Pay Deal by next week [Archive] - RWO

reigning premier

1st February 2007, 01:42 PM

They were always going to come to the party.....

Pay TV made the mistake once before of believing that they determine what programmes people want instead of listeninjg to their customers. They got hurt badly when they lost the TV racing coverage rights. The fall out from the loss of AFL in it's entirety from Foxtel would have just about signalled the end of Pay TV in Australia.

Without exception, every person that I know eho has foxtel does it for the footy and cricket. Given that the cricket is often played at ridiculous time sof the night, AFL is the one thing that keeps them interested.

goswannie14

1st February 2007, 02:01 PM

This is the most retrograde step that has happened to the AFL during the fat controllers watch.:mad: Not only does he keep tinkering with the rules, but now is allowing less AFL on FTA than before, allowing only 25% of the population to see half of the games each week. What a ridiculous bloody joke.

Sanecow

1st February 2007, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by goswannie14
allowing only 25% of the population to see half of the games each week

:confused: FTA is available to 100% of the population.

goswannie14

1st February 2007, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Sanecow
:confused: FTA is available to 100% of the population. Pay Tv is only available to 25%. With the Swans being on many early games on a Sunday this year, we ain't going to see any of those on FTA if we are outside NSW.:mad:

Anyone want to pay for Austar at my place?

NMWBloods

1st February 2007, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by goswannie14
This is the most retrograde step that has happened to the AFL during the fat controllers watch.:mad: Not only does he keep tinkering with the rules, but now is allowing less AFL on FTA than before, allowing only 25% of the population to see half of the games each week. What a ridiculous bloody joke. How's it a retrograde step? It's how it's been for the past couple of years and better than it was before that.

Sanecow

1st February 2007, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by goswannie14
Pay Tv is only available to 25%.

The satellite coverage is better than you think.

hammo

1st February 2007, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by goswannie14
Pay Tv is only available to 25%. With the Swans being on many early games on a Sunday this year, we ain't going to see any of those on FTA if we are outside NSW.:mad:

Anyone want to pay for Austar at my place?
Foxtel is available for most of the population it's just a question of whether you want to pay for it.

As I've been saying this is a great outcome for NSW and Queensland footy fans and a good business outcome for Foxtel in Vic, SA and WA.

What makes you think the early Sunday game won't be on FTA?

Remember Channel 7 is stuck with the V8s next year so they will have to figure something out with their scheduling such as early footy then V8s from about 3.30. (I hated the Channel 7 12.30 starts by the way).

humphrey bear

1st February 2007, 04:18 PM

Perhaps the 2 greatest opponents to Pay TV could spend less time on this website posting rubbish and spend that time working and earn an extra $50 a month.

They could then watch football whenever they wanted.

Industrial Fan

1st February 2007, 04:22 PM

Gold!

AnnieH

1st February 2007, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by humphrey bear
Perhaps the 2 greatest opponents to Pay TV could spend less time on this website posting rubbish and spend that time working and earn an extra $50 a month.

They could then watch football whenever they wanted.

I have other entertainment that I'd rather spend my money on.

Damien

1st February 2007, 04:33 PM

Great, finally. Looks like a good deal.

The 1 game that FTA is losing was never live anywhere except for Perth, it was always delayed to SA, VIC and Tas, so to have that game live on Foxtel is a win IMO.

hammo

1st February 2007, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by humphrey bear
Perhaps the 2 greatest opponents to Pay TV could spend less time on this website posting rubbish and spend that time working and earn an extra $50 a month.

:D

NMWBloods

1st February 2007, 05:01 PM

Sanecow

1st February 2007, 05:10 PM

Lock it down.

Layby

1st February 2007, 05:46 PM

Great news, everyone is a winner.

I just hope it will mean, on the couch and league teams come back next year also.

Lucky Knickers

1st February 2007, 05:52 PM

Yay yay yay!

Not so worried about on the couch and grumpy old men....but definitely want to see Fox League Teams, Saturday Central and WLF.

Mike_B

1st February 2007, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Lucky Knickers
Yay yay yay!

Not so worried about on the couch and grumpy old men....but definitely want to see Fox League Teams, Saturday Central and WLF.

I think the intention was to retain OTC regardless, would imagine FLT will be around - not sure about Sat Central coz of the time commitment and no dedicated channel (although they do run a similar thing with the NRL). Can't see a nightly show like WLF getting a run on a general sports channel unfortunately..

Layby

1st February 2007, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Lucky Knickers
Not so worried about on the couch

How can you say that ?

How else will we know who's thighs are looking big and muscled up, if Wallsy does not tell us, over and over and over again ?

