Cop that 10... too clever by half

[weevil]

Crap
10 had ALL the finals and the Grand Final every year for 5 years
9 were putting up most of the money
9 wanted its share of finals and to rotate the GF.

Who was bending who over.

Here's a little thing you might want to try - research

Of course they were paying more money; they had the Friday night games and therefore the massive majority of the advertising revenue. The rest is just chicken feed.

9 had been saying for some time that they were going to put the squeeze on 10 when the rights came up again. They are notorious bullies and they thought they could push 10 around because they thought 10 had nowhere to go.

9 thought they held all the aces and played accordingly. 7 offered 10 a better and fairer deal. End of story.

Here's a little thing you might want to try - Wind back the ego about 90% and try some research yourself little big man.

 

[bozza1980]

The only reason Channel 10 left was because was trying to reset the goal posts in its own favour. Channel 9 arrogantly tried to push 10 around (taking back the finals, best games, etc).

I could understand that reasoning if the 7/10 deal was better for them than the 9/10 renegotiated.

They didn't want to give up the finals to 9 so they agreed to give 7 Friday nights, split the finals and alternate GF's and the Brownlow.

Does that sound to anyone else much like Channel 9 wanted from their deal with 10.

 

[Murray]

Of course they were paying more money; they had the Friday night games and therefore the massive majority of the advertising revenue. Th]e rest is just chicken feed.

9 had been saying for some time that they were going to put the squeeze on 10 when the rights came up again. They are notorious bullies and they thought they could push 10 around because they thought 10 had nowhere to go.

9 thought they held all the aces and played accordingly. 7 offered 10 a better and fairer deal. End of story.

Here's a little thing you might want to try - Wind back the ego about 90% and try some research yourself little big man.

The Finals and Grand Finals were chicken feed compared to Friday night games were they?

You idiot..
You can go now

 

[Murray]

And I guess, seeing as they were after fairness, 9 was also willing to rotate the Friday night coverage under the above deal??

The arrogance of 9 cost them their partnership with 10 and will cost them the TV rights.

Sucked in I say.

Who said anything about fairness?
What 9 wanted was coverage comensurate with the dollars they were putting in.
They were not getting that.
10 had all the finals and GF and were the junior partner.

Stop and think (damn you can't do that can you?)

 

[Druid]

In a game of cards a 9 & a fox trumps a 10 & a 7

 

[zero]

make a profit? what profit?

back the fk up murray, its just people talking here, stop being so arrogant

i was under the impression that whoever got the football was never going to make a profit off it anyway, i believe 10 was the only member of the consortium last time that made a direct profit off AFL coverage, and that wasnt great, relying mainly finals time, and the lucky strategic coincidence of them thrashing the QLD market while a triple premiership by the lions was occuring.

and its basically the same this time, the networks dont want the football to make a direct profit off it from advertising, they want the football because of the prestige it associates with their brand to have the biggest and most popular australian cultural event (not just sport, but ANYTHING) on their channel.

think about it, NOTHING glues so many australians to their tvs and opens their wallet as much as AFL does. nothing at all.

on top of that, there is strategic payment for everyone. foxtel wants it so they can force more people over to subsciption, 9 wants it to beat 7 and 7 wants it to beat 9, 10 wants to build on their success of saturday football and see more of a return on their investment in the north.

from what i understand, 7 and 10 wont be looking at the figure they will be putting up as "what can make us a profit", but "what is an acceptable loss so that we can recoup it in other ways?"

and IMO, 7 and 10 will match that offer, and the AFL will own the telstra dome

 

[Brock Machine]

The Finals and Grand Finals were chicken feed compared to Friday night games were they?

You idiot..
You can go now

It's a fact that Oz is split on FNF by League in Northern states and AFL in the South. By having the rights to both, Channel 9 can offer massive national coverage for advertisers over both comps home and away seasons.

One massive payday vs. 22 large paydays.

While I would not call you an idiot, you maybe have underestimated the $$$$ generated through FNF by 9.

 

[Murray]

It's a fact that Oz is split on FNF by League in Northern states and AFL in the South. By having the rights to both, Channel 9 can offer massive national coverage for advertisers over both comps home and away seasons.

One massive payday vs. 22 large paydays.

While I would not call you an idiot, you maybe have underestimated the $$$$ generated through FNF by 9.

Not so with me - You are an idiot if you think FNF compares in anyway with the Finals and GF

 

[Brock Machine]

Not so with me - You are an idiot if you think FNF compares in anyway with the Finals and GF

For the football purist, yes finals are where it's at.

But if you are running a TV station, 5 months of ratings across Australia beats 1 month of ratings.

 

[ChrisFooty]

Yeah the AFL rights are waaaaaaay over valued.

ten and seven wouldn't pay that much money coz they wouldn't make a profit off it.

