Nine set to Retain Rights.

[Saintsfan]

serioulsy the only reason I got fox in the first place was to watch footy, yeah theres some value in the doco channels, but they arent going to entice me to pay for fox. If the footy was on yeah theres a chance, but serioulsy the sports that are on fox are to me nothing but yawn fodder, I like union but watch aussie games free to air, basketball holds no allure for me, pommy soccer?- joy(not), cricket well its ok if aussies are playing but 60% of cricket is free to air, and any other sport is even less important to me.

There is nothing on fox that a couple of dollars at a video shop oin a weekend cant do better

 

[Tigger]

Seven, 10 up ante for TV rights - $740 million over 6 years.

Despite dear old Caros continual Seven cheerleading, in reality it is not $740 million over 6 years it is $560 over 6 years of cold hard cash and $30 million per year 'extra exposure' contra (according to 7 & 10)

That is not real money

So it's $466 mill for 7/10 against $650-700 mill for 9/Fox over a 5 year period in REAL MONEY

 

[WilliamPowell]

Despite dear old Caros continual Seven cheerleading, in reality it is not $740 million over 6 years it is $560 over 6 years of cold hard cash and $30 million per year 'extra exposure' contra (according to 7 & 10)

That is not real money

So it's $466 mill for 7/10 against $650-700 mill for 9/Fox over a 5 year period in REAL MONEY

Extactly how did you come up with those figures? The article says

"With the AFL believed to be seeking $135 million a year for its TV rights, both bidders are closer to the $120 million mark. But the league acknowledges that the Seven-Ten camp offers better coverage into the strategically important northern markets.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/12/15/1134500960483.html

As for the extra exposure contra of $30 million - that maybe your interpretation of the 2nd last paragraph but it wasn't mine.

 

[Tigger]

Extactly how did you come up with those figures? The article says

"With the AFL believed to be seeking $135 million a year for its TV rights, both bidders are closer to the $120 million mark. But the league acknowledges that the Seven-Ten camp offers better coverage into the strategically important northern markets.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/12/15/1134500960483.html

As for the extra exposure contra of $30 million - that maybe your interpretation of the 2nd last paragraph but it wasn't mine.

7's $120 million includes $30 million of the fake contra money which Caro has included to make 7's bid look better

7/10 - $90 million a year real money
9/Fox - $120 million a year real money (or $135 mill according the other article)

So is something between $30-45 million per year difference between the two bids in the real folding stuff ($150-225 mill over 5 years)

 

[WilliamPowell]

7's $120 million includes $30 million of the fake contra money which Caro has included to make 7's bid look better

7/10 - $90 million a year real money
9/Fox - $120 million a year real money (or $135 mill according the other article)

So is something between $30-45 million per year difference between the two bids in the real folding stuff ($150-225 mill over 5 years)

And the source of your figures comes from?

Kerry P, Kerry S or Jamie P.

Unless of course you are one of the above, Sam Chisholm or Ian Johnston

 

[Qsaint]

And the source of your figures comes from?

Kerry P, Kerry S or Jamie P.

Unless of course you are one of the above, Sam Chisholm or Ian Johnston

The existing deal has a crap load of contras in it, why wouldn't 9's now?

 

[ant555]

Yeah, but what percentage of subscribers get it just for the footy? I'd say it'd be at least 30%... maybe even 50%. Take those numbers out and the business ceases to be financially viable.

And Foxtel wasnt viable before Fox Footy came along? The figures you have just quoted are an absolute stab in the dark and,well, just crap. Sure it will suffer a loss of customers but to say that the AFL is the part that is holding the channel together is absolute rubbbish. Dont forget that it is the only place to see Super 12/14 Rugby and to see the majority of Rugby Leauge games live which is a supreme ratings winner in NSW and QLD.
Yes it will lose some customers although it has been proven that many will stay on even though their initial reason for signing up was for Fox Footy but in saying that it is a gross overstatement to say that Foxtel will be in trouble without Fox Footy.

 

[ant555]

serioulsy the only reason I got fox in the first place was to watch footy, yeah theres some value in the doco channels, but they arent going to entice me to pay for fox. If the footy was on yeah theres a chance, but serioulsy the sports that are on fox are to me nothing but yawn fodder, I like union but watch aussie games free to air, basketball holds no allure for me, pommy soccer?- joy(not), cricket well its ok if aussies are playing but 60% of cricket is free to air, and any other sport is even less important to me.

