Seven and Ten discuss trumping Nine's bid

Remove this Banner Ad

Crow-mosone said:
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.

Crows_Mo is dead right.

Anyone who has any business knowledge will understand that the broadcasting of AFL is a major SCA (Sustainable Competitive Advantage) and is a deriving force behind the increasing number of subscribers in Victorian, South Australia and Western Australia.

Rugby League and Rugby Union is used in the same way for the New South Wales and Queensland subscribers. With out either and the majority of subscribers would have no reason to have pay TV.
 
finders said:
How about some official FACTS and figures before you go shooting your mouth off!

Sure

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...-football-fever/2005/10/16/1129401145648.html

However, a closer look at the way Australians actually use pay TV suggests the growth is almost entirely based on the nation's passion for all codes of football: all of the 20 most watched programs on pay TV this year have been NRL matches

go look here under B1 to see watched pay TV channels.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Fred Nerk said:

You are quoting a Sydney newspaper writing for a Sydney audience. The figures they qoute are ridiculous as a persusal of oztam.com.au shows. The 20 most watched shows are RL. Rubbish! The figures they disclose don't stand up to even cursory scrutiny.

Isn't it is even more incredible that nine and Fox are bidding the highest amount ever offered for sporting coverage in this countries history and the product they are paying so dearly for allegedly doesn't rate in the top 20 RL matches for viewing numbers. That gives the lie to the SMH article.
 
The Gunn said:
You are quoting a Sydney newspaper writing for a Sydney audience. The figures they qoute are ridiculous as a persusal of oztam.com.au shows. The 20 most watched shows are RL. Rubbish! The figures they disclose don't stand up to even cursory scrutiny.

The figures are legit. You sir, are a moron.
 
Fred Nerk said:
The figures are legit. You sir, are a moron.
They maybe legit as far as sydney viewers go and understandable however clearly your missing the point if you believe foxtel have nothing to lose if they dont have aussie rules.
To prove my point in the other table you supplied us the rating figures in the NRL states thru fox1 was higher than the footy channel however in the aussie rules states foxfooty clearly outrated fox1.
So who is the moron?
 
The Gunn said:
You are quoting a Sydney newspaper writing for a Sydney audience. The figures they qoute are ridiculous as a persusal of oztam.com.au shows. The 20 most watched shows are RL. Rubbish! The figures they disclose don't stand up to even cursory scrutiny.

Isn't it is even more incredible that nine and Fox are bidding the highest amount ever offered for sporting coverage in this countries history and the product they are paying so dearly for allegedly doesn't rate in the top 20 RL matches for viewing numbers. That gives the lie to the SMH article.
Umm, I think you might have to prove the figures are bogus, don't you?
 
tiger of old said:
They maybe legit as far as sydney viewers go and understandable however clearly your missing the point if you believe foxtel have nothing to lose if they dont have aussie rules.
To prove my point in the other table you supplied us the rating figures in the NRL states thru fox1 was higher than the footy channel however in the aussie rules states foxfooty clearly outrated fox1.
So who is the moron?
No doubt 7/10 and fox both need each other (if 7/10 win).
But it is 7/10 who will then need fox far more than fox needs 7/10.
Not only because 7/10 will never (logistically) be able to show all 8 games but fox full fills the AFL coverage component ie "live or near live" into the northern states.

Fox will have 7/10 by the nuts
 
Murray said:
No doubt 7/10 and fox both need each other (if 7/10 win).
But it is 7/10 who will then need fox far more than fox needs 7/10.
Not only because 7/10 will never (logistically) be able to show all 8 games but fox full fills the AFL coverage component ie "live or near live" into the northern states.

Fox will have 7/10 by the nuts
Disagree,s again:D
If Ch7/10 are deadly serious then id call Foxtel,s bluff.
 
As a Sydney-sider, I desperately want the 7/10 bid to win. Under the deal the AFL agreed to, there is no guarantee of any live free-to-air AFL football in NSW. Not even during finals. At the moment, AFL fans in NSW are treated terribly by Channel 9, with movies on their tenth or eleventh re-run still taking precedence over the footy. Matches often start an hour or so after their originally scheduled time. It's been amazingly frustrating, the only solace being that Channel 10 have been committed to footy, showing finals games either live on or a relatively short delay, and showing most Swans games live.

The Swans winning this year did great things for the code in Sydney. There is definitely the potential to capitalise on the win. Instead, short-sighted Demitriou desires immediate dollars rather than working toward ensuring the further growth of the game and much larger revenues in future.

For over 100 years, dedicated football administrators have worked hard to promote Australian Football in the northeastern states. If Demitriou signs the deal with nine, he will demonstrate utter contempt for those who have gone before him. The sooner he goes, the better.
 
