Streaming companies want to broadcast AFL

[WookieReturns]

evidently these cakes were sent to a number of people according to Vince Rugari who received one

[truthbomber]

I'm pretty sure whatever deal is cut it will include Fox Sports. Kayo on the other hand have plenty to worry about and I think rightly so. In my experience, Kayo absolutely sucks.

Is that all you've got? Of course it is.

kayo is foxtel you moron

[AFLcrap1]

evidently these cakes were sent to a number of people according to Vince Rugari who received one

Nothing like the AFL media making a big deal out of it .

[AFLcrap1]

Is that all you've got? Of course it is.

kayo is foxtel you moron

Jesus h he’s made a fool out of himself since returning.
Not real bright some of these fumblers .

[WookieReturns]

evidently these cakes were sent to a number of people according to Vince Rugari who received one

Nothing like the AFL media making a big deal out of it .

The AFL didnt really make a big deal out of it. This picture has been circulating on social media since Monday - I got it in my inbox from a good source - but didnt get reported until The Age put it out there the other day

[TLPG]

Is that all you've got? Of course it is.

kayo is foxtel you moron

It is owned by Foxtel. It doesn't mean that it is Foxtel. Learn the difference. A new deal can easily tell Fox Sports "Yes you have the football, but online streaming goes to Paramount". Especially if Ten win the FTA rights.

[WookieReturns]

Is that all you've got? Of course it is.

kayo is foxtel you moron

It is owned by Foxtel. It doesn't mean that it is Foxtel. Learn the difference. A new deal can easily tell Fox Sports "Yes you have the football, but online streaming goes to Paramount". Especially if Ten win the FTA rights.

lol neither Fox nor Paramount will go for that.

[Beaussie]

The more I think about the Foxtel bid for a exclusive Super Saturday the more I don’t like it. My team for instance features a lot on Saturdays. The Fox proposal, if successful would seen half the Swans games in Sydney/NSW behind a paywall. I suspect similar for the Giants in NSW and the Lions and Suns in QLD. How does that fit with promotion/growth of the game in the northern states?

More AFL games expected behind paywall in next broadcast deal
By Jake Niall and Zoe Samios
August 11, 2022

More AFL games are likely to end up behind a paywall in the next broadcast deal, regardless of which party wins the bid for the AFL rights.

Well-placed sources, who requested anonymity to speak freely, said there were likely to be more games overall that are shown on a pay/streaming service in the broadcast deal from 2025, whether the rights remain with Foxtel and Seven or if they are handed to the one-company bids of Paramount/Ten or even the less probable Nine/Stan bid.

Foxtel, as reported by The Age and Sydney Morning Herald, has already pushed for no free to air games on Saturday in the next rights package, seeking to have an exclusive “Super Saturday” on Fox Footy that would be similar to the NRL broadcast arrangement.

The push for more games behind a paywall – in whatever proportion – is being shaped by the reality that Foxtel will need more exclusive content in return for additional millions the pay service (which includes Kayo) would be contributing in the next deal. Foxtel is already contributing the majority of the $946 million over 2023 and 2024 that the AFL receives in broadcast fees.

The same scenario would be presented to all broadcast bidders, including Paramount/Ten and Nine/Stan.

Sources familiar with discussions said that the AFL is being asked to consider some home team games behind a paywall in Western Australia and South Australia – there are none in the current deal – and potentially some in the developing markets of NSW and Queensland.

To date, the AFL has kept those markets on free to air, with Foxtel only given simulcast rights. It has been a sore point for the pay provider, since it wants more subscriptions in those markets. Anti-siphoning laws prevent Foxtel from having exclusive rights to AFL matches, unless a free to air broadcaster does not want those particular games.

In effect, this means Foxtel would have to strike a deal with Seven. There has been tension in the relationship between Foxtel and Seven over exclusivity in certain markets and other differences.

Reports that Paramount had lowballed the AFL and offered less than even the current deal are not understood to be accurate, according to sources. But Paramount co-boss Beverley McGarvey told this masthead a reported $600 million figure was not correct.

In pitching as a one-company bid, Paramount offers the AFL fixturing flexibility, such as the ability to change a particular game from pay to free-to-air, or vice-versa, at short notice. This is harder to do when there are two separate rights holders.

But Foxtel’s major incumbency advantage is that it has a 24-hour channel, Fox Footy, which has become an entrenched part of the footy landscape with significant advantages to the AFL in ancillary programming such as broadcasts of various AFL events.

