libel
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xFunny how both the Socceroos and hal were on FTA under Lowy. Then the new regime takes over and both seem to disappear... the current broadcast deal was signed by the old regime, not the new one, so if the HAL is missing from FTA then Lowy/Gallop are to blame (I know it’s inconvenient when facts get in the way of a good troll though ...). The only inconvenient facts so far seem to be that Lowy got it done, and this new mob can't. It’s a real slap in the face that Lowy couldn’t sign a tv contract that included FTA .... and now Indy-HAL are having to sort his mess out. Seems more to me that the new regime are the ones messing up a tv deal they know is a hell of a lot better than they could ever do. How can they mess up a tv deal that is subject to a 6 year contract signed by Lowy? If Lowy didn’t sign an FTA deal and gave everything to Fox to onsell then that the deal. Because the new mob seem to be lightweights with no influence. Again, Lowy got it done. Lowy got the tv done without an FTA component which is now at the mercy of Fox Sports and their negotiating team. Lowy takes credit for a record value tv deal over a record six year length. The criticism at the time though was there was no FTA component or separate streaming rights. It was basically all eggs in the Fox Sports basket who are now calling the tune over FTA. I swear I recall watching A-League on FTA. Yes, under Lowy it was on FTA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xFunny how both the Socceroos and hal were on FTA under Lowy. Then the new regime takes over and both seem to disappear... the current broadcast deal was signed by the old regime, not the new one, so if the HAL is missing from FTA then Lowy/Gallop are to blame (I know it’s inconvenient when facts get in the way of a good troll though ...). The only inconvenient facts so far seem to be that Lowy got it done, and this new mob can't. It’s a real slap in the face that Lowy couldn’t sign a tv contract that included FTA .... and now Indy-HAL are having to sort his mess out. Seems more to me that the new regime are the ones messing up a tv deal they know is a hell of a lot better than they could ever do. How can they mess up a tv deal that is subject to a 6 year contract signed by Lowy? If Lowy didn’t sign an FTA deal and gave everything to Fox to onsell then that the deal. Because so far the new mob seem to be lightweights with no influence. Again, Lowy got it done. If the Lowy's were still there the exact same problem with Fox would remain. So far as getting FTA done, the Lowy's record demonstrates otherwise. .....if the Lowy's were still there we would still be in an uncertain state as to what will happen when the current Fox deal finishes . You seemed to me to be talking specifically about the next tv deal. I didn't see how that was relevant. it is very relevant ...you were insinuating how clever the Lowys were ( Imagine you saying that ? ) for getting the current deal with Foxtel at a time Foxtel were giving literally billions of dollars to other sports . You also made it clear you thought the new board were " lightweights" and compared them to the Lowys "who got it done".. your words .. Clearly you were insinuating that the new board could not have gotten the deal the Lowys did. Who knows ? They weren't there then ...and won't be negotiating the next one either ! My comments were to illustrate that what the Lowys did was not anything special under the prevailing conditions at that time . What is irrelevent is to be comparing the old Lowy board to the new in regards to TV deals...the new one will not be negotiating any . That will be done by the A-league owners in future .Who knows how today's owners would have handled it back then but I suspect they may have fought harder for a better deal and more free to air . So yes it is relevant because you were comparing the new board to the old so I then compared how the Lowys would perform under conditions now and also when the next TV deal comes around if the status quo had remained ...thank God it has all changed ! By that statement are you saying that the recommendation of the Crawford Report that the TV rights be negotiated together would not be followed? No idea what the Crawford report says ...I've no doubt you do ...but I also don't live and die by what it says anymore than I do the Old Testament. What is your point ? Firstly which Crawford report ... 1992 or 2003 ? .....Both are ancient . Are you suggesting if something does not follow a report complied 27 years ago or even as recently as 16 years ago it is wrong ? The justification for the recent upheaval was the failure to follow the Crawford Report both in the governance structure and the independence of the A-League so it is quite relevant to consider what it says on other matters. The recommendation that the broadcast rights be negotiated together was to maximise the value of the rights for all parties. That still holds. Hopefully the details still being sorted out by the FFA and the IndiA-League will include how this is done. We don't want to see the 2 entities working against each other. There are a number of ways it could be done. Either the FFA or the operational management of the A-League could have the necessary expertise in house or they could jointly appoint negotiators. +x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xFunny how both the Socceroos and hal were on FTA under Lowy. Then the new regime takes over and both seem to disappear... the current broadcast deal was signed by the old regime, not the new one, so if the HAL is missing from FTA then Lowy/Gallop are to blame (I know it’s inconvenient when facts get in the way of a good troll though ...). The only inconvenient facts so far seem to be that Lowy got it done, and this new mob can't. It’s a real slap in the face that Lowy couldn’t sign a tv contract that included FTA .... and now Indy-HAL are having to sort his mess out. Seems more to me that the new regime are the ones messing up a tv deal they know is a hell of a lot better than they could ever do. How can they mess up a tv deal that is subject to a 6 year contract signed by Lowy? If Lowy didn’t sign an FTA deal and gave everything to Fox to onsell then that the deal. Because so far the new mob seem to be lightweights with no influence. Again, Lowy got it done. If the Lowy's were still there the exact same problem with Fox would remain. So far as getting FTA done, the Lowy's record demonstrates otherwise. .....if the Lowy's were still there we would still be in an uncertain state as to what will happen when the current Fox deal finishes . You seemed to me to be talking specifically about the next tv deal. I didn't see how that was relevant. it is very relevant ...you were insinuating how clever the Lowys were ( Imagine you saying that ? ) for getting the current deal with Foxtel at a time Foxtel were giving literally billions of dollars to other sports . You also made it clear you thought the new board were " lightweights" and compared them to the Lowys "who got it done".. your words .. Clearly you were insinuating that the new board could not have gotten the deal the Lowys did. Who knows ? They weren't there then ...and won't be negotiating the next one either ! My comments were to illustrate that what the Lowys did was not anything special under the prevailing conditions at that time . What is irrelevent is to be comparing the old Lowy board to the new in regards to TV deals...the new one will not be negotiating any . That will be done by the A-league owners in future .Who knows how today's owners would have handled it back then but I suspect they may have fought harder for a better deal and more free to air . So yes it is relevant because you were comparing the new board to the old so I then compared how the Lowys would perform under conditions now and also when the next TV deal comes around if the status quo had remained ...thank God it has all changed ! By that statement are you saying that the recommendation of the Crawford Report that the TV rights be negotiated together would not be followed? No idea what the Crawford report says ...I've no doubt you do ...but I also don't live and die by what it says anymore than I do the Old Testament. What is your point ? Firstly which Crawford report ... 1992 or 2003 ? .....Both are ancient . Are you suggesting if something does not follow a report complied 27 years ago or even as recently as 16 years ago it is wrong ? The justification for the recent upheaval was the failure to follow the Crawford Report both in the governance structure and the independence of the A-League so it is quite relevant to consider what it says on other matters. The recommendation that the broadcast rights be negotiated together was to maximise the value of the rights for all parties. That still holds. Hopefully the details still being sorted out by the FFA and the IndiA-League will include how this is done. We don't want to see the 2 entities working against each other. There are a number of ways it could be done. Either the FFA or the operational management of the A-League could have the necessary expertise in house or they could jointly appoint negotiators. it appears to be unclear what TV rights the FFA will have to sell in future . The AFC seems to have some sort of rights over our Socceroos games at present . I assume by the time the next set of TV rights are due to be negotiated the Indi A-league will control their own TV rights.... it also seems unclear as to when the Indi A-league gains control over those rights ...lots of mud in the water at present . The independent A League took over operational control on time on Aug 1. The legal and financial details are still being finalised. yes we all know that ...however that does not necessarily mean the TV rights are now the A-Leagues. It makes sense that they take them over but as you say lots of legal and financial stuff to finalize. Technically I would think the TV rights are between Fox and the FFA. Who's to say Fox are happy to agree with transferring the agreement to be with another party... ie the A-League ? Maybe they will say "no... the contract is now null and void" and pull out altogether ? Muddy waters ... The TV rights are locked up in the 6 year contract signed by Lowy. Given the mess we are now in with the HAL that’s probably just as well but the new Independent HAL (“independent”) can’t do anything to change the contract and FTA negotiations are between Fox Sports determined to reduce their costs and C10. @Was Spot on. I think that the A-League, W-League and Y-league are not independently owned. The leagues will be independently managed. Therefore the contract between the FFA and Fox Sports remains. Any negotiating on the broadcast deal has to involve the FFA in the first instance. Perhaps Gallop, for all his faults, still as CEO is a good thing for his law background (I have to go and wash my mouth out now!) Indeed, wash your mouth out. Its easy to argue the rights and wrongs of the current contract, but at the end of the day it is what it is. The criticism at the time was it was a single contract selling rights to Fox and not a series of separate contracts covering: STV FTA Streaming Mobile. It seems the only separate part of the rights deal is the international component.
