Talking Footy

pussycat wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

leagueiscrap wrote:

Suck shit basement dwellers! Any way you flogs attempt to spin it, the nrlol A distant second again! Even with the soo, internationals & & everything else nrlol, still decades behind the AFL & the gap it widening! Now with rupert on board to give the AFL all the free promotion the nrlol got for the last decade.

Lol this is why you are considered dumb .
Not plain dumb .way way dumber than that .
How can we be second when our deal is not completed yet .

Lol get help .
Get Cuzzy to help .hes your new buddy .

You really think your some intellectual giant don't you? Mate I seriously doubt you know how to do up shoe laces you are so pig headed no wonder you live in Queensland!

Lol .
You claimed the same as dumbo did .
No wonder you don't want to discuss what you or him claimed .
So rant on ,it's hilarious .

& as for intellectual .
Lol
Lol

Tell me how you can say the AFL got a better deal & the NRL was second ....& in your words that's a FACT.

How can that be when we haven't completed our deal .
Anyone with an IQ above a pot plant knows that you can only declare a winner after a race is over .

You are stupid .
Anyone who posts the same nonsense as dumbo is fucking beyond stupid .

Ok the ch 9 deal incorporates SOO something the NRL themselves valued at 500 mil (remember AFL has that means for the remaining NRL season finale and GF that is valued at 423 mil which means the NRL comp is valued at 813 k per game (520 games over 5 years) new AFL deal is 840 mil (60 mil contra advertising) for 462 games of AFL footy that equates to 1.8 mil per game. Do the maths yourself dickhead either way the NRL received a deal that undervalues the NRL and has what's left over will not get the same as the AFL!

That $500m figure is laughable. It would mean Ch9 would need to sell almost 25 000 adds per match just to break even .
The number of games has nothing to do with it. They NRL (assuming Fox chose to simulcast) get $160m from Ch9, The AFL get $150m a year from CH7 - FTA has been Run and Won, yet another gold medal to the NRL!

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

AFLsforPussies wrote:

Will be interesting to see what pans out with the fox NRL deal.
The NRL have plenty of time to work out an agreement with them.
Rupert is obviously not happy at the way the NRL 9 deal was done... but he knows and everyone else knows that Rugby League fans won't keep fox if it does not have NRL games. Both need each other. The only reason I have it is for live Rugby League.

For the NRL fans without paytv it has been a big win. They get the same amount of games to watch on free to air as the AFL has.
And channel 9 has payed more for the NRL deal than Channel 7 payed for AFL.

Channel 9 NRL deal - 925 million for 5 years
Channel 7 AFL deal - 900 million for 6 years

But News Limited and AFL fans refuse to mention that.

Not quite right.

Channel 9 NRL exclusive games deal 925 million for 5 years for 4 games a week (46.5million a game per year + SOO)
Channel 9 NRL deal simulcast deal 800 million for 5 years for 4 games a week (40 million a game per year + SOO)
Channel 7 AFL deal - 900 million for 6 years for 3.5 games a week (42.9 million a game per year)

The NRL deal is only better with exclusive games and SOO. With simulcast it is worse despite the SOO games thrown in (there's an article with a quote saying that channel nine will get back 150 million if there is simulcast) On top of this Channel 9 get to show their adds on both the pay TV and the digital feed for the 4 games. It also looks like C9 have digital rights to the 4 games so they can use them (maybe even have them free) on any digital device. With no Monday night or Saturday night game (for pay TV) this has to reduce the pay TV deal in a big way even with simulcast due to the dirty feed. I like the AFL deal better from a financial point of view.

I think you will find simulcasting is $25m a game - $100m total . Fox May no longer have Monday night ,but they chose to simulcast , they get the 3 prime time slots - ie they would lose Monday night but would now have Thursday, Friday nights as well as being able to continue with there Super Saturday program.

I read close to 30 million per game which is about 120 million. I was wrong when I posted 150 million. So it's somewhere between 805-825 million (difference between 100-120 million) which is 40.25 to 41.25 million per game still less then the AFL c7 deal despite SOO being thrown in. Still should be a good overall deal for the NRL.

