monetise football under current arrangements . The viewership is one thing, but it’s not the sole driver of value anymore. That’s sooooo 1990’s Lets imagine repeats of Pepper Pig or Sister Act has 200k eyeballs and the HAL has 100k. What is more likely to bring a financial return to the network? Clearly not what you’d imagine. Advertising revenue has fallen thorough the floor and eyeballs no longer dictate value. An FTA needs blockbuster content (reality tv, NRL, AFL) to commend big advertising dollars. after that there’s a very long tail of content that advertisers aren’t interested in whether there’s 100k or even 300k watching. Im not disagreeing the value of the HAL to an FTA is very low but it would not increase whether 100k or 250k people were watching - ad revenue on FTA is very targeted and the rest goes to the Internet. It’s just the way it is. Yeah, but nah....more eyeballs = more $ By contrast, total TV media spend was $3.68 billion in 2018, with the top area of investment metro TV ($2.5 billion, up 2.1 per cent). At the other end of the scale, subscription TV is experiencing a 23.1 per cent drop in ad spend to $684 million in 2018. The media agency is now forecasting Australia’s media spend will rise by 4.4 per cent in 2019 to $17.2 billion. Notably, total TV spend is expected to chalk up its first year-on-year growth since 2013, rising by 1.2 per cent to $3.7 billion, buoyed by AVOD growth of 17.5 per cent. https://www.cmo.com.au/article/650320/report-australian-ad-spend-tip-17bn-2019/ Then let us agree to disagree. Do you have figures tho, Waz, to support the view that ad spend is through the floor? I have no idea and I detest FTA commercial tv and never watch it. To borrow from Boris, I would rather be dead in a ditch that watch 7, 9 or 10. Popular culture has never been noted for intelligence or taste, but those networks work hard to prove that we haven't reached the bottom even now. I don't think there's any doubt that the traditional tv model is going out the door, but my view is that it is not happening as fast as some people think. There's a big older audience out there, and they are still wedded to FTA tv. With generational change, the networks will have to change their operating model or die. But they have at least 10-20 years before their viewers die of old age.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xThey didn't have to up the price to put TEN off. Just naming a price was enough to put TEN off. For Foxtel to hand over 40% of the games, they'd want to be reimbursed 40% of what they paid, which is $20 mill per annum, approx. Can anyone imagine TEN paying $20 mill, or $10 mill, or even $5 mll? It was never going to happen. I sorta think you're missing the point somewhat. Foxtel and CBS are competitors in the USA and Fox feel they got shafted by CBS with the ch 10 purchase. We all agree with that. So why wouldn't Foxtell just tell ch 10 to get stuffed? There is no obligation from them to negotiate. But clearly there were negotiations at some point or else there wouldn't have been rumours and media repoirts about it. So Fox were either desperate (at some point) to offload 2 games, or they didn't see CBS/ch 10 as the competitor many of us think they are. it has to be one of the two (or both). I'm a long time critic of Foxtel, but my analysing of these events would suggest that it was ch 10 that didn't come to the party. +xwhere sport has an appeal to FTAs is it has cut through across platforms - you don’t see Pepper Pig featuring on the news at six, or sister act. Nor do they drive eyeballs to social platforms. Sport can do that, in addition to providing video snippets that can be prefixed with a 10 second laid commercial. Viewership is one thing, but there’s a much broader commercial model in play and Lowy/Gallop never understood this so created a straight jacket of a media deal which means commercial channels will struggle to monetise football under current arrangements . The viewership is one thing, but it’s not the sole driver of value anymore. That’s sooooo 1990’s Lets imagine repeats of Pepper Pig or Sister Act has 200k eyeballs and the HAL has 100k. What is more likely to bring a financial return to the network? Clearly not what you’d imagine. Advertising revenue has fallen thorough the floor and eyeballs no longer dictate value. An FTA needs blockbuster content (reality tv, NRL, AFL) to commend big advertising dollars. after that there’s a very long tail of content that advertisers aren’t interested in whether there’s 100k or even 300k watching. Im not disagreeing the value of the HAL to an FTA is very low but it would not increase whether 100k or 250k people were watching - ad revenue on FTA is very targeted and the rest goes to the Internet. It’s just the way it is. Yeah, but nah....more eyeballs = more $ By contrast, total TV media spend was $3.68 billion in 2018, with the top area of investment metro TV ($2.5 billion, up 2.1 per cent). At the other end of the scale, subscription TV is experiencing a 23.1 per cent drop in ad spend to $684 million in 2018. The media agency is now forecasting Australia’s media spend will rise by 4.4 per cent in 2019 to $17.2 billion. Notably, total TV spend is expected to chalk up its first year-on-year growth since 2013, rising by 1.2 per cent to $3.7 billion, buoyed by AVOD growth of 17.5 per cent. https://www.cmo.com.au/article/650320/report-australian-ad-spend-tip-17bn-2019/ I haven't looked at add spending for 5 or more years but then there was detail of the spend by market. I'd be interested in that split up now. It showed spending per head on FTA advertising in Sydney was about 50% higher than each of the other capitals.