Talking Footy

cooee wrote:

Xman wrote:

cooee wrote:

What exactly are you calling BS on? The fact no one wanted to buy games off seven or that seven paid very little increase for the AFL despite receiving two extra games a week?

Both! Channel 10 would have had a price they were prepared to go to but the AFL wanted more, simple. There was no indication that Ch7 wanted to off-load games. Secondly, you inferred that CH7 paid the same price for the same deal with the same conditions. They were totally different. They are now sharing the broadcast of the same games which are better viewed on another network! They also have to show it nation-wide, something the NRL could only dream about.

Seven West Media open to offers on AFL games

SEVEN West Media group is preparing to restart AFL broadcast rights negotiations with rival networks Ten and Nine amid signs that the advertising market remains tough even for free-to-air television.

It is understood that executives at Seven last week made informal approaches to their counterparts at Ten and Nine with a view to discussing whether there was interest in buying some of the four regular season AFL matches Seven purchased as part of the 2012-16 rights deal announced in April.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/s ... 6069752139

It totally depends on why they were trying to sell them. If they were trying to sell them for a decent price yet the other networks didn't want to pay that much it means little to nothing! It certainly doesn't mean they don't want the games like you're suggesting!

NSWAFL wrote:

Seven are covering those four games. They were NEVER giving them away. Never. They wanted them for themselves and worked with Foxtel on it.

NRL's deals will go nowhere. $600 million. That's all the game is worth, and will ever be worth as long as the gate receipts are where they are.

They offerred CH 10 & 9 some of them. C'Mon, how committrd must they be?

pussycat wrote:

NSWAFL wrote:

Seven are covering those four games. They were NEVER giving them away. Never. They wanted them for themselves and worked with Foxtel on it.

NRL's deals will go nowhere. $600 million. That's all the game is worth, and will ever be worth as long as the gate receipts are where they are.

They offerred CH 10 & 9 some of them. C'Mon, how committrd must they be?

Committed about what? If they get a good price for them why wouldnt they? After all they paid a lot of money for 4 games that are being shown live, in HD and ad free on payTV. Plus they have to show them nation wide.

Xman wrote:

cooee wrote:

Seven can't give them away because no one wants them. Seven got a bargain with the AFL TV rights, they paid very little increase on what they did last deal and got two extra games.

BS!

They paid for 4 games but they are also televised live, ad free and in HD on payTV! They also agreed to show them nation-wide! What a great deal for the AFL and their fans!
You have NFI!

They share 4 games.

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

cooee wrote:

Seven can't give them away because no one wants them. Seven got a bargain with the AFL TV rights, they paid very little increase on what they did last deal and got two extra games.

BS!

They paid for 4 games but they are also televised live, ad free and in HD on payTV! They also agreed to show them nation-wide! What a great deal for the AFL and their fans!
You have NFI!

They share 4 games.

and....?

Xman wrote:

cooee wrote:

Xman wrote:

BS!

They paid for 4 games but they are also televised live, ad free and in HD on payTV! They also agreed to show them nation-wide! What a great deal for the AFL and their fans!
You have NFI!

What exactly are you calling BS on? The fact no one wanted to buy games off seven or that seven paid very little increase for the AFL despite receiving two extra games a week?

Both! Channel 10 would have had a price they were prepared to go to but the AFL wanted more, simple. There was no indication that Ch7 wanted to off-load games. Secondly, you inferred that CH7 paid the same price for the same deal with the same conditions. They were totally different. They are now sharing the broadcast of the same games which are better viewed on another network! They also have to show it nation-wide, something the NRL could only dream about.

Read any of the media articles at the time. The AFL might be trying to but on a brave face, but channell 10 never made any bid for the rights. And when C7 offered them some matches they showed no interest. C9 only bid to jack up the price so seven would have to pay more.

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

cooee wrote:

What exactly are you calling BS on? The fact no one wanted to buy games off seven or that seven paid very little increase for the AFL despite receiving two extra games a week?

Both! Channel 10 would have had a price they were prepared to go to but the AFL wanted more, simple. There was no indication that Ch7 wanted to off-load games. Secondly, you inferred that CH7 paid the same price for the same deal with the same conditions. They were totally different. They are now sharing the broadcast of the same games which are better viewed on another network! They also have to show it nation-wide, something the NRL could only dream about.