There is nothing on fox that a couple of dollars at a video shop oin a weekend cant do better

That is for you and fair enough, a lot of people are in your boat. I have had Fox since it began and although it is good to have Fox Footy it isnt the only reason i have it. I dont watch Fox8 TV1 or any of that crap, i dont pay for the movie channels either but i do follow American Football, Rugby Leauge and Union as well as the international cricket all of which may as well be on mars as far as free to air coverage goes. Then there is Sky racing and TVN , very handy if you are fond of a punt

Then you can look at it from a migrants point of view, they couldnt give a stuff about AFL so the best way to see the sport they love,soccer, is on Fox and there is a pretty big market in Sydney and Melbourne for that.

 

[Saintsfan]

That is for you and fair enough, a lot of people are in your boat. I have had Fox since it began and although it is good to have Fox Footy it isnt the only reason i have it. I dont watch Fox8 TV1 or any of that crap, i dont pay for the movie channels either but i do follow American Football, Rugby Leauge and Union as well as the international cricket all of which may as well be on mars as far as free to air coverage goes. Then there is Sky racing and TVN , very handy if you are fond of a punt

Then you can look at it from a migrants point of view, they couldnt give a stuff about AFL so the best way to see the sport they love,soccer, is on Fox and there is a pretty big market in Sydney and Melbourne for that.

I agree mate but like I originally stated the amount of people from WA, SA and to a degree Vic that only have Fox for footy would I think be quite large. I understand fans of other sports wanting to find coverage, but like I said, none of them sports really mean a lot to other people.

If fox was to lose AFL it would probably lose a lot of subscribers who are only on the basic package for no other reason than the footy channel. I know lots of people like this who if it weren't for the footy, they would be taking their box back to the post office just like I did.

 

[Philzsay]

I too got Foxtel for the Footy channel.

If they lost the footy I would still keep Foxtel for the following channels:

-Fox Sports: Cricket (lots thats not on free to air), Baseball, Basketball, Hockey, and others plus replays.
-Doco channels: some shows can actually be interesting
-Music channels: like a radio, but with less adds and vision!
-Kids Channel: Good babysitter when the rellos visit.
-Endless Simpson and Futurama repeats.
-Wheather channel can be handy.
-Fashion Channel: for when all your mates are over, all pi*sed, no live sport on, the missus is out, it can open up conversation as you discuss the finer point of why you would shag one skinny girl over the other, as if you and any of your fat mates would have any chance....

 

[ant555]

I agree mate but like I originally stated the amount of people from WA, SA and to a degree Vic that only have Fox for footy would I think be quite large. I understand fans of other sports wanting to find coverage, but like I said, none of them sports really mean a lot to other people.

If fox was to lose AFL it would probably lose a lot of subscribers who are only on the basic package for no other reason than the footy channel. I know lots of people like this who if it weren't for the footy, they would be taking their box back to the post office just like I did.

One thing you have to remember is that the WA and SA market(overall market not AFL market) would probably only equal the market in Sydney alone (may well even be less). I am not doubting people would hand back their box but it wont be all of them there will be a decent percentage of them who will stay on for the other stuff once they have seen what they can get (not everyobe is like us and they do watch reruns of American sitcoms and old movies ) I dont know anyone who would cancel their subsciption if Fox Footy went (not to say that it wouldnt happen) and i actually know a lot of people who have Fox digital but have never turned on the footy channel.
A quick point on the other sports one in particualr , soccer, may mean stuff all for you and i but it does capture a very decent market. In fact i would say the market for soccer in NSW and Vic alone would be greater than the footy market for Adelaide and Perth.
I dont belive that Foxtel would be looking at loosing any more than 10% of customers , a big enough loss but hardly life threatening.
We should all hand back our box's in protest of the number of adds that have crept into pay tv but that is another story

 

[cos789]

I agree mate but like I originally stated the amount of people from WA, SA and to a degree Vic that only have Fox for footy would I think be quite large. I understand fans of other sports wanting to find coverage, but like I said, none of them sports really mean a lot to other people.

If fox was to lose AFL it would probably lose a lot of subscribers who are only on the basic package for no other reason than the footy channel. I know lots of people like this who if it weren't for the footy, they would be taking their box back to the post office just like I did.