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xThey didn't have to up the price to put TEN off. Just naming a price was enough to put TEN off. For Foxtel to hand over 40% of the games, they'd want to be reimbursed 40% of what they paid, which is $20 mill per annum, approx. Can anyone imagine TEN paying $20 mill, or $10 mill, or even $5 mll? It was never going to happen. I sorta think you're missing the point somewhat. Foxtel and CBS are competitors in the USA and Fox feel they got shafted by CBS with the ch 10 purchase. We all agree with that. So why wouldn't Foxtell just tell ch 10 to get stuffed? There is no obligation from them to negotiate. But clearly there were negotiations at some point or else there wouldn't have been rumours and media repoirts about it. So Fox were either desperate (at some point) to offload 2 games, or they didn't see CBS/ch 10 as the competitor many of us think they are. it has to be one of the two (or both). I'm a long time critic of Foxtel, but my analysing of these events would suggest that it was ch 10 that didn't come to the party. +xwhere sport has an appeal to FTAs is it has cut through across platforms - you don’t see Pepper Pig featuring on the news at six, or sister act. Nor do they drive eyeballs to social platforms. Sport can do that, in addition to providing video snippets that can be prefixed with a 10 second laid commercial. Viewership is one thing, but there’s a much broader commercial model in play and Lowy/Gallop never understood this so created a straight jacket of a media deal which means commercial channels will struggle to monetise football under current arrangements . The viewership is one thing, but it’s not the sole driver of value anymore. That’s sooooo 1990’s Lets imagine repeats of Pepper Pig or Sister Act has 200k eyeballs and the HAL has 100k. What is more likely to bring a financial return to the network? Clearly not what you’d imagine. Advertising revenue has fallen thorough the floor and eyeballs no longer dictate value. An FTA needs blockbuster content (reality tv, NRL, AFL) to commend big advertising dollars. after that there’s a very long tail of content that advertisers aren’t interested in whether there’s 100k or even 300k watching. Im not disagreeing the value of the HAL to an FTA is very low but it would not increase whether 100k or 250k people were watching - ad revenue on FTA is very targeted and the rest goes to the Internet. It’s just the way it is. Yeah, but nah....more eyeballs = more $ By contrast, total TV media spend was $3.68 billion in 2018, with the top area of investment metro TV ($2.5 billion, up 2.1 per cent). At the other end of the scale, subscription TV is experiencing a 23.1 per cent drop in ad spend to $684 million in 2018. The media agency is now forecasting Australia’s media spend will rise by 4.4 per cent in 2019 to $17.2 billion. Notably, total TV spend is expected to chalk up its first year-on-year growth since 2013, rising by 1.2 per cent to $3.7 billion, buoyed by AVOD growth of 17.5 per cent. https://www.cmo.com.au/article/650320/report-australian-ad-spend-tip-17bn-2019/ Then let us agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+xThey didn't have to up the price to put TEN off. Just naming a price was enough to put TEN off. For Foxtel to hand over 40% of the games, they'd want to be reimbursed 40% of what they paid, which is $20 mill per annum, approx. Can anyone imagine TEN paying $20 mill, or $10 mill, or even $5 mll? It was never going to happen. I sorta think you're missing the point somewhat. Foxtel and CBS are competitors in the USA and Fox feel they got shafted by CBS with the ch 10 purchase. We all agree with that. So why wouldn't Foxtell just tell ch 10 to get stuffed? There is no obligation from them to negotiate. But clearly there were negotiations at some point or else there wouldn't have been rumours and media repoirts about it. So Fox were either desperate (at some point) to offload 2 games, or they didn't see CBS/ch 10 as the competitor many of us think they are. it has to be one of the two (or both). I'm a long time critic of Foxtel, but my analysing of these events would suggest that it was ch 10 that didn't come to the party. +xwhere sport has an appeal to FTAs is it has cut through across platforms - you don’t see Pepper Pig featuring on the news at six, or sister act. Nor do they drive eyeballs to social platforms. Sport can do that, in addition to providing video snippets that can be prefixed with a 10 second laid commercial. Viewership is one thing, but there’s a much broader commercial model in play and Lowy/Gallop never understood this so created a straight jacket of a media deal which means commercial channels will struggle to monetise football under current arrangements . The viewership is one thing, but it’s not the sole driver of value anymore. That’s sooooo 1990’s Lets imagine repeats of Pepper Pig or Sister Act has 200k eyeballs and the HAL has 100k. What is more likely to bring a financial return to the network? Clearly not what you’d imagine. Advertising revenue has fallen thorough the floor and eyeballs no longer dictate value. An FTA needs blockbuster content (reality tv, NRL, AFL) to commend big advertising dollars. after that there’s a very long tail of content that advertisers aren’t interested in whether there’s 100k or even 300k watching. Im not disagreeing the value of the HAL to an FTA is very low but it would not increase whether 100k or 250k people were watching - ad revenue on FTA is very targeted and the rest goes to the Internet. It’s just the way it is. Yeah, but nah....more eyeballs = more $ By contrast, total TV media spend was $3.68 billion in 2018, with the top area of investment metro TV ($2.5 billion, up 2.1 per cent). At the other end of the scale, subscription TV is experiencing a 23.1 per cent drop in ad spend to $684 million in 2018. The media agency is now forecasting Australia’s media spend will rise by 4.4 per cent in 2019 to $17.2 billion. Notably, total TV spend is expected to chalk up its first year-on-year growth since 2013, rising by 1.2 per cent to $3.7 billion, buoyed by AVOD growth of 17.5 per cent. https://www.cmo.com.au/article/650320/report-australian-ad-spend-tip-17bn-2019/