 

[rayven]

please consider that channel seven wouldn't of forked out 20 million bucks for last rights in the bidding process in the hope channel 9 offered a poor bid, they knew what was a stake and what they would have to do to get the rights back.

the only people who can answer the unknowns right now is channel 7


and fridays announcement wasnt the afl favouring nine or on nines side it was just a auctioneer getting to "going twice" in a sale.

 

[Powerstufff]

Each time an organisation pays more for AFL rights than it is easily seen to be worth it is a huge win for our sport. It means that that organisation can't just sit back, televise it, and pocket the dosh. It has to push/promote our sport to recover its money and then make a profit. That benefits AFL the next time around.
4-5 years ago everyone gasped as the AFL negotiated a deal worth $100,000,000 a year. I remember quite a few comments on how it was unlikely to be so high this time. Yet clearly the media organisations have grown their AFL related business and the deal is worth what was paid. In fact Channel 9 now thinks it can make a profit while paying $780,000,000 (around $140,000,000 a year).
Do Channels 7 and 10 also think their advertising salespeople and their side deals can make them $780,000,000 back; and then generate a profit on top of that? Can they afford to let Channel 9 sit unchallenged with the two major football codes in the country sewn up? If they pay this money they have to grow the business to match what they've paid. I heard the other day that American football with a population approx 20x ours, gets $11.5 billion a year. That may be rubbish but it is clear they can generate a heck of a lot more money than AFL (or NRL) has begun to dream of. As does soccer.
This process continues the rescue of Australian Rules football begun when the AFL was formed. From this deal on clubs may cease to rely on memberships and season tickets for survival.

 

[H Dolphin]

Each time an organisation pays more for AFL rights than it is easily seen to be worth it is a huge win for our sport.

The more money that goes into “our sport”, the more expensive becomes the cost of following it. TV rights money means higher cost of consumer items of the advertisers who pay the TV station and pay TV fees. There are those who profit by the increased funds in the pool, TV and radio commentators, AFL officials, players, player agents. They are the ones who regularly use the 'phrases "good for football" and "our game". If the increase in TV rights money was used to subsidise a decrease in entry fees and membership packages, you might have a point but I’ll bet it ends up in the pockets of the TV and radio commentators, AFL officials, players and player agents, not to the benefit of the members and supporters. The extra TV rights money is good for “our sport” if you are a TV and radio commentator, AFL official, player or agent but bad for “our sport” if you are a supporter and/or member.

 

[kirky]

During the last ratings year, on numerous occasions Seven was beaten by 9 in a number of rating weeks this year because of its coverage of FNF. The value of winning the AFL rights may well see 7 triumph over 9 given that 7 regularly won Monday, Tuesdays and Thursday nights during the year, Wednesday was even between the networks but 7 got absolutely smashed on Fridays and Sundays. Saturdays was always a non-event (all 3 channels were pretty similar). So if 7, can break even on Friday nights (southern states with AFL on 7 and northern states with NRL on 9) they probably win the week and the importance is the increase in advertising dollars by having extra rating points plus being the no 1 TV network (which 9 certainly don't want given that Kerry has no passed on).

Its a gamble I think 7 will be willing to play. No guts no glory.

Remember this is not about the sport this is all about business and the benefits it provides (they don't give a toss about the average punter as long as they watch their network).

PS : Seven also have most of this years top rating US shows that will be debuting in 2006 together with their existing ones (Desperate Housewives and Lost).

 

[Powerstufff]

The more money that goes into “our sport”, the more expensive becomes the cost of following it......

I guess we may be increasingly 'forced' into pay TV. But that's the price we pay to keep our clubs alive when so many choose not to go to games, buy memberships, or support their teams or the sport in any meaningful way.
Those of us who live where our teams play and attend their home games will find no increase in ticket costs, membership costs or merchandise costs just because the TV channels are squeezing more out of advertisers.

 

[H Dolphin]

I...But that's the price we pay to keep our clubs alive when so many choose not to go to games, buy memberships, or support their teams or the sport in any meaningful way.

Doesn't that just mean that the game isn't attractive enough ?

Those of us who live where our teams play and attend their home games will find no increase in ticket costs, membership costs or merchandise costs just because the TV channels are squeezing more out of advertisers.

I'll bet you that the entry costs, membership fees and cost of merchandise continue to go up for 2007 - no matter how great the TV rights money.

 

[Powerstufff]

Doesn't that just mean that the game isn't attractive enough?.....

No. The society that had big no's going to cinemas, footy, the races etc is two generations gone. Now people watch TV and DVDs, play console games, root around on the internet. They still like their footy, hence the ratings and hence the money the game has just shown itself capable of drawing.
But as already said far too few will support their club in the way that sufficed in the 50s.