|
|
|
|
libel
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xFunny how both the Socceroos and hal were on FTA under Lowy. Then the new regime takes over and both seem to disappear... the current broadcast deal was signed by the old regime, not the new one, so if the HAL is missing from FTA then Lowy/Gallop are to blame (I know it’s inconvenient when facts get in the way of a good troll though ...). The only inconvenient facts so far seem to be that Lowy got it done, and this new mob can't. It’s a real slap in the face that Lowy couldn’t sign a tv contract that included FTA .... and now Indy-HAL are having to sort his mess out. Seems more to me that the new regime are the ones messing up a tv deal they know is a hell of a lot better than they could ever do. How can they mess up a tv deal that is subject to a 6 year contract signed by Lowy? If Lowy didn’t sign an FTA deal and gave everything to Fox to onsell then that the deal. Because so far the new mob seem to be lightweights with no influence. Again, Lowy got it done. If the Lowy's were still there the exact same problem with Fox would remain. So far as getting FTA done, the Lowy's record demonstrates otherwise. .....if the Lowy's were still there we would still be in an uncertain state as to what will happen when the current Fox deal finishes . You seemed to me to be talking specifically about the next tv deal. I didn't see how that was relevant. it is very relevant ...you were insinuating how clever the Lowys were ( Imagine you saying that ? ) for getting the current deal with Foxtel at a time Foxtel were giving literally billions of dollars to other sports . You also made it clear you thought the new board were " lightweights" and compared them to the Lowys "who got it done".. your words .. Clearly you were insinuating that the new board could not have gotten the deal the Lowys did. Who knows ? They weren't there then ...and won't be negotiating the next one either ! My comments were to illustrate that what the Lowys did was not anything special under the prevailing conditions at that time . What is irrelevent is to be comparing the old Lowy board to the new in regards to TV deals...the new one will not be negotiating any . That will be done by the A-league owners in future .Who knows how today's owners would have handled it back then but I suspect they may have fought harder for a better deal and more free to air . So yes it is relevant because you were comparing the new board to the old so I then compared how the Lowys would perform under conditions now and also when the next TV deal comes around if the status quo had remained ...thank God it has all changed ! By that statement are you saying that the recommendation of the Crawford Report that the TV rights be negotiated together would not be followed? No idea what the Crawford report says ...I've no doubt you do ...but I also don't live and die by what it says anymore than I do the Old Testament. What is your point ? Firstly which Crawford report ... 1992 or 2003 ? .....Both are ancient . Are you suggesting if something does not follow a report complied 27 years ago or even as recently as 16 years ago it is wrong ? The justification for the recent upheaval was the failure to follow the Crawford Report both in the governance structure and the independence of the A-League so it is quite relevant to consider what it says on other matters. The recommendation that the broadcast rights be negotiated together was to maximise the value of the rights for all parties. That still holds. Hopefully the details still being sorted out by the FFA and the IndiA-League will include how this is done. We don't want to see the 2 entities working against each other. There are a number of ways it could be done. Either the FFA or the operational management of the A-League could have the necessary expertise in house or they could jointly appoint negotiators. +x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xFunny how both the Socceroos and hal were on FTA under Lowy. Then the new regime takes over and both seem to disappear... the current broadcast deal was signed by the old regime, not the new one, so if the HAL is missing from FTA then Lowy/Gallop are to blame (I know it’s inconvenient when facts get in the way of a good troll though ...). The only inconvenient facts so far seem to be that Lowy got it done, and this new mob can't. It’s a real slap in the face that Lowy couldn’t sign a tv contract that included FTA .... and now Indy-HAL are having to sort his mess out. Seems more to me that the new regime are the ones messing up a tv deal they know is a hell of a lot better than they could ever do. How can they mess up a tv deal that is subject to a 6 year contract signed by Lowy? If Lowy didn’t sign an FTA deal and gave everything to Fox to onsell then that the deal. Because so far the new mob seem to be lightweights with no influence. Again, Lowy got it done. If the Lowy's were still there the exact same problem with Fox would remain. So far as getting FTA done, the Lowy's record demonstrates otherwise. .....if the Lowy's were still there we would still be in an uncertain state as to what will happen when the current Fox deal finishes . You seemed to me to be talking specifically about the next tv deal. I didn't see how that was relevant. it is very relevant ...you were insinuating how clever the Lowys were ( Imagine you saying that ? ) for getting the current deal with Foxtel at a time Foxtel were giving literally billions of dollars to other sports . You also made it clear you thought the new board were " lightweights" and compared them to the Lowys "who got it done".. your words .. Clearly you were insinuating that the new board could not have gotten the deal the Lowys did. Who knows ? They weren't there then ...and won't be negotiating the next one either ! My comments were to illustrate that what the Lowys did was not anything special under the prevailing conditions at that time . What is irrelevent is to be comparing the old Lowy board to the new in regards to TV deals...the new one will not be negotiating any . That will be done by the A-league owners in future .Who knows how today's owners would have handled it back then but I suspect they may have fought harder for a better deal and more free to air . So yes it is relevant because you were comparing the new board to the old so I then compared how the Lowys would perform under conditions now and also when the next TV deal comes around if the status quo had remained ...thank God it has all changed ! By that statement are you saying that the recommendation of the Crawford Report that the TV rights be negotiated together would not be followed? No idea what the Crawford report says ...I've no doubt you do ...but I also don't live and die by what it says anymore than I do the Old Testament. What is your point ? Firstly which Crawford report ... 1992 or 2003 ? .....Both are ancient . Are you suggesting if something does not follow a report complied 27 years ago or even as recently as 16 years ago it is wrong ? The justification for the recent upheaval was the failure to follow the Crawford Report both in the governance structure and the independence of the A-League so it is quite relevant to consider what it says on other matters. The recommendation that the broadcast rights be negotiated together was to maximise the value of the rights for all parties. That still holds. Hopefully the details still being sorted out by the FFA and the IndiA-League will include how this is done. We don't want to see the 2 entities working against each other. There are a number of ways it could be done. Either the FFA or the operational management of the A-League could have the necessary expertise in house or they could jointly appoint negotiators. it appears to be unclear what TV rights the FFA will have to sell in future . The AFC seems to have some sort of rights over our Socceroos games at present . I assume by the time the next set of TV rights are due to be negotiated the Indi A-league will control their own TV rights.... it also seems unclear as to when the Indi A-league gains control over those rights ...lots of mud in the water at present . The FFA will have the rights to International friendlies, the FFA Cup and possibly the 2nd Division depending on whether it is operated in house or independently. so... almost nothing .....unless a 2nd division is up and running Surely if Lowy had the hal on FTA, then this new mob of no-hopers can at least do the same...
|
|
|
|
|
Paul01
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Funny how both the Socceroos and hal were on FTA under Lowy. Then the new regime takes over and both seem to disappear... the current broadcast deal was signed by the old regime, not the new one, so if the HAL is missing from FTA then Lowy/Gallop are to blame (I know it’s inconvenient when facts get in the way of a good troll though ...). The only inconvenient facts so far seem to be that Lowy got it done, and this new mob can't. It’s a real slap in the face that Lowy couldn’t sign a tv contract that included FTA .... and now Indy-HAL are having to sort his mess out. Seems more to me that the new regime are the ones messing up a tv deal they know is a hell of a lot better than they could ever do. How can they mess up a tv deal that is subject to a 6 year contract signed by Lowy? If Lowy didn’t sign an FTA deal and gave everything to Fox to onsell then that the deal. Because so far the new mob seem to be lightweights with no influence. Again, Lowy got it done. If the Lowy's were still there the exact same problem with Fox would remain. So far as getting FTA done, the Lowy's record demonstrates otherwise. .....if the Lowy's were still there we would still be in an uncertain state as to what will happen when the current Fox deal finishes . You seemed to me to be talking specifically about the next tv deal. I didn't see how that was relevant. it is very relevant ...you were insinuating how clever the Lowys were ( Imagine you saying that ? ) for getting the current deal with Foxtel at a time Foxtel were giving literally billions of dollars to other sports . You also made it clear you thought the new board were " lightweights" and compared them to the Lowys "who got it done".. your words .. Clearly you were insinuating that the new board could not have gotten the deal the Lowys did. Who knows ? They weren't there then ...and won't be negotiating the next one either ! My comments were to illustrate that what the Lowys did was not anything special under the prevailing conditions at that time . What is irrelevent is to be comparing the old Lowy board to the new in regards to TV deals...the new one will not be negotiating any . That will be done by the A-league owners in future .Who knows how today's owners would have handled it back then but I suspect they may have fought harder for a better deal and more free to air . So yes it is relevant because you were comparing the new board to the old so I then compared how the Lowys would perform under conditions now and also when the next TV deal comes around if the status quo had remained ...thank God it has all changed ! By that statement are you saying that the recommendation of the Crawford Report that the TV rights be negotiated together would not be followed? No idea what the Crawford report says ...I've no doubt you do ...but I also don't live and die by what it says anymore than I do the Old Testament. What is your point ? Firstly which Crawford report ... 