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThey didn't have to up the price to put TEN off. Just naming a price was enough to put TEN off. For Foxtel to hand over 40% of the games, they'd want to be reimbursed 40% of what they paid, which is $20 mill per annum, approx. Can anyone imagine TEN paying $20 mill, or $10 mill, or even $5 mll? It was never going to happen. I sorta think you're missing the point somewhat. Foxtel and CBS are competitors in the USA and Fox feel they got shafted by CBS with the ch 10 purchase. We all agree with that. So why wouldn't Foxtell just tell ch 10 to get stuffed? There is no obligation from them to negotiate. But clearly there were negotiations at some point or else there wouldn't have been rumours and media repoirts about it. So Fox were either desperate (at some point) to offload 2 games, or they didn't see CBS/ch 10 as the competitor many of us think they are. it has to be one of the two (or both). I'm a long time critic of Foxtel, but my analysing of these events would suggest that it was ch 10 that didn't come to the party. +xwhere sport has an appeal to FTAs is it has cut through across platforms - you don’t see Pepper Pig featuring on the news at six, or sister act. Nor do they drive eyeballs to social platforms. Sport can do that, in addition to providing video snippets that can be prefixed with a 10 second laid commercial. Viewership is one thing, but there’s a much broader commercial model in play and Lowy/Gallop never understood this so created a straight jacket of a media deal which means commercial channels will struggle to monetise football under current arrangements . The viewership is one thing, but it’s not the sole driver of value anymore. That’s sooooo 1990’s Lets imagine repeats of Pepper Pig or Sister Act has 200k eyeballs and the HAL has 100k. What is more likely to bring a financial return to the network? Clearly not what you’d imagine. Advertising revenue has fallen thorough the floor and eyeballs no longer dictate value. An FTA needs blockbuster content (reality tv, NRL, AFL) to commend big advertising dollars. after that there’s a very long tail of content that advertisers aren’t interested in whether there’s 100k or even 300k watching. Im not disagreeing the value of the HAL to an FTA is very low but it would not increase whether 100k or 250k people were watching - ad revenue on FTA is very targeted and the rest goes to the Internet. It’s just the way it is.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
@FTB, full article in the link below but below paragraphs are insightful of where the deal was at: Sources close to the negotiations suggest that blueprint has the in-principal support of the game's major stakeholders, including Football Federation Australia and several club owners. Ten will have to purchase the rights to broadcast one match per round from FFA and will also have to privately negotiate buying the rights for the additional game from Fox Sports.
The deal is likely to hinge on how deeply Foxtel want to trim costs in light of their current financial woes. Foxtel posted a $417 million loss last year and vowed to cut "non-marquee sporting content". Under the proposed bid, Ten would cover the production costs of the two A-League games it will broadcast each week and would likely pick up the expenses for its W-League coverage. The split between exclusivity of those games is yet to be determined and will require approval from Fox Sports. https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/network-ten-close-to-landing-a-league-w-league-rights-20190725-p52atd.html
|
|
|
|
|
Feed_The_Brox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThey didn't have to up the price to put TEN off. Just naming a price was enough to put TEN off. For Foxtel to hand over 40% of the games, they'd want to be reimbursed 40% of what they paid, which is $20 mill per annum, approx. Can anyone imagine TEN paying $20 mill, or $10 mill, or even $5 mll? It was never going to happen. I sorta think you're missing the point somewhat. Foxtel and CBS are competitors in the USA and Fox feel they got shafted by CBS with the ch 10 purchase. We all agree with that. So why wouldn't Foxtell just tell ch 10 to get stuffed? There is no obligation from them to negotiate. But clearly there were negotiations at some point or else there wouldn't have been rumours and media repoirts about it. So Fox were either desperate (at some point) to offload 2 games, or they didn't see CBS/ch 10 as the competitor many of us think they are. it has to be one of the two (or both). I'm a long time critic of Foxtel, but my analysing of these events would suggest that it was ch 10 that didn't come to the party. +xwhere sport has an appeal to FTAs is it has cut through across platforms - you don’t see Pepper Pig featuring on the news at six, or sister act. Nor do they drive eyeballs to social platforms. Sport can do that, in addition to providing video snippets that can be prefixed with a 10 second laid commercial. Viewership is one thing, but there’s a much broader commercial model in play and Lowy/Gallop never understood this so created a straight jacket of a media deal which means commercial channels will struggle to monetise football under current arrangements . The viewership is one thing, but it’s not the sole driver of value anymore. That’s sooooo 1990’s Lets imagine repeats of Pepper Pig or Sister Act has 200k eyeballs and the HAL has 100k. What is more likely to bring a financial return to the network?