Totally agree .

I contemplated Foxtel , but I objected to paying the extra for AFL .
I'd be interested in the Footy Channel but only the NSW one not the WA one .

Anyway I've solved the the problem .
2006 will see me getting all the AFL games and the best current programs for a one-off setup cost , NO subscription .

 

[Rob]

7's $120 million includes $30 million of the fake contra money which Caro has included to make 7's bid look better

7/10 - $90 million a year real money
9/Fox - $120 million a year real money (or $135 mill according the other article)

So is something between $30-45 million per year difference between the two bids in the real folding stuff ($150-225 mill over 5 years)

While i'm sure you're right in that a small part of the 7/10 bid will include contra (which is not fake money, as it generally is the value of advertising included on their TV stations which the AFL would otherwise pay for), what on earth makes you think that the 9/Fox bid doesn't include a similar amount of contra?

In any case, there is no way 7/10 are going to want to reveal their hand anyway. They want 9 to think their bid is going to be as low as possible, as they only need to match 9's final bid to win the rights.

But by gee, if 10 are guaranteeing national live SNF coverage nationally, and they pick the 9 bid because they're a couple of million more, then Andy D should be strung up by the balls.

 

[Rob]

I agree mate but like I originally stated the amount of people from WA, SA and to a degree Vic that only have Fox for footy would I think be quite large. I understand fans of other sports wanting to find coverage, but like I said, none of them sports really mean a lot to other people.

If fox was to lose AFL it would probably lose a lot of subscribers who are only on the basic package for no other reason than the footy channel. I know lots of people like this who if it weren't for the footy, they would be taking their box back to the post office just like I did.

I don't think it's that critical to Foxtel, simply because it really only attracts the hard core football fan. Most games are on FTA anyway, and generally the least attractive games are on Fox. Fox have no exclusive timeslots, so there is almost always a game on 9 or 10 when there is a game on Fox. So the average run of the mill footy fan isn't going to be overly attracted to Fox simply because they would watch it all that much.

If Fox started getting a couple of exclusive timeslots like Sunday night football or Monday night football, then it would become much more marketable. From memory there was a late start Sunday game early last year (Richmond v someone) that was the highest rating Fox Footy game ever at the time. And that would have had a lot to do with the fact that there was no FTA game on at the same time.

 

[Del-Re]

Ant555 ..... I work in the television industry and the information that I have read supports the majority of posts on here that Foxtel/Austar would be in serious bother in Vic/Tas/SA/WA if it wasn't for AFL.

It is an interesting scenario that Nine & Foxtel are offering because it may provide some more dollars, however it wouldnt do anything for the game in NSW or Qld because the viewers that would watch games on Foxtel would be the people that already follow AFL ...... not the potenial new fans.

Realistically, the AFL needs to ignore the short term (money) view and consider the long term development and promotion of the sport in the states with the most potential for expansion. This would mean getting AFL on free to air ..... not requiring people to pay for it on a Friday night!

Eddie and his merry men may be favourites of some posters here ..... but this discussion shouldnt be about who favours nine or seven or ten or foxtel, but what will be better for the future of the sport. Unfortunately Nine has shown their hand and that they favour Rugby League in NSW & Qld.

The answer to who provide better benifits for AFL is quite obvious.

 

[ChrisFooty]

Kerry Packer is a lifelong Rugby League football fan. KP gets what KP wants.

Kerry packer is getting very old....he will die one day

then what would channel nine be like ?

 

[Ripper]

Despite dear old Caros continual Seven cheerleading, in reality it is not $740 million over 6 years it is $560 over 6 years of cold hard cash and $30 million per year 'extra exposure' contra (according to 7 & 10)

That is not real money

So it's $466 mill for 7/10 against $650-700 mill for 9/Fox over a 5 year period in REAL MONEY

Fairly obvious that you are a Ch9 plant Tigger. Best change your username and try and be a bit more subtle next time.

I myself don't care who covers it FTA as long as it is on live or reasonably live.
If you don't like the commentry turn the sound down.

I just want to be able to see it , even when I go to QLD to visit my Mum and there Ch 10 seems to do the best job.

Last time I went . there were NO hotels even with Fox footy Channel and certainly no radio coverage.

 

[ChrisFooty]

cHANNEL nine sets to retain the rights......very sad day for football indeed.