Seven and Ten discuss trumping Nine's bid

[Eagle87]

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.

Hence the comments attributed to Seven today that say "its all about the cash". If Seven match the money and its all about the cash then your point would be spot on but that isnt the case - its all about the money AND the coverage.

Part of Nines deal appears to involve Foxtel agreeing to pay "a lot more" than under the current deal. This appears to be because Foxtel gets 4 games and in particular because it will get some away games for WA & SA teams (helping it increase market penetration in those states). It also seems that Qld & NSW will get Friday night games live on Foxtel (under the Nine deal) which further increases the attractiveness to Foxtel. Under the Seven/Ten deal Foxtel gets 3 games, not 4 and it likely doesnt get the away games for WA & SA teams. As a result Foxtel will likely argue that this is not as attractive to them and they will pay much less to Seven/Ten.

Nine's "$780 million" appears to be almost a half/half cost split between Nine & Foxtel, if Seven/Ten can only recover say 20-25% from Foxtel (as opposed to say 50% under the Nine deal) then it becomes even harder for them to fund. Given the short turnaround time Foxtel could simply say they will pay only say the 20% and then if Seven/Ten ask for more they could simply say they need a month to work the numbers and come up with a different number. Seven/Ten then either risk it and stump up the full $780m and lose anyway because of their inability to guarantee coverage of all 8 games or they lose because they wait on Foxtel and cant deliver a proposal on time (i.e. they lose by default).

It seems to me that Seven/Ten can be easily buggared by Foxtel who would be able to reasonably argue that they didnt have time to properly consider 7/10 requirements. SO the only way 7/10 guarantees victory is to match the Nine/Foxtel proposal with $780 million and also guarantee that they will deliver coverage of all games as per Nine/Foxtel - this would likely require all 8 games + live into the Northern states (on friday nights) to match Foxtels coverage.

They could then hope to sub-licence 3 games to Foxtel after the deal has been accepted but they have to risk it in the interim. The risk is that if Foxtel dont deal with them they are stuck with covering all 8 games each week including live into the Northern states - which would cost them millions by getting belted in the ratings!

This is of course just my opinion, but reading all the articles written in the last week it seems these are the key issues.

Your comments regarding "conflict of interest" are of course interesting . The conflict is an example of the problems inherent in monopoly/oligopoly type industries. Seven could claim that Foxtel have "conspired" with others to stitch them up. Of course conspiring with others to stitch people up didnt seem to bother Seven when they "conspired" with Ten to stitch up Nine.

Business is business.

Cheers.

 

[Eagle87]

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.

Not an expert in this but I believe there are severe restrictions on the content that can be distributed via the additional digital channels held by 7,9,10, ABC & SBS. I believe one of the restrictions relates to the distribution of content acquired under the various rights deals. So I think your solution probably isnt available to 7 & 10.

Cheers

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Hence the comments attributed to Seven today that say "its all about the cash". If Seven match the money and its all about the cash then your point would be spot on but that isnt the case - its all about the money AND the coverage.

Part of Nines deal appears to involve Foxtel agreeing to pay "a lot more" than under the current deal. This appears to be because Foxtel gets 4 games and in particular because it will get some away games for WA & SA teams (helping it increase market penetration in those states). It also seems that Qld & NSW will get Friday night games live on Foxtel (under the Nine deal) which further increases the attractiveness to Foxtel. Under the Seven/Ten deal Foxtel gets 3 games, not 4 and it likely doesnt get the away games for WA & SA teams. As a result Foxtel will likely argue that this is not as attractive to them and they will pay much less to Seven/Ten.

Nine's "$780 million" appears to be almost a half/half cost split between Nine & Foxtel, if Seven/Ten can only recover say 20-25% from Foxtel (as opposed to say 50% under the Nine deal) then it becomes even harder for them to fund. Given the short turnaround time Foxtel could simply say they will pay only say the 20% and then if Seven/Ten ask for more they could simply say they need a month to work the numbers and come up with a different number. Seven/Ten then either risk it and stump up the full $780m and lose anyway because of their inability to guarantee coverage of all 8 games or they lose because they wait on Foxtel and cant deliver a proposal on time (i.e. they lose by default).

It seems to me that Seven/Ten can be easily buggared by Foxtel who would be able to reasonably argue that they didnt have time to properly consider 7/10 requirements. SO the only way 7/10 guarantees victory is to match the Nine/Foxtel proposal with $780 million and also guarantee that they will deliver coverage of all games as per Nine/Foxtel - this would likely require all 8 games + live into the Northern states (on friday nights) to match Foxtels coverage.

