|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
Would imagine these debt problems would be conveniently resolved (or at least better managed) with Foxtel buying a controlling stake in the network.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWould imagine these debt problems would be conveniently resolved (or at least better managed) with Foxtel buying a controlling stake in the network. Media laws currently prevent that.
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xWould imagine these debt problems would be conveniently resolved (or at least better managed) with Foxtel buying a controlling stake in the network. Media laws currently prevent that. Hence the intense lobbying to have them overturned from both the media and the ruling Coalition
|
|
|
|
|
And Everyone Blamed Clive
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Winner of Official 442 Comment of the day Award - 10th April 2017
|
|
|
|
|
And Everyone Blamed Clive
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
CHANNEL 10’s future is in doubt as the embattled broadcaster struggles to repay its debts. Ten Network Holdings’ shares have placed into a trading halt this morning, ahead of company announcement. There is speculation that the network will announce a voluntary administration after three key backers decided not to support a new funding deal to refinance a $200 million loan. The Australian reported today Ten shareholders Lachlan Murdoch, Bruce Gordon and James Packer have decided against guaranteeing a new $250m loan to replace the existing $200m overdraft, which needs to be repaid to Commonwealth Bank in December. Ten did not respond for comment last night, however a statement to the ASX is expected to provide an update following a recent review of the business. The network boasts hit shows The Bachelor and MasterChef and Big Bash cricket but hopes that it can secure new funding faded at the weekend, The Australian reported today. At Ten’s recent half-year results, the company admitted it may not be able to carry on as a going concern after posting a $232.2m loss.
Winner of Official 442 Comment of the day Award - 10th April 2017
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+xCHANNEL 10’s future is in doubt as the embattled broadcaster struggles to repay its debts. Ten Network Holdings’ shares have placed into a trading halt this morning, ahead of company announcement. There is speculation that the network will announce a voluntary administration after three key backers decided not to support a new funding deal to refinance a $200 million loan. The Australian reported today Ten shareholders Lachlan Murdoch, Bruce Gordon and James Packer have decided against guaranteeing a new $250m loan to replace the existing $200m overdraft, which needs to be repaid to Commonwealth Bank in December. Ten did not respond for comment last night, however a statement to the ASX is expected to provide an update following a recent review of the business. The network boasts hit shows The Bachelor and MasterChef and Big Bash cricket but hopes that it can secure new funding faded at the weekend, The Australian reported today. At Ten’s recent half-year results, the company admitted it may not be able to carry on as a going concern after posting a $232.2m loss. Interesting - I do wonder if letting channel 10 'die' is a ploy to then get their TV licence on the cheap, either for Foxtel or otherwise. Good thing FFA aren't banking on receiving a cheque from TEN for the A-League rights.
|
|
|
|
|
crimsoncrusoe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.9K,
Visits: 0
|
I had a look at Ten's last financial statements and its pretty sad reading.It makes you wonder if Packer ,Gordon and Murdoch have had enough and decided to keep their money rather than give away their cash to CBA.
TEN loses money with no real prospect of making a profit for a long time as revenue is still well less than it was ten years ago and is only growing at 2.1%,while it's costs grow at over 7% .It has lost over 150mill a year for the last five years.So it's hard to see how its going to make money,considering it will lose BBL and already has around 25% of viewers.
We will probably see a massive downsizing and cost reduction.But with little prospect of profitability ,who would lend them money?So maybe administration,a fire sale ,including the tv licence and a new fta station owned by Murdoch down the track.
What happens to the programs in the meantime is anyones guess.But if people don't get paid.Then closure, although it would be a huge shock,is not impossible.