1992 or 2003 ? .....Both are ancient . Are you suggesting if something does not follow a report complied 27 years ago or even as recently as 16 years ago it is wrong ? The justification for the recent upheaval was the failure to follow the Crawford Report both in the governance structure and the independence of the A-League so it is quite relevant to consider what it says on other matters. The recommendation that the broadcast rights be negotiated together was to maximise the value of the rights for all parties. That still holds. Hopefully the details still being sorted out by the FFA and the IndiA-League will include how this is done. We don't want to see the 2 entities working against each other. There are a number of ways it could be done. Either the FFA or the operational management of the A-League could have the necessary expertise in house or they could jointly appoint negotiators. +x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xFunny how both the Socceroos and hal were on FTA under Lowy. Then the new regime takes over and both seem to disappear... the current broadcast deal was signed by the old regime, not the new one, so if the HAL is missing from FTA then Lowy/Gallop are to blame (I know it’s inconvenient when facts get in the way of a good troll though ...). The only inconvenient facts so far seem to be that Lowy got it done, and this new mob can't. It’s a real slap in the face that Lowy couldn’t sign a tv contract that included FTA .... and now Indy-HAL are having to sort his mess out. Seems more to me that the new regime are the ones messing up a tv deal they know is a hell of a lot better than they could ever do. How can they mess up a tv deal that is subject to a 6 year contract signed by Lowy? If Lowy didn’t sign an FTA deal and gave everything to Fox to onsell then that the deal. Because so far the new mob seem to be lightweights with no influence. Again, Lowy got it done. If the Lowy's were still there the exact same problem with Fox would remain. So far as getting FTA done, the Lowy's record demonstrates otherwise. .....if the Lowy's were still there we would still be in an uncertain state as to what will happen when the current Fox deal finishes . You seemed to me to be talking specifically about the next tv deal. I didn't see how that was relevant. it is very relevant ...you were insinuating how clever the Lowys were ( Imagine you saying that ? ) for getting the current deal with Foxtel at a time Foxtel were giving literally billions of dollars to other sports . You also made it clear you thought the new board were " lightweights" and compared them to the Lowys "who got it done".. your words .. Clearly you were insinuating that the new board could not have gotten the deal the Lowys did. Who knows ? They weren't there then ...and won't be negotiating the next one either ! My comments were to illustrate that what the Lowys did was not anything special under the prevailing conditions at that time . What is irrelevent is to be comparing the old Lowy board to the new in regards to TV deals...the new one will not be negotiating any . That will be done by the A-league owners in future .Who knows how today's owners would have handled it back then but I suspect they may have fought harder for a better deal and more free to air . So yes it is relevant because you were comparing the new board to the old so I then compared how the Lowys would perform under conditions now and also when the next TV deal comes around if the status quo had remained ...thank God it has all changed ! By that statement are you saying that the recommendation of the Crawford Report that the TV rights be negotiated together would not be followed? No idea what the Crawford report says ...I've no doubt you do ...but I also don't live and die by what it says anymore than I do the Old Testament. What is your point ? Firstly which Crawford report ... 1992 or 2003 ? .....Both are ancient . Are you suggesting if something does not follow a report complied 27 years ago or even as recently as 16 years ago it is wrong ? The justification for the recent upheaval was the failure to follow the Crawford Report both in the governance structure and the independence of the A-League so it is quite relevant to consider what it says on other matters. The recommendation that the broadcast rights be negotiated together was to maximise the value of the rights for all parties. That still holds. Hopefully the details still being sorted out by the FFA and the IndiA-League will include how this is done. We don't want to see the 2 entities working against each other. There are a number of ways it could be done. Either the FFA or the operational management of the A-League could have the necessary expertise in house or they could jointly appoint negotiators. it appears to be unclear what TV rights the FFA will have to sell in future . The AFC seems to have some sort of rights over our Socceroos games at present . I assume by the time the next set of TV rights are due to be negotiated the Indi A-league will control their own TV rights.... it also seems unclear as to when the Indi A-league gains control over those rights ...lots of mud in the water at present . The independent A League took over operational control on time on Aug 1. The legal and financial details are still being finalised. yes we all know that ...however that does not necessarily mean the TV rights are now the A-Leagues. It makes sense that they take them over but as you say lots of legal and financial stuff to finalize. Technically I would think the TV rights are between Fox and the FFA. Who's to say Fox are happy to agree with transferring the agreement to be with another party... ie the A-League ? Maybe they will say "no... the contract is now null and void" and pull out altogether ? Muddy waters ... The TV rights are locked up in the 6 year contract signed by Lowy. Given the mess we are now in with the HAL that’s probably just as well but the new Independent HAL (“independent”) can’t do anything to change the contract and FTA negotiations are between Fox Sports determined to reduce their costs and C10. @Was Spot on. I think that the A-League, W-League and Y-league are not independently owned. The leagues will be independently managed. Therefore the contract between the FFA and Fox Sports remains. Any negotiating on the broadcast deal has to involve the FFA in the first instance. Perhaps Gallop, for all his faults, still as CEO is a good thing for his law background (I have to go and wash my mouth out now!) Indeed, wash your mouth out. Its easy to argue the rights and wrongs of the current contract, but at the end of the day it is what it is. The criticism at the time was it was a single contract selling rights to Fox and not a series of separate contracts covering: STV FTA Streaming Mobile. It seems the only separate part of the rights deal is the international component. Ha ha. The FFA does not have the rights to World Cup (FIFA) and AFC Qualifiers (AFC) My specific point is the that Leagues are not independently owned by will be managed just like the EPL.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]Funny how both the Socceroos and hal were on FTA under Lowy. Then the new regime takes over and both seem to disappear... the current broadcast deal was signed by the old regime, not the new one, so if the HAL is missing from FTA then Lowy/Gallop are to blame (I know it’s inconvenient when facts get in the way of a good troll though ...). The only inconvenient facts so far seem to be that Lowy got it done, and this new mob can't. It’s a real slap in the face that Lowy couldn’t sign a tv contract that included FTA .... and now Indy-HAL are having to sort his mess out. Seems more to me that the new regime are the ones messing up a tv deal they know is a hell of a lot better than they could ever do. How can they mess up a tv deal that is subject to a 6 year contract signed by Lowy? If Lowy didn’t sign an FTA deal and gave everything to Fox to onsell then that the deal. Because so far the new mob seem to be lightweights with no influence. Again, Lowy got it done. If the Lowy's were still there the exact same problem with Fox would remain. So far as getting FTA done, the Lowy's record demonstrates otherwise. .....if the Lowy's were still there we would still be in an uncertain state as to what will happen when the current Fox deal finishes . You seemed to me to be talking specifically about the next tv deal. I didn't see how that was relevant. it is very relevant ...you were insinuating how clever the Lowys were ( Imagine you saying that ? ) for getting the current deal with Foxtel at a time Foxtel were giving literally billions of dollars to other sports . You also made it clear you thought the new board were " lightweights" and compared them to the Lowys "who got it done".. your words .. Clearly you were insinuating that the new board could not have gotten the deal the Lowys did. Who knows ? They weren't there then ...and won't be negotiating the next one either ! My comments were to illustrate that what the Lowys did was not anything special under the prevailing conditions at that time . What is irrelevent is to be comparing the old Lowy board to the new in regards to TV deals...the new one will not be negotiating any . That will be done by the A-league owners in future .Who knows how today's owners would have handled it back then but I suspect they may have fought harder for a better deal and more free to air . So yes it is relevant because you were comparing the new board to the old so I then compared how the Lowys would perform under conditions now and also when the next TV deal comes around if the status quo had remained ...thank God it has all changed ! By that statement are you saying that the recommendation of the Crawford Report that the TV rights be negotiated together would not be followed? No idea what the Crawford report says ...I've no doubt you do ...but I also don't live and die by what it says anymore than I do the Old Testament. What is your point ? Firstly which Crawford report ... 1992 or 2003 ? .....Both are ancient . Are you suggesting if something does not follow a report complied 27 years ago or even as recently as 16 years ago it is wrong ? The justification for the recent upheaval was the failure to follow the Crawford Report both in the governance structure and the independence of the A-League so it is quite relevant to consider what it says on other matters. The recommendation that the broadcast rights be negotiated together was to maximise the value of the rights for all parties. That still holds. Hopefully the details still being sorted out by the FFA and the IndiA-League will include how this is done. We don't want to see the 2 entities working against each other. There are a number of ways it could be done. Either the FFA or the operational management of the A-League could have the necessary expertise in house or they could jointly appoint negotiators. +x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xFunny how both the Socceroos and hal were on FTA under Lowy. Then the new regime takes over and both seem to disappear... the current broadcast deal was signed by the old regime, not the new one, so if the HAL is missing from FTA then Lowy/Gallop are to blame (I know it’s inconvenient when facts get in the way of a good troll though ...). The only inconvenient facts so far seem to be that Lowy got it done, and this new mob can't. It’s a real slap in the face that Lowy couldn’t sign a tv contract that included FTA .... and now Indy-HAL are having to sort his mess out. Seems more to me that the new regime are the ones messing up a tv deal they know is a hell of a lot better than they could ever do. How can they mess up a tv deal that is subject to a 6 year contract signed by Lowy? If Lowy didn’t sign an FTA deal and gave everything to Fox to onsell then that the deal. Because so far the new mob seem to be lightweights with no influence. Again, Lowy got it done. If the Lowy's were still there the exact same problem with Fox would remain. So far as getting FTA done, the Lowy's record demonstrates otherwise. .....if the Lowy's were still there we would still be in an uncertain state as to what will happen when the current Fox deal finishes . You seemed to me to be talking specifically about the next tv deal. I didn't see how that was relevant. it is very relevant ...you were insinuating how clever the Lowys were ( Imagine you saying that ? ) for getting the current deal with Foxtel at a time Foxtel were giving literally billions of dollars to other sports . You also made it clear you thought the new board were " lightweights" and compared them to the Lowys "who got it done".. your words .. Clearly you were insinuating that the new board could not have gotten the deal the Lowys did. Who knows ? They weren't there then ...and won't be negotiating the next one either ! My comments were to illustrate that what the Lowys did was not anything special under the prevailing conditions at that time . What is irrelevent is to be comparing the old Lowy board to the new in regards to TV deals...the new one will not be negotiating any . That will be done by the A-league owners in future .Who knows how today's owners would have handled it back then but I suspect they may have fought harder for a better deal and more free to air . So yes it is relevant because you were comparing the new board to the old so I then compared how the Lowys would perform under conditions now and also when the next TV deal comes around if the status quo had remained ...thank God it has all changed ! By that statement are you saying that the recommendation of the Crawford Report that the TV rights be negotiated together would not be followed? No idea what the Crawford report says ...I've no doubt you do ...but I also don't live and die by what it says anymore than I do the Old Testament. What is your point ? Firstly which Crawford report ... 