They could then hope to sub-licence 3 games to Foxtel after the deal has been accepted but they have to risk it in the interim. The risk is that if Foxtel dont deal with them they are stuck with covering all 8 games each week including live into the Northern states - which would cost them millions by getting belted in the ratings!

This is of course just my opinion, but reading all the articles written in the last week it seems these are the key issues.

Your comments regarding "conflict of interest" are of course interesting . The conflict is an example of the problems inherent in monopoly/oligopoly type industries. Seven could claim that Foxtel have "conspired" with others to stitch them up. Of course conspiring with others to stitch people up didnt seem to bother Seven when they "conspired" with Ten to stitch up Nine.

Business is business.

Cheers.

Great post i must say
You say that 7 may take the risk and hope Foxtel come to the party so to speak however there is another card up 7,s sleeve and im surprised in a way that 7 havnt had at the very least "spread the word" and met with Optus even just to put a scare into Foxtel to see if they blink.

 

[Black Panther]

Great post i must say
You say that 7 may take the risk and hope Foxtel come to the party so to speak however there is another card up 7,s sleeve and im surprised in a way that 7 havnt had at the very least "spread the word" and met with Optus even just to put a scare into Foxtel to see if they blink.

Optus TV is long dead (is now Foxtel Lite basicially)

 

[Murray]

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.

7/10 cannot (scheduling) show all 8 games
It is Fox that has the upper hand

 

[deck]

Great post i must say
You say that 7 may take the risk and hope Foxtel come to the party so to speak however there is another card up 7,s sleeve and im surprised in a way that 7 havnt had at the very least "spread the word" and met with Optus even just to put a scare into Foxtel to see if they blink.

Optus don't have a pay TV service anymore. They are now just a re-seller of the foxtel service.

 

[ChrisFooty]

7/10 cannot (scheduling) show all 8 games
It is Fox that has the upper hand

I totally agree there foxtel will be in the new TV rights deal one way or another, it doesn't matter who gets it.
But...there is a conflict of intrest if seven/ten joins foxtel........foxtel is a part of pbl and news corp isnt it like someone earlier mentioned. This would have an impact probably.

 

[Crow-mosone]

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

fair chance the losing parties shares will go up, not down.
whilst the winners shares go down.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Optus don't have a pay TV service anymore. They are now just a re-seller of the foxtel service.

Ahhh ok

 

[teams]

Optus don't have a pay TV service anymore. They are now just a re-seller of the foxtel service.

That's where Andy has done well. Got the dropping of the collusion suit and also made it hard for 7 and 10 to deal with foxtel.

The balance is foxfooty needs footy and 7 and 10 could go close to showing the lot in competition with one another.

1 Friday night game each, 1 saturday night game each. 10 doing what it does now with Saturday afternoon and 7 doing what 9 does now on Sunday afternoon. Leaves one Sunday game which could probably be mixed in with the other two on a state by state basis.

My problem is wanting 7 and 10 to get it whilst 4 pay games has to suit best when you have the service.

Whichever way you look at it, it's a pivotal moment for the game. Car'n the living Kerry.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

7/10 cannot (scheduling) show all 8 games
It is Fox that has the upper hand

Disagree,s.On the surface it may seem that Foxtel have the upper hand however if i was in the ch7/10 chair right now i would be calling Foxtel.s bluff.I would submit the offer that would worded that all 8 games will be televised to the AFL,s requirements.
Remember Foxtel have a hell of alot more to lose than Ch7 and 10.

 

[Rob]

7/10 cannot (scheduling) show all 8 games
It is Fox that has the upper hand

Course they can, even if it means running games at midnight. But that wouldn't be good for anyone.
If 7 & 10 win, Fox have to go begging to them for some product. That's hardly the upper hand.

 

[mediumsizered]

Course they can, even if it means running games at midnight. But that wouldn't be good for anyone.
If 7 & 10 win, Fox have to go begging to them for some product. That's hardly the upper hand.

The production costs associated with covering all 8 games between the 2 networks would make it too prohibitive for 7/10 to even consider playing hard ball with Foxtel. If they did find themselves covering all 8 games the losses they would suffer financially would be even greater than those already associated with broadcasting the footy.

