Pay TV Deal completed - to be announced Monday...?

[AnnieH]

Originally posted by BBB
Why, because as usual, the AFL stuffed up when they just grabbed the highest bidder without them setting the boundaries.

They would have been much better off insisting that the 7/10 bid include a clause that Pay TV are allowed to pick up the slack if they decide it is not in their best interests ratings wise to broadcast games live, eg. Friday nights into Syd/Bris.

Unfortunately the ridiculous anti-siphoning laws do not allow the AFL to sell games to free-to-air and keep some for Pay-TV, so they must have it written in the contract that games not shown live by the winning bidder must be given to Pay TV to be broadcast live, not leave it up to the winning bidder to decide what to do, such as let Ch31 show them.

Obviously the selling price to 7/10, whoever, would be lower, but this slack is picked up by Pay-TV paying for games they show live.

The bottom line is the AFL has more money than they know what to do with and if they are serious about fostering the game in the non-AFL states they must bear the cost of a reduced TV rights contract to have some sort of control over broadcasting into those markets.

Agreed, but the AFL is NOT going to subsidise the Foxtel bid. Uncle Andrew said so.

With the value of hindsight, they may be able to fix the contract for the next time the broadcast rights are up for auction. Hopefully they have learnt from their mistakes.

In the meantime, Foxtel and Ch7/10 have to fight it out between them.

Ch7/10 bought the rights and those rights did not include a clause that said they "have to" allow access to games to Foxtel.

Therefore, if Foxtel want to show games on their network, they HAVE TO PAY the Ch7/10 consortium to do so.

This isn't Bali. You can't barter too much. Ch7/10 could very well say, get stuffed Foxtel, and be well within their rights to do so.

[Triple B]

Originally posted by Annie Haddad
Agreed, but the AFL is NOT going to subsidise the Foxtel bid. Uncle Andrew said so.

With the value of hindsight, they may be able to fix the contract for the next time the broadcast rights are up for auction. Hopefully they have learnt from their mistakes.

It seems we agree that the AFL could have had more foresight when the contract was up for grabs.

Now they did get around 750 mill for the rights.

If they had written a Foxtel clause into the contract with 7/10, I'm sure they would be happy with 745 mill.

Just bite the bullet and cough up the 5 mill.

[AnnieH]

Originally posted by BBB
It seems we agree that the AFL could have had more foresight when the contract was up for grabs.

Now they did get around 750 mill for the rights.

If they had written a Foxtel clause into the contract with 7/10, I'm sure they would be happy with 745 mill.

Just bite the bullet and cough up the 5 mill.

If I OWNED something that I'd spent an awful lot of money on, and you wanted part of it, I would insist that you pay towards the costs of me buying it.

Now, I'm not going to give it to you for free, I'm going to try and recoup as much as my cost as possible. (Don't forget, if I give you part of what I own, YOU are also likely to make further money from your investment, e.g. advertising.)

If I mention a price, and you want to haggle (and I'm not really that prepared to haggle a lot), we're going to come to an impasse sooner or later.

My position, at this stage of the negotiations, would be, if you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want it bad enough, you will pay my lowest asking price, as I'm not prepared to go any lower. If you don't want it, I'll either keep it and enjoy all the spoils myself, or I will find another buyer who might be more interested than you ... in the case of our footy, unfortunately there is no other buyer.

(I'm know I'm ranting, but bear with me.)

So the way I see it, Foxtel are the ones who should be biting the bullet.

[Matt79]

Seems as though a deal is closer...

Only time will tell if they indeed get a deal done in time for Christmas.

Source

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Matt79
Seems as though a deal is closer...

Only time will tell if they indeed get a deal done in time for Christmas.

Source

If that goes through, with 4 games on pay TV each weeek, it will be a disaster for the majority of Australians who do not want to or cannot afford to pay for their TV. This will bring us to an all time low for recent years of the amount of AFL available on FTA. Why should those bastards at 7/10 be allowed to get away with only showing 4 games a weeks on FTA TV? It just isn't right. It's all the fat controllers fault. Greedy fat bastard.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Annie Haddad
So the way I see it, Foxtel are the ones who should be biting the bullet.

