The suggestion has been (not just now either) that the game would be part of a completely separate package that wouldn’t be subject to simulcast (similar to how the Thursday NFL game works with Amazon)
The AFL seems to think it’s the way that they can get one of the big overseas streamers involved
I think the theory was that they’d give a Foxtel produced simulcast to 10 when Foxtel/Lachlan Murdoch were circling. Obviously didn’t work out for them.
I don’t think the AFL want to give up FTA eye balls to the NRL.
If Thursday night is a weekly proposition then they will want it on FTA.
It could indeed end up being a FTA exclusive - separating it out will allow the AFL to see what interest there is and select accordingly.
Its already been reported that some of the overseas interest has been tempered to being a small number of games a year, so this will allow them to test that.
I’m curious if there may be a black sheep in the mix that hasn’t been previously considered or mentioned, that being a Telstra/Fetch/associated telcos bid bankrolling a deal for streaming and on selling the FTA rights? Fetch seems well set up for an integrated virtual 4K channel with on demand and it would be a great selling point for all currently involved/invested in the product…
Such a line of thinking makes sense considering the Premier League separating two midweek matchdays (20 games total - 10 in each) into its own package was sufficient to sell to Amazon.
If the AFL want 1 exclusive game per round for overseas streaming (let’s say paramount+ with FTA in Aus on 10) then wouldn’t a day game be the best time for overseas market?
For example:
• 2pm AEST would be around 9pm LA, 12am NY, 5-6am in Europe etc
• 7pm AEST would be around 2am LA, 5am NY, 10-11am in Europe
I’d assume the idea is they’d buy “global” rights, but that they’d have some exclusives tailored for the local market.
A package of Melbourne based club games would be that imo, many people go weeks without seeing their club on FTA in Melbourne, whereas in other states it’s only a few delayed games as an exception.
The chance to get one or two extra matches of your team a season in a bundle you likely are buying anyway on something like Amazon or Netflix would be the kind of role those streaming operators would want, while people would still need to pay a “main” subscription broadcaster to get all the matches, potentially with a few games delayed or with ads in them.
Even if only a subset of them are exclusives - it would be a popular slice, both for Melbourne audiences and interstate fans of Melbourne clubs - who often lose Melbourne games to the showing of their “home” clubs.
Given Foxtel bundle a lot of the streaming services - or at least support them on their IQ boxes, would they be too angry if Netflix got a slice but Foxtel can still offer a Netflix + Fox Sports bundle and still promote themselves as the best way to get it all?
Tom Browne reported some developments on the new broadcast deal in his Triple M footy news yesterday:
If that’s the case… sounds like the AFL isn’t confident about the Paramount deal. Could be too much risk in changing broadcasters.
So based on that information, the AFL are too gutless to try something new as a whole, but have handed off some or one game to a new broadcaster?
I wonder if that new one will be Nine, they have been very quiet throughout this whole process, while 10 hasn’t been. 
That means no live streaming of Seven’s matches on 7plus. Is the AFL protecting Kayo?
If this is a record deal and potentially the same broadcasters I’d like to see where 7 and fox got the money from.
And you’d like to find out if they’re actually taking the largest bid.
More of the same will be a disaster for the AFL if they’re trying to grow the game for grassroots and women as well as building the crowds back.
I think it’s very unlikely Ten/Paramount will win the rights, simply because of Gill’s major conflict of interest with his brother being employed by Seven.
Is it even ethical for an outgoing president to be allowed to sign a future deal months before they leave?
CEO and yes it is, because the board has instructed him to pursue this.
Where does it say that? Sounds like assumptions to me.
It just doesn’t seem right to me. Someone who is leaving making massive decisions for the company when they won’t even be there.
I think it’s a bit more than brotherly love. It’s a major risk for the AFL to go with Paramount, who are unknown and currently hold ownership of a low watched network in this country. A good example is what we saw when the Melbourne Cup went over to 10. Numbers dropped and the product has weakened over the years.
The only way Paramount are going to obtain the AFL rights will be if they bid way too high for the product and run it at a loss for a number of years. But as a business case I can’t see that happening.
And to also be dealing with a network where his brother works. There’s an ethics thing here. Gil could be feeding information to his brother who could feed that to seven executives. Whilst that’s unlikely it could happen.