Maybe we are seeing the first casualty of online streaming .
|
|
|
|
|
Davo1985
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 1
|
+xI had a look at Ten's last financial statements and its pretty sad reading.It makes you wonder if Packer ,Gordon and Murdoch have had enough and decided to keep their money rather than give away their cash to CBA.TEN loses money with no real prospect of making a profit for a long time as revenue is still well less than it was ten years ago and is only growing at 2.1%,while it's costs grow at over 7% .It has lost over 150mill a year for the last five years.So it's hard to see how its going to make money,considering it will lose BBL and already has around 25% of viewers.We will probably see a massive downsizing and cost reduction.But with little prospect of profitability ,who would lend them money?So maybe administration,a fire sale ,including the tv licence and a new fta station owned by Murdoch down the track.What happens to the programs in the meantime is anyones guess.But if people don't get paid.Then closure, although it would be a huge shock,is not impossible.Maybe we are seeing the first casualty of online streaming . No what we are seeing is the start of a takeover by Fox. Have a look at the financial statements a little more closely and you will notice that most of the losses arise from much of the overseas content which is very much fox owned. My guess is that if Fox had a majority stake that many of those deals for content would be renegotiated. My mail (from someone quite high up on another tv channel) is that Fox are lining themselves up for a takeover but can only do so if media laws change (hence the hard lobbying). And by making it look as though they are on the brink of collapse will probably put pressure to change those laws. Channel 10 in one form or another will get through this. Everything that we are seeing being played out in the media is just a smokescreen for what is actually happening behind closed doors. Watch as Fox will soon own Ch 10.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
I'm sure the Government/Parliament would rather change the media laws to allow Fox to take over ch 10 than see it die altogether.
Anyway, those media laws were relevant 20 years ago, they look silly in the digital age.
|
|
|
|
|
bitza
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThey had Tomi Juric on Have you been paying attention on Channel Ten on one of their segments. One of their big shows. Archie Thompson was a guest quiz master a few years ago too. Nothing new here
|
|
|
|
|
And Everyone Blamed Clive
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Winner of Official 442 Comment of the day Award - 10th April 2017
|
|
|
|
|
aufc_ole
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Network Ten's future rides heavily on the outcome of sports contracts Cicket's Big Bash League has been a big success. Ten pays $20 million in cash and contra annually for the domestic Twenty20 competition, which has turned into a summer ratings winner. Getty ImagesLive sport and the fate of Network Ten are intrinsically linked, as is the network and the market for broadcast rights for Australia's biggest sports. A good chunk of the reason for Ten's slide in the ratings in recent years can be traced back to Ten's then chairman Lachlan Murdoch's fateful decision to leave behind its AFL rights for an all-in bid for the NRL contract in 2011. Ten was left with neither of the big domestic football codes, after Nine Entertainment Co kept its free-to-air rugby league rights. More recently, cricket's Big Bash League has been a big success. Ten pays $20 million in cash and contra annually for the domestic Twenty20 competition, which has turned into a summer ratings winner and seen Ten lauded for the quality of its coverage. Production cost are at least another $7 million on top of that. But Big Bash and sport in general is expensive, owing to both paying for the rights and the production costs. With Ten now in voluntary administration, there will be repercussions on both fronts that could once again change the face of sports broadcasting in this country.  