Pay Deal by next week

[hammo]

Originally posted by Claret
Sorry hammo, I didn't explain myself very well.

I was just saying that Sydney have 7 early Sunday games (1.10pm) scheduled for this season. It now appears that they won't be on free to air as they have been previously.

I was wondering that myself. I wonder if its possible that they'll move some / all of those Swans games to the 2pm slot? I don't think 9 ever showed games played in Melbourne live against the gate did they?

I am confused about how the V8 schedule will fit in with this. Seven has bitten off more than they can chew.

[liz]

Originally posted by hammo
I was wondering that myself. I wonder if its possible that they'll move some / all of those Swans games to the 2pm slot? I don't think 9 ever showed games played in Melbourne live against the gate did they?

I am confused about how the V8 schedule will fit in with this. Seven has bitten off more than they can chew.

The deal - as reported by CW anyway - doesn't imply any flexibility statewise either. If the Swans retain their dominance of early Sunday games, this implies that even in Sydney they will be shown by Fox rather than on FTA, something I would have thought the club and AFL would prefer not to happen given that they are still very much trying to attract the non-fanatical Sydney viewers.

[Claret]

Originally posted by liz
The deal - as reported by CW anyway - doesn't imply any flexibility statewise either. If the Swans retain their dominance of early Sunday games, this implies that even in Sydney they will be shown by Fox rather than on FTA, something I would have thought the club and AFL would prefer not to happen given that they are still very much trying to attract the non-fanatical Sydney viewers.

I must admit I'll be very surprised if this particular part of the deal (as reported by CW) goes ahead. These TV rights are supposed to be a key part of the AFL's push into the northern markets but it would be a HUGE step backwards.

[AnnieH]

Ch10 Sydney are advertising every saturday night game live; as well as the 2007 Grand Final coverage (gotta get in REAL early).

I think all these articles are mere bored media speculation.

I honestly can't see Kerry Stokes making a deal with the foxtel consortium. He is the one that has put his foot down from day one and he will not budge. (I'd like to see all the games on FTA so that they are available to all ... including those in regional areas.)

There's nowhere in the contract that the Ch7/10 consortium signed with the AFL that says that a deal MUST be made with Foxtel.

When the AFL signed the last deal with Ch9/10, it was automatically assumed that the footy would go on Fox. THAT deal was fought for from Ch7 so that Kerry Packer could ring in more subscribers to HIS pay TV network (... not for the good of the footy watching public). Kerry Packer was not a stoopid man.

Now ... Ch7/10 want a lot of CASH money from Foxtel for the right to broadcast live games (as is their $780m right) - they are not Ch9 (and therefore NOT a Packer interest). Debts like this can't be "written off between companies". Not putting in a clause for pay TV ... that's the AFL's fault, and now they must live with the consequences.

To say that advertising "contra" is a bargaining tool ... pulease. Do you seriously think Foxtel are going to advertise the (e.g) Sydney v Melbourne match being shown live on Ch10 on Saturday night?? Or vice versa?? Everyone is fighting for their ratings ... each channel are only going to advertise the games they are showing.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this rant ... we're still 52 days from the home & away season opener, and Ch10 are already advertising the 2007 Grand Final.

[Damien]

Originally posted by Annie Haddad



To say that advertising "contra" is a bargaining tool ... pulease. Do you seriously think Foxtel are going to advertise the (e.g) Sydney v Melbourne match being shown live on Ch10 on Saturday night?? Or vice versa?? Everyone is fighting for their ratings ... each channel are only going to advertise the games they are showing.

That isn't contra at all, contra is used for ads like Barry Hall's Hall, official AFL ads.

The actual cash part of the deal is under $700 Million, the contra is around $80 Million, for Foxtel to take a large chunk of that over 5 years, allowing 7 and 10 to sell the space they were going to use for contra is quite a big deal in the scheme of things.

[Damien]

Originally posted by liz
The deal - as reported by CW anyway - doesn't imply any flexibility statewise either. If the Swans retain their dominance of early Sunday games, this implies that even in Sydney they will be shown by Fox rather than on FTA, something I would have thought the club and AFL would prefer not to happen given that they are still very much trying to attract the non-fanatical Sydney viewers.

When the deal was signed, the AFL made statements that related to guaranteed FTA coverage in home markets for the Swans and Lions, so I am guessing that 7 will simply show the match at 1.10 from the Foxtel feed.

Same as when we are not the Saturday night game of choice for Channel 10 nationally.

Melbourne based Swans fans without Foxtel do lose out in a big way though.

[liz]

Originally posted by Annie Haddad

I think all these articles are mere bored media speculation.

I honestly can't see Kerry Stokes making a deal with the foxtel consortium. He is the one that has put his foot down from day one and he will not budge. (I'd like to see all the games on FTA so that they are available to all ... including those in regional areas.)

Very much doubt it.

CW has her limitations and her bones to grind but there is no question over her connections within the game. She - nor the Age more generally - would not have run with this story unless it was a done deal. This report is a little different to the earlier ones circulating on Fox media, where it could be interpreted as wishful thinking rather than a done deal.

I am also a little unsure where this Stokes "put his foot down from day one" comes from, or that he "won't budge". There seems to be little dispute that Fox and the FTA channels have been negotiating off and on since the AFL first awarded the contract to 7 and 10. The sticking points have been price and details - not some principalled objection to Fox from Stokes.

