Ten And Seven Win AFL Rights - Hooray

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Damien
Think she knows that but was referring to how it would be under 9.

Ah, yes I see. Sorry Eirinn - didn't read it properly.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Damien
I am also not quite sure why a moderator has to be unbiased on a TV Rights deal or for that matter not able to be amused by your million posts on this topic.

You're just upset because I post more than you :tongue in cheek:

On TV networks, I'm a bit like Dave is with politicians...can't live with them, can't live without them. If I had the money I would have Foxtel, so wouldn't have to worry about which network had the rights.

I have posted on here because I am trying to understand why people see the 7/10 deal and what time you see a football match is so important and I enjoy a good debate. As I have said previously as long as I get to see my team play I don't really care what time the coverage is...and there is always the DVR or VCR if needs be.

I don't recall some of the things that Charlie said were televised ever being televised (which doesn't mean that he is wrong), however I well remember that if you weren't going to the GF in years gone by then it was great to see the U 19 and reserves GF before the big one. Don't know if 10 has been showing the U 18 GF or not, as now there is no real club connection to that comp I am not that interested. But that whoile argument is one that nbeeds to be taken up with the AFL, they are the ones who have changed GF day making it an event rather than a Footy match.

I think the 7 coverage was very tired before the last rights deal, I am hoping that it will be up to scratch when they next start to show AFL in 2007.

As I said, I don't really care that much who is showing the matches as long as the Swans matches are shown, and with us now being a consistently top team, that is bound to happen on the majority of weekends. I just don't undersatnd the hatred that so many people have for 9 and their coverage of the AFL, when it is similar to my experience of the coverage of 7 in the past.

BTW my comment about moderating comes from the dictionary definitionDictionary definition of moderator

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by cruiser
Its commitment first to NRL. There is no way Ch 9 in Sydney would show Fri night AFL until after the NRL had finished ie after 11pm at night.

It should also be noted that in 2007 the NRl will be having TWO Friday Night matches in Nsw & Qld (one live at 7:30pm & another on delay at 9:30). Considering they have to squeeze Nightline in there too (plus Wimbledon, the golf etc etc), there would be night where he telecast would not start much before midnight. For the game to grow into the mindset of NSW people, this is just NOT acceptable.

Channel 7 did treat the Sydney AFL public with a great deal of contempt as well. I succinctly recall matches in the late 80s being replayed at 12pm for one hour THE NEXT WEEK before the 2pm Saturday game from Melbourne. They rarely if ever showed our games live on Saturday nights. And were decidedly half-hearted about promotion of the game in NSW (untill the 96 finals where of course like everyone else they ALL hopped on the bandwagon )

We will just have to see how things pan out. The most important thing that our Victorian viewers must understand out of all this is that whilst you may have been treated poorly by Channel 7 in terms of telecasts etc etc, you will not become alienated from the code as a result of it. In Sydney people are THAT fickle, and WILL get their backs up at something like that. We simply can NOT afford that, especially after having made breakthroughs into the midset of the average Sydneysider like never before thanks to the Grand Final win.

Hopefully common sense will prevail. But with Demetriou in charge, the propogation of evil is only ever a moment's notice away.

JF

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
It should also be noted that in 2007 the NRl will be having TWO Friday Night matches in Nsw & Qld (one live at 7:30pm & another on delay at 9:30). Considering they have to squeeze Nightline in there too (plus Wimbledon, the golf etc etc), there would be night where he telecast would not start much before midnight. For the game to grow into the mindset of NSW people, this is just NOT acceptable.

Channel 7 did treat the Sydney AFL public with a great deal of contempt as well. I succinctly recall matches in the late 80s being replayed at 12pm for one hour THE NEXT WEEK before the 2pm Saturday game from Melbourne. They rarely if ever showed our games live on Saturday nights. And were decidedly half-hearted about promotion of the game in NSW (untill the 96 finals where of course like everyone else they ALL hopped on the bandwagon )

We will just have to see how things pan out. The most important thing that our Victorian viewers must understand out of all this is that whilst you may have been treated poorly by Channel 7 in terms of telecasts etc etc, you will not become alienated from the code as a result of it. In Sydney people are THAT fickle, and WILL get their backs up at something like that. We simply can NOT afford that, especially after having made breakthroughs into the midset of the average Sydneysider like never before thanks to the Grand Final win.