|
|
|
|
|
charlied
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIt is an interesting point, could be a tactic to create some urgency to get a deal done before the season start, but I remember reading somewhere that FFA said 10 and Fox hadnt met yet, so not sure what was going on. Also the 2 deals were for different things, 10 was 2 games exclusive and ABC is taking a feed from Fox (similar to 10 last season) Also looking at the proposed ABC fixture Fox would be happy to give that away for free or cheap as majority are low drawing matches. Final point, what happens when to the feed when the match hits extra time at 7pm and ABC news is due to start, will they cut the feed? I don't think thats the case... its more desperate hope from my part. good point re finishing time. a 5:15 kickoff means a finish of roughly 7:05 dependant on injury time. +xalso part of the issue is .. CBS and Newscorp .. neither wants to cede ground... so the HAL is left with the lesser of evils.. the ABC i'm not sure if i totally buy into this argument. the talk was that ch 10 were buying exclusive rights to 2 games. This would suggest there is no partnership like foxtel have with ch 7 with the AFL and cricket or ch 9 with NRL where foxtel simulcast all games. It was just a matter of agreeing to a number to handover 2 games. If foxtel really wanted to offload some money and if ch 10 really wanted the HAL, an agreement would have been reached. clearly the FFA/independent HAL thought this was going to happen going by the change of kick off times. agree , but one could counter argue that , in that Foxtel dont see 7 or 9 as competitors , where as 10 ( owned by CBS ) is a competitor... so they may of upped the price because its 10 bidding for the games 10 wanted cheap exclusive content, Fox wanted to recover some of their spend so deal was never going to happen. The competitor arguements doesn’t stack up because they wouldn’t have investigated option at all reality is when peppa pig consistently whips HALs arse in ratings, why would anyone spend serious coin on it This made me curious about what kind of ratings a lot of the TV dross gets. Checked last Saturdy, and TEN got 209k for the movie Sister Act 2, which has probably been repeated a zillion times. It sort of tells us that if we can't get at least half of that, our game has zero value for an FTA. Funnily, I checked the multi channels for the same day, and Peppa Pig was in 20th spot with 92k. In fact, ABC had 15 of 20 spots. An AFL final got 100k in Perth (on 7Mate) if you check last years ratings HAL barely ever made the top show list and you could hardly ever find the ratings because they were so low. Check out the ratings for Rnd 1 last year Sat night with MV v MC, didnt make any FTA lists and only drew 69K on Fox. https://tvtonight.com.au/2018/10/saturday-20-october-2018.html And at the moment, we'd accept 69k as a fantastic rating. no doubt. As a football tragic biggest issues for me with HAL is that it just isnt that interesting to watch anymore. We used to watch pretty much every HAL match a few years ago to only attending MV home matches and watching finals on TV. It's the same story I hear from many, the staleness, recycling and recruitment of pensioners just takes away from the experience football is everywhere else in the world. I mean compare CCM using Simon as the 9 last night against Hume to Chelsea using Tammy Abraham to lead the line in the Champions league. Cue all the usual HAL apologists making excuses about earning your spot, but Chelsea had a WC winning forward (Giroud) on the bench for most the match while CCM plays Simon who has scored a whopping 16 goals in his last 129 HAL appearances. Similar with Kruse, he is a massive joke at NT level and why anyone would recruit him is beyond me, I would much rather see a youngster given the chance to develop into a first teamer at MV than watch Kruse do his usual run into a corner and trip over routine. Unfortunately HAL has turned into an entertainment franchise and bit like many of the best rating TV shows, it becomes stale and people become bored and watch something else.  Unfortunately this mirrors mypersonal experience too,and for the same reason perceived reasons. And yes, unfortunately Matt Simon does not embodying all that's been going wrong with the A League over the last 5 years. Absolutely no disrespect to Matt as a person, but as a footballer it is a damning condemnation of the competition and the mariners that he is a starting 11 player. I don't agree with you on Kruse. If he can stay in injured free he will prove a good signing, I believe. I also have a more positive view of the coming season. There are some exciting youngsters breaking through and they will reward the coaches who are prepared back them. I seen encouraging football from several sides in the FFA Cup. Just as a roar supporter, I would also add that I think Robbie Fowler has made an error of judgement with his import players. They have come from to lower level in the UK to succeed here. By week six we should see whether I'm right or not. Apologies for the mangled Syntax. And doing this on the run on my phone full stop but I think you guys know what I mean full stop poor old Matt Simon, he really does attract some criticism but unfortunately for Good Reasons full stop another one who definitely is in the same category is Vince Lia. How this guy is still playing a league is a mystery. I know we're talking about human beings here and we should always bear that in mind but if we can't honestly comment on players on these forums then there's no point even being a football fan. As soon as you become a professional player this kind of commentary comes with the territory, but it still does cause me unease that here we are discussing players as if they are components in a machine.
|
|
|
|
|
charlied
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIt is an interesting point, could be a tactic to create some urgency to get a deal done before the season start, but I remember reading somewhere that FFA said 10 and Fox hadnt met yet, so not sure what was going on. Also the 2 deals were for different things, 10 was 2 games exclusive and ABC is taking a feed from Fox (similar to 10 last season) Also looking at the proposed ABC fixture Fox would be happy to give that away for free or cheap as majority are low drawing matches. Final point, what happens when to the feed when the match hits extra time at 7pm and ABC news is due to start, will they cut the feed? I don't think thats the case... its more desperate hope from my part. good point re finishing time. a 5:15 kickoff means a finish of roughly 7:05 dependant on injury time. +xalso part of the issue is .. CBS and Newscorp .. neither wants to cede ground... so the HAL is left with the lesser of evils.. the ABC i'm not sure if i totally buy into this argument. the talk was that ch 10 were buying exclusive rights to 2 games. This would suggest there is no partnership like foxtel have with ch 7 with the AFL