$700 million TV offer from Seven-Ten bid

[one-eyed]

Football TV offer nears $700m
By Caroline Wilson
Chief Football Writer
The Age
November 15, 2005

A SIX-YEAR free-to-air offer worth more than $400 million could prove the knock-out punch for Channel Seven and Channel Ten in the battle for the AFL broadcast rights.

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou is believed to have told his commission over the past two days of the Seven and Ten offer, which the league has admitted privately contains the added attraction of vastly improved coverage into trouble spots NSW and Queensland.

The final figure should approach $700 million once the contribution of pay-TV provider Foxtel is factored in.

While the AFL Commission yesterday concluded two days of talks at a Mornington Peninsula golf resort, the Seven Network dropped part of its legal action against Ten and agreed to attempt to resolve its potential billion-dollar legal action against the AFL out of court.

And in another strong indication that the AFL could be on the verge of a new broadcasting deal beyond 2006, Foxtel is believed to have accepted unofficially the Seven and Ten team as potential media partners and could in return receive exclusive Sunday twilight games between 2007 and 2012.

The Seven and Ten deal, which was presented to the AFL last week, includes:

■ An average annual free-to-air rights cash amount averaging $70 million a year over six years. (Next season Channels Nine and Ten will pay $57 million.)

■ Five free-to-air games each weekend of the home-and-away season with Ten televising two back-to-back Saturday games as under the current deal and Seven televising Friday night football and two Sunday games.

■ Both networks sharing the finals and splitting grand finals and Brownlow Medal counts, alternating on an annual basis.

■ Friday night football broadcast into Sydney from 10.30pm on Seven, about an hour earlier than it is now.

■ Improved regional coverage of Friday night football into NSW and Queensland, with Seven affiliate Prime televising matches from between 8.30 and 9.30pm into Canberra, western NSW and the Gold Coast.

■ Channel Ten to continue to televise prime-time football on Saturday nights into Brisbane and Sydney.

The AFL Commission, which spent Sunday and Monday at Moonah Links at Fingal, near Rye, deliberating the game's biggest issues, including TV rights, tribunal reforms, priority picks and game development, is now expected to take the Seven-Ten offer to Channel Nine, which plans to make its bid alongside Foxtel.

Foxtel paid $30 million a year over five years for the last pay-TV rights and while a Seven-Ten deal would mean its weekly allotment of three games and no finals does not change, the exclusive Sunday early evening timeslot would prove a major boost to the pay network, which has proved its commitment with its off-field programming.

Foxtel now receives what are regarded as the least interesting three games of the round. That is also expected to change.

The next stage in the rights bidding process will be to give Nine an opportunity to outbid the Seven and Ten consortium, with the latter then given an opportunity to match any bid by Nine under the first-and-last bid agreement.

The AFL clubs will meet the commission and its executive on Thursday to learn the latest in the broadcast negotiations, a process that began in March when Ten angered the AFL by switching camps and joining forces with Seven.

The Kerry Stokes-owned network was the AFL rights holder for most of the previous four decades until it lost the rights to the News Limited consortium of Nine, Ten and Foxtel — a combination that Seven claimed led to the destruction of its pay-TV network C7, which is the subject of the legal action.

While the next round of AFL rights was expected to last for five years, Seven and Ten are pushing for a six-year deal, so they can evenly split finals.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/11/14/1131951100410.html

[mightytiges]

The final figure should approach $700 million once the contribution of pay-TV provider Foxtel is factored in.

Woh!  Loose change anyone

■ Improved regional coverage of Friday night football into NSW and Queensland, with Seven affiliate Prime televising matches from between 8.30 and 9.30pm into Canberra, western NSW and the Gold Coast.

Julz won't have to wait up to midnight anymore to see Richo and Simmo lol.

[Rodgerramjet]

Wouldn't mind a 1% commission on the sale 

[WilliamPowell]

Well it looks like the TV rights are about to take another turn and get really interesting as the AFL & Ch 7 appear to have kissed and made up - well sort of  . Seven are no longer suing the AFL - still suing everyone else. First there was 22 now there only 21. 

=========

TV dispute over
5:47:32 PM Thu 1 December, 2005
Paul Gough
Sportal for afl.com.au

A major hurdle in the path of the next AFL television rights agreement has been removed after the Seven Network ended its legal action against the AFL on Thursday in relation to the demise of its pay TV channel C7.

The league is hopeful of finalising its new television agreement, covering the 2007-2011 seasons, before Christmas but was being frustrated in this attempt by a long running court battle over the demise of C7 - which related to the last AFL television deal which saw the rights awarded to Channels Nine, Ten and Foxtel.