[AnnieH]

Originally posted by liz
Very much doubt it.

CW has her limitations and her bones to grind but there is no question over her connections within the game. She - nor the Age more generally - would not have run with this story unless it was a done deal. This report is a little different to the earlier ones circulating on Fox media, where it could be interpreted as wishful thinking rather than a done deal.

I am also a little unsure where this Stokes "put his foot down from day one" comes from, or that he "won't budge". There seems to be little dispute that Fox and the FTA channels have been negotiating off and on since the AFL first awarded the contract to 7 and 10. The sticking points have been price and details - not some principalled objection to Fox from Stokes.

But there has been some principalled objection to the amount of CASH fox have offered by Stokes. As I said ... this is not a situation where Ch9 and Foxtel and "write off debts" between each other. Stokes and Ch10 want some of the CASH back - and will stick to their guns.

Blah, blah, blah.
The media have been publishing the same story for six months now. Every now and again, they change a few words to make it interesting - essentially, it's been the same crap story.

If the Foxtel deal goes ahead - it'll screw badly with the "traditional home of football's" viewing habits. The southern/western states can see the difference between "having it good" and what it's like for the northern state AFL fans. Better go out and bulk buy some No-Doz.

You should all be against the Foxtel deal. Feed the fat cats, watch your re-runs on Foxtel and leave the footy to the "people".

[hammo]

Originally posted by Annie Haddad

When the AFL signed the last deal with Ch9/10, it was automatically assumed that the footy would go on Fox. THAT deal was fought for from Ch7 so that Kerry Packer could ring in more subscribers to HIS pay TV network (... not for the good of the footy watching public). Kerry Packer was not a stoopid man.

Foxtel was a party with 9 and 10 to the last broadcasting agreement.

Foxtel and 9 had an offer accepted by the AFL late last year (days before KP's death) which the 7 / 10 consortium, which had a right to the last offer, were obliged to better.

You're right, Packer was not a stupid man which is why he forced 7 / 10 to pay far too much money for the rights and knowing that if they didn't bargain with Foxtel they'd be forced to cannibalise their own ratings by going head to head (as well as 7 being contractually forced to show Friday night games live in Sydney).

Packer would have known 7 / 10 would out bid him so he made sure they paid too much and had conditions 9such as live in Sydney on Friday) they could not meet. He also knew they would have to get Foxtel on board to make their deal work, which has happened.

Kerry Stokes may not like Foxtel but he is a businessman and 7 is a publicly listed company. Shareholders would expect 7 to accept the Foxtel offer of cash, picking up half of the broadcasting costs and most importantly preserving ratings in Sydney - that is far more important than his personal gripes with Foxtel over C7.

It's Kerry Packer 1 Kerry Stokes 0 IMO.

Contra refers to AFL ads on rivalry round, heritage round, auskick etc not advertising matches to be shown on other networks.

[hammo]

Originally posted by Annie Haddad

You should all be against the Foxtel deal. Feed the fat cats, watch your re-runs on Foxtel and leave the footy to the "people".

The expectation of all matches being broadcast is only 5 years old and was a result of the 9 / 10 / Foxtel consortium.

ALL matches have NEVER been shown on FTA, so stop trying to rewrite history.

Before the last broadcast agreement at least half of the matches were only seen by people at the ground.

Pay TV has brought an expectation of all matches being shown and being shown live. How is that is bad for "the people"? It's not something that FTA could ever emulate, which is why in Sydney we got/get replays at midnight.

[Jeffers1984]

Now its officially "unofficial" until an official announcment on Thursday.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/afl/sydney-scores-live-friday-night-football/2007/02/05/1170524031660.html

woot woot.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Damien
Melbourne based Swans fans without Foxtel do lose out in a big way though.

Don't tell Hammo, he doesn't believe it.

[Sanecow]

How many Swans games were FTA in 2006?

[hammo]

Originally posted by goswannie14
Don't tell Hammo, he doesn't believe it.

I've only ever argued for live coverage of most if not all AFL matches in Sydney rather than being satisfied with replays starting at midnight (which some on RWO claim is promoting the game ).

I don't know what the situation will be for Swans fans in Melbourne, but at risk of starting off another debate on the subject, at some stage Melbourne based fans have to come to terms with the fact that its the SYDNEY Swans.

It is common sense that that the most popular teams in Melbourne (Collingwood, Essendon, St Kilda, Dogs etc) would appear most often on FTA tv, rather than matches involving Brisbane, West Coast, Freo, Crows, Port and yes, even the Swans.

[royboy42]

My two cents worth!
7 and 10 are locked into a contract that they paid too much for..and one that is almost unmanageable for just the two of them. They HAD to onsell or somehow trade away (but still adhere to the contract) the unprofitable matches and schedules.
These, of course, were the Friday nights live into Syd and Bne against live rugby league on 9, and the conflict matches where they would have to televise against each other! No money to be made there, in fact. lots to be lost.
Don't imagine for a second that caring for Swans supporters in Vic or splinter groups such as that (strictly in a business sense of course).stirs the hearts of the bean counters at the three outfits involved.
This is about 7 and 10 operating in a fashion to make a profit..it couldn't be done with just the 2 of them...Fox wisely hung in and hung in, made minimal adjustments to their offer... W A I T E D ..and 7 and 10 folded!