Triple B

1st February 2007, 08:23 PM

Considering Seven developed the concept with 'Talking Footy', I'd imagine Bruce and co. will return in the same format as On the Couch.

Unfortunately for Sydney viewers, that will mean an 11pm timeslot though :rolleyes:

Still, if it comes off, it will be great (the TV setup with Fox).

NMWBloods

1st February 2007, 09:17 PM

Bruce hosting anything is horrific these days.

Lucky Knickers

1st February 2007, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Layby
How can you say that ?

How else will we know who's thighs are looking big and muscled up, if Wallsy does not tell us, over and over and over again ?

My stupid! Forgot that losing it would mean no more "tempo football"!

The list of "don't cares" should also include that stupid 1/2 hour thing on friday that had Nick (talking about Stephanie McIntosh), Metro Man (nafan), Dumbstall and Spida shooting his mouth off - the one that was on 2MMM?

goswannie14

1st February 2007, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by BBB
Considering Seven developed the concept with 'Talking Footy', I'd imagine Bruce and co. will return in the same format as On the Couch.

Unfortunately for Sydney viewers, that will mean an 11pm timeslot though :rolleyes:
As opposed to 10.30 in Melbourne.:rolleyes:

liz

1st February 2007, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by BBB

Unfortunately for Sydney viewers, that will mean an 11pm timeslot though :rolleyes:

Did it not drift to a midnight slot towards the end of its run?

Mike_B

1st February 2007, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Lucky Knickers
The list of "don't cares" should also include that stupid 1/2 hour thing on friday that had Nick (talking about Stephanie McIntosh), Metro Man (nafan), Dumbstall and Spida shooting his mouth off - the one that was on 2MMM?

You mean The Gospel

goswannie14

1st February 2007, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by humphrey bear
Perhaps the 2 greatest opponents to Pay TV could spend less time on this website posting rubbish and spend that time working and earn an extra $50 a month.
Since when did the Salvos pay overtime?:confused:

Is there something you're not telling me?

giant

1st February 2007, 10:35 PM

Alleluia if it's true - not sure we can assume the Australian is the most objective news source on this issue.

royboy42

2nd February 2007, 09:45 AM

You may well be right Giant..a few quotes from yesterday's
Crikey newsletter.

"Unfortunately for the 'mouth' of News Ltd, Mark Day, his claim of an imminent peace isn't shared universally. Seven and Ten say they haven't been talking to Foxtel since the Pay TV mob tried to finesse a deal last week with a bit more 'air' in the shape of an offer of more 'contra'. "

"His story in the Media section of today's Australian reflects two things: the growing desire of his employers, News Ltd, to see a deal done, and the equal impatience of the AFL that the Pay TV deal is not done."

"It is another attempt by News and the AFL to stampede Ten and Seven into doing a deal and fixing the brawl with Foxtel, which is being caused by James Packer's refusal to allow the Pay TV operator to pay any more than $45 million in cash for rights to four weekly games. "

"But the most interesting part of the story and of the stand off is the inability of News Ltd to get Packer and PBL to agree to offer more money. "

"This could be done through Foxtel or through Fox Sports (News and PBL control Fox Sports and its owners, Premier Media). Foxtel's Kim Williams and Premier/Fox Sports, David Malone, know they can easily get the extra money back from lifting subscription fees for the AFL but that argument has fallen on deaf ears at PBL.

It is understood the AFL also told Foxtel that if it abandoned AFL, or sought to set a new, lower floor price for future rights, it would not be in a strong position to negotiate in 2010, when the next agreement will be on the table.

Two weeks ago the Foxtel contra offer was increased to $10 million a year. This was seen as a way of satisfying the demands of Foxtel part-owner James Packer, in that Foxtel did not pay Seven more than it had offered to pay Nine in its bid for AFL rights."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AnnieH

2nd February 2007, 10:02 AM

So foxtel didn't bended over after all.
Mmmmmmmmmmm.

Industrial Fan

2nd February 2007, 10:05 AM

Wtf is contra?

I remember it was a crap arcade game in the early 80's but I'm sure they're not offering that.

humphrey bear

2nd February 2007, 10:13 AM

In this case contra would be Foxtel advertising the AFL.

AnnieH

2nd February 2007, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by humphrey bear
In this case contra would be Foxtel advertising the AFL.

Wouldn't they be doing that anyway if they wanted to attact more viewers?

CH7/10 should tell Foxtel to go fly a kite.

Jeffers1984

2nd February 2007, 12:57 PM

Deal is about 99.99% done with foxtel.

Awesome News :).