Ten's administrators KordaMentha will begin the search for savings - and Ten's expensive sports deals is more than likely to be one of its targets. Jessica HromasCricket Australia, in the last year of its deal with Ten for BBL and Nine for test and limited-overs internationals, will not put its rights to market until Ten's ownership structure is resolved. Without Ten joining the bidding, it would be likely Nine would win free-to-air rights for all facets of cricket, potentially in concert with pay-television network Fox Sports. Nine could go to Cricket Australia soon though – in the event there is a break clause in cricket's contract with Ten if it was to enter administration – and suggest it take on BBL rights this coming season and at the same time lob a knockout bid for all cricket in the future. Alternatively, in the event Ten emerges as a leaner structure, Fox could join with Ten to bid for rights. But uncertainty over Ten's future puts a cloud over any clear strategy for cricket for at least the next few months. In any case Cricket Australia is not sure what the international cricket calendar will look like for the next few years. And it is distracted by the bigger challenge of signing up Indian TV networks to coverage of games played in Australia, a valuable contract yet to be decided. "It would be a gutsy call for any sports administration to go with Ten under its current circumstances," says broadcast rights expert Colin Smith, the managing director of Global Media & Sports. In the meantime, Ten's administrators, KordaMentha, will begin the search for savings, and Ten's expensive sports deals is more than likely to be one of its targets. Apart from cricket, Ten has free-to-air rights to the Supercars motor racing series, Formula One and the MotoGP motorcycling. Supercars rights cost about $10 million, which illustrates the high value of rights across the sports spectrum, also the importance of selling them successfully. Ten also broadcasts Wallabies rugby union matches and will put one A-League soccer match a week to air from October onwards. Intriguingly, all those deals besides cricket are in conjunction with Fox Sports, wholly owned by News Corporation. If cross-media ownership laws change, Fox Sports and Ten could do a lot more joint bidding for future rights and share more costs. KordaMentha might quit most of Ten's motor racing contracts early in order to save money. They would revert to Fox Sports and would then presumably be on-sold to Nine or Seven West Media. "You could see them trying to get rid of Formula One and MotoGP because they don't rate very highly anyway," said one media executive this week. "They would probably look at not doing shows such as RPM [a Sunday motor racing show] and other highlights packages. Fox would probably look to do with Nine or Seven." That would be the scenario for A-League if Ten collapses. Football Federation Australia's contract with Fox Sports has the pay-TV operator on-selling one match to "a free-to-air commercial network". Fox Sports recently clinched the deal with Ten, which is 15 per cent owned by Foxtel, to take the Fox feed and production of the A-League game. Ten could do a similar deal for its rugby union and Supercars broadcasts, essentially taking the Fox Sports commentary and pre- and post-event coverage in order to save costs (it currently does those itself). But potentially even more important is how the sports themselves deal with a scenario in which Ten, or a wounded low-cost network, rarely bids for any rights and lowers competition in the market, forcing down the value of sports rights overall. "I think you'll see the sports doing their own production and try to slice it up in several different ways to sell to different broadcasters," one television network executive said. "That is probably the best way they can still get big rights fees because production is very costly for the networks." In return, sports and the networks could cut deals to share in advertising revenue and other associated income. The NRL is set to launch its own digital service from next year, and it is rumoured the AFL is also going to ramp up its production capability in the next five years, including a rumoured deal to take some digital assets from Telstra and share in advertising income. Supercars already produces its own races, while Tennis Australia has invested tens of millions of dollars in its own production service that tailors Australian Open coverage for networks around the world, while cricket has contemplated doing the same. The question is whether any of this will be a money-spinner for the sports themselves, which until now have relied on competition from Ten and others for the big broadcast dollars. The future is getting more uncertain.
http://www.afr.com/business/sport/ten-networks-future-rides-heavily-on-the-outcome-of-sports-contracts-20170615-gwrm39
|
|
|
|
|
kavorka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 647,
Visits: 0
|
+x
Interesting - I do wonder if letting channel 10 'die' is a ploy to then get their TV licence on the cheap, either for Foxtel or otherwise.
Of course it is, Murdoch has been campaigning to relax the media cross ownership laws for the past 30 years
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Nothing in that article suggests this will represent some sort of windfall for football.
|
|
|
|
|
Razor Ramon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 884,
Visits: 0
|
so one of channel 10s biggest reasons why they have been on decline is because of giving up their 2 AFL games a week.
