That’s nice and all that editorial. But falls on deaf ears when their parent company signs a Rugby World Cup deal last week which is leading to less free to air coverage to previous edition.
1 Like
They seem so hell bent in negotiating this out with incumbents, they are not pulling their trump card by going elsewhere and extract more favourable conditions with a solos bidder. They need to be talking to the other parties rather than trying to cajole Seven/Fox into an unholy union.
Why do you hate the Seven/Fox bid so much?
1 Like
If we Don’t get an announcement by this time next week, I suspect it won’t be until after the grand final (regardless of outcome)
The bye week would have been a good opportunity
9 Likes
I think many thought it would of been announced during the bye week or even this week but maybe the government comments delayed it? 
4 Likes
It could be the reason but it’s hard to tell, given Gillon McLachlan’s “irrelevant” comment relating to the Communication Minister’s intervention, so it may have made no difference.
And while this is mainly relaying known information, Caroline Wilson said on Footy Classified last night that she suspects an announcement “in the next three to four weeks”, and it will be “maybe $600 million a year”.
3 Likes
I tried finding it on 9Now for last night’s episode and its not there.
Maybe try Footy on Nine YouTube?
Here you go, at the 4:04 minute mark:
1 Like
if its the next 3 or 4 weeks as Caroline Wilson is saying, than if my maths is correct it could may well be after the season has finished.
4 Likes
Quite possibly - I think the coverage about FTA games will make the AFL a little gunshy to announce something during finals, especially if there is to be some kind of change.
If the new deal was an exact replica of the existing deal in terms of coverage, we’d have probably seen an announcement by now
I also wonder whether there are impacts around a potential Tasmanian team as well - the coverage on that matter has suggested that club chairs are going back to their clubs to finalise their positions before a meeting later in the year. There also was some talk about what the 20th team would look like
Considering we’re talking about a rights deal that wouldn’t begin for another 2 & 1/2 years, there’s no need for the AFL to rush into a decision. Heck, there’s nothing stopping them from dragging out this process for a while longer if they need to for one reason or another.
It really is rich for The Age to be acting as a crusader against more AFL matches going behind a Foxtel paywall when their parent company has signed deals (eg; TCR Australia, Shute Shield, etc) and made decisions (eg; Rugby World Cup and French Open night matches) that have/will reduce the amount of sport that is available on FTA in order to get people to subscribe to their own paywall service (ie; Stan Sport).
That assumes though that there’s at least one company/broadcaster who has submitted a) A bid to get all of the rights and b) A bid that is on par or superior to the incumbents. That might be the case or it might not be - we really don’t know.
3 Likes
The only reason there would be a rush is because McLachlan wants it sorted before he finishes.
2 Likes
Yes it is, broadcast rights increases are free money these days for the sport, until the sport decides to produce its own games. The real value is closer to $250 mill annually, the rest is really just goodwill, extra paid because the existing holders are scared of losing out and being left with nothing.
The AFL is the premier winter sport in this country, but let’s not kid ourselves that the infinite inflation of these deals is something that can continue sustainably without there being knock-on effects, like Seven’s reduction in investment for support programs, or outsourcing of production.
1 Like
It’s only 2022, still quite some time to go, no real urgency other than ego.
1 Like
I’m happy with that but every time I see activity in this forum topic, I think it’s the announcement, but alas just more speculation.
Maybe close the topic until we know it’s close. 
6 Likes
Anyone who thinks that an FTA-aligned streamer will deliver a better outcome for sports on FTA is kidding themselves - the evidence is already mounting to prove it. Nine’s argument in this regard has been one of self-protection and self-promotion, Foxtel’s paywall is bad but Nine’s paywall (via Stan) is good.
Foxtel has its faults and if it’s not careful will become increasingly irrelevant if it doesn’t continue to move with the times, but its desire for wanting more exclusive coverage is just foreshadowing the future under any broadcast model that is underpinned by a subscription provider (regardless of delivery technique) while sports package their rights in an “all-in” fashion.
1 Like
This is very interesting…Gil alongside Kerry Stokes.
Gil alongside the current broadcasting partner? Surely that is normal.
14 Likes
Huge figures for Seven last night with two brilliant games played.
If the AFL want to increase the FTA games for the next rights deal, then any of the FTA networks should make a bid for x2 Saturday games, IMO.
Saturday twilight match 4.35pm
30-minutes of news at 7.15pm
Saturday night match 7.45pm/7.50pm
Think about the huge numbers and boost in share. The network would have to work closely with the AFL though to ensure they schedule some of the best games of the round, mostly Victorian teams, into those slots to get the highest figures possible.
6 Likes