www.talkingfooty.com
https://www.talkingfooty.com/forums/
Yes they would. That's anti competitive conduct - right up the ACCC's alley and therefore also worth the attention of the ACMA. Ten and Seven should be competing against each other, not sharing stuff.pussycat wrote:What bussiness of there would that be? They wouldnt be breaking any laws.TLPG wrote:The ACMA and the ACCC will see right through that! :D
Fox paid most of the AFLs deal because they went from 3 to 9 matches and wanted to capture new subscriptions in AFL states.pussycat wrote:PTV pay the lions share, with AFL, because they have all 9 matches, some exclsive. Ch 7on the other hand wouldnt be paying alot.
They pay proportionally to the number of matches they have.
As you just said, subscibers will drop off if the number of matches on PTV matches are reduced, also there would be less incentive to sign up.
Didn't they share the football in the previous contract?TLPG wrote:Yes they would. That's anti competitive conduct - right up the ACCC's alley and therefore also worth the attention of the ACMA. Ten and Seven should be competing against each other, not sharing stuff.pussycat wrote:What bussiness of there would that be? They wouldnt be breaking any laws.TLPG wrote:The ACMA and the ACCC will see right through that! :D
He ought to be in an asylum.pussycat wrote:Gallop confident of breaking the $3 billion mark!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-06/n ... al/3994038
It's "their" money you illiterate feline!pussycat wrote:Channel 7 want there money back!
pussycat wrote:Channel 7 want there money back!
In a bitter irony, the first six months of the AFL's widely reported five-year, $1.25 billion deal with Channel 7 and Fox Sports has revealed the networks paid too much and are struggling to recoup their investments.
That NRL games are of shorter duration and have fewer natural ad breaks, and the AFL boasts a pre-season competition, has also counted against the NRL bid. By far the biggest concern, though, is that Seven, Fox Sports and Telstra have failed to meet the figures they gambled on, and paid for, television insiders saying it has brought clarity to the NRL's true value.
"They won't get what the AFL has got," a source said.
"More importantly is that it is very clear to anyone close to this that Seven, Foxtel and Telstra have overpaid on the AFL.
"That's now biting hard."
For example, Telstra paid $37 million for digital rights but so far has managed to attract just 30,000 extra subscriptions.
AFL ratings are up 25% this year. Hmmm, but can we have our money back?eelofwest wrote:pussycat wrote:Channel 7 want there money back!In a bitter irony, the first six months of the AFL's widely reported five-year, $1.25 billion deal with Channel 7 and Fox Sports has revealed the networks paid too much and are struggling to recoup their investments.
That NRL games are of shorter duration and have fewer natural ad breaks, and the AFL boasts a pre-season competition, has also counted against the NRL bid. By far the biggest concern, though, is that Seven, Fox Sports and Telstra have failed to meet the figures they gambled on, and paid for, television insiders saying it has brought clarity to the NRL's true value.
"They won't get what the AFL has got," a source said.
"More importantly is that it is very clear to anyone close to this that Seven, Foxtel and Telstra have overpaid on the AFL.
"That's now biting hard."
For example, Telstra paid $37 million for digital rights but so far has managed to attract just 30,000 extra subscriptions.
Really? You got a direct quote from someone at Channel 7 saying that?pussycat wrote:Channel 7 want there money back!