|
|
|
|
|
bitza
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Being on 10 or one will make no difference to our ratings if we don't market and make the game properly. Sat TV #rugby Wallabies v Scotland TEN 274k https://t.co/Dib8pagXXQSat TV #SuncorpSuperNetball Grand Final Nine: Metro 265k (Syd 109k Mel 81k Bri 75k) Regional 150k, 9Gem: Metro 28k (Ade 19k Per 9k) Reg 4k https://t.co/HDrD1UQftJ
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
@ bitza Netball seems disappointed at their ratings this season and seem to run with many of the same arguments football supporters run with (kick off time, secondary channel vs. primary etc see: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/opinion/natalie-von-bertouch-come-on-nine-what-about-the-suncorp-super-netball-finals/news-story/230781127f97865d16d54d17b435fe93I don't watch much FTA myself so I'm not sure how much cross promotion netball got? But that is the marketing Gallop is gambling on
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xso one of channel 10s biggest reasons why they have been on decline is because of giving up their 2 AFL games a week. Let's not forget that Optus' sports STV went bust when it lost the rights to Foxtel back in 2002. For the 2002-2006 TV deal (worth $500 mill over 5 years), ch 9 won the ratings every year. When ch 7 got the AFL back in 2007, it started winning the ratings, which it has continued to do to the present day. Ch 10 was doing ok when it had AFL from 2002 to 2011, but went downhill when it lost the rights to the AFL.
|
|
|
|
|
Razor Ramon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 884,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xso one of channel 10s biggest reasons why they have been on decline is because of giving up their 2 AFL games a week. Let's not forget that Optus' sports STV went bust when it lost the rights to Foxtel back in 2002. For the 2002-2006 TV deal (worth $500 mill over 5 years), ch 9 won the ratings every year. When ch 7 got the AFL back in 2007, it started winning the ratings, which it has continued to do to the present day. Ch 10 was doing ok when it had AFL from 2002 to 2011, but went downhill when it lost the rights to the AFL. sounds abot right. 10s coverage of the AFL was good
|
|
|
|
|
milan_7
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.4K,
Visits: 0
|
With football now on ten please can we have Santo, Sam and Ed on FTA.
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
FFA have sold off the international rights to a firm called IMG - sourceNo mention of streaming so I presume that is still in the pipeline - hopefully it gets announced soon. I do kinda worry about the length of the deals however, 6 years is a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
JoyfulPenguin
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 798,
Visits: 0
|
+xFFA have sold off the international rights to a firm called IMG - sourceNo mention of streaming so I presume that is still in the pipeline - hopefully it gets announced soon. I do kinda worry about the length of the deals however, 6 years is a long time. Thanks for the heads up Walnuts. Six year is a very long time and our television rights' worth can vary heavily year to year on an international stage depending on what marquees we have. You would think that it would be a better a idea to sell them year to year.
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xFFA have sold off the international rights to a firm called IMG - sourceNo mention of streaming so I presume that is still in the pipeline - hopefully it gets announced soon. I do kinda worry about the length of the deals however, 6 years is a long time. Thanks for the heads up Walnuts. Six year is a very long time and our television rights' worth can vary heavily year to year on an international stage depending on what marquees we have. You would think that it would be a better a idea to sell them year to year. I don't think it has to be as drastic as every year, but certainly the time period should be halved to 3 years imo. But, the FFA have form have locking the game into long, onerous contracts, why should this be any different? lol
|
|
|
|
|
And Everyone Blamed Clive
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Foxtel's $30m budget funding questioned after FOI reveals documents on sport deal 'don't exist' Federal communications department has refused to release details about $30 million in sports broadcasting funding given to Foxtel, because it says documents about the deal "do not exist".This year's Federal Budget includes a measure worth $30 million over four years to "support the broadcast of underrepresented sports on subscription television, including women's sports, niche sports, and sports with a high level of community involvement and participation".A freedom of information request filed by ABC Radio Melbourne's Mornings program, seeking correspondence and documents relating to the formulation of the measure, was declined on the basis of no such documents existing.In declining access, the Legal Director for the Department of Communications and the Arts "refuse(d) access to the requested documents under subsection 24A(1) of the FOI Act, as I am satisfied that documents falling within the scope of your request do not exist".Foxtel is owned by communications behemoths Telstra and News Corporation.The ABC has sought comment from Communications Minister Mitch Fifield.Foxtel has declined to comment.  Shareholder activist and journalist Stephen Mayne described the deal and lack of available documents as a "remarkable situation". "My best guess would be that because the free-to-air networks were all getting a licence fee cut in the budget and the Government wants to keep sweet with all of the media, that they didn't want to have an enemy in the Murdochs," he said. "So they just gave them $30 million and then had to come up with a reason so they've come up with this particular reason."In May, Mr Fifield was questioned about the deal during a Senate hearing.Labor Senator Anthony Chisholm ask why the money was not given to free-to-air broadcasters, given the aim was to increase the reach of such sports.Senator Fifield remarked the initiative could in fact increase the number of subscriptions, and he insisted there was not a direct correlation between access to free-to-air and viewership."Will you review this, what is a disgraceful decision, to enable more Australians to see these niche and women's sports?" Senator Chisholm asked."The Government has made its decision," Senator Fifield responded.Foxtel was available in 2.42 million homes at the end of last year, according to Roy Morgan Research.Their quarterly results, released in May, revealed their subscriber numbers had dropped 1 per cent from the same period a year ago.
