|
Multibet
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSo ,FFA will get $2mill a season for the best games on sat ,compared to whatever SBS paid a season for fri night trash on SBS?Plus $2mill goes to Foxsports for production costs.Which FTA balked at. Foxsports have well and truly bent FFA over a barrel.What is interesting is FFA went with SBS for the last deal,eventhough Ten was an option.I just get the feeling FFA are on struggle street.Their lack of planning and foresight is embarrassing. Foxsports and DG has well and truly bent the FFA over a barrel, just like he did when he was in charge of the NRL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Multibet
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSo why does FTA want The Big Bash and willing to pay 300% of the current deal? Ratings are Huge, Ave ratings for big bash are like 1.1million a game on Ten.
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSo why does FTA want The Big Bash and willing to pay 300% of the current deal? Because cricket guarantees an ad break every 3-5 minutes.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xLet's be honest here, there was next to zero chance of the A-League ending up on a main FTA channel, and even just to get on the secondary channels, the very best the FFA was ever going to manage was that the FTAs paid the $2 million in production costs, meaning the FFA would get zero dollars in broadcast rights. That's precisely the deal Netball did (as well as the AFL Women's). We already knew the FTA's were cool on the product - they didn't put a bid in early on because they were hanging out for the BBL, that should have told us from the outset that the A-League was not viewed as a priority TV product. And for those who think being on the ABC would be great, are you serious? That's where non-commercial sport ends up. It's the modern day broadcaster of last resort. How much money do you reckon the ABC would want to pay over and above $2 mill in production costs? It already dominates the multi-channels with programming which costs them nothing. I seriously doubt they are going to want to pay money merely to get ratings equivalent to peppa pig (on a good day). FTA's would have huge production costs would they? Would just be re-streaming the Fox feed with their own pundits doing pre-game and half time (plus commentators)? -PB The article itself mentions $2 mill per annum in production costs. That's not huge by the way (spread across more than six months) , but enough for all three FTAs to say thanks but no thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
If the future of our game depends on being on 7, 9 or 10 proper, then fittingly our game is proper fucked. But no, that isn't the case Our game grew from nothing to 20,000 members for MV and sell out derbies off Foxsports. That's right, 30% reach The networks wont touch the A League because it doesn't rate well enough. Particularly for what they have to give up in return (ie- advertising spots and dollars) People here might think the network drives ratings but networks are smarter. They study figures every day of every year. Getting this right is big dollars. If they held all the answers they would put on the cheapest shows and advertise the crap out of them. Why piss away millions of dollars on live sport? The AFL, NRL and BBL are perfect matches for a regular prime time spot because these products rated well before they were put on the major network. Some people here like to think its an impossible to break paradox but we need popularity first, then we'll hit a major spot on a major network - as has been done dozens and dozens of times before by other sports and shows The FFA were stupid by not accepting its ratings figures. The smart approach would have been to grow them. Whether by force by putting on the better games, or by not capping the quality. Or whether a gradual approach by improving the figures each year The network proper bullshit is just a poor excuse like any others found in ratings or attendance threads. Not bad considering we're on SBS. Not bad considering there was a cloud spotted in the sky 2 days prior. Our game does not need a major network to grow. It needs money. The exact same money some clowns here think we should walk away from for more "exposure". It also needs a sensible model and strategic thinking Our game is in the wrong hands
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xSo ,FFA will get $2mill a season for the best games on sat ,compared to whatever SBS paid a season for fri night trash on SBS?Plus $2mill goes to Foxsports for production costs.Which FTA balked at. Foxsports have well and truly bent FFA over a barrel.What is interesting is FFA went with SBS for the last deal,eventhough Ten was an option.I just get the feeling FFA are on struggle street.Their lack of planning and foresight is embarrassing. Foxsports and DG has well and truly bent the FFA over a barrel, just like he did when he was in charge of the NRL. Yes and no. One could argue that Foxtel has actually paid overs for the TV rights. In fact, there was an article on the Roar not too long ago claiming it's an excellent figure when you consider than no one else bid. Anyway, for the sort of money it's paying, it's going to demand some entitlements.
|
|
|
|
|
kaufusi
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Such a tragedy for the game here. We will not have any meaningful growth in the HAL until we are one of the 3 commercial FTA networks. Even if on their secondary channels you still get all the advertising and promotion on the other channels. That is what the HAL lacks. Marketing. TV commercials. Mass exposure.