1992 or 2003 ? .....Both are ancient . Are you suggesting if something does not follow a report complied 27 years ago or even as recently as 16 years ago it is wrong ? The justification for the recent upheaval was the failure to follow the Crawford Report both in the governance structure and the independence of the A-League so it is quite relevant to consider what it says on other matters. The recommendation that the broadcast rights be negotiated together was to maximise the value of the rights for all parties. That still holds. Hopefully the details still being sorted out by the FFA and the IndiA-League will include how this is done. We don't want to see the 2 entities working against each other. There are a number of ways it could be done. Either the FFA or the operational management of the A-League could have the necessary expertise in house or they could jointly appoint negotiators. it appears to be unclear what TV rights the FFA will have to sell in future . The AFC seems to have some sort of rights over our Socceroos games at present . I assume by the time the next set of TV rights are due to be negotiated the Indi A-league will control their own TV rights.... it also seems unclear as to when the Indi A-league gains control over those rights ...lots of mud in the water at present . The independent A League took over operational control on time on Aug 1. The legal and financial details are still being finalised. yes we all know that ...however that does not necessarily mean the TV rights are now the A-Leagues. It makes sense that they take them over but as you say lots of legal and financial stuff to finalize. Technically I would think the TV rights are between Fox and the FFA. Who's to say Fox are happy to agree with transferring the agreement to be with another party... ie the A-League ? Maybe they will say "no... the contract is now null and void" and pull out altogether ? Muddy waters ... The TV rights are locked up in the 6 year contract signed by Lowy. Given the mess we are now in with the HAL that’s probably just as well but the new Independent HAL (“independent”) can’t do anything to change the contract and FTA negotiations are between Fox Sports determined to reduce their costs and C10. @Was Spot on. I think that the A-League, W-League and Y-league are not independently owned. The leagues will be independently managed. Therefore the contract between the FFA and Fox Sports remains. Any negotiating on the broadcast deal has to involve the FFA in the first instance. Perhaps Gallop, for all his faults, still as CEO is a good thing for his law background (I have to go and wash my mouth out now!) Indeed, wash your mouth out. Its easy to argue the rights and wrongs of the current contract, but at the end of the day it is what it is. The criticism at the time was it was a single contract selling rights to Fox and not a series of separate contracts covering: STV FTA Streaming Mobile. It seems the only separate part of the rights deal is the international component. [/quote]Ha ha. The FFA does not have the rights to World Cup (FIFA) and AFC Qualifiers (AFC) My specific point is the that Leagues are not independently owned by will be managed just like the EPL. Agree they’re not independently owned, but they are independently managed. That though does not mean they can forgo the pre-existing contract set up under Lowy. And “international rights” I didn’t mean WC I meant HAL international rights.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]Funny how both the Socceroos and hal were on FTA under Lowy. Then the new regime takes over and both seem to disappear... the current broadcast deal was signed by the old regime, not the new one, so if the HAL is missing from FTA then Lowy/Gallop are to blame (I know it’s inconvenient when facts get in the way of a good troll though ...). The only inconvenient facts so far seem to be that Lowy got it done, and this new mob can't. It’s a real slap in the face that Lowy couldn’t sign a tv contract that included FTA .... and now Indy-HAL are having to sort his mess out. Seems more to me that the new regime are the ones messing up a tv deal they know is a hell of a lot better than they could ever do. How can they mess up a tv deal that is subject to a 6 year contract signed by Lowy? If Lowy didn’t sign an FTA deal and gave everything to Fox to onsell then that the deal. Because so far the new mob seem to be lightweights with no influence. Again, Lowy got it done. If the Lowy's were still there the exact same problem with Fox would remain. So far as getting FTA done, the Lowy's record demonstrates otherwise. .....if the Lowy's were still there we would still be in an uncertain state as to what will happen when the current Fox deal finishes . You seemed to me to be talking specifically about the next tv deal. I didn't see how that was relevant. it is very relevant ...you were insinuating how clever the Lowys were ( Imagine you saying that ? ) for getting the current deal with Foxtel at a time Foxtel were giving literally billions of dollars to other sports . You also made it clear you thought the new board were " lightweights" and compared them to the Lowys "who got it done".. your words .. Clearly you were insinuating that the new board could not have gotten the deal the Lowys did. Who knows ? They weren't there then ...and won't be negotiating the next one either ! My comments were to illustrate that what the Lowys did was not anything special under the prevailing conditions at that time . What is irrelevent is to be comparing the old Lowy board to the new in regards to TV deals...the new one will not be negotiating any . That will be done by the A-league owners in future .Who knows how today's owners would have handled it back then but I suspect they may have fought harder for a better deal and more free to air . So yes it is relevant because you were comparing the new board to the old so I then compared how the Lowys would perform under conditions now and also when the next TV deal comes around if the status quo had remained ...thank God it has all changed ! By that statement are you saying that the recommendation of the Crawford Report that the TV rights be negotiated together would not be followed? No idea what the Crawford report says ...I've no doubt you do ...but I also don't live and die by what it says anymore than I do the Old Testament. What is your point ? Firstly which Crawford report ... 1992 or 2003 ? .....Both are ancient . Are you suggesting if something does not follow a report complied 27 years ago or even as recently as 16 years ago it is wrong ? The justification for the recent upheaval was the failure to follow the Crawford Report both in the governance structure and the independence of the A-League so it is quite relevant to consider what it says on other matters. The recommendation that the broadcast rights be negotiated together was to maximise the value of the rights for all parties. That still holds. Hopefully the details still being sorted out by the FFA and the IndiA-League will include how this is done. We don't want to see the 2 entities working against each other. There are a number of ways it could be done. Either the FFA or the operational management of the A-League could have the necessary expertise in house or they could jointly appoint negotiators. +x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xFunny how both the Socceroos and hal were on FTA under Lowy. Then the new regime takes over and both seem to disappear... the current broadcast deal was signed by the old regime, not the new one, so if the HAL is missing from FTA then Lowy/Gallop are to blame (I know it’s inconvenient when facts get in the way of a good troll though ...). The only inconvenient facts so far seem to be that Lowy got it done, and this new mob can't. It’s a real slap in the face that Lowy couldn’t sign a tv contract that included FTA .... and now Indy-HAL are having to sort his mess out. Seems more to me that the new regime are the ones messing up a tv deal they know is a hell of a lot better than they could ever do. How can they mess up a tv deal that is subject to a 6 year contract signed by Lowy? If Lowy didn’t sign an FTA deal and gave everything to Fox to onsell then that the deal. Because so far the new mob seem to be lightweights with no influence. Again, Lowy got it done. If the Lowy's were still there the exact same problem with Fox would remain. So far as getting FTA done, the Lowy's record demonstrates otherwise. .....if the Lowy's were still there we would still be in an uncertain state as to what will happen when the current Fox deal finishes . You seemed to me to be talking specifically about the next tv deal. I didn't see how that was relevant. it is very relevant ...you were insinuating how clever the Lowys were ( Imagine you saying that ? ) for getting the current deal with Foxtel at a time Foxtel were giving literally billions of dollars to other sports . You also made it clear you thought the new board were " lightweights" and compared them to the Lowys "who got it done".. your words .. Clearly you were insinuating that the new board could not have gotten the deal the Lowys did. Who knows ? They weren't there then ...and won't be negotiating the next one either ! My comments were to illustrate that what the Lowys did was not anything special under the prevailing conditions at that time . What is irrelevent is to be comparing the old Lowy board to the new in regards to TV deals...the new one will not be negotiating any . That will be done by the A-league owners in future .Who knows how today's owners would have handled it back then but I suspect they may have fought harder for a better deal and more free to air . So yes it is relevant because you were comparing the new board to the old so I then compared how the Lowys would perform under conditions now and also when the next TV deal comes around if the status quo had remained ...thank God it has all changed ! By that statement are you saying that the recommendation of the Crawford Report that the TV rights be negotiated together would not be followed? No idea what the Crawford report says ...I've no doubt you do ...but I also don't live and die by what it says anymore than I do the Old Testament. What is your point ? Firstly which Crawford report ... 