One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => View from the Outer => Topic started by: mightytiges on February 05, 2005, 04:29:46 PM
-
AFL to rethink TV deal
05 February 2005
Herald Sun
Jim Wilson
THE battle for control of TV rights in football beyond the end of next season has intensified with two of the AFL's senior management team flying to the US for talks with sporting and television executives.
Ben Buckley, general manager of broadcasting and major projects, and commercial operations boss Gil McLachlan will attend Monday morning's NFL Super Bowl but it's a series of meetings over the next few days that will go a long way to helping the AFL in its strategy for negotiations in coming months.
"This is a major fact-finding mission and will revolve around the biggest day on the American football calendar," AFL chief Andrew Demetriou said.
But it's more than that with Demetriou keen to see how American football and its army of fans cope with having the sport split among four television networks.
Fox Sports, ESPN, ABC and CBS all have a slice of the NFL pie and there's no doubt the AFL is looking at how that dynamic works and whether it's viable to contemplate football across three free-to-air networks and a pay-TV outfit.
Sources, though, have indicated that while the league wants as much money from this next round of rights, which should be finalised by the end of this season, coverage on Seven, Nine, Ten and Fox Footy may be simply too much.
Like American football, where the NBC network is a non-rights holder, it's considered attractive to have a non-rights holder "on ice" to push up the asking price next time around.
In this market, Channel 7 fills that role and will have first and last bid come crunch time. It's no surprise the network invited Demetriou and Buckley to its private box for last Sunday night's Australian Open final.
Seven slashed its coverage of golf and the Athens Olympics last year hoping to get as much cash in the coffers for a full-scale assault on regaining the jewel in the crown.
Nine has turned Friday night football into the best coverage across the board but its problem is rugby league and not being able to show AFL at a reasonable time in the crucial Sydney and Brisbane markets.
This time around the AFL wants the game on in those markets much earlier, and Nine must find a solution.
Ten and Fox Footy, who will also want a better deal, complete the fascinating picture.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,12149231%255E20322,00.html
-
Apart from Eddie commentating Collingwood games I don't really care which network(s) broadcasts the games. Both "sides" had/have their share of good and not-so-good commentators. The only thing i would like to see back is the showing of Vic teams (ie. Richmond) playing interstate instead of delayed telecasts of the match in Melbourne.
I'd bet this time around Kerry Packer will want some finals games for Ch. 9.
I also hope, getting on my soapbox about this again, this includes the Telstra run footy websites. The AFL sites are poor compared to other major sporting leagues. The bombers were the only club smart enough not to get involved in that deal and keep their own independently run site.
-
I'd bet this time around Kerry Packer will want some finals games for Ch. 9.
I also hope, getting on my soapbox about this again, this includes the Telstra run footy websites. The AFL sites are poor compared to other major sporting leagues. The bombers were the only club smart enough not to get involved in that deal and keep their own independently run site.
Argh...one of my favourite topics - the Broadcasting Rights to the footy.
Channel 9 will not get the rights to any finals because of their long standing contract with Rugby League. Channel 9 cannot show finals into NSW or Qld because they are contracted to show the NRL finals - so with that in mind there is no way they can have any AFL finals. So so sad for big Kerry :lol
As for the web-sites - well not only were the Bombers smart in staying independant - they are reaping the benefits now with the $$ they make compared to everyone else with their association with Channel 7 (no less).
Which brings us to the reason the current agreement is flawed and the why the AFL should be ashamed of this current agreement. While they (the AFL) were so busy doing cart wheels around AFL house when they signed the last contract they forgot to read the fine print that Channel 9 could not show AFL footy on Friday nights in the developing markets. Anyone with half a brain would have known that at the time but the people of the AFL ignored it because of the $$$ signs in their eyes. That people in Wagga Wagga no longer get AFL on Firday night is a joke and the arrangement that allows Fox Footy to show it at 9.30pm is a greater joke because not everyone can afford PayTV - fact :banghead
Channel 9 have left AFL fans down by not showing games that they are allowed to show into live Melbourne on a Friday night (eg Port or Adelaide -v- whoever) because they wanted to show Burkes Backyard (who know what we will cop in 2005 :-\). They didn't show games live into Adelaide - choosing again Burkes Backyard - IMHO - that is not good enough.