Murray said:
Nothing wrong with disagreeing.

What if Fox call the 7/10 bluff?
Then its quiet possible we will have:
2 friday night games shown by both ch7 &10
2 sat arvo games[ch7 &10]
2 sat night[7 &10]
2 sun games-This i admit is a problem due to ch10,s motorsport commitments although the one way around it is if ch10 have a replay of the 2nd game at 5.30ish.
While this senerio would be against the norm you have to remember both ch7 & 10 are relying on each other to get the rights and to go up against each other would seem suidcidal however not if everything is shared.From equipment right down to sponser revenue.
 
tiger of old said:
They maybe legit as far as sydney viewers go and understandable however clearly your missing the point if you believe foxtel have nothing to lose if they dont have aussie rules.
To prove my point in the other table you supplied us the rating figures in the NRL states thru fox1 was higher than the footy channel however in the aussie rules states foxfooty clearly outrated fox1.
So who is the moron?

it's pay TV as a whole, not just Sydney viewers


overall Fox Footy is a bit of a fizzer
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Another possibility is Monday Night Football - its big in the States and may well become the same here. The doomsayers can say what they like but that was the same thing said about FNF about 20 years ago and look what happens now - FNF is the prime spot for the week. AFL is testing the waters this year with MNF and it will become a part of the league schedule in future years. We will see:-

Friday night - 1 game
Saturday - 3 games (2 during the day and 1 at night or vice versa)
Sunday - 3 games (2 during the day and 1 twilight)
Monday night - 1 game

Thats going to be the future of AFL football.
 
Murray said:
Umm, I think you might have to prove the figures are bogus, don't you?

No more than I "have" to disprove an allegation that the moon is made of blue cheese. Let those that assert the ridiculous do the 'proving'. I have looked at the figures and any assertion that nationwide the RL had the top 20 'games' is just too stupid to bother with.
 
The Gunn said:
I have looked at the figures and any assertion that nationwide the RL had the top 20 'games' is just too stupid to bother with.

Keep your head stuck in the sand buddy...Its the reality, as bitter a pill as it is for you to have to swallow.
 
Fred Nerk said:
The figures are legit. You sir, are a moron.

I am happy that the figures are likely legit but what do they really tell us?

Fox Footy have been complaining that under the current deal they do not get enough "big" games. They are also cut out of live games into SA & WA of any of the local teams. Under the proposal with Nine, Foxtel are prepared to pay approximatley half of the total cash in the deal precisely because they will get some Eagles/Crows/Dockers/Port games live into Perth/Adelaide and because they will get a better share of "big" games (i.e. they will get the live coverage). They will also get the FNF games live into the Northern States.

The NRL figures quoted (i.e. top 20 rating shows were NRL games) simply proves the value to Foxtel of getting these better rating games. At present, many of the games (and I suspect all of the "top 20 rating shows") are exclusive to Fox. You either have Fox and see them or you miss out. This drives take up of Foxtel and drives ratings (both take up and ratings increase Foxtel revenues).

The much improved deal (for Foxtel) that arises under the Nine/Foxtel deal is the reason that Foxtel are prepared to stump up (at least) half the cash for half the games. Under any 7/10 deal I am sure that Foxtel would want to take the other 3 games BUT at what cost? They would have minimal influence on the quality of their games and 7/10 (in Perth at least) have guarnateed that all Eagles/Dockers games will be on FTA - so there goes the increased Foxtel take up in their weakest penetrated market!

Foxtel will pay WAAAAY less to 7/10 than they would to Nine and as such the cash payable by 7/10 v the cash payable by Nine will be Waaay more. In addition, it is highly unlikely that 7/10 will have any idea what Foxtel are prepared to pay prior to having to submit their bid on Friday.

It is a bloody big risk for 7/10.

Cheers :)
 
Comparing NRL and AFL TV ratings are not comapring apples to apples.

For starters, the average free-to-air audience for the AFL for any given round of football is around 5 million nationwide. The corresponding figure for the NRL is under 2 million. This is partly due to the NRL having fewer matches free-to-air. Their entire Saturday is billed as a "Super Saturday" with three games one after the other, and these can only be accessed by Pay TV.

If the AFL only had two games on free to air, and had 6 games on Foxtel, with a whole day of back to back games (and with 6 games on Pay TV each round, some of these would be BIG games) the AFL would get massive Pay TV ratings too.

The reality is that the AFL have free-to-air TV coverage that the NRL can only fantasize about, and this is what drives the dollar values. Only 25% of people have Pay TV.
 