Foxtel forever!

humphrey bear

2nd February 2007, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Annie Haddad
Wouldn't they be doing that anyway if they wanted to attact more viewers?

CH7/10 should tell Foxtel to go fly a kite.

Ever consider a career in quantam physics?

You have the mental attributes.

In this case they can offer advertising in lieu of payment. A large portion of the $750 million 7 and 10 offered the AFL was a non cash or contra component.

Damien

6th February 2007, 08:07 AM

Well according to Caro, the deal is done and dusted. Story here (http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2007/02/05/1170524030567.html)

Based on the past few months though, I will be waiting to see Foxtel, 7, 10 and the AFL at a press conference before I truly believe anything!

Dave

6th February 2007, 08:24 AM

Well there goes any hope of me seeing live Fri night footy.

And for those who are happy to pay for commercial TV (which is basically what it's become), good luck to you...

Triple B

6th February 2007, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Dave

And for those who are happy to pay for commercial TV (which is basically what it's become), good luck to you...

Thx for the wishes of good luck.

I'm off to bed now, a happy man. Got me ' siren to siren, commercial free' footy back. You bloody beauty. :D :D

hammo

6th February 2007, 09:03 AM

Brilliant news! Sydney viewers should now get at least 7 games live with non-Swans Saturday nights the only likely delayed matches!!

Claret

6th February 2007, 09:30 AM

The biggest change for Victorian fans will be a reduction in the number of free-to-air games each week from five to four, with the early Sunday afternoon game - previously telecast by Channel Nine - now going exclusively to Foxtel.If I'm reading this correctly then 7 (!) of the games we previously took for granted as being on free to air are now going to be shown on Foxtel.

Not happy, Jan!

hammo

6th February 2007, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Claret
If I'm reading this correctly then 7 (!) of the games we previously took for granted as being on free to air are now going to be shown on Foxtel.

Not happy, Jan!
If you live in Melbourne then you'll get Friday night, Saturday afternoon & night and Sunday afternoon on free to air.

In Sydney the Friday night game will be live on Foxtel.

Claret

6th February 2007, 10:07 AM

Sorry hammo, I didn't explain myself very well.

I was just saying that Sydney have 7 early Sunday games (1.10pm) scheduled for this season. It now appears that they won't be on free to air as they have been previously.

hammo

6th February 2007, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Claret
Sorry hammo, I didn't explain myself very well.

I was just saying that Sydney have 7 early Sunday games (1.10pm) scheduled for this season. It now appears that they won't be on free to air as they have been previously.
I was wondering that myself. I wonder if its possible that they'll move some / all of those Swans games to the 2pm slot? I don't think 9 ever showed games played in Melbourne live against the gate did they?

I am confused about how the V8 schedule will fit in with this. Seven has bitten off more than they can chew.

liz

6th February 2007, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by hammo
I was wondering that myself. I wonder if its possible that they'll move some / all of those Swans games to the 2pm slot? I don't think 9 ever showed games played in Melbourne live against the gate did they?

I am confused about how the V8 schedule will fit in with this. Seven has bitten off more than they can chew.

The deal - as reported by CW anyway - doesn't imply any flexibility statewise either. If the Swans retain their dominance of early Sunday games, this implies that even in Sydney they will be shown by Fox rather than on FTA, something I would have thought the club and AFL would prefer not to happen given that they are still very much trying to attract the non-fanatical Sydney viewers.

Claret

6th February 2007, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by liz
The deal - as reported by CW anyway - doesn't imply any flexibility statewise either. If the Swans retain their dominance of early Sunday games, this implies that even in Sydney they will be shown by Fox rather than on FTA, something I would have thought the club and AFL would prefer not to happen given that they are still very much trying to attract the non-fanatical Sydney viewers. I must admit I'll be very surprised if this particular part of the deal (as reported by CW) goes ahead. These TV rights are supposed to be a key part of the AFL's push into the northern markets but it would be a HUGE step backwards.

AnnieH

6th February 2007, 12:04 PM

Ch10 Sydney are advertising every saturday night game live; as well as the 2007 Grand Final coverage (gotta get in REAL early).

I think all these articles are mere bored media speculation.

I honestly can't see Kerry Stokes making a deal with the foxtel consortium. He is the one that has put his foot down from day one and he will not budge. (I'd like to see all the games on FTA so that they are available to all ... including those in regional areas.)

There's nowhere in the contract that the Ch7/10 consortium signed with the AFL that says that a deal MUST be made with Foxtel.