Winner of Official 442 Comment of the day Award - 10th April 2017
|
|
|
|
|
Oblivious Troll
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 737,
Visits: 0
|
+xFoxtel's $30m budget funding questioned after FOI reveals documents on sport deal 'don't exist' Federal communications department has refused to release details about $30 million in sports broadcasting funding given to Foxtel, because it says documents about the deal "do not exist".This year's Federal Budget includes a measure worth $30 million over four years to "support the broadcast of underrepresented sports on subscription television, including women's sports, niche sports, and sports with a high level of community involvement and participation".A freedom of information request filed by ABC Radio Melbourne's Mornings program, seeking correspondence and documents relating to the formulation of the measure, was declined on the basis of no such documents existing.In declining access, the Legal Director for the Department of Communications and the Arts "refuse(d) access to the requested documents under subsection 24A(1) of the FOI Act, as I am satisfied that documents falling within the scope of your request do not exist".Foxtel is owned by communications behemoths Telstra and News Corporation.The ABC has sought comment from Communications Minister Mitch Fifield.Foxtel has declined to comment. Shareholder activist and journalist Stephen Mayne described the deal and lack of available documents as a "remarkable situation". "My best guess would be that because the free-to-air networks were all getting a licence fee cut in the budget and the Government wants to keep sweet with all of the media, that they didn't want to have an enemy in the Murdochs," he said. "So they just gave them $30 million and then had to come up with a reason so they've come up with this particular reason."In May, Mr Fifield was questioned about the deal during a Senate hearing.Labor Senator Anthony Chisholm ask why the money was not given to free-to-air broadcasters, given the aim was to increase the reach of such sports.Senator Fifield remarked the initiative could in fact increase the number of subscriptions, and he insisted there was not a direct correlation between access to free-to-air and viewership."Will you review this, what is a disgraceful decision, to enable more Australians to see these niche and women's sports?" Senator Chisholm asked."The Government has made its decision," Senator Fifield responded.Foxtel was available in 2.42 million homes at the end of last year, according to Roy Morgan Research.Their quarterly results, released in May, revealed their subscriber numbers had dropped 1 per cent from the same period a year ago. It's $30 million over four years ie. $7.5 million pa to broadcast underrepresented sports to the relatively small proportion of the population that both subscribes to Foxtel and is interested in such sports. This is bad enough. If they wanted to support these sports then the money should have gone to the ABC or SBS but of course the budget cuts imposed by Abbott forced the public broadcasters to sell of their OB units and make the crews redundant. The failure to provide any rational explanation and denial of the FOI request smacks of corruption on a Bjelke-Petersen scale. Save
Its a game for everyone. Its not pale, male, or stale. It transcends race, gender, economic status. Its for everyone. - Tal Karp
|
|
|
|
|
Crusader
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Still blaming everything on Abbott? Get with the times, blame it all on the Russians.