and cricket or ch 9 with NRL where foxtel simulcast all games. It was just a matter of agreeing to a number to handover 2 games. If foxtel really wanted to offload some money and if ch 10 really wanted the HAL, an agreement would have been reached. clearly the FFA/independent HAL thought this was going to happen going by the change of kick off times. agree , but one could counter argue that , in that Foxtel dont see 7 or 9 as competitors , where as 10 ( owned by CBS ) is a competitor... so they may of upped the price because its 10 bidding for the games 10 wanted cheap exclusive content, Fox wanted to recover some of their spend so deal was never going to happen. The competitor arguements doesn’t stack up because they wouldn’t have investigated option at all reality is when peppa pig consistently whips HALs arse in ratings, why would anyone spend serious coin on it This made me curious about what kind of ratings a lot of the TV dross gets. Checked last Saturdy, and TEN got 209k for the movie Sister Act 2, which has probably been repeated a zillion times. It sort of tells us that if we can't get at least half of that, our game has zero value for an FTA. Funnily, I checked the multi channels for the same day, and Peppa Pig was in 20th spot with 92k. In fact, ABC had 15 of 20 spots. An AFL final got 100k in Perth (on 7Mate) if you check last years ratings HAL barely ever made the top show list and you could hardly ever find the ratings because they were so low. Check out the ratings for Rnd 1 last year Sat night with MV v MC, didnt make any FTA lists and only drew 69K on Fox. https://tvtonight.com.au/2018/10/saturday-20-october-2018.html And at the moment, we'd accept 69k as a fantastic rating. no doubt. As a football tragic biggest issues for me with HAL is that it just isnt that interesting to watch anymore. We used to watch pretty much every HAL match a few years ago to only attending MV home matches and watching finals on TV. It's the same story I hear from many, the staleness, recycling and recruitment of pensioners just takes away from the experience football is everywhere else in the world. I mean compare CCM using Simon as the 9 last night against Hume to Chelsea using Tammy Abraham to lead the line in the Champions league. Cue all the usual HAL apologists making excuses about earning your spot, but Chelsea had a WC winning forward (Giroud) on the bench for most the match while CCM plays Simon who has scored a whopping 16 goals in his last 129 HAL appearances. Similar with Kruse, he is a massive joke at NT level and why anyone would recruit him is beyond me, I would much rather see a youngster given the chance to develop into a first teamer at MV than watch Kruse do his usual run into a corner and trip over routine. Unfortunately HAL has turned into an entertainment franchise and bit like many of the best rating TV shows, it becomes stale and people become bored and watch something else. Unfortunately this mirrors mypersonal experience too,and for the same reason perceived reasons. And yes, unfortunately Matt Simon does not embodying all that's been going wrong with the A League over the last 5 years. Absolutely no disrespect to Matt as a person, but as a footballer it is a damning condemnation of the competition and the mariners that he is a starting 11 player. I don't agree with you on Kruse. If he can stay in injured free he will prove a good signing, I believe. I also have a more positive view of the coming season. There are some exciting youngsters breaking through and they will reward the coaches who are prepared back them. I seen encouraging football from several sides in the FFA Cup. Just as a roar supporter, I would also add that I think Robbie Fowler has made an error of judgement with his import players. They have come from to lower level in the UK to succeed here. By week six we should see whether I'm right or not.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xIt is an interesting point, could be a tactic to create some urgency to get a deal done before the season start, but I remember reading somewhere that FFA said 10 and Fox hadnt met yet, so not sure what was going on. Also the 2 deals were for different things, 10 was 2 games exclusive and ABC is taking a feed from Fox (similar to 10 last season) Also looking at the proposed ABC fixture Fox would be happy to give that away for free or cheap as majority are low drawing matches. Final point, what happens when to the feed when the match hits extra time at 7pm and ABC news is due to start, will they cut the feed? I don't think thats the case... its more desperate hope from my part. good point re finishing time. a 5:15 kickoff means a finish of roughly 7:05 dependant on injury time. +xalso part of the issue is .. CBS and Newscorp .. neither wants to cede ground... so the HAL is left with the lesser of evils.. the ABC i'm not sure if i totally buy into this argument. the talk was that ch 10 were buying exclusive rights to 2 games. This would suggest there is no partnership like foxtel have with ch 7 with the AFL and cricket or ch 9 with NRL where foxtel simulcast all games. It was just a matter of agreeing to a number to handover 2 games. If foxtel really wanted to offload some money and if ch 10 really wanted the HAL, an agreement would have been reached. clearly the FFA/independent HAL thought this was going to happen going by the change of kick off times. agree , but one could counter argue that , in that Foxtel dont see 7 or 9 as competitors , where as 10 ( owned by CBS ) is a competitor... so they may of upped the price because its 10 bidding for the games 10 wanted cheap exclusive content, Fox wanted to recover some of their spend so deal was never going to happen. The competitor arguements doesn’t stack up because they wouldn’t have investigated option at all reality is when peppa pig consistently whips HALs arse in ratings, why would anyone spend serious coin on it This made me curious about what kind of ratings a lot of the TV dross gets. Checked last Saturdy, and TEN got 209k for the movie Sister Act 2, which has probably been repeated a zillion times. It sort of tells us that if we can't get at least half of that, our game has zero value for an FTA. Funnily, I checked the multi channels for the same day, and Peppa Pig was in 20th spot with 92k. In fact, ABC had 15 of 20 spots. An AFL final got 100k in Perth (on 7Mate) That though takes a very one-dimensional view of things although I’d say you’re on the money with that minimum 100k viewed number. The reality is the the vast majority of the population aren’t interested in watching sport so will always watch other stuff; it always amazes me when people like Mr Football quote the Pepper Pig number - the children’s market rates very highly but children tropically don’t watch games and new kids are born every day that grow in to the PP repeats without questioning the fact they’re watching a program reiterates for the nth time ... where sport has an appeal to FTAs is it has cut through across platforms - you don’t see Pepper Pig featuring on the news at six, or sister act. Nor do they drive eyeballs to social platforms. Sport can do that, in addition to providing video snippets that can be prefixed with a 10 second laid commercial. Viewership is one thing, but there’s a much broader commercial model in play and Lowy/Gallop never understood this so created a straight jacket of a media deal which means commercial channels will struggle to monetise football under current arrangements . The viewership is one thing, but it’s not the sole driver of value anymore. That’s sooooo 1990’s Great theory, except in rnd 1 last season the Australia Tonga Rugby match got 241K on 9GEM & 231K on Fox. While the HAL got 69K on fox.