Dan26 said:
Comparing NRL and AFL TV ratings are not comapring apples to apples.

For starters, the average free-to-air audience for the AFL for any given round of football is around 5 million nationwide. The corresponding figure for the NRL is under 2 million. This is partly due to the NRL having fewer matches free-to-air. Their entire Saturday is billed as a "Super Saturday" with three games one after the other, and these can only be accessed by Pay TV.

If the AFL only had two games on free to air, and had 6 games on Foxtel, with a whole day of back to back games (and with 6 games on Pay TV each round, some of these would be BIG games) the AFL would get massive Pay TV ratings too.

The reality is that the AFL have free-to-air TV coverage that the NRL can only fantasize about, and this is what drives the dollar values. Only 25% of people have Pay TV.

Thanks for that Dan26, it assists the point I was making in my previous post.

I strongly agree that in the absence of any FTA coverage a super saturday of say Collingwood v Essendon, followed by WC V Adelaide, followed by Brisbane v Sydney may be a ratings success and may just scrape into the Top 20 :D

Cheers :)
 
The Gunn said:
No more than I "have" to disprove an allegation that the moon is made of blue cheese. Let those that assert the ridiculous do the 'proving'. I have looked at the figures and any assertion that nationwide the RL had the top 20 'games' is just too stupid to bother with.

Yes, it's all a lie :rolleyes:

You asked for proof and got it. Now you're not happy.

Want a tissue?
 
eirinn said:
As a Sydney-sider, I desperately want the 7/10 bid to win. Under the deal the AFL agreed to, there is no guarantee of any live free-to-air AFL football in NSW. Not even during finals. At the moment, AFL fans in NSW are treated terribly by Channel 9, with movies on their tenth or eleventh re-run still taking precedence over the footy. Matches often start an hour or so after their originally scheduled time. It's been amazingly frustrating, the only solace being that Channel 10 have been committed to footy, showing finals games either live on or a relatively short delay, and showing most Swans games live.

The Swans winning this year did great things for the code in Sydney. There is definitely the potential to capitalise on the win. Instead, short-sighted Demitriou desires immediate dollars rather than working toward ensuring the further growth of the game and much larger revenues in future.

For over 100 years, dedicated football administrators have worked hard to promote Australian Football in the northeastern states. If Demitriou signs the deal with nine, he will demonstrate utter contempt for those who have gone before him. The sooner he goes, the better.
As a Sydneysider, I agree with you 100%
 
Fred Nerk said:
Yes, it's all a lie :rolleyes:

You asked for proof and got it. Now you're not happy.

Want a tissue?

Give them an official source and thats not enough for the HaRDCORE afl fan.

If seven/ten dont get the next AFL rights, it will be R.I.P AFL in NSW, QLD, ACT.
 
ChrisFooty said:
Give them an official source and thats not enough for the HaRDCORE afl fan.

If seven/ten dont get the next AFL rights, it will be R.I.P AFL in NSW, QLD, ACT.

Well not all of us have a problem with the source or the numbers - but as you can see from various earlier posts, some of us are unsure what the numbers mean given the current scenario under which the majority of NRL games are on Fox and not on FTA.

What are the implications, if any, of the current deal changing to FNF being live on Foxtel across all Northern States (with some local Nine stations showing it on delay i.e. Gold Coast) and Saturday night games being on Nine (but likely after 9.30), likely also on Foxtel (although we dont have all the details as yet)??

How this leads to the death of AFL is somewhat beyond me. It seems the shift to Foxtel of NRL has simply lead to audiences watching on Foxtel rather the FTA - any reason why AFL viewers wont follow suit?

Cheers :)
 
Eagle87 said:
Well not all of us have a problem with the source or the numbers - but as you can see from various earlier posts, some of us are unsure what the numbers mean given the current scenario under which the majority of NRL games are on Fox and not on FTA.

What are the implications, if any, of the current deal changing to FNF being live on Foxtel across all Northern States (with some local Nine stations showing it on delay i.e. Gold Coast) and Saturday night games being on Nine (but likely after 9.30), likely also on Foxtel (although we dont have all the details as yet)??

How this leads to the death of AFL is somewhat beyond me. It seems the shift to Foxtel of NRL has simply lead to audiences watching on Foxtel rather the FTA - any reason why AFL viewers wont follow suit?

Cheers :)

Well if this is the case, why are so many people on this board bitching and moaning about the AFL decision to go with nine/foxtel.

I will think the best way to promote AFL in the northern states is free to air exposure.

The AFL will die quickly in the northesn states. Sad, yeah sure, But thats the way Andrew Dimetriou sees things in AFL.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Seven and Ten discuss trumping Nine's bid

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top