Talking Footy

Here are the facts:

# The AFL have settled on a significantly reduced broadcast agreement with the Seven Network and Foxtel.

# It is the first time since 1971 that the AFL has signed a reduced broadcast agreement.

# the AFL were forced to take out a $600 million line of credit earlier this year. It's not clear how much of that money has already been spent.

# Foxtel, AFL's other broadcaster, recently knocked back the AFL over any extension. Though it did agree to a 5 year extension with the NRL.

more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-12/ ... l/12348794

So ... I would think a reduction was on the cards across codes? Expected given less games? Time of year they will be played etc.?

Yes... we don’t know how much of the 609 million line of credit gas been accessed. We don’t know.

Did fox knock back the deal or did the afl knock back foxtel”s offer? I honestly don’t know so If you could definitively show this would be appreciated. Who is playing hard ball here? Who will blink first? Does the afl need foxtel more or vice versa? Time will tell but in this era I would have thought fox needed as much live sport ... that rates well ... they can get. But guess we will wait. Is it possible that fox said ... listen... we are broke ... let’s chat when the rights are due to be originally negotiated and see what position we are in? Who knows but my guess is as good as anyone elders at this stage.

AFL also have a billion dollar asset in Metricon. A great asset to have and indeed proved handy.

Did you read the article .... was very positive in the main ? It sure how you got a negative out of it ? I mean the title is

AFL TV deal provides some certainty in troubled times

billion dollar asset with Metricon ??

lol Freddy that is owned by QLD Government ....

i think Foxtel is a telling one, it shouldn't get as much as the NRL.

however, AFL FTA should get more than NRL FTA.

Fred wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 2:07 pm

Did you read the article .... was very positive in the main ? It sure how you got a negative out of it ? I mean the title is

AFL TV deal provides some certainty in troubled times

Fox didnt agree to current terms as they believe they paid overs last time. in which they did if you take into account NRL ratings..

AFL will struck a deal with FOX in time 100%

i expect it to be on par or just below NRL's current NRL DEAL with FOX
maybe in the range of 20-30 mill under.

leeroy*NRL* wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2020 3:54 pm

billion dollar asset with Metricon ??

lol Freddy that is owned by QLD Government ....

Lol I meant marvel but I’m guessing you knew that

leeroy*NRL* wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2020 3:57 pm

Fred wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 2:07 pm

Did you read the article .... was very positive in the main ? It sure how you got a negative out of it ? I mean the title is

AFL TV deal provides some certainty in troubled times

Fox didnt agree to current terms as they believe they paid overs last time. in which they did if you take into account NRL ratings..

AFL will struck a deal with FOX in time 100%

i expect it to be on par or just below NRL's current NRL DEAL with FOX
maybe in the range of 20-30 mill under.

Are you stating fact or opinion re: 1 fox didn’t strike a deal (or did the afl reject a deal) and with the “over paying”. I haven’t seen anyone from fox officially state this? Doesn’t mean they haven’t but just haven’t seen it. You got a link?

Fred wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2020 6:42 pm

leeroy*NRL* wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2020 3:57 pm

Fred wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 2:07 pm

Did you read the article .... was very positive in the main ? It sure how you got a negative out of it ? I mean the title is

AFL TV deal provides some certainty in troubled times

Fox didnt agree to current terms as they believe they paid overs last time. in which they did if you take into account NRL ratings..

AFL will struck a deal with FOX in time 100%

i expect it to be on par or just below NRL's current NRL DEAL with FOX
maybe in the range of 20-30 mill under.

Are you stating fact or opinion re: 1 fox didn’t strike a deal (or did the afl reject a deal) and with the “over paying”. I haven’t seen anyone from fox officially state this? Doesn’t mean they haven’t but just haven’t seen it. You got a link?

A Few Sites stated they have suggested they paid overseas for what they got in return..
it is a opinion but an opinion made on Numbers

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl ... 551nc.html

Thought so. All just summising . We will just have to wait and see . I suspect the afl have kept their options open ...risky for fox if another provider jumps on board ... risky for afl if they don’t. Who will blink first.

Fred wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 4:42 pm

Thought so. All just summising . We will just have to wait and see . I suspect the afl have kept their options open ...risky for fox if another provider jumps on board ... risky for afl if they don’t. Who will blink first.

Fred its not a case of who blinks first. Its a case of how much further will the AFL cave!

You think? We will have to wait and see I guess.

Fred wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:05 pm

You think? We will have to wait and see I guess.

i will ask you a question...

If the NRL get more viewers per week more per games that rate higher & averages better than the AFL

why do AFL deserve more than the NRL ?


(the whole reason there has been no extension with FOX for AFL at this point in time)
is as follows

FOX want a decrease on current rights as they believe they paid too much last deal
and think why should they be paying more for AFL when there other purchase NRL
has produced better results and higher figures overall.

AFL did not like the cut fox gave in extension, so at this point in time.
things have stalled.

I believe FOX will sign on with AFL (as it needs it)
but will not pay more than they did for the NRL>
as results are better.

It is as easy as that.

Firstly... no one from fox has stated they think they paid overs. No one.

Secondly, there is more than just ratings as some have said. Afl viewers. There may be numerous things. As for ratings... no one here seems to agree and the nuances te ratings when things like when played at the same time, length of game (more minutes filled), more games per round, may be factors. I am sure all this is factored in. I think the afl support shows also rate very well and afl have a desecrated chennel for many years as a selling point. But whatever it is,,,, I’m sure this is all factored in... not just simple ratings .... is it a hugh difference anyway. But when you can fill more minutes surely that is a factor. Afl also has a much broader National reach. Let’s be real for once... rl outside nsw and qld is virtually non existent ... there are many people playing it or invested in it whereas Aussie rules has a significant presence ... just look at how many leagues and clubs are in nsw and qls compared to Rl clubs outside nsw and qld. That is simply a fact ... I know the usual suspects will try and deny this or try and twist this but we all know that is simply the reality.

So there are many factors that are likely taken into consideration when considering how much something is worth. Is this the first deal fox has had with the afl?

You would also have to wonder whether the afl demographic is more valuable ? Are afl viewers seen as bigger spenders, do the products they tend to buy attract better advertisers ... is showing an ad to an afl viewer more valuable than showing one to an nrl viewer. Is a certain age group more likely to watch afl than nrl ... and is that age group worth more (more likely to soend?).

Anyway....this is just to illustrate that straight out ratings may not be the only factor ... they are examples to illustrate a point so don’t take them literally.

What a fucking rambling waffle about the usual afl fans are superior crap .