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIt is an interesting point, could be a tactic to create some urgency to get a deal done before the season start, but I remember reading somewhere that FFA said 10 and Fox hadnt met yet, so not sure what was going on. Also the 2 deals were for different things, 10 was 2 games exclusive and ABC is taking a feed from Fox (similar to 10 last season) Also looking at the proposed ABC fixture Fox would be happy to give that away for free or cheap as majority are low drawing matches. Final point, what happens when to the feed when the match hits extra time at 7pm and ABC news is due to start, will they cut the feed? I don't think thats the case... its more desperate hope from my part. good point re finishing time. a 5:15 kickoff means a finish of roughly 7:05 dependant on injury time. +xalso part of the issue is .. CBS and Newscorp .. neither wants to cede ground... so the HAL is left with the lesser of evils.. the ABC i'm not sure if i totally buy into this argument. the talk was that ch 10 were buying exclusive rights to 2 games. This would suggest there is no partnership like foxtel have with ch 7 with the AFL and cricket or ch 9 with NRL where foxtel simulcast all games. It was just a matter of agreeing to a number to handover 2 games. If foxtel really wanted to offload some money and if ch 10 really wanted the HAL, an agreement would have been reached. clearly the FFA/independent HAL thought this was going to happen going by the change of kick off times. agree , but one could counter argue that , in that Foxtel dont see 7 or 9 as competitors , where as 10 ( owned by CBS ) is a competitor... so they may of upped the price because its 10 bidding for the games 10 wanted cheap exclusive content, Fox wanted to recover some of their spend so deal was never going to happen. The competitor arguements doesn’t stack up because they wouldn’t have investigated option at all reality is when peppa pig consistently whips HALs arse in ratings, why would anyone spend serious coin on it This made me curious about what kind of ratings a lot of the TV dross gets. Checked last Saturdy, and TEN got 209k for the movie Sister Act 2, which has probably been repeated a zillion times. It sort of tells us that if we can't get at least half of that, our game has zero value for an FTA. Funnily, I checked the multi channels for the same day, and Peppa Pig was in 20th spot with 92k. In fact, ABC had 15 of 20 spots. An AFL final got 100k in Perth (on 7Mate) if you check last years ratings HAL barely ever made the top show list and you could hardly ever find the ratings because they were so low. Check out the ratings for Rnd 1 last year Sat night with MV v MC, didnt make any FTA lists and only drew 69K on Fox. https://tvtonight.com.au/2018/10/saturday-20-october-2018.html And at the moment, we'd accept 69k as a fantastic rating. no doubt. As a football tragic biggest issues for me with HAL is that it just isnt that interesting to watch anymore. We used to watch pretty much every HAL match a few years ago to only attending MV home matches and watching finals on TV. It's the same story I hear from many, the staleness, recycling and recruitment of pensioners just takes away from the experience football is everywhere else in the world. I mean compare CCM using Simon as the 9 last night against Hume to Chelsea using Tammy Abraham to lead the line in the Champions league. Cue all the usual HAL apologists making excuses about earning your spot, but Chelsea had a WC winning forward (Giroud) on the bench for most the match while CCM plays Simon who has scored a whopping 16 goals in his last 129 HAL appearances. Similar with Kruse, he is a massive joke at NT level and why anyone would recruit him is beyond me, I would much rather see a youngster given the chance to develop into a first teamer at MV than watch Kruse do his usual run into a corner and trip over routine. Unfortunately HAL has turned into an entertainment franchise and bit like many of the best rating TV shows, it becomes stale and people become bored and watch something else.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xIt is an interesting point, could be a tactic to create some urgency to get a deal done before the season start, but I remember reading somewhere that FFA said 10 and Fox hadnt met yet, so not sure what was going on. Also the 2 deals were for different things, 10 was 2 games exclusive and ABC is taking a feed from Fox (similar to 10 last season) Also looking at the proposed ABC fixture Fox would be happy to give that away for free or cheap as majority are low drawing matches. Final point, what happens when to the feed when the match hits extra time at 7pm and ABC news is due to start, will they cut the feed? I don't think thats the case... its more desperate hope from my part. good point re finishing time. a 5:15 kickoff means a finish of roughly 7:05 dependant on injury time. +xalso part of the issue is .. CBS and Newscorp .. neither wants to cede ground... so the HAL is left with the lesser of evils.. the ABC i'm not sure if i totally buy into this argument. the talk was that ch 10 were buying exclusive rights to 2 games. This would suggest there is no partnership like foxtel have with ch 7 with the AFL and cricket or ch 9 with NRL where foxtel simulcast all games. It was just a matter of agreeing to a number to handover 2 games. If foxtel really wanted to offload some money and if ch 10 really wanted the HAL, an agreement would have been reached. clearly the FFA/independent HAL thought this was going to happen going by the change of kick off times. agree , but one could counter argue that , in that Foxtel dont see 7 or 9 as competitors , where as 10 ( owned by CBS ) is a competitor... so they may of upped the price because its 10 bidding for the games 10 wanted cheap exclusive content, Fox wanted to recover some of their spend so deal was never going to happen. The competitor arguements doesn’t stack up because they wouldn’t have investigated option at all reality is when peppa pig consistently whips HALs arse in ratings, why would anyone spend serious coin on it This made me curious about what kind of ratings a lot of the TV dross gets. Checked last Saturdy, and TEN got 209k for the movie