Even the TV networks don't think the expansion is a good idea

[Lance Uppercut]

CHANNEL Seven has questioned the financial benefits of expanding the AFL competition to 18 teams.

Seven says the location of the new teams — in the developing markets of western Sydney and south-east Queensland — would not bring the extra financial windfall from television rights that the AFL hopes would underpin the expansion beyond the current 16 teams.

The managing director of Seven in Melbourne, Ian Johnson, said last night that the free-to-air broadcasters — currently Seven and Channel Ten — probably would not have room to accommodate another game, and the extra Gold Coast and Sydney games therefore would be consigned to pay television (now Foxtel).

"Eighteen teams, nine games is not going to give them any more broadcast money, purely and simply because of where the teams are going to be located," he said.

"I cannot see how the introduction of two teams, one based on the Gold Coast and one in western Sydney, would be a product that the current broadcasters would believe would necessitate paying more money for the rights."

Johnson said he imagined that Channel Ten would hold a similar view to Seven.

The current broadcast agreement is worth $780 million over five years, with Seven and Ten providing about 60% of that amount over the term of the deal. Some, including influential media buyer Harold Mitchell, have suggested the next five-year rights deal will break the billion-dollar mark.

"An extra game would probably have to end up on pay TV," Johnson said. "Pay TV are probably saying they're paying enough now and why would they pay any more, when it's highly likely that the free-to-air couldn't even fit an extra game on.

"It's just come out of left field and none of us have sat around and had a chat about it yet."

Seven's questioning of the worth of extra teams and games in markets where football struggles in free-to-air ratings is a reminder of the immense difficulties the AFL faces in establishing viable new teams without hurting its bottom line.

"Broadcasting back into the southern states is OK," said Johnson of the prospective extra game. "But broadcasting live into those markets (Sydney and Queensland) is still a huge battle.

"Pay TV gets an exceptional audience, but free-to-air would certainly struggle to get a good audience for those sort of shows, and on that basis, the free-to-airs would certainly reject having to pay any further amount."

Seven broadcasts into Sydney and Brisbane only on Sunday afternoons, leaving broadcasts of Friday night matches to Foxtel.

Channel Ten does broadcast into Sydney and Brisbane on Saturdays, but the ratings are not strong.

"To get the Sydney and Brisbane ratings up (is) probably one of their toughest assignments," Johnson said.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/ne...nsion-forecasts/2008/03/04/1204402455612.html

I can't wait for an expansion that's doomed to fail; and that will pillage mine and other clubs of good players that they have put a lot of time and money into.

BTW that includes veterans, if the AFL pushes through the changes to the veterans list (which effectively means the new clubs can offer double what your club can for your best players).

If even the TV execs don't see the point, can anyone knock some sense into AD?

 

[Luc]

Though it's in the network's interests to talk down the amount of money that they are prepared to pay.

Why would they want to be talking about an extra 20% at this stage?

 

[MarkT]

7 says the expansion won’t bring more money. Eddie has said it is worth plenty. Personally I hope it doesn’t happen for other reasons but I bet Eddie is right. In fact if he is speaking through knowledge from discussions at 9 then he has to be right. If 7 won’t pay 9 will.

 

[footyman]

We all know Eddie is a failed TV executive anyway, so what he has to say carries little weight in my book.

I feel that Channel 7 are right. For starters an 18 team competition means less games involving two Victorian teams that are broadcast into Melbourne. Do the AFL think that Melbourne v Gold Coast or Western Bulldogs v Western Sydney will rate? TV broadcasters want Collingwood v Carlton, Essendon v Richmond, even St Kilda v Western Bulldogs for Melbourne audiences. They know the interest in games between two Victorian sides is greater for Victorian audiences.

Channel 7 don't buy the AFL rights to win the TV ratings in the Brisbane or Sydney market. They buy them for the Southern states. The AFL giving them more product, but less games involving teams which will attract an audience is of no appeal to them.

 

[estibador]

Luc is right. It's hardly good business sense for tv execs to be talking up how much the next rights deal will increase. I'd take anything they say with a pinch of salt.

Even if two new teams don't immediately reap the benefits for broadcasters they will eventually - once they build a decent fanbase and the local rivalries that are sure to emerge generate extra interest in NSW and Qld.

 

[Subprime]

We all know Eddie is a failed TV executive anyway, so what he has to say carries little weight in my book.