Which brings me to the point MT makes about interstate games. That Channel 10 can show a game on a Saturday night from Telstra Dome on 30 minute delay and fans miss out on seeing their teams play interstate (again uunless they have PayTV) is unfair.
We were told that footy fans would be no worse off under this deal - clearly alot of people are and it is a joke. Thank goodness we only have 2 years of it to go. The onus is now on the AFL to get the next deal right - to do that they have get the firstly Friday nights right - give it back to those who hopefully they haven't lost and get the interstate coverage back into Victoria right.
What price do they put on goodwill I wonder :help
I could go on and on :thumbsup
-
That Channel 10 can show a game on a Saturday night from Telstra Dome on 30 minute delay and fans miss out on seeing their teams play interstate (again uunless they have PayTV) is unfair.
We were told that footy fans would be no worse off under this deal - clearly alot of people are and it is a joke.
tv ratings come ahead of fairness :banghead
-
It's an absolute joke isn't it WP?
Sources, though, have indicated that while the league wants as much money from this next round of rights, which should be finalised by the end of this season, coverage on Seven, Nine, Ten and Fox Footy may be simply too much.
The AFL needs to be mindful that Networks look after their own interests, first and foremost. Not that there’s anything wrong with that or that you’d expect anything different.
But from the point of view of doing what’s best for the game, the AFL needs to focus on exactly that, rather than going with a Network(s) purely based on the amount of money they are willing to hand over.
And one of the problems with how the game is and has been run is that the AFL and Clubs have made decisions based more on what will give them the most money. And not necessarily on what is best for the long-term good of their Club and the game.
What’s the good of the AFL having more money than it knows what to do with if people in areas around Australia don’t have access to the game? It might as well sell Broadcast rights to networks in outer space.
-
Clinton Grybus on 3aw said foxtel will be getting an extra game (from 3 up to 4) when the new deal comes up. The early Sunday game (1pm) will be the one removed from free to air. Seemed fairly confident foxtel will still be the pay tv provider of footy as he claimed behind gate attendances foxtel inject the most money into the AFL. A caller rang up about the coverage (or lack of it) in the northern states. Looks like the deal may be that the night games live into the southern states via free to air will be telecasted live on pay tv into the northern states. Someone mentioned that when Ch 7 had the footy their old pay tv channel C7 use to do something similar (?).
-
Seven joins Ten in AFL bid
By Rachel Kleinman
March 16, 2005
Channel Seven is joining forces with Channel Ten to try to snatch the rights to screen AFL matches.
The two channels will team up to bid for TV rights when the AFL's existing $450 million deal with Channel Nine, Channel Ten and Foxtel expires at the end of the 2006 football season.
Seven holds the right to bid last for the next round of free-to-air broadcast rights - although not the pay TV rights.
A Channel Ten spokeswoman said: "We have an agreement with the Seven network to jointly bid for the next AFL rights.
"We will not be making any further comment."
http://www.theage.com.au/realfooty/news/AFL/Seven-joins-Ten-in-AFL-bid/2005/03/16/1110913654315.html
-
Sheesh! That's a turn up. No more Eddie commentating Collingwood games :thumbsup.
I wonder if Nine and Ten are going their separate ways because Nine didn't have any finals in the current agreement. I'd presume Foxtel will still keep the pay-tv rights as I heard Clinton Grybis claim Foxtel pumps the second largest amount of $$$ into the AFL coffers.
-
I wonder if Nine and Ten are going their separate ways because Nine didn't have any finals in the current agreement. I'd presume Foxtel will still keep the pay-tv rights as I heard Clinton Grybis claim Foxtel pumps the second largest amount of $$$ into the AFL coffers.
=========
You may be onto something as Caro ;D reports:
Football TV rights ambush
By Caroline Wilson
Chief football writer
March 17, 2005
Channel Seven has stunned the football world with a bold bid to regain TV rights from 2007.
Channel Seven has made a bold pitch to regain a slice of the lucrative AFL television rights, forming an alliance with Channel Ten in a multimillion-dollar deal that threatens to sideline bitter rival Channel Nine.
Channel Ten shocked the Packer-owned Nine and pay TV group Foxtel, its partners in the current $450 million television rights deal, by announcing yesterday that it had broken ranks.
The corporate manoeuvre - designed to win the free-to-air rights from 2007 until 2011 - has also frustrated the AFL, which learned of the new partnership only two days ago.