We will forever be a niche sport so long as we're only accessible via Fox and one of the 'boring' FTA channels.
Advertising is only part of the problem, we would also need to raise the excitements and profile of the league via the on field talent, but it would at least ensure the game is out there in the faces of the public.
The other codes realise it too. Better to have the exposure and cross links to legitimise the sport than to be tucked away in the corner. Massive balls up by the FFA and unless they can pull this out of nowhere Gallop and co should all re-sign. Completely incapable of actually doing anything, whatsoever, in any aspect of the game. Pathetic.
|
|
|
|
|
Razor Ramon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 884,
Visits: 0
|
+xSBS only paid $7m ($8m?) because uncle Frank went twisting political arms in Canberra. So that figures not a true reflection of value, rather political connections. ABC1 would now do for me, if that can garner 300k viewing figures that would grow and expand the game but it wont happen without decent pre/post game production. The real bonus will be if this can be combined with ABC news broadcasts and the HAL actually gets some decent news air time 7 days a week. Come to think of it, ABC1 showing A-league games might work. they did promote the Socceroos games well in the 2015 Asian cup
|
|
|
|
|
Razor Ramon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 884,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xLet's be honest here, there was next to zero chance of the A-League ending up on a main FTA channel, and even just to get on the secondary channels, the very best the FFA was ever going to manage was that the FTAs paid the $2 million in production costs, meaning the FFA would get zero dollars in broadcast rights. That's precisely the deal Netball did (as well as the AFL Women's). We already knew the FTA's were cool on the product - they didn't put a bid in early on because they were hanging out for the BBL, that should have told us from the outset that the A-League was not viewed as a priority TV product. And for those who think being on the ABC would be great, are you serious? That's where non-commercial sport ends up. It's the modern day broadcaster of last resort. How much money do you reckon the ABC would want to pay over and above $2 mill in production costs? It already dominates the multi-channels with programming which costs them nothing. I seriously doubt they are going to want to pay money merely to get ratings equivalent to peppa pig (on a good day). if the A-league could get on Nines secondary channels under the same terms as Netball, they should take it. (costs paid for by Nine, advertising shared between Nine and Netball). The AFLW deal is Fox and Seven cover their own costs, with local team broadcasts into Adelaide and Perth - and no money for the AFL. Otherwise theres what the state afl and union competitions have done. The VFL averaged 58,000 on Seven last year in Melbourne, with a game week Sunday afternoon coverage - and paid a million a year for that privelige (as did the SANFL and WAFL) with the leagues receiving advertising revenue. Its the price you pay for putting what is perceived to be a non commercial viable product on FTA. The ARU and NSWRU have been paying similar amounts for 7Two coverage of the Shute shield. Funny you said that. I do watch a bit of the SANFL. Funny thing is the FFA could follow that model and pay 1 million a year for that Saturday night A-league game on 7two. Plus 7two does heavily Promote the SANFL and WAFL.
|
|
|
|
|
FullBack4
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 697,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xLet's be honest here, there was next to zero chance of the A-League ending up on a main FTA channel, and even just to get on the secondary channels, the very best the FFA was ever going to manage was that the FTAs paid the $2 million in production costs, meaning the FFA would get zero dollars in broadcast rights. That's precisely the deal Netball did (as well as the AFL Women's). We already knew the FTA's were cool on the product - they didn't put a bid in early on because they were hanging out for the BBL, that should have told us from the outset that the A-League was not viewed as a priority TV product. And for those who think being on the ABC would be great, are you serious? That's where non-commercial sport ends up. It's the modern day broadcaster of last resort. How much money do you reckon the ABC would want to pay over and above $2 mill in production costs? It already dominates the multi-channels with programming which costs them nothing. I seriously doubt they are going to want to pay money merely to get ratings equivalent to peppa pig (on a good day). if the A-league could get on Nines secondary channels under the same terms as Netball, they should take it. (costs paid for by Nine, advertising shared between Nine and Netball). The AFLW deal is Fox and Seven cover their own costs, with local team broadcasts into Adelaide and Perth - and no money for the AFL. Otherwise theres what the state afl and union competitions have done. The VFL averaged 58,000 on Seven last year in Melbourne, with a game week Sunday afternoon coverage - and paid a million a year for that privelige (as did the SANFL and WAFL) with the leagues receiving advertising revenue. Its the price you pay for putting what is perceived to be a non commercial viable product on FTA. The ARU and NSWRU have been paying similar amounts for 7Two coverage of the Shute shield. Funny you said that. I do watch a bit of the SANFL. Funny thing is the FFA could follow that model and pay 1 million a year for that Saturday night A-league game on 7two. Plus 7two does heavily Promote the SANFL and WAFL. what are the viewing numbers like for SANFL? I would have thought similar to what soccer could expect there?