Hopefully common sense will prevail. But with Demetriou in charge, the propogation of evil is only ever a moment's notice away.

JF

Thanks JF, thats the most succinct overview of the whole thing I have heard on here, including the faults of both 7 and 9. Thanks mate.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Charlie
Would you blame them for not bothering in 2001? I can't remember if they did it that year, but I don't ever recall not having the GF marathon, or the u18 GF, or the year-in-review special, or the draft, or the All-Australian dinner.... you know, all those things that never rated but they put on anyway because it was footy.

Just to clear up a few matters, Channel 7 did show the GF marathon in 2001 and in 2002 their first year without the rights had a 3 hour marathon the midnight before the GF. So that puts that myth to bed. Channel Ch7 had Football programming from 8.30pm on the Friday to 6pm on the Saturday, right up until the end of them having the rights.

[Old Royboy]

Too many people are looking at this issue from a selfish point of view. I havn?t seen much mention of the importance of game development in the northern states in this thread. I think this is a major reason why 7 is far more preferable to 9.

Regional areas where the support for AR or RL is fairly evenly divided lost their prime time FTA coverage on Friday nights when 9 took over and had RL shoved down their gullets instead. They can expect to get it back.

For our game to develop it needs some news coverage and publicity, this aspect must improve in 2007, as at present 9 give us nothing.

I would expect that Friday replays will start late, but at least will not be shunted by tennis, golf etc etc as they are on nine. The original 10.30pm committment will have gone by the board in the matching offer, thus 7 will be tempted to delay coverage until after 9?s RL double header is over. At least it will be live on pay, as it was in the C7 days.

Sunday scheduling will be interesting ? it was 7 who initiated the early starts, but with the mooted 5pm twilight games, will we see a return to 2pm starts in 2007?

The most disappointing thing is that the rights are still for 8 games a week. This means that the AFL has committed to an uneven draw and throwing more good money away propping up the Footscray and North Melbourne basket cases.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Old Royboy
Too many people are looking at this issue from a selfish point of view. I havn?t seen much mention of the importance of game development in the northern states in this thread. I think this is a major reason why 7 is far more preferable to 9.

I did make the comment early on on this or the parrallel thread that my thoughts were froma slfish point of view, so I agree woth you on that score.

The most disappointing thing is that the rights are still for 8 games a week. This means that the AFL has committed to an uneven draw and throwing more good money away propping up the Footscray and North Melbourne basket cases.

The problem is that the fat controller (Demetriou) has said that there are no plans to decrease the size of the competition whilst he was in charge, so there are no surprises there. But I agree it is stupid to keep propping up clubs that realistically can't continue to survive in the current competition.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Old Royboy

The most disappointing thing is that the rights are still for 8 games a week. This means that the AFL has committed to an uneven draw and throwing more good money away propping up the Footscray and North Melbourne basket cases.

The AFL does not come before the clubs. The clubs come before the AFL.

If a club is truly unsustainable (as Fitzroy arguably was in the mid 1990s), then it's time to look at other options like mergers or relocations. However at the moment, the AFL is thriving with the Dogs and Roos where they are. They are therefore sustainable, and they have been VFL/AFL clubs for 80 years. They have a right to be there at the moment. It's not inalienable, but closing down a club with a history that long should be the absolute last resort.

The AFL serves the clubs. It seems to have forgotten that, but its about time the clubs remind them.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Charlie
The AFL does not come before the clubs. The clubs come before the AFL.

If a club is truly unsustainable (as Fitzroy arguably was in the mid 1990s), then it's time to look at other options like mergers or relocations. However at the moment, the AFL is thriving with the Dogs and Roos where they are. They are therefore sustainable, and they have been VFL/AFL clubs for 80 years. They have a right to be there at the moment. It's not inalienable, but closing down a club with a history that long should be the absolute last resort.

The AFL serves the clubs. It seems to have forgotten that, but its about time the clubs remind them.

So you see relocation as an option for struggling clubs though, since it preserves a club's history?

[SimonH]

Originally posted by Charlie
The AFL does not come before the clubs. The clubs come before the AFL.