The Seven-Ten alliance involves a deal for the broadcasters to annually alternate live coverage of the grand final - which neither network would push to televise at night - and the Brownlow Medal count.
Kerry Stokes' Channel Seven would take over Friday night football from Channel Nine and Ten would push for its long-held ambition to televise three Saturday games back to back. The remaining AFL finals would be carved up by the two networks.
AFL executives, who had been hoping to better the league's current broadcasting deal worth $450 million over five years - and were largely satisfied with their current media partnerships - seemed stunned by the move and particularly concerned at Ten's part in the deal. The new agreement looks to have limited Nine's bargaining position and shifted the power in the crucial multimillion-dollar negotiations, creating a buyers' market. The key facets of a new deal could be resolved as early as next month.
Although Nine could bid alone or join forces with Foxtel, the free-to-air network would also be curtailed by its Friday night and Sunday afternoon allegiance to rugby league in NSW and Queensland.
Seven and Ten - which this year will show AFL games for the first time in prime time in Brisbane on Saturday nights - are thought to have agreed to increase free-to-air football coverage in NSW and Queensland.
The Seven-Ten partnership is unusual also because the Seven Network is embroiled in a landmark legal battle with its new negotiating partner, scheduled to open in court on July 18. While Seven indicated yesterday it planned to go ahead with the case, media experts were tipping it could loom as an intriguing negotiating tool.
Seven is suing the AFL, the National Rugby League, Nine and Ten, Foxtel and the AFL's internet provider Telstra, accusing them of colluding in the lead-up to the last round of football broadcast rights.
Should the two networks win the rights, their carve-up scheme would also prove a fillip for free-to-air football fans. While the Fox Football network has indicated it would push for four of the AFL's eight weekly home-and-away fixtures, Seven and Ten want six games between them, with Seven's remaining two matches coming on Sunday.
Foxtel could be compensated by a better-quality game - currently it holds exclusive weekly rights to the nominal worst three games of each round - to be televised as a live twilight game each Sunday.
Neither Channel Nine sports chief Gary Fenton nor the network's face of football, Eddie McGuire, would comment on the bombshell public announcement yesterday, which came in the form of a carefully worded statement from Seven to the stock exchange.
Nine is believed to have fired off a series of angry letters to the rival networks questioning Seven's right to strike a deal with Ten.
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou would communicate only by a public statement: "The AFL is confident of securing an outcome which benefits our 16 clubs and the supporters of our game and will be exploring all options for our future broadcasting arrangements."
The deal has come after months of negotiations between Channel Ten and the other free-to-air networks. It is believed that Ten chose to join forces with Seven, which pioneered TV football coverage, due to Seven's trump card in holding the right to bid both first and last for the football rights.
Seven paid $20 million in 1997 for the right to bid first and last over the following two rounds of media negotiations. It is thought that Ten relinquished its exclusive role as AFL finals broadcaster as part of the potential deal to be included in that last bid for the next rights round.
FOOTBALL'S GREAT TV HEIST
The deal between Seven and Ten for AFL television rights for five years from 2007
BACK IN THE GAME
CHANNEL SEVEN Once synonymous with football in Victoria, would regain the rights after five years on the sidelines.
THE DEAL MAKER
CHANNEL TEN Television's one-time minnow has negotiated itself into a position of strength, sharing last right of refusal for football rights. Football-led revival likely to continue.
OUT OF BOUNDS?
CHANNEL NINE Stands to lose football just when it is being challenged for supremacy in the ratings.
HOW IT WOULD WORK
GRAND FINAL To alternate between Seven and Ten. Other finals to be shared.
BROWNLOW MEDAL To alternate between Seven and Ten.
FRIDAY NIGHTS Channel Seven
SATURDAYS Channel Ten hoping to show three games, back-to-back. Foxtel to show one or two games.
SUNDAYS Channel Seven to televise two games, Foxtel one.
FREE-TO-AIR Could show six games per weekend, up from five.
FOXTEL Now shows three games per weekend. Wants four, but could end up with only two.
NIGHT GRAND FINAL Likely to fall off the agenda.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/03/16/1110913671291.html
TWILIGHT GAMES Could become regular part of fixture, possibly shown live on Foxtel on Sundays.
-
I will be delighted when 9 lose it.