|
|
|
|
|
Feed_The_Brox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xRealistically, the foxtel ratings have been nowhere near high enough to warrant a regular primetime timeslot on commercial TV. isn't super rugby on FTA in the northern states? pretty sure the A-League has superior TV ratings on Foxtel than super rugby. and lets not ignore the elephant in the room when it comes to increasing the amount of viewers and bums on seats... marketing and promotion. there is no governing body of any sport in Australia that does it as bad as the FFA. Our sport needs BBL style marketing campaign and a commercial FTA partner to grow.
|
|
|
|
|
FullBack4
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 697,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xRealistically, the foxtel ratings have been nowhere near high enough to warrant a regular primetime timeslot on commercial TV. isn't super rugby on FTA in the northern states? pretty sure the A-League has superior TV ratings on Foxtel than super rugby. and lets not ignore the elephant in the room when it comes to increasing the amount of viewers and bums on seats... marketing and promotion. there is no governing body of any sport in Australia that does it as bad as the FFA. Our sport needs BBL style marketing campaign and a commercial FTA partner to grow. no where near enough for commercial FTA.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Although the ABC will do a good job covering the league the FFA need to suck it up and if necessary pay to put it on one of the main channels. At best the league will stagnate on the ABC, at worst it will go backwards. An unmitigated disaster if it ends up on the ABC.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
bitza
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xRealistically, the foxtel ratings have been nowhere near high enough to warrant a regular primetime timeslot on commercial TV. isn't super rugby on FTA in the northern states? pretty sure the A-League has superior TV ratings on Foxtel than super rugby. Not live and not in ten. Its on One. Delayed (next day in the morning) This Sunday 8am its a repeat of the NSW game. Hardly a prime time slot
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xRealistically, the foxtel ratings have been nowhere near high enough to warrant a regular primetime timeslot on commercial TV. isn't super rugby on FTA in the northern states? pretty sure the A-League has superior TV ratings on Foxtel than super rugby. and lets not ignore the elephant in the room when it comes to increasing the amount of viewers and bums on seats... marketing and promotion. there is no governing body of any sport in Australia that does it as bad as the FFA. Our sport needs BBL style marketing campaign and a commercial FTA partner to grow. KFC bucketheads for everyone that slurps a Zooper Dooper in under a minute!
|
|
|
|
|
Razor Ramon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 884,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xLet's be honest here, there was next to zero chance of the A-League ending up on a main FTA channel, and even just to get on the secondary channels, the very best the FFA was ever going to manage was that the FTAs paid the $2 million in production costs, meaning the FFA would get zero dollars in broadcast rights. That's precisely the deal Netball did (as well as the AFL Women's). We already knew the FTA's were cool on the product - they didn't put a bid in early on because they were hanging out for the BBL, that should have told us from the outset that the A-League was not viewed as a priority TV product. And for those who think being on the ABC would be great, are you serious? That's where non-commercial sport ends up. It's the modern day broadcaster of last resort. How much money do you reckon the ABC would want to pay over and above $2 mill in production costs? It already dominates the multi-channels with programming which costs them nothing. I seriously doubt they are going to want to pay money merely to get ratings equivalent to peppa pig (on a good day). if the A-league could get on Nines secondary channels under the same terms as Netball, they should take it. (costs paid for by Nine, advertising shared between Nine and Netball). The AFLW deal is Fox and Seven cover their own costs, with local team broadcasts into Adelaide and Perth - and no money for the AFL. Otherwise theres what the state afl and union competitions have done. The VFL averaged 58,000 on Seven last year in Melbourne, with a game week Sunday afternoon coverage - and paid a million a year for that privelige (as did the SANFL and WAFL) with the leagues receiving advertising revenue. Its the price you pay for putting what is perceived to be a non commercial viable product on FTA. The ARU and NSWRU have been paying similar amounts for 7Two coverage of the Shute shield. Funny you said that. I do watch a bit of the SANFL. Funny thing is the FFA could follow that model and pay 1 million a year for that Saturday night A-league game on 7two. Plus 7two does heavily Promote the SANFL and WAFL. what are the viewing numbers like for SANFL? I would have thought similar to what soccer could expect there? Well last years SANFL grand final got 171,000 viewers. Not bad considering theres only 1.5 million people live in SA. The Average SANFL game averaged anywhere between 40,000-80,000 viewers per Game on 7 two.