I feel that Channel 7 are right. For starters an 18 team competition means less games involving two Victorian teams that are broadcast into Melbourne. Do the AFL think that Melbourne v Gold Coast or Western Bulldogs v Western Sydney will rate? TV broadcasters want Collingwood v Carlton, Essendon v Richmond, even St Kilda v Western Bulldogs for Melbourne audiences. They know the interest in games between two Victorian sides is greater for Victorian audiences.

Channel 7 don't buy the AFL rights to win the TV ratings in the Brisbane or Sydney market. They buy them for the Southern states. The AFL giving them more product, but less games involving teams which will attract an audience is of no appeal to them.

If this thinking was right there'd be no reason for any non-Victorian teams. All Vic derby games to maximise ratings.

The increment in TV rights with each successive 5 year deal says this view isn't right. The fact is its the national profile that brings the big dollars and WS and the GC only enhance that perception.

The deal will get bigger.

 

[gandaal]

So Ian Johnson's arguing that an extra game of AFL a week, along with the prospect of two more derby style games, won't get won't get the AFL more money from the TV rights.

Right......

Starting the rights negotiation a bit early are we Ian? You'll pay through the nose and you know you will.

 

[deck]

Laughable.

Of course the TV networks are going to talk down the prospect of more teams bringing in more money via TV cash.

 

[MarkT]

We all know Eddie is a failed TV executive anyway, so what he has to say carries little weight in my book.

Unfortunately for you I think you are serious. Eddie would know as much about the issue as any person in this country. He would have been involved in numerous discussions on TV rights and has specifically quoted figures for GC. The comment that rung in my ears was about the size of the market compared to Adelaide and Perth.

Channel 7 don't buy the AFL rights to win the TV ratings in the Brisbane or Sydney market. They buy them for the Southern states. The AFL giving them more product, but less games involving teams which will attract an audience is of no appeal to them.

More like 9 and Fox will make a bigger combined bid for shared content and 7/10 will be forced to match it or forgo the rights. They tried forgoing the rights once and went straight back into the bidding war and upped the anti. More games means more Foxtel if nothing else but the issue isn’t really about more games it is about the BIG Gold Coast and Western Sydney markets.

Less Vic v Vic games is just a furphy. The same number of Vic teams will play the same number of games and will be watched by their fans. The fact that more games might be interstate simply means higher TV audiances in Melb as fans watch the games live at prime time that they can’t attend on Saturday or Sunday.

 

[footyman]

Less Vic v Vic games is just a furphy. The same number of Vic teams will play the same number of games and will be watched by their fans. The fact that more games might be interstate simply means higher TV audiances in Melb as fans watch the games live at prime time that they can’t attend on Saturday or Sunday.

Will they?

As for Victorian fans being able to see their team playing interstate - u seriously think Ch 7 or Ch 10 will show North Melbourne v Western Sydney from Homebush stadium? Or Gold Coast v Melbourne from Carrara? The FTA Channels will choose the four matches which will attract the larger audiences. Victorian sides playing interstate will continue to be low priority and consigned to pay television. The AFL really should to consider less cash, for more games to be accessible for all fans.

 

[DannyJames13]

"It's just come out of left field and none of us have sat around and had a chat about it yet."

I'm pretty sure thats the comment the channel 7 exec would have preferred to leave out to give the article more substance.

As has been stated it is in there best interest to talk down price.

A second team up here will be absolutely huge for football in the area. I know the passion an Ess V Hawks, or Ess V Coll game builds up inside me rather than a Ess V freo.

I will definitely be looking to get to a Gold Coast V Brisbane game at the Gabba

 

[Crow-mo]

there is this myth that every fixture has approximately equal value - it doesn't.

we have 8 games a week, but we've already seen the way pay tv, and the commercial stations have divied it up, that about 3 of the games carry 80% of the value, and the remaining 5 about 20%. rough split 80/20. which is about right.

what this means is that the league could contract by 4 teams, and it wouldn't have a massive impact on the tv revenues. sure the 2 games lost have value - but as general content, not as a premium product.

the league knows this, it always has. so how will adding another worthless (beyond basic content) add to revenue. what CH7 are saying is that it will just be an inconvenience to the broadcasters, and will be fobbed off to pay tv to do whatever.

this is all predictable and expected. what the league needs to do is make some hard choices, not the soft option of scattered expansion.

 

[SriLankanCat]

THere will be value in a new team

the AFL has to make sure they do the gorund work...the western suburbs of syndye would love to have their own national team

 

[Zvim]

Though it's in the network's interests to talk down the amount of money that they are prepared to pay.

Why would they want to be talking about an extra 20% at this stage?