When the AFL signed the last deal with Ch9/10, it was automatically assumed that the footy would go on Fox. THAT deal was fought for from Ch7 so that Kerry Packer could ring in more subscribers to HIS pay TV network (... not for the good of the footy watching public). Kerry Packer was not a stoopid man.

Now ... Ch7/10 want a lot of CASH money from Foxtel for the right to broadcast live games (as is their $780m right) - they are not Ch9 (and therefore NOT a Packer interest). Debts like this can't be "written off between companies". Not putting in a clause for pay TV ... that's the AFL's fault, and now they must live with the consequences.

To say that advertising "contra" is a bargaining tool ... pulease. Do you seriously think Foxtel are going to advertise the (e.g) Sydney v Melbourne match being shown live on Ch10 on Saturday night?? Or vice versa?? Everyone is fighting for their ratings ... each channel are only going to advertise the games they are showing.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this rant ... we're still 52 days from the home & away season opener, and Ch10 are already advertising the 2007 Grand Final.

Damien

6th February 2007, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Annie Haddad

To say that advertising "contra" is a bargaining tool ... pulease. Do you seriously think Foxtel are going to advertise the (e.g) Sydney v Melbourne match being shown live on Ch10 on Saturday night?? Or vice versa?? Everyone is fighting for their ratings ... each channel are only going to advertise the games they are showing.

That isn't contra at all, contra is used for ads like Barry Hall's Hall, official AFL ads.

The actual cash part of the deal is under $700 Million, the contra is around $80 Million, for Foxtel to take a large chunk of that over 5 years, allowing 7 and 10 to sell the space they were going to use for contra is quite a big deal in the scheme of things.

Damien

6th February 2007, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by liz
The deal - as reported by CW anyway - doesn't imply any flexibility statewise either. If the Swans retain their dominance of early Sunday games, this implies that even in Sydney they will be shown by Fox rather than on FTA, something I would have thought the club and AFL would prefer not to happen given that they are still very much trying to attract the non-fanatical Sydney viewers.

When the deal was signed, the AFL made statements that related to guaranteed FTA coverage in home markets for the Swans and Lions, so I am guessing that 7 will simply show the match at 1.10 from the Foxtel feed.

Same as when we are not the Saturday night game of choice for Channel 10 nationally.

Melbourne based Swans fans without Foxtel do lose out in a big way though.

liz

6th February 2007, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Annie Haddad

I think all these articles are mere bored media speculation.

I honestly can't see Kerry Stokes making a deal with the foxtel consortium. He is the one that has put his foot down from day one and he will not budge. (I'd like to see all the games on FTA so that they are available to all ... including those in regional areas.)

Very much doubt it.

CW has her limitations and her bones to grind but there is no question over her connections within the game. She - nor the Age more generally - would not have run with this story unless it was a done deal. This report is a little different to the earlier ones circulating on Fox media, where it could be interpreted as wishful thinking rather than a done deal.

I am also a little unsure where this Stokes "put his foot down from day one" comes from, or that he "won't budge". There seems to be little dispute that Fox and the FTA channels have been negotiating off and on since the AFL first awarded the contract to 7 and 10. The sticking points have been price and details - not some principalled objection to Fox from Stokes.

AnnieH

6th February 2007, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by liz
Very much doubt it.

CW has her limitations and her bones to grind but there is no question over her connections within the game. She - nor the Age more generally - would not have run with this story unless it was a done deal. This report is a little different to the earlier ones circulating on Fox media, where it could be interpreted as wishful thinking rather than a done deal.

I am also a little unsure where this Stokes "put his foot down from day one" comes from, or that he "won't budge". There seems to be little dispute that Fox and the FTA channels have been negotiating off and on since the AFL first awarded the contract to 7 and 10. The sticking points have been price and details - not some principalled objection to Fox from Stokes.

But there has been some principalled objection to the amount of CASH fox have offered by Stokes. As I said ... this is not a situation where Ch9 and Foxtel and "write off debts" between each other. Stokes and Ch10 want some of the CASH back - and will stick to their guns.

Blah, blah, blah.
The media have been publishing the same story for six months now. Every now and again, they change a few words to make it interesting - essentially, it's been the same crap story.

If the Foxtel deal goes ahead - it'll screw badly with the "traditional home of football's" viewing habits. The southern/western states can see the difference between "having it good" and what it's like for the northern state AFL fans. Better go out and bulk buy some No-Doz.

You should all be against the Foxtel deal. Feed the fat cats, watch your re-runs on Foxtel and leave the footy to the "people".

hammo

6th February 2007, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Annie Haddad

When the AFL signed the last deal with Ch9/10, it was automatically assumed that the footy would go on Fox. THAT deal was fought for from Ch7 so that Kerry Packer could ring in more subscribers to HIS pay TV network (... not for the good of the footy watching public). Kerry Packer was not a stoopid man.