Seven is bidding with Channel Ten to regain the AFL rights it held until 2002 but has already rejected the league's initial asking price of $140 million a year - up from the $100 million a year paid by Nine, Ten and Foxtel for the rights from 2002 to 2006.
While these negotiations have been taking place Seven has been suing 22 media and sporting entities in the Federal Court, seeking more than $1 billion in damages, over the collapse of C7 following the loss of the AFL rights in 2002 - which saw Foxtel gain the pay television rights to show AFL matches.

However while the case is continuing, Seven is no longer suing the AFL having reached an out of court settlement with the league.

While this would appear to boost Seven's chances of regaining the television rights, the league is still furious at the amount of money it has had to spend already in defending itself against Seven's legal action.

"The AFL has expended in excess of $7.0 million in defending this claim and expected to expend a further $3.5 million in 2006," the league said in a statement on Thursday night.

"The AFL retains the right and intends to seek costs from Channel Seven in due course."

While the Seven/Ten consortium has the luxury of bidding last for the television rights, Nine has already indicated its determination to retain the rights - even though its' broadcasting partner over the past four years in Ten has switched its allegiance to Seven.

It is believed Nine is willing to pay the $140 million a year the AFL is seeking but its major stumbling block in retaining the rights is its inability to show Friday night games live into New South Wales and Queensland.

The AFL is determined those crucial markets will not be deprived of live Friday night football in the next television deal, as they have been under the current deal, but Nine is committed to showing rugby league in prime-time on Friday nights in New South Wales and Queensland.

However Nine believes it can still win the rights by forming an alliance with Foxtel and convincing the AFL that Friday night games in New South Wales and Queensland could be shown live in those states through Foxtel's AFL channel.

This would also suit Foxtel, which has already told the AFL it will only remain involved in broadcasting football if it receives higher profile games in the next deal that it has under the current deal - which has seen Foxtel allocated the least three attractive games each round with none of those being in prime-time.

The AFL would not comment when asked what the latest developments meant to the likely outcome of the next television agreement but with the court action now out of the way, the league can concentrate on securing its next television deal as soon as possible.

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=239253

=======

Somehow I don't think Eddie McEverywhere is going to have a happy Xmas

[Razorblade]

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/12/01/1133422047112.html

Says all clubs are going to get 200k out of this, wonder if that'll effect how many rookies we take now!

[WilliamPowell]

Says all clubs are going to get 200k out of this, wonder if that'll effect how many rookies we take now!

It depends on when the AFL pays it. Seeing they had budgeted the legal costs in 2006 I would think they will distribute it in the 2006 - not 2005.
 

[WilliamPowell]

After reading this article is there anyone Andy D. doesn't love?

=================

Casting vote near in TV-rights battle
19 December 2005   Herald Sun
Damian Barrett

THE AFL'S hopes of resolving the game's broadcast rights before Christmas will hinge on a meeting of its commissioners today.

Chief executive Andrew Demetriou and general manager, broadcasting, strategy and major projects, Ben Buckley will update the eight commissioners at a gathering in Melbourne.

Football's most important issue is delicately poised, with commissioners needing to weigh a financially lucrative offer against one that promises to promote the game in the northern states.

A Channel 9-Foxtel consortium has indicated to the AFL it would meet, under certain circumstances, its $140 million-a-year request.
The Nine-Foxtel bid is about $15 million a year more than the Channels 7 and 10 bid.

It is understood to be a five-year deal, taking in 2007-11, meaning its offer could be $75 million more than its rival.

The Seven-10 alliance is better placed to televise the game live, and near live, in the significant NSW and Queensland markets.

It wants a six-year contract, which would allow both networks to exclusively broadcast three finals series.

Lawyers for all parties have slowed negotiations throughout the year, and they again threaten to delay settlement.

Demetriou said last week it was the AFL's intention to determine its post-2006 broadcasters before its offices were shut down for Christmas.

"I hope it is before Christmas, because I can't go to too many more meetings," he said. "I love everybody dearly, but I can't keep meeting guys.

"We have done enough work and had enough meetings to be pretty close to being able to at least try to get to the end stages.

"We have come close and we have always thought we would try and do it before Christmas. We might get there. But if we don't, it shouldn't be too further beyond Christmas."

Demetriou promised that the winning bid would benefit all facets of the game.

"Whatever the outcome and whoever it is and whatever the result financially, it will be a terrific outcome for our supporters and the game," Demetriou said.

"We have been really pleased with the competition, really pleased all the broadcasters want our product.

"We have great relationships with every broadcaster, including Seven. 

"We are pleased to be out of litigation (with Seven).

"We have been thrilled Nine has covered our games so superbly.

"We are thrilled with the 24-hour footy channel (Fox Footy), and Ten has done a great job."

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,17605076%255E20322,00.html

[WilliamPowell]

Demetriou promised that the winning bid would benefit all facets of the game.