Sister Act 2, which has probably been repeated a zillion times. It sort of tells us that if we can't get at least half of that, our game has zero value for an FTA. Funnily, I checked the multi channels for the same day, and Peppa Pig was in 20th spot with 92k. In fact, ABC had 15 of 20 spots. An AFL final got 100k in Perth (on 7Mate) That though takes a very one-dimensional view of things although I’d say you’re on the money with that minimum 100k viewed number. The reality is the the vast majority of the population aren’t interested in watching sport so will always watch other stuff; it always amazes me when people like Mr Football quote the Pepper Pig number - the children’s market rates very highly but children tropically don’t watch games and new kids are born every day that grow in to the PP repeats without questioning the fact they’re watching a program reiterates for the nth time ... where sport has an appeal to FTAs is it has cut through across platforms - you don’t see Pepper Pig featuring on the news at six, or sister act. Nor do they drive eyeballs to social platforms. Sport can do that, in addition to providing video snippets that can be prefixed with a 10 second laid commercial. Viewership is one thing, but there’s a much broader commercial model in play and Lowy/Gallop never understood this so created a straight jacket of a media deal which means commercial channels will struggle to monetise football under current arrangements . The viewership is one thing, but it’s not the sole driver of value anymore. That’s sooooo 1990’s
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xIt is an interesting point, could be a tactic to create some urgency to get a deal done before the season start, but I remember reading somewhere that FFA said 10 and Fox hadnt met yet, so not sure what was going on. Also the 2 deals were for different things, 10 was 2 games exclusive and ABC is taking a feed from Fox (similar to 10 last season) Also looking at the proposed ABC fixture Fox would be happy to give that away for free or cheap as majority are low drawing matches. Final point, what happens when to the feed when the match hits extra time at 7pm and ABC news is due to start, will they cut the feed? I don't think thats the case... its more desperate hope from my part. good point re finishing time. a 5:15 kickoff means a finish of roughly 7:05 dependant on injury time. +xalso part of the issue is .. CBS and Newscorp .. neither wants to cede ground... so the HAL is left with the lesser of evils.. the ABC i'm not sure if i totally buy into this argument. the talk was that ch 10 were buying exclusive rights to 2 games. This would suggest there is no partnership like foxtel have with ch 7 with the AFL and cricket or ch 9 with NRL where foxtel simulcast all games. It was just a matter of agreeing to a number to handover 2 games. If foxtel really wanted to offload some money and if ch 10 really wanted the HAL, an agreement would have been reached. clearly the FFA/independent HAL thought this was going to happen going by the change of kick off times. agree , but one could counter argue that , in that Foxtel dont see 7 or 9 as competitors , where as 10 ( owned by CBS ) is a competitor... so they may of upped the price because its 10 bidding for the games 10 wanted cheap exclusive content, Fox wanted to recover some of their spend so deal was never going to happen. The competitor arguements doesn’t stack up because they wouldn’t have investigated option at all reality is when peppa pig consistently whips HALs arse in ratings, why would anyone spend serious coin on it This made me curious about what kind of ratings a lot of the TV dross gets. Checked last Saturdy, and TEN got 209k for the movie Sister Act 2, which has probably been repeated a zillion times. It sort of tells us that if we can't get at least half of that, our game has zero value for an FTA. Funnily, I checked the multi channels for the same day, and Peppa Pig was in 20th spot with 92k. In fact, ABC had 15 of 20 spots. An AFL final got 100k in Perth (on 7Mate) if you check last years ratings HAL barely ever made the top show list and you could hardly ever find the ratings because they were so low. Check out the ratings for Rnd 1 last year Sat night with MV v MC, didnt make any FTA lists and only drew 69K on Fox. https://tvtonight.com.au/2018/10/saturday-20-october-2018.html And at the moment, we'd accept 69k as a fantastic rating.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+x+x+xIt is an interesting point, could be a tactic to create some urgency to get a deal done before the season start, but I remember reading somewhere that FFA said 10 and Fox hadnt met yet, so not sure what was going on. Also the 2 deals were for different things, 10 was 2 games exclusive and ABC is taking a feed from Fox (similar to 10 last season) Also looking at the proposed ABC fixture Fox would be happy to give that away for free or cheap as majority are low drawing matches. Final point, what happens when to the feed when the match hits extra time at 7pm and ABC news is due to start, will they cut the feed? I don't think thats the case... its more desperate hope from my part. good point re finishing time. a 5:15 kickoff means a finish of roughly 7:05 dependant on injury time. +xalso part of the issue is .. CBS and Newscorp .. neither wants to cede ground... so the HAL is left with the lesser of evils.. the ABC i'm not sure if i totally buy into this argument. the talk was that ch 10 were buying exclusive rights to 2 games. This would suggest there is no partnership like foxtel have with ch 7 with the AFL and cricket or ch 9 with NRL where foxtel simulcast all games. It was just a matter of agreeing to a number to handover 2 games. If foxtel really wanted to offload some money and if ch 10 really wanted the HAL, an agreement would have been reached. clearly the FFA/independent HAL thought this was going to happen going by the change of kick off times. agree , but one could counter argue that , in that Foxtel dont see 7 or 9 as competitors , where as 10 ( owned by CBS ) is a competitor... so they may of upped the price because its 10 bidding for the games 10 wanted cheap exclusive content, Fox wanted to recover some of their spend so deal was never going to happen. The competitor arguements doesn’t stack up because they wouldn’t have investigated option at all reality is when peppa pig consistently whips HALs arse in ratings, why would anyone spend serious coin on it This made me curious about what kind of ratings a lot of the TV dross gets. Checked last Saturdy, and TEN got 209k for the movie Sister Act 2, which has probably been repeated a zillion times. It sort of tells us that if we can't get at least half of that, our game has zero value for an FTA. Funnily, I checked the multi channels for the same day, and Peppa Pig was in 20th spot with 92k. In fact, ABC had 15 of 20 spots. An AFL final got 100k in Perth (on 7Mate) if you check last years ratings HAL barely ever made the top show list and you could hardly ever find the ratings because they were so low. Check out the ratings for Rnd 1 last year Sat night with MV v MC, didnt make any FTA lists and only drew 69K on Fox. https://tvtonight.com.au/2018/10/saturday-20-october-2018.html