1992 or 2003 ? .....Both are ancient . Are you suggesting if something does not follow a report complied 27 years ago or even as recently as 16 years ago it is wrong ? The justification for the recent upheaval was the failure to follow the Crawford Report both in the governance structure and the independence of the A-League so it is quite relevant to consider what it says on other matters. The recommendation that the broadcast rights be negotiated together was to maximise the value of the rights for all parties. That still holds. Hopefully the details still being sorted out by the FFA and the IndiA-League will include how this is done. We don't want to see the 2 entities working against each other. There are a number of ways it could be done. Either the FFA or the operational management of the A-League could have the necessary expertise in house or they could jointly appoint negotiators. it appears to be unclear what TV rights the FFA will have to sell in future . The AFC seems to have some sort of rights over our Socceroos games at present . I assume by the time the next set of TV rights are due to be negotiated the Indi A-league will control their own TV rights.... it also seems unclear as to when the Indi A-league gains control over those rights ...lots of mud in the water at present . The independent A League took over operational control on time on Aug 1. The legal and financial details are still being finalised. yes we all know that ...however that does not necessarily mean the TV rights are now the A-Leagues. It makes sense that they take them over but as you say lots of legal and financial stuff to finalize. Technically I would think the TV rights are between Fox and the FFA. Who's to say Fox are happy to agree with transferring the agreement to be with another party... ie the A-League ? Maybe they will say "no... the contract is now null and void" and pull out altogether ? Muddy waters ... The TV rights are locked up in the 6 year contract signed by Lowy. Given the mess we are now in with the HAL that’s probably just as well but the new Independent HAL (“independent”) can’t do anything to change the contract and FTA negotiations are between Fox Sports determined to reduce their costs and C10. @Was Spot on. I think that the A-League, W-League and Y-league are not independently owned. The leagues will be independently managed. Therefore the contract between the FFA and Fox Sports remains. Any negotiating on the broadcast deal has to involve the FFA in the first instance. Perhaps Gallop, for all his faults, still as CEO is a good thing for his law background (I have to go and wash my mouth out now!) Indeed, wash your mouth out. Its easy to argue the rights and wrongs of the current contract, but at the end of the day it is what it is. The criticism at the time was it was a single contract selling rights to Fox and not a series of separate contracts covering: STV FTA Streaming Mobile. It seems the only separate part of the rights deal is the international component. [/quote]Ha ha. The FFA does not have the rights to World Cup (FIFA) and AFC Qualifiers (AFC) My specific point is the that Leagues are not independently owned by will be managed just like the EPL. The EPL is independently owned by the 20 clubs. Each club has 1 share. The clubs elect the Chairman, CEO and Board of Directors to deal with day to day business. The FA has no say in the commercial running of the EPL. EPL games are played under FA rules and regulations, under FA referees with the FA adjudicating on disciplinary matters arising out of play on the pitch. On an annual basis the EPL has to submit its competition rule book to the FA for ratification and sanction. Games organised by the FIFA, UEFA and FA are first allocated a spot on the calendar and the EPL has to organise its fixtures around those dates. It will be interesting to see how close to the EPL the final agreement for the independent A-League is.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]+x[quote]Funny how both the Socceroos and hal were on FTA under Lowy. Then the new regime takes over and both seem to disappear... the current broadcast deal was signed by the old regime, not the new one, so if the HAL is missing from FTA then Lowy/Gallop are to blame (I know it’s inconvenient when facts get in the way of a good troll though ...). The only inconvenient facts so far seem to be that Lowy got it done, and this new mob can't.
It’s a real slap in the face that Lowy couldn’t sign a tv contract that included FTA .... and now Indy-HAL are having to sort his mess out.
Seems more to me that the new regime are the ones messing up a tv deal they know is a hell of a lot better than they could ever do.
How can they mess up a tv deal that is subject to a 6 year contract signed by Lowy?
If Lowy didn’t sign an FTA deal and gave everything to Fox to onsell then that the deal.
Because so far the new mob seem to be lightweights with no influence. Again, Lowy got it done.
If the Lowy's were still there the exact same problem with Fox would remain.
So far as getting FTA done, the Lowy's record demonstrates otherwise.
.....if the Lowy's were still there we would still be in an uncertain state as to what will happen when the current Fox deal finishes .
You seemed to me to be talking specifically about the next tv deal. I didn't see how that was relevant.
it is very relevant ...you were insinuating how clever the Lowys were ( Imagine you saying that ? ) for getting the current deal with Foxtel at a time Foxtel were giving literally billions of dollars to other sports .
You also made it clear you thought the new board were " lightweights" and compared them to the Lowys "who got it done".. your words ..
Clearly you were insinuating that the new board could not have gotten the deal the Lowys did.
Who knows ? They weren't there then ...and won't be negotiating the next one either !
My comments were to illustrate that what the Lowys did was not anything special under the prevailing conditions at that time .
What is irrelevent is to be comparing the old Lowy board to the new in regards to TV deals...the new one will not be negotiating any .
That will be done by the A-league owners in future .
Who knows how today's owners would have handled it back then but I suspect they may have fought harder for a better deal and more free to air .
So yes it is relevant because you were comparing the new board to the old so I then compared how the Lowys would perform under conditions now and also when the next TV deal comes around if the status quo had remained ...thank God it has all changed !
By that statement are you saying that the recommendation of the Crawford Report that the TV rights be negotiated together would not be followed?
No idea what the Crawford report says ...I've no doubt you do ...but I also don't live and die by what it says anymore than I do the Old Testament.
What is your point ?
Firstly which Crawford report ... 1992 or 2003 ? .....Both are ancient .
Are you suggesting if something does not follow a report complied 27 years ago or even as recently as 16 years ago it is wrong ?
The justification for the recent upheaval was the failure to follow the Crawford Report both in the governance structure and the independence of the A-League so it is quite relevant to consider what it says on other matters. The recommendation that the broadcast rights be negotiated together was to maximise the value of the rights for all parties. That still holds. Hopefully the details still being sorted out by the FFA and the IndiA-League will include how this is done. We don't want to see the 2 entities working against each other. There are a number of ways it could be done. Either the FFA or the operational management of the A-League could have the necessary expertise in house or they could jointly appoint negotiators.
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xFunny how both the Socceroos and hal were on FTA under Lowy. Then the new regime takes over and both seem to disappear... the current broadcast deal was signed by the old regime, not the new one, so if the HAL is missing from FTA then Lowy/Gallop are to blame (I know it’s inconvenient when facts get in the way of a good troll though ...). The only inconvenient facts so far seem to be that Lowy got it done, and this new mob can't. It’s a real slap in the face that Lowy couldn’t sign a tv contract that included FTA .... and now Indy-HAL are having to sort his mess out. Seems more to me that the new regime are the ones messing up a tv deal they know is a hell of a lot better than they could ever do. How can they mess up a tv deal that is subject to a 6 year contract signed by Lowy? If Lowy didn’t sign an FTA deal and gave everything to Fox to onsell then that the deal. Because so far the new mob seem to be lightweights with no influence. Again, Lowy got it done. If the Lowy's were still there the exact same problem with Fox would remain. So far as getting FTA done, the Lowy's record demonstrates otherwise. .....if the Lowy's were still there we would still be in an uncertain state as to what will happen when the current Fox deal finishes . You seemed to me to be talking specifically about the next tv deal. I didn't see how that was relevant. it is very relevant ...you were insinuating how clever the Lowys were ( Imagine you saying that ? ) for getting the current deal with Foxtel at a time Foxtel were giving literally billions of dollars to other sports . You also made it clear you thought the new board were " lightweights" and compared them to the Lowys "who got it done".. your words .. Clearly you were insinuating that the new board could not have gotten the deal the Lowys did. Who knows ? They weren't there then ...and won't be negotiating the next one either ! My comments were to illustrate that what the Lowys did was not anything special under the prevailing conditions at that time . What is irrelevent is to be comparing the old Lowy board to the new in regards to TV deals...the new one will not be negotiating any . That will be done by the A-league owners in future .Who knows how today's owners would have handled it back then but I suspect they may have fought harder for a better deal and more free to air . So yes it is relevant because you were comparing the new board to the old so I then compared how the Lowys would perform under conditions now and also when the next TV deal comes around if the status quo had remained ...thank God it has all changed ! By that statement are you saying that the recommendation of the Crawford Report that the TV rights be negotiated together would not be followed? No idea what the Crawford report says ...I've no doubt you do ...but I also don't live and die by what it says anymore than I do the Old Testament. What is your point ? Firstly which Crawford report ... 1992 or 2003 ? .....Both are ancient . Are you suggesting if something does not follow a report complied 27 years ago or even as recently as 16 years ago it is wrong ? The justification for the recent upheaval was the failure to follow the Crawford Report both in the governance structure and the independence of the A-League so it is quite relevant to consider what it says on other matters. The recommendation that the broadcast rights be negotiated together was to maximise the value of the rights for all parties. That still holds. Hopefully the details still being sorted out by the FFA and the IndiA-League will include how this is done. We don't want to see the 2 entities working against each other. There are a number of ways it could be done. Either the FFA or the operational management of the A-League could have the necessary expertise in house or they could jointly appoint negotiators.
it appears to be unclear what TV rights the FFA will have to sell in future . The AFC seems to have some sort of rights over our Socceroos games at present . I assume by the time the next set of TV rights are due to be negotiated the Indi A-league will control their own TV rights.... it also seems unclear as to when the Indi A-league gains control over those rights ...lots of mud in the water at present .
