Seven and Ten discuss trumping Nine's bid

[Murray]

That would be awsome goodbye magpie TV showing evry single ********ing collingwood match when theres heaps better games on instead, and the tear in AD's eye when he announces 7/10 win so he'll have to get out of bed with McChins

But they don't

 

[BATTERY]

Mention the word trump and you get something from Donald Trump as an ad down the bottom. I wonder what key word I can slip into my next thread.

Oh and go 7 and 10. Hope they can make money out of it though.

go 7 and 10

 

[scarecrow2k1]

The AFL is still really annoyed at Seven after dropping the legal action, cos it cost the AFL Millions of $$$ in legal fees

 

[Heisenberg_]

But they don't

They only dont because Collingwood play on Saturday sometimes

 

[benny's buddy]

They may come back with a deal that is less in monetary terms but has the big trump card - FTA (or slightly delayed) games north of the Murray on Friday and/or Saturday night.

But the AFL have already said they will go for money over coverage. So no matter what 7/10 offer in terms of coverage, they have to at least match the monetary offer.

 

[jimmy35]

Yep. The money.

 

[Murray]

They only dont because Collingwood play on Saturday sometimes

But that is NOT what you said

Back peddling?????

 

[Vulcan]

This what Alan Kohler of the Age had to say yesterday.


Still the one, but not for long
By Alan Kohler
December 29, 2005
Kerry Packer's last act as the titular head of his empire was to sign off on a desperate, futile attempt to avert the Nine Network's greatest crisis - the bid for the AFL broadcasting rights.

It will be futile, in my view, because Seven and Ten will comfortably trump the Packer group's $780 million bid and as a result Nine will slip decisively to No. 2 in the ratings within 12 months.

Kerry Stokes thought Seven could do without the footy and he was wrong, but with the help of Nine's David Leckie, Seven has stayed close enough to Nine to knock it off when it gets the AFL back - that prospect will be irresistible for Stokes and the profits from being No. 1 will easily compensate for any losses on the AFL contract itself.

Next week when Nine loses the AFL and stares over a precipice, all eyes will be on James Packer. How will the third generation scion respond without his father around? Will he sack Kerry's man, Sam Chisholm, or even sell Nine (again)?

 

[The Majestic]

If you think that was just speculation and not the first step PR wise to announce to the AFL world that channel 7 & 10 have the cash and will be spending it, then you must beleive in Santa Claus.

One can expect a press confrence on January the 3rd to confirm they have matched the offer and one from the AFL on the 6th confirming that they have accepted the offer.

Going to be priceless to see Andy D say how happy he is with this deal through gritted teeth.............

DST

I don't believe anything, but that article made no mention of Seven and Ten trumping the Nine bid in anyway. The opinion speculates that they will, I've read that acticle over and over and it doesn't mention that they WILL outbid Nine someone said he reckons they will.

 

[The Majestic]

They only dont because Collingwood play on Saturday sometimes

We played a couple of weeks weeks in a row on a Sunday, and 9 didn't cover them only a highlights package for one of them.

 

[jefffff34]

They only dont because Collingwood play on Saturday sometimes

4 Friday night games out of 22 in 2005.

 

[Alex99]

4 Friday night games out of 22 in 2005.

Not to bad for a side that finished fourteenth on the ladder.

 

[Eagle87]

4 Friday night games out of 22 in 2005.

Actually they were on 6 times on Friday nights this year. They are on 4 times next year!

In 2004 they were on 8 times and 7 each in 2002 & 2003 (including the 2 games which were actually Thursday games in lieu of Friday night).

So basically Collingwood have featured in 28 of the 88 FNF games under the current Nine TV deal - thats 32% of the games for a team that makes up 6% (i.e. 1 of 16) of the teams.

A "slight" over-representation?

Cheers

 

[Black Panther]

Without Foxtel signed and sealed Seven & Ten have no chance of trumping (or matching) the PBL bid simple as that

They can match the money side of it, but they can't match the coverage & contra side of it

This is what will happen next week

Seven & Ten will submit their final bid matching PBL's $780 million in money terms but unable to match the coverage & contra it breaks the AFL's legal obligation and the AFL can give PBL the rights and Seven & Ten make the AFL look like the bad guys and everybody on BigFooty can have a good long bitch about the AFL

 

[timthefish]

Without Foxtel signed and sealed Seven & Ten have no chance of trumping (or matching) the PBL bid simple as that

i thought nine made their bid without a formal arrangement with foxtel or any other carrier. if so, seven and ten can do the same with the firm offer of five free to air games in every state and a statement of intent to make a deal with fox footy for the remaining three matches.

foxtel will happily make a deal with any party, common stakeholders with nine notwithstanding.

i really really hope it goes back to 7 (despite the unctious, fawning presence of the most stats-driven-yet-ignorant commentator in the game)

 

[bush_tucker77]

here here

 

[Black Panther]

As said in one of the papers today

Seven and Ten need an ironclad written agreement from Foxtel stating they will cover X amount of games for X amount of dollars

Nine obviously have this already

And if Foxtel refuses to deal with Seven and Ten, their bid fails then and there if the AFL reject it (if the AFL choses 7 & 10 over the 9 bid Foxtel can signup after the fact)

 

[Rob]

Sounds like the Seven/Ten bid is on the verge of collapse

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/afl-wants-quick-decision/2005/12/29/1135732692946.html

All that re-inforces is what a complete and utter moron Demetriou is.
Why not give an extra couple of weeks? There is absolutely no commercial reason as to why they could not have had extra time, given the ludicrous position they were put in to have to consider the bid in about 6 working days.