The figures I used was $800m a year from Ch9 , So the FTA deal sees the NRL getting $10m , or slightly more, a year than the AFL on FTA - run and won!

Fox also gets all finals matches - bar the GF, and all Rep. matches - bar Origin.

Murdoch is already losing subscriptions he doesn't want to lose any more.

I can already see Foxs Sales pitch, , Foxtel, the only place were you can see all AFL matches and all NRL matches live every week'.

eelofwest wrote:

The_Wookie wrote:

lol 800 million for simulcasting.

lol

So the NRL give Fox an extra 3 games maybe 4 extra games with expansion and Piesman thinks the deal only improves from 550million 5 years ago to 800million......

Someone get Piesman a calculator.

If Fox simulcast all 8 games possibly 9 with expansion, the Fox deal will be worth in excess of 1billion over 5 years.

Add in Digital and NZ and International rights and the AFL and NRL deals will be very similar on annual basis.

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

AFLsforPussies wrote:

Will be interesting to see what pans out with the fox NRL deal.
The NRL have plenty of time to work out an agreement with them.
Rupert is obviously not happy at the way the NRL 9 deal was done... but he knows and everyone else knows that Rugby League fans won't keep fox if it does not have NRL games. Both need each other. The only reason I have it is for live Rugby League.

For the NRL fans without paytv it has been a big win. They get the same amount of games to watch on free to air as the AFL has.
And channel 9 has payed more for the NRL deal than Channel 7 payed for AFL.

Channel 9 NRL deal - 925 million for 5 years
Channel 7 AFL deal - 900 million for 6 years

But News Limited and AFL fans refuse to mention that.

Not quite right.

Channel 9 NRL exclusive games deal 925 million for 5 years for 4 games a week (46.5million a game per year + SOO)
Channel 9 NRL deal simulcast deal 800 million for 5 years for 4 games a week (40 million a game per year + SOO)
Channel 7 AFL deal - 900 million for 6 years for 3.5 games a week (42.9 million a game per year)

The NRL deal is only better with exclusive games and SOO. With simulcast it is worse despite the SOO games thrown in (there's an article with a quote saying that channel nine will get back 150 million if there is simulcast) On top of this Channel 9 get to show their adds on both the pay TV and the digital feed for the 4 games. It also looks like C9 have digital rights to the 4 games so they can use them (maybe even have them free) on any digital device. With no Monday night or Saturday night game (for pay TV) this has to reduce the pay TV deal in a big way even with simulcast due to the dirty feed. I like the AFL deal better from a financial point of view.

I think you will find simulcasting is $25m a game - $100m total . Fox May no longer have Monday night ,but they chose to simulcast , they get the 3 prime time slots - ie they would lose Monday night but would now have Thursday, Friday nights as well as being able to continue with there Super Saturday program.

I read close to 30 million per game which is about 120 million. I was wrong when I posted 150 million. So it's somewhere between 805-825 million (difference between 100-120 million) which is 40.25 to 41.25 million per game still less then the AFL c7 deal despite SOO being thrown in. Still should be a good overall deal for the NRL.

The figures I used was $800m a year from Ch9 , So the FTA deal sees the NRL getting $10m , or slightly more, a year than the AFL on FTA - run and won!

Fox also gets all finals matches - bar the GF, and all Rep. matches - bar Origin.

Murdoch is already losing subscriptions he doesn't want to lose any more.

I can already see Foxs Sales pitch, , Foxtel, the only place were you can see all AFL matches and all NRL matches live every week'.

So you got more dollars from FTA per year (lol) than AFL and given up much more. AFL has given up less games. 3.5 games a week and less rounds as well although it's not that important. Per game the NRL got a worse deal and gave up exclusive digital rights SOO and gave anyone else who wants to simulcast the rights a dirty feed. I'm not saying it's a bad deal, just not as good as AFL, who gave pay TV 5.5 games a week exclusive.

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

AFLsforPussies wrote:

Will be interesting to see what pans out with the fox NRL deal.
The NRL have plenty of time to work out an agreement with them.
Rupert is obviously not happy at the way the NRL 9 deal was done... but he knows and everyone else knows that Rugby League fans won't keep fox if it does not have NRL games. Both need each other. The only reason I have it is for live Rugby League.