The independent A League took over operational control on time on Aug 1. The legal and financial details are still being finalised.
yes we all know that ...however that does not necessarily mean the TV rights are now the A-Leagues. It makes sense that they take them over but as you say lots of legal and financial stuff to finalize. Technically I would think the TV rights are between Fox and the FFA. Who's to say Fox are happy to agree with transferring the agreement to be with another party... ie the A-League ? Maybe they will say "no... the contract is now null and void" and pull out altogether ? Muddy waters ...
The TV rights are locked up in the 6 year contract signed by Lowy. Given the mess we are now in with the HAL that’s probably just as well but the new Independent HAL (“independent”) can’t do anything to change the contract and FTA negotiations are between Fox Sports determined to reduce their costs and C10.
@Was
Spot on.
I think that the A-League, W-League and Y-league are not independently owned. The leagues will be independently managed.
Therefore the contract between the FFA and Fox Sports remains. Any negotiating on the broadcast deal has to involve the FFA in the first instance.
Perhaps Gallop, for all his faults, still as CEO is a good thing for his law background (I have to go and wash my mouth out now!)
Indeed, wash your mouth out.
Its easy to argue the rights and wrongs of the current contract, but at the end of the day it is what it is.
The criticism at the time was it was a single contract selling rights to Fox and not a series of separate contracts covering:
STV
FTA
Streaming
Mobile.
It seems the only separate part of the rights deal is the international component. Ha ha. The FFA does not have the rights to World Cup (FIFA) and AFC Qualifiers (AFC) My specific point is the that Leagues are not independently owned by will be managed just like the EPL. [/quote]The EPL is independently owned by the 20 clubs. Each club has 1 share. The clubs elect the Chairman, CEO and Board of Directors to deal with day to day business. The FA has no say in the commercial running of the EPL. EPL games are played under FA rules and regulations, under FA referees with the FA adjudicating on disciplinary matters arising out of play on the pitch. On an annual basis the EPL has to submit its competition rule book to the FA for ratification and sanction. Games organised by the FIFA, UEFA and FA are first allocated a spot on the calendar and the EPL has to organise its fixtures around those dates. It will be interesting to see how close to the EPL the final agreement for the independent A-League is. You would think pretty damned close. And i I can live with that, the only additional thing I’d like to see is fan involvement who remain on the outer in England.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xFunny how both the Socceroos and hal were on FTA under Lowy. Then the new regime takes over and both seem to disappear... the current broadcast deal was signed by the old regime, not the new one, so if the HAL is missing from FTA then Lowy/Gallop are to blame (I know it’s inconvenient when facts get in the way of a good troll though ...). The only inconvenient facts so far seem to be that Lowy got it done, and this new mob can't. It’s a real slap in the face that Lowy couldn’t sign a tv contract that included FTA .... and now Indy-HAL are having to sort his mess out. Seems more to me that the new regime are the ones messing up a tv deal they know is a hell of a lot better than they could ever do. How can they mess up a tv deal that is subject to a 6 year contract signed by Lowy? If Lowy didn’t sign an FTA deal and gave everything to Fox to onsell then that the deal. Because so far the new mob seem to be lightweights with no influence. Again, Lowy got it done. If the Lowy's were still there the exact same problem with Fox would remain. So far as getting FTA done, the Lowy's record demonstrates otherwise. .....if the Lowy's were still there we would still be in an uncertain state as to what will happen when the current Fox deal finishes . You seemed to me to be talking specifically about the next tv deal. I didn't see how that was relevant. it is very relevant ...you were insinuating how clever the Lowys were ( Imagine you saying that ? ) for getting the current deal with Foxtel at a time Foxtel were giving literally billions of dollars to other sports . You also made it clear you thought the new board were " lightweights" and compared them to the Lowys "who got it done".. your words .. Clearly you were insinuating that the new board could not have gotten the deal the Lowys did. Who knows ? They weren't there then ...and won't be negotiating the next one either ! My comments were to illustrate that what the Lowys did was not anything special under the prevailing conditions at that time . What is irrelevent is to be comparing the old Lowy board to the new in regards to TV deals...the new one will not be negotiating any . That will be done by the A-league owners in future .Who knows how today's owners would have handled it back then but I suspect they may have fought harder for a better deal and more free to air . So yes it is relevant because you were comparing the new board to the old so I then compared how the Lowys would perform under conditions now and also when the next TV deal comes around if the status quo had remained ...thank God it has all changed ! By that statement are you saying that the recommendation of the Crawford Report that the TV rights be negotiated together would not be followed? No idea what the Crawford report says ...I've no doubt you do ...but I also don't live and die by what it says anymore than I do the Old Testament. What is your point ? Firstly which Crawford report ... 1992 or 2003 ? .....Both are ancient . Are you suggesting if something does not follow a report complied 27 years ago or even as recently as 16 years ago it is wrong ? The justification for the recent upheaval was the failure to follow the Crawford Report both in the governance structure and the independence of the A-League so it is quite relevant to consider what it says on other matters. The recommendation that the broadcast rights be negotiated together was to maximise the value of the rights for all parties. That still holds. Hopefully the details still being sorted out by the FFA and the IndiA-League will include how this is done. We don't want to see the 2 entities working against each other. There are a number of ways it could be done. Either the FFA or the operational management of the A-League could have the necessary expertise in house or they could jointly appoint negotiators. +x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xFunny how both the Socceroos and hal were on FTA under Lowy. Then the new regime takes over and both seem to disappear... the current broadcast deal was signed by the old regime, not the new one, so if the HAL is missing from FTA then Lowy/Gallop are to blame (I know it’s inconvenient when facts get in the way of a good troll though ...). The only inconvenient facts so far seem to be that Lowy got it done, and this new mob can't. It’s a real slap in the face that Lowy couldn’t sign a tv contract that included FTA .... and now Indy-HAL are having to sort his mess out. Seems more to me that the new regime are the ones messing up a tv deal they know is a hell of a lot better than they could ever do. How can they mess up a tv deal that is subject to a 6 year contract signed by Lowy? If Lowy didn’t sign an FTA deal and gave everything to Fox to onsell then that the deal. Because so far the new mob seem to be lightweights with no influence. Again, Lowy got it done. If the Lowy's were still there the exact same problem with Fox would remain. So far as getting FTA done, the Lowy's record demonstrates otherwise. .....if the Lowy's were still there we would still be in an uncertain state as to what will happen when the current Fox deal finishes . You seemed to me to be talking specifically about the next tv deal. I didn't see how that was relevant. it is very relevant ...you were insinuating how clever the Lowys were ( Imagine you saying that ? ) for getting the current deal with Foxtel at a time Foxtel were giving literally billions of dollars to other sports . You also made it clear you thought the new board were " lightweights" and compared them to the Lowys "who got it done".. your words .. Clearly you were insinuating that the new board could not have gotten the deal the Lowys did. Who knows ? They weren't there then ...and won't be negotiating the next one either ! My comments were to illustrate that what the Lowys did was not anything special under the prevailing conditions at that time . What is irrelevent is to be comparing the old Lowy board to the new in regards to TV deals...the new one will not be negotiating any . That will be done by the A-league owners in future .Who knows how today's owners would have handled it back then but I suspect they may have fought harder for a better deal and more free to air . So yes it is relevant because you were comparing the new board to the old so I then compared how the Lowys would perform under conditions now and also when the next TV deal comes around if the status quo had remained ...thank God it has all changed ! By that statement are you saying that the recommendation of the Crawford Report that the TV rights be negotiated together would not be followed? No idea what the Crawford report says ...I've no doubt you do ...but I also don't live and die by what it says anymore than I do the Old Testament. What is your point ? Firstly which Crawford report ... 1992 or 2003 ? .....Both are ancient . Are you suggesting if something does not follow a report complied 27 years ago or even as recently as 16 years ago it is wrong ? The justification for the recent upheaval was the failure to follow the Crawford Report both in the governance structure and the independence of the A-League so it is quite relevant to consider what it says on other matters. The recommendation that the broadcast rights be negotiated together was to maximise the value of the rights for all parties. That still holds. Hopefully the details still being sorted out by the FFA and the IndiA-League will include how this is done. We don't want to see the 2 entities working against each other. There are a number of ways it could be done. Either the FFA or the operational management of the A-League could have the necessary expertise in house or they could jointly appoint negotiators. it appears to be unclear what TV rights the FFA will have to sell in future . The AFC seems to have some sort of rights over our Socceroos games at present . I assume by the time the next set of TV rights are due to be negotiated the Indi A-league will control their own TV rights.... it also seems unclear as to when the Indi A-league gains control over those rights ...lots of mud in the water at present . The FFA will have the rights to International friendlies, the FFA Cup and possibly the 2nd Division depending on whether it is operated in house or independently. so... almost nothing .....unless a 2nd division is up and running The clubs' view is that the FFA's share of the rights is around 15% which is $8m but the value was a lot higher when the FA could bundle AFC rights in the total package. Now the broadcaster pays the AFC for those rights and the FFA gets a fee per game from the AFC.
|
|
|
|
nomates
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
So if there is no FTA for HAL, what does this all mean for the future of the game?.