I'm sick of their ego-driven commentators, who won't comment negatively on a certain team for fear of losing their jobs, but luv sinking the boot into us at every opportunity.
Trouble is, they'll end up at the other networks probably anyway.
Be good to hear what they say on the Footy Show tonight.
-
I'm sick of their ego-driven commentators, who won't comment negatively on a certain team for fear of losing their jobs, but luv sinking the boot into us at every opportunity.
Trouble is, they'll end up at the other networks probably anyway.
Probably everyone except Eddie lol will cross to Ch 7. A number like Cometti came from there anyway so no big deal. It'll be good to hear Bruce call games again although I wasn't a fan of alot of Ch 7 commentators either when they had the rights - Sandy Roberts, Drew Morphett, Ian Robinson and Peter McKenna :P. Too old fashioned and stayed and never kept up with the times IMO to attract a younger audience to the game. Ch 9 would be fine if they got rid of Eddie's control over footy there. His biased commentary and pushing of his political agenda turns you off watching. He's done a fantastic job as president of the Pies but he shouldn't be commentating on footy as well. Glad Nine losing the rights will put an end to that. Some other clubs might finally get their share of Friday night games in the new deal ::).
-
I didn't watch TFS - don't watch it and was too busy watching Lost and then the Amazing Race but have read excerts of what poor old Eddie had to say and put simply he has lost the plot. :help
I also heard him this morning on 3AW - raving on about the same things again - the competition is stuffed if 7 gets the rights back, they never looked after the game before blah, blah blah
Only got a couple of questions for Eddie Head.
1/ 1986 - where was our great saviour Channel 9 then?
2/ Where were Channel 9 in 1987 when the AFL went crawling back to 7 when the Broadcom deal fell on it's backside?
3/ What about all the other years before they got the rights? For decades they didn't bid - the only Channel that was interested was Seven.
Eddie needs to wake up and smell the coffee beans brewing in the machine.
To cry foul that Seven's been undehanded is the greatest insult of all.
All channel 7 has done is make a business decision that under an agreement which cost them $20million they are entitled to do.
$20 million to have the right to bid first and last - that's alot of $$$ from a group that's supposedly done nothing for footy in 40 years.
Coffee anyone ???
-
Whichever network gets it they’re as bad as each other.
None of them have really done enough to prove that they are more interested in promoting the game, rather than their own network’s interests.
Not sure if there’s anything in it, but heard on 3AW the other night someone say that Ch7 might want to have games scheduled 5.00pm on a Sunday.
If that’s true then that sort of scheduling has nothing to do with looking after supporters and developing the game. But has everything to do with ratings and doing what’s best for their network.
Hope those at the AFL know what they’re doing, otherwise 7 and 9, in particular, will continue to use their rights to bolster their own networks, rather than increase the profile of the game around Australia.
-
Talk on SEN this morning was that the AFL were "considering"? running their own channel and were not interested in talks about broadcasting rights at this stage of the game. Can't see this happening, and can't report much on what was said, as it was just an aside remark.
-
Talk on SEN this morning was that the AFL were "considering"? running their own channel and were not interested in talks about broadcasting rights at this stage of the game. Can't see this happening, and can't report much on what was said, as it was just an aside remark.
Yeah Gold104 reported on their news about the AFL starting its own PayTv Channel.
The Age (Caro) is reporting that the AFL are refusing to start negoiations with Seven because of the pending legal action.
Which makes me raise this question. I would think that the AFL have to deal with Seven whether they want to or not.
Why?
A little legal contact that gives the Seven network the first and last right to bid fo rthe next lot of free to air rights. If the AFL don't meet their obligations under that contract - you'd asume that the Seven Network would have the right to launch legal action - wouldn't they ???
-
Here is Caro's article (and can I add I thought her editorial on this topic in Sunday's Age was very good too - I'll try and find it ;D) ;)
====
AFL not ready to deal with Seven
By Caroline Wilson
March 22, 2005
The stand-off between the AFL and the new Channel Seven-Channel Ten alliance intensified yesterday with the AFL refusing to respond to the Seven Network's request to open negotiations for the 2007-2011 broadcast rights.
The AFL Commission, which held three hours of strategic talks yesterday, has resolved that it is unwilling to deal with Seven while that network is suing the competition.
The Age understands that Seven boss David Leckie wrote to the AFL last week pushing for the opening of broadcast talks. Channel Ten is also willing to open negotiations for the next media rights agreement and will place an opening bid in conjunction with Seven.
