- Banned
- #1
Ten drowns in channel crossing
24 December 2005 Herald Sun
Damian Barrett
REMEMBER these words? "There's an old Broady saying, 'It's not who throws the first punch in a fight, it's who throws the last punch'."
It was Thursday, March 17, and they were delivered by Eddie McGuire on The Footy Show, the day after Channels Seven and 10 had announced an alliance to bid for the next round of AFL TV rights.
McGuire was condescendingly laughed at by all inside the Seven and Ten bunkers. But last night, after the AFL's conditional acceptance of a massive Nine offer to broadcast football from 2007-11, the only smiles were coming from McGuire and his mates at Nine.
This AFL rights boxing bout is not yet over -- Seven and Ten have until January 5 to match the $780 million five-year bid -- but Nine has, despite being TKO'd in March, belted its way back in to the contest the way it knows best: with lots and lots of dollars.
The cash difference in Nine's bid and that of its rival is at least $15 million a year, as revealed last week in the Herald Sun.
Stretched over five years, that equates to $75 million more than Channel 7 and 10 have offered to this point.
The fact Nine's parent company PBL managed to extract so much money out of its consortium with Foxtel and News Limited, publisher of the Herald Sun, was extraordinary, particularly as it was left without a financially flush free-to-air partner.
Nine was furious with Ten for ditching it and striking the arrangement with Seven.
Its executives spent weeks contemplating courses of action.
The ABC and sport TV's newest challenger, SBS, were both involved in discussions about an AFL arrangement, and while the ABC seems an unlikely partner from 2007-11, don't entirely rule out SBS.
Nine's decision to settle on Foxtel as its rights broadcast partner was crucial.
With News Limited's involvement, it meant the Packers and Murdochs were on the same team -- good luck to any opposition.
There are ways to win against them, but not many.
Seven and Ten are convinced AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou wanted Nine to win, based on a dislike of Channel 7, largely because the AFL was sued by it in the Federal Court.
It's a theory they believe they can back up, but one that just doesn't wash when the outcome announced yesterday had the full backing of the AFL Commission.
Mind you, the timing of publicly declaring acceptance of the Nine bid was certainly eyebrow-raising.
It could be interpreted as: "We've got the money we wanted, we've got the coverage in to the black spots we wanted, we will enjoy our Christmas break and we hope you all enjoy yours, particularly those of you who work for Seven and Ten."
Demetriou stressed Seven and Ten had "14 calendar days" to respond to the Nine bid.
Many, many Seven and Ten executives, their partners and children, as well as lawyers who work for the networks, are going to be very annoyed next week, as all holiday plans have gone skewiff.
24 December 2005 Herald Sun
Damian Barrett
REMEMBER these words? "There's an old Broady saying, 'It's not who throws the first punch in a fight, it's who throws the last punch'."
It was Thursday, March 17, and they were delivered by Eddie McGuire on The Footy Show, the day after Channels Seven and 10 had announced an alliance to bid for the next round of AFL TV rights.
McGuire was condescendingly laughed at by all inside the Seven and Ten bunkers. But last night, after the AFL's conditional acceptance of a massive Nine offer to broadcast football from 2007-11, the only smiles were coming from McGuire and his mates at Nine.
This AFL rights boxing bout is not yet over -- Seven and Ten have until January 5 to match the $780 million five-year bid -- but Nine has, despite being TKO'd in March, belted its way back in to the contest the way it knows best: with lots and lots of dollars.
The cash difference in Nine's bid and that of its rival is at least $15 million a year, as revealed last week in the Herald Sun.
Stretched over five years, that equates to $75 million more than Channel 7 and 10 have offered to this point.
The fact Nine's parent company PBL managed to extract so much money out of its consortium with Foxtel and News Limited, publisher of the Herald Sun, was extraordinary, particularly as it was left without a financially flush free-to-air partner.
Nine was furious with Ten for ditching it and striking the arrangement with Seven.
Its executives spent weeks contemplating courses of action.
The ABC and sport TV's newest challenger, SBS, were both involved in discussions about an AFL arrangement, and while the ABC seems an unlikely partner from 2007-11, don't entirely rule out SBS.
Nine's decision to settle on Foxtel as its rights broadcast partner was crucial.
With News Limited's involvement, it meant the Packers and Murdochs were on the same team -- good luck to any opposition.
There are ways to win against them, but not many.
Seven and Ten are convinced AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou wanted Nine to win, based on a dislike of Channel 7, largely because the AFL was sued by it in the Federal Court.
It's a theory they believe they can back up, but one that just doesn't wash when the outcome announced yesterday had the full backing of the AFL Commission.
Mind you, the timing of publicly declaring acceptance of the Nine bid was certainly eyebrow-raising.
It could be interpreted as: "We've got the money we wanted, we've got the coverage in to the black spots we wanted, we will enjoy our Christmas break and we hope you all enjoy yours, particularly those of you who work for Seven and Ten."
Demetriou stressed Seven and Ten had "14 calendar days" to respond to the Nine bid.
Many, many Seven and Ten executives, their partners and children, as well as lawyers who work for the networks, are going to be very annoyed next week, as all holiday plans have gone skewiff.