|
|
|
|
|
Razor Ramon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 884,
Visits: 0
|
+xAlthough the ABC will do a good job covering the league the FFA need to suck it up and if necessary pay to put it on one of the main channels. At best the league will stagnate on the ABC, at worst it will go backwards. An unmitigated disaster if it ends up on the ABC. The Question is.... Will the FFA be willing to do a certain deal with a 7 or 9 or 10? FFA would need to stump up 1 million a year Just like the SANFL does with 7two/7mate. Then they split the Advertising revenue.
|
|
|
|
|
aufc_ole
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe AFL, NRL and BBL are perfect matches for a regular prime time spot because these products rated well before they were put on the major network. Some people here like to think its an impossible to break paradox but we need popularity first, then we'll hit a major spot on a major network - as has been done dozens and dozens of times before by other sports and shows The FFA were stupid by not accepting its ratings figures. The smart approach would have been to grow them. Whether by force by putting on the better games, or by not capping the quality. Or whether a gradual approach by improving the figures each year The network proper bullshit is just a poor excuse like any others found in ratings or attendance threads. Not bad considering we're on SBS. Not bad considering there was a cloud spotted in the sky 2 days prior. Our game does not need a major network to grow. It needs money. The exact same money some clowns here think we should walk away from for more "exposure". It also needs a sensible model and strategic thinking Our game is in the wrong hands
|
|
|
|
|
Razor Ramon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 884,
Visits: 0
|
+xIf the future of our game depends on being on 7, 9 or 10 proper, then fittingly our game is proper fucked. But no, that isn't the case Our game grew from nothing to 20,000 members for MV and sell out derbies off Foxsports. That's right, 30% reach The networks wont touch the A League because it doesn't rate well enough. Particularly for what they have to give up in return (ie- advertising spots and dollars) People here might think the network drives ratings but networks are smarter. They study figures every day of every year. Getting this right is big dollars. If they held all the answers they would put on the cheapest shows and advertise the crap out of them. Why piss away millions of dollars on live sport? The AFL, NRL and BBL are perfect matches for a regular prime time spot because these products rated well before they were put on the major network. Some people here like to think its an impossible to break paradox but we need popularity first, then we'll hit a major spot on a major network - as has been done dozens and dozens of times before by other sports and shows The FFA were stupid by not accepting its ratings figures. The smart approach would have been to grow them. Whether by force by putting on the better games, or by not capping the quality. Or whether a gradual approach by improving the figures each year The network proper bullshit is just a poor excuse like any others found in ratings or attendance threads. Not bad considering we're on SBS. Not bad considering there was a cloud spotted in the sky 2 days prior. Our game does not need a major network to grow. It needs money. The exact same money some clowns here think we should walk away from for more "exposure". It also needs a sensible model and strategic thinking Our game is in the wrong hands Sounds about right.... A lot has happened in the last 10-12 years. From 2006-13, the Socceroos and A-league value was only worth 19 million a year. From 2013-17 it jumped to 40 million a year. From 2017-2023, it will be worth 57 million a year. So there is money coming in Despite the Free to air presence or lack there of. Foxtel has supported the League from day one.