I would be surprised if either of the 2 networks have the facilities or the manpower to be able to broadcast 8 games of football played each weekend, in 5 different states.

 

[Rob]

The production costs associated with covering all 8 games between the 2 networks would make it too prohibitive for 7/10 to even consider playing hard ball with Foxtel. If they did find themselves covering all 8 games the losses they would suffer financially would be even greater than those already associated with broadcasting the footy.

I would be surprised if either of the 2 networks have the facilities or the manpower to be able to broadcast 8 games of football played each weekend, in 5 different states.

They obviously wouldn't want to, that's why I said it would be bad for everyone. 7 & 10, Fox and the fans. But they can do it, and have said so publicly.

 

[Murray]

They obviously wouldn't want to, that's why I said it would be bad for everyone. 7 & 10, Fox and the fans. But they can do it, and have said so publicly.

That's why I said
1. They cant broadcast all 8
and
2. Fox have the upper hand

remember?

 

[jackson_rules]

That's why I said
1. They cant broadcast all 8
and
2. Fox have the upper hand

remember?

you sir are a w@nker

 

[Murray]

you sir are a w@nker

But you like to follow me everywhere to see what I am saying - right?

Do you think about me in bed late at night?
Do you tell all your friend about me (no 's' in friends for you is there?)
Do you have me on your 'buddy' list so you can track me all the time you are on BF?

It's OK I understand

 

[Jabsy]

Not an expert in this but I believe there are severe restrictions on the content that can be distributed via the additional digital channels held by 7,9,10, ABC & SBS. I believe one of the restrictions relates to the distribution of content acquired under the various rights deals.

Plus the main bit where you can't charge for the digital FTA stuff, like you can with Foxtel.

 

[cos789]

I would be surprised if either of the 2 networks have the facilities or the manpower to be able to broadcast 8 games of football played each weekend, in 5 different states.

Because they are played in 5 different states then it really makes it quite easy from a physical and logistical side of things .

 

[Crow-mosone]

The production costs associated with covering all 8 games between the 2 networks would make it too prohibitive for 7/10 to even consider playing hard ball with Foxtel. If they did find themselves covering all 8 games the losses they would suffer financially would be even greater than those already associated with broadcasting the footy.

I would be surprised if either of the 2 networks have the facilities or the manpower to be able to broadcast 8 games of football played each weekend, in 5 different states.

i'm surprised that you haven't realised that FOX cannot, be without AFL.

it cannot be without AFL for the next 5 or 6 years. ALL pay tv channels around the world have been driven by their sports coverage, and ultimately their growth is tied to it.

at best, each party needs the other. at worst, fox cannot get the coverage without getting in bed without one party or the other; and it cannot go without.

 

[Crow-mosone]

But you like to follow me everywhere to see what I am saying - right?

Do you think about me in bed late at night?
Do you tell all your friend about me (no 's' in friends for you is there?)
Do you have me on your 'buddy' list so you can track me all the time you are on BF?

It's OK I understand

but he's right?

 

[Gary Shadforth]

And it has come to pass ...there sits a man with massive egg on his face after telling the ultimate premiers that their brand of football is ugly. You know the holier-than-thou one who has some private personal advantage in loving Ch9 in his prejudice against the Ch7-10 consortium.

God help the game and we AFL fans if those presently administrating at the top remain in office for too many years to come. I rest my case!

 

[Fred Nerk]

i'm surprised that you haven't realised that FOX cannot, be without AFL.

it cannot be without AFL for the next 5 or 6 years. ALL pay tv channels around the world have been driven by their sports coverage, and ultimately their growth is tied to it.

at best, each party needs the other. at worst, fox cannot get the coverage without getting in bed without one party or the other; and it cannot go without.

lol

Foxtel survived for years without it. No one bought Fox Footy so they had to make it free. It's a non rating channel.

The top 20 rating shows on pay TV this year were NRL games. Not one AFL game made it.

 

[Crow-mosone]

lol

Foxtel survived for years without it. No one bought Fox Footy so they had to make it free. It's a non rating channel.

The top 20 rating shows on pay TV this year were NRL games. Not one AFL game made it.

care to research the evolution of pay tv around the world there champ?

 

[finders]

lol

Foxtel survived for years without it. No one bought Fox Footy so they had to make it free. It's a non rating channel.

The top 20 rating shows on pay TV this year were NRL games. Not one AFL game made it.

How about some official FACTS and figures before you go shooting your mouth off!