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xIt is an interesting point, could be a tactic to create some urgency to get a deal done before the season start, but I remember reading somewhere that FFA said 10 and Fox hadnt met yet, so not sure what was going on. Also the 2 deals were for different things, 10 was 2 games exclusive and ABC is taking a feed from Fox (similar to 10 last season) Also looking at the proposed ABC fixture Fox would be happy to give that away for free or cheap as majority are low drawing matches. Final point, what happens when to the feed when the match hits extra time at 7pm and ABC news is due to start, will they cut the feed? I don't think thats the case... its more desperate hope from my part. good point re finishing time. a 5:15 kickoff means a finish of roughly 7:05 dependant on injury time. +xalso part of the issue is .. CBS and Newscorp .. neither wants to cede ground... so the HAL is left with the lesser of evils.. the ABC i'm not sure if i totally buy into this argument. the talk was that ch 10 were buying exclusive rights to 2 games. This would suggest there is no partnership like foxtel have with ch 7 with the AFL and cricket or ch 9 with NRL where foxtel simulcast all games. It was just a matter of agreeing to a number to handover 2 games. If foxtel really wanted to offload some money and if ch 10 really wanted the HAL, an agreement would have been reached. clearly the FFA/independent HAL thought this was going to happen going by the change of kick off times. agree , but one could counter argue that , in that Foxtel dont see 7 or 9 as competitors , where as 10 ( owned by CBS ) is a competitor... so they may of upped the price because its 10 bidding for the games 10 wanted cheap exclusive content, Fox wanted to recover some of their spend so deal was never going to happen. The competitor arguements doesn’t stack up because they wouldn’t have investigated option at all reality is when peppa pig consistently whips HALs arse in ratings, why would anyone spend serious coin on it This made me curious about what kind of ratings a lot of the TV dross gets. Checked last Saturdy, and TEN got 209k for the movie Sister Act 2, which has probably been repeated a zillion times. It sort of tells us that if we can't get at least half of that, our game has zero value for an FTA. Funnily, I checked the multi channels for the same day, and Peppa Pig was in 20th spot with 92k. In fact, ABC had 15 of 20 spots. An AFL final got 100k in Perth (on 7Mate)
|
|
|
|
nomates
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
So ABC got the rights for free just like Ch10?
Wellington Phoenix FC
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+xIt is an interesting point, could be a tactic to create some urgency to get a deal done before the season start, but I remember reading somewhere that FFA said 10 and Fox hadnt met yet, so not sure what was going on. Also the 2 deals were for different things, 10 was 2 games exclusive and ABC is taking a feed from Fox (similar to 10 last season) Also looking at the proposed ABC fixture Fox would be happy to give that away for free or cheap as majority are low drawing matches. Final point, what happens when to the feed when the match hits extra time at 7pm and ABC news is due to start, will they cut the feed? I don't think thats the case... its more desperate hope from my part. good point re finishing time. a 5:15 kickoff means a finish of roughly 7:05 dependant on injury time. +xalso part of the issue is .. CBS and Newscorp .. neither wants to cede ground... so the HAL is left with the lesser of evils.. the ABC i'm not sure if i totally buy into this argument. the talk was that ch 10 were buying exclusive rights to 2 games. This would suggest there is no partnership like foxtel have with ch 7 with the AFL and cricket or ch 9 with NRL where foxtel simulcast all games. It was just a matter of agreeing to a number to handover 2 games. If foxtel really wanted to offload some money and if ch 10 really wanted the HAL, an agreement would have been reached. clearly the FFA/independent HAL thought this was going to happen going by the change of kick off times. agree , but one could counter argue that , in that Foxtel dont see 7 or 9 as competitors , where as 10 ( owned by CBS ) is a competitor... so they may of upped the price because its 10 bidding for the games 10 wanted cheap exclusive content, Fox wanted to recover some of their spend so deal was never going to happen. The competitor arguements doesn’t stack up because they wouldn’t have investigated option at all reality is when peppa pig consistently whips HALs arse in ratings, why would anyone spend serious coin on it
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xIt is an interesting point, could be a tactic to create some urgency to get a deal done before the season start, but I remember reading somewhere that FFA said 10 and Fox hadnt met yet, so not sure what was going on. Also the 2 deals were for different things, 10 was 2 games exclusive and ABC is taking a feed from Fox (similar to 10 last season) Also looking at the proposed ABC fixture Fox would be happy to give that away for free or cheap as majority are low drawing matches. Final point, what happens when to the feed when the match hits extra time at 7pm and ABC news is due to start, will they cut the feed? I don't think thats the case... its more desperate hope from my part. good point re finishing time. a 5:15 kickoff means a finish of roughly 7:05 dependant on injury time. +xalso part of the issue is .. CBS and Newscorp .. neither wants to cede ground... so the HAL is left with the lesser of evils.. the ABC i'm not sure if i totally buy into this argument. the talk was that ch 10 were buying exclusive rights to 2 games. This would suggest there is no partnership like foxtel have with ch 7 with the AFL and cricket or ch 9 with NRL where foxtel simulcast all games. It was just a matter of agreeing to a number to handover 2 games. If foxtel really wanted to offload some money and if ch 10 really wanted the HAL, an agreement would have been reached. clearly the FFA/independent HAL thought this was going to happen going by the change of kick off times. agree , but one could counter argue that , in that Foxtel dont see 7 or 9 as competitors , where as 10 ( owned by CBS ) is a competitor... so they may of upped the price because its 10 bidding for the games They didn't have to up the price to put TEN off. Just naming a price was enough to put TEN off. For Foxtel to hand over 40% of the games, they'd want to be reimbursed 40% of what they paid, which is $20 mill per annum, approx. Can anyone imagine TEN paying $20 mill, or $10 mill, or even $5 mll? It was never going to happen.
|
|
|
|