For the NRL fans without paytv it has been a big win. They get the same amount of games to watch on free to air as the AFL has.
And channel 9 has payed more for the NRL deal than Channel 7 payed for AFL.

Channel 9 NRL deal - 925 million for 5 years
Channel 7 AFL deal - 900 million for 6 years

But News Limited and AFL fans refuse to mention that.

Not quite right.

Channel 9 NRL exclusive games deal 925 million for 5 years for 4 games a week (46.5million a game per year + SOO)
Channel 9 NRL deal simulcast deal 800 million for 5 years for 4 games a week (40 million a game per year + SOO)
Channel 7 AFL deal - 900 million for 6 years for 3.5 games a week (42.9 million a game per year)

The NRL deal is only better with exclusive games and SOO. With simulcast it is worse despite the SOO games thrown in (there's an article with a quote saying that channel nine will get back 150 million if there is simulcast) On top of this Channel 9 get to show their adds on both the pay TV and the digital feed for the 4 games. It also looks like C9 have digital rights to the 4 games so they can use them (maybe even have them free) on any digital device. With no Monday night or Saturday night game (for pay TV) this has to reduce the pay TV deal in a big way even with simulcast due to the dirty feed. I like the AFL deal better from a financial point of view.

I think you will find simulcasting is $25m a game - $100m total . Fox May no longer have Monday night ,but they chose to simulcast , they get the 3 prime time slots - ie they would lose Monday night but would now have Thursday, Friday nights as well as being able to continue with there Super Saturday program.

I read close to 30 million per game which is about 120 million. I was wrong when I posted 150 million. So it's somewhere between 805-825 million (difference between 100-120 million) which is 40.25 to 41.25 million per game still less then the AFL c7 deal despite SOO being thrown in. Still should be a good overall deal for the NRL.

The figures I used was $800m a year from Ch9 , So the FTA deal sees the NRL getting $10m , or slightly more, a year than the AFL on FTA - run and won!

Fox also gets all finals matches - bar the GF, and all Rep. matches - bar Origin.

Murdoch is already losing subscriptions he doesn't want to lose any more.

I can already see Foxs Sales pitch, , Foxtel, the only place were you can see all AFL matches and all NRL matches live every week'.

So you got more dollars from FTA per year (lol) than AFL and given up much more. AFL has given up less games. 3.5 games a week and less rounds as well although it's not that important. Per game the NRL got a worse deal and gave up exclusive digital rights SOO and gave anyone else who wants to simulcast the rights a dirty feed. I'm not saying it's a bad deal, just not as good as AFL, who gave pay TV 5.5 games a week exclusive.

Why LOL? You can read as well as I can. $160m a year is more than $150m a year regardless. You might think the NRL got a poor deal, I don't. to me , having more people watching you sport is not a bad thing. Pissing Rupert Off could be a problem, but he's a good businessman, not looking after your most popular product, a product more popular than your next best product by 20% would be a very bad business decision, more so when your already losing subscription numbers. im sure he will come around once he cools down. He would lose Monday night but picking up Thursday, Friday and Sunday night , the Final series with the exception of the GF and all representative matches barring Origin, Not a hard decision to make, I wouldn't have thought.





How does Fox work with CH7 feed? remove the adds or send there own camera team ? I'm guessing Fox will do exactly the same thing with Ch 9 , if they chose to simulcast

eelofwest wrote:

Sat STV #NRL #FoxSports
#NRLRoostersBroncos 322k
#NRLWarriorsCowboys 248k + NZ Sky 55k
#NRLSharksTigers 171k


Sat STV#AFLSaintsCats 202k
#AFLSunsDons 190k
#AFLPiesTigers 162k
#AFLCrowsLions 75k
#AFLGiantsSwans 60k


Time to Pay your Sports leader Rupert..... =D> =D>

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

AFLsforPussies wrote:

Will be interesting to see what pans out with the fox NRL deal.
The NRL have plenty of time to work out an agreement with them.
Rupert is obviously not happy at the way the NRL 9 deal was done... but he knows and everyone else knows that Rugby League fans won't keep fox if it does not have NRL games. Both need each other. The only reason I have it is for live Rugby League.

