Cricket television rights 2018 (Foxtel/Seven)

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

3 Likes

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.

2 Likes

Wow - a lot to unpack there! Makes me wonder whether they wanted to turf Ten as well as Nine

1 Like

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 don’t really like CBS…

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.

2 Likes

In Australia, as soon as the NBL went from Ten to Foxtel, the sport’s popularity plummeted.

Cricket’s arrogance is stunning.

8 Likes

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.

1 Like

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 don’t 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?

2 Likes

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?

4 Likes

that Ten deal is massive. I would’ve accepted it in a heartbeat. This just proves what a shocking meal Cricket Australia made it out to be.

1 Like

Well it seems like Ten were wanting it. No wonder Sutherland was evasive at the announcement.

1 Like

Its as if they already spent the 1B on something and couldn’t rather than wouldn’t budge on it. It all seemed a bit odd to me.

1 Like

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. It’s the exact same structure as the AFL and NRL deals - despite those also having ‘every match’ 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 - there’s no chance Nine/Ten end up with the rights.

1 Like

If any of this is remotely true it’s 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.

5 Likes