"Whatever the outcome and whoever it is and whatever the result financially, it will be a terrific outcome for our supporters and the game," Demetriou said.

If you are really fair dinkum about this Andy D. then the decision is pretty simple. It will be interesting to see if he keeps his word.

Remember this is what he said back in June of this year:

“There are other qualitative issues that are important to us - things like enhanced coverage of the game in Sydney and Brisbane on Friday night and getting rid of some of those blackspots (in terms of prime time coverage) such as on the Gold Coast, in Wagga and in the ACT”

Demetriou said ensuring such situations did not arise in the next television agreement was foremost tin the AFL's negotiations.

"And we are prepared to sacrifice dollars for that because it is important you get to show football to as many people as you can," he said.”

Refer to link:
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=211717

So I would think that decreasing the FTA coverage from a 5/3 split to a 4/4 split which is what Ch 9 & Foxtell want would not really be considered? Cause it's not just about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ is it Andy D.?

[WilliamPowell]

AFL delays broadcast rights decision
December 19, 2005 - 12:47PM

The AFL will delay its final decision on the new broadcast rights deal until after Christmas.

The league was hopeful of resolving the issue this week, but the AFL commission has decided that it wants more time.

The AFL is weighing up rival bids from Channel Nine and Foxtel on one side and Channels Seven and 10 on the other, with the new multi-million deal to start in 2007.

© 2005 AAP


http://www.theage.com.au/news/Sport/AFL-delays-broadcast-rights-decision/2005/12/19/1134840776171.html

=====================

  How hard can it be really

[mightytiges]

Nine's NRL commitments mean it can't compete with the Seven/Ten bid in terms of what's best for the game. The problem is Andy D can smell the $$$$ signs being waved underneath his nose by Nine. Not to mention that one large Victorian club has alot to lose if there's a change of networks.

I'm not a fan of Sandy Robert's commentary but anything that stops Eddie commentating Collingwood games has to be a good move. I hope Cometti returns to Seven alongside Bruce.

[WilliamPowell]

As everyone knows I am bit like a dog with bone on this topic...........

But I was "gobsmacked"  when I read Caro's article this morning..................

Here it is: 

AFL waits for Nine to outdo bid
By Caroline Wilson
December 20, 2005


AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou yesterday told his commission that he was still hopeful of coming close to his annual requested figure of $135 million for the next round of broadcast rights from 2007.

While Channel Seven and Channel Ten increased its detailed six-year bid by close to $40 million four days ago, Demetriou said his broadcast sub-committee had not responded to the offer and was still waiting for a better financial deal to be placed on the table by the Nine Network.

With Seven and Ten having the right to match any offer by Nine it appears that a deal, as expected, will not be achieved by Christmas, and the poker game being contested by the networks - with Foxtel prepared to televise football with either party but preferring Nine, which has offered it potentially half of each season's home-and-away games - now seems certain to drag into January.

The AFL Commission was told yesterday that neither Channel Nine, which is expected to share the next broadcast rights with Foxtel if successful, nor the Seven-Ten consortium has offered adequate money for either the five or six-year period beyond the end of 2006.

Channel Seven and Ten last Friday increased its six-year bid from an estimated $700 million over six years to about $740 million, in an offer which includes prime time coverage into Sydney every Saturday night of the home-and-away season whether the Swans are playing or not.

That amount includes a guaranteed figure of close to $50 million a year from Foxtel, with Seven and Ten pledging to broadcast all eight games should Foxtel refuse to pay an adequate amount given the lack of pay TV competition.

The AFL has not responded to the Seven-Ten official bid, an offer its commissioners concede will provide superior coverage into New South Wales and Queensland but which Demetriou has said is no better than the Nine-Foxtel offer, which is yet to be placed on the table.

The Sydney Swans and Brisbane Lions, which have seen regional coverage of football into their states reduced, are backing Seven and Ten while a number of Victorian clubs have told the AFL to take the best monetary offer - still expected to come from Nine but having not yet materialised.

The AFL's move in not responding to the latest Seven and Ten bid has seen the Nine Network pushed again to place a higher bid.

Although Nine has told the league it will provide as much free-to-air coverage as required, its rugby league commitments mean that the station could attempt to offload its Saturday fixtures to Channel Ten.

Neither the ABC nor SBS was initially willing to join forces with Nine but the AFL has indicated the Nine bid could still prove a winner with the final offer yet to be completed.

The commission was told that further meetings with Nine would take place this week. Seven and Ten are also expected to hold more talks with the AFL before Christmas. Either way, commission chairman Ron Evans reiterated after yesterday's talks that a deal would now seem unlikely before the new year.    

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/12/19/1134840795292.html

[WilliamPowell]

Nine's NRL commitments mean it can't compete with the Seven/Ten bid in terms of what's best for the game. The problem is Andy D can smell the $$$$ signs being waved underneath his nose by Nine. Not to mention that one large Victorian club has alot to lose if there's a change of networks.