 

[H Dolphin]

.. far too few will support their club in the way that sufficed in the 50s.

Clubs didn't turn over 18 mil - 36 mil per annum in the '50's. The current two biggest expenses for clubs, administration and player payments, were miniscule then. Increased TV rights money should translate into a bigger AFL dividend to the clubs releiving pressure on the fundraisers. In fact, it will translate into even greater turnover and pressure on the fundraisers.

 

[Sedat!]

The Finals and Grand Finals were chicken feed compared to Friday night games were they?

4 weeks of finals compared to 22 weeks of Friday night football. Now which scenario do you think generates the most advertising revenue for the respective networks. FNF is a very lucrative advertising night for the Nine Network, no less lucrative than any final with the exception of the GF. The new CEO of Network Ten comes from an adversiting background, so he is mindful of the numbers stacking up 22 weeks of the year compared to a 4 week spike in September.

If the bid is matched by 7-10, why should you worry about who gets the rights? Wouldn't be because you are a Pies supporter would it? Monopolising FNF over the last 4 years has sure given your team a wonderful head-start over the other 15 clubs (maybe Essendon excepted). Would be terrible for you to have that balance restored from 2007-2011.

 

[DST]

For years the little Kerry has been in the shadow of the big Kerry, surely he is not going to miss this opportunity to land a quick and clear blow to the face of both James & PBL.

If you were betting, the odds on both channel 7 & 10 matching the bid would have been slashed on the passing of big Kerry.

Strategicaly, you strike hardest when the other is at it's weakest, the timing could not have been better for little Kerry.

DST

 

[FIGJAM]

If the bid is matched by 7-10, why should you worry about who gets the rights? Wouldn't be because you are a Pies supporter would it? Monopolising FNF over the last 4 years has sure given your team a wonderful head-start over the other 15 clubs (maybe Essendon excepted). Would be terrible for you to have that balance restored from 2007-2011.

I haven't seen a Collingwood supporter worried about this. In fact, I think the majority of us couldn't give a stuff!

We'll play when we're told (subject to our requests, which all clubs are allowed to submit, but is up to the AFL to accept). The AFL create the fixture. End of conspiracy theory.

So instead of analysing the supposed "fear" of a Collingwood poster, who has by all accounts been quite balanced and provided simple facts in this thread, perhaps you should examine the fear of you and your fellow 7/10ites and recognise that it's entirely based on a false conspiracy theory.

Fact is, footy's going to be better off from 2007 onwards. 2002 showed us that it doesn't matter a jot which mega-global-hyper-company's showing the damn thing. They've all got faults and strengths of varying types. 7, 9, 10, SBS, ESPN The Ocho, Fashion TV, MTV...whatever...if it's providing income and superior broadcasting that matches the AFL's demands, then la-di-friggen-da...we're on a winner!

Get over the Eddie conspiracy. It appears Appleyard has due to lack of input on his other website!

 

[windyhill]

4 weeks of finals compared to 22 weeks of Friday night football. Now which scenario do you think generates the most advertising revenue for the respective networks. FNF is a very lucrative advertising night for the Nine Network, no less lucrative than any final with the exception of the GF. The new CEO of Network Ten comes from an adversiting background, so he is mindful of the numbers stacking up 22 weeks of the year compared to a 4 week spike in September.

If the bid is matched by 7-10, why should you worry about who gets the rights? Wouldn't be because you are a Pies supporter would it? Monopolising FNF over the last 4 years has sure given your team a wonderful head-start over the other 15 clubs (maybe Essendon excepted). Would be terrible for you to have that balance restored from 2007-2011.

I would love Essendon to have no Friday night football , have never seen the attraction. Saturday/Sat.night/Sunday afternoon , much better.

 

[Dan26]

I would love Essendon to have no Friday night football , have never seen the attraction. Saturday/Sat.night/Sunday afternoon , much better.

The attraction is that on FNF in Melbourne, the audience is usually around 500-600,000 (and a million around the country). During afternoons, the audience would be lucky to be half that.

More exposure to more people, simple as that.

The convenience of getting to the game maybe akward for some people, but it's about weighing up what's best for the club versus what's best for the person.

P.S. it doesn't bother me when we play.

 

[windyhill]

The attraction is that on FNF in Melbourne, the audience is usually around 500-600,000 (and a million around the country). During afternoons, the audience would be lucky to be half that.

More exposure to more people, simple as that.

The convenience of getting to the game maybe akward for some people, but it's about weighing up what's best for the club versus what's best for the person.

P.S. it doesn't bother me when we play.

Thanks for the lesson Dan, i uh, realise all the plusses it can bring to my club. I dislike Friday nights. I`m a traditionalist.

 

[Dan26]

Thanks for the lesson Dan, i uh, realise all the plusses it can bring to my club.

well you did say, you'd never seen the attraction...