Foxtel was a party with 9 and 10 to the last broadcasting agreement.

Foxtel and 9 had an offer accepted by the AFL late last year (days before KP's death) which the 7 / 10 consortium, which had a right to the last offer, were obliged to better.

You're right, Packer was not a stupid man which is why he forced 7 / 10 to pay far too much money for the rights and knowing that if they didn't bargain with Foxtel they'd be forced to cannibalise their own ratings by going head to head (as well as 7 being contractually forced to show Friday night games live in Sydney).

Packer would have known 7 / 10 would out bid him so he made sure they paid too much and had conditions 9such as live in Sydney on Friday) they could not meet. He also knew they would have to get Foxtel on board to make their deal work, which has happened.

Kerry Stokes may not like Foxtel but he is a businessman and 7 is a publicly listed company. Shareholders would expect 7 to accept the Foxtel offer of cash, picking up half of the broadcasting costs and most importantly preserving ratings in Sydney - that is far more important than his personal gripes with Foxtel over C7.

It's Kerry Packer 1 Kerry Stokes 0 IMO.

Contra refers to AFL ads on rivalry round, heritage round, auskick etc not advertising matches to be shown on other networks.

hammo

6th February 2007, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Annie Haddad

You should all be against the Foxtel deal. Feed the fat cats, watch your re-runs on Foxtel and leave the footy to the "people".
The expectation of all matches being broadcast is only 5 years old and was a result of the 9 / 10 / Foxtel consortium.

ALL matches have NEVER been shown on FTA, so stop trying to rewrite history.

Before the last broadcast agreement at least half of the matches were only seen by people at the ground.

Pay TV has brought an expectation of all matches being shown and being shown live. How is that is bad for "the people"? It's not something that FTA could ever emulate, which is why in Sydney we got/get replays at midnight.

Jeffers1984

6th February 2007, 02:17 PM

Now its officially "unofficial" until an official announcment on Thursday.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/afl/sydney-scores-live-friday-night-football/2007/02/05/1170524031660.html

woot woot.

goswannie14

6th February 2007, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Damien
Melbourne based Swans fans without Foxtel do lose out in a big way though. Don't tell Hammo, he doesn't believe it.:rolleyes:

Sanecow

6th February 2007, 02:36 PM

How many Swans games were FTA in 2006?

hammo

6th February 2007, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by goswannie14
Don't tell Hammo, he doesn't believe it.:rolleyes:
I've only ever argued for live coverage of most if not all AFL matches in Sydney rather than being satisfied with replays starting at midnight (which some on RWO claim is promoting the game :rolleyes: ).

I don't know what the situation will be for Swans fans in Melbourne, but at risk of starting off another debate on the subject, at some stage Melbourne based fans have to come to terms with the fact that its the SYDNEY Swans.

It is common sense that that the most popular teams in Melbourne (Collingwood, Essendon, St Kilda, Dogs etc) would appear most often on FTA tv, rather than matches involving Brisbane, West Coast, Freo, Crows, Port and yes, even the Swans.

royboy42

6th February 2007, 02:58 PM

My two cents worth!
7 and 10 are locked into a contract that they paid too much for..and one that is almost unmanageable for just the two of them. They HAD to onsell or somehow trade away (but still adhere to the contract) the unprofitable matches and schedules.
These, of course, were the Friday nights live into Syd and Bne against live rugby league on 9, and the conflict matches where they would have to televise against each other! No money to be made there, in fact. lots to be lost.
Don't imagine for a second that caring for Swans supporters in Vic or splinter groups such as that (strictly in a business sense of course).stirs the hearts of the bean counters at the three outfits involved.
This is about 7 and 10 operating in a fashion to make a profit..it couldn't be done with just the 2 of them...Fox wisely hung in and hung in, made minimal adjustments to their offer... W A I T E D ..and 7 and 10 folded!

ScottH

6th February 2007, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Sanecow
How many Swans games were FTA in 2006? From memory it was about 4 (maybe 5) games that weren't on FTA last year.

humphrey bear

6th February 2007, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by liz
Very much doubt it.

CW has her limitations and her bones to grind but there is no question over her connections within the game. She - nor the Age more generally - would not have run with this story unless it was a done deal.

CW has no idea.

Here is an article reporting a done deal and showing how 7 & 10 were going to broadcast 8 games.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/12/21/1166290679693.html

Anyone with half a brain and a modicum of common sense could have told you there was never any chance of 8 games on FTA. There never has been and there never will be.