For the NRL fans without paytv it has been a big win. They get the same amount of games to watch on free to air as the AFL has.
And channel 9 has payed more for the NRL deal than Channel 7 payed for AFL.

Channel 9 NRL deal - 925 million for 5 years
Channel 7 AFL deal - 900 million for 6 years

But News Limited and AFL fans refuse to mention that.

Not quite right.

Channel 9 NRL exclusive games deal 925 million for 5 years for 4 games a week (46.5million a game per year + SOO)
Channel 9 NRL deal simulcast deal 800 million for 5 years for 4 games a week (40 million a game per year + SOO)
Channel 7 AFL deal - 900 million for 6 years for 3.5 games a week (42.9 million a game per year)

The NRL deal is only better with exclusive games and SOO. With simulcast it is worse despite the SOO games thrown in (there's an article with a quote saying that channel nine will get back 150 million if there is simulcast) On top of this Channel 9 get to show their adds on both the pay TV and the digital feed for the 4 games. It also looks like C9 have digital rights to the 4 games so they can use them (maybe even have them free) on any digital device. With no Monday night or Saturday night game (for pay TV) this has to reduce the pay TV deal in a big way even with simulcast due to the dirty feed. I like the AFL deal better from a financial point of view.

I think you will find simulcasting is $25m a game - $100m total . Fox May no longer have Monday night ,but they chose to simulcast , they get the 3 prime time slots - ie they would lose Monday night but would now have Thursday, Friday nights as well as being able to continue with there Super Saturday program.

I read close to 30 million per game which is about 120 million. I was wrong when I posted 150 million. So it's somewhere between 805-825 million (difference between 100-120 million) which is 40.25 to 41.25 million per game still less then the AFL c7 deal despite SOO being thrown in. Still should be a good overall deal for the NRL.

The figures I used was $800m a year from Ch9 , So the FTA deal sees the NRL getting $10m , or slightly more, a year than the AFL on FTA - run and won!

Fox also gets all finals matches - bar the GF, and all Rep. matches - bar Origin.

Murdoch is already losing subscriptions he doesn't want to lose any more.

I can already see Foxs Sales pitch, , Foxtel, the only place were you can see all AFL matches and all NRL matches live every week'.

So you got more dollars from FTA per year (lol) than AFL and given up much more. AFL has given up less games. 3.5 games a week and less rounds as well although it's not that important. Per game the NRL got a worse deal and gave up exclusive digital rights SOO and gave anyone else who wants to simulcast the rights a dirty feed. I'm not saying it's a bad deal, just not as good as AFL, who gave pay TV 5.5 games a week exclusive.

Why LOL? You can read as well as I can. $160m a year is more than $150m a year regardless. You might think the NRL got a poor deal, I don't. to me , having more people watching you sport is not a bad thing. Pissing Rupert Off could be a problem, but he's a good businessman, not looking after your most popular product, a product more popular than your next best product by 20% would be a very bad business decision, more so when your already losing subscription numbers. im sure he will come around once he cools down. He would lose Monday night but picking up Thursday, Friday and Sunday night , the Final series with the exception of the GF and all representative matches barring Origin, Not a hard decision to make, I wouldn't have thought.





How does Fox work with CH7 feed? remove the adds or send there own camera team ? I'm guessing Fox will do exactly the same thing with Ch 9 , if they chose to simulcast

The lol was because you have given up much more to get the deal and you have slightly more money per year. Are the SOOs and an extra match every fortnight only worh 10 million a year? Or is it the dirty feed or the digital rights? The rest of the deal won't be as good as it could have been. Because of this you can only conclude that digital rights will be less and the fox deal will be less then the AFL deal per year. The AFL FTA deal is better per game and until you sell the rest of the rights it is the only true way to compare apples to apples. I'm not sure why you are clutching at straws on that one. See wookies post to see what happens with the c7 feed.

docker24 wrote:

Ill just leave this here.

1st vs 2nd for top spot. in NRL heartland. Nice thousands of empty seats in background.