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
Ten takeover by Lachlan Murdoch and Bruce Gordon gets ACCC green lightThe competition watchdog has announced that it will not oppose a proposed bid for the Ten Network by current shareholders Bruce Gordon and Lachlan Murdoch. Mr Gordon, through his private company Birketu, and Lachlan Murdoch, through his investment vehicle Illyria, have proposed to jointly buy out Ten, taking a 50 per cent share each. Birketu currently owns about 15 per cent of Ten's shares, while Illyria owns 7.44 per cent. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said it does not believe allowing the two men to completely take control of the network would substantially lessen competition in any particular media market. That is despite ACCC chairman Rod Sim's acknowledgement that it would lessen "competition via a greater alignment of Mr Murdoch's, Mr Gordon's and Ten's interests." The ACCC's relative ambivalence towards the deal is partly because Mr Gordon's WIN TV and Ten are broadcast within different geographic areas — the former is regional and the latter in large metro markets. However, the ACCC also addressed the issue of Lachlan Murdoch's involvement, given his position as co-chairman of News Corporation and executive chairman of 21st Century Fox, as well as his range of other media interests. "We considered whether the acquisition would significantly reduce competition, by causing a reduction in the quality and range of news content, or increasing the negotiation power of the combined Ten/Foxtel/News Corporation," the ACCC's chairman Rod Sims said in a statement. "On the issue of the effect on competition in the supply of news services, the ACCC took into consideration competition from news providers on other media platforms and in particular, the other free-to-air networks, given Seven and Nine have a stronger position in the market than Ten. "The ACCC also considered the effect on competition in the acquisition of sports rights and other types of content. "The parties will continue to face competition from the remaining free-to-air networks as well as streaming services for the acquisition of content." Regulator 'not oblivious' to Murdoch influence Other factors considered by the ACCC included Ten and Foxtel's existing joint venture to sell advertising on the networks, MCN. The regulator also considered the Murdoch family's large and growing dominance of the Australian media landscape. "The ACCC is not oblivious to the fact that significant influence can be exerted through partial shareholdings and family connections, however the ACCC did take into consideration that this is a proposed 50 per cent acquisition by Illyria," Mr Sims said. "Even though incentives to compete may be weakened if the proposed acquisition proceeds, Ten and Foxtel/News Corporation will remain competitors in a number of markets and will be subject to our competition laws which prevent them from making anti-competitive agreements." In the end, the ACCC said the language of its legislation sets a fairly high bar to reject mergers and acquisitions, but it also hinted that any further concentration in Australian media would face even tougher scrutiny. "While this transaction will result in some reduction in diversity across the Australian media landscape, we have concluded it would not substantially lessen competition, which is the test the ACCC is required to assess acquisitions against," said Mr Sims. "The Australian media market is becoming increasingly concentrated and we will continue to closely examine future media mergers in light of the impact any future loss of competition may have on both choice and quality of news and content produced for Australian audiences." While the proposed takeover has the ACCC's green light, it will still need a change in media ownership laws, which currently prevent the transaction taking place. Before Mr Murdoch and Mr Gordon can legally takeover Ten, certain media ownership laws will first need to be changed. The first law, being the "two out of three rule", prevents an individual or a company owning a newspaper, TV station and radio station in the same licence area. Mr Murdoch currently owns radio and newspaper assets in markets where Ten gets broadcast. While Ten's latest problems are contemporary, the network has faced many hurdles during its lifespan of little over 50 years. If he were to take control of Ten, Mr Murdoch would then control all three forms of media - therefore breaching the "two-out-of-three rule". As for the "reach rule", it prohibits a single TV broadcaster from reaching more than 75 per cent of the population. This rule is a problem for Mr Gordon as he owns WIN Television, which broadcasts in regional areas. If Mr Gordon were to control Ten, his reach would extend to metropolitan areas which would put him in breach of the "reach rule". The Turnbull Government is seeking to overturn these rules with its media law reform bill, but it is currently stalled in the Senate, opposed by Labor, The Greens and much of the crossbench. The Government recently appeared to make some progress towards getting its media laws through the Senate, striking a deal with One Nation, but this deal antagonised a number of the other crossbenchers. As a temporary measure, the Government waived broadcasting licence fees for commercial free-to-air television and radio broadcasters last financial year. source
First hurdle overcome.
