Talking Footy

Raiderdave wrote:

cos789 wrote:

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

you think if Optus wins that Telstra will still pay 150 million just to let optus show every game for free?

FITH doesn't undestand the concept of a contract.
FITH doesn't understand telstra will be supplying a live feed.
FITH doesn't that Optus will be showing delayed CH7.

by 2 minutes
for free



contract worthless ...............

Wrong. Two minutes is enough of a delay to affect viewing numbers.

NSWAFL wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

cos789 wrote:

FITH doesn't undestand the concept of a contract.
FITH doesn't understand telstra will be supplying a live feed.
FITH doesn't that Optus will be showing delayed CH7.

by 2 minutes
for free



contract worthless ...............

Wrong. Two minutes is enough of a delay to affect viewing numbers.

then why is our deal affected then F wit ?

Once again for the dummies.
The AFL have a contract with Telstra so they have the money.
Telstra will be supply a live feed. High quality and no commercials.
Optus will be supplying a delayed CH7 FTA feed.
Because Optus is not paying it will drag down the resale price.
Telstra will either charge the same as Optus and grab the market or charge a little more for the better qulaity.
Either way Telstra will struggle to recoup the outlay.
The live feed stlill has value but not anywhere near the value of excluse rights.

cos789 wrote:

Once again for the dummies.
The AFL have a contract with Telstra so they have the money.
Telstra will be supply a live feed. High quality and no commercials.
Optus will be supplying a delayed CH7 FTA feed.
Because Optus is not paying it will drag down the resale price.
Telstra will either charge the same as Optus and grab the market or charge a little more for the better qulaity.
Either way Telstra will struggle to recoup the outlay.
The live feed stlill has value but not anywhere near the value of excluse rights.

so .... you have no idea either

FITH

AFL get the money - nrl don't.

cos789 wrote:

FITH

AFL get the money - nrl don't.

both do

or

neither do................

Raiderdave wrote:

NSWAFL wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

by 2 minutes
for free



contract worthless ...............

Wrong. Two minutes is enough of a delay to affect viewing numbers.

then why is our deal affected then F wit ?

Read and weep dopey.

The estimated value of rugby league's broadcast rights has been slashed by a Federal Court ruling last week that found Telstra rival Optus was not in violation of copyright by offering near-live sport through their new "TV Now" product on computers and mobile services.

Gallop has raised the matter with the Federal Government and Opposition in the hope of having copyright laws amended.

"It (the court ruling) couldn't have come at a worse time," Gallop said.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/nrl ... 6268136215

Raiderdave wrote:

cos789 wrote:

FITH

AFL get the money - nrl don't.

both do or neither do

hey FITH, a person pays for FOX to watch a movie then sees it advertised on FTA.
Can he ask for his money back ?
Yes, he can ask , but he wont be getting his money back.

Great example, Cos! Come on, Dave, argue your way out of that one!

cos789 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

cos789 wrote:

FITH

AFL get the money - nrl don't.

both do or neither do

hey FITH, a person pays for FOX to watch a movie then sees it advertised on FTA.
Can he ask for his money back ?
Yes, he can ask , but he wont be getting his money back.

both do

or neither do

if telstra are paying the AFL for essentially nothing

they WILL do exactly the same for the NRL
exactly the same

Raiderdave wrote:

cos789 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

both do or neither do

hey FITH, a person pays for FOX to watch a movie then sees it advertised on FTA.
Can he ask for his money back ?
Yes, he can ask , but he wont be getting his money back.

both do

or neither do

if telstra are paying the AFL for essentially nothing

they WILL do exactly the same for the NRL
exactly the same

Yeah......nah

The AFL have a contract. If the contract wasn't specific about exclusivity they are bound to it. They have already said they are happy to stay with it.

The NRL have.......... ......... .......... [-o< ........... ........... .............

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

cos789 wrote:

hey FITH, a person pays for FOX to watch a movie then sees it advertised on FTA.
Can he ask for his money back ?
Yes, he can ask , but he wont be getting his money back.

both do

or neither do

if telstra are paying the AFL for essentially nothing

they WILL do exactly the same for the NRL
exactly the same

The will NRL have.......... :

exactly the same deal....

Wrong! The law now says with a precedent that they CAN'T have the same deal! The field changed, and unless it changes back the NRL will get NOTHING!

Raiderdave wrote:

exactly the same deal....

Are you a FITH cretonous moron or what ?

A deal has been made. Do you know what that means imbecile ? A contract has been made. There are legal responsibilities.
There are debts and obligations. Telstra has paid for the live rights to AFL.
Optus has NOT paid for the live rights but is relaying FTA Ch7.

The rl live rights are there to be bought.but the bidders know ATM they can relay FTA.

If contract to buy an ordinary car and someone comes out with a cheap electric car that costs nothing to run
you are still legally bound to buy the lemon.

LOL, the vfl could lose everything while RL sits in the box seat and see's what happens and changes what they have to before signing anything.

J Grant mentioned this in the paper today and he would know seeing as he runs one of the biggest IT businesses in the country.

Hehehehehehehehe.