Read any of the media articles at the time. The AFL might be trying to but on a brave face, but channell 10 never made any bid for the rights. And when C7 offered them some matches they showed no interest. C9 only bid to jack up the price so seven would have to pay more.

ch7 went after it hard. Ch10 knew they couldn't pay that much. Sure they have indicated an interest in the NRL but for how much? The current NRL deal was much lower than the AFL's so they may be interested but only for a much lower price than they thought the AFL would go for.

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

BS!

They paid for 4 games but they are also televised live, ad free and in HD on payTV! They also agreed to show them nation-wide! What a great deal for the AFL and their fans!
You have NFI!

They share 4 games.

and....?

Exclusive matches are worth a lot more than shared matches!

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

They share 4 games.

and....?

Exclusive matches are worth a lot more than shared matches!

Sure are, making the AFL's deal that much more impressive.

Xman wrote:

ch7 went after it hard. Ch10 knew they couldn't pay that much. Sure they have indicated an interest in the NRL but for how much? The current NRL deal was much lower than the AFL's so they may be interested but only for a much lower price than they thought the AFL would go for.

There talking 1 $billion, surely that would have bought 1 or 2 AFL games.

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

ch7 went after it hard. Ch10 knew they couldn't pay that much. Sure they have indicated an interest in the NRL but for how much? The current NRL deal was much lower than the AFL's so they may be interested but only for a much lower price than they thought the AFL would go for.

There talking 1 $billion, surely that would have bought 1 or 2 AFL games.

Why would they pay 1bil for 3 to 6 hours of sport a week?

Plus, who exactly is talking 1 billion dollars? Mainly either the NRL or the Sydney media. I dont believe for 1 second ch10 will pay 1bil for 8 games or 16hours a week of NRL.

Lachlan Murdoch Runs 10 Now. Him and his father will do a deal and end ups with a similar arrangement to C7 & fox. But 9 will make sure it doesn't come cheap. C7 will have a bit to say also , they want origin.

pussycat wrote:

Lachlan Murdoch Runs 10 Now. Him and his father will do a deal and end ups with a similar arrangement to C7 & fox. But 9 will make sure it doesn't come cheap. C7 will have a bit to say also , they want origin.

All speculation. 8 games of NRL, or 16 hours per week, may achieve a decent price but negotiating a deal to show it in AFL states will come at a cost. Even then the AFL have 27 hours of coverage, with more ad breaks in each hour, and teams in each city.

Good luck with that.

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Lachlan Murdoch Runs 10 Now. Him and his father will do a deal and end ups with a similar arrangement to C7 & fox. But 9 will make sure it doesn't come cheap. C7 will have a bit to say also , they want origin.

All speculation. 8 games of NRL, or 16 hours per week, may achieve a decent price but negotiating a deal to show it in AFL states will come at a cost. Even then the AFL have 27 hours of coverage, with more ad breaks in each hour, and teams in each city.

Good luck with that.

I believe rugby league will focus primarily on league areas but will build as more and more money comes in. Advertising space on the East Coast is significantly more expensive than the West coast.

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Lachlan Murdoch Runs 10 Now. Him and his father will do a deal and end ups with a similar arrangement to C7 & fox. But 9 will make sure it doesn't come cheap. C7 will have a bit to say also , they want origin.

All speculation. 8 games of NRL, or 16 hours per week, may achieve a decent price but negotiating a deal to show it in AFL states will come at a cost. Even then the AFL have 27 hours of coverage, with more ad breaks in each hour, and teams in each city.

Good luck with that.

I believe rugby league will focus primarily on league areas but will build as more and more money comes in. Advertising space on the East Coast is significantly more expensive than the West coast.

The AFL have an audience in each state. Sure its pretty small in NSW. But its not bad in Brisbane (maybe 1/3 of the NRL). It's great in the rest of the country. The NRL have little to no audience in AFL states because it has no teams in SA, WA and TAS.

The AFL have almost double the viewing hours compared to the NRL each weekend, with more ads in each hour. Therefore the advertising revenue per game, in a level playing field, could be 3-4 times as much for the AFL. Surely you are not trying to tell me advertising space is that much more expensive in NSW/QLD compared to VIC/SA/TAS/WA, especially given the size of the markets is not that different, and the AFL have some audience in NSW/QLD anyway.