|
|
|
|
|
azzaMVFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
I like that Bruce Gordon is involved. Hope to see another personal push for WIN Stadium to be hosting games. Bring in the Wolves.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Race is on to stop News Corp running a sports rights monolopyShould Federal Parliament pass the media reforms that allow Lachlan Murdoch and Bruce Gordon to own Channel Ten, the cashed-up network can use its powers under existing anti-siphoning legislation, to acquire sports properties, leaving some on free-to-air TV and shutting others behind a paywall. For example, Ten/Fox could buy the rights to cricket tests, leaving the most popular two on Ten and forcing consumers to subscribe to Foxtel to watch the remaining Tests. A similar strategy occurred with V8 Supercars.  Lachlan Murdoch could soon be the most powerful man in Australian sport. Photo: James Alcock.Soccer lovers will be the immediate beneficiary of a possible merged Ten/Foxtel entity, with a resourced Ten escaping receivership and able to continue televising one A-League game a week. The remaining games are shown on Fox Sports. Cricket similarly gains, but only in the short-term. All domestic cricket rights expire at the end of the coming summer. Ten's Big Bash rates well and Channel Nine is keen to secure a new five-year deal locked away by the end of the year, meaning Cricket Australia could reap a bonzana in a bidding war between a cash-enriched Ten and traditional rights holder, Nine. AFL and NRL have locked in contracts with free-to-air networks, Seven and Nine respectively, until 2022 and are not immediately impacted. While Ten also televises some Wallabies matches, including the Bledisloe Cup, all SANZAAR games are on Fox. AFL and NRL will probably be beneficiaries of a final, desperate bidding war in 2022 between channels Seven and Nine on the one hand and ultimate winners, the powerful Ten/Foxtel combine, when rights expire. Ten's power, as a free-to-air network taking advantage of anti-siphoning legislation, together with access to News Corporation's balance sheet, means it can outbid Seven and Nine. Therefore, given the importance of live sport to free-to-air networks, Seven and Nine could cease to be competitive for key sports rights after 2022. The AFL, NRL and cricket would be forced to go cap in hand to the Fox/Ten duopoly thereafter. A merger of Ten and Fox would also mean having the same commentary team for a game seen on both Ten and Fox, a considerable saving under the current NRL Nine/Fox deal where Fox pays Nine for simulcasts and provides its own commentary crew. A race is now on between the major sports having the capacity to stream their own games to subscribers and News Corporation becoming an effective monopoly, a single buyer of broadcasting rights. AFL is well-advanced on providing their own digital service to subscribers and the NRL has allocated $150 million over the next five years to similarly produce an online product to subscribers. However, there are questions in both codes over how to monetise the service. Assuming the NRL secured between 1.5 million and 2 million subscribers and charged them $10 a month for eight months, there would not be much left over, after production costs were met. Many NRL clubs oppose the $30 million a year investment in a digital service, yet to surrender it now would be to hand the game back to News Corporation in 10 years. It's no surprise News Corporation publications are already questioning whether the NRL's own media outlet will be sufficiently brave to serve up "atrocity" stories. Australia risks following the same path as New Zealand and Britain where, without anti-siphoning legislation, minimal sport is shown on free-to-air TV. In New Zealand, the key sports are behind a paywall on either Sky or BT. Rugby league in Britain was initially on the BBC but switched to Sky. Ratings declined, meaning the next pay TV deal was considerably lower. Only 35 per cent of households in Australia have pay TV where News Corporation holds a monopoly.
Race is on to stop News Corp running a sports rights monolopy
|
|
|
|