|
|
|
|
|
The_Wookie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 346,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xLet's be honest here, there was next to zero chance of the A-League ending up on a main FTA channel, and even just to get on the secondary channels, the very best the FFA was ever going to manage was that the FTAs paid the $2 million in production costs, meaning the FFA would get zero dollars in broadcast rights. That's precisely the deal Netball did (as well as the AFL Women's). We already knew the FTA's were cool on the product - they didn't put a bid in early on because they were hanging out for the BBL, that should have told us from the outset that the A-League was not viewed as a priority TV product. And for those who think being on the ABC would be great, are you serious? That's where non-commercial sport ends up. It's the modern day broadcaster of last resort. How much money do you reckon the ABC would want to pay over and above $2 mill in production costs? It already dominates the multi-channels with programming which costs them nothing. I seriously doubt they are going to want to pay money merely to get ratings equivalent to peppa pig (on a good day). if the A-league could get on Nines secondary channels under the same terms as Netball, they should take it. (costs paid for by Nine, advertising shared between Nine and Netball). The AFLW deal is Fox and Seven cover their own costs, with local team broadcasts into Adelaide and Perth - and no money for the AFL. Otherwise theres what the state afl and union competitions have done. The VFL averaged 58,000 on Seven last year in Melbourne, with a game week Sunday afternoon coverage - and paid a million a year for that privelige (as did the SANFL and WAFL) with the leagues receiving advertising revenue. Its the price you pay for putting what is perceived to be a non commercial viable product on FTA. The ARU and NSWRU have been paying similar amounts for 7Two coverage of the Shute shield. Funny you said that. I do watch a bit of the SANFL. Funny thing is the FFA could follow that model and pay 1 million a year for that Saturday night A-league game on 7two. Plus 7two does heavily Promote the SANFL and WAFL. Bearing in mind that the SANFL, WAFL, VFL and ARU/NSWRUI pay almost a million each per season for single state broadcasts, getting national coverage of the same kind might cost 4-5 million. +x+x+x+xLet's be honest here, there was next to zero chance of the A-League ending up on a main FTA channel, and even just to get on the secondary channels, the very best the FFA was ever going to manage was that the FTAs paid the $2 million in production costs, meaning the FFA would get zero dollars in broadcast rights. That's precisely the deal Netball did (as well as the AFL Women's). We already knew the FTA's were cool on the product - they didn't put a bid in early on because they were hanging out for the BBL, that should have told us from the outset that the A-League was not viewed as a priority TV product. And for those who think being on the ABC would be great, are you serious? That's where non-commercial sport ends up. It's the modern day broadcaster of last resort. How much money do you reckon the ABC would want to pay over and above $2 mill in production costs? It already dominates the multi-channels with programming which costs them nothing. I seriously doubt they are going to want to pay money merely to get ratings equivalent to peppa pig (on a good day). if the A-league could get on Nines secondary channels under the same terms as Netball, they should take it. (costs paid for by Nine, advertising shared between Nine and Netball). The AFLW deal is Fox and Seven cover their own costs, with local team broadcasts into Adelaide and Perth - and no money for the AFL. Otherwise theres what the state afl and union competitions have done. The VFL averaged 58,000 on Seven last year in Melbourne, with a game week Sunday afternoon coverage - and paid a million a year for that privelige (as did the SANFL and WAFL) with the leagues receiving advertising revenue. Its the price you pay for putting what is perceived to be a non commercial viable product on FTA. The ARU and NSWRU have been paying similar amounts for 7Two coverage of the Shute shield. Funny you said that. I do watch a bit of the SANFL. Funny thing is the FFA could follow that model and pay 1 million a year for that Saturday night A-league game on 7two. Plus 7two does heavily Promote the SANFL and WAFL. what are the viewing numbers like for SANFL? I would have thought similar to what soccer could expect there? SANFL average without finals was 34,000 in Adelaide WAFL average without finals or regionals was 38,000 Shute Shield average without finals or regionals was 38,000
|
|
|
|
|
Volrath2002
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 903,
Visits: 0
|
If ABC gets the rights I will be so happy :) no advertising and broadcasts in HD. If the production is done by Fox Sports then we will get the best available football production in the country on a good platform. The ABC has done a good job with the W-League over the years and grandstand radio will be a good avenue for content in between match days. There is not the same pressure on the ABC to sell commercials so it is sure to be put on primary channel on Saturday nights. And who knows but the ABC could secure the rights to show the game on iview catch-up too, which would be good and flexible. The price is about $1m less than I thought they were going to sell it for but the cost to the ABC will be $4m so that is about right.
Canberra United - Member
KSV Hessen Kassel - Supporter
Lewes FC - Owner
|
|
|
|
nomates
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
This is why we can barely compete with Rugby.