The AFL has refused to respond to either party.
But the AFL will continue to pressure Seven to settle its legal action before the scheduled court date of July 18 this year before opening negotiations.
Seven is suing the AFL and its media partners Foxtel, Telstra, News Limited, Channels Nine and Ten along with the National Rugby League, claiming it colluded against Seven and its pay-TV arm C7 to gain the 2002-2006 broadcast rights.
Already the AFL has spent several million dollars in legal costs, budgeting for another $3 million this year that the AFL reported last month would lead to a 64 per cent decline in its 2005 net surplus.
Seven has claimed that the landmark legal action could win the network an estimated victory worth between $725 million and $1.1 billion.
While that amount would potentially be shared by the league and its media partners - the league has placed the figure at closer to $500 million - the commission has fears that the entire amount could conceivably fall upon the AFL.
Yesterday's scheduled commission meeting covered a series of issues but reached the conclusion that it was unwilling to rush the settling of a new broadcast rights deal, despite pressure from Seven and Ten.
No official response to last week's stock exchange announcement has come from Telstra, Foxtel or Channel Nine, although Foxtel chief Kim Williams is understood to remain determined to play a significant part in the next media deal despite the fact neither Seven nor Ten has shown any interest in negotiating alongside the AFL's pay-TV arm.
Foxtel had indicated it wanted four games - one more than its current weekly allotment - in the next agreement, something Nine had been willing to accommodate as it was keen to relinquish the earlier of its two Sunday games.
But Ten and Seven want six free-to-air matches between them with Ten looking at three back-to-back games each Saturday and Seven planning to broadcast Friday night football along with two Sunday games.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/03/21/1111253954127.html
-
I found Caro's article from Sunday's Age - as I said I didn't think it was too bad ;D
===============
Let sanity play role in TV scrap
By Caroline Wilson
March 20, 2005
If we did not know better, we would be forgiven for thinking that football as we know it was on the brink of destruction. Victorian clubs, according to Eddie McGuire the other night, will die under a Channel Ten-Seven-led broadcast deal, the way Seven supposedly helped Fitzroy die a decade or so ago.
The quality of the coverage of the great game will sink to its former depths, the players will lose money and Andrew Demetriou's big-picture vision for the game will have no funds to support it. AusKick, too, is on the way out.
But before the Kangaroos, the Bulldogs - not even Collingwood is safe, according to its president - and Melbourne begin creating their epitaphs, perhaps everyone should take a deep breath and consider what is really going on in football.
While the Seven-Ten alliance is not exactly a brilliant omen for the bidding war AFL chiefs had been expecting, it is hardly the end of the world as we know it.
In fact, once the dented egos let their bruises heal - and these are far bigger egos than McGuire's, by the way - perhaps sanity will prevail and the people who really count in football will realise that their game could benefit quite nicely from the proposed new arrangement.
The new partners, should they win the 2007-2011 rights, want six free-to-air games between them, not four, which is what we could be faced with should Foxtel get its way. Far from revolutionising the draw, at present Seven and Ten still want 22 home-and-away rounds, still want a day grand final and have pledged to improve football's television presence in the northern states.
Ten's proposed three consecutive Saturday games is surely not such a bad idea.
Foxtel remains determined to play a role and could even consider two weekly games instead of three with better timeslots and better games.
And the free-to-air component in the new deal has indicated the price for the next five years from 2007 would at least marginally increase from the present agreement - something that did not appear feasible two years ago.
And yet the AFL's response to all this has been the most intriguing. Certainly the competition's elders were caught off guard, as were Telstra, News Ltd and Kerry Packer's Publishing Broadcasting Ltd.
Publicly, after the Seven-Ten bombshell had been delivered to the stock exchange, the message conveyed to the football world was that the new alliance would be great for football.
On Thursday one newspaper reported that the industry would now see a ferocious bidding war that could reap the AFL some $130 million a year from the next five-year deal.
If that report was fuelled by AFL headquarters, then Demetriou and his negotiators were saying different things behind closed doors.
There they were bitterly angry. So angry that the language with which they referred to the Seven-Ten team made Sam Newman's foul-mouthed attack on Rex Hunt on Friday night appear tame.
Demetriou, who last month said that a night grand final would take place "over my dead body", has suddenly placed some caveats upon that sweeping statement.