What they say they are prepared to pay is irrelevant, it all depends on what 9 is prepared to pay and what Foxtel is prepared to pay.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I put this on the AFL expansion board thread about the same topic.

Sydney has great value to TV stations because they can sell national advertising package. But after 25 years the base audience in Sydney to watch AFL is only about 300,000 between Rd 1 and 22. This goes up a bit in finals time and for the GF as it is an event. If Sydney are in the GF then about another 500,000 extra event watchers tune in. A second team in Sydney is not going to instantly find another 300,000 new regular viewers. TV executives who get paid the big bucks know this. Otherwise they would have worked hard to convert people to watch and they would have got their fat bonuses.

Crow-mo's 80/20 arguement is on the mark. The Swans aren't a premium team but they do provide for a premium in advertising sales as TV broadcasters are able to sell national packages to advertisers. A second Sydney team will not add much to that premium ad rate.

 

[FlyingCrow]

A team from Western Sydney and one drom the Gold Caost would jsut be another Freo and Port, TV rating wise.

Support in a local market but no ratings in other market. How many Port V Freo games are shown in Prime time Live on Free to Air in Victoria (AFLs Biggest market) How many South Aussies are going to watch a Gold Coast Sunshine V Western Sydney Bogans Match...Or even the Derbys in each state.

The TV rights would not go up simply due to two teams joing as the ratings would not warrant it.

 

[estibador]

I'd watch the new teams. Especially the derbies. I know many of my footy loving mates would too.

I wonder how so many people on here think they are qualified to voice opinions on other teams when it sounds like they only bother watching their own team? No wonder everyone thinks their players are the best in the AFL.

Even worse, many seem to only bother to go to their team's games depending on who they are playing. That one always makes me laugh. Are they there to support their team or watch the opposition?

 

[Zvim]

there is this myth that every fixture has approximately equal value - it doesn't.

we have 8 games a week, but we've already seen the way pay tv, and the commercial stations have divied it up, that about 3 of the games carry 80% of the value, and the remaining 5 about 20%. rough split 80/20. which is about right.

what this means is that the league could contract by 4 teams, and it wouldn't have a massive impact on the tv revenues. sure the 2 games lost have value - but as general content, not as a premium product.

the league knows this, it always has. so how will adding another worthless (beyond basic content) add to revenue. what CH7 are saying is that it will just be an inconvenience to the broadcasters, and will be fobbed off to pay tv to do whatever.

this is all predictable and expected. what the league needs to do is make some hard choices, not the soft option of scattered expansion.

Hmmm, is Collingwood, Essendon or Carlton ever on Foxtel? Probably not. So Pay-TV generates $312m and FTA generates $468m.

They get access to no prime night games, no blockbusters, no big drawing games, no interstate "derbies" for their live and exclusive content and yet a handful of half-arsed Melbourne teams are drawing 2/3rd of the revenue that the cream of the crop at the best time is generating.

Keep telling yourself that these clubs do not matter if it makes you sleep better at night but the reality is they contribute a significant portion of revenue, hurt at the gate to have that revenue generated and do not get kick-back benefits from prime time scheduling yet everyone is happy to take their 1/16th slice of the action for doing zero to earn the money.

The reality is that Pay-TV will one day dominate AFL and the AFL will have to fall into line with the interstate clubs and sell off their games to pay-tv as well.

So when Foxtel offers $314m for dying Melbourne club games and $25m for SA and WA games (which the AFL rejected) we should take your word that they care nothing for our games?

 

[Crow-mo]

Hmmm, is Collingwood, Essendon or Carlton ever on Foxtel? Probably not. So Pay-TV generates $312m and FTA generates $468m.

They get access to no prime night games, no blockbusters, no big drawing games, no interstate "derbies" for their live and exclusive content and yet a handful of half-arsed Melbourne teams are drawing 2/3rd of the revenue that the cream of the crop at the best time is generating.

Keep telling yourself that these clubs do not matter if it makes you sleep better at night but the reality is they contribute a significant portion of revenue, hurt at the gate to have that revenue generated and do not get kick-back benefits from prime time scheduling yet everyone is happy to take their 1/16th slice of the action for doing zero to earn the money.

The reality is that Pay-TV will one day dominate AFL and the AFL will have to fall into line with the interstate clubs and sell off their games to pay-tv as well.

So when Foxtel offers $314m for dying Melbourne club games and $25m for SA and WA games (which the AFL rejected) we should take your word that they care nothing for our games?

i'm not sure i follow your 'logic'.

care to try again, and this time actually reference what on earth you're talking about?