This report from Tom Browne on Seven News Melbourne this evening has an update on the AFL broadcast rights negotiations. It mentions approval from the AFL Players Association will be needed to have each team to have more than one 5 day break each season.
With the AFLW, Iâm pretty sure 7 had full match replays available on 7+ but I doubt that would be the case with the AFL because of Kayo
23 Thursday games makes so much sense.
9 wants Thursday night as a pkg.
That could leave 7 and 7 plus with Friday, Sunday, marquee games and finals. And Fox/Kayo with Super Saturday.
9Now and Kayo both have replays available of the free to air NRL games
Just wondering, if this is part of the new agreement & 7 also gets 7+. Which broadcast would the AFL use for their highlights, match replays, social media etc?
That would have to be determined: whoever has the main digital rights. Presumably that would be Fox/Kayo.
Who does the NRL take?
Because if 7 & Fox are chosen again in the new AFL deal, it would been similar to what the NRL has in terms of streaming on 9Now & Fox having their own commentary.
I assume AFL would do the same as the NRL for the highlights etc.
At the moment, if Nine produces Thursday night, Friday night and Sunday afternoon matches, then the NRL will use their matches for highlights and match replays. The NRL will use Fox-produced matches (especially Super Saturday) for highlights and match replays.
Network Ten has lobbed a bid of less than $500m a year for the AFL broadcast rights, a figure seen by the governing body as underwhelming â putting Foxtel and Seven West Media in the box seat to clinch an extension to their existing contract.
Says Foxtel and the Murdoch pressâŚ
John Stensholt is a reputable reporter so I wouldnât completely dismiss the report out of hand (how much grain of salt you take it though is a whole other matter).
Having said that, his explanation about how the anti-siphoning list works in relation to the AFL is woefully inaccurate.
So if he was that good, he would have got the basics correct? This sounds like it has more spin than all Australian Spin bowlers who have worn the baggy green!!
The Australian running that disinformation campaign. How would they know what bid was put in when they got it wrong before when they said 10/P $600m bid and then they didnât bid at all.
which is it The Australian $600m $500m or $0. It seems like The Australian has âpluckedâ out the numbers out of thin air.
The tone may be more amicable than Newsâ reporting of the rugby negotiations a few years ago, but the layout of their demands and denigration of rival bids is eerily similar imo.
Personally I donât think weâd be seeing this kind of article if News werenât in a real fight to retain the rights. Thatâs not to say they wonât get them, but I think there may be a smidge of concern.
I may be missing something, but over 5 or 6 years, say itâs bang on $500m per year, wouldnât that get the AFL that record $3b or certainly over $2.5b which theyâre reportedly looking for? And from one company not a combined/consortium (not that means anything though).
I think youâre quite right. If things were going well youâd be silent and let them play out and then make a triumphant announcement.
If things are less certain, News Corp panic and threaten and play things out through their various outlets to muddy the waters, confuse people, obfuscate and derail any other negotiations by others. Theyâre a very unethical and corrupt organization.
A little confused, wasnât a lower bid than the previous speculated $600m expected to be the case based on the previous Sydney Morning Herald article?
However, the sources, who requested anonymity because talks are confidential, say expectations the AFL could fetch $600 million per annum, or $3 billion over five years, for the rights are now fading. Media companies are facing an uncertain economy and a raft of key content deals, including with US studio NBCUniversal, as well as tennis and cricket rights, which are being sold over the next two years.
And the only dollar amounts we are hearing from News relate solely to Tenâs bid, something I find unusual given that surely it would be more likely for them to obtain their own employerâs offers.
At best itâs coincidental (itâs not), and at worst itâs a calculated campaign (it is), but either way you donât focus on a rival bid to the extent they are if there isnât at least some legitimacy to it imo.