Should a network promise Friday night football shown prime time into Sydney, for example, he could reconsider, with some other hidden extras added to the deal. Interestingly, neither Seven nor Ten has shown any significant interest in moving the biggest game of the year to a later timeslot.
Staggeringly, he tacitly threw his weight behind McGuire's The Footy Show attack on the Seven Network, although dismissing some of McGuire's claims as over the top, by conceding that without a Channel Nine bid, some Victorian clubs could be endangered.
Could it be that Demetriou is quietly panicking? Could he have honestly not seen this coming? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Seven deserved to lose the footy rights last time around and an even more compelling argument that football is significantly better off under the 2002-2006 broadcast arrangement.
But surely the AFL must have known that by relinquishing a partnership in favour of a strictly commercial relationship the stakes would change. That was clear from the outset when Channel Nine's regional affiliates in NSW and southern Queensland made it clear they had no intention of continuing the Friday night football tradition.
And repeatedly each year when the Channel Nine-backed National Rugby League, like the Australian Rugby Union, continued to stage big-occasion matches against AFL showcase games in Sydney. Packer's Nine headquarters in Sydney, and certainly its newsroom, did the Australian football code few favours.
McGuire's attack on Thursday night was many things. Misguided and even scaremongering at times, it was, though, passionate and entertaining. Clearly The Footy Show will be around whether Nine has the football or not.
There is no questioning McGuire's commitment to the game. But the same cannot be said of the "big fella upstairs". He is a rugby league man, as is his key executive David Gyngell, who is a board member of the Sydney Roosters, and did not attend the AFL launch.
Nine has been talking unofficially with Channel Ten for some five months and yet was unable to reach a deal, so clearly was not as passionate about regaining football and Ten and Seven were.
But either way, you can rest assured that football will survive this. And we, the fans around Australia, might even find the coverage of the game we love even better.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/03/19/1111086062415.html
-
And to top it off even Mike's making a bit of sense ;D :o :o
this from Saturday's HUN
==========
Whoever's got the most money wins, Ed
19 March 2005 Herald Sun
IF YOU weren't certain how the Nine network received news of Wednesday's Seven-Ten ambush, you would have been in no doubt shortly after 9.30 on Thursday night.
Eddie McGuire -- with the obvious endorsement of his professional godfather Kerry Packer -- was at his brawling best.
Wanna fight, do you, you little squirts? OK, cop these apples: whack, bang, crash. And there's more where they came from. Don't mess with the big boys, OK.
McGuire's extraordinary outburst on The Footy Show says he and Nine are bleeding. That they know they have been gazumped.
He ripped into the Seven network in particular. Slamming current and previous administrations, and a few old (and ex-) mates in the process.
What on earth have events of 20 years ago got to do with the next round of negotiations for the AFL's media rights?
Whether or not Seven of 1986 left the AFL hanging out to dry is irrelevant.
We didn't even have a national competition back then, and the Seven network was owned and run (temporarily) out of Sydney by people who neither understood nor cared about what was then the VFL.
Football generally was a mess 20 years ago, hence the expansion of the competition and its evolution into a vibrant national league . . . with prized media rights.
While we're on history lessons, remind me, will you, just who it was who turned cricket upside down the world over in the late 1970s?
That's right, a Mr K. Packer. Cricket is much better for World Series Cricket, but that's not the point.
Big businessmen make big decisions because they want to and they can.
Eddie says "for the good of football, let's hope Channel 9 can get into the ring".
Who said the ring was out of bounds to Nine? All that's happened is that the Ten network has jumped out of a liaison with News Limited, Nine and Foxtel, and into bed with Seven.
As I see it, there's a valuable piece of property up for grabs, and Seven and Ten hold an option on it, courtesy of Seven's astute $20 million investment seven years ago to buy the first and last rights in the negotiating process.
If Nine, or News or Telstra or any other interested party wants the AFL badly enough, they will come up with the necessary funds, or form an alliance of their own.
After all, when Seven lost the rights four years ago, it lost out to News, who on-sold them to a consortium that threw Nine, Ten and Foxtel together.
Hey, these blokes aren't playing Monopoly. There's $100 million-plus a year at stake, and a heap of prestige. You don't get advance notice that a giant bomb is about to land in television wars.