Seven insiders have pointed out that the network’s ratings are consistently higher than Ten’s, but Ten sources have argued that Ten managed strong ratings when they held the rights in the 2000s and that the network can provide more programs around the broadcast, such as the popular Before the Game.

Contrary to previous reporting, Nine’s offer for the AFL broadcast rights was not confined to Thursday nights and included games on streaming service Stan.

But industry sources regard the race as likely to narrow to either the incumbents of Seven (Seven West Media) and Foxtel or the one-party bid of Paramount/Ten.

A further factor for the broadcast bidding is the potential entrance of a 19th team, in the form of Tasmania, should that be approved. Tasmania would provide a further 11 games for the broadcasters and the bidders have been asked to cover the possibility of a 19th team in their pitches.

The AFL declined to comment on any broadcast discussions.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/afl/more-a ... 5b8ul.html

[truthbomber]

Is that all you've got? Of course it is.

kayo is foxtel you moron

It is owned by Foxtel. It doesn't mean that it is Foxtel. Learn the difference. A new deal can easily tell Fox Sports "Yes you have the football, but online streaming goes to Paramount". Especially if Ten win the FTA rights.

[truthbomber]

The more I think about the Foxtel bid for a exclusive Super Saturday the more I don’t like it. My team for instance features a lot on Saturdays. The Fox proposal, if successful would seen half the Swans games in Sydney/NSW behind a paywall. I suspect similar for the Giants in NSW and the Lions and Suns in QLD. How does that fit with promotion/growth of the game in the northern states?

More AFL games expected behind paywall in next broadcast deal
By Jake Niall and Zoe Samios
August 11, 2022

More AFL games are likely to end up behind a paywall in the next broadcast deal, regardless of which party wins the bid for the AFL rights.

Well-placed sources, who requested anonymity to speak freely, said there were likely to be more games overall that are shown on a pay/streaming service in the broadcast deal from 2025, whether the rights remain with Foxtel and Seven or if they are handed to the one-company bids of Paramount/Ten or even the less probable Nine/Stan bid.

Foxtel, as reported by The Age and Sydney Morning Herald, has already pushed for no free to air games on Saturday in the next rights package, seeking to have an exclusive “Super Saturday” on Fox Footy that would be similar to the NRL broadcast arrangement.

The push for more games behind a paywall – in whatever proportion – is being shaped by the reality that Foxtel will need more exclusive content in return for additional millions the pay service (which includes Kayo) would be contributing in the next deal. Foxtel is already contributing the majority of the $946 million over 2023 and 2024 that the AFL receives in broadcast fees.

The same scenario would be presented to all broadcast bidders, including Paramount/Ten and Nine/Stan.

Sources familiar with discussions said that the AFL is being asked to consider some home team games behind a paywall in Western Australia and South Australia – there are none in the current deal – and potentially some in the developing markets of NSW and Queensland.

To date, the AFL has kept those markets on free to air, with Foxtel only given simulcast rights. It has been a sore point for the pay provider, since it wants more subscriptions in those markets. Anti-siphoning laws prevent Foxtel from having exclusive rights to AFL matches, unless a free to air broadcaster does not want those particular games.

In effect, this means Foxtel would have to strike a deal with Seven. There has been tension in the relationship between Foxtel and Seven over exclusivity in certain markets and other differences.

Reports that Paramount had lowballed the AFL and offered less than even the current deal are not understood to be accurate, according to sources. But Paramount co-boss Beverley McGarvey told this masthead a reported $600 million figure was not correct.

In pitching as a one-company bid, Paramount offers the AFL fixturing flexibility, such as the ability to change a particular game from pay to free-to-air, or vice-versa, at short notice. This is harder to do when there are two separate rights holders.

But Foxtel’s major incumbency advantage is that it has a 24-hour channel, Fox Footy, which has become an entrenched part of the footy landscape with significant advantages to the AFL in ancillary programming such as broadcasts of various AFL events.

Seven insiders have pointed out that the network’s ratings are consistently higher than Ten’s, but Ten sources have argued that Ten managed strong ratings when they held the rights in the 2000s and that the network can provide more programs around the broadcast, such as the popular Before the Game.

Contrary to previous reporting, Nine’s offer for the AFL broadcast rights was not confined to Thursday nights and included games on streaming service Stan.

But industry sources regard the race as likely to narrow to either the incumbents of Seven (Seven West Media) and Foxtel or the one-party bid of Paramount/Ten.

A further factor for the broadcast bidding is the potential entrance of a 19th team, in the form of Tasmania, should that be approved. Tasmania would provide a further 11 games for the broadcasters and the bidders have been asked to cover the possibility of a 19th team in their pitches.