If a club is truly unsustainable (as Fitzroy arguably was in the mid 1990s), then it's time to look at other options like mergers or relocations. However at the moment, the AFL is thriving with the Dogs and Roos where they are. They are therefore sustainable, and they have been VFL/AFL clubs for 80 years. They have a right to be there at the moment. It's not inalienable, but closing down a club with a history that long should be the absolute last resort.

The AFL serves the clubs. It seems to have forgotten that, but its about time the clubs remind them.

I grant we're getting off topic, but: the AFL is there to ensure a quality Aussie Rules competition, and the clubs provide that competition. It doesn't serve the clubs in the sense that it is written in stone that each of its current clubs must survive, in their current location and form, no matter what. Never has. In all state comps, plenty of clubs went out of business (and others came into existence) in the late 19th/early 20th century, but the comp as a whole rolled on.

The pointy end is: what is the distinction between "truly unsustainable" and "part of a thriving comp"? Zero, apart from the willingness of the league to prop up clubs, through 'one-off competition payments' and other things, who would become bankrupt otherwise. The AFL had the money to ensure that Fitzroy would still exist as an independent entity-- if doing so was a high enough priority for it.

I'm not being a social Darwinist or a nothing-must-stand-in-the-way-of-the-market Friedmanite here. I'm just pointing out that the decision as to which of the marginal old VFL clubs survive, for how long, and on what terms, is a political decision. $780 million seems like a lot of money, but once you divide up all the things the AFL has to do, from grassroots junior footy up, you can spend it all pretty fast.

It's easy to justify doling out an extra $5m to a club if you know it's only a one-off payment in response to some adverse financial circumstances that are unlikely to recur, and the ramifications for the competition of losing that team would be worse. It's hard to justify doling out an extra $5m to a club on the financial brink, if you can't see a financial plan that shows a break-even on the horizon. You're just going to dole out another $5m in a few years time, then $7m after that, then $10m a few years after that... and eventually someone in power will get jack of it, pull the pin, and there will be a merger or relocation.

The fact that 10 clubs out of 12 from the old VFL still exist fundamentally unchanged is a historical anomaly that arises from the fact that there was never a nationwide decision to have a national top-level comp. There was a decision by the VFL to start expanding outwards and rebrand itself as the AFL. Fewer than 62.5% of the fans, and 62.5% of the players, of Aussie Rules live in Victoria now. There is no reason for it to have 62.5% of the teams in the top comp. I don't think the Victorian teams that are unable to financially survive as part of the AFL should fold-- I think they should be where they would always have been if there had ever been a considered approach to developing a national comp: playing in a local Victorian comp (whether it's called 'the VFL' or anything else).

And, to the frenzied cries of the 'these 16 teams forever' believers, the AFL should sit down and work out an ideal, sustainable structure of a national competition. I'd like to see Divisions in the style of UK soccer, but only the bean-counters could answer whether this would be feasible with Australia's greater travel distances and lower population.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Sanecow
So you see relocation as an option for struggling clubs though, since it preserves a club's history?

In the event that a club is clearly unsustainable on its own AND the AFL cannot afford to keep them running, then the members of that club should be given an option between relocation, merging with another club and folding.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by SimonH
I grant we're getting off topic, but: the AFL is there to ensure a quality Aussie Rules competition, and the clubs provide that competition. It doesn't serve the clubs in the sense that it is written in stone that each of its current clubs must survive, in their current location and form, no matter what. Never has. In all state comps, plenty of clubs went out of business (and others came into existence) in the late 19th/early 20th century, but the comp as a whole rolled on.

The AFL is merely the rebranded and expanded VFL - a body that was created by eight founder clubs and joined by eight others over the years (excluding University). The AFL is nothing more or less than the sum of its clubs. The clubs are the league itself. The 16 clubs are effectively equal partners in the AFL - therefore, the AFL administration are akin to the elected directors and salaried officers of a private company, answerable to shareholders (the clubs).

Somewhere in the past 20 years, this relationship has been forgotten and transposed. The 'AFL' not only behaves as an independent entity, but it controls the clubs! If a club wanted to exercise its rights to leave the AFL, it could not take its names, jumper or logo with it, because they're all trademarks of the AFL! So far letting the AFL off it's rightful leash has cost us one club, and gone agonisingly close to costing us Sydney, the Dogs, Hawthorn and Melbourne as well. I wonder how many more it will cost.