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

AFLsforPussies wrote:

Will be interesting to see what pans out with the fox NRL deal.
The NRL have plenty of time to work out an agreement with them.
Rupert is obviously not happy at the way the NRL 9 deal was done... but he knows and everyone else knows that Rugby League fans won't keep fox if it does not have NRL games. Both need each other. The only reason I have it is for live Rugby League.

For the NRL fans without paytv it has been a big win. They get the same amount of games to watch on free to air as the AFL has.
And channel 9 has payed more for the NRL deal than Channel 7 payed for AFL.

Channel 9 NRL deal - 925 million for 5 years
Channel 7 AFL deal - 900 million for 6 years

But News Limited and AFL fans refuse to mention that.

Not quite right.

Channel 9 NRL exclusive games deal 925 million for 5 years for 4 games a week (46.5million a game per year + SOO)
Channel 9 NRL deal simulcast deal 800 million for 5 years for 4 games a week (40 million a game per year + SOO)
Channel 7 AFL deal - 900 million for 6 years for 3.5 games a week (42.9 million a game per year)

The NRL deal is only better with exclusive games and SOO. With simulcast it is worse despite the SOO games thrown in (there's an article with a quote saying that channel nine will get back 150 million if there is simulcast) On top of this Channel 9 get to show their adds on both the pay TV and the digital feed for the 4 games. It also looks like C9 have digital rights to the 4 games so they can use them (maybe even have them free) on any digital device. With no Monday night or Saturday night game (for pay TV) this has to reduce the pay TV deal in a big way even with simulcast due to the dirty feed. I like the AFL deal better from a financial point of view.

I think you will find simulcasting is $25m a game - $100m total . Fox May no longer have Monday night ,but they chose to simulcast , they get the 3 prime time slots - ie they would lose Monday night but would now have Thursday, Friday nights as well as being able to continue with there Super Saturday program.

I read close to 30 million per game which is about 120 million. I was wrong when I posted 150 million. So it's somewhere between 805-825 million (difference between 100-120 million) which is 40.25 to 41.25 million per game still less then the AFL c7 deal despite SOO being thrown in. Still should be a good overall deal for the NRL.

The figures I used was $800m a year from Ch9 , So the FTA deal sees the NRL getting $10m , or slightly more, a year than the AFL on FTA - run and won!

Fox also gets all finals matches - bar the GF, and all Rep. matches - bar Origin.

Murdoch is already losing subscriptions he doesn't want to lose any more.

I can already see Foxs Sales pitch, , Foxtel, the only place were you can see all AFL matches and all NRL matches live every week'.

So you got more dollars from FTA per year (lol) than AFL and given up much more. AFL has given up less games. 3.5 games a week and less rounds as well although it's not that important. Per game the NRL got a worse deal and gave up exclusive digital rights SOO and gave anyone else who wants to simulcast the rights a dirty feed. I'm not saying it's a bad deal, just not as good as AFL, who gave pay TV 5.5 games a week exclusive.

Why LOL? You can read as well as I can. $160m a year is more than $150m a year regardless. You might think the NRL got a poor deal, I don't. to me , having more people watching you sport is not a bad thing. Pissing Rupert Off could be a problem, but he's a good businessman, not looking after your most popular product, a product more popular than your next best product by 20% would be a very bad business decision, more so when your already losing subscription numbers. im sure he will come around once he cools down. He would lose Monday night but picking up Thursday, Friday and Sunday night , the Final series with the exception of the GF and all representative matches barring Origin, Not a hard decision to make, I wouldn't have thought.





How does Fox work with CH7 feed? remove the adds or send there own camera team ? I'm guessing Fox will do exactly the same thing with Ch 9 , if they chose to simulcast


The lol was because you have given up much more to get the deal and you have slightly more money per year. Are the SOOs and an extra match every fortnight only worh 10 million a year? Or is it the dirty feed or the digital rights? The rest of the deal won't be as good as it could have been. Because of this you can only conclude that digital rights will be less and the fox deal will be less then the AFL deal per year. The AFL FTA deal is better per game and until you sell the rest of the rights it is the only true way to compare apples to apples. I'm not sure why you are clutching at straws on that one. See wookies post to see what happens with the c7 feed.