Except that 7/10 would probably like to offload some of the games, so it's not all one way.

[hammo]

Originally posted by goswannie14
If that goes through, with 4 games on pay TV each weeek, it will be a disaster for the majority of Australians who do not want to or cannot afford to pay for their TV. This will bring us to an all time low for recent years of the amount of AFL available on FTA. Why should those bastards at 7/10 be allowed to get away with only showing 4 games a weeks on FTA TV? It just isn't right. It's all the fat controllers fault. Greedy fat bastard.

That would be no different to what has been in place over the past 5 years except Foxtel will be allowed to show Friday night games live.

Personally (and I am biased here because I have Foxtel) I would rather have the option of watching games live whether on FTA or PayTV, than having to wait until midnight for 7 or 10 to show a Saturday night game for instance.

Commercial realities are that if you live in Sydney, AFL will not be shown in prime time unless is involves the Swans, so Foxtel is the only realistic option.

Melbourne and other cities will still get 5 FTA matches I presume.

[Damien]

Originally posted by hammo

Melbourne and other cities will still get 5 FTA matches I presume.

No, 4 and 4 split they are talking about. 2 games each on 10 and 7, and 4 on Foxtel.

5 and 3 for Northern States.

Channel 9 and Foxtel's deal for the next 5 years was 4 and 4, and this will be effectively the same if it comes to fruition.

[Damien]

Originally posted by goswannie14
If that goes through, with 4 games on pay TV each weeek, it will be a disaster for the majority of Australians who do not want to or cannot afford to pay for their TV. This will bring us to an all time low for recent years of the amount of AFL available on FTA. Why should those bastards at 7/10 be allowed to get away with only showing 4 games a weeks on FTA TV? It just isn't right. It's all the fat controllers fault. Greedy fat bastard.

Blame 9 and Foxtel and the AFL. $780 million for 4 games on FTA and 4 games on Foxtel.

7 and 10's original offer that was rejected was based on a 5/3 split but was about 100 million less than the 9/Foxtel offer.

7/10 are pretty much trapped into selling none or selling four now.

Mind you, I think 4 games on FTA and 4 on Pay is very fair (as a personal opinion).

[Damien]

Looks like Foxtel are out of the picture now.
Story Here- 7/10 reject Foxtel's revised offer

[goswannie14]

You beauty!!!!!!

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by hammo
That would be no different to what has been in place over the past 5 years except Foxtel will be allowed to show Friday night games live.

How is 5 games on FTA in Victoria in the past the same as 4 games on FTA as proposed in the new deal?

[hammo]

Originally posted by Damien
Looks like Foxtel are out of the picture now.
Story Here- 7/10 reject Foxtel's revised offer

A bad result for Sydney viewers - even worse for regional NSW/QLD viewers. I really hope the AFL doesn't back down on the Channel 31 issue.

[AnnieH]

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said then he believed the game would return to free-to-air full-time, and while the league has been privately barracking for a successful Foxtel bid, it is believed that Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd chief James Packer has resisted lifting the pay-TV bid while Seven boss Kerry Stokes has become more determined to retain all AFL rights on free-to-air.

This is what this whole story boils down to people.
Jamie is a tight-arse.
Kerry is a stubborn tool.

It's ok, Sydneysiders are used to no sleep on the weekends in winter. We don't like it, but it's all we have.
I'm certainly used to watching games at midnight.
I'm more than happy for 8 games on FTA ... I receive Ch31, ABC, ABC2, SBS ... they can play it where they want, I'm ready to watch.

The losers are the PTV subscribers ... again. First you were promised TV with no ads, now you pay for ads. Then they ripped your AFL heart right out of you. When are you going to stop feeding the fat cats?

[Industrial Fan]

You've got it all wrong Annie - the PTV subscribers actually get the right to pay for more and more stuff they used to get for free!

I am happy to watch the footy on any channel at any time. I even think Channel 31 would be ok - no doubt they would be able to improve their signal if they did get to broadcast the footy. Doesnt make sense from the point of view of growing the market, but the Sydney / Brisbane markets are still generally only interested in their own teams at this stage anyhow & they will be live on 7 or 10.