Wellington Phoenix FC
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSo if there is no FTA for HAL, what does this all mean for the future of the game?. The NSL lasted for 27 years with minimal FTA.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSo if there is no FTA for HAL, what does this all mean for the future of the game?. FTA is not the problem. The future of the game isn’t watching FTA nor will future revenues be coming from FTA.
|
|
|
|
|
miron mercedes
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 0
|
It is an interesting subject but the reality is I doubt anyone on here is privy to the intricacies of the contracts previously signed nor how the new HAL will be set up exactly . Therefore it is all pure speculation .
Still... it's fun to discuss and come up with theories .
I am just hoping the A-League owners are smart enough to organize everything to ensure they can make more revenue in future .
If that involves streaming instead of FTA then so be it .
Our game needs it .
|
|
|
|
|
Melbcityguy
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
A-League games will be shown on prime time free-to-air TV for the first time under a new deal being negotiated with the ABC by club owners ahead of the new season.
Saturday games at 5.15pm would be broadcast on both ABC1 and Fox Sports if the deal is agreed by all parties, giving the competition access to its biggest potential free-to-air audience.
Though some details of the deal still have to be ironed out, The Daily Telegraph understands that the various stakeholders involved are positive about the deal, with hopes it will be signed off well before the new season kicks off on October 11.
The proposed deal is the first significant move by the A-League club owners after they took control of the competition on August 1, even though the legal separation of the competition out of Football Federation Australia is still not complete.
Talks with the ABC began after a mooted deal with the Ten Network — which would have involved two games being shown exclusively on Ten’s main channel — fell victim to the merger of Ten’s parent, CBS, with Viacom in the US.
Detailed negotiations in recent days have centred on ABC taking Fox Sports’s production of the game, with hopes it will deliver an audience well into six figures after several years of dramatic decline in TV ratings for A-League games.
W-League games broadcast on ABC1 on Sundays have regularly drawn audiences of around 65,000.
Both Ten and before that SBS only broadcast A-League games on their subsidiary channels, with little incentive to promote the coverage.
|
|
|
|
|
Feed_The_Brox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.3K,
Visits: 0
|
they talk about ratings, but what about promotion? clearly ch 10 haven't come to the party and they're taking whatever they can get.
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
We all remember the last game that the ABC produced...
|
|
|
|
nomates
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
So we have had 3 FTA channels now showing HAL? what a TV whore!
Wellington Phoenix FC
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSo we have had 3 FTA channels now showing HAL? what a TV whore! Also 7 and 9 have shown the Socceroos, as have ABC in the past (as well as exhibition games) Yet strangely ratings have been similar across the board Not every show on ABC rates the same, yet we somehow believe we'll end up with bigger ratings due to their average ratings share for 24 hours, even though they couldnt do this for the Socceroos
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+xSo we have had 3 FTA channels now showing HAL? what a TV whore! Only 1 payed, the other 2 were getting it for free so probs more of a hussy
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+xSo we have had 3 FTA channels now showing HAL? what a TV whore! Also 7 and 9 have shown the Socceroos, as have ABC in the past (as well as exhibition games) Yet strangely ratings have been similar across the board Not every show on ABC rates the same, yet we somehow believe we'll end up with bigger ratings due to their average ratings share for 24 hours, even though they couldnt do this for the Socceroos I have always found it interesting that TV viewers on Foxtel could somehow navigate the 100 or so channels and find the HAL, while on FTA viewers couldn't find SBS2 or 11 when there were only 15-20 channels to choose from. Personally I believe that if the product is good, people will seek it out (just look at the ratings SBS got for the WC), but the harsh reality is HAL is not that desireable to watch and once Fox lost EPL HAL lost a major feeder of eyeballs and is suffering.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWe all remember the last game that the ABC produced... A Socceroos fixture? It was okay?
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
The ABC did a good job for the 2015 Asian Cup, as I recall.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+xThe ABC did a good job for the 2015 Asian Cup, as I recall. ABC is getting a fox feed
|
|
|
|
|
Davstar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Funny how both the Socceroos and hal were on FTA under Lowy. Then the new regime takes over and both seem to disappear... the current broadcast deal was signed by the old regime, not the new one, so if the HAL is missing from FTA then Lowy/Gallop are to blame (I know it’s inconvenient when facts get in the way of a good troll though ...). The only inconvenient facts so far seem to be that Lowy got it done, and this new mob can't. It’s a real slap in the face that Lowy couldn’t sign a tv contract that included FTA .... and now Indy-HAL are having to sort his mess out. Seems more to me that the new regime are the ones messing up a tv deal they know is a hell of a lot better than they could ever do. How can they mess up a tv deal that is subject to a 6 year contract signed by Lowy? If Lowy didn’t sign an FTA deal and gave everything to Fox to onsell then that the deal. Because so far the new mob seem to be lightweights with no influence. Again, Lowy got it done. If the Lowy's were still there the exact same problem with Fox would remain. So far as getting FTA done, the Lowy's record demonstrates otherwise. .....if the Lowy's were still there we would still be in an uncertain state as to what will happen when the current Fox deal finishes . You seemed to me to be talking specifically about the next tv deal. I didn't see how that was relevant. it is very relevant ...you were insinuating how clever the Lowys were ( Imagine you saying that ? ) for getting the current deal with Foxtel at a time Foxtel were giving literally billions of dollars to other sports . You also made it clear you thought the new board were " lightweights" and compared them to the Lowys "who got it done".. your words .. Clearly you were insinuating that the new board could not have gotten the deal the Lowys did. Who knows ? They weren't there then ...and won't be negotiating the next one either ! My comments were to illustrate that what the Lowys did was not anything special under the prevailing conditions at that time . What is irrelevent is to be comparing the old Lowy board to the new in regards to TV deals...the new one will not be negotiating any . That will be done by the A-league owners in future .Who knows how today's owners would have handled it back then but I suspect they may have fought harder for a better deal and more free to air . So yes it is relevant because you were comparing the new board to the old so I then compared how the Lowys would perform under conditions now and also when the next TV deal comes around if the status quo had remained ...thank God it has all changed ! By that statement are you saying that the recommendation of the Crawford Report that the TV rights be negotiated together would not be followed? No idea what the Crawford report says ...I've no doubt you do ...but I also don't live and die by what it says anymore than I do the Old Testament. What is your point ? Firstly which Crawford report ... 1992 or 2003 ? .....Both are ancient . Are you suggesting if something does not follow a report complied 27 years ago or even as recently as 16 years ago it is wrong ? The justification for the recent upheaval was the failure to follow the Crawford Report both in the governance structure and the independence of the A-League so it is quite relevant to consider what it says on other matters. The recommendation that the broadcast rights be negotiated together was to maximise the value of the rights for all parties. That still holds. Hopefully the details still being sorted out by the FFA and the IndiA-League will include how this is done. We don't want to see the 2 entities working against each other. There are a number of ways it could be done. Either the FFA or the operational management of the A-League could have the necessary expertise in house or they could jointly appoint negotiators. +x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xFunny how both the Socceroos and hal were on FTA under Lowy. Then the new regime takes over and both seem to disappear... the current broadcast deal was signed by the old regime, not the new one, so if the HAL is missing from FTA then Lowy/Gallop are to blame (I know it’s inconvenient when facts get in the way of a good troll though ...). The only inconvenient facts so far seem to be that Lowy got it done, and this new mob can't. It’s a real slap in the face that Lowy couldn’t sign a tv contract that included FTA .... and now Indy-HAL are having to sort his mess out. Seems more to me that the new regime are the ones messing up a tv deal they know is a hell of a lot better than they could ever do. How can they mess up a tv deal that is subject to a 6 year contract signed by Lowy? If Lowy didn’t sign an FTA deal and gave everything to Fox to onsell then that the deal. Because so far the new mob seem to be lightweights with no influence. Again, Lowy got it done. If the Lowy's were still there the exact same problem with Fox would remain. So far as getting FTA done, the Lowy's record demonstrates otherwise. .....if the Lowy's were still there we would still be in an uncertain state as to what will happen when the current Fox deal finishes . You seemed to me to be talking specifically about the next tv deal. I didn't see how that was relevant. it is very relevant ...you were insinuating how clever the Lowys were ( Imagine you saying that ? ) for getting the current deal with Foxtel at a time Foxtel were giving literally billions of dollars to other sports . You also made it clear you thought the new board were " lightweights" and compared them to the Lowys "who got it done".. your words .. Clearly you were insinuating that the new board could not have gotten the deal the Lowys did. Who knows ? They weren't there then ...and won't be negotiating the next one either ! My comments were to illustrate that what the Lowys did was not anything special under the prevailing conditions at that time . What is irrelevent is to be comparing the old Lowy board to the new in regards to TV deals...the new one will not be negotiating any . That will be done by the A-league owners in future .Who knows how today's owners would have handled it back then but I suspect they may have fought harder for a better deal and more free to air . So yes it is relevant because you were comparing the new board to the old so I then compared how the Lowys would perform under conditions now and also when the next TV deal comes around if the status quo had remained ...thank God it has all changed ! By that statement are you saying that the recommendation of the Crawford Report that the TV rights be negotiated together would not be followed? No idea what the Crawford report says ...I've no doubt you do ...but I also don't live and die by what it says anymore than I do the Old Testament. What is your point ? Firstly which Crawford report ... 