Broadcast options for Australian Rugby
- Thread starter WorkingClassRugger
- Start date
Foxtel Play was previously $50 a month wasn't it? ($600 a year).
This is $520 a year. Does it include more channels than what the $50 a month Foxtel Play package had?
It would be interesting to know how much this is driven by a desire for News Corp to increase their newspaper subscription numbers as opposed to wanting to drive an uptake of Foxtel customers.
This is $520 a year. Does it include more channels than what the $50 a month Foxtel Play package had?
It would be interesting to know how much this is driven by a desire for News Corp to increase their newspaper subscription numbers as opposed to wanting to drive an uptake of Foxtel customers.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Could be some sort of internal turf war, who owns what in the corporation? Big futures at stake here, there are always winners in losers in big organisations when disruption occurs. And this is disruption writ large.
T
TOCC
Guest
It's not necessarily the Telcos smiting the audience, but AFL extracting more value for the rights by packaging the rights up separately.
Foxtel and Chanel 7? Wouldn't have paid as much as they did if Telstra were able to play it one home computera and Foxte Play.
gel
Ken Catchpole (46)
For the past 9-10 months I have been living without foxtel (they can't get it to work in our building for some reason). I have also been living in a notoriously league town.
People in the traditional rugby circles may discuss how rugby locked away on pay TV affects wider interest, and may wax lyrical about the need to broaden the audience, but they don't truly understand the problem. The problem is this: the general public are not conscious of this game. Some of you will no doubt be reading this thinking "Oh we already know this", but to experience it as I have is unbelievable. If you follow rugby closely (as you all obviously do), you are probably immune to what the situation actually is.
Without foxtel, there is definately a void in my "rugby" life.
I don't know how to properly describe it, but I will try:
Of course the people in my town know of rugby. They know of the reds and they know of the wallabies, and they know that it is played at the same time of year as league.
But they know these things in exactly the same way as they know the name of the kid that sat three chairs behind them in grade 2. Only once the name is mentioned is it remembered. The mention of the game elicits a micro-stare as their neuron's fire in the deepest recesses of their brains searching for that longest of memories, followed by a realisation that the game exists.
I could not have imagined this as I had had foxtel from the start, traversed in somewhat rugby circles and always read rugby news. There are vast swathes of people that do not have foxtel and therefore rugby (for them) exists in some weird extension of the heisenberg uncertainty principle.
The herald sun's article shows precisely the awareness that the general public have for rugby in this country:
"including LIVE coverage of AFL, NRL, NBA, NFL, A-League, Supercars, Formula 1, the best of European football and more"
The game does not even register. Their is no malice in the omission of the game in the advertisement. No undercurrent of feigned ignorance coming out of a non rugby state. The person writing that piece does not even register the game exists. If any of you pointed out that Super Rugby was omitted, the person who wrote it would afford you the same micro stare, followed by an embarrassed laugh and an acknowledgement that "they had forgotten about that one". A minute later, the game would be completely out of their consciousness again - their mind slightly uneasy about having made a minor error about something recently, but not really worrying too much about it as it is probably unimportant.
TLDR: I don't have foxtel and I miss rugby.
People in the traditional rugby circles may discuss how rugby locked away on pay TV affects wider interest, and may wax lyrical about the need to broaden the audience, but they don't truly understand the problem. The problem is this: the general public are not conscious of this game. Some of you will no doubt be reading this thinking "Oh we already know this", but to experience it as I have is unbelievable. If you follow rugby closely (as you all obviously do), you are probably immune to what the situation actually is.
Without foxtel, there is definately a void in my "rugby" life.
I don't know how to properly describe it, but I will try:
Of course the people in my town know of rugby. They know of the reds and they know of the wallabies, and they know that it is played at the same time of year as league.
But they know these things in exactly the same way as they know the name of the kid that sat three chairs behind them in grade 2. Only once the name is mentioned is it remembered. The mention of the game elicits a micro-stare as their neuron's fire in the deepest recesses of their brains searching for that longest of memories, followed by a realisation that the game exists.
I could not have imagined this as I had had foxtel from the start, traversed in somewhat rugby circles and always read rugby news. There are vast swathes of people that do not have foxtel and therefore rugby (for them) exists in some weird extension of the heisenberg uncertainty principle.
