Without looking into it now, the 1987 VFL season was a complete and utter mess with deals being done at the last minute. There were probably many noses out of joint.
So Ten had a deal and CA did the dirty on them.
Very dodgy
If that article on Dennis Does Cricket website is true, then CA has really damaged its relationship with Ten and CBS. CBS will be hoping that when the rights are up for renewal, both Amarfio and Sutherland will not be at the office.
Well if an appeal is established and Cricket Australia found to have done things incorrectly they might not be the office much longer. Lots of damage has been done to the Cricket Australia name.
Wow - a lot to unpack there! Makes me wonder whether they wanted to turf Ten as well as Nine
Wow! I did wonder if Nine and/or Ten would launch legal action, especially with the whole antisiphoning bungle.
Explosive if true, it looks like as if CA donât really like CBSâŚ
Ten might have also not wanted to give up the ODI/T20i matches to be Fox exclusive, which might jeopardise the price they could get from Fox.
I suppose the obvious but more conspiratorial idea would be Fox not wanting to work with CBS, given how the Ten ownership stuff went down.
In Australia, as soon as the NBL went from Ten to Foxtel, the sportâs popularity plummeted.
Cricketâs arrogance is stunning.
Nine-Ten should sue CA $1.1b!
Can Seven / Foxtel be sued? Or is nothing their fault?
No its not their fault. Unless there were threats or something.
So any legal action by Nine & Ten will most likely fail.
No idea. I have never heard of a challenge in relation to the anti siphoning laws. I donât know if it would fail but surely if they launched a larger bid than seven then there are serious questions over the fairness of the bid not to mention the anti siphoning laws. It would be wise for someone to launch action due to the fact we could see all sports behind a pay wall. What is stopping seven eventually offering an AFL or Cricket channel where you have to pay to watch? If the cricket allow One Dayers and 20/20 games on Foxtel only a matter of time before all is behind a pay wall.
With the anti-siphoning laws, with 7 electing to not show the ODI and T20I, should 9 & 10 not have had a chance at them before Foxtel getting them?
OK so basically
- Ten offered $960,000,000 for all cricket across 10 and probably One. CA knocked that back for the the shit sandwich from Foxtel which gets them $222m extra or thereabouts but locked behind a paywall.
Yeah, great deal. Who are CA answerable to?
that Ten deal is massive. I wouldâve accepted it in a heartbeat. This just proves what a shocking meal Cricket Australia made it out to be.
Well it seems like Ten were wanting it. No wonder Sutherland was evasive at the announcement.
Its as if they already spent the 1B on something and couldnât rather than wouldnât budge on it. It all seemed a bit odd to me.
There should be no grounds for it. This is perfectly allowed under anti-siphoning - Seven have on paper bought the rights to everything on the list, and have portions on to Foxtel. Itâs the exact same structure as the AFL and NRL deals - despite those also having âevery matchâ listed.
The grounds for legal challenge would be on the basis of the details of the bidding procedure, and that would be against CA.
Even if they did successfully challenge the legality of the process, it would almost certainly result only in compensation - thereâs no chance Nine/Ten end up with the rights.
If any of this is remotely true itâs a complete and utter disgrace.
Cricket Australia have gone from ball tampering to an apparently debacle of a rights deal.
Hope This stuff is exposed in a big way and destroys the management of Cricket Australia for the complete and utter deplorable way the Australian national sport has been treated.