1992 or 2003 ? .....Both are ancient . Are you suggesting if something does not follow a report complied 27 years ago or even as recently as 16 years ago it is wrong ? The justification for the recent upheaval was the failure to follow the Crawford Report both in the governance structure and the independence of the A-League so it is quite relevant to consider what it says on other matters. The recommendation that the broadcast rights be negotiated together was to maximise the value of the rights for all parties. That still holds. Hopefully the details still being sorted out by the FFA and the IndiA-League will include how this is done. We don't want to see the 2 entities working against each other. There are a number of ways it could be done. Either the FFA or the operational management of the A-League could have the necessary expertise in house or they could jointly appoint negotiators. it appears to be unclear what TV rights the FFA will have to sell in future . The AFC seems to have some sort of rights over our Socceroos games at present . I assume by the time the next set of TV rights are due to be negotiated the Indi A-league will control their own TV rights.... it also seems unclear as to when the Indi A-league gains control over those rights ...lots of mud in the water at present . The independent A League took over operational control on time on Aug 1. The legal and financial details are still being finalised. yes we all know that ...however that does not necessarily mean the TV rights are now the A-Leagues. It makes sense that they take them over but as you say lots of legal and financial stuff to finalize. Technically I would think the TV rights are between Fox and the FFA. Who's to say Fox are happy to agree with transferring the agreement to be with another party... ie the A-League ? Maybe they will say "no... the contract is now null and void" and pull out altogether ? Muddy waters ... The TV rights are locked up in the 6 year contract signed by Lowy. Given the mess we are now in with the HAL that’s probably just as well but the new Independent HAL (“independent”) can’t do anything to change the contract and FTA negotiations are between Fox Sports determined to reduce their costs and C10. @Was Spot on. I think that the A-League, W-League and Y-league are not independently owned. The leagues will be independently managed. Therefore the contract between the FFA and Fox Sports remains. Any negotiating on the broadcast deal has to involve the FFA in the first instance. Perhaps Gallop, for all his faults, still as CEO is a good thing for his law background (I have to go and wash my mouth out now!) Indeed, wash your mouth out. Its easy to argue the rights and wrongs of the current contract, but at the end of the day it is what it is. The criticism at the time was it was a single contract selling rights to Fox and not a series of separate contracts covering: STV FTA Streaming Mobile. It seems the only separate part of the rights deal is the international component. Im the biggest critic of the FFA and how useless they were but how the managed to get almost 60million a season for the HAL tv is amazing! We are looking at about half that maybe less next time around per season - the TV deal is the reason the A league has been some what viable and covered most if the costs required to run. We are not the only sport who's life blood is TV money NRL and AFL have big deals which keeps teams like Gold Coast Sun prompt up in the competition who foxteo also gave overpriced TV deals. I agree no FTA component was not great but at the time the EPL was with Foxsports so there was a large number of football fans ( non HAL) on foxsports so there was good scope for the league to grow. The issue is that once foxsports lost the EPL (1 year after) rights they lost a lot of football subscribers because 60-80 a month for HAL is simply not worth it for most ppl when memberships for clubs are as low as a few $100. Kayo might make things a little better for viewership because lets be honest foxtel is rubbish without sport esp when you consider Netflix and co are cheap better options I honestly can see foxtel going bust no one is willing to pay for Cricket in the off season (becuz it is a shit sport) the AFL and NRL FTA components are enough for most fans and there season is only 6 months foxtel has been hemorrhaging money for a long time. The knew sport was there only hope but simply put they threw too much $$$ at it. But ill always be thankful for its support of football- it just f***ed itself when it let optus take the EPL rights - once they lost EPL they lost me and everyone i know who had foxtel at the time because although i support the A league the EPL is the best sports competition in the world imo
these Kangaroos can play football -
Ange P. (Intercontinental WC Play-offs 2017)
KEEP POLITICS OUT OF FOOTBALL
|
|
|
|
|
Feed_The_Brox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.3K,
Visits: 0
|
I'm probably clutching at straws, but is there any chance that the FFA/independent HAL are leveraging the ABC in an attempt to get ch 10 back to the negotiating table? even leaked the story to the media on purpose to get ch 10 thinking and getting the general football family talking about it?
or is the ABC truly the last possible fallback option when we have nothing else going on?
|
|
|
|
|
sav.09@live.com.au
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 72,
Visits: 244
|
+x+x+xSo we have had 3 FTA channels now showing HAL? what a TV whore! Also 7 and 9 have shown the Socceroos, as have ABC in the past (as well as exhibition games) Yet strangely ratings have been similar across the board Not every show on ABC rates the same, yet we somehow believe we'll end up with bigger ratings due to their average ratings share for 24 hours, even though they couldnt do this for the Socceroos I have always found it interesting that TV viewers on Foxtel could somehow navigate the 100 or so channels and find the HAL, while on FTA viewers couldn't find SBS2 or 11 when there were only 15-20 channels to choose from. Personally I believe that if the product is good, people will seek it out (just look at the ratings SBS got for the WC), but the harsh reality is HAL is not that desireable to watch and once Fox lost EPL HAL lost a major feeder of eyeballs and is suffering. Strayans are deeply conservative ,and creatures of routine and habit by nature. They dont take kindly to unpredictability and change. eg An AFL or NRL fan can drop into a coma and in 10 years wake up and know 95% certainty therell be 'friday night footy' , Saturday arvo super footy, State of origin on a wednesday in june-july, 'Finals in september', , AFL Sat grand final, NRL night Sunday grand final etc etc all on 'Prime time channel Nine and Seven' . Can the most ardent football fan summarise standard TV coverage /channel/ time /slots of HAL and socceroos in last 2-3 years let alone remotely predict looking forward ..??
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI'm probably clutching at straws, but is there any chance that the FFA/independent HAL are leveraging the ABC in an attempt to get ch 10 back to the negotiating table? even leaked the story to the media on purpose to get ch 10 thinking and getting the general football family talking about it? or is the ABC truly the last possible fallback option when we have nothing else going on? Does it matter? Any deal is between Fox Sports and an FTA so football doesn’t benefit directly financially.
|
|
|
|
|
Feed_The_Brox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xDoes it matter? Any deal is between Fox Sports and an FTA so football doesn’t benefit directly financially. not from a tv rights point of view, but it does benefit from an exposure point of view.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xDoes it matter? Any deal is between Fox Sports and an FTA so football doesn’t benefit directly financially. not from a tv rights point of view, but it does benefit from an exposure point of view. It does (and I think ratings will be better for a variety of factors) however I think it’s still exposure to the wrong market - ABC or C10, it’s the wrong audience for us
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+x+xSo we have had 3 FTA channels now showing HAL? what a TV whore! Also 7 and 9 have shown the Socceroos, as have ABC in the past (as well as exhibition games) Yet strangely ratings have been similar across the board Not every show on ABC rates the same, yet we somehow believe we'll end up with bigger ratings due to their average ratings share for 24 hours, even though they couldnt do this for the Socceroos I have always found it interesting that TV viewers on Foxtel could somehow navigate the 100 or so channels and find the HAL, while on FTA viewers couldn't find SBS2 or 11 when there were only 15-20 channels to choose from. Personally I believe that if the product is good, people will seek it out (just look at the ratings SBS got for the WC), but the harsh reality is HAL is not that desireable to watch and once Fox lost EPL HAL lost a major feeder of eyeballs and is suffering. Strayans are deeply conservative ,and creatures of routine and habit by nature. They dont take kindly to unpredictability and change. eg An AFL or NRL fan can drop into a coma and in 10 years wake up and know 95% certainty therell be 'friday night footy' , Saturday arvo super footy, State of origin on a wednesday in june-july, 'Finals in september', , AFL Sat grand final, NRL night Sunday grand final etc etc all on 'Prime time channel Nine and Seven' . Can the most ardent football fan summarise standard TV coverage /channel/ time /slots of HAL and socceroos in last 2-3 years let alone remotely predict looking forward ..?? A lot of valid points and generally speaking Sat arvo in summer is a ratings graveyard because most people are out and about. Sunday arvo is different.
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xDoes it matter? Any deal is between Fox Sports and an FTA so football doesn’t benefit directly financially. not from a tv rights point of view, but it does benefit from an exposure point of view. It does (and I think ratings will be better for a variety of factors) however I think it’s still exposure to the wrong market - ABC or C10, it’s the wrong audience for us What? People only watch one station? Its understandable that some people might think radio stations have a specific audience as they can have themes or content aimed at a specific audience. But not TV stations The target audience for TV networks is the audience of whatever content they are showing at the time. What you are saying is the A League is wrong for the A League audience
|
|
|
|