Seven's legal action against several parties including the AFL colours the water somewhat, but it might end up nothing more than a bargaining chip in the next month or two.
Eddie says Kerry Packer has "forgotten more about this caper than the blokes we're up against will ever know".
OK, he will have a trick or two up his sleeve then.
Does he, though, have a trick that will allow the AFL to honour its promise to provide free-to-air coverage on Friday nights in the current black spots in the northern states?
Nine's Friday night coverage has been both excellent and innovative. It also has caused the AFL much heartburn because of Nine's commitment to rugby league in strategically important football markets.
McGuire told his audience on Thursday night: "There's an old Broady (Broadmeadows) saying, 'It's not who throws the first punch in a fight, it's who throws the last punch'."
An observer countered yesterday with: "There's an old saying in Toorak, 'Whoever's got the most money wins'."
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,12590436%255E20123,00.html
-
Seven considers Sunday twilight games
23 March 2005 Herald Sun
Damian Barrett
CHANNEL 7 is considering requesting the AFL to return to Sunday twilight matches in the next TV rights agreement.
Under the proposal the network would run its news bulletin at halftime of the broadcast, in the hope the second half would boost figures on a key-ratings evening.
Seven's intentions with Sunday would be to run consecutive matches, with a program finish time about 8pm.
In its recently struck alliance with Channel 10, Seven is to have exclusive rights on Sundays (two matches) and Fridays (one).
Ten is hoping to run three matches consecutively on Saturdays in a plan that is being dubbed Super Saturday.
The proposals – which leave just two matches for pay-TV – are yet to be endorsed by the AFL. Its preferred broadcast structure will not be settled for many weeks.
The AFL is determining the length of the next rights agreement, which will begin in 2007.
As revealed in yesterday's Herald Sun, it is seriously considering reducing the length of the deal from the initially mooted five years, even to as few as two.
Fox Footy broadcasts three lowly games a weekend in the current rights agreement.
It has stated if it is to invest the same money (about $30m a year) in the next arrangement it would be seeking either four matches or better quality ones.
The pay-TV situation has also become clouded following revelations in this paper the AFL was considering owning or buying into a station.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,12630527%255E20322,00.html
-
CHANNEL 7 is considering requesting the AFL to return to Sunday twilight matches in the next TV rights agreement.
Under the proposal the network would run its news bulletin at halftime of the broadcast, in the hope the second half would boost figures on a key-ratings evening.
Seven's intentions with Sunday would be to run consecutive matches, with a program finish time about 8pm.
In its recently struck alliance with Channel 10, Seven is to have exclusive rights on Sundays (two matches) and Fridays (one).
Playing Sunday twilight games is convenient for who? >:( >:( I realise there has to be something in it for networks, in order to make it worth the money they pay for broadcast rights, but seriously, where is the game going when scheduling can be dictated by the networks?
The AFL has a product that all networks want, and nothing has been decided yet, but why does it continue to service the needs of everyone except the fans?
If the League wants to chase the dollars then go right on ahead. Just don’t expect people to turn up to games at stupid o’clock, because it suits the broadcasting network and no one else. :banghead
-
Playing Sunday twilight games is convenient for who? >:( >:( I realise there has to be something in it for networks, in order to make it worth the money they pay for broadcast rights, but seriously, where is the game going when scheduling can be dictated by the networks?
Unfortunately TS it is exactly where we are now.
Look at Friday nights and who plays - that's dictated by Channel 9
Look at Sundays and the 1.10pm starts - again dictated by Channel 9 so they can meet their NRL obligations no less.
I remember when Adelaide first joined the competition and most of their home games were on a Sunday evening, starting 6.30pm our time (6.00pm theirs) and finishing at 8.30pm. IIRC Channel 7 certainly gave 60 Seconds oops I meant 60 minutes a run for their money. I didn't mind watchng them but admittedly it didn't effect me going to the footy :P
-
I don't have a problem with 5.00pm Sunday games - it's a nothing time in the tellie timeslot, except for the news. You could just about write off any Sunday programming for that matter up till 7.30.
They used to worry about putting games on when other leagues (kids leagues, country etc) were playing because they didn't want to hurt those comps. 5.00pm would be a great timeslot i think - better than 2.00pm.
-
That’s my whole point WP.
Why does the game need to be dictated to by the networks when the AFL has a product others want and will pay lots for?