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

pussycat wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

AFLsforPussies wrote:

Will be interesting to see what pans out with the fox NRL deal.
The NRL have plenty of time to work out an agreement with them.
Rupert is obviously not happy at the way the NRL 9 deal was done... but he knows and everyone else knows that Rugby League fans won't keep fox if it does not have NRL games. Both need each other. The only reason I have it is for live Rugby League.

For the NRL fans without paytv it has been a big win. They get the same amount of games to watch on free to air as the AFL has.
And channel 9 has payed more for the NRL deal than Channel 7 payed for AFL.

Channel 9 NRL deal - 925 million for 5 years
Channel 7 AFL deal - 900 million for 6 years

But News Limited and AFL fans refuse to mention that.

Not quite right.

Channel 9 NRL exclusive games deal 925 million for 5 years for 4 games a week (46.5million a game per year + SOO)
Channel 9 NRL deal simulcast deal 800 million for 5 years for 4 games a week (40 million a game per year + SOO)
Channel 7 AFL deal - 900 million for 6 years for 3.5 games a week (42.9 million a game per year)

The NRL deal is only better with exclusive games and SOO. With simulcast it is worse despite the SOO games thrown in (there's an article with a quote saying that channel nine will get back 150 million if there is simulcast) On top of this Channel 9 get to show their adds on both the pay TV and the digital feed for the 4 games. It also looks like C9 have digital rights to the 4 games so they can use them (maybe even have them free) on any digital device. With no Monday night or Saturday night game (for pay TV) this has to reduce the pay TV deal in a big way even with simulcast due to the dirty feed. I like the AFL deal better from a financial point of view.

I think you will find simulcasting is $25m a game - $100m total . Fox May no longer have Monday night ,but they chose to simulcast , they get the 3 prime time slots - ie they would lose Monday night but would now have Thursday, Friday nights as well as being able to continue with there Super Saturday program.

I read close to 30 million per game which is about 120 million. I was wrong when I posted 150 million. So it's somewhere between 805-825 million (difference between 100-120 million) which is 40.25 to 41.25 million per game still less then the AFL c7 deal despite SOO being thrown in. Still should be a good overall deal for the NRL.

The figures I used was $800m a year from Ch9 , So the FTA deal sees the NRL getting $10m , or slightly more, a year than the AFL on FTA - run and won!

Fox also gets all finals matches - bar the GF, and all Rep. matches - bar Origin.

Murdoch is already losing subscriptions he doesn't want to lose any more.

I can already see Foxs Sales pitch, , Foxtel, the only place were you can see all AFL matches and all NRL matches live every week'.

So you got more dollars from FTA per year (lol) than AFL and given up much more. AFL has given up less games. 3.5 games a week and less rounds as well although it's not that important. Per game the NRL got a worse deal and gave up exclusive digital rights SOO and gave anyone else who wants to simulcast the rights a dirty feed. I'm not saying it's a bad deal, just not as good as AFL, who gave pay TV 5.5 games a week exclusive.

Why LOL? You can read as well as I can. $160m a year is more than $150m a year regardless. You might think the NRL got a poor deal, I don't. to me , having more people watching you sport is not a bad thing. Pissing Rupert Off could be a problem, but he's a good businessman, not looking after your most popular product, a product more popular than your next best product by 20% would be a very bad business decision, more so when your already losing subscription numbers. im sure he will come around once he cools down. He would lose Monday night but picking up Thursday, Friday and Sunday night , the Final series with the exception of the GF and all representative matches barring Origin, Not a hard decision to make, I wouldn't have thought.





How does Fox work with CH7 feed? remove the adds or send there own camera team ? I'm guessing Fox will do exactly the same thing with Ch 9 , if they chose to simulcast

The lol was because you have given up much more to get the deal and you have slightly more money per year. Are the SOOs and an extra match every fortnight only worh 10 million a year? Or is it the dirty feed or the digital rights? The rest of the deal won't be as good as it could have been. Because of this you can only conclude that digital rights will be less and the fox deal will be less then the AFL deal per year. The AFL FTA deal is better per game and until you sell the rest of the rights it is the only true way to compare apples to apples. I'm not sure why you are clutching at straws on that one. See wookies post to see what happens with the c7 feed.