The AFL declined to comment on any broadcast discussions.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/afl/more-a ... 5b8ul.html

To even be considering the end of propping up the " development " states " via exposure on TV ( how they're development still after 40 years is hilarious but thats another discussion ) shows the financial situation of the aflol is not great & they're desperate for a boost.
To throw the 4 non heartland clubs onto the sacrificial alter of financial gain would be an extroidnary move by the aflol but would be a window into the mess they're in.
Watch all the metrics drop off a cliff if they do
enjoy fumblers

[Quolls2019]

kayo is foxtel you moron

It is owned by Foxtel. It doesn't mean that it is Foxtel. Learn the difference. A new deal can easily tell Fox Sports "Yes you have the football, but online streaming goes to Paramount". Especially if Ten win the FTA rights.

Maybe just a purely AFL streaming service, a cut down version of Kayo, dedicated to just the AFL with a proportionate reduction in cost.

[truthbomber]

It is owned by Foxtel. It doesn't mean that it is Foxtel. Learn the difference. A new deal can easily tell Fox Sports "Yes you have the football, but online streaming goes to Paramount". Especially if Ten win the FTA rights.

Maybe just a purely AFL streaming service, a cut down version of Kayo, dedicated to just the AFL with a proportionate reduction in cost.

Some production cost savings would not entice foxtel to pay that much more then they do now IMO ,
they're after more revenue from new subscribers & this will only come from ending the exclusive FTA coverage in home markets of sides outside of Vic
I think foxtel & the aflol are underestimating the backlash that will occur , the joint will go off. There are a lot of " entitled" attitudes in the fumbleball world & I think if it happens , the outrage will be palpable & people will not sign up on purpose in protest. Maybe that subsides in time & the aflol will have their $$. But there will be damage done & a price paid.
I flagged all of this happening very early in this thread... like .. my first post I think.

[Quolls2019]

Maybe just a purely AFL streaming service, a cut down version of Kayo, dedicated to just the AFL with a proportionate reduction in cost.

Some production cost savings would not entice foxtel to pay that much more then they do now IMO ,
they're after more revenue from new subscribers & this will only come from ending the exclusive FTA coverage in home markets of sides outside of Vic
I think foxtel & the aflol are underestimating the backlash that will occur , the joint will go off. There are a lot of " entitled" attitudes in the fumbleball world & I think if it happens , the outrage will be palpable & people will not sign up on purpose in protest. Maybe that subsides in time & the aflol will have their $$. But there will be damage done & a price paid.
I flagged all of this happening very early in this thread... like .. my first post I think.

I would go with an AFL only service, price reduced accordingly, away games for Qld, NSW, SA and WA on FTA and home games on the “new” ptv service.
And wear the pain for a little while.

[truthbomber]

And with the above ofc comes Ch 7's reaction to losing those non vic markets exclusively ,
they won't be outraged , they're a business like foxtel & the aflol so would understand things change to suit the times but.. but.. they will not offer the aflol the money they presently are & this offsets somewhat the gains that will be paid by foxtel.

I have no doubt the following has occured ....
the aflol has asked
Ch 7 what do we get with the status quo
what do we get with the non vic teams no longer covered exclusively in their home markets
what do we get with the above , but.. regular thursdays , night GF's etc

they got 3 answers to those questions

Same first 2 questions to foxtel


summary , the aflol has suspended negotiations on this deal because ,
I'd assume the answers to all the above have ended up in a total amount not to the aflol's satisfaction.

They'd of had a goal at the start for an amount , & its not close.
oh dear

[truthbomber]

Maybe just a purely AFL streaming service, a cut down version of Kayo, dedicated to just the AFL with a proportionate reduction in cost.

Some production cost savings would not entice foxtel to pay that much more then they do now IMO ,
they're after more revenue from new subscribers & this will only come from ending the exclusive FTA coverage in home markets of sides outside of Vic
I think foxtel & the aflol are underestimating the backlash that will occur , the joint will go off. There are a lot of " entitled" attitudes in the fumbleball world & I think if it happens , the outrage will be palpable & people will not sign up on purpose in protest. Maybe that subsides in time & the aflol will have their $$. But there will be damage done & a price paid.
I flagged all of this happening very early in this thread... like .. my first post I think.

I would go with an AFL only service, price reduced accordingly, away games for Qld, NSW, SA and WA on FTA and home games on the “new” ptv service.
And wear the pain for a little while.

yea maybe ..