If it’s not in the game’s interests to pander to the needs of networks then why sell the rights to those who really couldn’t care less whether the game prospers or not, just so long as they do? The game might be getting lots of money now, but what’s the long-term damage being caused to the game itself, because those who run it are letting it be led down the garden path to nowhere?
Those at the AFL have rocks in their heads if they’re willing to hand the direction of the game to those who have their own agendas and will do everything they can to do what’s best for themselves.
Maybe the AFL should take a leaf out of their book. Or get some people with some vision to run the place, instead of those who are just dazzled by the dollars waved in front of them.
Why don’t they see what’s going on behind the scenes and how controlling networks are and the amount of damage they can and are really doing to our game?
-
Maybe the AFL should take a leaf out of their book. Or get some people with some vision to run the place, instead of those who are just dazzled by the dollars waved in front of them.
Why don’t they see what’s going on behind the scenes and how controlling networks are and the amount of damage they can and are really doing to our game?
I reckon you've answered your own question TS. Why don't they see what's going on?
Because all they can see or more to the point all they want to see are the $$$$ that are dangled and they happily grab. :help :banghead
-
Well well ... could the AFL actually be thinking an listening to the fans...
I nearly choked on my gourment sausage roll at lunch when I read this - could commonsense be finding a place at AFL headquarters :o ;D ;) :cheers :o
============================
No TV pressure on draw
11:24:40 AM Tue 28 June, 2005
Paul Gough
Exclusive to afl.com.au
The AFL will resist pressure from the television networks for greater flexibility in the scheduling of matches as part of the next television rights agreement.
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said the league maintaining total control of its fixture was "non-negotiable" as talks continue with prospective bidders for the right to show Australia's most popular game from 2007 onwards.
"We want to maintain control of our schedule and our fixture and that is non-negotiable for us," Demetriou told afl.com.au in an exclusive interview.
Unlike in Australia's other major sporting competition - the National Rugby League - the AFL puts its entire fixture out months in advance of the start of the season with all matches allocated a specific time and date
In contrast the NRL only puts out a draw at the start of the season with the matches only allocated a specific starting time - such as a Friday night or Sunday afternoon - four weeks in advance after Channel Nine decides which games it wants to show.
That system allows the broadcasters greater flexibility in picking their matches but inconveniences fans who only get four weeks notice of when their team will actually play on a weekend..
Demetriou said such a system would never work in the AFL where so many fans want to watch their team play live, with many prepared to travel interstate to do so.
"We put out our fixture pretty early and people plan a lot of their traveling and clubs plan their preparations around that fixture," he said.
"I know we have supporters in October and November who are booking their flights for games in the following June."
"We've got people going from Brisbane to Perth to matches and to Darwin and from Perth to Melbourne so it's very hard to have a schedule that works like the NRL's under that scenario."
Demetriou said such issues showed that the television rights negotiations were about far more than just money, although the league is expected to pocket more than the $500 million they received from Channels Nine, Ten and Foxtel for the current five year agreement, which expires at the end of next 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."
Unlike Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide, those areas are constantly denied prime-time coverage of night matches except when Sydney (in NSW and the ACT) and Brisbane (in Queensland) are playing.
For example last Friday night's clash between Essendon and St Kilda - which was shown at 8.30pm in Melbourne - was not shown until 5am the next day in Sydney because of the network's commitment to the NRL and to Wimbledon.
Demetriou said ensuring such situations did not arise in the next television agreement was foremost in 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.
With Channel Seven and Ten already favourites to land the next deal after forming their recent alliance, the AFL's determination to get the game on in prime-time in New South Wales and Queensland at all costs further jeopardises Channel Nine's hopes of retaining the broadcasting rights.
As the rights holder to the National Rugby League, Nine is unable to show the AFL on prime-time in Sydney and Brisbane on Friday nights because it is committed to showing the rugby league in that timeslot in those cities.
Demetriou said the league was hoping its next television deal would be completed by the end of this year but says the AFL is not limited by that timeline.
"We are in no rush, we have got a good product and we will go through all the negotiations that we have got to go through," he said.
"We know what the rights are worth and we won't do a deal until we get the best outcome for the game."
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=211717
-
"We want to maintain control of our schedule and our fixture and that is non-negotiable for us," Demetriou told afl.com.au in an exclusive interview.
Shouldn't Eddie be answering this lol.