Wellington Phoenix FC
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIf ABC gets the rights I will be so happy :) no advertising and broadcasts in HD. If the production is done by Fox Sports then we will get the best available football production in the country on a good platform. The ABC has done a good job with the W-League over the years and grandstand radio will be a good avenue for content in between match days. There is not the same pressure on the ABC to sell commercials so it is sure to be put on primary channel on Saturday nights. And who knows but the ABC could secure the rights to show the game on iview catch-up too, which would be good and flexible. The price is about $1m less than I thought they were going to sell it for but the cost to the ABC will be $4m so that is about right. It seems a little unclear about the Foxtel buy back. Anyway, in such an event one would hope that FFA sells for 3 years. Not the entire 6.
|
|
|
|
|
Volrath2002
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 903,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xIf ABC gets the rights I will be so happy :) no advertising and broadcasts in HD. If the production is done by Fox Sports then we will get the best available football production in the country on a good platform. The ABC has done a good job with the W-League over the years and grandstand radio will be a good avenue for content in between match days. There is not the same pressure on the ABC to sell commercials so it is sure to be put on primary channel on Saturday nights. And who knows but the ABC could secure the rights to show the game on iview catch-up too, which would be good and flexible. The price is about $1m less than I thought they were going to sell it for but the cost to the ABC will be $4m so that is about right. It seems a little unclear about the Foxtel buy back. Anyway, in such an event one would hope that FFA sells for 3 years. Not the entire 6. That would make sense. Use it as a trial period to see how it stands up and works out for all parties involved.
Canberra United - Member
KSV Hessen Kassel - Supporter
Lewes FC - Owner
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xIf ABC gets the rights I will be so happy :) no advertising and broadcasts in HD. If the production is done by Fox Sports then we will get the best available football production in the country on a good platform. The ABC has done a good job with the W-League over the years and grandstand radio will be a good avenue for content in between match days. There is not the same pressure on the ABC to sell commercials so it is sure to be put on primary channel on Saturday nights. And who knows but the ABC could secure the rights to show the game on iview catch-up too, which would be good and flexible. The price is about $1m less than I thought they were going to sell it for but the cost to the ABC will be $4m so that is about right. It seems a little unclear about the Foxtel buy back. Anyway, in such an event one would hope that FFA sells for 3 years. Not the entire 6. That would make sense. Use it as a trial period to see how it stands up and works out for all parties involved. I think FFA will look for secured amounts and bonuses. I think the plan is for Gallop and Jr to stick around until they broker the next tv deal then ride off into the sunset. I cant justify signing a 6 year (foxtel) deal any other way.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xIf ABC gets the rights I will be so happy :) no advertising and broadcasts in HD. If the production is done by Fox Sports then we will get the best available football production in the country on a good platform. The ABC has done a good job with the W-League over the years and grandstand radio will be a good avenue for content in between match days. There is not the same pressure on the ABC to sell commercials so it is sure to be put on primary channel on Saturday nights. And who knows but the ABC could secure the rights to show the game on iview catch-up too, which would be good and flexible. The price is about $1m less than I thought they were going to sell it for but the cost to the ABC will be $4m so that is about right. It seems a little unclear about the Foxtel buy back. Anyway, in such an event one would hope that FFA sells for 3 years. Not the entire 6. That would make sense. Use it as a trial period to see how it stands up and works out for all parties involved. I think FFA will look for secured amounts and bonuses. I think the plan is for Gallop and Jr to stick around until they broker the next tv deal then ride off into the sunset. I cant justify signing a 6 year deal any other way. In light of their recent efforts I don't think they should be anywhere near when the next negotiations take place.
|
|
|
|
|
Misc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
The games just don't rate that well. This expectation that they will increase hugely on a commercial channel is rubbish. Also considering that Football doesn't bode itself to lots of ads so you need high interest to have people sit through the half time ads and sponsored talk time. Still a pretty huge increase in revenue from not that long ago. The FFA really needs to work on why the game seems so stale and boring to watch at the moment. More foreigners i say!
|
|
|
|
|
Footballer
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
This is all just embarrassing
I'm just waiting for Midfielder to turn up pleading 'but but Gallops doing a great job!!'
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThis is all just embarrassing I'm just waiting for Midfielder to turn up pleading 'but but Gallops doing a great job!!' 
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThis is all just embarrassing I'm just waiting for Midfielder to turn up pleading 'but but Gallops doing a great job!!' And the ever inspiring point finger and call others neighsayers.
|
|
|
|