The pointy end is: what is the distinction between "truly unsustainable" and "part of a thriving comp"? Zero, apart from the willingness of the league to prop up clubs, through 'one-off competition payments' and other things, who would become bankrupt otherwise. The AFL had the money to ensure that Fitzroy would still exist as an independent entity-- if doing so was a high enough priority for it.

Precisely the problem. Looking back, the AFL had absolutely no right to throw Fitzroy out of the competition. It should have found a way of saving Fitzroy - even if the only way to do it was to offer the club's directors to place the club in the AFL's administration (as happened with Sydney).

I'm not being a social Darwinist or a nothing-must-stand-in-the-way-of-the-market Friedmanite here. I'm just pointing out that the decision as to which of the marginal old VFL clubs survive, for how long, and on what terms, is a political decision. $780 million seems like a lot of money, but once you divide up all the things the AFL has to do, from grassroots junior footy up, you can spend it all pretty fast.

All of these other aims are due to the inordinate amount of power concentrated in the AFL in the past 20 years. Even in the early 1990s, the AFL was not the governing body of Australian rules football. Now, as the sport's main (sole?) money-maker, it is clear that it must have a role in grassroots football. But the AFL's primary concern must be ensuring that its members survive.

It's easy to justify doling out an extra $5m to a club if you know it's only a one-off payment in response to some adverse financial circumstances that are unlikely to recur, and the ramifications for the competition of losing that team would be worse. It's hard to justify doling out an extra $5m to a club on the financial brink, if you can't see a financial plan that shows a break-even on the horizon. You're just going to dole out another $5m in a few years time, then $7m after that, then $10m a few years after that... and eventually someone in power will get jack of it, pull the pin, and there will be a merger or relocation.

And while the league is able to make $780million for five year TV deals, it's not the place of the AFL to 'get jack of it' - at least, not unless the overwhelming sentiment of the other clubs is that the failing club is no longer capable of competing in the league.

The fact that 10 clubs out of 12 from the old VFL still exist fundamentally unchanged is a historical anomaly that arises from the fact that there was never a nationwide decision to have a national top-level comp. There was a decision by the VFL to start expanding outwards and rebrand itself as the AFL. Fewer than 62.5% of the fans, and 62.5% of the players, of Aussie Rules live in Victoria now. There is no reason for it to have 62.5% of the teams in the top comp. I don't think the Victorian teams that are unable to financially survive as part of the AFL should fold-- I think they should be where they would always have been if there had ever been a considered approach to developing a national comp: playing in a local Victorian comp (whether it's called 'the VFL' or anything else).

Yes there is. Because each of those ten teams has been in the league for more than 80 years, and between them they hold a 62.5% share in the competition. They have an inherent right to be in the competition, if it is financially possible for them to be there. Further, since the 16 AFL clubs are the ones responsible for $780million TV deals, they should have first access to those funds to secure their survival if necessary. The clubs must always be the number one priority of the body they created to serve their interests - the AFL.

And, to the frenzied cries of the 'these 16 teams forever' believers, the AFL should sit down and work out an ideal, sustainable structure of a national competition. I'd like to see Divisions in the style of UK soccer, but only the bean-counters could answer whether this would be feasible with Australia's greater travel distances and lower population.

Completely unnecessary. Why wouldn't you want the 16 teams to each play each other every year? The only change I could countenance would be conferences of eight teams each - every team plays the seven teams in its conference twice, and the other teams once.

[big bear]

Re: Ten And Seven Win AFL Rights - Hooray

Originally posted by Wardy
They have matched PBL - and have won it - no more Eddie - I think I might just have to go and have a celebratory beverage!

Right on brother. No Eddie and hopefully no Friday night footy starting after 11pm. Best news for a while.

[goswannie14]

Re: Re: Ten And Seven Win AFL Rights - Hooray

Originally posted by big bear
Right on brother. No Eddie and hopefully no Friday night footy starting after 11pm. Best news for a while.

I wouldn't count my chickens before they hatched, remember the devil is in the detail, so we need to take it one step at a time.

[j s]

Re: Re: Re: Ten And Seven Win AFL Rights - Hooray

Originally posted by goswannie14
I wouldn't count my chickens before they hatched, remember the devil is in the detail, so we need to take it one step at a time.

But chickens come before eggs, the devil made Kerry do it and one step now gets rid of nine.