All it does is generate more bad will between the AFL and 7 & 10. And confirm that Demetriou is well and truly in 9's pocket.

 

[Rob]

Actually they were on 6 times on Friday nights this year. They are on 4 times next year!

In 2004 they were on 8 times and 7 each in 2002 & 2003 (including the 2 games which were actually Thursday games in lieu of Friday night).

So basically Collingwood have featured in 28 of the 88 FNF games under the current Nine TV deal - thats 32% of the games for a team that makes up 6% (i.e. 1 of 16) of the teams.

A "slight" over-representation?

You might want to re-work your percentages, 2 teams play on Friday nights......

 

[Rob]

As said in one of the papers today

Seven and Ten need an ironclad written agreement from Foxtel stating they will cover X amount of games for X amount of dollars

Nine obviously have this already

And if Foxtel refuses to deal with Seven and Ten, their bid fails then and there if the AFL reject it (if the AFL choses 7 & 10 over the 9 bid Foxtel can signup after the fact)

All it means is that 7 & 10 need to deal with Foxtel if they win the bid, and take a punt on how much they can get from them.

 

[Westies!]

I wouldnt buy any Channel nine shares as theyll be down after Channel 10 and 7 outbid 9.

 

[Eagle87]

You might want to re-work your percentages, 2 teams play on Friday nights......

Fair point ... change the 6% to 12% or the 32% to 16% (either way you end up with Collingwood at almost 3 times the FNF representation that would occur if such games were distributed evenly throughout the teams.

In the last 4 years of the previous (Channel 7) TV deal they got 3 games each year which is pretty much spot on (i.e. 44 spots each year, 16 teams - 2.75 appearances per team on an even distribution).

What exactly had Collingwood done in 2001 (they came 9th) to justify more than double the FNF games in 2002?

Interestingly, they got 4 of the first 6 FNF games in 02 under the then new Nine tv deal.

I actually hope the nine/foxtel deal gets up - I dislike 7's footy coverage and like Foxtel (& to a lesser extent Nine) - but nine would be easier to defend if they werent quite so obvious at times.

Cheers.

 

[kirky]

Seven and Ten need an ironclad written agreement from Foxtel stating they will cover X amount of games for X amount of dollars

Nine obviously have this already

And if Foxtel refuses to deal with Seven and Ten, their bid fails then and there if the AFL reject it (if the AFL choses 7 & 10 over the 9 bid Foxtel can signup after the fact)

But surely, Foxtel don't want to be put in a position where all of a sudden they have no AFL coverage should 7 & 10 call the AFLs bluff and win. This is like playing poker!

What about conflict of interest given Foxtel is owned by PBL, News Corp and Telstra.

 

[Eagle87]

All that re-inforces is what a complete and utter moron Demetriou is.
Why not give an extra couple of weeks? There is absolutely no commercial reason as to why they could not have had extra time, given the ludicrous position they were put in to have to consider the bid in about 6 working days.

All it does is generate more bad will between the AFL and 7 & 10. And confirm that Demetriou is well and truly in 9's pocket.

Interesting point.

Clearly, Demetriou is doing this out of spite and this seems further proof that he is a boofhead who doesnt have the proper temparament to be a CEO. He has made more than his share of clumsy howlers and if the AFL was a public company one could imagine the shareholders being concerned with him in charge.

Not sure this means he is in nines pocket - more a case of siding against anyone who he perceives has "wronged" him.

Of course he will simply point at the dollar amount of the deal and say "look at what I got you" - a simple defence from a simple man.

Cheers.

 

[Tezmyster]

Just out of interest, if 7/10 should happen to win the rights is there any reason why Foxtel would need to be involved, ie. FoxFooty. With the introduction of digital free to air there is no reason why one of the digital channels couldn't be used to broadcast repeats of games or even broadcast games live into the northern states, AFL (or general sports news) and the like instead of just repeating whatever is on the main channel as it is right now.

I'm expecting when things like the Australian Open, Commonwealth Games etc are on whatever channel is broadcasting them may broadcast more than one thing in their extra digital channels. There is no reason why with this much money being splashed around for the AFL rights they couldn't do a similar thing.

And before people complain about having to buy a digital settop box, I bought mine a couple of weeks ago from DickSmith for only $80, sure it's bottom of the range but it picks up everything and is all you really need.