Got it in one MT and that's the most annoying thing in my view. Andy D seems so despearate to keep Channel 9 he has lost sight of what's best for the competition overall. Sure the $$$ are important but so is exposurer on FTA TV - this helps CLubs attract sponsors, keep sponsors.

While Channel Seven and Channel Ten increased its detailed six-year bid by close to $40 million four days ago, Demetriou said his broadcast sub-committee had not responded to the offer and was still waiting for a better financial deal to be placed on the table by the Nine Network.

So does this mean that officially Channel 9/Foxtel have not bid ??? Also, I read somewhere (I think it was in the HUN) that someone from the AFL was helping Ch 9/Foxtel put together thier bid. WTF ???

Channel Seven and Ten last Friday increased its six-year bid from an estimated $700 million over six years to about $740 million, in an offer which includes prime time coverage into Sydney every Saturday night of the home-and-away season whether the Swans are playing or not.

This is a massive offer by Ch 10 - I think it shows how serious this group actually is. The other group are just promising live coverage on PayTV which is what we get now.

The AFL has not responded to the Seven-Ten official bid, an offer its commissioners concede will provide superior coverage into New South Wales and Queensland but which Demetriou has said is no better than the Nine-Foxtel offer, which is yet to be placed on the table.

Their offers not on the table 

The Sydney Swans and Brisbane Lions, which have seen regional coverage of football into their states reduced, are backing Seven and Ten while a number of Victorian clubs have told the AFL to take the best monetary offer - still expected to come from Nine but having not yet materialised.

I think a few of the Victorian Clubs better think again. When the last deal was announced struggling Clubs (especially the Bulldogs, North)  were doing cart-wheels saying they were saved financially. Gotta a newsflash - they are still struggling - see today's papers about North

As I said yesterday - I don't understand the delay because it's not just about the $$$ remember, Andy D said so back in June

[mightytiges]

Sure the $$$ are important but so is exposurer on FTA TV - this helps CLubs attract sponsors, keep sponsors.

AFG particularly and Motorola would prefer the national coverage of their brand into NSW and OLD. If they then believe this exposure is vital to their business interests then the RFC will benefit though more $$$ being offered when the next contract comes up for negotiation.

The AFL has not responded to the Seven-Ten official bid, an offer its commissioners concede will provide superior coverage into New South Wales and Queensland but which Demetriou has said is no better than the Nine-Foxtel offer, which is yet to be placed on the table.

Their offers not on the table 

If Nine put their offer on the table is that then classed as their final offer which Seven/Ten only have to top or is their a bidding process of multiple bids until someone bails?   

I think a few of the Victorian Clubs better think again. When the last deal was announced struggling Clubs (especially the Bulldogs, North)  were doing cart-wheels saying they were saved financially. Gotta a newsflash - they are still struggling - see today's papers about North

Spot on WP.

Then again when the CBF handout gives certain clubs a significant advantage  over other clubs who are cutting costs to pay their own way, it's not surprising these CBF receiving clubs don't want this rort to change.

[WilliamPowell]

I think a few of the Victorian Clubs better think again. When the last deal was announced struggling Clubs (especially the Bulldogs, North)  were doing cart-wheels saying they were saved financially. Gotta a newsflash - they are still struggling - see today's papers about North

Spot on WP.

Then again when the CBF handout gives certain clubs a significant advantage  over other clubs who are cutting costs to pay their own way, it's not surprising these CBF receiving clubs don't want this rort to change.

Well I reckon we've seen (read) in the last couple of weeks through North and the Doogies that despite the CBF handouts these Clubs are still losing money. All the the CBF does is make the loss smaller, but they're still losses

[WilliamPowell]

Sure the $$$ are important but so is exposurer on FTA TV - this helps CLubs attract sponsors, keep sponsors.

AFG particularly and Motorola would prefer the national coverage of their brand into NSW and OLD. If they then believe this exposure is vital to their business interests then the RFC will benefit though more $$$ being offered when the next contract comes up for negotiation.

Exactly MT, seriously do you think Toyota would be doing somersaults around AFL house if FTA coverasge was reduced from 5 games a week to 4.

If Nine put their offer on the table is that then classed as their final offer which Seven/Ten only have to top or is their a bidding process of multiple bids until someone bails?   

My understanding is once their offer is on the table that's it. They only get the one chance. But I just don't get it. If their offer is worth so much more than the 7/10 one why don't they just make a bid.

The other thing I don't understand is, if the figure of $135 million a year from Ch9/Fox is correct how can Ch9 justify it to its shareholders when they lose money on the footy now anyway.

They only one of the current broadcasters thatmakes any money is Ch 10 and that's because of the finals