The herald sun's article shows precisely the awareness that the general public have for rugby in this country:
"including LIVE coverage of AFL, NRL, NBA, NFL, A-League, Supercars, Formula 1, the best of European football and more"
The game does not even register. Their is no malice in the omission of the game in the advertisement. No undercurrent of feigned ignorance coming out of a non rugby state. The person writing that piece does not even register the game exists. If any of you pointed out that Super Rugby was omitted, the person who wrote it would afford you the same micro stare, followed by an embarrassed laugh and an acknowledgement that "they had forgotten about that one". A minute later, the game would be completely out of their consciousness again - their mind slightly uneasy about having made a minor error about something recently, but not really worrying too much about it as it is probably unimportant.
TLDR: I don't have foxtel and I miss rugby.
p.Tah
John Thornett (49)
This article gives a good overview of Sport broadcast rights in Oz. Telling that rugby doesn't get a mention to the very end and has nothing about the rights.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/medi...-tv-great-rights-battles-20170323-gv58z9.html
http://www.smh.com.au/business/medi...-tv-great-rights-battles-20170323-gv58z9.html
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
I'm not sure why it's any of their business but investment bank UBS says Nine should either cut a better deal with Cricket Australia or walk away from covering the game at all, based on their assessment that Nine are losing $40Mn p.a. on it:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricke...-urged-to-step-away-from-cricket-broadcasting
Could have implications if Nine needs replacement content.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricke...-urged-to-step-away-from-cricket-broadcasting
Could have implications if Nine needs replacement content.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Seems like a good strategic move from nine to pressure CA ensure they land Big Bash at the right price this time round
Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
No4918
John Hipwell (52)
Can't see Nine cutting cricket. In summer it is the only show in town. The BBL is the main competition and I imagine they will make a play for it too. They won't ever put Super Rugby up against the NRL.
How does the AFL rate outside of VIC/SA/WA? Maybe 7 would get the Super Rugby and put it up against NRL outside those core AFL markets. They would want the highest drawing games in the prime spots though to be competitive. It would also weaken the overall AFL broadcast which they have an interest in maintaining.
Really only leaves 10 and the ABC as main FTA options.
How does the AFL rate outside of VIC/SA/WA? Maybe 7 would get the Super Rugby and put it up against NRL outside those core AFL markets. They would want the highest drawing games in the prime spots though to be competitive. It would also weaken the overall AFL broadcast which they have an interest in maintaining.
Really only leaves 10 and the ABC as main FTA options.
And would anyone watch The Block if Ian Healy hadn't spent the day telling everyone how awesome the new season was going to be?*
* before anyone slanders me, I don't watch The Block.
* before anyone slanders me, I don't watch The Block.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
IMHO the only realistic possibility is that Fox takes over TEN. If and when that happens, the whole game would change in terms of sharing content. Until then, dream on.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
I wonder about this too. All the FTA networks are struggling. You only have to look at their share price charts over the last several years. Their audiences and advertising revenues are shrinking, the younger the demographic the less FTA TV they watch.
The networks have been willing to pay overs for live sport in the last decade or so, but it can't be sustainable.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
I've got no idea what the States is like, but at least compared to European Leagues (all sports) way too much money in Australian Sport seems to come directly from the Broadcast deal rather than through direct sponsorship, ticket sales and stadium deals.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
T
TOCC
Guest
Substantial shareholder releases report which devalues the broadcast rights that the company is attempting to acquire.. It's almost as though UBS have some financial gain to be made by paying less for the rights..
T
TOCC
Guest
massive changes in a reform of the broadcast regulations
In addition:
-also extend the “delisting period” for events that are not purchased by the free-to-air networks, giving Foxtel and its channel operators 26 weeks rather than 12 weeks to put alternative bids.
-the government will set up a fund to support more broadcasts of sporting competitions.
The so what for rugby is, it reduces overheads for FTA networks which may give them more money in their coffers to spend on sport, additionally the anti-siphoning may be amended, can't see any real changes here for Australian Rugby.
Perhaps the fund for womens sport, this may help get coverage of the Womens AON Sevens tournament, probably not for 2017, but future years.
In addition:
-also extend the “delisting period” for events that are not purchased by the free-to-air networks, giving Foxtel and its channel operators 26 weeks rather than 12 weeks to put alternative bids.
-the government will set up a fund to support more broadcasts of sporting competitions.
The so what for rugby is, it reduces overheads for FTA networks which may give them more money in their coffers to spend on sport, additionally the anti-siphoning may be amended, can't see any real changes here for Australian Rugby.
Perhaps the fund for womens sport, this may help get coverage of the Womens AON Sevens tournament, probably not for 2017, but future years.